Want to own a baseball team? Republican only, please. No Democrats need apply.

George Soros is a huge hypocrite by the fact that he has never hesitated to bend and break laws to increase his own personal fortune yet he sits back and criticizes others, Bush in particular. And since, for some, his criticism of Bush, fits their own personal political point of view, they see Soros as some kind of hero/role model. He isn't, and shouldn't be. If people would just spend a tiny bit of time looking at this monster's history, they would see him for the devil he truly is. MLB has enough problems without including Soros and his particular brand of "open society" into the ownership group.

Among the more notable "achievements" of this 2-faced blood-sucking Dracula (so called by the people of Thailand and Malaysia who lost billions in his open attack on their currency in 1997 which increased his own personal wealth by several $BILLION):

in 2002, he paid a $2MILLION fine for a violation of French stock trading laws regarding insider trading, something he has been suspected of for 2 decades in other deals.

funded a campaign in Nevada to try to legalize marijuana.

invested over $100MILLION in the Carlyle Group (along with James Baker and George HW Bush, and, relatives of Osama bin Laden) whose prinicipal business is defense contracts, yet he is viewed as the darling of those who oppose military action.

founded the Quantum Fund group whose primary interesting is in currency trading. They specialize in speculating on, and manipulating weaker currencies around the world. The fund has averaged a 35% return/ since its inception in 1969. It has frequently been cited as a source of action influencing value and suspected of having "inside knowledge."

in 1992, he attacked UK currency with a bid, based on a projected devaluation of the pound, that resulted in a single day personal profit of $1BILLION.

The list goes on but the most telling statement about the moral character of this blood-sucker is this Soros quote from an article by Neil Clark in New Statesman, "As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions." Interesting statement by a guy who claims to be the hero of "the little guy."

For George Soros, an "open society" is one where HE has a chance to make a ton of money. Period. A cursory study of his actions in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, shows him to have paid off those who supported him, and bullied opponents who opposed his single-purpose profit grabs.

My problem with the statement by Davis is that it is a political statement when he should be condemning Soros as a 2-faced money-grubber who will not help the image of MLB by his inclusion in the ownership group. Frankly, if I were an owner, I would review his history and conclude that he is someone not to be trusted. He is, instead, a totally self-serving, unscrupulous scoundrel who invests when it serves his own purpose regardless of the moral and financial consequences of others. The fact that he has become the darling of the Far Left only serves to show the true colors of that group.

But the man is brilliant in his own self-serving way as witnessed by his early recognition of the major loophole in McCain/Feingold's attack on freedom of expression, sometimes called the Campaign Finance Reform Act, by using that loophole to funnel nearly $25MILLION into 527s. No one individual had the vision, and the finances, to exploit that legislative travesty as did Soros.

And MLS should admit this guy into the ownership group?

 

MLS admitted Anschutz, who has been on the wrong end of a subcommittee or two in his life.

That's the point - as long as these guys are dabbling in sports, especially soccer, then they have less time and money to screw up the real world. Phil has spent untold millions of dollars making this liberal happy, instead of making this liberal very sad. (Hey, it wasn't like he told Anspaugh "Make Game of Their Lives boring as toast.) Steinbrenner only managed to get caught making illegal donations to Nixon - imagine what he'd be doing if he was in politics full-time. (Well, Dave Winfield would have had a much easier time of it, I suppose.)

Besides, it's supposed to be a free country. Capitalism, free market, and all that. I don't give a ******** about the Ex-Expos, but what if I win the lottery one day, and want to buy the Galaxy so I can call them "Dan's Super-Awesome Soccer Team"? Why should I have to change party affiliation to do that?

 

I think the last line of my post sums it up best. To think that if you piss off anyone in power that it won't come back to haunt you is naive.

This goes on with Cops, to Judges, to local politicans, all the way to the top.
Soros was quite loud about his attacks on Bush and the reeps. Now he is going to have to play the politics of his own actions.

Again, I am not condoning any of this, but I am saying that Soros made his own bed here.

 

OOPS. Major typo on my part. I meant MLB and it's too late to edit now.

 

I agree with you here but would take it further, and more specifically, that he "made his own bed" before he ever got involved as the major benefactor for the "We hate Bush" wing of the Democrat party.

The major thrust of my previous post is that his prior actions should disqualify him from ownership, not the fact that he opposed the current president, who happens to be a Republican. THAT is where we should really be addressing our concerns, not the tactically erroneous statement by Tom Davis. To the extent we focus on Davis we overlook the far more egregious actions of Soros PRIOR to Decision 2004, 527s and Moveon.org.

