Soro's the new Cheney?
 

This is not good publicity for the Obama presidency.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aF7fB1PF0NPg

Oh, right, because of the eating babies allegation? Or supporting weekend furloughs for pedophiles?

Seriously, what's the problem here? Obama has said that he will take ideas from anyone as long as they are good ideas. This is a liberal think tank. If they come up with good ideas, then that's fantastic.

Besides the fact I think Soro's is a scumbag, I guess it is no difference than religious right advising Bush, et. al. But I do recall there being an outcry about whom the Bush and Company consulted and now I see shades of the Dems doing the same thing. So some may say turn about is fair play, or what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Seems a bit like when so many libs cried and whined over special interest associations that Bush had and it was such a bad thing, now they are doing the same thing. I thought this election was about CHANGE. I guess not.

Yes. Sigh. I guess the next four years will just have to suck. *pityparty*

Well. What can ya do? Bitch and moan, bitch and moan...that's what you're going to have to do. woe is you.

You seemed to miss the main point I was making. Obama has said that he will take ideas from anyone as long as they are good ideas. He's even soliciting your ideas, merc.

Not quite Merc...but you get points for for your attempt.

The CAP is no different from the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute

ThinkProgress are a bunch of ultra-partisan douche nozzles. They don't look for good ideas, they look for ideas that will fuck the opposition.

:lol2:

Let's make it 8 years! At some point you would think other parts would atrophy when you use your bitch muscle too much!

Soros thrives on disorder! Everything he is involved in has a financial gain FOR HIM at the end. I think its good that Obama is getting input from many different sources, but this source isn't so good.

Actually it is more like if Bush were to take advice from Swift Boaters for Truth, than Heritage Foundation. And I don't believe he took advice from either group. So how is this change. Sounds like a huge double standard to me.

So you basically could care less that some ultra left wing organization is advising them, ok, I got that. Who cares as long as we fuck the other guys, that is what really counts? Hey let's really fuck the opposition and see if we can get them to cooperate with us! Becareful what you wish for....

Merc - you gotta realize that is the D's view of what Bush et all did for far too long... and then some. The pendulum is swinging the other way.

Oh my god it's deja vu all over again! The tactics (take out left and add right) and the sniveling.

Keep working on it fella. Even a blind hog will find an acorn. It might take you a while. 8 years, probably.

Merc--YOU be careful of what YOU wish for, ya hear?

You sure are whiney for a guy who didn't vote for McCain. And if you didn't vote for McCain, how could you possibly be this upset? No one else had a chance between the two. Now, who'd you vote for? Nader? No, most likey Skeletor.

Sniveling? Yea, just heard 8 years of it. Why don't you want to discuss the issue?

Why do you think I am so terribly upset? I am not. I am merely pointing out the double standards I see. We heard 8 years of whiny leftwing liberals bitching and moaning about every aspect of the Bush Dynasty. Now the Liberal Dems are acting the same way and behaving the same way. I am just trying to understand how this can be so easily accepted. Not ok for one group but ok for the other.

Ok. You're not upset.

Ok. You don't want to have an intelligent discussion about the issues or facts surrounding the obvious double standard.

Because there is no issue, there is only you predicting what will happen.

Ok. Well I don't see it like that. Give me a break, I am predicting not a fucking thing. I am commenting on observation related to the posted article.

I see it as a statement of the very first post, with comments about the involvement of radical Left-wing nut organizations in what should be and otherwise peaceful transition of power. And according to the reports in the posted article, that is not at all what is happening. If the Swift-Boat dudes were in bed with Bush, which they were not, the libs would be fucking draining spittle across their screens in an epieiptic fit. But instead we have a passive double standard of acceptance, like all is well as these radical elements interject themselves into the political process. So own up. Is is it ok for the Left-wingnut radical elements of the left to do it but not ok for the right when they were in power?

What exactly is so radical about CAP that you liken them to the swiftboaters? Would you characterize Fox as radical too then?

Oooh oooh ooh I know the answers [/Horschak]

1) Soro is not VP

annnnddddd (my better point) ;)


2) Saying lefties bitched for 8 years is highly untrue. I myself didn't start bitching until Bush really started fucking things up, so probably it was 7 years. Can you wait until Obama starts fucking up to start your bitching? kthxbai

for merc >> :chill:

Not that this was directed at me, but there are some elements of CAP that are extreme and yes, to me, same opinion of Fox as well. The difference there is one is a supposed "news outlet" and the other is apparently advising the President.

and Cheney---he's not considered extreme? Hmmmmm. Interesting.

What elements of of the Center for American Progress are extreme, Classic? And they are being used by the president for ideas...thats a little different than being 'advised'. But even so, I still dont get how they are far left and radical. What is far left and radical to you?

Yes he is, but Cheney was elected.

Soros for one. Yes it is different, on that we agree. Anything far left/liberal from the mainstream views of most Americans.

Well thanks for that non-answer. I was hoping for something a little more enlightening from you...like examples of those far left views that CAP would represent. Oh, and what is so extreme about Soros? Is it just that he spent a lot of money trying to defeat Bush?

Classic?

I'm guessing you don't want to share anymore? I only ask because I'm pretty tired of the radical left label being flung around willy nilly without any real qualification for what it means in the real world. I was hoping to gain some insight into how you define it. I'm concerned that it is used too easily as a way to discredit everyday liberal ideas.

Nope, I guess I'm just one of the many ill or uninformed. I apparently have no fucking idea what I am thinking or saying. I'm pretty fed the fuck up right about now to be honest. Therefore, I don't want to share anymore - thanks for asking though.

Sounds like Huffington is looking for a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5201252.ece

Oh the irony...

