Who is George Soros?

[sgtmac_46]

The name George Soros has been floating around ever since he pledged his entire fortune to bring down the Bush administration. Since then, however, I don't think the American media has done a thorough job exploring who this man is and what he wants.

It's clear that Soros made his billions by speculating on currency. In other words, he makes money when markets crash.

But who is this guy and what does he want? We know he's used his billions and influence all around the world to influence governments. He's been responsible for toppling governments and replacing them with others.

He's also preached against global capitalism (despite the fact that this is the very means he used to generate his wealth). He's become a darling money man of leftist causes.

Yet, i'm hard pressed to understand why more red flags aren't sent up by the fact that an unelected world playboy is basically globe-trotting and attempting to influence governments toward his own ends. I find it ironic that the very people who complain that international corperations have undue influence, themselves follow this pied-piper without question.

"Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."

"I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction--from excessive individualism. Too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability."

George Soros

At the very least, George Soros is in a unique and priveleged class. When millions get convicted with insider trading, they get sent to prison. When men of Soros' class get convicted of insider trading, as Soros did in France in 2002, he got a ludicrous $2.3 Million fine (That's probably his cocktail party budget for a month).

Is Soros' Popperian philosophy and Open Society an end, or a means to an end to gain Populist support for...well, I really don't know. It is believed that Soros ultimate goal is the creation of some sort of soverign international government. Soros has an interest, which he seems to express by attempting to influence soverign governments, in reducing individual soverignty for the express purpose of encouraging a global political entity.

His words certainly seem designed to win the populist support. Sweet words he using, soothing. I'm impressed by what he says. I'm also very suspicious about what he does.

Maybe i'm misreading George Soros. Maybe he is the prophetic messiah that he seems to think he is. I could be wrong. Is anyone else concerned that this man seems to answer to no one?

 

[arnisador]

He's put his money where his mouth is by funding educational institutions in Europe and Asia. The stories on him in the Chronicle of Higher Education have been positive about what he is accomplishing in that regard. Other than that I don't know much about him.

 

[sgtmac_46]

He's put his money where his mouth is by funding educational institutions in Europe and Asia. The stories on him in the Chronicle of Higher Education have been positive about what he is accomplishing in that regard. Other than that I don't know much about him.

With the kind of money he has, he can afford a PR machine to crank out 'positive' stories of his benevolence and philanthropy. However, he's also played some serious political games, being behind more than one regime change throughout the world. My concern is, what are the motives of an unelected international playboy who puts his billions behind altering political structures worldwide. Are we to just trust that this man, who represents only his own interests, has OUR interests at heart. What's more, many complain about the elected leader of the United States at any given time. The difference, however, is that every four years, for better or worse, we choose that person. Soros has free reign, and yet nobody seems concerned about what he's doing and why.

 

[qizmoduis]

Keep it coming! Conservative rants about wealthy people who don't toe the neo-con line are high comedy.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that Soros should give MoveOn.org the axe and start buying voting machine companies...

 

[mrhnau]

I think that Soros should give MoveOn.org the axe and start buying voting machine companies...

LOL Touchee

MrH

 

[Marginal]

With the kind of money he has, he can afford a PR machine to crank out 'positive' stories of his benevolence and philanthropy. However, he's also played some serious political games, being behind more than one regime change throughout the world. My concern is, what are the motives of an unelected international playboy who puts his billions behind altering political structures worldwide. Are we to just trust that this man, who represents only his own interests, has OUR interests at heart. What's more, many complain about the elected leader of the United States at any given time. The difference, however, is that every four years, for better or worse, we choose that person. Soros has free reign, and yet nobody seems concerned about what he's doing and why.

Since he's rich, obviously he's demonstrated that he has impeccable morals and deserves to do anything he wants to because he's rich. It's his money, and curse anyone who worries about how he spends it. That's immoral.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think that Soros should give MoveOn.org the axe and start buying voting machine companies...

Why not, he's already tried buying the vote other ways.

That no one remotely questions a man who has influenced elections in other nations telling. That Soros basically engineered the last Georgia election isn't in serious dispute. That he personally devalued the pound, and made Billions by doing so, is a matter of common knowledge.

It isn't that Soros is rich. It is that many of you think he's fine, so long as he happens to be on your side right now. You never question what his real motives are. I find that dangerous. If he merely wished to make money, I can understand that motive. Many of you, however, think he's merely being altruisitic. How are you so certain? He answers to no one.

I also find it humorous how leftists call Republicans 'crooked' when they are accused for various trumped up charges by Democratic prosecutors, but give Soros a pass, despite the fact that France found him guilty of insider trading in 2002.

What's more, Soros used the world economic system to amass a fortune exceeding $7 Billion. Now, after manipulating markets to gain that fortune, he is critical of that system (but he's not giving back the money). Instead, apparently bored with destablizing economic markets, to make money, he wants to destablize governments.

I get the impression that Soros' real motive is power. I think the man likes to be a power unto himself, a global player, who takes joy in stirring trouble whereever he can make it.

Oh well, just call me a 'conservative' for pointing out that you might want to watch your mysterious benefactor a little more closely.

