Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

What's So Bad About George Soros? (According to Glenn Beck, he caused the Holocaust!)

EvanderEvander Registered User regular
edited November 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Educate me, please.

George Soros was recently outed as being a large donor (not the largest, nor a founding donor, but three quarters of a mil over three years) to an organization that I support, and people are up in arms in a way that I don't quite understand. I mean, I can see that he has maybe had some shady business dealings in the past, but no worse than plenty of conservative icons, and yet conservatives seem to see him as satan. Now, I guess I can understand that maybe it is a politics thing, as the guy seems to be just socially progressive, supporting organizations like the ACLU and MoveOn.org, but what seems to odd to me is that no liberals seem to want to step forward to defend him. Is that because he is a free marketeer, and that just gets associated with conservatism, which confuses everyone as to what Soros is, or is there something more going on with him that I'm missing?

I mean, I can't say that I like the sound of short selling currency, and all, but when a dude pulls that shit and gives money to conservative groups, he is considered a patriot. Dude doing the same and giving the money to progressive groups has no defenders? It just seems like I'm missing something.

Evander on
georgersig.jpg
«1345

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    There's nothing wrong with George Soros. He's just an easy scapegoat for right wing blogger whargarbling.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with George Soros. He's just an easy scapegoat for right wing blogger whargarbling.

    That was kind of my impression, but why does no one seem to come out to defend him, then? When I started researching the man (after his contributions were outed) all I could find were (clearly biased) attacks, no defense of him, and barely anything neutral.

    georgersig.jpg
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    That guy is a total goosebag.

    Wait, no, I'm thinking of another guy who owes me $40.

    Who the hell is George Soros?

    Oh; here he is: Wikipedia.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    In August 2009, Soros donated $35 million to the state of New York to be ear-marked for under-privileged children and given to parents who had benefit cards at the rate of $200 per child aged 3 through 17, with no limit as to the number of children that qualified. An additional $140 million was put into the fund by the state of New York from money they had received from the 2009 federal recovery act.

    Sounds like a real monster.

    sigtwo.png
  • YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we have a bit more context on who George Soros is and why some right wing media thinks we should hate him? I mean, that is enough to give him a +1 positive reaction in my book, but some more details would be nice.

    Damn it, it's fucking noon. I demand to know if Yami shit on a desk yet.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we have a bit more context on who George Soros is and why some right wing media thinks we should hate him? I mean, that is enough to give him a +1 positive reaction in my book, but some more details would be nice.

    What I've gathered is that he is a Hungarian Holocaust survivor and agnostic/atheist Jew who made billions of dollars in various markets, sometimes resorting to rather shady tactics possibly, and that he is also an incredibly generous philanthropist who gives a lot of money to causes that would generally fall under the "progressive" umbrella. He has also been rather vocal in the past about his opposition to various conservative and neoconservative values and/or schemes.

    Like I said, other than potential issues with his business practices, I can't see what is so wrong with the guy, but the seemingly complete lack of a defense for him out there makes me wonder what is going on.

    georgersig.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we have a bit more context on who George Soros is and why some right wing media thinks we should hate him? I mean, that is enough to give him a +1 positive reaction in my book, but some more details would be nice.

    He's a Hungarian Jew who immigrated to the US when he was young, made billions of dollars in currency speculation, and is now not only one of the richest men in the US but he also bankrolls Democratic presidential candidates and liberal causes.

    Why are we supposed to hate him? Well, he's a foreigner who bankrolls Democratic presidential candidates and liberal causes.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    He sounds like Bill Gates.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People always make a case of "well if he's innocent why isn't he defending himself"

    of course the media will take any kind of personal defense as a reason to make a story bigger

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Just full disclosure, or whatever, the organization in question is J Street.

    I haven't seen any other J Street supports upset over this news (and I don't think anyone is actually surprised) but now there are rumblings of the Obama administration distancing themselves from J Street as a result of the Soros revelation, which, if Soros is a big Democratic donor, seems EVEN MORE odd.

    georgersig.jpg
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well, to be fair his money influencing politics isn't really any better than other monied donors influencing politics unduly. Support for his personal stances doesn't mean that buying votes is a good thing. On the other hand, conservatives bitching about this is laughable.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People always make a case of "well if he's innocent why isn't he defending himself"

    of course the media will take any kind of personal defense as a reason to make a story bigger

    I'm not talking personal defense, and I'm SURE AS HELL NOT trying to build a case against the man.

