World Politics

Page 306 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
George Soros

"While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being transported to death camps," reports the Sweetness & Light website, "George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." (Many years later -- in December 1998 -- a CBS interviewer would ask Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about those circumstances. Soros replied: "[T]here was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt." Soros has repeatedly said that 1944 was the best year of his life.

*****

"I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence - but I don't want to be part of it."

*****
Philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on an open society had a profound influence on his intellectual development while he was studying at the London School of Economics.

Quotes from "The Open Society and Its Enemies: Hegel and Marx," (Vol.2) by Karl Popper:

The development of capitalism has led to the elimination of all classes but two, a small bourgeoisie and a huge proletariat: and the increase of misery has forced the latter to revolt against its exploiters. The conclusions are, first, that the workers must win the struggle, secondly that, by eliminating bourgeoisie, they must establish a classless society, since only one class remains. (pg. 151-152)

Which is rich considering Soros's enormous wealth (My words)

But all over the earth, organized political power has begun to perform far-reaching economic functions. Unrestrained capitalism has given way to a new historical period, to our own period of political interventionism, of the economic interference of the state. Interventionism has assumed various forms. There is the Russian variety; there is the fascist form of totalitarianism; and there is the domestic interventionism of England, of the United States and the "Smaller Democracies" led by Sweden where the technology of democratic intervention has reached the highest level so far. (pg. 155)

Admittedly, increasing misery must produce resistance, and it is even likely to produce rebellious outbreaks. But the assumption of our argument is that the misery cannot be alleviated until victory has been won in the social revolution. (pg. 163)

I am not in all cases and under all circumstances against a violent revolution. (pg. 166)

...the working of democracy rests largely upon the understanding that a government which attempts to misuse its powers and to establish itself as a tyranny (or which tolerates the establishment of a tyranny by anybody else) outlaws itself, and that the citizens have not only a right, but also a duty to consider the action of such government a crime, and its members as a dangerous gang of criminals. (pg. 167)

*****

Possible KGB Ties

Commentators have pointed out that in order for George Soros to have achieved what he did in his early days, he must have been favored by the communists. The following observations have been made by prominent Czech former dissident leader Petr Cibulka and Jani Allan, a former British Spectator correspondent.

*****

Later Communist Collaborations

Cibulka and Allan also commented on Soros' later ties to communist regimes and movements.

*****

Currency/Regime Collapses and Market Manipulation

Soros is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. The prime minister of Malaysia called Soros an "unscrupulous profiteer." In Thailand, he was branded an "economic war criminal." They also said that he sucks the blood from people.

In 1994, George Soros stated: "Just right that the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire."

The following are George Soros' seven steps for bringing down a regime and causing a currency collapse:

Step One: Form a shadow government using humanitarian aid as cover.
Step Two: Control the airwaves. Fund existing radio and TV outlets and take control over them or start your own outlets.
Step Three: Destabilize the state, weaken the government and build an anti-government kind of feeling in the country. You exploit an economic crisis or take advantage of an existing crisis — pressure from the top and the bottom. This will allow you to weaken the government and build anti-government public sentiment.
Step Four: Sow unrest.
Step Five: Provoke an election crisis. You wait for an election and during the election, you cry voter fraud.
Step Six: Take power. You stage massive demonstrations, civil disobedience, sit-ins, general strikes and you encourage activism. You promote voter fraud and tell followers what to do through your radio and television stations. Incitement and violence are conducted at this stage.
Step Seven: Outlast your opponent

*****

Currency/Financial Collapses

In Dec. of 2010, as Europe teetered on the edge of a complete financial and political breakdown with riots in the streets, Soros wrote an article in the Financial Times on the causes of this situation and possible remedies. From Europe should rescue banks before states, published in the Financial Times on Dec. 15, 2010:

