Skip to comments.Sheldon Adelson: ĎIím Basically a Social Liberalí
Posted on 12/09/2012 12:46:52 PM PST by WilliamIII
In a three-hour interview with The Wall Street Journal, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson excoriated President Barack Obama, Democrats and unions, as one would expect of a top donor to conservatives and Republican causes in the 2012 election.
But the billionaire, sitting with his wife Miriam, an Israel-born physician, shared political beliefs that may leave some surprised.
Number one, Im supporting stem-cell research, he said, pointing to a chart of the new Adelson medical research foundation that is funding some stem-cell based science.
Im pro choice, he said. Republicans are pro-life, but he and his wife are not pro-life in politics, he said.
You can take your own religious beliefs and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the governments policies? He shook his head.
Abortion shouldnt be brought up as a political issue, he said.
Mr. Adelson continued on his list of liberal leanings.
On immigration: Im pro-Dream Act, Im pro the Dream Act. My parents were immigrants to this country, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
He's probably a lot like Doris Duke when it comes to believing in conspiracies targeting his wealth.
The big problem here is he likes dead babies ~
He was Newt’s sugar daddy well before Newt’s campaign flamed out. Google it.
His interests are:
2. Keeping American tax dollars flowing to Israel
3. Keeping his gambling empire growing in the US and China so he can bribe politicians to devote tax dollars to Israel.
There was no need for a circular firing squad if we'd had standards in place to keep the top of the ticket nomination in the hands of lifelong Republicans!
[[Scratch a social liberal, find a fiscal liberal]]
True. Fiscal conservatives/social liberals are basically secular. For the secularists, nothing is sacred — not marriage nor human life (babies) nor large families (be fruitful and multiply) nor the Ten Commandments. For secularists, unwed motherhood, child-abandoning feminism, and the decline of the work ethic are financial and education problems, not moral failings.
Since the social liberals don’t want to “preach” or provide moral leadership to our predominantly Christian country, al they do is spend more tax dollars.
Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Schwarzenegger both claimed to be fiscal conservatives/social liberals yet turned out to be pretty liberal across the board. If a liberal politician does not worship God he inevitably worships big government.
Such standards would mean no GOP nomination for Ronald Reagan...
It would be interesting to see the reactions of liberals if you substituted "slavery" for "abortion" in that argument.
Israel benefits from some of our American tax dollars, yes, but rather than argue that here (since it is not the point of this thread), I will just cite Adelson “in his own words”... so we can be fair about this. Adelson is very open about his concern for Israel, yes. And then he goes on (at greater length) to express his concerns about Obama’s new type of Democratic party and the current Democratic party economic and tax policy positions — which he believes are a significant departure from the past, and which he believes will do great harm to America and our economy. In short, Adelson is no more a “one issue” contributor than Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney were “one issue” candidates. And at least he put his money up where his mouth is, and he worked hard for the Republican ticket, something many of our critics right now failed to do. Look, either we work together now or else we do another “circular firing squad” and lose again in 2016. 8 years of HusseinO and then 8 years of what, Hillary? Why not let’s all try to pull the oars as a team this time?
good point, although I wouldn’t want to impose a “life-long” test (which would have barred, say, Ronald Reagan for sure!)
but yes, it was frustrating to see some pretty good candidates ripping each other to shreds... all HusseinO had to do was sit back and watch (and laugh)...
That worked for a time, then the dykes broke!
Instead of “lifelong republican” we should have made the standard, “could not have left the GOP because it was to conservative”, that would have excluded Mitt Romney, who left the GOP and did not rejoin until after the Reagan Revolution and his veep’s presidency was over.
I still think that JimRob and the AdminMods should have kept up the booting of Paulbots and Romney supporters... :p
Wouldn’t have made much of a difference in the last fraudulent election, but it would have cleaned up the place a bit.
Just noticed you were a chopper driver :D
My pop was one too... first time he handed my the cyclic I was 11yo (stupid on his part, but his hand was mm from his side, and made a great recovery ;))
Can fly one now, but never licensed.
Romney was probably no more a Republican than Obama is a Democrat... indeed, Romney’s general values were quite akin to the regular Dem party... whereas HusseinO’s are patently Marxist/Islamofascist (sort of a hybrid really) and there are tons of D party members who are very concerned and discouraged what’s happened to the D party (that it has been usurped or taken over by an extremist radical fringe, or whatever)
so both parties nominated “non-traditional candidates”
or candidates outside their “main streams”
that’s as far as I can go with this, I don’t know why or what’s happening (other than in the D party there has been some major, major funding coming in from anti-American, largely foreign, Islamicist sources... which would explain the D party problem at least in part... but this was known in 2008 and the R’s said nothing and did nothing about it... which I can’t explain, either)
I remember about six months ago when a bunch of Freepers around here thought that this guy was the cat’s meow.