Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

George Soros Speaks Politics 312

Posted by michael from the none-so-blind dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

George Soros Speaks Politics More

George Soros Speaks Politics

Comments Filter:

  • Inspirational Words (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) *
    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 t
    • It is good that there are people like Soros who will stand up and speak their minds.
      It's easy to speak your mind when you're rich and not running for office.

      • Perhaps (Score:3, Interesting)

        by abulafia ( 7826 )
        One of the few ways to speak your mind with more than a few listening to you is to be rich and not running for office.

        Being a Rosa Parks takes a lot of luck (if you can call it that), and you can't pick your timing.

        • Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:40AM (#10381027)
          One of the few ways to speak your mind with more than a few listening to you is to be rich and not running for office.

          This is so true. People wonder why Hollywood celebrities are so leftist, hate America, etc. because actresses and rock stars are always seen conspicuously bashing the president. You hear theories about some leftist cult that's taken over Hollywood, etc.

          A much simpler explanation is that these are the loudest non-corporate opinions that the average citizen is likely to hear.
          • (Not sure why I was modded off-topic on the parent... whatever.)

            Sure, Hollywood folk deserve a voice like any other person, and they have a vector.Having spent 10 years in SF, I'm not inclined to give LA folks much credit for is-a-person creditentials, but I suppose that's different.

            I met a couple of rock stars and film magnets, and I must say that I was only impressed once. As for office? ...no. buch of unrealistic pucks.

            Actually, Tom Waits would be my candidate for president. Yes, I'd have a beef w

    • 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.

      And ironically, people here would line up to vote for a candidate that was not greedy and did not thirst for power.
    • They see the boys dying every day in Iraq

      I have to be careful here, or people will mistake me for a Dubya supporter. But you do realize that more people die in car accidents per month, than have died in Iraq, total? This isn't 500 caskets a week like Vietnam. Or is it that people just can't find any more words, any more concepts, and they have to use 30 year old outdated cliches?

      the rapid and ongoing decline in the world opinion of their country

      When frenchies are writing that we brung it on ourselves,
      • And yet ijits everywhere say that without a hint of sarcasm, and turn right around and cheer for Kerry. Mind you, you never specifically say you like him, so you might be an exception, but what about the rest of those that think Kerry will be any better?

        I am a Republican, and I will be voting for Kerry. Most of my Republican friends and family feel the same. None of us like Kerry, but we figure that you could put a block of wood into office and it would do a better (or at least a more honest) job than D
        • The polls aren't predictive anymore. With every single voter familiar with the concept of voting strategy, polls serve only to reinforce some sort feedback loop. If the political process wasn't already so corrupted, I'd say they should be outlawed.

          Voter strategizing is something that should be discouraged. I don't want people voting for who they think will win (we'll figure that out soon enough anyway), I want them voting for who they want in office.
        • You are a Republican? What does that mean? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask this to a lot of people. Are you a registered Republican? Do you agree with all of the "planks" of the Republican platform? Probably not, so which do you disagree with?
          I have several friends registered Democrat simply because they want to vote in the Democrat primary, not because they identify with any of the Democrat ideals. They will be probably be voting for Bush.

          I cannot see how anyone who identifies with the Republican

      • Re:Inspirational Words (Score:5, Informative)

        by CodeMonkey4Hire ( 773870 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:35AM (#10382722)
        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 [go.com]
        • 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 [sanluisobispo.com] they said that there were 700 deaths for 135,000 troops. That was 13 months. That gives 479 deaths per 100,000 [google.com]. 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 [infoplease.com]. "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 [google.com]!

        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.
        • I won't dispute your numbers, they're close enough to not matter, certainly.

          But all your math proves is that the military in Iraq is more dangerous than being in the US. No need to prove that, it's common sense.

          What I had intended, was that from a reasonable perspective, more are dying in car wrecks than in military service over there. Which is also fairly obvious. If it were only 20 deaths in Iraq, that would still be higher than the numbers you chose (all lower than 20 per 100,000), would you still be r

  • Soros is just a touch left-of-center... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jdawg ( 21639 ) <jmf&mac,com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:28PM (#10380079) Homepage
    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!

    • your reading comprehension is very poor (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The poster did not say that Soros was a non-political person. He/she said that his words and thoughts were interesting from an apolitical point of view--meaning that we all should be interested in the questions and issues he raises, whatever our political viewpoint, and that even people who are completely apolitical should be interested in the issues.