...emergency funds ought to be used to recapitalize banking systems as well as to provide loans to states. The former would be more efficient than the latter. It would leave countries with smaller deficits, and they could regain market access sooner if the banking system were properly capitalized. It is better to inject equity now than later and it is better to do it on a Europe-wide basis than each country acting on its own. That would create a European regulatory regime. Europe-wide regulation of banks interferes with national sovereignty less than European control over fiscal policy.[16]

*****

Regime Collapses

Africa
Czech Republic
Egypt
Iran
Libya
Serbia
United States
Yugoslavia/Georgia/Ukraine/Myanmar

*****

Personal Donations

Charles Rangel
Al Franken
Tom Udall
Joe Sestak
Sherrod Brown
Harry Reid
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Barbara Boxer
Ken Salazar
Patrick Leahy
John Kerry
Charles Schumer
Howard Dean
Bill Clinton
Tom Harkin
Jon Corzine
Joe Biden
**** Durbin
Lane Evans
Dennis Kucinich
Maurice Hinchey
Albert Gore, Jr.

*****

Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute

Too many to list but includes;

Center for American Progress
Democracy Alliance
JStreet
Media Matters
MoveOn.org
Open Society Institute
Paul Volcker
President Obama
Pro Publica
Van Jones


http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros_-_Affiliations


You want to paint the Koch Bros as bad actors? Fine. They don't hold a candle to this guy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
This is truly sad. But it's so sad it has some hilarity to it.

Yes, Rhub. A parent assessing a need for a child is what a parent is supposed to and hopefully does.

Some random bureaucrat assessing a need of a child, while clearly a better option for you, would not be the first or best option in my view.

It would similar for me to argue some corporation would be in a better position to make decisions for kids rather than their parent. Not a great idea... agreed?


Put your hysterics on the shelf.



This is stupid statement and you know it.

Scott,
Here are my problems with your ideas.

First: It is sad to say, but there are plenty of children who have much better decisions made for them by some bureaucrat than any decision their parents ever made. That's just a fact.

Second: The idea that the poor need to be thrown in and made to swim on their own overlooks one key thing, it has never happened that way. The poor, in places where there is no public assistance, are in truly dire, horrific situations. That has always been the case for them. All that doing away with public assistance does is make their plight even more violent and horrific, and in a society as wealthy as ours, that is unconscionable. It is immoral in my opinion.

Third: A corporation would never make decisions in private schools for poor people because many of the poor would not be in that school, and there is no profit to be made from them in the long run. The system you suggest will only have a poor population of children who have parents who care and/or have the time to deal with such issues (many of them work 2 or 3 jobs) Also see my first point. The reality is, the number of parents who are poor and are not adequately involved in their child's education FAR surpasses the number who are. The reality is that to take away some bureaucrat making decisions means nobody is making decisions, and that is a travesty in a country as wealthy as is ours.

That is the basis for my belief that you cannot make every decision basis profit motive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Scott,
Here are my problems with your ideas.

First: It is sad to say, but there are plenty of children who have much better decisions made for them by some bureaucrat than any decision their parents ever made. That's just a fact.

Second: The idea that the poor need to be thrown in and made to swim on their own overlooks one key thing, it has never happened that way. The poor, in places where there is no public assistance, are in truly dire, horrific situations. That has always been the case for them. All that doing away with public assistance does is make their plight even more violent and horrific, and in a society as wealthy as ours, that is unconscionable. It is immoral in my opinion.

Third: A corporation would never make decisions in private schools for poor people because many of the poor would not be in that school, and there is no profit to be made from them in the long run. The system you suggest will only have a poor population of children who have parents who care and/or have the time to deal with such issues (many of them work 2 or 3 jobs) Also see my first point. The reality is, the number of parents who are poor and are not adequately involved in their child's education FAR surpasses the number who are. The reality is that to take away some bureaucrat making decisions means nobody is making decisions, and that is a travesty in a country as wealthy as is ours.

That is the basis for my belief that you cannot make every decision basis profit motive.

