a gofund me page to send spence to see bill and hillary live on tour....I hear they need the help getting people to show up for this thing...:rotf3:

a gofund me page to send spence to see bill and hillary live on tour....I hear they need the help getting people to show up for this thing...:rotf3:

they are playing some dinky arenas, that’s for sure, their stop in Wallingford CT is about the size of a high school gym. not exactly dripping with dignity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are playing some dinky arenas, that’s for sure, their stop in Wallingford CT is about the size of a high school gym. not exactly dripping with dignity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You don’t hold an intimate speaking event in Madison Square Garden there Jim. I think the fact that they can make millions off of this speaks volumes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don’t hold an intimate speaking event in Madison Square Garden there Jim. I think the fact that they can make millions off of this speaks volumes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe they should aim for something a little more intimate...


..as they gazed out at the more than 15,000 empty seats facing them last night in Toronto on their stadium speaking tour. Even though curtains were erected cutting the arena in half, the vacant seats far outnumbered the occupied ones. The U.K. Daily Mail reports that 3,300 tickets were sold in the Scotiabank Arena, which holds 19,800, 16.6% of capacity.

Perhaps even more humiliating, while ticket prices began at $53 (Canadian), the U.K. Daily Mail reported that "one ticket was going for $6.55 in the final minutes before the event."

Clinton-friendly CNN reports: And even Democrats loyal to the Clintons are questioning the decision to embark on the tour.

"I just think the optics of going to an event where people are paying to see them, and they are financially gaining from this, I am not sure that is the right way to reingratiate them back into the public sphere," said a former Clinton aide.

The very progressive Toronto Star's review of the performance headlined, "Hillary and Bill Clinton just won't go away."




:jester:

Extreme intimacy

The kind that echoes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe they should aim for something a little more intimate...
I believe they only sold seats for a portion of the arena, the rest was blocked off intentionally. Most of the other venues look to be 2500-5000 seats.

"While the aging Clintons spent much of the night bashing President Trump, they did so in front of a nearly empty room that proves just how out of touch they have both become."

in a related story...

another deranged former democrat president..

"I know we're in oil country and we need American energy, and by the way, American energy production," Obama told the audience gathered at Rice University's Baker Institute on Tuesday night. "You wouldn't always know it but it went up every year I was president. That whole, suddenly America's like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas – that was ME, people." ...

"Just say thank you please."

Half the people that showed up were told the were going to see The Nut Cracker, boy were they disappointed when they found out it wasn't the Ballet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don’t hold an intimate speaking event in Madison Square Garden there Jim. I think the fact that they can make millions off of this speaks volumes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so they aren’t playing dinky arenas
because they are morally bankrupt has-beens. It’s because they want an intimate setting! If by ‘intimate’, you mean that Bill wants a good
look at all the boobies in the crowd, I agree.

You can spin with the best of them. Never a critical syllable, not now, not ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the fact that they can make millions off of this speaks volumes.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


" I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. "

-Barak Obama


Newsweek-.

"So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed."

"He raked in $400,000–the equivalent to his annual presidential salary–for a 90-minute interview Thursday in midtown Manhattan, where he spoke with a presidential historian on things like income inequality.......But the Obamas are set to earn an unprecedented post-presidency income, "

" I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. "

-Barak Obama did he state how much that was ?


Newsweek-.

"So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed."

"He raked in $400,000–the equivalent to his annual presidential salary–for a 90-minute interview Thursday in midtown Manhattan, where he spoke with a presidential historian on things like income inequality.......But the Obamas are set to earn an unprecedented post-presidency income, "

Yet another example of the right hating Successful people.... based on you guessed it political party .... But have no issues with how Trump made his money .... LOL

Yet another example of the right hating Successful people.... based on you guessed it political party .... But have no issues with how Trump made his money .... LOL

are you including Elizabeth Warren and Newsweek in "the right"? LOL

bloomberg...https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-02/michelle-obama-book-she-and-barack-shouldn-t-get-too-rich

oooh..the guardian...you like those british sources https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/01/barack-obama-speaking-fees-economic-racial-justice

"His mission was never racial or economic justice. It’s time we stop pretending it was"



"There's only so much you can eat," he exclaimed with a grin. "There's only so big a house you can have. There's only so many nice trips you can take." Obama

After exiting the White House last year, the former president and Michelle Obama were photographed vacationing in various exotic locales around the world, including French Polynesia and Italy, among other spots. :rotf3:

are you including Elizabeth Warren and Newsweek in "the right"? LOL

bloomberg...https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-02/michelle-obama-book-she-and-barack-shouldn-t-get-too-rich

oooh..the guardian...you like those british sources https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/01/barack-obama-speaking-fees-economic-racial-justice

"His mission was never racial or economic justice. It’s time we stop pretending it was"



"There's only so much you can eat," he exclaimed with a grin. "There's only so big a house you can have. There's only so many nice trips you can take." Obama

After exiting the White House last year, the former president and Michelle Obama were photographed vacationing in various exotic locales around the world, including French Polynesia and Italy, among other spots. :rotf3:



Thanks for making my point. From Bloomberg

Deutsche Bank AG, the sprawling German financial giant, is in trouble again. And, to a certain extent, Deutsche's troubles are going to be President Donald Trump's troubles.


But you don’t have an issue with that why is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, Pete has been on a rampage lately against income inequality, but here you are defending the obamas right to become
billionaires.

Can we establish some consistent rules in when it’s ok to be wealthy, and when it’s not? It seems to me, that it’s totally fine for liberals to be wealthy, but sinister when anyone else gets wealthy. Is that what the rule
is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, Pete has been on a rampage lately against income inequality, but here you are defending the obamas right to become
billionaires.