      I think that's true. Regardless of whether one cares at all about politics, one probably cares about how the rest of the world perceives us, whether we've be

  • All liberal, All the time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kajoob ( 62237 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:30PM (#10380095)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by christopherfinke ( 608750 ) <chris@efinke.com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:32PM (#10380109) Homepage Journal
      When CmdrTaco said that there would be a balance, he meant that they'd show both viewpoints: Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.

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

        No, the balance he was talking about was Kerry's one viewpoint and then Kerry's other viewpoint:

        Kerry for the war vs. Kerry against the war.
        Kerry wanting to spend more money on the war vs. Kerry wanting to spend less money on the war.
        Kerry for financing the troops vs. Kerry against financing the troops.
        Kerry for unilateralism vs. Kerry against unilateralism.
        Kerry believing there were WMD

        • Waffle? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
          I really can't believe Kerry isn't doing better than he is. I mean whatever ideals or beliefs you have, he's taken your side. He's the only guy out there that will bravely take every position on every issue and defend all of them. With Bush, he just takes one position on each issue and sticks with it, it's crazy.

          Clinton's Doonesbury symbol *was* a waffle. Kerry hasn't come close. Clinton is famous for saying nothing, not committing, and giving "I feel your pain" speeches.

          So...who do you feel was a bett

    • As was (not actually) said in "The Blues Brothers" -- "We've got both kinds of politics here: Trotskyism AND Leninism!".

    • You want right wing? You got it here.

      It's George Soros. The unrelenting capitalist. He's advocating his plan for world stability so he and others can capitalize even more. As if Soros is liberal. Liberal market, if that's what you mean.

      Just because it's anti-Bush or pro-Kerry doesn't mean it's liberal. Just as if it was pro-Bush or anti-Kerry doesn't mean it's right-wing.
      • Typical ignorance. Let me help you weed out your misconceptions.

        The one thing you have right is that Republicans want special priviledges for businesses. This is Fascism. However, it is not the free market, and it is not capitalism. "State Capitalism" (or fascism) is the German implementation of socialism. It is not capitalism or the free market, or laissez faire, or libertarianism. George Soros seems more fascist (he lost his shirt to the tune of $2 billion in loans to the USSR, then pleaded to have gover
        • The one thing you have right is that Republicans want special priviledges for businesses. This is Fascism

          So I guess all those countries that subsidize Airbus (europe) are fasist huh?

          • That specific policy is fascist. Nothing prevents a country from implementing both fascist and communist policies, both of which are different implementations of socialism. Of course, Socialism in the original definition is simply impossible (to understand this, you have to understand what Marx meant by Socialism -- which was both a means, the socialization of all factors of production, and an ends, enormous prosperity; and to understand that in-so-far as an industry is socialized, economic calculation is i
        • Wikipedia's article on fascism [wikipedia.org] seems to take a different stance.
      • Um. Dude? We have an American political spectrum, okay? It's a subset of the whole spectrum. American liberals are not anti-capitalists. Anti-capitalists lie outside the American mainstream. So comments like yours are essentially meaningless.
      • Actually, Free Markets are a Liberal idea, Protectionism and Isolationalism are Conservative ideas.

    • Soros, if you use the diamond method [libertarian.org], is probably a libertarian which doesn't mesh well with the the left or right model.

      That is, Soros is for economic AND self determination, which is smaller government with less taxes and regulations. I always thought the republicans were for that too, but they're too influenced by the "christian right" these days...

      • wrong wrong wrong (Score:2, Informative)

        by dh003i ( 203189 )
        Soros is not a libertarian. He's a fascist. For State Corporatism. He wants States to loot their taxpayers to pay for the risks he takes. See Inside Soros. [mises.org] Please, let's not conflate "free-market rhetoric" with free-market action. Free market action is simply this: allowing any non-coercive interaction to occur. Gee, Soros wants taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $2-billion? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Sounds like a thief.
        • um, there's a bit more to 'facism' then corporate welfare. Actualy, there's a lot more. Calling him a 'facist' because he asked for a handout is idiotic.
        • You know, I've seen a number of posts attacking Soros' character. It took me a moment to realize that they're all from you.

          Seriously, if you don't like Soros' points, great. Rebut what he wrote. I'm just not interested in reading someone flaming someone's past character. It isn't relevant as to whether I buy into the man's points or not. Soros might like to screw midgets in Times Square, but if he wrote an intelligent article, then he wrote an intelligent article.

