You need to use correct semantics: Socialism - government ownership of the means of production. Liberal - someone in favour of liberty. Agnostic - someone not sure if a divine being exists or not Atheist - someone who does not believe in a divine being. Idiot - someone who thinks it's possible to prove something does not exist
I'm an atheist and I don't have any faith that I know there is no god. I simply see no evidence of god and thus don't believe in one, much like I see no evidence of little green men from mars and thus I don't believe in them. If they turn up, or god turns up, I'll change my mind. What would change your mind about the existence of god?
1. then by traditional definitions and still what seems to be most major dictionary definitions you are an agnostic. Atheists state they know there is no God. They are not being rational. In fact they oddly take on the challenge you describe as idiotic. Regarding your other definitions... most I agree with and I have been using... but 2. liberals have changed the name. Classical liberals believed in freedom and liberty and small government. Current liberals believe in big govt and less liberty. Which is why Reagan said he didn't change his party did.
You are simply wrong. I am atheist. I know there is no god because it's never been proven. If god shows up, my mind changes and I now believe. My beliefs are based strictly on facts. It's all about probabilities. Is there a chance god could exist? Sure, I suppose. But I give that possibility a very, very low probability based on the current facts.
Yes, but I doubt either would tell you the truth....you could try poking around and talk to third parties who were around the time they were partners.....I bet people already tried to get interviews and got nowhere......I have read somewhere that they had some personality issues, but that can be as much Rogers fault as Soros'... I hope you all realize that Soros does not trade actively and his hedge fund has trader/director(s) for day to day operations....
I'd like to see a picture of them together from that time but that has been unable to be found as well. As Daal mentioned in this topic Soros has commented Rogers was being to obnoxious to his liking so they split but I'm sure there is another side to that story as well. I have always found their partnership to be very intriguing given they still individually catch headlines when they speak 30 years later yet have opposite views on many market issues if not all. Hard to see them collaborating but then again perhaps that was wat made it work.
his reputation is still questionable in Asia and East European. And now, his is barking on the wrong tree, which makes him even less likable. Anyway, is he trying get out his short EUR position? If I remembered correctly, that he got caught shorting HKD during Asian Financial crisis.