CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

[quote=straightUp]Since you brought up Churchill I want to share another speech he made while advocating a land tax. Yes, that's right... land tax. I've posted some excerpts to emphasize the points I want to make... The entire speech can be read at http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html


Quid Pro Quo, straightUp:

RESPONSE TO straightUp like a lead ballon:

I don't hold myself out as an expert on Winston Churchill. I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill, and so determined to read the whole Churchill 1909 Edinburgh speech. So that the reader understands my background of knowledge of Winston Churchill, the following is a list of my reading of Winston Churchill:

1-6. The 6 volumn set of Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" I purchased from the Folio Society in London. Eash volumn is in excess of 600 pages for a total of upwards of 4,000 pages, all written by Winston Churchill himself.

7. "The Last Lion" Winston S. Churchill, by William Manchester, 908 pages. Biography.

8. "Churchill By Himself" edited by Richard Langworth, 626 pages.

9. "Never Give In", The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches. 21 selected speeches by his grandson Winston S. Churchill. Please note that it does not include the 1909 speech in Edenburgh Scotland.

10. "Churchill at War 1940-45", by Lord Moran, 383 pages.

11. "Churchill Wanted Dead or Alive", by Celia Sandys, Churchill's granddaughter. 233 pages.

12. "His Finest Hours", The War Speeches of Winston Churchill. 207 pages.

13. "In the Name of God GO!", Wm. Roger Louis, 199 pages.

14. "Churchill on Leadership", Executive Success in the Face of Adversity, by Steven F. Hayward, 201 pages.

15. "Churchill the War Leader 1940-1945", Documents



AS A GENERAL STATEMENT OF straightUp's PRESENTATION OF CHURCHILL'S SPEECH, I WOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:
Like Churchill's statement of Mr. Balfour: "there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat.", neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda. And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour: "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.", similiarly, the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminutaion. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to.

JUDGE FOR YOURSELF, the following:


SOME MAJOR LANDMARKS OF WINSTON'S POLITICAL CAREER UP TO WORLD WAR II:

o Born November 30, 1874.

o 1900 First elected to Parliament as a conservative, age 26.

o 1904 Quits Tories (Conservatives) May 31, 1904 about age 30, and crossed the floor of Parliament for Liberals, envisioning the fall of the conservative government over the Boer War. The Troy flaw was "a yearning for mediocrity." "To keep in office for a few more weeks and months there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat." "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution."

o 1911 Becomes First Lord of the Admiralty.

o 1917 Rejoins the Cabinet.

o 1919 WSC becomes Secretary for War and the Air Chief. Supporter of Russian anti-bolsheviks.

o 1921 WSC becomes Colonial Secretary.

o 1924 "Churchill's refusal to accept the socialist as legitimate heirs to the fading Liberals was undoubtedly crippling; so was his scorn for the second-rate politicians, led by Baldwin, who had seized the leadership of the Conservative party... He had always despised socialism, supporting welfare legislation which would deprive Labour candidates of social issues, and he would do so again.

o 1924 Turns Troy (Conservative) again. Wins e******n - back to Parliament. Age 50, remains Conservative the rest of his life.

o 1931 Quits Troy leadership over India - WSC sounds alarm over N**is.

o World War II, et. seq. Dies in 1965 at age 91.

Accordingly, Winston spent his first 4 years in Parliament as a Conservative, then some 7 years align with the governing Liberals, then some 41 years back aligned with the Conservatives. England had at the time 3 parties: Tories (Conservatives), Liberals, and Labour (Socialist),and may still have 3 parties, I'm not sure. But Liberals were not then Socialists as they are today in America's liberal socialist democrat party.


