"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:52:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing
company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

LOL You've cut the best part of that quote: "He was not much of a
businessman."

Sure I did. Soros's opinion of Bush is irrelevant. The important and
relevant portion of the entire quote was where Soros admitted to trying to
buy political influence and Bush's Gulf connection.

Apparently, old Georgie boy never provided what Soros expected...and now
Soros is ****ed.



Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Harken was peanuts to Soros. If he's out to burn Bush, it's because he's
seen Bush up close *and* Soros has known liberal credentials.

Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.


Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:30:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.

Except that Bush, at the time, was a businessman, not a politician.
Besides, what else did Bush bring to the table? Certainly not his
business acumen. Arbusto/Spectrum 7 were headed into the dumpster if it
weren't for Harken money. Personally, I just don't see a vendetta, just a
difference in political philosophy.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:30:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a
politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.

Except that Bush, at the time, was a businessman, not a politician.
Besides, what else did Bush bring to the table?

A last name that had a lot of clout in the political arena.



Certainly not his
business acumen. Arbusto/Spectrum 7 were headed into the dumpster if it
weren't for Harken money. Personally, I just don't see a vendetta, just a
difference in political philosophy.

Yeah, right. Soros has described himself as the "moral conscience of the
world" (or some similar bull**** mumbo-jumbo). Is "buying political
influence" a trait you would expect from the "moral conscience of the
world"? Or perhaps legalizing drugs is a more "moral issue"? The guy is a
rich, spoiled, blow-hard who is used to getting his way...and got ****ed
when Bush decided to (to paraphrase Steve Miller band) "take the money and
run".

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:37:17 -0800, jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...

Let's compare the two Hilter ads submitted by people nobody ever heard
of to the current spiritual leader of Republican anti-tax initiatives...

Article snipped.

jcs, how many times are you going to post the same thing?

Read the following excerpt please:
***********************************
"Excuse me," she interjected. "Excuse me one second. Did you just . ..
compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?"

Norquist explained himself. "No, the morality that says it's okay to
do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the
population is the morality that says the Holocaust is okay because
they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."
**************************************

Norquist did not compare the estate tax to the Holocaust. He compared
'moralities' of a group who would tax estates because only 2% were
affected and a group who would say the Holocaust is OK because only a
small percent were affected.

Norquist himself answers the question, "No..." He then goes on to
explain the reasoning in a fairly straightforward manner. It is
Richard Cohen who makes something out of this that it is not. It is
simply showing more of the Washington Post's liberal bias.

Do I disagree with the estate tax? That question was not addressed.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of
"treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double
standard and
land smack on your nose.


It sounds to me like you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the
"right" of doing. Many conservatives find the right wing radio host boring
and predictable, and do not listen to them, but still consider themselves
conservatives.

NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

Well, of course...why else would you bring in the Bush Bozo...certainly
not for his brain power.





--
Email sent to is never read.

In article GXIKb.78889$xX.558024@attbi_s02, says...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of
"treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double
standard and
land smack on your nose.


It sounds to me like you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the
"right" of doing. Many conservatives find the right wing radio host boring
and predictable, and do not listen to them, but still consider themselves
conservatives.

I disagree, since I work with and count as personal friends many who
consider themselves conservatives who consider Rush a buffoon. I'm
certain that Chuck has a similar experience.

Conversely, there's a number of fools in this group who utter dittospeak
on regular occasions, regular enough to recognize their
Rush/Savage/Coulter political pedigree.

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
says...

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election
laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising
contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to
how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that
will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

I think you're a little late to the party there doc. There's all sorts
of scurrilous freaks who're liable to thwart the system in order that
their interests are addressed.

Take the Republican's investment in Nader's campaign, for instance.

Then there's the voluminous body of evidence that puts Jim Baker and
other Republican operatives gallivanting the world in an effort to make
certain the Iran hostages weren't released prior to the Carter-Reagan
election.

The Republican governor of Florida and his operatives who invest in a
"felons list" that ends up preventing thousands of legitimate voters
from from voting?

Is this the kind of election manipulation of which you speak? Or is it
just foreign interests that frighten you?

Just foreign interests.

Certainly wouldn't pain you if the princes of saudi arabia spilled tens
of millions of dollars into GW Bush's campaign coffers.

Right?

In article . net,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Oh no, not the frippin' right-wing alien and sedition act. PAssed to
stifle dissent. No wonder Noy Brains likes it.

Indeed, I *do* like it. I hope someone dusts off the legislative annals
pretty soon, and brings it back to the forefront.


That'd be dusting off annals for anals.

In article . net,
says...


Yeah, right. Soros has described himself as the "moral conscience of the
world" (or some similar bull**** mumbo-jumbo). Is "buying political
influence" a trait you would expect from the "moral conscience of the
world"? Or perhaps legalizing drugs is a more "moral issue"? The guy is a
rich, spoiled, blow-hard who is used to getting his way...and got ****ed
when Bush decided to (to paraphrase Steve Miller band) "take the money and
run".

Man you are a dunderhead. Look Soros up and look at the legitimate
investments he's made in seeding democracy and you'll have to admit he's
doing this work from his soul, not his wallet.

He's using his wallet to leave the place better than he found it, like
any good guest.

jps