Well don't get too comfortable there with that prediction of yours, especially since it's not even possible for him to do anything since the US dollar is a floating currency. Soros made money in the past by betting that some fixed currencies (the British Pound Sterling and the Thai Boht) would be devalued by their governments, which later happened. It is not possible with a floating exchange rate for this to occur in such a sudden fashion, so don't hold out any hopes on this happening. On a different note, Soros needs to keep his nose out of the political spectrum. He is a brilliant financier and businessman, but has some serious drawbacks when it comes to politics. The current domestic issues with Bush aside, he has supported (through his development foundations in respective countries) insurgency movements in many Eastern European countries that have undermined the governments there. Basically, if a government is in power there and he doesn't like them for his personal financial reasons, he tries to get them thrown out of office. He has been doing this for years now, so it is no surprise that he is now turning his attention stateside. He is hardly someone to be glorified by anyone politically. So, while the Dems may love his money and support for now, lets all hope for everyone's sake that he does not stay involved in American politics for long.
I just think its funny. You'd think w/their connections that the American Spectator could find a couple of right wing jews with a little more street cred than those two clowns. This is actually mild for them, their record of publishing lies and distortions has been pretty well documented.
So what is this portion derived from? The Post and Scotsman were reporting that he planned to spend money to defeat Bush. Of course this article references those, as they were the articles that inspired the animosity. Can you not see a difference between the Post story and the excerpt above and why that would cause concern?
One need not be a Bush lackey to recognize that Soros is less fearful of Dubya and more motivated to enact his vision for the world. The dilemma that real conservatives have is distinguishing a truthful assessment of Bush and Sharon policies, while recognizing that the alternatives from a radical globalist like Soros are equally distorted. If Soros is correct when he says a "supremacist ideology" guides the White House, what would you call the practices of the archfiend of Free Enterprise? The Soros deception would make Shylock proud. However, where is Antonio? His own words -- interpretation. <hr color=red> Shylock: Antonio is a good man. Bassanio: Have you heard any imputation to the contrary? Shylock: Ho no, no, no, no: my meaning in saying he is a good man, is to have you understand that he is sufficient. - The Merchant of Venice [1.3.10-15] <i>The Merchant of Venice</i> -- Shakespeare (as noted by the author). <hr color=red> Certainly George Bush has demonstrated his lack of sufficiency. No substitute is on the horizon, only alternatives from the likes of a Soros. His own words.....but the Left side of the BBS has already stated similar sentiments previously..........so I see nothing new -- innovative there. <hr color=red> So when the billionaire financier said: "he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last months speech by Malaysia´s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, "Jews rule the world by proxy"; why should anyone empathize or embrace Soros' culpability? As is the normal practice, it's not about anti-Semitism! Mahathir Mohammad was just stating the truth . .. . <a HREF=http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13428&intcategoryid=4">In rare Jewish appearance, George Soros says Jews and Israel cause anti-Semitism</A> <hr color=red> The Soros duplicity is marked with the same betrayal as the framing of the eternal political conflict. The financial desolation that Soros leaves in the wake of his deceitful transactions is the proof. Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear. His own words -- which indirectly references past articles about Soros. Very easy to find them by searching at <a HREF="http://www.google.com">Google</a> if you wish to do so. <hr color=red> Soros wants to drug you so you can't think, terminate you when you can no longer pay tribute, force you to intermingle with alien invaders and emasculate you to an unnatural equality. If that isn't the plan of the devil, what else would you call it? Word play by the author on the well known interests of Soros........such as: 1) Drug Policy -- Laws 2) Euthanasia 3) Actions by Ashcroft 4) Immigration Policy -- Law If you desire links on Soros's positions on those topics: <a HREF="http://www.soros.org/">Open Society Institute</a> <hr color=red> I could go to left wing sites and find controversial articles to post on the BBS................but other than the Wes Clark -- <i>Counterpunch</i> article of a while back, it isn't my style. As far as reading the GOPUSA web site, I don't unless you provide us a link to an article. <hr color=red> In regards to the article being pulled from the GOPUSA web site: <a HREF="http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=316&subcat=3">Republican Web Site Airs Vile Anti-Semitism</a> "GOPUSA” Internet Site Suddenly Deletes Column Calling George Soros “Descendant of Shylock” An opinion column displayed earlier this week on the Internet site of GOPUSA engaged in virulent anti-Semitism while condemning international philanthropist and financier George Soros. The editorial was written under the byline of “Sartre,” the pen name of James Hall – a self-described “former political operative.” Under the headline “Satan Lives in George Soros,” Hall writes, “The fiction which is interdependency has a prolocutor in the congregation of Moloch. His name is George Soros. No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of Globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice. ...If Soros is correct when he says a ‘supremacist ideology’ guides the White House, what would you call the practices of the archfiend of Free Enterprise? The Soros deception would make Shylock proud. ... t’s not about anti-Semitism! [Outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister] Mahathir Mohammad was just stating the truth....” Hall’s column appears weekly at the GOPUSA Internet site. Under the motto “Bringing the Conservative Message to America,” GOPUSA.com regularly features leading conservative writers such as Linda Chavez, David Horowitz and Alan Keyes. According to the Internet site, a GOPUSA Washington conference earlier this month was scheduled to hear from confirmed speakers such as Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Representatives Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Steve King (R-IA), the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, the “eCampaign Manager” for Bush-Cheney ’04, the Communications Director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA), among others. Without explanation, GOPUSA – which itself is not formally linked to the GOP – suddenly removed the page featuring Hall’s November 17th article sometime on November 18th, though the text remains at the author’s Internet site. “Suddenly deleting such vile anti-Semitism from this Republican site – with no explanation, and no apology – simply won’t cut it. Virulent anti-Semitism causes very real damage, and GOPUSA must acknowledge this,” said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director Ira N. Forman. “While nothing can make up for originally providing a forum for this screed, a first step must be for GOPUSA to issue an apology. GOPUSA must also explain how this could possibly happen in an organization that bills itself as the megaphone for the conservative Republican movement – and how this could happen in an organization that is supported by major GOP representatives and leaders at all levels, including the White House, the Bush-Cheney campaign, the Senate and the House. GOPUSA must – at an absolute minimum – sever its relationship with this obviously unacceptable author. “We say it so often now that it has become utterly cliché, but in the face of the supposed all-out Republican effort to attract Jewish voters, I will say it once more: If this is the Republican idea of Jewish outreach, then I’d hate to see what antagonism looks like,” Forman added. <a HREF="http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8769">Soros As Shylock?</a> Was it anti-Semitism or just good old over-the-top partisan politics? Jewish groups were debating that this week with a sharp partisan edge after a Web site run by Republican supporters published and then immediately removed a scathing column about international financier George Soros, who has pledged to use $10 million out of his own pocket to unseat President George W. Bush. The article on GOPUSA, a popular Web site that regularly features such conservative luminaries as Linda Chavez, Alan Keyes and David Horowitz, was written by a regular contributor who uses the pen name “Sartre.” In the Soros attack, Sartre charged that “No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice.” The writer cited Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who he said “blamed the American billionaire for nearly ruining Malaysia’s economy with massive currency speculation.” That was the same prime minister who recently said that the Jews “rule the world by proxy” and urged a gathering of Islamic leaders to unite against this “enemy.” That apparently impressed Sartre, who added that Mohamed was “just stating the truth....” When Salon and other Web publications blasted the article it was quickly removed from the GOPUSA Web site, but that wasn’t good enough for the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), a partisan group. “Virulent anti-Semitism causes very real damage, and GOPUSA must acknowledge this,” said NJDC executive director Ira Forman. “GOPUSA must also explain how this could possibly happen in an organization that bills itself as the megaphone for the conservative Republican movement.” Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA’s founder and president, said it was a simple mistake. “Every now and then something slips through the cracks,” he said in an interview. In the case of the Sartre column “we realized this a day late, but when we did we did the right thing by taking it down.” Eberle said Sartre is “entitled” to his opinions, but “they are not the feelings of GOPUSA and comments like that will not be appearing on GOPUSA.” After the column was removed from the GOPUSA Web site — which is not an official affiliate of the Republican Party — it was posted on Sartre’s own home page, which is devoted to the battle by “traditional” conservatives against “neoconservatives,” many of whom are prominent figures in the Bush administration. In an editorial, Sartre accused NJDC of making “tired smears” and said about Soros that “the truth about an admitted atheist is too much for apologists of the chosen people to handle. The ultimate racism comes from those who claim an unnatural superiority. How can sincere Jewish clergy guise their own insecurity by ignoring the crimes and scams of the world’s most corrupt financial manipulator? Could it be that this crowd is less than moral themselves?” <hr color=red> In regards to the article still being up on the author's own web site, exactly what are you aiming at? I have read numerous web sites covering a wide spectrum of beliefs/viewpoints on issues: 1) Concerning this country 2) Issues in other countries 3) Issues between other countries Some are idealistic, some are pragmatic, some are vile, some are hateful etc. This is the internet and regulation is <b>very limited</b> in regards to what is published by people having their own web sites.