Okay, let's take a closer look at what I wrote;

Some random bureaucrat assessing a need of a child, while clearly a better option for you, would not be the first or best option in my view.

Cobblestones made a comment about parents choosing a school based on the need of their child being the very definition of Socialism. I disagreed arguing there to be a difference between a parent deciding what's best for their child and the State.

While I have no doubt there are children whose parents are unable or unwilling to make decisions for their kids that is not what I was writing about. By the same token there are plenty of involved parents in the inner city who have no choice where they send their kid and it is often to a school that is neither effective or safe. What about them?

One more time, I do not advocate what you are attributing to me with your second point. I have no problem public assistance except for those that game the system. There should be a safety net. My office is in a dis-advantaged community. I work with the dis-advantaged regularly and I know what you write regarding violence and horrific situations is (unfortunately) very real. I do think that most able mind and bodied persons would benefit greatly from providing for themselves versus being a ward of the state. I also acknowledge due to many circumstance there will be those who will always have to be provided for. I don't have a problem with that.

As far as your third point... I don't disagree with really any of it except to say I was not talking about parents who neglect their kids. In a situation where parents either refuse to parent or worse, of course the State needs to step in.

All I said was the State making a decision for a kid is not the first or best option. I stand by that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Yeah, because bad people acting right is no better that good people doing bad things.:rolleyes:

In the case of Soros it's a bad guy doing bad things but very much benefiting the far left. So in that case we just should look the other way.

Ends justify the means.:rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Scott,
Here are my problems with your ideas.

First: It is sad to say, but there are plenty of children who have much better decisions made for them by some bureaucrat than any decision their parents ever made. That's just a fact.

Second: The idea that the poor need to be thrown in and made to swim on their own overlooks one key thing, it has never happened that way. The poor, in places where there is no public assistance, are in truly dire, horrific situations. That has always been the case for them. All that doing away with public assistance does is make their plight even more violent and horrific, and in a society as wealthy as ours, that is unconscionable. It is immoral in my opinion.

Third: A corporation would never make decisions in private schools for poor people because many of the poor would not be in that school, and there is no profit to be made from them in the long run. The system you suggest will only have a poor population of children who have parents who care and/or have the time to deal with such issues (many of them work 2 or 3 jobs) Also see my first point. The reality is, the number of parents who are poor and are not adequately involved in their child's education FAR surpasses the number who are. The reality is that to take away some bureaucrat making decisions means nobody is making decisions, and that is a travesty in a country as wealthy as is ours.

That is the basis for my belief that you cannot make every decision basis profit motive.

Okay, let's taker a look at what I wrote;

Some random bureaucrat assessing a need of a child, while clearly a better option for you, would not be the first or best option in my view.

Cobblestones made a comment about parents choosing a school based on the need of their child being the very definition of Socialism. I disagreed arguing there to be a difference between a parent deciding what's best for their child and the State.

While I have no doubt there are children whose parents are unable or unwilling to make decisions for their kids that is not what I was writing about. By the same token there are plenty of involved parents in the inner city who have no choice where they send their kid and it is often to a school that is neither effective or safe. What about them?

One more time, I do not advocate what you are attributing to me with your second point. I have no problem public assistance except for those that game the system. There should be a safety net. My office is in a dis-advantaged community. I work with the dis-advantaged regularly and I know what you write regarding violence and horrific situations is (unfortunately) very real. I do think that most able mind and bodied persons would benefit greatly from providing for themselves versus being a ward of the state. I also acknowledge due to many circumstance there will be those who will always have to be provided for. I don't have a problem with that.

As far as your third point... I don't disagree with really any of it except to say I was not talking about parents who neglect their kids. In a situation where parents either refuse to parent or worse, of course the State needs to step in.

All I said was the State making a decision for a kid is not the first or best option. I stand by that.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In the case of Soros it's a bad guy doing bad things but very much benefiting the far left. So in that case we just should look the other way.