THE FOLLOWING IS WINSTON'S EDINBURGH SCOTLAND 1909 SPEECH. HI-LITED IN BLUE IS THAT PORTION OF THE SPEECH TRUNCATED BY straightUp. WHERE HI-LITED IN RED APPEARS INSIDE THE HI-LITED BLUE, IT IS MY HI-LITE OF STATEMENTS I CONSIDER IMPORTANT FOR THIS POST:


Land and Income Taxes in the Budget

Speech by Winston Churchill
Edinburgh, July 17, 1909
(From The Times, by permission.)
Raw text copied from Project Gutenberg Site


We are often assured by sagacious persons that the civilisation of modern States is largely based upon respect for the rights of private property. If that be true, it is also true that such respect cannot be secured, and ought not, indeed, to be expected, unless property is associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with ideas of justice and of reason.

It is, therefore, of the first importance to the country - to any country - that there should be vigilant and persistent efforts to prevent abuses, to distribute the public burdens fairly among all classes, and to establish good laws governing the methods by which wealth may be acquired. The best way to make private property secure and respected is to bring the processes by which it is gained into harmony with the general interests of the public. When and where property is associated with the idea of reward for services rendered, with the idea of recompense for high gifts and special aptitudes displayed or for faithful labour done, then property will be honoured. When it is associated with processes which are beneficial, or which at the worst are not actually injurious to the commonwealth, then property will be unmolested; but when it is associated with ideas of wrong and of unfairness, with processes of restriction and monopoly, and other forms of injury to the community, then I think that you will find that property will be assailed and will be endangered.

straihtUp FIRST CITES THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, WITH MY RED HI-LITING:

A year ago I was fighting an e******n in Dundee. In the course of that e******n I attempted to draw a fundamental distinction between the principles of Liberalism and of Socialism, and I said "Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly." And it is from that fundamental distinction that I come directly to the land proposals of the present Budget.

PLEASE NOTE THAT straightUp FAILS TO IDENTIFY THAT IN ENGLAND THE LABOUR PARTY WAS THEN THE SOCIALIST PARTY, NOT THEN THE LIBERAL PARTY. THAT DISTINCTION SHOULD BE KEEPT IN MIND WHEN TRYING TO APPLY WHAT CHURCHILL SAYS IN HIS SPEECH, TO LIBERALS AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TODAY IN AMERICA THAT ARE THE SOCIALIST.

THE NEXT 4 PAGES OF WINSTON'S SPEECH, straightUp COMPLETELY TRUNCATES AND SEQUESTERS, FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT IN IT CHURCHILL EXPLAINS THE RATIONALE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SUBJECT OF HIS SPEECH, WHICH PRECLUDES AND IS OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONCLUSIONS straightUp WISHES TO PRESENT TO YOU, AS SUPPORTED BY CHURCHILL'S STATEMENTS. THEY ARE NOT, AND straightUp IS A CREDIBILITY CRIPPLE.

It is quite true that the land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies; it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment, derived from processes, which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position - land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same and are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land. They talk to us of the increased profits of a doctor or a lawyer from the growth of population in the towns in which they live. They talk to us of the profits of a railway through a greater degree of wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They tell us of the profits which are derived from a rise in stocks and shares, and even of those which are sometimes derived from the sale of pictures and works of art, and they ask us - as if it were their only complaint - "Ought not all these other forms to be taxed too?"

But see how misleading and false all these analogies are. The windfalls which people with artistic gifts are able from time to time to derive from the sale of a picture - from a Vand**e or a Holbein - may here and there be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labour; they do not touch enterprise and production at any point; they do not affect any of those creative processes upon which the material well-being of millions depends. And if a rise in stocks and shares confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected, or, indeed, deserved, nevertheless, that profit has not been reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs, but, on the contrary, apart from mere gambling, it has been reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.

If the railway makes greater profits, it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers. If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits. At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees; and if the service is too poor or the fees are too high, other doctors and other lawyers can come freely into competition. There is constant service, there is constant competition; there is no monopoly, there is no injury to the public interest, there is no impediment to the general progress.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts or at the centre of one of our great cities, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing! Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and at the cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced.