Can we establish some consistent rules in when it’s ok to be wealthy, and when it’s not? It seems to me, that it’s totally fine for liberals to be wealthy, but sinister when anyone else gets wealthy. Is that what the rule
is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Seems like these wealthy liberals also give a ton to charity. Ever think they might be using their status to make money to help,people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems like these wealthy liberals also give a ton to charity. Ever think they might be using their status to make money to help,people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but wealthy conservatives don’t give money to charity? Is that what you’re saying?

my god you are precious...

In all seriousness, Spence are you saying that being uber wealthy is OK, as long as you didn’t cheat or
steal to accumulate it, and as long as you try and do some
good with it? Because i can get on board with that idea. But that’s NOT how today’s liberals view the wealthy. They say wealth is bad because if the concurrent existence of poverty. You sound like
you’re coming dangerously close to disagreeing with contemporary liberalism...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Spence, here’s an article
about the Koch Brothers’ charitable works. Should
we stop demonizing these guys , using your logic? Or does your logic ( that wealth is good if it’s used to help people) get applied selectively?

Boy are you backed into a corner now...

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/26/the-koch-brothers-gifts-to-society
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, Pete has been on a rampage lately against income inequality, but here you are defending the obamas right to become
billionaires.

Can we establish some consistent rules in when it’s ok to be wealthy, and when it’s not? It seems to me, that it’s totally fine for liberals to be wealthy, but sinister when anyone else gets wealthy. Is that what the rule
is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My rampage as you call it and one in which I have some very wealthy compatriots, has not been about Income inequality, but about Wealth inequality. They are different. And Wealth inequality has grown in the last 30 years, but like Global warming some choose not to believe in it.
Here's a simple example and why as an old Wealthy man told me once: "Never touch the principal"
Joe and Sam both have an income of $25,000 per year. But Joe has a net worth of $1 million, and Sam has a net worth of $0. Here we have no income inequality, and yet Joe flourishes, while Sam struggles to survive. This is a very simple illustration of why wealth is what really matters, rather than income.

My rampage as you call it and one in which I have some very wealthy compatriots, has not been about Income inequality, but about Wealth inequality. They are different. And Wealth inequality has grown in the last 30 years, but like Global warming some choose not to believe in it.
Here's a simple example and why as an old Wealthy man told me once: "Never touch the principal"
Joe and Sam both have an income of $25,000 per year. But Joe has a net worth of $1 million, and Sam has a net worth of $0. Here we have no income inequality, and yet Joe flourishes, while Sam struggles to survive. This is a very simple illustration of why wealth is what really matters, rather than income.

so when is it acceptable to you, for someone to accumulate massive wealth, thus contributing to wealth inequality? Are the Clintons evil
for doing so? Are the Obamas evil for doing so?

Wealth inequality wil
always increase as the economy grows, because wealthy people
have more to invest. Pete, would
you support a law, which tells
people that after their wealth surpasses a certain amount, that they are no longer allowed to work or to invest?

All of the bitching about wealth equality, is based on the demonstrably false
assumption, that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty, as if the economy is some
kind of see saw. One side goes up, the other must go down. It doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so when is it acceptable to you, for someone to accumulate massive wealth, thus contributing to wealth inequality? Are the Clintons evil
for doing so? Are the Obamas evil for doing so?

Wealth inequality wil
always increase as the economy grows, because wealthy people
have more to invest. Pete, would
you support a law, which tells
people that after their wealth surpasses a certain amount, that they are no longer allowed to work or to invest?

All of the bitching about wealth equality, is based on the demonstrably false
assumption, that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty, as if the economy is some
kind of see saw. One side goes up, the other must go down. It doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, there are not just 2 people on the see saw.
There are people spread out all over it.
And in the last 30 years there are fewer on the wealthy side and the ones in the middle are moving ever closer to the poor side.
I guess I should just realize that middle america is lazy, ignorant and makes poor choices and that is why it is shrinking.

Jim, there are not just 2 people on the see saw.
There are people spread out all over it.
And in the last 30 years there are fewer on the wealthy side and the ones in the middle are moving ever closer to the poor side.
I guess I should just realize that middle america is lazy, ignorant and makes poor choices and that is why it is shrinking.

i know how many people are on the see saw. The fact that it’s more than two doesn’t matter.

Pete, consider this example. You have a wealthy guy with a billion dollars in a savings account, earning 10 million a year in interest. Let’s say he’s upset about wealth inequality, so he takes his billion dollars out of the bank, and puts it in his mattress. He no longer has any income, so his wealth will never increase. Thus, wealth inequality is less than it would
be, if he kept earning 10 million a year in interest.

He has helped to reduce wealth inequality. BUT HOW IS ANYONE BETTER OFF? WHO HAS HE HELPED?

Let me ask the same question from another angle. If he left his money in the bank and earned another ten million, wealth inequality has increased. BUT WHO HAS HE HURT? at a minimum, he pays federal income tax on that 10m, which helps the feds fund the programs that you and i both like.

If he earns more income, he isnt hurting anybody - nobody. If he forgoes the income, he isn’t helping anybody - nobody.

I can’t put it any simpler than that, if i put it that way to my dog, he would see that i’m right, and he’s not even smart as dogs go. The man isn’t taking that 10m away from anyone else. no one is better off if he chooses not to pursue the additional income.

Your argument is based on the idea that if he doesn’t accept that 10 million, it’s then available to give to the poor. Not true. Either he gets it, or no one does. His act if putting money in the bank isn’t taking wealth away from anyone. It’s creating wealth that won’t exist unless he acts to create it.

Why do you give a damn if he keeps his money in the bank and earns 10 million a year? Why does it concern you?

How do you not see this? How?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"He" is not the problem, the fact that our current system has made it so that there is a greater and greater disparity is the problem. Extend the current trend and sooner or later our descendants will be serfs.
Here is how incomes have grown since 1982 by class
https://public.tableau.com/views/USIncomeGrowth1946-2014/Dashboard1?:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=yes

"He" is not the problem, the fact that our current system has made it so that there is a greater and greater disparity is the problem. Extend the current trend and sooner or later our descendants will be serfs.
Here is how incomes have grown since 1982 by class
https://public.tableau.com/views/USIncomeGrowth1946-2014/Dashboard1?:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=yes

Pete, stop switching and baiting. You keep going back and forth between income and wealth. After establishing that wealth was the important factor, you switch back here to income.

