To join or not to join

[T.Lex]

Counsel, can you explain the difference between a lie and "intentional deceit"?

IMHO, it is the difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth" - which are 2 different things.

The truth is that Soros was the guest of a Nazi and watched the Nazis do an evil thing.

The summary of the whole truth is that he did so while being protected from the Nazi evil and pretending to not be Jewish.

Hard for me to fault the guy for THAT.

 

[Benp]

IMHO, it is the difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth" - which are 2 different things.

The truth is that Soros was the guest of a Nazi and watched the Nazis do an evil thing.

The summary of the whole truth is that he did so while being protected from the Nazi evil and pretending to not be Jewish.

Hard for me to fault the guy for THAT.

Without googling, this could be the first example of someone using a facade to save their life. I wonder if anyone else ever thought of this, or if this could catch on now that people see that it worked.

 

[HoughMade]

Without googling, this could be the first example of someone using a facade to save their life...

Oh, first time. Definitely.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IMHO, it is the difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth" - which are 2 different things.

The truth is that Soros was the guest of a Nazi and watched the Nazis do an evil thing.

The summary of the whole truth is that he did so while being protected from the Nazi evil and pretending to not be Jewish.

Hard for me to fault the guy for THAT.

Why not take the motherf*cker at his own word?


[video=youtube;c1Qr7TnWG74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Qr7TnWG74[/video]

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Counsel, can you explain the difference between a lie and "intentional deceit"?

(AP raises his hand....)

Um , let me guess... if a lawyer said it, it's "intentional deceit"???

 

[Expat]

(AP raises his hand....)

Um , let me guess... if a lawyer said it, it's "intentional deceit"???

I know they are big on dissembling...

 

[T.Lex]

Why not take the motherf*cker at his own word?

Again, context.

But never mind - haters gonna hate.

 

[Que]

If the rally is about "A" then focus on "A" and then if it goes off on a tangent "B" that you do not agree then at that point leave rally "A."
Before going to a rally should a person look up each person who is going to attend the rally to find out everything they believe before attending?
You aren't going to agree on everything with most people. I have friends who aren't as conservative as I am, should I stop being friends with them or should we just agree to disagree about some things while focusing on the things that we have in common?

If you are going to a rally, you should look up the organizer and see what he is attempting to do and how. I've not gone to certain rallies , not because I didn't believe in the cause, but the organizer chose to take a direction I couldn't support. If someone chose to attend a rally without doing research, I would say that person is nothing more than a follower and may not be a good supporter for the cause.

 

[jamil]

If you are going to a rally, you should look up the organizer and see what he is attempting to do and how. I've not gone to certain rallies , not because I didn't believe in the cause, but the organizer chose to take a direction I couldn't support. If someone chose to attend a rally without doing research, I would say that person is nothing more than a follower and may not be a good supporter for the cause.

That's fair.

I suspect a lot of the rank and file supporters, Klan/Nazis/WS, on one side, and BAMN/ANTIFA on the other, are brainwashed followers. They act a whole lot like cultists. They say the same things, and act the same way, as the rest of their respective groups, like they've been schooled on how to act and talk to people.

 

[HoughMade]

My math sometimes fails me, but Soros seems to have been 14 years old when the war ended in Europe.

Somewhat related note- are we allowed to point out that Trump said some very non-conservative things when he was in his 50s and thereafter?

 

[T.Lex]

I'm wondering, on a gun forum, how we got 3 respondents who would observe the 2 groups (both with provably violent traits) while unarmed.

Honestly, that's more surprising than the 1 dude who said he'd support the UTR group.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Again, context.

But never mind - haters gonna hate.

How can you possibly take out of context that the man plainly said that the Nazi occupation was the best time of his life? Only a sociopath could say such a thing.

My math sometimes fails me, but Soros seems to have been 14 years old when the war ended in Europe.

Somewhat related note- are we allowed to point out that Trump said some very non-conservative things when he was in his 50s and thereafter?

I could understand imprudent words or an immature assessment of a situation by a young teen, but to double down on it in advanced age, especially as one of the most worldly people on the face of the planet, I have to reject this argument.

 

[T.Lex]

How can you possibly take out of context that the man plainly said that the Nazi occupation was the best time of his life? Only a sociopath could say such a thing.

Since you've taken up psychoanalysis, what do you think of people who intentionally misrepresent what is said by people that they want to vilify?

