MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2004 International financier George Soros is worth $7 billion – and he so desperately wants to oust George Bush from the White House he says he would even give away his whole fortune to do so. Soros did not make this comment glibly, telling the Washington Post it would be a real consideration "if someone could guarantee" Bush's defeat. The billionaire's zeal to unseat Bush has caught the notice of top policy-makers in Washington who worry that Soros would not need to risk his whole fortune to cause mischief. Here's the real worry: Could the master currency trader manipulate the financial markets to create a panic, collapsing the stock market or the U.S. dollar on the eve of the November election? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...47.shtml?link=1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted February 3, 2004 It goes to show what measures some people will go to to have Bush ousted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted February 3, 2004 OMGNEWSMAXLOL2004!!! If this is serious, I would say that Soros is a far more real threat than Bush II ever was. "Vote my way or I'll bring your economy down!" Yikes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted February 3, 2004 Good point though at this stage I am prepared for anyone to oust Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 3, 2004 Good point though at this stage I am prepared for anyone to oust Bush. We could have a much worse President than Bush. Just imagine...President Pat Buchanan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2004 Good point though at this stage I am prepared for anyone to oust Bush. ... So you are willing to put people out of work, cause a massive backlash on the well-being of the middle class, and quite possibly make the state of the economy worse than what Dubya inherited (Since most economists now agree that the recession was already starting in October of 2000)? And I thought I was supposed to be the heartless one here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2004 Good point though at this stage I am prepared for anyone to oust Bush. We could have a much worse President than Bush. Just imagine...President Pat Buchanan. Or President Jimmy Carter. Oh wait... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 4, 2004 Good point though at this stage I am prepared for anyone to oust Bush. We could have a much worse President than Bush. Just imagine...President Pat Buchanan. Or President Jimmy Carter. Oh wait... Don't forget Nixon. Man, am I ever gonna get hell about saying that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2004 I doubt Soros would do anything as stupid and heartless as undermine the economy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never said anything of the sort. That last bit is just more bullshit from Newsmax. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted February 4, 2004 He's just a liberal Gordon Gecko, about ready to crash and burn. Soros has been "short-selling" the market. He is betting the market will go down. That is how he will make his gains. Every week, since last March, I laugh, as the market moves up and Soros gets his ass handed to him. In 3 or 4 months he might only have 1 billion to give to this loosing cause. But at least he is consistent with most liberals, in that, what ever is bad for the country is good for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted February 4, 2004 But at least he is consistent with most liberals, in that, what ever is bad for the country is good for him. The complete and utter stupidity of this statement continues to amaze me. What is good for a liberal is bad for the country? Where in the HELL do these things correalate? Please, someone explain it to me. Let's take these things for what their worth. Let's examine some "liberal" positions, and see if they're bad for the country: Pro-choice: Depending upon religion, typically, although it can come down to sheer iduology. Bad for the country? I didn't think so. National security shouldn't come down to whether or not abortion is legal. Anti-war: Now, it's both good and bad. War is a necessary evil. People need to get used to it. It's safe for the citizens to have to not worry about war, but then they are defenseless against it. Thus, the preparation for it. It is the amount of money spent upon war that is sometimes questioned. Anyways. "Free-spending"-formerly a liberal position, seems to be a pretty good conservative one. How bout that projected $500 billion budget deficit? New record. Well done. In other words: stop with the generalizations on things that you're not backing up. Oh, and by the way: If ANYONE gives up that money to get someone out of office...there is a serious problem. Campaign finance reform anyone? It's why I enjoyed the Dean campaign start: thousands of smaller donations. Seemingly...it's time to really throw the support behind Kerry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2004 Naturally the opposing party will benefit when things aren't going well for the country. Doesn't mean the entire party is rooting for a depression. Just that the chances of their canidate winning election increases. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2004 How bout that projected $500 billion budget deficit? New record. Well done. In other words: stop with the generalizations on things that you're not backing up. In that case, it's your turn now. The federal budget deficit is insignificant. It sets a "new record" only in absolute terms, and in absolute terms the deficit is and always has been completely irrelevant. It is only as a percentage of GDP and in relation to the GDP per capita that the deficit has historically been an indicator of any sort of trends whatsoever, and as a percentage of our over $10.45 trillion GDP ($37.6k per capita) it is actually quite modest. Next. Oh, and by the way: If ANYONE gives up that money to get someone out of office...there is a serious problem. Campaign finance reform anyone? Oh yes. But I fancy I'm more for the kind Mike advocates than whatever you favour. Throw out all the idiotic laws with all their idiotic loopholes and substitute merely full disclosure. Let Soros use his billions any way he wants. Let the candidate who takes his money tell us all about it and let the FEC investigate if so much as a cent is out of place. "Dukakis's Lieutenant-Governor" would very quickly be replaced with "Soros's poodle." You wanna guess how many votes that would help you pick up? Go on, Soros. Spend all you want. We're making a dollar in free advertising on every dime. "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him." - Proverbs 26:27 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2004 Soros did not make this comment glibly, telling the Washington Post it would be a real consideration "if someone could guarantee" Bush's defeat. So basically, he is willing to pay for someone to assassinate the President. Since that is about the only way to 'guarantee' it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 4, 2004 The complete and utter stupidity of this statement continues to amaze me. What is good for a liberal is bad for the country? Where in the HELL do these things correalate? Please, someone explain it to me. It's called flame-baiting. Trying to reason with him won't work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2004 OK, I don't get this. Every time Rob, aka, SideFX says something like he did in this thread, a poster, or group of them (not always the same ones), usually go OMG U R SO STOOPID. Jesus, what he says is no worse than half the crap that I read here. Just ignore him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