The chart you show here does not indicate that sooner or later, as you infer, our descendants will be serfs. All income levels grew, and most at substantial levels. That is not a trajectory heading toward serfdom. And we have safety nets for those who fall below the so-called poverty line. You consistently don't answer how income or wealth rates for the few growing at higher rates hurts those whose income grows at slower rates. You may be right, but if so, explain why.

Answer directly, in your own words, Jim's questions and examples instead of deflecting and switching.

"He" is not the problem, the fact that our current system has made it so that there is a greater and greater disparity is the problem. Extend the current trend and sooner or later our descendants will be serfs.
Here is how incomes have grown since 1982 by class
https://public.tableau.com/views/USIncomeGrowth1946-2014/Dashboard1?:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=yes

"He" is not the problem".

Agreed!! His wealth is not causing poverty!!

"the fact that our current system has made it so that there is a greater and greater disparity is the problem"

Wrong. You, like most liberals, are focusing on the disparity. The disparity isn't the problem, the poverty BY ITSELF, is the problem.

Compare a poor person to someone who is barely middle class.
Compare the poor person to someone who is upper middle class.
Compare the poor person to Bill Gates.

Those 3 comparisons show 3 very different disparities. Is the plight of the poor person any different, amongst those 3 comparisons? No. Because the disparity doesn't matter, all that matters is that the person is poor.

You focus on "the disparity" because a pillar of liberalism is that poor people didn't cause their own poverty, rather they have been victimized - either by a rich white guy, or by "the system".

You admitted that my hypothetical guy isn't the problem. If he's not the problem, than the disparity between his wealth and the wealth of a poor person, also isn't the problem.

The disparity isn't the cause of anything. It's the symptom. It's symptomatic of a culture where far too many people can't, or won't, do what it takes to not be poor.

How many poor people have degrees in engineering, or nursing, or accounting, or physical therapy, or education? How many poor people work in a trade or manufacturing, and work as hard as they can?

Stay in school. Get at least a B- average. Don't sleep around and create babies you aren't ready for. Either go to college, or community college, and get a degree that will lead to a job (stay away from useless majors). If you can't go to college, learn a trade. Don't have children unless you are in a stable, committed marriage.

That right there, is a recipe for avoiding poverty. You can't tell me that less than 90% of the population is perfectly capable of following that formula. For people who can't (like the disabled), I am happy and proud to pay taxes to fund programs to make you comfortable.

But there's another group of poor people. People who could follow those rules, but chose not to. I feel much less of an obligation to deny my children things, in order to help people who refused to listen to their parents and their teachers.

How do you fit a billion dollars in a mattress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you fit a billion dollars in a mattress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very carefully

How do you fit a billion dollars in a mattress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big denominations.

i answered your question, can you answer mine? Since you said that wealth isn’t a problem in the hands of liberals who are charitable, arebtoubalso OK with wealthbin the hands of conservatives who are charitable? Or do you only give that pass to liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I disagree
Look at the GDP per person in 1982 and 2017
Look at the supposed wealth of the forbes 400 in 1982 and 2017
A much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it.
Is that a good thing for society as we know it?
How has home ownership changed in the middle class since 1982 and why?
What drove Amherst, Cerebrus, Front yard, Pretium, Tricon to buy up foreclosed homes?
They have spent billions buying up homes.
Your kids will be serfs.

Pete, no one is denying that wealth inequality is getting worse. you said, in my example, that the billionaire isn’t the problem.

You have shown that wealth inequality exists. You haven’t shown, whatbthe connection is between wealthy people and poor people. please focus on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I disagree
Look at the GDP per person in 1982 and 2017
Look at the supposed wealth of the forbes 400 in 1982 and 2017
A much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it.
Is that a good thing for society as we know it?
How has home ownership changed in the middle class since 1982 and why?
What drove Amherst, Cerebrus, Front yard, Pretium, Tricon to buy up foreclosed homes?
They have spent billions buying up homes.
Your kids will be serfs.

" much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it."

How would YOU know whether or not they "earned it"? And what kind of "system" would prevent wealth inequality? I'll ask for the second time, do you support laws which tell wealthy people, that they can no longer work or invest? Would you support a law which caps wealth?

"Your kids will be serfs"

Probably not.

It's so easy to blame someone else for your lot in life. Chances are, you own it.

Pete, what did a wealthy person ever do, to prevent you from being wealthy?

I'm not wealthy. "The system" didn't prevent me from being wealthy, nor did any wealthy person. I could have gone to medical school, I could work until 9PM every night and get a couple of promotions. I choose not to. My choice, I own the choice, I own the consequences.

big denominations.

i answered your question, can you answer mine? Since you said that wealth isn’t a problem in the hands of liberals who are charitable, arebtoubalso OK with wealthbin the hands of conservatives who are charitable? Or do you only give that pass to liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have shown that wealth inequality exists. You haven’t shown, whatbthe connection is between wealthy people and poor people. please focus on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This isn’t rocket science. It takes money to make money, especially in an economy when the value of labor is diminished. A wealthy person can get more wealthy without lifting a finger. Given cost of living and services generally goes up year over year the poorer increasingly see their standard of living decline or those in the middle can’t buy houses or afford health insurance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wealth inequality really began in this country when corporate tax rates were slashed. They used to be so high that profits were turned into payroll for employees. In those days the middle class was booming. If trump really wanted to make America great again he would raise the taxes on big corporations so that they would have two choices - pay high taxes or pay their employees more which in turn would be a massive stimulus to the economy.