    • Re:All liberal, All the time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Unordained ( 262962 ) <unordained_slashdotNOSPAM@csmaster.org> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:04PM (#10380291)
      "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".)
    • How about some opinion from people who think that individual's should be allowed to run their own lives, not States? Unlike the fascists on the Right and the socialists on the Left. How about some opinion from people who actually are Liberals in the traditional (classical, correct) usage of the word (ala Liberalism [mises.org] ).
    • The purpose of this political section seems to be one thing and one thing only: Advance the DNC's message and talking points and to expose all the evil Republicans for the rich, lying, fascist pigs that they are.

      I mean, describing George Soros website as being interesting from an apolitical point of view? Come on! This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected. He's one of the top contributors to the Bush-bashing 527 groups.

      Soros i
      • This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected...Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.

        Okay, I admit that I'm not very familiar with Soros's background. However, just on logical grounds alone, your set of claims seems pretty absurd. If he's only interested in himself and his wealth, then why would he give away all his money if it would ensure that Bush didn't get re-elected? That just doesn't pan o
      • Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.

        I don't see how this follows. Bush's tax cuts have certainly made Soros several tens of not hundreds of millions of dollars richer. Despite this, Soros is wholeheartedly against the incumbent for ideological reasons, i.e. he feels Bush is doing the wrong thing for America. You're contradicting yourself.

    • Perhaps they haven't gotten a conservative submission that meets the ahem... "quality" threshold for posting on /.
      You wouldn't want to see "conservative" viewpoints unfairly subsidized by the editorial staff, would you?

      All ribbing aside...
      If you're going to complain about perported slant of this section, could you at least provide some examples of what you think are conservative stories that should be posted so we aren't having to judge your assertion on some nebulous accusation of "too liberal".
    • Maybe instead of complaining about Slashdot bias, you could try and respond to the posted article?
    • 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!

      Slashdot is generally a highly-informed, young, educated group of people. Politically informed, young, and educated people *tend* to oppose Bush. Less educated, older, rural and religious citizens *tend* to support Bush. Such is life -- you have a user demographic that is g

  • What A Horrible Summary.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:47PM (#10380185) Journal
    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. [opinionjournal.com]
    Here's an article where he compared Bush to Hitler. [washingtonpost.com]

    • Not to mention that the two cents he's kicked into the campaign so far are many millions of dollars more than $0.02.

    • Re:What A Horrible Summary.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt.johnson@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:58PM (#10380881) Homepage
      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.
      • Godwin's Law is often invoked by people who try to use it to kill arguments, saying "you referenced Hitler".

        0x0d0a's Law:

        Those who invoke Godwin's Law usually lack a counterargument.
      • For starters, he trumpets the oft-stated mistake that there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda -- at first he gets it right, saying "no connection between 9/11 and Iraq" but then states the fallacy. To see how much of a fallacy it is, read any recent (last 9 months) article by Stephen F. Hayes.
        Next, he brings out the ridiculous draft claim. First, re-enlistment rates are at record highs. Second, there will not be a draft. Bush has stated that he doesn't want a draft, and the military has sta

        • For starters, he trumpets the oft-stated mistake that there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda

          Check your sources, to say that that memo is misleading is to be fawningly polite. The truth [calpundit.com] is its [globalpolicy.org] bullshit [dod.mil].
          Bush has yet to give a coherent argument about why we needed to invade Iraq, but not invade Syria or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Jordan or etc, because all those other countries have had minor or low level connections with terroists organizations too, but we aren't attacking them. This is the problem

  • Soros!?! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For cryin' out loud, why don't you put up some of Rupert Murdoch's quotes!?!

    Suddenly, it all becomes clear... Soros obviously offered Slashdot some kickbacks or bought 1000 subscriptions...

  • Soros the rich commie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:01PM (#10380273) Homepage Journal
    See Inside Sorros.Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. [mises.org].
    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. [mises.org]
    • If you'd even read the first page of the linked article, you'd see that he does support the operations in afghanistan.

      The invasion of Afghanistan was justifed: that was where bin Laden lived and Al Quadea had it's traning camps.

      I don't really know how he could be more explicet then that.
      • If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I said he is wrong to support the invasion of Afghanistan. I was criticizing Soros precisely because he "does support the operations in afghanistan". Perhaps you should spend more time reading what others write before you insult them.
    • In our President's cabinet than at any other time in history. Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone. As a taxpayer I'm going to have to bail out a 200 billion dollar quagmire. It sorta makes 2 billion look like chickenfeed. In the end the guy has done a lot of good around the world, and truly seems to believe in freedom. I'm having problems slighting the guy because he tried to do charity work in Russia, and ended up going it alone. I don't see any evidence of an egotrip, or any turning ag
      • you don't see anything wrong with trying to steal $2 billion dollars from taxpayers? If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so). This guy advocates massive interventions in the free market. I suggest you read further into the article I linked to for more discussion on that. The fact that he has done good within the framework of capitalism -- both as an entrepreneur and a philanthropist -- does not give him a
        • Ok, let me get this straight. You want to compare taking a bath doing CHARITY WORK for an entire country and asking for a little help to do MORE CHARITY work to something like say....

