Whats George Soros got to do with Occupy WallStreet Movement? Lets find The TRUTH

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I can't really see that you have pointed to any "negatives" on Soros possible backing of #occupywallstreet, you have pointed to some, in your opinion, negatives of Soros' way of making buisness.

I am a suporter of #occupywallstreet, so obviously financial backing of any kind of this movement is positive in my eyes.

And yet again... How exactly is giving 8 billion dollars to charity just crumbs?

I guess if you love socialism and you want to destroy the US dollar sure, but if you love Liberty and you love America, umm no
'
I believe he is using this to crash the dollar like he did the euro then cash in on the downside, then use the funds to destroy us some more. This man is a devil and needs to be stopped.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

A secretive group of Wall Street hedge fund bosses are said to be behind a plot to cash in on the decline of the euro.

Mr Soros, who made more than $1billion by currency speculation when the pound was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992, believes the structure of the euro is 'patently flawed'.

I just cannot believe that people naively support this man even while he is making billions crashing economies, and you people say you are fighing Wall Street. You are doing no such thing, you are facilitating a hedge fund managers crazed desire to rule the world with a Socialist Utopia and him as King of the World. OH wait Obama wants to be King, oh well I guess they share that.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by SkurkNilsen

 

I'm talking about Yugoslavia, not Romania. Hmmmm, but that doesn't fit your view does it. Your view of Soros being the savior of all that is good and kind is flawed.

Your unrealistic view of those who pull the strings have your points out of focus friend. May I suggest that you look further into those whom you support.

Give me proof that Soros has done good for mankind, without lining his own pockets.

You're the one who said the Balkans, not me. And it seems to me that it is Romania that doesn't fit your view..
Giving the people the choice ofcourse retains an element of risk, but it's sure better than implementing democracy with drones...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Man, I'm all for socialist utopias, except they are not utopias, they are the countries with the highest living standards in the world....

reply to post by cloaked4u


ahh I see now that they have changed the feminist tone of the gender rights in the workplace to now racial and gender rights ERA. I called this one already days ago. I knew they were basing this on the original ERA that flopped and foundered in the 70's and 80's. It was put to sleep long ago, and the red feminists are trying to bring it back, but now they seem to have added the race card too.
The main reason ERA floundered before is that most women did not want to be forced into the military.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Man, I'm all for socialist utopias, except they are not utopias, they are the countries with the highest living standards in the world....

ok here ya go

Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism." Leftists often use Denmark and Sweden as their examples, since they are the most successful Scandinavian nations. I already covered this issue in an earlier post, but I feel it is important to rehash this topic and to post a refutation of this leftist fallacy. For this post, we shall define Scandinavian countries as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Some might dispute whether we should consider Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian, because of cultural differences (Finland) and geographical barriers (Iceland), though we the point of this post is not to argue whether or not these countries are Scandinavian, but to dispute the fact that they are indeed successful socialist states.

First of all, most leftists will use the USA as the measure of laissez faire capitalism. We all know that this is completely false, so I won't go into detail refuting this casuistry here but I'd like to point several things out: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia were all rated as "more free," according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. It would probably be better to compare these Scandinavian nations to Hong Kong or Ireland than to the United states.

Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States

mises.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Using Norway as an example,

The political and economic systems seem to be a lean form of socialism in the views of many, but as you state, "socialism" may be a mask. (IMO)

However,

I would place the "success" of Norway on other factors.

Perhaps the low population (5 million?) for one.

Perhaps the lower levels of corruption compared to other countries.

Perhaps their original "ethnicity" pretty much lacking "outside" influences.
(would include outside financial influences, outside social influences, outside cultural influnces)

Thier "nationality" integrity.

All the above are the real reasons for success and outweigh the "political" definitions that are sometimes "defined" by outside influences.

IMO .... to disclaim any thoughts of possible anti-this or anti-that recoil reactions.

In short,

It's ALWAYS the citizens as a whole that fuel success and failure.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Thank you for proving my point.

Now why do you call them utopias, when they are clearly feasible and working.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Perhaps their original "ethnicity" pretty much lacking "outside" influences.
(would include outside financial influences, outside social influences, outside cultural influnces)

I pretty much agree with your post, except this point. The imigration population of Norway is 12.2 and in the US 12.5 (People born outside the country).

Plus Norway is home to a rapidly growing influx of foreign workers working on contracts.