Instead we have a trickle down economy where the masses are all slaves to debt because their costs of living have soared higher than their income has risen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wealth inequality really began in this country when corporate tax rates were slashed. They used to be so high that profits were turned into payroll for employees. In those days the middle class was booming. If trump really wanted to make America great again he would raise the taxes on big corporations so that they would have two choices - pay high taxes or pay their employees more which in turn would be a massive stimulus to the economy.

Instead we have a trickle down economy where the masses are all slaves to debt because their costs of living have soared higher than their income has risen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Or they were used for capital investment that could be claimed to reduce their effective rate. Lowering the tax rate but keeping the deductions, along with industry specific exemptions changed this equation so some large corporations effectively pay little or nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or they were used for capital investment that could be claimed to reduce their effective rate. Lowering the tax rate but keeping the deductions, along with industry specific exemptions changed this equation so some large corporations effectively pay little or nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No that’s just what winning looks like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You get paid for your work, not for "having a freaking job" ENTRY LEVEL jobs are for entry level people. If that crappy summer job you had during summers at high school paid a "Living wage" maybe you never would have went to college. Entry level jobs are to get people started and not to provide for a family of 4.

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is george soros in that camp? or labor unions, or hollywood?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
yes there is an incentive, because in most cases, employees can and will go elsewhere if they’re underpaid. businesses have every possible incentive to hold onto top employees. wveryone hates walmart, but everyone likes the low prices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's funny coming from a radical leftist...who has funded your engineered radicalization?


TIME magazine

By PHILIP ELLIOTT October 3, 2018

Charles Koch is known for his activism on conservative and libertarian causes, but a new report reveals that he’s also given more than $1 billion to civic and philanthropic groups.

Forbes magazine got that number after tallying lifetime donations for the first time as part of its annual list of the world’s richest individuals, published Wednesday. With a $53.5 billion fortune, Koch was at No. 7 on that list, tied with his brother, David.

“I do not believe ‘sum total’ is the most effective measure for evaluating my philanthropy,” Charles Koch told TIME in a statement. “Those results — which are real and measurable — are the true indicator of my philanthropy.”

Koch advisers say the overwhelming bulk of the donations has gone to civic and philanthropic groups, not the political ones he’s better known for. Last year, 95% of his personal giving went to educational programs and community groups that deal with persistent poverty.

Invest early, we stress the importance of starting a retirement account at an early age to get a head start. It takes discipline but creates financial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is george soros in that camp? or labor unions, or hollywood?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not really.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes there is an incentive, because in most cases, employees can and will go elsewhere if they’re underpaid. businesses have every possible incentive to hold onto top employees. wveryone hates walmart, but everyone likes the low prices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Employees will stay at a lower paying job if their pre-existing conditions won’t transfer to new insurance. They won’t move if they can’t afford relocating costs or the risks of a steady job. And while the job market is good right now that’s a phase, many years there are no other options for many,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the fact that they can make millions off of this speaks volumes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OUCH!

"What is the point? It’s not inspirational. It’s not for charity. They’re not raising awareness about a cause, like Al Gore with global warming. They’re only raising awareness about the Clintons.

Their pathological need to be relevant in America is belied by a Canadian arena, where stretches of empty seats bear witness to the passing of their relevance.

It’s a pity."

https://www.wral.com/curtains-for-the-clintons/18033351/

Not really.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well with all that logic, how can i disagree?

george soros doesn’t spent big $$ to shape and expand the democratic party? Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Invest early, we stress the importance of starting a retirement account at an early age to get a head start. It takes discipline but creates financial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

put 15% of your pay
into a 401k,l starting on day 1, just use a target retirement fate account if you’re not savvy, and never withdraw.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well with all that logic, how can i disagree?

george soros doesn’t spent big $$ to shape and expand the democratic party? Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Koch Bros have been working since the 1960s to shape US culture. I think Soros has been much more limited politically supporting some progressive causes over the last 15 years or so. Where he has been very active politically is donating to undermine communism in Eastern Europe. Fox News loves baselessly blaming him for just about everything though. They’re not quite the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Koch Bros have been working since the 1960s to shape US culture. I think Soros has been much more limited politically supporting some progressive causes over the last 15 years or so. Where he has been very active politically is donating to undermine communism in Eastern Europe. Fox News loves baselessly blaming him for just about everything though. They’re not quite the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
move on.org isn’t designed to effect change here in the us?

foxnews slams soros. The Democrats in congress slam the koch brothers. Big, big difference.

you’re right, they’re
not the same. The Koch brothers aren’t unrepentant Nazi collaborators. As a teen, Soros helped the nazis to save himself, which no one can blame him for. the shicking part, was he gave an interview as an adult, and stated that he had no regrets over what he did. that makes him very special.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right, they’re
not the same. The Koch brothers aren’t unrepentant Nazi collaborators. As a teen, Soros helped the nazis to save himself, which no one can blame him for. the shicking part, was he gave an interview as an adult, and stated that he had no regrets over what he did. that makes him very special.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim, read up once in a while, none of this is even remotely true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, read up once in a while, none of this is even remotely true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

none of it is true? so this 60 minutes interview, shows someone pretending to be george soros, admitting to helping the nazis seize property from fellow jews, and feeling no guilt?

have fun with that...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

none of it is true? so this 60 minutes interview, shows someone pretending to be george soros, admitting to helping the nazis seize property from fellow jews, and feeling no guilt?

have fun with that...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know a 14 year old should have willing went to the gas chambers .... than do what he did to survive ...

I know a 14 year old should have willing went to the gas chambers .... than do what he did to survive ...

if you read what i posted
above, i said NO ONE COULD BLAME HIM for what he did. Anyone would expect a kid to do the same. But anyone who isn’t a sociopath, would feel bad about it, when they were an adult. True or false?

