As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

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

245

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Yeah but Soros isn't made out to be the anti christ by the right because he short-sold currency.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered 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.

    It wouldn't have happened without Soros engineering the play. It was definitely a dick thing to do. In fairness though, I would do so much worse for $1,000,000,000.

    Deebaser on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    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.

    Yeah fucking right. It wasn't a fucking lunatic policy not based in any way in real world economics. It was him that fucked England.

    zeeny on
  • KakodaimonosKakodaimonos Code fondler Helping the 1% get richerRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'd say the crisises he caused in Thailand and Malaysia were as bad or worse. Though in all three cases he found countries that weren't willing to allow a complete currency float and by using enough of his capital, he was able to short the currency enough to make maintaining a currency peg cost prohibitive.

    Kakodaimonos on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I don't like what he did, but my patchy knowledge of what he has done with the money internationally (I'm not American, so what he does with his cash there doesn't really worry me) partially makes up for that.

    Here is the Sourcewatch.org page on Soros

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    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?

    His money making tactics would still make him an asshole. But the people accepting it wouldn't be full of shit hypocrites.

    It's like claiming to help the Jews while taking money from Hitler. You deserve to be called on stupid shit like that, and can't have your claims about being a nice guy taken remotely seriously.

    Soros is dragged out because he is an effective proof that the Democrats are either utterly full of shit, or willing to sleep with the devil in order to get a buck. Either way, dragging him out is a great tactic for the right, and makes the left look stupid.

    nstf on
  • GoumindongGoumindong 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.

    Which isn't relevant. England was artifically holding up the pound. It was going to tank anyway. That Soros made a bunch of money on it is irrelevant. If he didn't others would have (and maybe in an even greater amount for a longer period of time, since the longer England was able to hold up the Pound, the more resources they would have to expend in aggregate to do so). This is not a case of Soros bringing down the BoE. This is a case of the BoE bringing themselves down and Soros being the lucky guy who was there to profit. This is not like shorting MBS that you yourself put together and sold. This is a case of a large, sophisticated institution attempting to achieve impossible economic aims by pegging a failing currency and one guy saying "well, might as well help them along"

    As I said, lets not talk about the economic implications of this. Its complicated and most of you have no clue what is going on except that WHARRBLGLARRBL lots of money.

    edit: speculators are generally unable to impact a currency peg individually (pretty much. no one is large enough to short a national bank alone[especially England], you will fail). If speculators are able to short a currency it generally means that the peg is fundamentally unsound and is no longer able to achieve its objectives.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    It's like claiming to help the Jews while taking money from Hitler.

    Oskar Schindler

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Most of the arguments I've heard against him almost always slide into "Elders of Zion" territory.

    Jademonkey79 on
    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    NY Times wrote:
    The highest court in France on Wednesday rejected a bid by George Soros, the billionaire investor, to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html

    Soros made ~$3 billion on the illegal deal. People got upset at Martha Stewart for using insider info to avoid a loss of $45k. This isn't some nice guy, whether you agree with his politics or not, anymore than Carnegie or Rockefeller were.

    BubbaT on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    To be fair, I think most of the people who got mad at Stewart already disliked her anyway.

    Captain Carrot on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    NY Times wrote:
    The highest court in France on Wednesday rejected a bid by George Soros, the billionaire investor, to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html

    Soros made ~$3 billion on the illegal deal. People got upset at Martha Stewart for using insider info to avoid a loss of $45k. This isn't some nice guy, whether you agree with his politics or not, anymore than Carnegie or Rockefeller were.

    I generally felt like the whole thing about Martha Stewart was way overblown in the media.

    Feral on
    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.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    IIRC Stewart violated a clear and obvious rule. I.E. trading in things she was not allowed to trade in due to her position. But I cannot be sure.

    It does not seem that this is the case with Soros. The authorities seem to disagree on whether or not it was an issue.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • HavelockHavelock 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.

    Yeah, I thought it was pretty hilarious myself.

    (From the Democrat thread)
    nstf wrote: »

    I'm not persecuted at all. Things are rather nice for me. And I don't mind supporting the biggotry of the left, it pays my bills. Nor do I care if their policies fuck over some shmuck in western VA. I also love end of year bonuses I can get and faster promotions by making sure my staff is the most diverse! Hell, that's how ousted one of my old bosses :mrgreen: and took over.

    But I won't kid myself that the biggotry of the left, and the rewards offered for engaging in it make even the radical elements of tea party look tolerant. I'll just reap the rewards for it. Because honestly, hurray for me.

