The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What's So Bad About George Soros? (According to Glenn Beck, he caused the Holocaust!)
Evander
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
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.
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
0
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
Wait, no, I'm thinking of another guy who owes me $40.
Who the hell is George Soros?
Oh; here he is: Wikipedia.
Sounds like a real monster.
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
of course the media will take any kind of personal defense as a reason to make a story bigger
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.
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.
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)
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.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
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.
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.
And yet we are supposed to have no problem with Rupert Murdoch.
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.
***This is the first time that sentence has ever been typed accurately and unironically.
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)
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."
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.
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!"
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.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
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!
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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
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.
But most conservatives who bitch about George Soros don't actually give a fuck about that.
All the lies and smears they can come up with are fair game.
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.
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.
After your goosery in the thread about Democrats this is laughable.
Eh, my understanding is that he short-sold a currency that looked like it was going to tank anyway.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So if he funded conservative things there would be nothing wrong with his tactics?
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.