Spence said it never happened. You say it happened, but he didn’t do anything wrong. so which is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, what, no snappy comeback? was steve croft just auditioning for faux news? or did i take it out of context?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do your homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do your homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you’ve got
nothing and have been offered video evidence that something happened that you said
never happened....that’s the best you got? do my homework? i do
my homework, which is now i knew this happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you’ve got
nothing and have been offered video evidence that something happened that you said
never happened....that’s the best you got? do my homework? i do
my homework, which is now i knew this happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do more homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do more homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you read what i posted
above, i said NO ONE COULD BLAME HIM for what he did. Anyone would expect a kid to do the same. But anyone who isn’t a sociopath, would feel bad about it, when they were an adult. True or false?

Spence said it never happened. You say it happened, but he didn’t do anything wrong. so which is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(The Koch brothers aren’t unrepentant Nazi collaborators.)

posting of that was not even relevant to the topic ...

neither is this

Trump bragged he now had 'tallest building' in downtown Manhattan hours after World Trade Center collapsed
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-memorial-trump-2001-video-world-trade-center-manhattan-new-york-a8532891.html

Maybe lack of empathy is a required trait in the cut throat world of business ? or is just bad for SOROS ?

I am sure spencer if referring to you running with the Nazi collaborator line .... the false narrative running on every alt right website going about George Soros

(The Koch brothers aren’t unrepentant Nazi collaborators.)

posting of that was not even relevant to the topic ...

neither is this

Trump bragged he now had 'tallest building' in downtown Manhattan hours after World Trade Center collapsed
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-memorial-trump-2001-video-world-trade-center-manhattan-new-york-a8532891.html

Maybe lack of empathy is a required trait in the cut throat world of business ? or is just bad for SOROS ?

I am sure spencer if referring to you running with the Nazi collaborator line .... the false narrative running on every alt right website going about George Soros

ah, the goalposts move again.

First, Soros never said he felt
no guilt about colaberatung with Nazis. Then it was that he did it, but you can’t blame him. Now you say it’s notnpertiment.

it was very pertinent to the conversation about why Spence feels its ok to attack the koch brothers ( for using big $$ to influence politics) but not ok to criticize Soros.

When you started to see i had a point, instead of admitting it ( god forbid) tounimmediaty pivot back to Trump and his faults.

Trump is a bad guy. And at the same time, George Soros admitted on TV, that he feels no guilt about collaborating with Nazis to save himself. both can be true, both are true. Political debate doesn’t have to be limited to what anjerk Trump is, it’s actually possible to talk about other things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I have that’s why I know you’re wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have that’s why I know you’re wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you watch the 60 minutes video? or are you saying that wasn’t actually George Soros?

i posted video interview to support
my claim. you have offered nothing. just your desperate claims that i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you watch the 60 minutes video? or are you saying that wasn’t actually George Soros?
He was responding to accusations being made against him, read the snopes piece on it, it's quite detailed.

He was responding to accusations being made against him, read the snopes piece on it, it's quite detailed.

Kroft asked if he felt guilty. He said no.

why is reading someone’s spin on it, more revealing than listening to what Soros himself said?

You want me to ignore what Soros said, but listen to the liberal spin on what he said. No thanks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch the whole interview, Not just the Dinesh D'Sousa BS.
That's about as bush league as Sarah Sanders clip of Jim Acosta.
https://ia801906.us.archive.org/27/items/George_Soros_1998_60_Minutes_Interview/George_Soros_1998_60_Minutes_Interview.mp4

Watch the whole interview, Not just the Dinesh D'Sousa BS.
That's about as bush league as Sarah Sanders clip of Jim Acosta.
https://ia801906.us.archive.org/27/items/George_Soros_1998_60_Minutes_Interview/George_Soros_1998_60_Minutes_Interview.mp4

i did. many times. he collaborated nazis ( who could blame him?) and saidhe feels no guilt about it. it’s not all that ambiguous.

in all seriousness, what are you people afraid will happen, if you admit that someone in the left is just a rotten person? what do you fear will happen to you if you admit that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i did. many times. he collaborated nazis ( who could blame him?) and saidhe feels no guilt about it. it’s not all that ambiguous.

in all seriousness, what are you people afraid will happen, if you admit that someone in the left is just a rotten person? what do you fear will happen to you if you admit that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And you think that makes him rotten?
SAD

And you think that makes him rotten?
SAD

not feeling bad, that he collaborated with Nazis, helping them harm fellow Hews? yes, i’d say that makes him a rather sociopathic person..as steve kroft said in 60 minutes, that experience would send most people to the psychiatrists couch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not feeling bad, that he collaborated with Nazis, helping them harm fellow Hews? yes, i’d say that makes him a rather sociopathic person..as steve kroft said in 60 minutes, that experience would send most people to the psychiatrists couch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Read the snopes piece Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

it’s charity when liberals do it, sinister when conservatives do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the list of conservatives propagating this scummy lie. It's like a who's who of the Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kroft asked if he felt guilty. He said no.

why is reading someone’s spin on it, more revealing than listening to what Soros himself said?

You want me to ignore what Soros said, but listen to the liberal spin on what he said. No thanks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

to funny coming from the person who has no issues shooting people who throw rocks ..

Typical republican trying to project their version of morality on others

focusing on a 14 year olds actions (as if he had control) while completely ignoring everything that persons has done after that good and bad ....

Survivor’s guilt is something that people experience when they’ve survived a life-threatening situation and others might not have. It is commonly seen among Holocaust survivors, war veterans

In truth, it’s not logical for someone to feel responsible for another person’s fate, but guilt is not something we necessarily have any control over. However, survivor’s guilt is a normal response to loss. Not everyone experiences this type of guilt,

no where does it say people who are absent of guilt are bad people.. except you and other alt right figures who repost this evey election cycle .... But hea why should psychology offer any insight

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

seems you think charitable donations and political donations are the same

you tend to do that alot


https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

to funny coming from the person who has no issues shooting people who throw rocks ..

