He didn't call you a Nazi either. He said Nazis "convince people like you". He said "you" there. He's calling you a putz, a stooge.

Your last question is stupid and a stupid rhetorical trick so you can be all indignant. I'm not answering it.

So is Soros a good guy Micro even though he isn't a liberal?

I love how luckbox is somehow now aligned with stormfront propaganda because fly brought up Soros out of nowhere in a response to kelhus.

You guys have spent way too much time having the same argument with the same people. Every discussion gets lead down the same weathered path that brings comfort from your echo chambers.

Waste of time

Rumor has it that Soros doesn't actually exist and is a figment of nazi's (hopefully I'm doing that right) imaginations.

Is Soros a good guy? I don't know him. What I know about him is that he made a lot of money in finance and spends a lot of money primarily around promoting democracy, free press, civil rights/liberty, against the vilification of vulnerable minority groups, and against war. So, I think what he's been trying to do is generally good.

I didn't say he wasn't a liberal. I said he wasn't a leftist. He is a liberal. But, I think he's like a totally bourgeois supporter of State Capitalism, so I wouldn't call him a leftist.

You should probably read the thread a bit more closely, then.

I can accept a fair bit, but not hints or allusions to far right extremist conspiracy theories. That is political weed that must be responded to immediately. Sitting on the pedestal and musing about the sheeple is just tacit acceptance.

Sorry to disappoint.

People not understanding the difference here and being part of the Right-wing echo chamber and knowing nothing about liberals or the left is some of how people come up with absurd ideas about Soros supporting Antifa.

Plural possessive would be “...figment of the Nazi’s imaginations.”

Can you explain why the determiner is needed there?

I vote we move on from the tangentially-related-to-conspiracy-theories discussion. I'm all about turning this into a conversation about grammar though.

I can’t really explain why but it feels right imho. Actually I’m not sure if it should be there the more I think about it. Nazi should def be capitalized tho.

I posted this in the media thread and nobody called me an anti-semite then and I wonder why.*
But no, I don't think the Koch brothers or Soros have good intentions. Promoting democracy...why would you actually believe that?
*probably because it is OK for the Boston Globe to say Soros

To me it sounds correct to use it as an adjective, "a figment of Nazi imaginations".

But then again, I'm not a native English speaker.

Why would I change my mind because he is supporting an anti-interventionist think tank?

I didn't want to capitalize them because I figured if I did you'd accuse me of giving them too much respect. Definitely a no-win situation sometimes in these discussions with you people.

Yet somehow you're still better at it than I am. I like your suggestion.

Because the whole idea of that is so absurd on its face that you should instantly realize that whatever you thought couldn't possibly be right.
And especially because he is teaming up with famed leftwing villians the Koch's. It's like something out of a comic book.

I agree.

It's consistent with what I said about being anti-war.

I haven't seen the Koch's being especially war mongers. They are Right-Libertarians and have some views which are good - like on immigration. Their main mission is to eliminate government, which is not always a bad position, except that they want to ruin the Earth with fossil fuel pollution.

They are extremely anti-democratic obviously and I think it's not hard to argue that Soros' version of democracy is for a very weak version of it as well.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not holding anything back. What you see is what you get.

Also, you should keep in mind that you think school shootings are fake and there are crisis actors. Right? Your intuition on what should be instantly recognized is not very good. You should stick with having reasons other than what you just consider obvious on its face.

It’s worth pointing out that a lot of these tropes about Jews controlling the world predate the Nazis by a long, long time.

It isn't my claim that false flag events should always be instantly obvious. With experience and understanding, they can become that way as you start to recognize patterns. And some aspects of them are obvious once you actually look at them, but there is a lot of cognitive dissonance that occurs when it comes to false flags.
But you're right--what is obvious to me isn't necessarily obvious to other people. In this instance though it really is just absurd. Soros who has been an agent of imperialism through funding color revolutions is now going to go against that? Nobody should believe that and the only way you could is if you think all of the stuff about Soros is a rightwing conspiracy--which you do.

For sure. The Nazis didn't come out of nowhere. There's certainly a lot of antisemitism that goes back to the Middle Ages and Antiquity, but a fair amount of the conspiracy stuff that led in part to the Nazis was invented in the 19th century.

The Prague Cemetery is a good fiction book that touches on this stuff.