He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived. If the land were occupied by shops or by dwellings, the municipality at least would secure the rates upon them in aid of the general fund; but the land may be unoccupied, undeveloped, it may be what is called "ripening" - ripening at the expense of the whole city, of the whole country - for the unearned increment of its owner. Roads perhaps have to be diverted to avoid this forbidden area. The merchant going to his office, the artisan going to his work, have to make a detour or pay a tram fare to avoid it. The citizens are losing their chance of developing the land, the city is losing its rates, the State is losing its taxes which would have accrued, if the natural development had taken place - and that share has to be replaced at the expense of the other ratepayers and taxpayers; and the nation as a whole is losing in the competition of the world - the hard and growing competition in the world - both in time and money. And all the while the land monopolist has only to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold, without either effort or contribution on his part. And that is justice!

But let us follow the process a little farther. The population of the city grows and grows still larger year by year, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents and rates rise hand in hand, and thousands of families are crowded into one-roomed tenements. There are 120,000 persons living in one-roomed tenements in Glasgow alone at the present time. At last the land becomes ripe for sale - that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer - and then, and not till then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at ten times, or twenty times, or even fifty times,its agricultural value, on which alone hitherto it has been rated for the public service.

THIS IS THE NUGGET OF THE PROBLEM WINSTON IS FOCUSING ON. IT IS TO TAX FOR THE NEW BUDGET, THE PRESENT EVUALATION OF THE REAL ESTATE, AND EVEN THEN, AS YOU WILL SEE LATER, BY BUT A SMALL RATE. BUT AT THE TIME THERE WAS NOT A YEAR BY YEAR PRESENT EVALUATION OF REAL ESTATE UPON WHICH INCREASED VALUATION, IF THAT OCCURRED, A TAX WAS LEVYED. THIS LEVY OF TAX ON ANNUAL VALUATION, IS COMMON PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY.

The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury which they have sustained by its protracted denial, the more inconvenience which has been caused to everybody, the more serious the loss in economic strength and activity, the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact you may say that the unearned increment on the land (the unearned increased value of land) is on all-fours with the profit gathered by one of those American speculators who engineer a corner (monopoly) in corn, or meat, or cotton, or some other vital commodity, and that the unearned increment in land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.

It is monopoly which is the keynote; and where monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society, the greater the reward of the monopolist will be. See how this evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay, and is made to pay in exact proportion, or to a very great extent in proportion, as it has exerted itself in the past to make improvements. The more it has improved the town, the more it has increased the land value, and the more it will have to pay for any land it may wish to acquire. The manufacturer purposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase-price hangs round the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition; and the land values strike down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the workman. The railway company wishing to build a new line finds that the price of land which yesterday was only rated at its agricultural value has risen to a prohibitive figure the moment it was known that the new line was projected; and either the railway is not built, or, if it is, is built, only on terms which largely t***sfer to the landowner the profits which are due to the shareholders and the advantages which should have accrued to the travelling public.

It does not matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see that every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream off for himself, and everywhere to-day the man, or the public body, who wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior use, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to the land value, and its owner for the time being is able to levy his toll upon all other forms of wealth and upon every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community is represented in the land value, and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or a new tramway, or the institution of an improved service of workmen's trains, or a lowering of fares, or a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to the workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the landlord and the ground landlord, one on top of the other, are able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.

Some years ago in London there was a toll-bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river, had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings appealed to the public conscience: an agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the ratepayers the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved 6d. a week. Within a very short period from that time the rents on the south side of the river were found to have advanced by about 6d. a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted. And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that in the parish of Southwark about £350 a year, roughly speaking, was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches, and as a consequence of this the competition for small houses, but more particularly for single-roomed tenements is, we are told, so great that rents are considerably higher than in the neighbouring district.

All goes back to the land, and the landowner, who in many cases, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched, is enabled with resistless strength to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be.

I hope you will understand that when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual landowner. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land, is morally a worse man than any one else, who gathers his profit where he finds it, in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy, were it not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice. We do not want to punish the landlord. We want to alter the law. Look at our actual proposal.