When I was 13, there were many things happening that I only had general ideas about that would influence my life negatively and significantly. Based on what I was aware of, those were great days. Based on a fuller knowledge of the world, I realize that year was full of sadness, anger, and frustration.

Soros was not complicit in any evil and was actively being protected against it. Why would he not have enjoyed that time?

I think you are a bit older than me. When you were that age, did you ever see someone belittle a minority or gay in your presence? Mistreat a woman or Vietnam veteran? What did you do?

 

[Que]

That's fair.

I suspect a lot of the rank and file supporters, Klan/Nazis/WS, on one side, and BAMN/ANTIFA on the other, are brainwashed followers. They act a whole lot like cultists. They say the same things, and act the same way, as the rest of their respective groups, like they've been schooled on how to act and talk to people.

Agreed.

 

[Expat]

During the post Newtown push for gun control, I attended the RKBA rally that they held in downtown South Bend. I have no idea who the organizer was. I just heard it discussed by local radio talk show host Casey Hendrickson. He was going to speak along with Congresswoman Walorski. I never thought about researching the organizer though.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since you've taken up psychoanalysis, what do you think of people who intentionally misrepresent what is said by people that they want to vilify?

When I was 13, there were many things happening that I only had general ideas about that would influence my life negatively and significantly. Based on what I was aware of, those were great days. Based on a fuller knowledge of the world, I realize that year was full of sadness, anger, and frustration.

Soros was not complicit in any evil and was actively being protected against it. Why would he not have enjoyed that time?

I think you are a bit older than me. When you were that age, did you ever see someone belittle a minority or gay in your presence? Mistreat a woman or Vietnam veteran? What did you do?

Let's see...

Taking the man at his word does not extend into psychoanalysis, and I seem to recall that during this time, he participated in the 'family business' which would make him complicit. I am not sure how old you are, but as 1973 vintage, I didn't exactly grow up during the civil rights movement, and my dad didn't cause my arrival until after he had returned from Vietnam. I also grew up in a community where you could count the minority individuals on one hand and while I interacted with them as they didn't live far away, all but one were old and they were pretty much homebodies.

As for Soros, he definitely knew the danger that being a Jew represented and the danger becoming reality for others. How he, as a senior citizen, could say it was the best time of his life defies my understanding. Had he said that he was happy and content with his relatively secure position, I could understand relaying how he felt as an immature youth, but not with what he actually said in exceedingly plain English.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since you've taken up psychoanalysis, what do you think of people who intentionally misrepresent what is said by people that they want to vilify?

When I was 13, there were many things happening that I only had general ideas about that would influence my life negatively and significantly. Based on what I was aware of, those were great days. Based on a fuller knowledge of the world, I realize that year was full of sadness, anger, and frustration.

Soros was not complicit in any evil and was actively being protected against it. Why would he not have enjoyed that time?

I think you are a bit older than me. When you were that age, did you ever see someone belittle a minority or gay in your presence? Mistreat a woman or Vietnam veteran? What did you do?

No, he was complicit. He admits here in the long form of the interview more clearly than the snippet I found earlier, and makes no apology for it.

[video=youtube;SUdosc33eSE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUdosc33eSE[/video]

 

[BugI02]

I actually hate indulging this derail, but here are the facts:
- Soros' family was Jewish, in Hungary, when the Nazis (actual, real, Nazis) took over;
- they used forged documents to avoid a free trip to an evil place;
- part of that avoidance included becoming wards of a Christian (allegedly) who was helping save Jews;
- part of that Christian's job was to oversee the taking of Jewish families' things;
- Soros was taken along with that Christian on one such event when he was pretending to be the Christian's godson, I believe when he was 13.

Different perspectives.
George Soros: Early Life and Education | Investopedia
https://knowledgefight.com/lie-file...lped-the-nazis-round-up-jews-in-the-holocaust

Soros has done plenty of things to deserve animosity. This is not one of them, and it undermines the credibility of those who repeat the lie.

Sorry for the latency in this reply. I was working out of town and also wanted to do further research.

