"Well, look, either youll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in," he told Chrystia Freeland of Reuters in a videotaped interview. "If its between Obama and Romney, there isnt all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them." http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/...much-difference-between-romney-and-obama.html What say ye, Florida??
i trust what Soros says as far as i can throw the pudgy little nazi collaborator. if he said it was raining outside, i'd still look out the window.
As he was only 15 when the second world war finished , your statement about him being a Nazi collaborator needs explaining . It sounds like BS .
As much as I can't stand Soros, I hate lying more. George, a Jew, was taken in by a Hungarian and masqueraded as his grandson to save his life from the Nazi. One of the duties of this Hungarian was to round up the belongings of Jews that had been sent to the camps. George witnessed this, but was only 14 at the time. Somehow ignorant people think that is collaboration...
I think Soros finnally told a little cornel of truth. Really, I can't see much difference between Romney and Obama.
If you think that was collaboration, your opinion of the Bush family must be very bad indeed. Per OP, I think he has a point, especially about the crowd they bring with them. Not much will change, but the supporters of either will swear blind it's completely different and that the other guy is the devil... it's amazing the level of retardation that partisan support can cause a person to exhibit.
Check out some of his (Soros) interviews. He fessed up to 'working with the Nazi's'....and enjoying it. You defend a man that himself doesn't defend that truth. "It was the best time of my life" says he. However, I somewhat agree with him on the Obama/Romney matter. Both are progressives, both have some Alinsky indoctrination in their formative years. Both look to their fathers as mentors and models. George Romney was a liberal republican progressive, which, back in his day was about the same as a mildly liberal democrat is today. Plus, for all my republican friends. Romney is a liberal...like it or not. He just swims in a different pool. He is part and parcel of the wealthy democrat fraternity that includes Kerry and the Kennedy's.
Sometimes, George lets it all hang out. The establishment does not want a Gingrich or Santorum presidency because they would attempt to halt the headlong rush to turn the US into a giant, progressive UK-style nanny state. _
I'm surprised Soros thinks that Gingrich would change things much. Santorum would only change things regarding social policy, but not in a good way.
Newt really tried to change a lot in Washington back in 1994. Both parties and the media forced him out of office because of it. He led the only serious threat to the welfare state ever attempted, and he paid the price. I think his involvement in Fannie and the ad campaign with Pelosi was (besides bad judgement) a result of being in political exile. _
The GOP in general was a lot better at implementing smaller government back during the 90s. Gingrich was also more functional back then, but I don't think his involvement in reforming welfare was what hurt him -- his lack of ethics did. I agree with a few of his stances, but he's pretty corrupt. I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but I'll still take him over Gingrich.
