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."

Comments

Soros is just a touch left-of-center...

[jdawg]

Hey now, I'm as big a pinko as the next guy, but trying to pass Soros off as some non-political concerned-citizen is just silly. He bankrolls Air America Radio, for chrissakes!

All liberal, All the time

[kajoob]

OK, I'm gonna burn a little more karma....

Didn't taco say the politics section was going to have a balance of opinion and wouldn't be slanted either way? Well, it has been been pretty much pro-kerry, pro-liberal, pro-democratic non-geek news foisted on slashdotters of all persuasions. How about some conservative links, seriously.

My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!

Re:All liberal, All the time

[christopherfinke]

When CmdrTaco said that there would be a balance, he meant that they'd show both viewpoints: Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.

What A Horrible Summary..

[Pave Low]

All this article says is hey, go check out George Soros website where it takes you to his front page which is rather unhelpful and devoid of content. I wonder if this only made slashdot because of the anti-Bush angle.

At least this article could have taken the time to point out this man is rabidly anti-Bush, and is one of the biggest bankroller of opposition groups like MoveOn.

If you want more information on this man,
Here's one excellent background piece.
Here's an article where he compared Bush to Hitler.

Re:What A Horrible Summary..

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

As someone who survived the Holocuast, George Soros has the right to bring up comparisons with Hitler without invoking Godwin's law. The article by Soros was the first link in the main column of the page and is the basis of discussion here. It's the one where he gives a rational basis for his rabid anti-Bush stance. That is a valid basis for discussion, the fact that his reflections have made him "rabidly anti-Bush" does not dilute the weight of his argument.

If Bush is actually correct, and George Soros is wrong, then you should be able to show how; rather than deriding him for his destination while ignoring how he got there.

Soros the rich commie

[dh003i]

See Inside Sorros.Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. .

Desperate for hard currency and facing a fiscal crisis, the Russian government guaranteed wildly high returns on its debt instruments. Believing that Russia would never be allowed to fail, Soros took huge positions in its bonds.

His conversion to the cause of financial socialism began as Congress refused to bailout Russia, and Soros's fund started bearing the weight of margin calls. Eventually, the losses would total $2 billion. His new book admits that he burned up the phonelines calling for governments to loot their taxpayers on his behalf, with additional panicked calls to central bankers and finance officials to pressure them into doing so.

Soros made the wrong bet, lost one of his shirts, and turned against capitalism. He believed himself to be the most powerful man in the world. It turned out that there is something more powerful, which is the market itself.

So Soros, the new poster child of the left, turns out to be nothing more than a disgruntled rich guy tired of the risks that made him wealthy.

Soros makes a few good points: we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, he concedes too much: we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either. I'd suggest anyone who wants to take a serious look at our history of internation interventionism read: A History of Folly. Young, Adam.

Re:All liberal, All the time

[Unordained]

"Either way", "pro-kerry", "pro-bush" ...

Presenting two differing points of view does not make something unbiased; even a billion points of view cannot provide objective reporting. Some of us don't favor "either of the candidates", some of us don't think this is a simple "liberal vs. conservative" spectrum of opinion. It won't matter if they throw in some "conservative"-related stuff, it's still biased editing -- assuming, that is, that their input pool isn't just as biased as their output pool seems to be. (You could correct that by submitting your own, non-lefty, stories.)

But more importantly, some of us realize that the benefit of slashdot isn't that the editors are unbiased, it's that the comments are only moderated, not censored. (And I just finished using up my mod points.) You and I are free to speak, to present alternate points of view ... we can fight back, right here. And considering how few people "read the fucking article", it's possible your comments matter more than the story itself.

But do you really want the editors to throw you a bone by sending your way something you already agree with? Will it make your day better? Do you feel so oppressed and alone that the sympathy of slashdot editors would be sufficient to bring an end to your gloomy mood? You're not even in the minority, according to current presidential polls! ("Lefties" of course are welcome to be offended that slashdot editors would feel they need the extra boost of having mostly/nothing-but stories "in their favor".)

Don't Like It? Refute it!

[lexDysic]

OK, so I know this is /. and I shouldn't expect anyone to RTFA, but so far the majority of comments from the Bush++ crowd are complaining "I call BS! Soros is a liberal!" Although Soros is definitely anti-Bush (calling him a liberal may not be exactly accurate) the point is it doesn't matter. If you don't like what he has to say, refute it! What substantive statements of his thesis do you disagree with? <Irony> After all, this is slashdot where reasoned discussions and calm minds always prevail. </Irony>

Think! It ain't illegal yet.
--George Clinton

Basis for Soros' philosophy:

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Soros is a follower and student of Karl Popper. I believe that Soros was most influenced by Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper is a really interesting person, who most /.ers would find a lot of ideas in common. You may find that some of the ideas you hold about rationality and science originated with Popper. I think that Karl Popper managed to breath new life into Liberalism when many were questioning how much further it could take us.

Karl Popper was also one of the first to advocate Free Markets as a feature of the Open Society, although I think that his idea of Free Markets more resemble what the current debate is calling Fair Trade rather than what is called Free Trade. 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.

Soros is not good for 2nd Ammendment Rights

[Clanner]

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...

Re:Inspirational Words

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

statistics, please! when we talk about people dying, can we please use rates?!?
Are you saying that more people per capita die in car wrecks in the US then soldiers dying in Iraq?

• Auto Deaths for 2003
• Cars: 14.9 per 100,000
• SUVs: 16.4 per 100,000
• Pickup trucks: 15.2 per 100,000
• Vans: 11.2 per 100,000

In an article from April they said that there were 700 deaths for 135,000 troops. That was 13 months. That gives 479 deaths per 100,000. However, I am not sure whether that includes the war (I figured in the 1.5 months just in case). Let's try again. Here's a timeline. "Major Combat Operations" ended on 5/1/2003. On 9/7/2004, 1000th soldier was killed. That's 16.2 months, so using the same troop count (please feel free to correct me on this*), that gives 549 troop deaths per 100,000 !

Yes, there may be more people dying per month in the US, but not per capita! You have to normalize these things to have a valid comparison. That's why we use rates! And 15 or 16 people dying per 100,000 is far, far, far less than 549 per 100,000!!! Please, check your logic and your math and think about it.

* If you correct my numbers, please show how the totals change. Thank you.