10/4    What personal gain does Soros have for not electing Bush
        (did Bush turn down Soro's contract or something? If anything
        Soros has a lot of gain from Bush's tax cut for the super
        wealthy). And did http://factcheck.com/georgesoros.com help undecided
        voters determine which way to vote?
        \_ Soros is rich enough that he can go with his conscience, which
           he never did when he was younger. He is an example of someone
           who can afford to be a liberal.
           \_ among the other plantation owners
           \_ What a hypocrite.  Okay, I'll go with my conscience when I become
              super-rich someday.
              super-rich some day.
        \_ Maybe Soros sees how BushCo is royally fucking up this country and
           wants to use his power and influence to do something about it?
           Did you actually read the speech? Maybe it's hard for Bush supporters
           to imagine someone doing something without gaining from it financially?
        \_ Maybe he has witnessed fascism in his lifetime and doesn't
           want to see it again.  Maybe he doesn't like the idea of the
           plutocracy which will result from the Bush tax agenda.  Maybe
           he sees that serfdom is a bad idea.
        \_ Soros is concerned about the drift toward totalitarianism
           in this country. He grew up in a Soviet block state so
           he knows the dangers.
           \_ You know, most ex-Soviet block folks are not on the DNC
              side...  Equating Bush et al with fascism is like equating
              Cheney with the neocons -- stupid. -- ilyas
                \_ You'll have to explain this one in more detail, tou've lost me.
              \_ You'll have to explain this one in more detail, you've lost me.
                 \_ Pronoun dereference error.  -- ilyas
           \_ I've definitely had issues with the man who destroyed the Thai
                 \_ Not true.  I beat him to the punch.  Fascism is governement
                    working hand in hand with industry.  The bush administration
                    is replete with examples of cronyism, favoritism,
                    deregulation (read lawlessness).  All fascist tendencies.
                    \_ This is incoherent. -- ilyas
              \_ First of all totalitarianism is not the same thing as fascism.
                 Are you deliberately trying to change the topic by Godwin'ing
                 it? Secondly, do you honestly believe that George Soros is
                 "stupid?" He seems pretty brilliant to me.
                 \_ I wasn't the first to bring up fascism in this thread.
                    I ve never met Soros, so I can't comment on how 'stupid'
                    he is.  I think being concerned about totalitarianism is
                    always healthy.  Thinking that Bush is a dangerous lunatic
                    like we had 60ish years ago is ... overreacting.
                    Bush is not a dangerous lunatic, he is a frat boy.
                    I ve heard so many shrill comparisons of Bush and
                    that short german guy that I have a hard time taking
                    these sorts of discussions seriously anymore.  Having
                    said that, is anyone willing to give a thoughtful
                    argument for how the US politics are in imminent danger
                    of sliding into something unsavory if Bush is reelected?
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ Bush has eroded civil liberties, more than any
                       president in my lifetime. This concerns me. And I
                       certainly did not bring up facism. I think you are
                       responding to the wrong entry. Just because
                       totalitarianism took one historical path (by
                       following a lunatic) once in history 60 years
                       ago does not mean that there are not other ways
                       to it. Read up on the history of Mussolini, Pinochet,
                       Franco and Peron for more germane historical
                       examples.
                       \_ Yeah, that concerns me too.  However, compare to
                          Roosevelt during WWII (specifically internment and
                          press restrictions). -- ilyas
                          \_ Or WWI, which was even more severe, with the
                             alien sedition act. But the problem with these
                             comparisons is that during WWI and WWII we were
                             fighting a state actor and had a clearly
                             defined goal and endpoint to the civil
                             liberty restrictions. Today, we are fighting
                             "terror" something so ill defined that it
                             will never be defeated. And to top it off,
                             Bush used a war that he chose to get into
                             as an excuse to further the crackdown on
                             civil liberties. Combine these and you start
                             to see a dangerous precedent, especially
                             compared to historical actors who have
                             done similar things.
                             \_ Yes, that's true.  Though one wonders how
                                these restrictions managed to steamroll
                                their way into law.  It's not like the
                                POTUS can randomly rewrite laws without
                                some help (or at least inaction) from other
                                branches.  I am less concerned with Bush
                                specifically, and more concerned with the
                                government machine which makes the
                                crackdown not only possible but a reality.
                                The office of the POTUS doesn't have enough
                                power to be a worry in and of itself.
                                  -- ilyas
                                \_ Don't underestimate the power of
                                   demagoguery combined with an enraged
                                   populace. Though I suppose the biggest
                                   threat has passed for the moment. What
                                   about after the next 9/11? And there
                                   will be a next one.
           \_ I've definitely had issues with the man who destroyed the Thai
              economy for fun and profit preaching about high-minded politics
              but I am mostly over it.
        \_ Is he heavily invested in dollars?  Could he be afraid
           "4 MORE YEARS!" will result in the dollar losing value?
           \_ warren buffet also likes kerry, and he has like a 19 billion
                bet on the dollar falling.