Slashdot Mirror
George Soros Speaks Politics
horos2c writes "Hey all, the philanthropic billionaire George Soros has tossed his two cents worth in about the election and about Bush's policies overall. Even from an apolitical point of view its an interesting read, that's for sure. He both speaks clearly and has a hell of a lot to say."
Of late it has concerned me that many of my friends in the Unted States feel that there is no way to escape the current political regime. They see the boys dying every day in Iraq, the rapid and ongoing decline in the world opinion of their country, and watch polls that seem to show that four more years of Bush are coming.
Politicians these days will never, ever make strong stands on anything that the pollsters suggest might cost votes. Only greed and a thirst for power matter to most of them.
It is good that there are people like Soros who will stand up and speak their minds.
Three Squirrels
Not to mention that the two cents he's kicked into the campaign so far are many millions of dollars more than $0.02.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Yep. Both have already been selected. So has "republican" and "democrat".
Yet there are still half a dozen POLITICS: articles on the front page.
His words are simple and well spoken. His point of view isn't extreme. It's a very common point of view these days. He has done some very impressive things around the world in the name of freedom. There is definitely a need to discredit someone this valuable to our society if you don't like what they have to say. Look at how Clarke went from hard right wing conservative to branded bleeding heart liberal in a matter of weeks. You have to respect him for putting his money where his mouth is. It's not like he stands to make a fortune. He's just doing what he thinks is right, and he's determined to win because he thinks it's that important. I am a Conservative, but I respect that a great deal.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Btw, no one said he's a philosopher (including himself) he was introduced as a self-made billionaire with some political opinions.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Maybe instead of complaining about Slashdot bias, you could try and respond to the posted article?
Let me try to be clear...
1. All States engage in thievery and robbery. This is known as inflation and taxation, respectively.
2. Purchasing a State-bond is, in itself, an act of robbery -- you are conspiring with the State to steal from the taxpayers.
3. Thus, certainly, asking the State to bail you out $2 billion is attempted robbery.
4. The article merely analyzes what he's done. Actions are more important than words.
5. The fact that he does lots of charity work does not in any way justify trying to steal from others.
6. This whole comparison with our cabinet members thing is irrelevant. I don't deny that they're all crooks, along with everyone else in the State (except for Ron Paul, and a few others), by definition, because their salary comes from robbery and thievery. You don't seem to understand the enormously destructive nature of taxes, State-loans, and (worst of all) inflation.
7. Attempting to get States to loot their tax-payers to the tune of $2 billion to bail out a poor decision on your part certainly is lining your pockets at other people's expenses.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Being a Rosa Parks takes a lot of luck (if you can call it that), and you can't pick your timing.
I forget what 8 was for.
I'm a "fellow conservative and Republican" and paid-in-full member of the California Republican League. And I wouldn't vote for Bush if you paid me to.
Why? Because he isn't a Republican. His policies both inside and outside the U.S. are the most damaging for the country in my lifetime (which predates JFK).
It an't a 'left' or 'right' thing. Its a don't increase federal spending to the highest levels and generate the most massive debt in history thing: and still try to pass yourself off as a Republican.
Its a don't be a grotesque crony thing: which is ugly no matter who is trying to sell that slime.
Its a don't wallpaper over your utter lack of diplomacy and persuasion skills with a moronic lets-go-alone policy. To lead you must convince others to follow. Instead, he has created the most divided nation since Vietnam and stupidly and arrogantly squandered goodwill worldwide in exchange for cooperation via threats.
None of this is intelligent, none of it is shrewed -- and worst of all, it is expensive and largly ineffective.
I'm a Republican, and Bush is an embarassment to my Republican family. He's like the Ted Kennedy of Republicans, the only one left after the good, smart ones were killed.
The social right-wingers and evangelical freaks need to find their own party so that the Republican party can get back to fiscal restraint and small government.
The Clintons and many of the people that served in Bill's Administration were at least influenced by Karl Popper, which is why I think the Democrats during the 90's were so confusing to many in the far-left.
Yea, "confusing" is certainly the word. I'm a Republican who has to vote Democrat to reign in runaway federal spending, massive debt, huge corporate welfare, and sick cronyism. Tell me about being confused...
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you.
This is wrong, and generally hurts those who listen to you.
If you were right -- that the DNC would flip over to Nader or Badnarik supporters in the next election -- you would already see things happening. Nader's presence in Florida in 2000 was what gave Bush the election, and we have a down-to-the-wire election this year. You can't ask for a better scenario for convincing the Demms to listen to Nader demands. However, it clearly isn't happening, as evidenced by your discontent with Kerry. So your philosophy of "throw away your vote as a protest" clearly is ineffectual. The *actual* impact of throwing away your vote is to give one vote to those who prefer the candidate you most dislike of the Big Two.
No, I don't like the current system, but I'm realistic. Preferential or instant run-off or another form of vote reform getting pushed through is the *only* way that third parties will ever become significant under the American voting system. I'd support that wholeheartedly. But voting for a third party in the election is just throwing away your vote. There's no point in throwing tantrums about the existing election system -- it doesn't accomplish what you want. The election scheme isn't a forum (or at least an effective one) -- it's a place to choose the next President of the United States. If you choose not to take advantage of it, you simply hurt yourself.
Do the smart thing. Vote for your favorite of the two major candidates, and then push for vote reform so that your favorite of *all* the candidates actually has a serious shot at the White House.
May we never see th
While I may or may not disagree with some of Soros' views regarding Bush (who I am not a big fan of, by the way), one major issue I have with Soros is his support and funding for the various anti-2nd Ammendment groups out there. Groups such as the Million Mom March (more like the 1000 Mom March, but whatever), the Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), etc. Soros is also a big supporter of a proposed UN Treaty that would outlaw private ownership of firearms.
I simply cannot support anyone who is so vehemently opposed to my Rights as a US citizen.
I noticed though that his thoughts on anything other than Bush or Iraq aren't posted on his website. I wonder if he's trying to hide his other political views because they aren't as popular as his anti-Bush stance...
The dry fish swims alone.