We do not go back on the past. We accept as our basis the value as it stands to-day. The tax on the increment of land begins by recognising and franking all past increment. We look only to the future; and for the future we say only this: that the community shall be the partner in any further increment above the present value after all the owner's improvements have been deducted. (IT IS ONLY ADDITIONAL INCREMENT OR VALUE THAT THE NEW BUDGET LAW PLANS TO TAX, THAT WAS NOT THEN PRESENTLY TAXED) We say that the State and the municipality should jointly levy a toll upon the future unearned increment of the land. A toll of what? Of the whole? No. Of a half? No. Of a quarter? No. Of a fifth - that is the proposal of the Budget. And that is robbery, that is plunder, that is c*******m and spoliation, that is the social revolution at last, that is the overturn of civilised society, that is the end of the world foretold in the Apocalypse! Such is the increment tax about which so much chatter and outcry are raised at the present time, and upon which I will say that no more fair, considerate, or salutary proposal for taxation has ever been made in the House of Commons.

But there is another proposal concerning land values which is not less important. I mean the tax on the capital value of undeveloped urban or suburban land. (THIS IS THE SECOND PORTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW TAX) The income derived from land and its rateable value under the present law depend upon the use to which the land is put. In consequence, income and rateable value are not always true or complete measures of the value of the land. Take the case to which I have already referred, of the man who keeps a large plot in or near a growing town idle for years, while it is "ripening" - that is to say, while it is rising in price through the exertions of the surrounding community and the need of that community for more room to live. Take that case. I daresay you have formed your own opinion upon it. Mr. Balfour, Lord Lansdowne, and the Conservative Party generally, think that that is an admirable arrangement. They speak of the profits of the land monopolist, as if they were the fruits of thrift and industry and a pleasing example for the poorer classes to imitate. We do not take that view of the process. We think it is a dog-in-the-manger game. We see the evil, we see the imposture upon the public, and we see the consequences in crowded slums, in hampered commerce, in distorted or restricted development, and in congested centres of population, and we say here and now to the land monopolist who is holding up his land - and the pity is, it was not said before - you shall judge for yourselves whether it is a fair offer or not - we say to the land monopolist: "This property of yours might be put to immediate use with general advantage. It is at this minute saleable in the market at ten times the value at which it is rated. If you choose to keep it idle in the expectation of still further unearned increment, then at least you shall be taxed at the true selling value in the meanwhile." And the Budget proposes a tax of a halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of all such land; that is to say, a tax which is a little less in equivalent, than the income-tax would be upon the property, if the property were fully developed.

That is the second main proposal of the Budget with regard to the land; and its effects will be, first, to raise an expanding revenue for the needs of the State; secondly that, half the proceeds of this tax, as well as of the other land taxes, will go to the municipalities and local authorities generally to relieve rates; thirdly, the effect will be, as we believe, to bring land into the market, and thus somewhat cheapen the price at which land is obtainable for every object, public and private. By so doing we shall liberate new springs of enterprise and industry, we shall stimulate building, relieve overcrowding, and promote employment.

These two taxes, both in themselves financially, economically, and socially sound, carry with them a further notable advantage. We shall obtain a complete valuation of the whole of the land in the United Kingdom. We shall procure an up-to-date Do0msday-book (sic) showing the capital value, apart from buildings and improvements, of every piece of land. Now, there is nothing new in the principle of valuation for taxation purposes. It was established fifteen years ago in Lord Rosebery's Government by the Finance Act of 1894, and it has been applied ever since without friction or inconvenience by Conservative administrations. (WHAT CHURCHILL IS SUPPORTING IS ANNUAL EVUALATION OF LAND FOR REAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)