          Stuff Dick Cheney Has Done [btinternet.com]

          Stuff Bush Has Done [democratic...ground.com]

          The criminal records of his appointees [fair.org]

          I'm just having a hard time seeing your point. No matter how much of a mountain you make out of that mole-hill, it just doesn't come close to a bunch of Enron buddies making a fortune off the peons. Now does it?
          • Stealing is stealing, no matter what purpose it's for. I really don't care why he's stealing money. The fact is, that makes him a crook, and it is wrong. The reasons why someone steals or attempts to steal from another person are irrelevant. Stealing is stealing. If someone robs me at gunpoint, I don't care whether they're doing it to pay for drugs or give to a poor person: it's still wrong, and they should be punished. Pointing out examples of individuals who are worse than him doesn't in any way exonerate
            • Asking for money and not getting it is not the same thing as stealing. You have no point. You are taking a biased article with no real basis in reality based on words the man wrote himself and attempting to justify a shakey position. He does CHARITY WORK. Huge massive amounts of it. You can talk yourself in circles all day foaming at the mouth calling him a criminal, but he's done nothing close to what a lot of our cabinet members have done to the families and friends and employees of the companys they have
              • 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 ste
                • Yeah but you forgot the first tennant of finance. If you steal $100,000 you get 10 years in the klink. If you steal $100 million they call you a banker. Soros got his initial wealth by looting (trading against) the British central bank. So it really is no surprise that he would be doing the same thing in Russia a few years later. A state bond is no more stealing from tax payers than a mortgage stealing from you, it facilitates the purchase of goods that you can't afford now. Sometimes this can be a ve

                  • I've always found it ironic that a guy who made billions off bad central bank policies can give a few hundred million (possibly two years of interest) to economic development and gets a get out of jail free card from all the people who would normally hate him.

                    Oh, and not to mention a guy the conservatives would call a "smart bizness man", until he decides to use his money against them, then suddenly he's "a crook" for asking for help. If the government had given him the money, *they* would have been the

        • you don't see anything wrong with trying to steal $2 billion dollars from taxpayers? If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so).

          Um, you see the irony here, yes? For the purposes of debate, I'll grant your take on Soros (something that in reality is a lot more interesting than a certain flawed book may illustrate, but whatever). How much has in taxpayer debt has fed the companies attached to the Bush appa

        • If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so).

          And if Soros was President and tried getting any direct federal bailouts, you can bet that he'd get chewed out by the public and the media.
        • If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made

          You mean like Iraq? That was a $200 Billion bad investment, and both Soros and I happen to be investors.

          BTW, how exactly did Soros coerce anyone out of their money? If he advocated for assisting Russia and was declined, I don't see how he coerced anyone. If he had raised a private army and then threatened anyone who didn't assist in Russia, you might have a point, but he didn't and you don't. Soros is well known
    • Your reference is pretty far outside the mainstream, even for conservatives. Most conservatives I know respect George Soros and have never characterized his attempts at international intervention in the former Soviet Bloc in the way presented on the ultra-libertarian site you've dug up.

      As for Afghanistan, we should have been putting pressure on the Taliban and Pakistan long before 9/11. There was outcry on the left for a long time about the crimes of the Taliban, especially against women and when they dest

  • Don't Like It? Refute it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lexDysic ( 542023 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:18PM (#10380371)
    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

    • ---What substantive statements of his thesis do you disagree with?

      All the ones that he does not refference with sources for me to check.

      Oh, wait. Thats all fo them.

      Thanks for playing. HAND

    • 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?

      I agree. I am a republican and I will definitely not vote for Bush. Is allegiance to a political party

      • Conversely, I am *not* a Republican and I *will* vote for Bush. Some of us (50%+, at last count) either don't think he's a warmongering, corrupt, lying, freedom stripping, unelected madman or we don't like the other options.

        Personally, I don't feel he's any of those. To stay on-topic, I feel that posting a story about Soros' opinion on Slashdot would be like posting something from Sean Hannity...what the hell does he have to do with the election? He's partisan, just like Soros, and he certainly has an o

  • He appears to be a decent guy. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:56PM (#10380571) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Basis for Soros' philosophy: (Score:5, Informative)

    by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt.johnson@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:43AM (#10381035) Homepage
    Soros is a follower and student of Karl Popper [eeng.dcu.ie]. I believe that Soros was most influenced by Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies [eeng.dcu.ie]. 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.
  • But I'd like to point out that Soros has put far more than two cents into this election.