Typical republican trying to project their version of morality on others

focusing on a 14 year olds actions (as if he had control) while completely ignoring everything that persons has done after that good and bad ....

Survivor’s guilt is something that people experience when they’ve survived a life-threatening situation and others might not have. It is commonly seen among Holocaust survivors, war veterans

In truth, it’s not logical for someone to feel responsible for another person’s fate, but guilt is not something we necessarily have any control over. However, survivor’s guilt is a normal response to loss. Not everyone experiences this type of guilt,

no where does it say people who are absent of guilt are bad people.. except you and other alt right figures who repost this evey election cycle .... But hea why should psychology offer any insight

"to funny coming from the person who has no issues shooting people who throw rocks "

I have an issue with shooting people who are skipping pebbles across a pond. If, on the other hand, you throw a rock at the head of a cop or soldier after being told not to, what happens next is your fault. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Did anybody who threw rocks, get shot? Don't think so.


"guilt is not something we necessarily have any control over"

That's correct. And there's a term for people who are incapable of feeling it, even after doing something that seriously hurts others - sociopath.

"focusing on a 14 year olds actions "

Lie. Why do you lie? I said TWICE, that no one could blame him for what he did at age 14. What is shocking, is that AS AN ADULT, he feels no guilt. Can you make that distinction, or is it too complicated for you? You seem to be unable to understand. I have no issue with what he did at age 14, none.

"it’s not logical for someone to feel responsible for another person’s fate"

Says who? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm not largely responsible for my kids? I have no responsibility for others I care about? You work in law enforcement, and you are saying that no one can ever be guilty of being an accomplice to a crime?

"no where does it say people who are absent of guilt are bad people"

No? Murderers who feel no remorse, aren't bad people? They aren't any different from murderers who sincerely regret what they did?

Wow. I mean wow. Anything, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting anyone on your side made a mistake.

Thank you for that brief journey into the Twilight Zone. I have to go now, I'm due back on the planet Earth.

"to funny coming from the person who has no issues shooting people who throw rocks "

I have an issue with shooting people who are skipping pebbles across a pond. If, on the other hand, you throw a rock at the head of a cop or soldier after being told not to, what happens next is your fault. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Did anybody who threw rocks, get shot? Don't think so.


"guilt is not something we necessarily have any control over"

That's correct. And there's a term for people who are incapable of feeling it, even after doing something that seriously hurts others - sociopath.

No only in your view of him


"focusing on a 14 year olds actions "

Lie. Why do you lie? I said TWICE, that no one could blame him for what he did at age 14. What is shocking, is that AS AN ADULT, he feels no guilt. Can you make that distinction, or is it too complicated for you? You seem to be unable to understand. I have no issue with what he did at age 14, none

(Why is that shocking he clearly states he took nothing from any one he was just there or did you miss that part of the interview?)


"it’s not logical for someone to feel responsible for another person’s fate"

Says who? Psychology

"no where does it say people who are absent of guilt are bad people"

No? Murderers who feel no remorse, aren't bad people? They aren't any different from murderers who sincerely regret what they did?

Wow. I mean wow. Anything, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting anyone on your side made a mistake.

(We are not taking about a murder are we .. what mistake did he make was it survival.Or not fitting into a response you approve of ... you are the one who refer to him as a nazi. Collaborator.. that has understood meaning )

Thank you for that brief journey into the Twilight Zone. I have to go now, I'm due back on the planet Earth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read the snopes Jim!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t want to question the 14-year-old,” Beck disingenuously stated during a series of broadcasts devoted to painting Soros as an evil “puppet-master” of the left. “I would have, however, liked to question the 80-year-old man who has never once said he regretted it,” he added.

Wow Jim sounds just like Glenn Beck . I would say it’s odd but it really isn’t
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t want to question the 14-year-old,” Beck disingenuously stated during a series of broadcasts devoted to painting Soros as an evil “puppet-master” of the left. “I would have, however, liked to question the 80-year-old man who has never once said he regretted it,” he added.

Wow Jim sounds just like Glenn Beck . I would say it’s odd but it really isn’t
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are out of your
mind. i don’t like glenn beck at all. but if he says that 2+2=4, am i supposed to disagree?

wdmso, you drink water. Hitler also drank water. can i therefore conclude that you are like Hitler?

Steve Croft, the 60 Minutes interviewer, was also stunned that soros felt no guilt later. is Kroft like Glenn Beck too?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

seems you think charitable donations and political donations are the same

No I don't think they are the same. But you're right in this case it appears that I did equate them. I misread Spence's post thinking he was doing the same. I missed the world "also" and made the wrong connection. He was speaking about political not charitable donations.

But my opinion, whether it was about charity or political donation, Spence's post amounted, as I said, to actually no more than he didn't like or approve of how or why the Kochs donate politically. His "they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right" is an attempt to discredit the Kochs by using the dog whistle "radical." Just stick that word in a characterization and the little doggie ears perk up to the sound of something bad. So the Presidents that the Koch bros. helped to get elected were more radical right? Which one was "radical." I don't know if they actually helped Trump, but is he radical right?

Spence's idea of what is radical seems to be nothing more than what he doesn't approve of. I don't see any Republican politicians that are radical. Some want to actually return their party to the values that it supposedly represents. That would be a further distancing the party from the Progressive values that it has more and more supported. Spence, being a Progressive, would consider that "radical" because, well . . . I guess because for him Progressivism is the correct and proper center. So, I suppose, distancing from that center is radical. Well, until he comes up with some proof of that, it's just his opinion. And a logical response by someone not immersed in his opinion would be "So what?"

you tend to do that alot


I didn't realize that I think a lot that "charitable donations and political donations are the same." I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

BTW, you're using the dog whistle "alt right" a lot lately. Not nice.

Soros next sentence or so in the 60 minutes interview is also interesting.
He doesn't feel guilty about others losing when he wins in the market and makes an analogy to that effect.
Should he in your opinion feel guilty about that also?

