Originally Posted by spence (Post 1156580)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156587)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1156624)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156638)

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/i..._Interview.mp4

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156639)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156642)

And you think that makes him rotten?
SAD

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156643)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1156425)

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

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1156647)

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"?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156637)

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

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1156647)

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"?

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1156770)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156781)

"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.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1156789)

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

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1156771)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156799)

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?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156804)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156806)

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156807)

"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.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156809)

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156804)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156812)

"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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1156791)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1156814)

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

Snopes!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1156816)

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