So Soros is an issue because he bankrolls advocacy for programs some people don't think are constitutional.
As DK admitted, what constitutes a constitutional or unconstitutional position is a matter of much debate. I think we all know this.
Thus while I think we could have guessed that the right dislikes Soros because he funds operations they don't like, but there doesn't seem to be anything special about him in comparison to right-wing funders. Flip sides of a coin if you will.
What I do find interesting is the focus on how he could be a billionaire and still remain true to his beliefs and not endorse the laissez-faire movement that supposedly would benefit him. Of course, such a confusion is based on a presumption that such an economy would indeed benefit him most, which is not something all wealthy individuals agree on. Also, even if it were true, why would one demonize the fact that one put morals above personal gain? We saw a version of this in '04 with the attacks on the Kerry/Heinz fortune.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
He merely has to be so infused with a sense of his own competence and wisdom that he thinks he can tell other people what to do.
|
Why does being an advocate or sharing your view on things automatically mean that you are telling people what to do? I'm an advocate for causes I believe in. I share views on this board on a regular basis. Do you think I am trying to order you around? Why would it be any different if I were funding advertising and websites that promoted that view? Isn't America a country where we are SUPPOSED to share our views in a marketplace of ideas?