    Ultimately those policies help me as a well off white asshole. And they let me game the system, and they give me a pay check completely funded by people even more well off. That it's fucking over other people doesn't impact me, because I'm not the one getting screwed in it.
    Though since I admit that truth about the Democratic party, I can at least sleep well. Because even though I'm voting for what could be described as a hate organization, and actively screwing people with that vote, I'm not lying to myself about it. And at least I'm honest that while it's a horrible organization, in the end my vote for the left is all about me getting mine, and I don't care who it screws over as long as I get it.

    And that's the honest truth of the matter.

    If the right offered me a way to suck more things from more people and improve my lot even more. I'd sell out and vote for those crooked suckers in a second. Even if they banned abortions and promised to kill off the gays. Just as long as it was better for me.

    edit* So Soros sounds kind of like a sociopath, after reading BubbaT's links.

    welp.

    o_O

    Havelock on
  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    IIRC Stewart violated a clear and obvious rule. I.E. trading in things she was not allowed to trade in due to her position. But I cannot be sure.

    It does not seem that this is the case with Soros. The authorities seem to disagree on whether or not it was an issue.

    She was not an insider, and could not be held to the standards of an insider.

    She was convicted on a count of perjury IIRC.

    adytum on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    IIRC Stewart violated a clear and obvious rule. I.E. trading in things she was not allowed to trade in due to her position. But I cannot be sure.

    It does not seem that this is the case with Soros. The authorities seem to disagree on whether or not it was an issue.

    If anything, Stewart's offenses were lesser. The actual insider trading charge against her was dropped (she was convicted on obstruction of justice charges), Soros' were upheld. Stewart's alleged informant was her broker, Soros' was a direct participant in the influencing of the stock price (Soros himself was asked to join the takeover bid). Both claimed their actions were part of a pre-existing investment plan.

    This isn't the only financial scandal he's been associated with either
    Hungary's financial watchdog PSZAF has fined New York-based Soros Fund Management LLC 489 million forints ($2.20 million) for deals in OTP OTPB.BANK shares which broke Hungarian laws, PSZAF said on Thursday.
    ...
    The watchdog said on its www.pszaf.hu home page that it fined the company for deals struck on Oct. 9 last year, which led to a plunge in the price of OTP shares, and by which Soros Fund Management LLC influenced prices illegally.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ73567320090326


    There's also a pretty startling lack of empathy for any of the people who have been hurt by his business practices.
    BRANCACCIO: Does it worry you, for instance, that maybe some of your actions in the past would have hurt some people, when you withdrew capital from certain countries?

    SOROS: Yes. No, you see you can't… as a market participant, if you want to be successful, I think you just have to look out for your own interests.

    BRANCACCIO: It sounds amoral.

    SOROS: Pardon?

    BRANCACCIO: It sounds amoral.

    SOROS: It is amoral. Now, it's very often understood and understood as immoral. And that is a very different, being immoral. If you hurt people deliberately or you know, that's immoral. If you break the law, that's immoral. If you play by the rules, that is the market itself is amoral.

    If you impose morality on it, it means that you are actually with your hands tied behind your back and you're not going to be successful. It's extremely hard to be successful.
    http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_soros.html

    I mean, even BP's Tony Hayward at least showed some level of remorse and sympathy for the people whose lives his company destroyed. Soros' "Oh well, shit happens, who cares about everybody else as long as I got mine" attitude sounds, frankly, like that of a sociopath.

    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    BubbaT on
  • Alfred J. KwakAlfred J. Kwak is it because you were insulted when I insulted your hair?Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    All in all, it sounds like this guy did bring a lot more bad than good to the world, which is probably not the reason why the right dislikes him though.

    Alfred J. Kwak on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    All in all, it sounds like this guy did bring a lot more bad than good to the world, which is probably not the reason why the right dislikes him though.

    Its because he funds democrats, pure and simple.

    The right wouldn't give a rats ass about him if he funded Republicans, in fact they would probably be talking all the time about how this great guy who gives them loads of money.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    It's like claiming to help the Jews while taking money from Hitler.

    Whatever else he is, the man is a Holocaust survivor.

    That is extremely poor taste.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.

    Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.

    Evander on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.

    Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.

    Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.

    Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.

    nstf on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE

    Don't strawman, since no one said he should live in shame. People just find it --rightfully, I think-- creepy that he wouldn't feel guilty about it.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.

    Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.

    Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.

    Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.

    You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.