Here, let's try this:

I only ask because I'm pretty tired of the radical right label being flung around willy nilly without any real qualification for what it means in the real world. I was hoping to gain some insight into how you define it. I'm concerned that it is used too easily as a way to discredit everyday conservative ideas.

I wouldn't characterize most of what I see of the right wing as radical or extreme. Maybe the only ones I do are the religious right who campaign for prayer back in the school and stuff or those way out factions who attact the skinhead types.

Im not saying that the right hasnt been maligned by the left, however, it just seems to me that a lot righties like to use that radical extemist lefty label as a way to denigrate liberalism out of hand.

The detractors from either side use both terms with equal veracity.

Well, so, all I wanted was what parameters/characteristics you use when you use the 'radical extremist' label, especially when you use it to describe Soros or The CAP. Then, I might have a better idea why you think its not a good idea for Obama to use them for ideas.

He is an extremely controversial figure with some very shady history. He was convicted of insider trading. For me it is the statements Soros made about the president and the way he used his billions to make commercials that were false and misleading to appeal to a liberal mindset. You can look them up if you are interested. Soro's has one goal in mind - how to make more money. Look at his overseas deals to get an idea. He has cloaked much of his business deals by giving a lot of money to some very good causes and he should be commended for that much. I don't trust him, his intentions, or his organizations.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_20191344

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-re...os-gate-may-b/


Let's play devils advocate and flip a page in time. If a multi-billionare conservative came out in public and said, "I will spend all of my money and time to defeat Obama at any cost. It is a life and death issue."

What would be the reaction of the people that voted for Obama?

And if that billionare made commercials that linked Obama to Hitler and ran them on the tv? What kind of response would you get from Obama's supporters?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36577

Bush is gone now, which means so is Soros's pet peeve.

What does extreme radical left mean to you?

Just because Bush is gone does not mean you can ignore Soro's past misdeeds. He is a radical individual with radical ideas about government.

What are they? You're not going to get yourself pinned down, are you.

And I don't necessarily consider his fight to get rid of Bush a misdeed.

read the links.

I have already read about Soro's history and I cant really find anything that I think is 'radical extremism'.

One more time, Merc...what does lefty radical extremism mean to you? If you cant answer than try not to use the phrase in the future if you want me to take you seriously on it.

I find it really funny that neither you, who initiated the thread, nor Classic, who jumped on it, want to answer my question.

I believe you.

I don't believe you have taken me seriously on much of what I have posted. I will use it where I see fit.

Lefty radical extremism is the opposite of Righty radical extremism, that should help. Anytime you think, "man that is a radical right view", consider the same vew from a position 180 degrees in the other direction and you will know what I mean. I don't think that most people who consider themselves to be liberal think their views are radical as much as most people who consider themselves to be conservative would consider their views to be radical.

Just answered it.

No you didnt.

Forget about it.

I will.

Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.

Here ya go!

http://www.answers.com/topic/left-wing-politics

Soros is successful and wealthy. He didn't get there by being stupid. He got there by coming up with good ideas and implementing them.

If he has ideas to share with the Obama transition team, that's good. It's up to them to determine if those ideas are illegal, immoral or fattening.

I guess my only point was that he is an extremely controversial individual how has supported some extremely controversial projects and organizations and I don't think it looks good for him to be consulting with him. I believe it degrades his notion that he is bringing "change" to the office. The laundry list of Clintonites he is stacking his administration also point to doubt that he is bringing change to the White House. I can't say Bush did not also consult with controversial figures, but Obama said he is going to change the way things are done. I guess this is just the first of many things he said he would do on the campaign trail that he will not do.

If he wants to do it right, he won't limit soliciting ideas from anyone. By putting together part of an idea from Soros with part of an idea from Cheney and part of an idea from Hugo Chaves, to come up with a fair solution, good for him.

I see Obama has been consulting with that controversial maverick McCain, too. What is he thinking talking to controversial people? He might get controversial cooties.

dar - Are you comparing McCain to Soros? Are you really?
I have no problem with Obama consulting with the sharpest minds in America, none whatsoever. In fact, I think that is an excellent plan and what any president should do.

Smoke and mirrors.

No. I don't know Soros from Adam. See below.

Change that to "whoever he thinks might have a useful idea", and we are in agreement.

I'm good with that.

Well that's because the people Bush consulted were wrong about EVERYTHING they said. Including God. *sticks tongue out at Merc and wags it*

personally, I think this is a GOOD thing. We need new, progressive ideas in Washington. Who cares where they come from. If they're good ideas, they're good ideas.

How are they acting the same way? Obama is reaching out to EVERYONE, including people who seriously disagree with him. Bush surrounded himself with yes men (and women) and got rid of anyone who challenged him.

WOW. So he supports legalizing weed and euthanaisia and needle exchange programs. Damn whacko liberal. :D

If he has broken any laws regarding the way he does business, then he should be prosecuted. From what I read, it sounds like he took advantage of deregulation around banking and investment laws in various countries. Those laws need to be changed and we need to put serious regulation, transparency and oversight back into the world monetary systems, because that is why the world economy is in trouble now. Not the same thing he did, but similar.

Truth be told, I am not comfortable with ANYONE having as much money as these people (Soros, Gates, Buffet, etc. and all the executives on Wall Street who caused the crash). The truth is, anyone with that kind of money has likely done shady and illegal (or at least immoral) things in order to get that money. Money corrupts, don'tcha know? Especially large sums of it. At least he does something good with some of it.

Well I support legalizing weed and euthanaisia and needle exchange programs too.

:eek: Say it ain't so!

:D

Yea, but when is going to consult with Palin?:grouphug::whip: