kurtster wrote: 
An easy cop out, but wrong. 

Credibility is pretty much independent of political leanings.  You know that, I'm sure. 

Want credibility? Stick to substance. Provide credible, verifiable evidence to back up your assertions.

 aflanigan wrote: 
You're funny.  I have zero cred to begin with because I support Trump.

I've wasted enough time on this. 

Here, I'll lump Soros in with both Clintons and Harvey Weinstein.

They're all friends of each other.

I feel the same way about all four of them.  Better ?

Check, please !

 aflanigan wrote:

---

Rational selfishness...
One Koch Brother Forces the Other Out of the Family Business | The New Yorker

 kurtster wrote: 
Why not just go back and edit your original post to what you are now claiming, i.e. that your stereotyped image of Soros' evilness, aligned with conservative talking points, is based on years of meticulous research, not pro-Trump subreddits? 

It would be about as credible.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Hey it works for everybody knocking Trump, why should I be different ?

But seriously, I looked into Soros long ago and in my recent review for my reply did not learn anything new that would change my opinion of him.
I did the review only to see if anything new had come up and there was nothing new. 

So my opinion of Soros is both old and unchanged based upon a current review of the information available.

 kurtster wrote: 
Of course not. Judging people first, then actually looking into facts about who you've judged, sounds about your style.

 steeler wrote: 
Thank you for always being such a fair,non judgemental presence here.I have nothing but respect for you.

 R_P wrote: 
Indeed.  Somewhere.  

 steeler wrote: 
I think there's a forum thread on them. Somewhere.

 haresfur wrote: 
I have to say that I, too, know little about Soros — and, really, the only reason I became familiar with him at all is that he has been the subject of so much right-wing commentary and many conspiracy theories.  Oh, and now, of course, the Hungarian propaganda campaign of Viktor Orban.

To be fair, though, I also do not know much about the Koch brothers.    

 kurtster wrote: 
Want to know what is a disingenuous rhetorical trick?  Spelling out one thing specifically that is bullshit, and then falling back on "Well, I'm including other stuff." If you have an actual activity bring it out and we can discuss it. I mean we don't really know that he isn't a flesh eating space alien so you can still say he is evil.

Yes it matters, and it is the right that is branding him the patron saint of the left. FFS I hardly know who he is and I keep up pretty well on what's going on in the US. Your whole argument is that you don't like his politics so it doesn't matter if people spread BS about him that you can are using as cover for attacking both him and liberal ideas.

So you read the Snopes article. Unless they were out and out lying he did not confiscate Jewish property. If he had been involved, given the situation, I would give him a pass. People who survived in the camps did things to help the Germans. They are not guilty of collaborating and neither is he. And he was 14 years old FFS. He could have been a 14 year old soldier in their army and I wouldn't hold it against him.

 haresfur wrote: 
I would have highlighted the word included which means what what you highlighted was only a part of his activities.

But it doesn't really matter does it ?  

Soros can do no wrong in the eyes of his defenders.  

Soros is the patron saint of the left and will be defended until the end of days on earth.

 R_P wrote:

 
clearly

 haresfur wrote:

 kurtster wrote: 
WTF is to be repentant about that? JFC (so to speak).

 Proclivities wrote: 
I just spent an hour going around and reviewing this including visiting snopes.  One thing is certain based on his own words,
Soros is unrepentant of his activities as a youth during WWII which included deception about him being a Jew in order to survive.

Soros in his own words has contradicted himself so much that it is nearly impossible to determine what he didn't do.  The verifiable
information of what he did do leaves the door open for too many things that can be neither proved or disproved, especially after so much time has passed. 
To assume that this myth is disproved is just as erroneous as to assume it is totally true as well.

If we are going to demonize someone like Mitt Romney as unfit to run this country for giving a fellow high school student an involuntary haircut
as a teenager, then scrutinizing someone far more important and powerful like Soros' and his activities as a youth in WWII is wholly fair.

I'm not losing sleep over this by any means.  I saw the mention of Soro's name and will freely admit this is the first thought that pops
into my mind whenever I see or hear his name.  He is no one I would call friendly or someone who believes in what I do and my thoughts 
and words certainly do not cause him any pain or suffering.  Could be worse ... 

And its not like this thread is designed or used in any way to heap anything good on the Koch Bros.  It is used purely to fling crap at them.

 pigtail wrote: 
I agree.  I disavow and disapprove of people who do things like this in public.

They only cause problems that don't need to be in the first place.  But there is also the
1st amendment ...  so I have to live with these assholes who set back the things I support
just like you do.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Hardcore Fox/Beck/Alex Jones viewers prefer to stay in their rigid ideological bubble. Keeps them loyal and pure, lest they be contaminated by "liberal spew".

 spammer wrote: 
Why? You're handicapped?

STOP THE BREEDING!!!