    This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    edit: nescientist said it better

    Evander on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE

    Don't strawman, since no one said he should live in shame. People just find it --rightfully, I think-- creepy that he wouldn't feel shame about it.

    synonym inserted to show why this is hilarious to me

    nescientist on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE

    Don't strawman, since no one said he should live in shame. People just find it --rightfully, I think-- creepy that he wouldn't feel guilty about it.

    that fact was brought up as an attack on his character.

    Not having gone through what he went through, I don't believe that anyone here has the right to pass judgement on whether or not that particular thing is "creepy". What he lived through is INCREDIBLY heavy, and the fact that he has made his peace with it over the intervening decades is not a point to attack the man on.

    nescientist, there's a difference between saying someone would feel guilt or shame about a past action and saying someone should forever live in guilt or shame because of that action. That you don't recognize this is hilarious to me.

    Evander, that someone doesn't experience remorse or guilt is a very valid reason to be worried about the quality of their character. DSM-IV and such.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I always find it funny when you have a party who prides itself on letting businesses and businessmen do whatever they want, get pissed off by a guy who does what they love, does it better, but then puts that money against their interests.

    "No, he's the bad kind of businessman. He's corrupt."

    He's still a chode, but let's not split hairs here.

    Jademonkey79 on
    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    nescientist, there's a difference between saying someone would feel guilt or shame about a past action and saying someone should forever live in guilt or shame because of that action. That you don't recognize this is hilarious to me.

    It seems like a matter of degree, and I'm not at all convinced that it's meaningful. I don't think Evander meant to imply that people were suggesting Soros ought to be wracked with guilt every waking second, I think he was talking about precisely the same thing you were; that he ought to express remorse that he did a bad thing. I don't think, given the context of the bad thing he did, that it is at all appropriate to expect him to express remorse. In fact I think it's unbelievably goosey to take him to task on that account.

    Insider trading, though? Fuck that guy. Not that I needed another reason to hate a rich dude; I am a leftist after all.

    nescientist on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.

    Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.

    Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.

    Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.

    You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.



    This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.

    Completely. Personal story, but I guess applicable to this thread. My dad is in his 80's now, he's Hungarian. He came home and his entire family had been carted off and he got caught by the Nazi's. He went to Aushwitz, Berknow, and Drakow. Survived all of them. Mainly by making sure he worked the ovens since the labor was easier there and making eagles out of soap and tar for the Nazi's.

    Three members survived, all of them evidently did various things to save their hides. One is in Israel, the other died about a decade ago.

    My dad has a personal war with the holocaust museum, mainly because several of the pictures he had were far to "graphic" to be displayed, and having seen them and seen what's there, that place looks like Disney theme park.

    So you don't have to lecture me about what people had to do, nor do you have to lecture me about what is, and isn't, a fair attack. Completely on the other hand, Soros sorry fate has been used shied him from valid attacks.

    nstf on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE

    Don't strawman, since no one said he should live in shame. People just find it --rightfully, I think-- creepy that he wouldn't feel guilty about it.

    that fact was brought up as an attack on his character.

    Not having gone through what he went through, I don't believe that anyone here has the right to pass judgement on whether or not that particular thing is "creepy". What he lived through is INCREDIBLY heavy, and the fact that he has made his peace with it over the intervening decades is not a point to attack the man on.

    nescientist, there's a difference between saying someone would feel guilt or shame about a past action and saying someone should forever live in guilt or shame because of that action. That you don't recognize this is hilarious to me.

    Evander, that someone doesn't experience remorse or guilt is a very valid reason to be worried about the quality of their character. DSM-IV and such.

    You are blaming the victim, saying that a survivor is a bad man for not experiencing enough survivor's guilt.

    Having watched my grandfather wracked with survivor's guilt in his waning years, i can't help but wonder what kind of monster YOU are, for wishing such a thing on a person lucky enough to have moved beyond it?

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    That's what bugs me about the Nazi stuff too - not that he did it (to avoid likely death), but the apparent lack of remorse.
    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


    I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.

    Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.

    Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.

    Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.

    You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.



    This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.

    Completely. Personal story, but I guess applicable to this thread. My dad is in his 80's now, he's Hungarian. He came home and his entire family had been carted off and he got caught by the Nazi's. He went to Aushwitz, Berknow, and Drakow. Survived all of them. Mainly by making sure he worked the ovens since the labor was easier there and making eagles out of soap and tar for the Nazi's.

    Three members survived, all of them evidently did various things to save their hides. One is in Israel, the other died about a decade ago.