    I'm just wondering why a million liberal bloggers aren't up in arms bickering with the conservative bloggers about how awesome Soros is.

    It feels like people have just accepted that you're not supposed to say his name in polite company, or something, and considering the good the man does, that seems weird.

    georgersig.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The short answer is there isn't unless you believe that acting against your economic interest is impossible and people cannot be altruistic. Which is a widely held belief among conservatives when it comes to politics (imo they are projecting a bit)

    I.E. Soros isn't trying to make himself richer, so he must be part of some conspiracy to take over the world for socialism.

    Edit: Liberal bloggers don't defend him because it won't work. The worldview cannot be changed, you will just be lumped into the socialist soros conspiracy that is trying to take over the world. It will be seen as more evidence that the conspiracy exists.

    Edit2: Soros isn't closed about his donations. See the recent New Yorker article on Koch for more info. Also a 2004 article on Soros (which I have yet to read)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    yeah, I will admit that it is absolutely hilarious to watch people call a self-made billionaire currency speculator a socialist.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well, there was recently a prominent Canadian right-wing blowhard and wingnut welfare recipient who lost his shit about George Soros, and from that incident I learned that, as a teenager, George Soros worked for the Jewish Council in Hungary (that was the administrative body that existed between the Jews in occupied countries/territories and the Nazis) and lied to the Nazis about being the Christian godson of a sympathetic Hungarian official and that probably played a role in his surviving the Holocaust.

    Christine O'Donnell taught me that lying to the Nazis is wrong, so that makes George Soros a very bad man. Also he's a self-made billionaire, which means that by their own ethos, he is an objectively better human being than any of them, or perhaps all of them combined. Since he doesn't support the Republicans, the only explanation that avoids terminal cognitive dissonance is that George Soros is in league with Satan.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People always make a case of "well if he's innocent why isn't he defending himself"

    of course the media will take any kind of personal defense as a reason to make a story bigger

    I'm not talking personal defense, and I'm SURE AS HELL NOT trying to build a case against the man.

    I'm just wondering why a million liberal bloggers aren't up in arms bickering with the conservative bloggers about how awesome Soros is.

    It feels like people have just accepted that you're not supposed to say his name in polite company, or something, and considering the good the man does, that seems weird.

    Maybe the right's issue with him is so flimsy there's really nothing to talk about.

    honestly aside form this thread I'm yet to hear anything about him that isn't part of a REID/PELOSI/SOROS!!!! rant.

  • YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I haven't heard his name before this thread at all.

    Damn it, it's fucking noon. I demand to know if Yami shit on a desk yet.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well first, billionaires rarely need defending by the hoi polloi.

    Second, it's not a good time politically to be defending any robber barons, regardless of whether the politicians they've bought are on "your side" or not.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Can we have a bit more context on who George Soros is and why some right wing media thinks we should hate him? I mean, that is enough to give him a +1 positive reaction in my book, but some more details would be nice.

    He's a Hungarian Jew who immigrated to the US when he was young, made billions of dollars in currency speculation, and is now not only one of the richest men in the US but he also bankrolls Democratic presidential candidates and liberal causes.

    Why are we supposed to hate him? Well, he's a foreigner who bankrolls Democratic presidential candidates and liberal causes.

    And yet we are supposed to have no problem with Rupert Murdoch.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People always make a case of "well if he's innocent why isn't he defending himself"

    of course the media will take any kind of personal defense as a reason to make a story bigger

    I'm not talking personal defense, and I'm SURE AS HELL NOT trying to build a case against the man.

    I'm just wondering why a million liberal bloggers aren't up in arms bickering with the conservative bloggers about how awesome Soros is.

    It feels like people have just accepted that you're not supposed to say his name in polite company, or something, and considering the good the man does, that seems weird.

    There's sometimes a weird disconnect/guilt on the upper-class left (i.e. the most vocal left) that makes them avoid anyone with too much money or any sort of class politics like the plague.

    As opposed to the middle-class/poor left which is more willing to call a spade a spade and consider Soros a relatively charitable fellow despite making billions.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    yeah, I will admit that it is absolutely hilarious to watch people call a self-made billionaire currency speculator a socialist.

    He is also an economist in the Alan Greenspan model. (I.E. no degree education, semi-formal) except that he is a lot smarter and has written more on the issues.