I will now publicly retract the claim that George Soros was an actual Nazi, which was deliberate hyperbole(might want to review that definition). I will not, however retract the assertion that he was closer to being a Nazi than most people participating in the Charlottesville UTR demonstration. I do not dispute the facts of the back story; but base the assertion on the fact that no matter how minor his part or how it is alibied, he still participated in an actual crime at the behest of the only actual Nazi authorities (with the exception of possibly Argentina, the true Nazi party was broken in Berlin 1945 and later to a certain extent at Nuremberg). Current groups who style themselves Nazis are copy-cats and wannabes

As I've stated before, even that could be understandable if Soros felt some remorse, some sense that what he did was wrong but necessary existentially. The 60 minutes interview lays bare the fact that he does not, and that's the crux for me.
I've listened to it many times (relevant parts start at 7:45). I've tried to place it in the context of the interviewer's initial overarching question about whether the necessity caused him problems - 'the put someone on the couch for years' reference. Whether when he said 'No, it caused me no problems' he meant to refute the inference that he might be in psychotherapy (or should be). I have read serious discussions among ordinary people (among which I count myself) parsing and analyzing the interview [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGeorge_Soros%2FArchive_2] I must conclude that he just doesn't feel any remorse, that he thinks his youth buys him a pass even when analyzed from his now fully formed, adult perspective

From a transcript:

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.


Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.


KROFT: In what way?


Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.


KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.


Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.


KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.


Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.


KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?


Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all.Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.


KROFT: No feeling of guilt?


Mr. SOROS: No.


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


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

Full disclosure, I am predisposed to disliking the man because of the causes he supports today and the methods by which he goes about it. I accept there will be questions about whether this colors my viewpoint excessively. I have some sense that you react to what you feel is a - cheapening, perhaps or lessening - of the actual horrific nature of the crimes of the Nazis by careless and inappropriate use of the term. I get this. I will admit my guilt. I will submit that those conflating the Nazi-wannabes at Charlottesville are doing the same disservice to the truth. Although their views are abhorrent, for the most part they have not acted upon those views except by what amounts to cosplay in most cases (yes, someone was killed but targeting was random, the targets were not singled out because they were Jewish, or Roma, Homosexual or considered mentally deficient). While they might think they want to, no one at Charlottesville has constructed concentration camps, shipped Jews and others to them or engaged in mass murder of the same.

I feel that the Mr Soros of today champions causes that can only be labeled as Communist or Socialist. He is more dangerous than the causes you (rightfully) criticize about Charlottesville because he has been more effective. What bothers me is organizations he openly supports financially (with the fig-leaf that it is the foundations he has established that support the causes, as if they would ignore his wishes in any such matter) have been reliably quoted unabashedly using the slogan
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Perhaps you do not see this as as much a threat to the American ideal as the more openly racist or threatening WN/WS talk, but perhaps you should

Discounting that you might feel Trump actually embodies WN/WS ideas and ideals as president, candidates espousing the core American Nazi beliefs have not made a credible run for national office (I said credible, so I discount David Duke's runs for Senate and House. YMMV) but a consistent avowed Socialist has made a credible run for president, possibly only derailed by internecine conflict. For me, Socialism/Communism is the more credible and existential threat. I am open to the argument that we ignore WN/WS views at our furure peril but cannot accord them as much relevance as the Socialist/Communist threat (at this time)

Some Notes on Sources

I grabbed a convenient source from the first page to post the video. It wasn't until upon further review that I noticed it was linked to an endtimes group. This was purely coincidental and random

I read your links. One thing that stood out for me was what seemed to me the incredibly obsequious and sycophantic treatment of Soros by Investopedia, a site of which I normally would approve (Google 'Investopedia Soros' and skim the first couple of pages to get an idea of what I mean). I found it disturbing that they would favorably compare Soros to Warren Buffet (a man I actually admire). So much so that I attempted to examine their funding for the hand of Soros. This is quite the rabbit hole because of the way Soros structures the effectors through which he seeks to manipulate opinion (much like shell corporations, but using 'foundations') and most especially because Investopedia doesn't list their board and there 10-k and 10-q filings are ... shall we say ... thin.

Some info that does not directly impugn any sources in use but turned up peripherally and I found interesting ( be sure peruse the secondary link 'Read Top Journalists that Serve on Soros-Funded Boards'):
George Soros: Media Mogul | Media Research Center

I found knowledgefight to be interesting but opinionated. Further research says its a podcast seemingly primarily devoted to debunking Alex Jones, but about which little third party info/rating exists. It seems to have a left-leaning viewpoint, however, as indicated by their treatment of the Uranium One controversy and minimization of the Clinton's role in such. I also found the assertion that Hillary was only one 'vote' on the CFIUS disingenuous (vote is in scare quotes because a cursory search has turned up almost nothing but boilerplate on the CFIUS and no information about how decisions are made within it; such as whether by majority, consensus or whether some officials like SoS or DofHS would have veto powers)
I did not listen to any podcasts, could not find transcripts and thus do not know if they cite their sources adequately or if it is simply an opinion piece (although I would expect attempts at de-bunking to require citation, but it may just indicate their total lack of respect for Alex Jones(props))