  • Soros is not good for 2nd Ammendment Rights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Clanner ( 24684 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:19AM (#10382204)
    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...
  • Most big money makes big cowards out of the people who hold it. Soros seems cut from much braver material. Of course, he as also LOST a few billion [hedgeco.net] along the way to becoming a billionaire so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

  • Truth or consequences (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:02AM (#10383461) Homepage Journal
    President Bush ran on the platform of a 'humble' foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences.

    How quickly we forget. The 2000 election was pre-9/11. The entire U.S. perspective on the world changed sharply after that.

    Before 9/11/2001, terrorism was something that happened overseas. Sure, there was the earlier Trade Center attack and Oklahoma City, but we viewed those with as isolated incidents, not as signs of a global culture war.

    We now understand that we need to defeat the use of terrorism. We understand that the world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and that we are not safe. We understand that it's pointless to fight terrorists while turning a blind eye to the nations who sponsor, aid, and encourage terrorist organizations.

    The choice, as I see it, devolves to reacting against individual terrorist attacks and proactively fighting the idea of terrorism by action against states who sponsor it.

    On one point at least, Mr. Soros is correct: we will have to live with our decision.

  • Afghanistan vs. Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)

    by divisionbyzero ( 300681 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:53PM (#10385632)
    I am glad someone has finally made at least an implicit comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq because Afghanistan is the counter-example for all of Bush's terrorist rhetoric. Nobody, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, argues that we should not have attacked Afghanistan, but half of the country objects to the invasion of Iraq. Why? The reasons for objecting to the war cannot be exclusively ideological because people with all sorts of ideologies supported the war in Afghanistan but oppose it in Iraq. At least some of the objections must be for specific, practical reasons, and not for any ideological reasons.

    1) We have not captured the instigator of the 9/11 attacks and the most imminent threat to national security, Osama bin Laden. The resources necessary to do so have been directed to Iraq. Does anyone doubt that if we had 100,000 troops in southeastern Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden would still be free?

    2) We are not done in Afghanistan. Afghanistan may yet end up in civil war and a haven for terrorists because in our rush to go to war with Iraq we do not have adequate resources on the ground to keep the peace and enforce the rule of law.

    3) The war with Iraq was an elective war (See Jeffrey Record's paper for the Army War College). Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. This is not a matter of hindsight. It was the general consensus of the rest of the world and even within the US government. Saddam Hussein wasn't going anywhere. We could have waited until after a democratic and peaceful Afghanistan emerged before we confronted Saddam.

    4) Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs to give to anyone, nor would he have ever developed any WMDs had we continued the process of containment and inspections. Again, this is not hindsight, it was the general consensus of the rest of the world, and there was no need to go against this consensus with out specific and credible evidence. Clearly something had to be done in the long-term about Saddam, but now was not the time.

    I don't object to war in general and clearly the war in Afghanistan is an example of a just war, but the war with Iraq was an elective war that distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Because we did not finish the war in Afghanistan the terrorist organization that attacked America is still free and they along with their allies are free to continue planning attacks on Americans. Americans are less safe in America, abroad, and in Iraq because we didn't take the time to do things right.

    What was the rush to invade Iraq? There was no specific and credible evidence that Saddam had WMDs or the intention of giving them to anyone else even if he did have them. The only possible answer is that 9/11 provided a unique opportunity for the president to execute a war on Iraq. Why did he want to go to war with Iraq? There are many possible reasons but national security and WMDs, the only reasons that could have justified the war, had nothing to with it despite what our prevaricating president may have said.

    Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster. He didn't protect us from 9/11. He didn't catch the people responsible for committing the atrocious acts of 9/11. He did get us involved in an elective war that was not in the interest of national security and distracted us from catching the people responsible for 9/11. He then proceeded to screw up this elective war, failed to win the peace, and opened up a new front in the war on terror without securing the old one. Not to mention that he has diminished the respect that the rest of the world has for our country by dishonoring it, by putting power above principle; notice how Bush's justifications for his actions will change as the previous justification is proven false; he does not care why things are done as long as he gets his way. Yet, this horribly flawed foreign policy will get this immoral and misguided man re-elected as president of the United States because of spin, propaganda, and money, pure and simple. Unbelievable.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every cloud has a silver lining; you should have sold it, and bought titanium.

Close