    He also spent a bunch of money to set up this

    http://ineteconomics.org/

    Which I quite like since I think Econ needs a better spokesperson than the Chicago school (and then as a liberal whipping boy, Paul Krugman)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well, there was recently a prominent Canadian right-wing blowhard and wingnut welfare recipient who lost his shit about George Soros, and from that incident I learned that, as a teenager, George Soros worked for the Jewish Council in Hungary (that was the administrative body that existed between the Jews in occupied countries/territories and the Nazis) and lied to the Nazis about being the Christian godson of a sympathetic Hungarian official and that probably played a role in his surviving the Holocaust.

    Christine O'Donnell taught me that lying to the Nazis is wrong, so that makes George Soros a very bad man. Also he's a self-made billionaire, which means that by their own ethos, he is an objectively better human being than any of them, or perhaps all of them combined. Since he doesn't support the Republicans, the only explanation that avoids terminal cognitive dissonance is that George Soros is in league with Satan.

    Apparently it went beyond this to the point where he was actualy (in order to survive, mind you) making rounds with nazi officials, and confiscating Jewish property.



    People did what they had to do to survive. Confiscating property isn't great, but it also isn't murder, and he was a boy with no other choice. It actually really pisses me off to see random conservatives bringing this part up. I have never been one to say "the Holocaust is a thing that only the Jews have a right to", but I will gladly go on record saying "what one Jew did to another Jew during the Holocaust is a private Jewish matter that you need some sort of familiarity to understand."

    georgersig.jpg
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Just full disclosure, or whatever, the organization in question is J Street.

    I haven't seen any other J Street supports upset over this news (and I don't think anyone is actually surprised) but now there are rumblings of the Obama administration distancing themselves from J Street as a result of the Soros revelation, which, if Soros is a big Democratic donor, seems EVEN MORE odd.

    Yeah I guessed this was the case

    The problem with Soros here has nothing to do with his progressivism -- it's that he doesn't toe the AIPAC line. If you support J Street I'm sure you understand how insanely uncompromising the Israel lobby is and how disciplined there are about trying to shut out anyone who proposes Israel policies even slightly out of their prescribed list of acceptable stances.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    Because in America for some reason it's better to have a guy donate money through his company instead of personally and I will never understand why.

    I see it all the time, too. Rich guy donates on his own, "what does he want? What's he hiding?". Same guy donates through WidgetCorp, "Man, WidgetCorp is awesome!"

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Well, there was recently a prominent Canadian right-wing blowhard and wingnut welfare recipient who lost his shit about George Soros, and from that incident I learned that, as a teenager, George Soros worked for the Jewish Council in Hungary (that was the administrative body that existed between the Jews in occupied countries/territories and the Nazis) and lied to the Nazis about being the Christian godson of a sympathetic Hungarian official and that probably played a role in his surviving the Holocaust.

    Christine O'Donnell taught me that lying to the Nazis is wrong, so that makes George Soros a very bad man. Also he's a self-made billionaire, which means that by their own ethos, he is an objectively better human being than any of them, or perhaps all of them combined. Since he doesn't support the Republicans, the only explanation that avoids terminal cognitive dissonance is that George Soros is in league with Satan.

    Apparently it went beyond this to the point where he was actualy (in order to survive, mind you) making rounds with nazi officials, and confiscating Jewish property.



    People did what they had to do to survive. Confiscating property isn't great, but it also isn't murder, and he was a boy with no other choice. It actually really pisses me off to see random conservatives bringing this part up. I have never been one to say "the Holocaust is a thing that only the Jews have a right to", but I will gladly go on record saying "what one Jew did to another Jew during the Holocaust is a private Jewish matter that you need some sort of familiarity to understand."

    Sorry, the post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, which maybe isn't the best choice with regard to anything dealing with such a serious matter. My actual outlook is pretty much what you said, that we aren't in a position to judge, and some doughy pundit who is primarily concerned that Soros funds his ideological opponents REALLY isn't in a position to judge.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Republicans despise him because he supports progressive/leftist causes.

    Democrats and left wingers appreciate the guy but are pragmatic about him. He has a lot of money from financial sources that some democrats disagree with (speculation, wall street as an actual service industry, etc.), he is a single individual rather than a group (lefties tend to prefer organizations over individuals), and because he's been around for a long time they realize they don't gain anything by supporting him personally -- since he doesn't run for office, is not really a public figure, etc.

