I'm not sure if you're against it because they're for it or if you're just putting it out there that Soros and Zbiggy supported an idea like this.
I cannot believe the number of Freepers who have jumped on the "Soros likes it so it must be bad" bandwagon. I hope that is not where you are falling. Soros presumably would not have every other person in the U.S. shot, either. Should we then support that? John Kerry once voiced supported for a larger military presence in Iraq. Should we be against that? He also voiced support for withdrawing--should we then be against both?
So yes, to answer your question, there is nothing good about Soros and what he supports.
You may want to spend some time browsing his pro-death website.
LibertarianInExile: "I cannot believe the number of Freepers who have jumped on the "Soros likes it so it must be bad" bandwagon."
Thank God someone is making sense ... yes, it could just happen that somewhere in the world, Soros and Bush are *on the same side* - namely, together against the *actual* communists of the world - against authoritarian mob rule, and for a new 1989 ...
Hey, Reagan and Soros were on the same side back then after all, too - its what made the Milosevic's, Meciar's and Iliescu's of this world come to hate Soros's guts. After all, he funded pretty much every democratic, anti-communist opposition NGO there was in their countries.
In the US, "liberal" means lefty. But in Romania or Russia or Serbia or, yes, the Ukraine, "liberal" means anti-communist. It means being for a country where the ballot boxes arent stuffed and independent journalists dont run the risk of being beheaded, like one was in the Ukraine, apparently on Kuchma's orders.
Gentlemen, pick your side ...