 

You think Tom Davis, head of the Republican House Campaign Committee, opposes Soros' bid because of Soros' past currency speculation? Are you serious?

 

Wow, I never realized you were a Marxist. "open attack"

I was pretty pissed when the dollar collapsed, but did go looking around for "blood-sucknig Draculas." Warren Buffet, amongst many others, was betting heavily against the dollar.

"Blood-sucking." Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but a lot of the anti-Soros sh!t is pure Nazi-style anti-Semitism. Which is kind of ironic given how Soros doesn't give one whit about other Jews.

 

When you became an American citizen, weren't your foced to swear an allegiance to baseball? Open the freaking Constitution, baseball is in Article I, right next to mother and apple pie.

 

You need to educate yourself. Google for George Soros and start reading. There is a ton of info out there. You will find exactly what I stated to be true.

 

Of course not but that would have been a better play. That is why I said it was a tactical political error. If he would have given it more consideration, he would have gone into the insider trading conviction in France, the UK currency flap and the attack on Thai and Malaysia, among others. Davis showed himself to be politically naive, or inept, or both. Stupid play on his part.

 

That's the problem, too much of your "education" is based on Googling and reading dubious web sites. I can't stand Soros either, but your comments are way over the top.

 

Aye. Google's algorithm more often than not takes you to more extremist viewpoints (on either end of the political spectrum) while more moderate links tend to get lost. High Google score does not equal authority. It just means that it gets linked to by other sites with high Google scores.

 

Yes, I do not like Soros, but my post involved a quote that called him a blood-sucker. (Frankly, I did not know he was a Jew until I started some research last night.) And no, he is not the only one who speculates on currencies. But he has been smart enough to speculate on currencies that are not as closely watched as others, hence he has been able to make a ton of money on them when he would not have been similarly able in larger pools. But he hasn't stopped there as witnessed by the French conviction.

Legally right. Morally wrong. If you can't do it right both ways, you shouldn't do it at all, in my book. Applies to more than Soros but it doesn't excuse him from operating across the line. If he wants to play in bigger games, he must expect to become a bigger target. One of the reasons I would never get any further involved in politics than our local school board...and BS.

 

I understand and agree with your observations about Google, but there are plenty of others. I usually start there and follow links to other sources. I have embarrassed myself all too often by just relying on Google-only sites. In this case, I DID use some of the more extreme stuff on Soros, though all of it has been documented by others. He is a creep, IMO, and deserves far greater scrutiny than he has received.

Few are bigger "free market" guys than yours truly, but I firmly believe the "free market" needs to be similarly driven by morality as profit. Soros has never found that to be an impediment and THAT is where I find my greatest dislike for him. Frankly, I personally think his involvement in Decision 2004 to be right up there with Michael Moore in terms of dis-attracting (making up words?) undecideds to vote for Bush.

 

"Mom, can I have another piece of apple pie while I watch the soccer game?"

 

I finished my previous post with my own observation, based on my own opinion, (just so we get that down) that what D & S were doing was not based on solid politicaltactics. OK? That is a given since politicians were speaking.

However, I will go back to my original post with the old adage that when it walks like a duck, (FACT) quacks like a duck (FACT), it IS a duck. (OPINION BASED ON FACT) I cited plenty of facts to clearly indicate that Soros had outright violated laws for which he has been convicted, stepped around others, and operated in a clearly amoral manner in the case of others. From that there is more than ample room to draw some observation-based opinions as to his overall moral character. Now one can marginalize some of those positions but that does not change the facts of his history.

But here is an interesting observation: when the Bush family was found to have invested in Carlyle, the observation was made that estranged members of OBL's family were also investors. Now when that "alleged fact" is brought up on the other side of the fence, it appears it no longer applies. Hmmmmm It appears that "what is good for the goose is no longer good for the gander." Not usually the best refutation argument, it is true, but it clearly applies in this case.

 

Actually he "spends" rather than "speaks" Samarkand, in his support of the Democrat Party... And I don't directly find that spending objectionable... what is wrong, however, is the politicians on Soros' payroll that deny such every day!

 

No, but you can have a piece of Shepherd's Pie.

 

It would have been a better play if Tom Davis cared that Soros engaged in currency speculation or insader trading. Tom Davis levelled his threats because he cares that Soros is a full-throated and full-walleted supporter of the Democratic party.

 

I would like to think Soros only supported the Left Wing of the Democrat party.