The scandinavian socialism is based on a crossover between capitalism and socialism, branded socialdemocracy. Very much unlike pure breed socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba.
IMO the best of both worlds.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Perhaps their original "ethnicity" pretty much lacking "outside" influences.
(would include outside financial influences, outside social influences, outside cultural influnces)

I pretty much agree with your post, except this point. The imigration population of Norway is 12.2 and in the US 12.5 (People born outside the country).

Plus Norway is home to a rapidly growing influx of foreign workers working on contracts.

The scandinavian socialism is based on a crossover between capitalism and socialism, branded socialdemocracy. Very much unlike pure breed socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba.
IMO the best of both worlds.

good point, (Wheew!)

but Norway is still pretty much a "majority" ethnic group.

Ethnic groups: Norwegian 94.4% (includes Sami, about 60,000), other European 3.6%, other 2% (2007 estimate)

Definition: This entry provides an ordered listing of ethnic groups starting with the largest and normally includes the percent of total population.

www.indexmundi.com...


Think about what other countries look like ?

ETA:
The "infiltrations" are always what creates the system failures.
(financial, cultural)

reply to post by xuenchen


Fair point. But how does that mean it's impossible to have a more socialy just system of government in the US?

The "infiltrations" are always what creates the system failures. (financial, cultural)

This sentence worries me a bit. Are you implying that imigrants are infiltrators?

reply to post by SkurkNilsen


You're right, Me saying Balkans is like someone talking about Connecticut, but saying New England instead, I should have been more specific. Too vague.

Just accepting funds from another source makes you susceptible to being required to spin the message of those who gave the money.

Think about it. The Tea Party started as small groups throughout the U.S. At first ignored and slowly gaining momentum they attracted more support. When money started flowing in to fund events, they got together for a short period, but eventually dissenting voices started to be heard from within and now there are multiple Tea Party groups again. Some better funded than others. But it is not a common unified group. Some have stayed true to the original ideas, while others justify the change of heart by saying that without money, we cannot change the system. Big money ruined the original idea behind the Tea Party.

See the similarities? I believe that the OWS will follow the same path. They will eventually become the Tea Party of the left.

This is something that the Unions have said they wanted to organize anyway and the OWS is a perfect stepping stone.

Just more polarizing division.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Fair point. But how does that mean it's impossible to have a more socialy just system of government in the US?

The "infiltrations" are always what creates the system failures. (financial, cultural)

This sentence worries me a bit. Are you implying that imigrants are infiltrators?

Immigrants could be "infiltrators" if immigration causes social structure breakdown and/or financial profiteering.
That's assuming that "immigration" is more than just "migration".

In the US, we are seeing financial breakdowns partially by ways of social breakdowns and separations.
And, the breakdowns are not uniform by area or ethnic.
Some areas and groups are victims at variable degrees.

The vast majority of "infiltrations" are financial not necessarily in the form of "people".

An example would be when outside financing exploits local resources.
"Local" could be anywhere within let's say, walking distance as a figure of speech.
The "outsiders" would be let's say, driving or flying for several hours.
The greater the distance, the greater the effect of infiltration.

The resources are extorted and the wealth is stored "offshore" and distributed to "offshore stockholders" as "dividends".

The profit from local wealth plundering does not return to the citizen victims in its' entirety.
Only the "crumbs" are returned as new bones, to "feed the chickens".
A few grains of chicken feed will yeild dozens of eggs and dozens of frozen dinners.
The balance difference is all exploited profit.

With the wide social class differences in the US, it would take just as long to correct the problem as it has taken to create it. TPTB know all this. Their lives depend on normal people NOT knowing.

I wonder and hope the OWS supporters and crusaders understand this concept,
because whether it's called heart warming socialism or heart breaking capitalism, the result is always the same !!

I wonder if the OWS financiers understand ?
You betchya they do!

Adding to the above,


the Mexicans in the U.S. have been sending back over 20 Billion dollars per year to Mexico for a long time

add it all up for years on end and decide how that affects the US economy !!!!

all that money does not return to the local citizens and businesses in the U.S.

and the banks love it .... all those transfer fees and exchange rate bid/ask profits.

see for yourselves


google


remittancesgateway.org...


dallasfed.org...


2 billion dollars a MONTH comes to, let's see now....

20 Million people sending $100 a month....Hmmmmm well maybe but,

Perhaps the "infiltration" is businesses or "charities" sending the bulk of the money ?

Other ethnic groups may be doing this too.

Can't blame them really.

But maybe they should consider investing that money in their own localities ?
All for better or worse?


Bueller Bueller Bueller