From today's Post... ___________________ Why I Gave By George Soros Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31 I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in the 2004 presidential election. We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the United States and the world. If Americans reject the president's policies at the polls, we can write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume our rightful place in the world. If we endorse those policies, we shall have to live with the hostility of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence. In this effort, I have committed $10 million to America Coming Together, a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that is airing advertisements to highlight the administration's misdeeds. This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by conservative groups. Rather than a debate on the issues, there's been a lot of name-calling by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law. In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit of the law. Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are "527" organizations -- referring to Section 527 of the tax code -- which are entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals. Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities. Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and to level the playing field between the two parties. My contributions are made in that spirit. President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000. Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit." They are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to collect $200 million. To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies. I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a different way to level the playing field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best approach I have found. I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation. I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned. Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of the 2004 experience. Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the major sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This bill should be supported. Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for candidates who accept public funding to $75 million -- changes that would reduce the bias toward big-money donors. Free airtime for candidates is also important. This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of commercials. Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is important that people know where financial support is coming from. I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they have sparked. In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to reelect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process. The writer is chairman of the Soros Management Fund and author of "The Bubble of American Supremacy."
He's a day late and a dollar short. Due to the funky redistricting, democracy in spirit is dead for most of the states and the House. Long live the incumbent and the extremist, the product of Gingrich, DeLay and Bushies. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ . . . So the important question is who controls the safe seats,” Leach said. “Currently, about a third of the over-all population is Democrat, a third is Republican, and a third is no party. If you ask yourself some mathematical questions, what is half of a third?—one-sixth. That’s who decides the nominee in each district. But only a fourth participates in primaries. What is a fourth of a sixth? A twenty-fourth. So it’s one twenty-fourth of the population that controls the seat in each party. “Then you have to ask who are those people who vote in primaries,” Leach went on. “They are the real partisans, the activists, on both sides. A district that is solidly Republican is a district that is more likely to go to the more conservative side of the Republican part of the Party for candidates and platforms. Presidential candidates go to the left or the right in the primaries and then try to get back in the center. In House politics, if your district is solidly one party, your only challenge is from within that party, so you have every incentive for staying to the more extreme side of your party. If you are Republican in an all-Republican district, there is no reason to move to the center. You want to protect your base. You hear that in Congress all the time, in both parties—‘We’ve got to appeal to our base.’ It’s much more likely that an incumbent will lose a primary than he will a general election. So redistricting has made Congress a more partisan, more polarized place. The American political system today is structurally geared against the center, which means that the great majority of Americans feel left out of the decision-making process.” Scholarly research gives some support to Leach’s impressions. “Partisan gerrymandering skews not only the positions congressmen take but also who the candidates are in the first place,” Issacharoff, of Columbia, said. “You get more ideological candidates, the people who can arouse the base of the party, because they don’t have to worry about electability. It’s becoming harder to get things done, whether in Congress or in state legislatures, because partisan redistricting goes on at the state level, too.” Among members of the House, partisan redistricting has also bred an almost comic sense of entitlement to landslides. In a hearing on the post-2000 reapportionment in New York, Representative Benjamin Gilman, an upstate Republican, said that during the 1982 redistricting he was promised by the majority leader of the state senate that “if I accepted that challenge of a fair-fight district, I would never again be asked or forced by the state to face that prospect of a fair fight once again. . . . I think it would be unfair not only to myself and my district to face that divisive prospect once again.” With partisan gerrymandering, House members in effect pay a penalty if they reach out too much to members of the other party. “What is laughable is the basic premise of what is going on,” Charlie Stenholm, the endangered Texan, said. “The great sin I committed is that I won the last election 51-47 in a district that went 71-28 for President Bush. But I am a conservative Democrat, and that’s why these people vote for me. There shouldn’t be a penalty for reaching out across party lines.” If Stenholm and his ilk disappear, they will be replaced by reliable Republicans—who won’t have to worry about their own chances for reëlection. . . . One state that has gone its own way is Iowa, which turned redistricting over to a nonpartisan civil-service commission after the 2000 census. Consequently, four of Iowa’s five House races in 2002 were competitive, so a state with one per cent of the seats in the House produced ten per cent of the nation’s close elections. . . . When it comes to drawing political boundaries, there never was a golden age of statesmanship. “When we Democrats controlled the legislature, sure we protected Democrats,” Charlie Stenholm said. “But we didn’t do harm to the Republicans who were in office. This thing today is a whole different order of magnitude.”
