Rabbis warn Rupert Murdoch

Post Reply New Topic

You are still blaming Soros for that? What's wrong with you? It's not just AS.

It's called doing my own research, and it happens to corroborate what Glenn Beck said, I'm not going to be dishonest and try to be popular on this web board (or any other for that matter) when I know the facts contradict the what the PC opinion is, I'm going to point that out and I will not back down.

If liberal progressives don't like that, tough.

Soros admits no such thing.

He admits being assigned the delivery of deportation notices sent out by the Judenrat, and seeking his father's advice, and his father's instructions to protect the subjects of those notices. He admits accompanying his guardian during the removal of assets from a deported family's home. These are not crimes of a collaborator, and the guilt that should attach to them is nil.

It is the leaders of the Jewish community who formed the Judenrat who have guilt to answer for. It is the kapos in the camps. It is many, many other collaborators. But to expect a man to express remorse for his actions as a 13 year old when he did no wrong (so far as we can know) is to pervert the truth.

@ visagrunt

Did you even bother to read what I posted or read the transcripts?


THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE 14 YEAR OLD BOY, IT IS ABOUT THE MAN DECADES LATER SAYING IT WAS THE HAPPIEST YEAR OF HIS LIFE! Do I need to enlarge the font size too so you read it?

Glenn Beck isn't bashing Soros over when he was a 14 year old protecting his family. He is talking about Soros saying it was the happiest year of his life.

I would say you're just in denial, you want to accuse George Soros of being all kinds of things using sources that have already been completely discredited (by the fact they have been caught deliberately taking things out of context in an attempt to smear George Soros.

I know you are but what am I?

You know what. From now on that's all I'm going to say when responding to you. That's how meaningless arguing with a person totally bereft of logic or critical thinking is.

I'd like to know what constitutes "research" to you. I mean it's obvious to everyone with an IQ above that of a toaster that you find all your "facts" (caugh) through links from right-wing web sources. This is obvious because you're interpretation of an issue never deviates from that of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck by more than a millimeter. You'd think if you were actually thinking for yourself you'd come to a different conclusion every once in a while.

Well let's read precisely what you posted:



How is your allegation of his admission of collaboration not about the 14 year old boy? And if the 14 year old boy did no wrong, then where is the wrongdoing in recalling his early adolescence as the happy?

Many people who lived through World War II are lucky enough to have happy memories from that period. I have family who lived in the Nazi occupied Channel Islands, and despite the hardships, they have some fond memories. My childhood friends' parents included a woman who was part of the Polish resistance, three who were children in Nazi Germany, and numerous others who lived in various parts of Europe. It was a difficult time for all, but for many it was not a period of unrelieved torment. Why should Mr. Soros be any different?

Differences between them and Soros.

1. Children in Nazi Germany (I know that boys for sure not sure about girls) were required to join the Hitler Youth movement.

2. The lady in the Polish Resistence should be honored, what the heck does she have to feel guilty over standing up to evil.

3. Soros isn't talking about meeting new friends, meeting future wives or husbands, etc. He is talking about working for the Nazis and not feeling at least some remorse over it.

I'm not saying the man should be thrown into prison or anything like that, I'm just concerned like Beck is that he doesn't feel any guilt, remorse, etc. for doing the Nazis' dirty work.

If Soros had said something to the effect that afterwards he felt used and sickened when he found out what the Nazis had done (at the end of WW II), and decided that he would do what he could to make sure monsters like Hitler never came to exist again and to tear apart any government founded on oppressing its people, then quite frankly Beck wouldn't have a problem with him on that front at all. Beck would be saying he's going after the wrong country and should be making life a living hell for the Iranian Government for instance. Beck would actually be calling Soros' goals laudible, if he even brought up what Soros did when he was 14 at all.

Were Jewish children in occupied territories under any less compulsion when it came to supporting the Judenraten?



Ah, but I am not taking about guilt, I am talking about happiness.



Where does he say that? He says it was a happy time of his life--but that is not the same thing as feeling no remorse for working for the Judenrat. You have established a logical equivalency where so such equivalency exists.



What dirty work did he do for the Nazis? Name something--anything. Then we can evaluate whether an expression of remorse is warranted. Beck's (and hence your) entire posture is built on the notion that he has something for which he should feel remorse, yet never is this demonstrated. It is taken as an article of faith that he was, "working for the Nazis," but no proof is ever offerred.



Speculation. I do not for a moment believe that Beck would change his tune by a single note. But that is neither here nor there. The issue in question is the here and now, with the facts as we know them to be.

Beck is projecting guilt upon a man to whom there is no evidence that guilt ought properly to accrue. If he can discharge that burden, then we can have a meaningful discussion about remorse.

@ visagrunt

Apparently Soros doesn't feel any guilt about it either, if you bothered to read through the transcript.

We have acquitted the man. Remorse is moot.

Seriously you transparent farce of a court is not a court. You are probably not a Judge (if you are you are probably on the 9th Circuit which is the most overturned court circuit in the country).

Fact of the matter is George Soros did collaborate with the Nazis, he admitted it in his own words, your claim that he didn't is quite frankly dishonest. He was a child at the time so we can say he was being used, that said he has no remorse over it decades later and you don't find it troubling?!??! The fact you don't recognize the fact that is disturbing to say the least kinda shows that you are probably not a judge, nor do you have a clue what you are talking about.

Only because of the weenies on the Supreme Court.


He was acquitted.


Why should I find it "troubling?" He was acquitted. Remorse is moot.


Recognize what "fact?" We considered fully all of the facts presented.

Actually it is probably cause the majority of the US Supreme Court isn't a bunch of mental cases that thinks they can change the Constitution on a whim.



He was supposedly acquitted by a fraud, you seem to think you are judge and jury and you can force a prosecutor to try someone when they aren't even arrested. You seem to think it is okay to preach politics from the bench and force people to believe what you want the to believe. You aren't a judge, or at least not an ethical judge.



The fact he doesn't is troubling because it indicates he lacks feelings for others, or he is plain sadistic, does that break it down for you.



Riiiggghhhhttt... Except for the fact Soros publicly admitted he helped them and considered it one of the most enjoyable years of his life, he enjoyed it, that should give one pause right there.

Nah. They're just a bunch of weenies.


There was no fraud involved. The case was held to a very high ethical standard. You're just a sore loser.


Or, maybe he just isn't a bleeding heart liberal. How other people deal with having lived through the holocaust doesn't affect me. I don't judge them, and you shouldn't, either. If it "indicates" to you that he lacks feeling for others, that is just your interpretation. You have no proof that he lacks feelings for others. Nor did he do anything sadistic. He had concealed his Jewish identity by pretending to be a Christian. If he had gone out of his way to denounce other Jews who were similarly hiding, then, yes, that would be sadistic and would constitute collaboration. But, he did none of that.


He did what he had to do to get through the holocaust. I don't see any point in obsessing over what he might have said about it.

The fact they refuse to give into the Leftist attempts to trample on the Constitution in spite of death threats isn't a sign of being weak.



Yeah it was, if you were a Judge you can't force a prosecutor to try a case before a suspect is even arrested yet, furthermore the man admitted to being a collaborator and said he enjoyed it.



The fact he doesn't feel bad about it years later, that is kind of disturbing. Also I've found liberals only have compassion for people when it benefits themselves.



It looks more like he doesn't care, the fact he doesn't have remorse is as though he dehumanized the people he helped send to Concentration Camps (probably explains his attacks on Israel as well).