Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
I Think Soros Is An Idiot
PSI-KILLER
Needs help
in Zocalo v2.0
HE IS YOU KNOW
Comments
2. You are simply flame bait with this thread. All right Narn Bat Squad - go FLAME!
When I see something I can actually debate here I will deign to challenge your statement. For now your statement speaks for itself as to how idiotic your opinons are.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PSI-KILLER [/i]
[B]HE IS YOU KNOW [/B][/QUOTE]
Given the lack of evidence and complete randomness of this post...
I find myself compelled to agree!
All the money he thew into an election cycle where his guy still lost? Think about the jobs he could have created if he used the money more wisly.
To have started with little-to-nothing, and earned enough money in the first place... he clearly needed to accomplish a bit of learning.
Widespread definitions of "idiot" seem to imply it shouldn't have occurred.
To have retained enough concern for future (to start promoting transparent governance and open society -- something he started with multiple years before maxing out campaign contributions)... he cannot be too ignorant either.
I certainly take his opinions seriously (and agree with some).
As for the money... it *did* create jobs. Merely in the advertisement industry. I'm sure that various rich people among Republican campaign contributors created a roughly equal amount of similar jobs.
If dislikable people among campaign contributors is to be found... let's not look at Soros. He's a straightforward and legal capitalist -- someone who made no pretense of *not* speculating for profit.
---------
Let us oppositely... look at real fruits. For example reverend Moon, the leader of a fanatical money-extraction and heritage-hunting sect who quickly became a millionaire, currently holds a majority share in [edited to correct] Washington Times, and had a Japanese branch of his church sell used submarines to North Korea. Now that... is somewhat beyond an idiot. More like a fairly malicious nut.
[B]Well here is one example.
All the money he thew into an election cycle where his guy still lost? Think about the jobs he could have created if he used the money more wisly. [/B][/QUOTE]
So you believe that no money should be spent on politics? If thats the case then we should ban all political advertising, political trips to meet voters, and political get-out-the-vote organizations.
Instead we should all vote in a vacuume that says "Who are these people" which sounds REAL democratic to me.
[B]Let us oppositely... look at real fruits. For example reverend Moon, the leader of a fanatical money-extraction and heritage-hunting sect who quickly became a millionaire, currently holds a majority share in Washington Post, and had a Japanese branch of his church sell used submarines to North Korea. Now that... is somewhat beyond an idiot. More like a fairly malicious nut. [/B][/QUOTE]
You mean Washington Times, sheepy_shadow.
Previous post fixed too.
[B]So you believe that no money should be spent on politics? If thats the case then we should ban all political advertising, political trips to meet voters, and political get-out-the-vote organizations.
Instead we should all vote in a vacuume that says "Who are these people" which sounds REAL democratic to me. [/B][/QUOTE]
That also opens a very dangerous door, full government funding of all campaigns. While this sounds good on the surface, it gives the fringe elements of society equal footing with more mainstream candidates. While you may feel that a Republican or Democratic candidate is way too extreme, when you look at the whole of society, they are usually very mainstream. Large-scale political donors generally are, contrary to popular belief smarter than most people and realize that a radical candidate is an unhealthy thing, both for the economy and society. They will put their money in the mainstream, whereas with a purely government funded system; the extremes only have to meet some minimum standards to get the same exposure as more moderate elements.
Jake
[B]That also opens a very dangerous door, full government funding of all campaigns. While this sounds good on the surface, it gives the fringe elements of society equal footing with more mainstream candidates. While you may feel that a Republican or Democratic candidate is way too extreme, when you look at the whole of society, they are usually very mainstream. Large-scale political donors generally are, contrary to popular belief smarter than most people and realize that a radical candidate is an unhealthy thing, both for the economy and society. They will put their money in the mainstream, whereas with a purely government funded system; the extremes only have to meet some minimum standards to get the same exposure as more moderate elements.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
You realize that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly specifically empowers the fringe elements. Our founding fathers felt that they were "fringe" in the British Empire, so they constructed out constitution in such a way that should people that disagree with the status quo want to have a voice they could.
[B]You realize that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly specifically empowers the fringe elements. Our founding fathers felt that they were "fringe" in the British Empire, so they constructed out constitution in such a way that should people that disagree with the status quo want to have a voice they could. [/B][/QUOTE]
I do agree that it is important that the fringe elements have a voice, as the do in this country and nothing should be done to silence that voice. That said, it is my belief that the current electorial system in this country, while it does have flaws, works well to elect mainstream canididates. Such is the structure of this very public one-on-one forum that is politics that creates what appears to be candidates with extreme views, when in reality the views are not all that different from most of the national beliefs.
While I do believe that the founding fathers felt that dissent was an important part of the political process, we shouldn't fool ourselves into the believing their motivations were altruistic. They themselves were the rich, powerful people at the time, [i]and [/i] only the rich (or a least those who could owned land) could vote, so disent was limited to the wealthy landowners.
Jake
If you have a multi-billonare who states the leader of a country is a Nazi with the accent and all, woudn't it give the voters of the country a reason not too follow the idea.
For example if Canada had an election and a very rich American put money and made statements about the the PM of Canada woudn't it be natural for the citizens of Canada to vote the other way? Any Democracy anywhere would have the same reacton. It is almost Soros wanted Bush too win. That was my take.
I know Soros has an IQ above 20 or 40 who makes billons more then I do a year but I must say he msut have known what he was doing.
In all seriousness though, I thought we had agreed to take a little step from the political bashing because it generally pisses people off and drives a wedge in the community here. Just my two cents
Who the hell is Soros?!
[B]Whats with the constant rehashing of political threads? In the words of Rodney King, "cant we all just get along?"[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=124105#post124105[/url]