Ends justify the means.:rolleyes:

Who is George Soros..? No one would know..Does George Soros demand voting obedience from anyone you know? Of course for you, you might as well put on a sign saying "POODLE"..
Btw Most of us have never heard of Saul Alinsky either..

btw THERE IS NO FAR LEFT...There is barely a LEFT PERIOD
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Who is George Soros..? No one would know..Does George Soros demand voting obedience from anyone you know? Of course for you, you might as well put on a sign saying "POODLE"..
Btw Most of us have never heard of Saul Alinsky either..

btw THERE IS NO FAR LEFT...There is barely a LEFT PERIOD

Now this surprises me. You know the Koch bros but not Soros?

439166819_20e9eef123.jpg


Do some research Red. It might be illuminating to know who pulls your strings.

EDIT: Don't know of Saul Alinsky yet you behave as if you wrote 'Rules for Radicals' yourself. Interesting....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Okay, let's take a closer look at what I wrote;



Cobblestones made a comment about parents choosing a school based on the need of their child being the very definition of Socialism. I disagreed arguing there to be a difference between a parent deciding what's best for their child and the State.

While I have no doubt there are children whose parents are unable or unwilling to make decisions for their kids that is not what I was writing about. By the same token there are plenty of involved parents in the inner city who have no choice where they send their kid and it is often to a school that is neither effective or safe. What about them?

One more time, I do not advocate what you are attributing to me with your second point. I have no problem public assistance except for those that game the system. There should be a safety net. My office is in a dis-advantaged community. I work with the dis-advantaged regularly and I know what you write regarding violence and horrific situations is (unfortunately) very real. I do think that most able mind and bodied persons would benefit greatly from providing for themselves versus being a ward of the state. I also acknowledge due to many circumstance there will be those who will always have to be provided for. I don't have a problem with that.

As far as your third point... I don't disagree with really any of it except to say I was not talking about parents who neglect their kids. In a situation where parents either refuse to parent or worse, of course the State needs to step in.

All I said was the State making a decision for a kid is not the first or best option. I stand by that.

Then I misunderstood.

As for the parents who want out, and have no choice. In my community, they actually do. We have a magnet program that does provide options. The interesting thing is that the parents and board members in the wealthy suburbs try every year to kill them off.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Now this surprises me. You know the Koch bros but not Soros?

439166819_20e9eef123.jpg


Do some research Red. It might be illuminating to know who pulls your strings.

EDIT: Don't know of Saul Alinsky yet you behave as if you wrote 'Rules for Radicals' yourself. Interesting....

Research??? I don't think listening to Rush Limbaugh and being a freeper qualifies as research..Poodleboi
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Research??? I don't think listening to Rush Limbaugh and being a freeper qualifies as research..Poodleboi

In the words of Colonel Klink.... "I SEE NOTHING!!"

sgt_20schultz_small.jpg


Amusing.....
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In the words of Colonel Klink.... "I SEE NOTHING!!"



Amusing.....

I bet you just hate ACORN.. like your kind hated CORE.. or cuz hannity told you you should..or you just do in a totally original way bwahhhahaaahhahhahahhahahahhahahahhaha
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
I bet you just hate ACORN.. like your kind hated CORE.. or cuz hannity told you you should..or you just do in a totally original way bwahhhahaaahhahhahahhahahahhahahahhaha

Ok Klink.... Another substantive post from Cichorium intybus.

Can I call you Cichorium? Thanks. It fits.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
whatever you think dittohead

Ok then. Cichorium Klink it is.

Edit: I think I'll shorten it down... kind of abreviated... CichKlink

Edit2: I'm just going with Klink.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ok then. Cichorium Klink it is.

Edit: I think I'll shorten it down... kind of abreviated... CichKlink

Edit2: I'm just going with Klink.