    So he's attacked and doesn't spend the time or effort to defend himself, and leftists figure there's no point in spending a lot of time defending a rich, non-public figure who's simply supporting leftist causes monetarily. I appreciate the guy and wouldn't say mean things about him, but I don't think he needs any defending because I see most of the rightwing attacks as silly. So I don't defend him.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Because in America for some reason it's better to have a guy donate money through his company instead of personally and I will never understand why.

    Yeah, pretty much this.

    He's completely transparent about who he supports and where his money goes. That (combined with his immigrant status) makes him an easy target.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    George Soros is liberal and therefore evil and must be destroyed. That's it.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Just full disclosure, or whatever, the organization in question is J Street.

    I haven't seen any other J Street supports upset over this news (and I don't think anyone is actually surprised) but now there are rumblings of the Obama administration distancing themselves from J Street as a result of the Soros revelation, which, if Soros is a big Democratic donor, seems EVEN MORE odd.


    Its because the democrats are strategically incompetent. See the thread "The Strategic Incompetence of the Democrats" for more info. Especially the conversation I had with Altalicious and Farticus's posts.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited September 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The short answer is there isn't unless you believe that acting against your economic interest is impossible and people cannot be altruistic. Which is a widely held belief among conservatives when it comes to politics (imo they are projecting a bit)

    I.E. Soros isn't trying to make himself richer, so he must be part of some conspiracy to take over the world for socialism.

    I was actually talking about this the other day - how you're not a Real Conservative and/or Capitalist unless you're of the "there's no such thing as owning too much money" mindset. Concluding that you have enough money, and then give it away? Goddamn socialist!

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    He's a bogeyman.

    Arguably the way he has amassed his fortune is something we shouldn't be very big fans of (ex: black wednesday), but this is rarely discussed by contemporary rightwing U.S. commentators.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • KakodaimonosKakodaimonos Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I find Soros' attempts to suddenly gain a conscience and become involved in various social somewhat hypocritical. I can appreciate that maybe he's had a change of heart and wants to do something decent with the money he made, but he was one of the most ruthless currency speculators out there.

    His shorting of the pound almost bankrupt England, he's partially responsible for asian currency crisis of 1997.

    A few quotes when he was an active speculator
    "It's not whether you're right or wrong that's important, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong."

    "I rely a great deal on animal instincts."

    I don't really give two shakes about what he's doing with his money, but his massive fortune does have a skeevy smell to it.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well, George Soros did once launch a speculative attack on the British pound, just because he could.

    But most conservatives who bitch about George Soros don't actually give a fuck about that.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    They target him for the same reason they targeted ACORN, because they are/were both effective entities for the progressive movement and democratic party.

    All the lies and smears they can come up with are fair game.

    sig.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Well, George Soros did once launch a speculative attack on the British pound, just because he could.

    But most conservatives who bitch about George Soros don't actually give a fuck about that.

    The social and economic implications of this are not entirely clear. Its probably best to discuss it in another thread, because even left leaning economic thinking cannot say that it is a for certain bad thing.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    George Soros is a gigantic asshole that amassed a fortune of ruining people. He tried to fuck over England and is responsible for numerous fiascos.

    The fact that someone like this is funding the "won't somebody think of the cows" party is a source of much hilarity. Because if they meant and actually cared about half the crap they went on about, they wouldn't be taking money from such a monster.

    As such it's really easy for the right to drag up as a "you're full of shit and we are going to rub your nose in it" tactic.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    George Soros is a gigantic asshole that amassed a fortune of ruining people.

    After your goosery in the thread about Democrats this is laughable.

    sig.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Well, George Soros did once launch a speculative attack on the British pound, just because he could.

    Eh, my understanding is that he short-sold a currency that looked like it was going to tank anyway.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    George Soros is a gigantic asshole that amassed a fortune of ruining people. He tried to fuck over England and is responsible for numerous fiascos.

    The fact that someone like this is funding the "won't somebody think of the cows" party is a source of much hilarity. Because if they meant and actually cared about half the crap they went on about, they wouldn't be taking money from such a monster.

    As such it's really easy for the right to drag up as a "you're full of shit and we are going to rub your nose in it" tactic.

    So if he funded conservative things there would be nothing wrong with his tactics?

    georgersig.jpg
  • KakodaimonosKakodaimonos Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Well, George Soros did once launch a speculative attack on the British pound, just because he could.

    Eh, my understanding is that he short-sold a currency that looked like it was going to tank anyway.

    He short sold enough to make over 1 billion dollars on it. That's a little different than just shorting a few thousand shares of stock. He wasn't the only one shorting the currency, but he was the biggest player out there.

«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.