Soros next sentence or so in the 60 minutes interview is also interesting.
He doesn't feel guilty about others losing when he wins in the market and makes an analogy to that effect.
Should he in your opinion feel guilty about that also?

No, a normal person wouldn’t feel guilty about doing well in the market, because despite what liberals tend to believe, his success in the market, isn’t causing anyone else to fail. Why should
he feel guilty if he is better at investing than someone else?

If soros does better in the stock market than i do, that’s one thing. soros collaborating with Nazis, is a wee bit different.

you people are completely insane. you’re comparing soros getting better investment returns than someone else, to collaborating with Nazis?

Ill ask again...what are you afraid will happen to you, if you admit that a normal person would feel some guilt for choosing ( even under godawful threats) to collaborate with Holicaust perpetrators? Do you think you’d die if you admitted he has a screw loose?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, a normal person wouldn’t feel guilty about doing well in the market, because despite what liberals tend to believe, his success in the market, isn’t causing anyone else to fail. Why should
he feel guilty if he is better at investing than someone else?

If soros does better in the stock market than i do, that’s one thing. soros collaborating with Nazis, is a wee bit different.

you people are completely insane. you’re comparing soros getting better investment returns than someone else, to collaborating with Nazis?

Ill ask again...what are you afraid will happen to you, if you admit that a normal person would feel some guilt for choosing ( even under godawful threats) to collaborate with Holicaust perpetrators? Do you think you’d die if you admitted he has a screw loose?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How did Soros make a billion dollars in a day?
Others lost.
He's a trader, not an investor.
George Soros is most famous for his single-day gain of $1 billion on September 16, 1992, which he made by short selling the British pound. At the time, England was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a fixed exchange-rate system that included other European countries. The other countries were pressuring England to devalue its currency in relation to the other countries in the system or to leave the system. England resisted the devaluation, but with continued pressure from the fixed system and speculators in the currency market, England floated its currency and the value of the pound suffered. By leveraging the value of his fund, Soros was able to take a $10 billion short position on the pound, which earned him $1 billion. This trade is considered one of the greatest trades of all time, and Soros is often credited as the man who broke the Bank of England.

How did Soros make a billion dollars in a day?
Others lost.
He's a trader, not an investor.
George Soros is most famous for his single-day gain of $1 billion on September 16, 1992, which he made by short selling the British pound. At the time, England was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a fixed exchange-rate system that included other European countries. The other countries were pressuring England to devalue its currency in relation to the other countries in the system or to leave the system. England resisted the devaluation, but with continued pressure from the fixed system and speculators in the currency market, England floated its currency and the value of the pound suffered. By leveraging the value of his fund, Soros was able to take a $10 billion short position on the pound, which earned him $1 billion. This trade is considered one of the greatest trades of all time, and Soros is often credited as the man who broke the Bank of England.

"How did Soros make a billion dollars in a day?
Others lost."

The loss of others, was NOT a requirement for Soros to win. Like many ignorant people, you think the economy is a zero sum game. It's not. There's no mathematical law saying that someone has to fail in order for someone else to succeed. It's not finite. It's possible that every stock on the exchange can go up in a given day, that does NOT mean anyone else necessarily lost anything. How can you not get that?

Others losing, isn't "how" he won, not unless he cheated. Are you saying he cheated? Was he involved in a 'pump and dump'?

He bet the value of the pound would decrease. His bet, did not cause the pound to decrease.

"How did Soros make a billion dollars in a day?
Others lost."

The loss of others, was NOT a requirement for Soros to win. Like many ignorant people, you think the economy is a zero sum game. It's not. There's no mathematical law saying that someone has to fail in order for someone else to succeed. It's not finite. It's possible that every stock on the exchange can go up in a given day, that does NOT mean anyone else necessarily lost anything. How can you not get that?

Others losing, isn't "how" he won, not unless he cheated. Are you saying he cheated? Was he involved in a 'pump and dump'?

He bet the value of the pound would decrease. His bet, did not cause the pound to decrease.
He didn't cause it but it was basically similar to a pump that got dumped, done by the Bank of England to try and prop up the pound that he took advantage of. Others lost, he gained.
So, you're correct, he no more caused that loss than he caused the loss of property to the transported Jews.

He didn't cause it but it was basically similar to a pump that got dumped, done by the Bank of England to try and prop up the pound that he took advantage of. Others lost, he gained.
So, you're correct, he no more caused that loss than he caused the loss of property to the transported Jews.

"He didn't cause it but it was basically similar to a pump that got dumped"

But it didn't get dumped because of him. If he didn't contribut eto it, he has no reason to feel guilty.

"he no more caused that loss than he caused the loss of property to the transported Jews"

In the 60 Minutes interview, he didn't deny helping the Nazis seize Jewish property. He said he didn't feel guilty about it, which necessarily means he concedes that he did it. So I'm not sure how you seem to know more about his role, than he does.

If he didn't help the Nazis, he would have said "I didn't help the Nazis". What he said was that he helped them, and he doesn't feel guilty about it.

The liberals here are all over the place on this. The only thing you can agree on, is that you can't bear to admit what he himself admits.

Ill ask again...what are you afraid will happen to you, if you admit that a normal person would feel some guilt for choosing ( even under godawful threats) to collaborate with Holicaust perpetrators? Do you think you’d die if you admitted he has a screw loose?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you ever contemplate that maybe you’re just wrong?

Snopes!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"He didn't cause it but it was basically similar to a pump that got dumped"

But it didn't get dumped because of him. If he didn't contribut eto it, he has no reason to feel guilty.

"he no more caused that loss than he caused the loss of property to the transported Jews"

In the 60 Minutes interview, he didn't deny helping the Nazis seize Jewish property. He said he didn't feel guilty about it, which necessarily means he concedes that he did it. So I'm not sure how you seem to know more about his role, than he does.