    My dad has a personal war with the holocaust museum, mainly because several of the pictures he had were far to "graphic" to be displayed, and having seen them and seen what's there, that place looks like Disney theme park.

    So you don't have to lecture me about what people had to do, nor do you have to lecture me about what is, and isn't, a fair attack. Completely on the other hand, Soros sorry fate has been used shied him from valid attacks.

    There is nothing valid about comparing him to a supporter of Hitler, and you damn well know it. You know it better than most of the folks in this thread.

    Shall we move beyond this, though? I want to hear a greater explaination from you about why a man who has done ill in the past should not be allowed to do good in the present. WHy is it better for charities to refuse his money, rather than to let some good finally come of it?

    Evander on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    nescientist, there's a difference between saying someone would feel guilt or shame about a past action and saying someone should forever live in guilt or shame because of that action. That you don't recognize this is hilarious to me.

    It seems like a matter of degree, and I'm not at all convinced that it's meaningful. I don't think Evander meant to imply that people were suggesting Soros ought to be wracked with guilt every waking second, I think he was talking about precisely the same thing you were; that he ought to express remorse that he did a bad thing. I don't think, given the context of the bad thing he did, that it is at all appropriate to expect him to express remorse. In fact I think it's unbelievably goosey to take him to task on that account.

    Insider trading, though? Fuck that guy. Not that I needed another reason to hate a rich dude; I am a leftist after all.

    I think Evander meant to misrepresent the degree intentionally and hugely, and that's strawmanning, so I point it out.

    Given how many sociopaths experienced extreme trauma in earlier life and then later failed to express guilt or a sense of empathy, I think his experience in the holocaust is no reason to give him a free pass when evaluating just what sort of person he is. Especially given repeated statements about lack of remorse on his part in other matters (like bombing the economies of a couple countries to make a quick buck.)

    No, I'm not blaming the victim, I'm saying that evaluating someone on their behaviour is valid, whether they experienced the holocaust or not, considering how traumatic events often warp human beings.
    Having watched my grandfather wracked with survivor's guilt in his waning years, i can't help but wonder what kind of monster YOU are, for wishing such a thing on a person lucky enough to have moved beyond it?

    Most of my family is Russian, and emigrated to Canada after the second world war to try and get away from the trauma they'd experienced in German camps. I just don't bring it up in D&D to try and score cheap emotional points in a debate. Also because I wasn't fucking one of them and I'd feel like a little prick if I ever tried something like usurping their grief for the sake of an argument. Maybe you should go share your story with fox news, they like that sort of thing. You monster.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Honestly, I think most of the ire is directed at him because he is foreign and not afraid to be public about his philanthropy.

    People don't like foreigners trying to influence elections, plain and simple. If Soros kept his philanthropy to charitable causes, no one would care, but the minute you throw large amounts of money into politics you become something more than just a concerned party, as money has such a strong determinant factor on election outcomes.

    He's seen as a Manchurian, and I can't really argue against that.

    Atomika on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hmmmm. I wonder if a lot of people feel the same way (for the same reasons) about Rupert Murdoch.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So, your russian family were all sociopathes?

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than trying to defend heinous comments?

    Evander on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we just agree that Godwinning a Holocaust survivor is extremely stupid and move on? Soros being a businessman isn't news.

    Fencingsax on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    So, your russian family were all sociopathes?

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than trying to defend heinous comments?

    Actually, yeah, one of them sure was.

    If you don't know what I'm getting at, it's because you're not trying or lack a functional understanding of psychology (you aren't an idiot, so I'll assume the former rather than the latter.)

    I don't know why you made this post, other than to try and defend your use of insults over rational discourse.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    So, your russian family were all sociopathes?

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than trying to defend heinous comments?

    Actually, yeah, one of them sure was.

    If you don't know what I'm getting at, it's because you're not trying or lack a functional understanding of psychology (you aren't an idiot, so I'll assume the former rather than the latter.)

    I don't know why you made this post, other than to try and defend your use of insults over rational discourse.

    there is nothing rational about attacking a holocaust survivor for not feeling bad enough about the fact that he survived.

    Evander on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    And no one is doing that. Keep strawmanning, though, maybe sooner or later some of that mud you're throwing will stick. People are curious that he doesn't feel guilt for collaborating with nazis against his fellows or trashing economies for profit.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    "collaborating with nazis"?

    he was a teenager forced to confiscate Jewish property in order to survive.

    That si not "collaberation", and the fact that you insist on calling it that belies your entire agenda on this point.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.