An American billionaire against Shrub

[stacilu]

I probably need not introduce any of you to George Soros.
This man has given away billions of dollars for democracy
and against Communism. I have just received a pamphlet
in the mail from this honest and great humanitarian, he very
simply states his reasons why this President is endangering
our safety. Soros can never be called a liberal by any
stretch or by an mean-spirited nut case. I hope many of
you can read this pamphlet or at least check out what he
has to say at his website.

 

[D2bets]

staci, don't kid yourself. You can bet that the Shrubbies would call Soros a liberal mean-spirited nut case. I'm sure they already have.

 

[stacilu]

I know they have, but it is absolutely untrue.
All you have to do is check out his history.

 

[cussin'it]

atta girl!!



:aktion033

 

[DarrylParsons]

Soros has been on a worldwide campaign to push his "Open Society" concept for the last 15 (or so) years now.

Being Jewish, he believes in individual freedom, multiculturalism, tolerance, lack of violence, and all the stuff that liberals tend to believe in. The ultimate goal is complete globalisation in which the world's 6 billion inhabitants are one happy family. No races, no borders, no countries, no squabbling (with Jews in control of legal, financial and media institutions of course). This is liberal utopia and Soros is buying into it with his ten-figure bankroll.

He does not place much value on national unity. Say the words "national unity" to him and he gets vivid nightmares about Nazi concentration camps, like many of his Jewish bretheren. Can't blame him of course, but you also can't blame republican or nationalist types for not being swayed by these hallucinations to the same extent that he is.

National unity, however, is the key to lasting security in the eyes of right-wingers. The philosophy here is that the world will never be one happy family because you've got various nationalities out there competing for power. You give them an inch, and they will take a mile and whatever else they can get. This philosophy is partly based on irrational fears of the unknown, but is also partly based on a rational analysis of human history.

This is the key to whether you are liberal or conservative IMO -- if national unity is a top priority, then you are conservative, if not, then you are liberal. Soros, by his beliefs, is clearly liberal. And his "generosity" is channeled into places where he can get his message across effectively, so it's basically campaign funding. Nothing wrong with that of course, but he ain't no saint that's for sure.

 

[D2bets]

This is the key to whether you are liberal or conservative IMO -- if national unity is a top priority, then you are conservative, if not, then you are liberal. Soros, by his beliefs, is clearly liberal.

Wow, I TOTALLY disagree with that characterization. That is a partial subset at best. There are plenty of what I might call "protectionist liberals" just like there are plenty of multinational conservatives". This is not an party-line type issue. There are subsets of both in both parties. Always have been.

 

[DarrylParsons]

I meant foreign policy issues here -- conservatives are more staunch whereas liberals tend to be conciliatory. Liberals tend to see the other nation as other people who happen to be living over there, whereas conservatives see it as "we are the USA, you are the other guy" with a big divide between the two.

Internal issues are another matter and I can see the nation being united on many of those, regardless of liberal vs. conservative beliefs, or divided along other lines.

 

[DarrylParsons]

But I see what you're saying about conservatives pushing multinationalism in business. Here I see them as still being less globalist than the liberals because the conservatives go into a country, expect to be able to set up shop there, operate etc. yet are fully satisfied just reaping the profits from that.

Liberals go a step further...they want the other country to behave the same way and adopt the same values as the USA. Conservatives just want their money for the work they've done while liberals are trying to impose their culture at the same time.

Conservatives just want to do business, while liberals are going after your soul.

At least this is what I experience from the other country's perspective.

 

[D2bets]

Liberals go a step further...they want the other country to behave the same way and adopt the same values as the USA. Conservatives just want their money for the work they've done while liberals are trying to impose their culture at the same time.

Conservatives just want to do business, while liberals are going after your soul.

At least this is what I experience from the other country's perspective.

Seems to me it's just the opposite. Seems like it's Bush who wants the Middle East to adopt the American ideal of "freedom". But maybe you are right about the description, and maybe Bush is really a liberal when it comes to foreign policy. Is that what you are thinking? Seems to me the liberals are willing to let others live how they wish while conservatives want to force their view of democracy and freedom upon everyone.

But again, this isn't a concept that divided liberals and conservatives because there are groups of both in both parties.

The real problem here is these labels are rather stale and fractionalized. There are different types of liberals and conservatives. IMO Bush is really more of a liberal, except with respect to traditional social issues ala abortion, gay marriage, religion.

 

[DarrylParsons]

The way I see the Middle East is that the conservatives are using force because Iraq refuses to do business with the US -- ie. allow the multinationals to operate there, buy the oil etc. The stuff about freedom is just BS to get public support IMO. They will change a country's culture only if there are business (or security) interests involved. Once those business interests are satisfied, they couldn't care less about the culture.

How many African nations are violating the human rights code these days? Lots. Conservatives don't give them a second look because there's no financial incentive. Of the Americans trying to change the lifestyle in Africa, 99.9% of them are liberals. (OK maybe an exaggeration but not all that far off)

I agree that labels can be unfortunate because both camps are very diverse groups, but you can't help but notice certain strong correlations. Or at least I can't.

 

[Ego74]

I probably need not introduce any of you to George Soros.
This man has given away billions of dollars for democracy
and against Communism. I have just received a pamphlet
in the mail from this honest and great humanitarian, he very
simply states his reasons why this President is endangering
our safety. Soros can never be called a liberal by any
stretch or by an mean-spirited nut case. I hope many of
you can read this pamphlet or at least check out what he
has to say at his website.

stacilu, why is it when a billionaire does this for the Dems,, it is good, decent, and charitible, but when it's a republican, he's a no good SOB who's trying to buy the election???????

 

[cussin'it]

How about him being one of the very few of the elitists. How about the fact that our gov't has been taken over by Corporations and their profiteering as the Administration proves to be a humble servant to greed.

You may like it but I don't. Look at all the favoritism that the Shrub has shown in his appointments. Nearly all lobbyists or coroporate heads, most of whom have donated to his election.

There is a full scale assault on the environment, war against the middle class, the Iraq situation is a goddam mess, the world hates us, the economy is a disaster, record defecits both budget and trade, an all out assault on the Constitution and personal liberty, need I go on?

WAKE THE FVCK UP YOU BLOODY FOOL