 

[Marginal]

W
I also find it humorous how leftists call Republicans 'crooked' when they are accused for various trumped up charges by Democratic prosecutors, but give Soros a pass, despite the fact that France found him guilty of insider trading in 2002.

By the way, how's the French indictment of Cheney proceeding?

What's more, Soros used the world economic system to amass a fortune exceeding $7 Billion. Now, after manipulating markets to gain that fortune, he is critical of that system (but he's not giving back the money). Instead, apparently bored with destablizing economic markets, to make money, he wants to destablize governments.

Some governments need to be destabilized. Especailly ones that see fit to award themselves immunity to various treaties, basic rules of human ethics etc.

I get the impression that Soros' real motive is power.

That's the whole point of amassing a couple of billion dollars usually.

I think the man likes to be a power unto himself, a global player, who takes joy in stirring trouble whereever he can make it.

Stop talking mean about rich folks!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Some governments need to be destabilized. Especailly ones that see fit to award themselves immunity to various treaties, basic rules of human ethics etc.

I'm glad we agree. Unfortunately, you're so blinded by ideology that you only think that applies to the US (And, likely, an government friendly with the US you may add).

What's further, as Soros is unelected, we have only his decisions, without virtue of any review, as to what countries do and don't need to be destablized. That you happen to agree with him lately, doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned by a rogue billionaire inserting himself in to the interests of other nations as if he were appointed to do so.

Granted, however, that Soros certainly isn't the first roving billionaire trying to influence entire governments. As I recall, Ross Perot has done a bit of influencing over the years.

That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't question the influence of these unelected, self-appointed harbingers of change.

 

[Marginal]

I'm glad we agree. Unfortunately, you're so blinded by ideology that you only think that applies to the US (And, likely, an government friendly with the US you may add).

Cute. The old "you're a traitor" chestnut. Glad to know that's still kicking around.

The current administration has decided that the Geneva convention (and other treaties) do not apply to the president. When a constutionally appointed body attempts to reassert their powers and check the executive branch, we get whining and crying about "judicial activism".

What's further, as Soros is unelected,

God elected him. If he had no mandate, he wouldn't be rich.

we have only his decisions, without virtue of any review, as to what countries do and don't need to be destablized.

Still don't see the difference between him and any other God approved richer.

That you happen to agree with him lately,

He's rich. Doesn't matter if I agree with him or not. Anything he does, he does for the good of the nation.

doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned by a rogue billionaire inserting himself in to the interests of other nations as if he were appointed to do so.

Which reminds me, how is that French indictment against Cheney proceeding?

That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't question the influence of these unelected, self-appointed harbingers of change.

Unless they're using their influence to award themselves no-bid government contracts. Then you just wheel out the crusty old traitor chestnut again.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Cute. The old "you're a traitor" chestnut. Glad to know that's still kicking around.

Nobody called you a traitor, that's simply paranoia. I said you were misguided. Big difference. Glad to see you've hauled that old 'i'm a martyr, persecuted for my leftist ideals' chestnut.

Personally, I believe you have the right, in America, to be as misguided as you want. I'll never call you a traitor for it.

The current administration has decided that the Geneva convention (and other treaties) do not apply to the president. When a constutionally appointed body attempts to reassert their powers and check the executive branch, we get whining and crying about "judicial activism".

What they decided, is that it didn't apply when dealing with criminals, who attack civilians. I think they're right.

What's more, the only time you hear me talking about judicial activism is when they overstep their authority, that being of deciding whether a given law fits the constitution, as written. NOT, deciding whether they should rewrite the constitution to fit their politics. If the courts can do that, why even have a legislative branch?

God elected him. If he had no mandate, he wouldn't be rich.

Your attempts at making a point through sarcasm are pointless.

Still don't see the difference between him and any other God approved richer.

Your continued desire to make this about 'God' is a transparent attempt to somehow make me look hypocritical. However, you obviously haven't been paying attention to me if you think I believe God has ordained anyone be anything. Could be that you've given too much attention to the leftist talking points, and repeating them verbatim.

He's rich. Doesn't matter if I agree with him or not. Anything he does, he does for the good of the nation.

Again, more pointless sarcasm.

Which reminds me, how is that French indictment against Cheney proceeding?

Has he been convicted? Soros certainly has. The difference, however, is that some people are concerned about indictments and convictions only if they disagree with a given persons politics. As the current 'Tookie' Williams situation proves, they'll forgive any evil, so long as the politics are right.

Unless they're using their influence to award themselves no-bid government contracts. Then you just wheel out the crusty old traitor chestnut again.

You certainly don't hear me defending anyone who is committing a crime, do you? That's what you've decided to do, defend, selectively, those you politically agree with. If someone committed a crime, they should be punished for it. Convict them, and i'll agree they need to be punished.



What's telling is how disingenuously you've dealt with the Soros issue. Rather than honestly explain why he shouldn't receive scrutiny, you've fallen back on the same old leftist sarcasm talking points, simply ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. I'm surprised you didn't bring religion in to it, and mocking insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is a religious nut.....oh, wait, never mind....you did.

 

[Marginal]

Geeze. Someone has no sense of humor.