Compare and contrast
https://knowledgefight.com/lie-file...inton-sold-the-russians-20-of-the-uss-uranium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One


This whole thing is suffering from massive precession, so after a couple of comments to others, I'm out

 

[BugI02]

I'm having a failure of imagination here, because it's not much more likely that I'd attend an anti-abortion protest as I would a "Unite The Right" rally. It's very unlikely that I'd attend either, as I don't believe in both those causes the same way the organizers do. So let's make it a free speech rally. Or maybe a gun rights rally. I mean that's the most likely event I might consider attending. But it'd really have to be a nice, cool day, and there'd have to be decent coffee shops around. And clean public restrooms.

Okay, so let's say that Black Lives Matter, who is a racist organization, held a gun rights rally, and somehow I actually believed that they're really going to speak out in favor of citizens' gun rights, and not chant "pigs in a blanket...", or talk about how much white people owe them reparations, and so on. And I'd be right there with them, sipping my coffee while they're speaking in favor of gun rights. But, the moment they start in on their racist ****, I may not leave unless I feel threatened. I'd still carry my sign because that's what *I'm* rallying for.

So about WN, to be consistent, I think I'd have to say the same. So if I thought they're actually going to rally for the cause, and not start chanting all the racist ****, I'd consider attending for those causes. And if they started in on all the racist ****, I'd still proclaim MY cause. And maybe I'd change the sign I'm carrying to fit the new circumstances. So, if it's a free speech rally and they start in on the racist ****, maybe I'd change the sign to say, "Even racists should be free to proclaim their ideas in open, where those ideas can die from honest public scrutiny." That's not the same thing as standing shoulder to shoulder.

[Jamil, I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. Specifically I don't see how a WN (White Nationalist) could by definition be supporting a cause that wasn't racist on some level or whose rally would not be completely composed of racist **** by definition. Maybe you could argue that if they were rallying to support entitlement reform or the voter fraud commission you could make the case that someone might support the cause without supporting the group but it would be hard to get beyond the racist subtext of the group sponsoring the rally - such as whose entitlements they most would like to see reformed]

I did some more looking into Oath Keepers. I don't really agree with some of the things they stand for. They kinda remind me of Sovereign Citizens in a way. I think they're well meaning though. I came across some articles about them protesting against White Supremacists at other rallies. It doesn't seem consistent that they'd stand shoulder to shoulder with racists rallying *for* racism. I don't really know much about their role in Charlottesville, but it looks like it's a mischaracterization to say they're racists because they were at the same event as racists.

[I quite agree with this, and find it telling that much has been made of the level and sophistication of their armament by Governor McClinton - totally ignoring the armed protesters from his preferred contingent (photos of which have turned up in other threads) equipped at a similar level. The Oathkeepers placed themselves between the two groups, aligning with neither; their purpose to support 1st amendment rights - even for distasteful speech - perhaps influenced by the anti-1st amendment actions by the left up to that point]

I reject the idea of guilt by association. In my sense of morals I think it is intellectually dishonest to judge people by who they associate with, without any regard for exactly what the association is. But I understand not everyone has the same values as me, that some people can't not connect people and ideas, instead of dealing with ideas separately. So I'm not going to judge you as intellectually dishonest for that. You can judge me however you want, but you'll be more accurate in your judgement if you try to understand the why more deeply than what.

Just wanted to weigh in one last time. This is spinning in a direction I had not intended, so I'm just about out

 

[BugI02]

Why not take the motherf*cker at his own word?

Dave, far be it from me to support in any way what this man has become; and I have stated elsewhere that I think perhaps the character he exhibited at the time in question is his true character - amoral and perhaps sociopathic

But just a quick word towards what I take to be one of T.Lex's points. The video consists of a short outtake of an interview devoid of context. Moreover the text wrap states "Soros was in charge of confiscating the land of the Jews in Hungary" which is an obvious falsehood and irretrievably damages any credibility the clip may have had as anything other than propaganda

This discussion, which I am guilty of turning in this direction, in my opinion is suffering from massive precession and I'm out. Lates