If he didn't help the Nazis, he would have said "I didn't help the Nazis". What he said was that he helped them, and he doesn't feel guilty about it.

The liberals here are all over the place on this. The only thing you can agree on, is that you can't bear to admit what he himself admits.
Walk thru you logic
He didn’t cause the market loss no guilt
He didn’t cause the holocaust no guilt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are out of your
mind. i don’t like glenn beck at all. but if he says that 2+2=4, am i supposed to disagree?

wdmso, you drink water. Hitler also drank water. can i therefore conclude that you are like Hitler?

Steve Croft, the 60 Minutes interviewer, was also stunned that soros felt no guilt later. is Kroft like Glenn Beck too?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the issue you think beck Ann colter and all the other fringe right have the math right... but not sure how 2+2= nazi collaborator ..because they cleary think that . just saying regardless of the Truth and for the record i found his lack of empathy alarming but not as evidence of wrong doing being in the SS and all the other bs

Do you ever contemplate that maybe you’re just wrong?

Snopes!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m wrong very often. Not here.

What’s in this Snopes piece, which could possibly be more revealing, that wht Soros said himself?
‘Snopes’ isn’t a response. Give me some details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Walk thru you logic
He didn’t cause the market loss no guilt
He didn’t cause the holocaust no guilt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He actively helped the nazis confiscate property from jews. He didn’t cause the Holicaust, but he collaborated with those who did. He admitted this to steve croft. if you still didn’t get how that’s a tad more sinister than innocently playing the commodities market, i can’t help you, try to find a pop-up book that explains it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He actively helped the nazis confiscate property from jews. He didn’t cause the Holicaust, but he collaborated with those who did. He admitted this to steve croft. if you still didn’t get how that’s a tad more sinister than innocently playing the commodities market, i can’t help you, try to find a pop-up book that explains it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, here's a video which explains why the Snopes thing is a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNGMvPMjXp4

This will not convince Spence or wdmso or PeteF, et al., but
it is a rebuttal of Snopes--take it for what you will.

Jim, here's a video which explains why the Snopes thing is a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNGMvPMjXp4

This will not convince Spence or wdmso or PeteF, et al., but
it is a rebuttal of Snopes--take it for what you will.

Wow funny they didn't cover the real guy in the SS uniform you got SMOKING GUN NOT NICE TRY.. so you in the nazi collaborator camp. of course you are

i’m wrong very often. Not here.

What’s in this Snopes piece, which could possibly be more revealing, that wht Soros said himself?
‘Snopes’ isn’t a response. Give me some details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



IT'S CALLED BEING 14 YEARS OLD ..... even if he moved 100 suit case's from 1 pile to another or just watched neither makes a 14 year old who is aware what will happen to him if they find out he is a JEW a NAZI Collaborator which you insist he is .....

History is full of people doing what was necessary to survive .. we all know why he's a conservative target... minus conservatives they have no idea

But are upset in another thread about the disrespect of Bushes service dog .... confused

IT'S CALLED BEING 14 YEARS OLD ..... even if he moved 100 suit case's from 1 pile to another or just watched neither makes a 14 year old who is aware what will happen to him if they find out he is a JEW a NAZI Collaborator which you insist he is .....

History is full of people doing what was necessary to survive .. we all know why he's a conservative target... minus conservatives they have no idea

But are upset in another thread about the disrespect of Bushes service dog .... confused

no one is criticizing what he did at age 14. For the fifth time, you are intellectually unable to differentiate between what he did at age 14, and admitting as an adult that he feels no remorse about what he did at age 14.

Two different things. it’s not about what he did, not at all. It’s that he doesn’t feel bad about what he was forced to do. As steve croft said in the 60 minutes interview, being forced to collaborate with nazis as a kid, would send a lot of people ( all normal people) to the psychiatrists couch.

No one is attacking him for what he did at age 14. He’s being criticized for feeling no remorse about it as an adult. Those are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow funny they didn't cover the real guy in the SS uniform you got SMOKING GUN NOT NICE TRY.. so you in the nazi collaborator camp. of course you are

They did cover it, said that it was wrong. I didn't try anything. I'm not in the camp. I don't care if he collaborated or not. I don't care about your definition of collaboration. I don't care about his excuses of being 14 or if he didn't do it someone else would. I don't care that there were many Jews that collaborated or cooperated with the NAZIs in order to save their lives. I don't care that Jews hunted out these turncoats later and prosecuted them.

I posted the video because Spence kept telling Jim to "read the Snopes." While, at the same time, Spence was trying to demonize the Koch brothers with the overused and inaccurate dog whistle accusation of being "radical." That was the con job that I thought was hypocritical--that Soros is not, as Jim suggests, the counterbalance to the Koch brothers, rather Soros is Justified, the Koch bros. are not.

Spence likes to accuse Trump of being a con artist. Spence is a slick con artist. But that's OK. Because Spence has class.

Trump has class, haven’t you seen the pictures of his stuff, like apartment, wife, plane, golf course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has class, haven’t you seen the pictures of his stuff, like apartment, wife, plane, golf course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're another slick con artist.

Jim, here's a video which explains why the Snopes thing is a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNGMvPMjXp4

This will not convince Spence or wdmso or PeteF, et al., but
it is a rebuttal of Snopes--take it for what you will.
Come on, this is a 3rd grade level of critical thinking here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, this is a 3rd grade level of critical thinking here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence the con speaks.

Spence is desperate. Butthurt like the rest of the babies who are 1/4 of the way through their nightmare. I find it amusing to watch the daily dance . Hahahahahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence the con speaks.
I didn’t mean for the 3rd grade reference to bring out the 8 year old in you Mr President. Next you’ll be spouting petty nonesense like dangles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t mean for the 3rd grade reference to bring out the 8 year old in you Mr President. Next you’ll be spouting petty nonesense like dangles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The con continues.

The con continues.

But Snopes. Snopes!!!

But Snopes. Snopes!!!
You should read it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device