I'm not going to look it up..
Who knew little baby ninja turtle mini motocrossers would grow up thinking they wore a different uniform.

ku_klux_klan_children.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
I'm not going to look it up..
Who knew little baby ninja turtle mini motocrossers would grow up thinking they wore a different uniform.

ku_klux_klan_children.jpg

You are on the left then? Where's your bong?
 
Scott SoCal said:
In the case of Soros it's a bad guy doing bad things but very much benefiting the far left. So in that case we just should look the other way.

Ends justify the means.:rolleyes:

Or really a guy who did bad things 65 years ago when he was, what 10-11 years old? Now he is doing very good things, but you would not think so because he is not doing them for you.
Really your total program is the policy of me me me me me me, I want mine, and it is getting tiresome.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Or really a guy who did bad things 65 years ago when he was, what 10-11 years old? Now he is doing very good things, but you would not think so because he is not doing them for you.
Really your total program is the policy of me me me me me me, I want mine, and it is getting tiresome.

Everything is a "what is in it for me" "what am I going to get in return for catching the neighbor's dog that got out?" "I should be just generally drowning in gratitude from everyone" ME ME ME ME ME ME
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Or really a guy who did bad things 65 years ago when he was, what 10-11 years old? Now he is doing very good things, but you would not think so because he is not doing them for you.
Really your total program is the policy of me me me me me me, I want mine, and it is getting tiresome.

Perhaps you too should read the bio instead of commenting without having done so. What he was doing as a kid pales to what he's done his adult life. He's (internationally) a very bad actor.

Good things? Look a little deeper HJ.

The me me me is just BS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Everything is a "what is in it for me" "what am I going to get in return for catching the neighbor's dog that got out?" "I should be just generally drowning in gratitude from everyone" ME ME ME ME ME ME

Oh jeez, you have me figured out.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Perhaps you too should read the bio instead of commenting without having done so. What he was doing as a kid pales to what he's done his adult life. He's (internationally) a very bad actor.

Good things? Look a little deeper HJ.

The me me me is just BS.

You are the one that should read before commenting..The Koch brothers are threatening their employees if they don't vote "correctly".. In turn others with ties to the Kochs will do the same..This "what about George Soros" is krap...
I nearly caused a riot at my place of employment when upper managers told me(on command from above) I should vote for Ronald Reagan if I valued my job. I would have objected as I did even if I had intended on voting for Reagan..but you scott you would have seconded the motion and tried to rat out anyone you thought was not being obedient. We had two John Birchers who did exactly that..(you know YOUR KIND)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Or really a guy who did bad things 65 years ago when he was, what 10-11 years old? Now he is doing very good things, but you would not think so because he is not doing them for you.
Really your total program is the policy of me me me me me me, I want mine, and it is getting tiresome.

Oh no, this is a problem.

I'll bow out of this "conversation" for a bit because I don't want you to be tired.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
You are the one that should read before commenting..The Koch brothers are threatening their employees if they don't vote "correctly".. In turn others with ties to the Kochs will do the same..This "what about George Soros" is krap...
I nearly caused a riot at my place of employment when upper managers told me(on command from above) I should vote for Ronald Reagan if I valued my job. I would have objected as I did even if I had intended on voting for Reagan..but you scott you would have seconded the motion and tried to rat out anyone you thought was not being obedient. We had two John Birchers who did exactly that..(you know YOUR KIND)

Yeah, that's serious stuff. Probably should be many election rule changes, no? Buying elections should not happen but it does on both sides yet it's only a problem for you when done on the right.

I guess, by definition, there can be no bad guys on the left, right?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah, that's serious stuff. Probably should be many election rule changes, no? Buying elections should not happen but it does on both sides yet it's only a problem for you when done on the right.

I guess, by definition, there can be no bad guys on the left, right?

Surely there can but GD!...The pressure republicans exert in the workplace is absolutely incomparable..I know people in the oil business and war plane business that would not dare let anyone even THINK they were not RELIGIOUSLY devoted to the republican party. They know their careers depend on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.