Political Correctness

Julio3000 said:
Did you read the link cited? He visited the property of a landowner who was no longer there.

I have no real qualm if you want to call it cooperation or collaboration. His father purchased phony papers in order to save his family. He was involved, in a tangential and immaterial way, in the horrific machinery of the Holocaust. You are entitled to your thoughts and feelings about that. But you're not entitled to make **** up.

I'm also continually perplexed by your support and admiration for European nationalists who are bargain-bin Nazis who'd try again if given the chance.
Click to expand...

First off intake the premise that push cons to shove everyone hates the jews. History has taught us that. So deciphering the ones who hate jews more is not of interest to me even though I see no real evidence of the claims you are making.

Further, just because one is born a jew does not make them beholden to the Jewish people. Meaning, we should not just assume that soros had to 'forced' to collaborate and may have caught the jew killing fever as so many did at that time. That's just speculation as your position on him being forced to collaborate is.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm not ignoring anything. A 14 year old Jewish boy was placed under the protection of a man who worked for the government. His "identity" was some sort of relative or godson of the man. Soros acknowledged accompanying this man when he was sent to take over property that a Jewish family had left behind. So that makes him a collaborator?

And that justifies Roseanne's tweet about him turning in other Jews to Hitler?

I don't think so on either score.

Btw this resonates more than slightly with me given that I have a 14 year old Jewish son. I'm not Jewish but my wife is and so is my son. Imagine 70 years from now if someone asked my son about me taking him somewhere to take away property from a family and him saying, yes I remember going to do that. It is beyond unfair to imagine that my son would be in any way responsible for whatever I did when I took him along with me.
Click to expand...

He admitted to 'helping'. You be the judge
 
thethe said:
He admitted to 'helping'. You be the judge
Click to expand...

It wasn't his word. He said yes to a question from Steve Kroft that contained that word. But if you think that makes him a collaborator be my guest. It is a rather absurd and sad position to take imo.
 
nsacpi said:
It wasn't his word. He said yes to a question from Steve Kroft that contained that word. But if you think that makes him a collaborator be my guest. It is a rather absurd and sad position to take imo.
Click to expand...

Because soros certainly isn't smart enough to correct kroft. That's a rather absurd and sad position to take imo
 
thethe said:
Roseann losses her show on ABC for her tweet about Valerie Jarrett. And then there is this:

[tw]1001530816529358855[/tw]
Click to expand...

I've never understood how so many of the family values/religious right bought in on Roseanne. They all got tricked into buying fool's gold.
 
weso1 said:
To be fair to Roseanne I had no clue Jarret was part black. Certainly though one of those things you triple check before joking about. Don't drunk tweet. OR be dumb.
Click to expand...

It was the first I heard of Jarret's race as well. Far from the first time Roseanne did something dumb.
 
thethe said:
So its ok to criticize religion as opposed to race? Seems people are very selective on which religions you are allowed to criticize. Same goes for face actually.

Do you have the rules so I can understand them?
Click to expand...

Not religion, Christianity. She would have been fired the same day if her remarks had been about Islam or Judaism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top