And if there is nothing new in the principle of valuation, still less is there anything new or unexpected in the general principles underlying the land proposals of the Budget. Why, Lord Rosebery declared himself in favour of taxation of land values fifteen years ago. Lord Balfour has said a great many shrewd and sensible things on this subject which he is, no doubt, very anxious to have overlooked at the present time. The House of Commons has repeatedly affirmed the principle, not only under Liberal Governments, but - which is much more remarkable - under a Conservative Government. Four times during the last Parliament Mr. Trevelyan's Bill for the taxation of land values was brought before the House of Commons and fully discussed, and twice it was read a second time during the last Parliament, with its great Conservative majority, the second time by a majority of no less than ninety v**es. The House of Lords, in adopting Lord Camperdown's amendment to the Scottish Valuation Bill, has absolutely conceded the principle of rating undeveloped land upon its selling value, although it took very good care not to apply the principle; and all the greatest municipal corporations in England and Scotland - many of them overwhelmingly Conservative in complexion - have declared themselves in favour of the taxation of land values; and now, after at least a generation of study, examination, and debate, the time has come when we should take the first step to put these principles into practical effect. You have heard the saying "The hour and the man." The hour has come, and with it the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have come to Scotland to exhort you to engage in this battle and dev**e your whole energy and influence to securing a memorable victory. Every nation in the world has its own way of doing things, its own successes and its own failures. (HAVING TRUNCATED AND SEQUESTERED ALL OF THE ABOVE CHURCHILL EXPLAINATION FOR THE ENTIRE SPEECH, WITH EXCEPTION OF 1 SENTENCE, straightUp NOW WISHES TO CHERRY PICK ANOTHER CHURCHILL SENTENCE, THUS:

All over Europe we see systems of land tenure which economically, socially, and politically are far superior to ours; but the benefits that those countries derive from their improved land systems are largely swept away, or at any rate neutralised, by grinding tariffs on the necessaries of life and the materials of manufacture.

straightUp, AFTER NOT EXPLAINING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE HE CHOSE, THAT LABOUR WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY IN ENGLAND, NOW CHOSE THIS CHURCHILL SENTENCE TO IDENTIFY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WITH LAND TAX ON INCREASED VALUE OF LAND, BUT AT THE SAME TIME HAVING "grinding tariffs on the necessaries of life and the materials of manufacture."

Says straightUp: Here, he is referring to the benefits of land tax "neutralized" by the detriments of taxing people for the "necessaries of life" which in America today would include tax on supplies (Yes, a sales tax) and income. (Not so, the principle would apply, but Churchill is advocating for a valuation tax on the then present increased value of land) Both of which I personally oppose. Churchill also makes a distinction between earned income and unearned income, which it seems American conservatives refuse to acknowledge. (Not so, they are just taxed at different rates upon reasonable rationale.)(While Churchill makes a distinction between earned and unearned increase in value, arguing that unearned increase in value of land should have the increase in value also taxed -- please note, said increase in value at the time was not taxed, although the base value was taxed at the time.

CONTINUING WITH CHURCHILL'S SPEECH:

In this country we have long enjoyed the blessings of Free Trade and of untaxed bread and meat, but against these inestimable benefits we have the evils of an unreformed and vicious land system. In no great country in the new world or the old have the working people yet secured the double advantage of free trade and free land together, by which I mean a commercial system and a land system from which, so far as possible, all forms of monopoly have been rigorously excluded. Sixty years ago our system of national taxation was effectively reformed, and immense and undisputed advantages accrued therefrom to all classes, the richest as well as the poorest. The system of local taxation to-day is just as vicious and wasteful, just as great an impediment to enterprise and progress, just as harsh a burden upon the poor, as the thousand taxes and Corn Law sliding scales of the "hungry 'forties." We are met in an hour of tremendous opportunity. "You who shall liberate the land," said Mr. Cobden, "will do more for your country than we have done in the liberation of its commerce."

You can follow the same general principle of distinguishing between earned and unearned increment through the Government's treatment of the income-tax. There is all the difference in the world between the income which a man makes from month to month or from year to year by his continued exertion, which may stop at any moment, and will certainly stop, if he is incapacitated, and the income which is derived from the profits of accumulated capital, which is a continuing income irrespective of the exertion of its owner. Nobody wants to penalise or to stigmatise income derived from dividends, rent, or interest; for accumulated capital, apart from monopoly, represents the exercise of thrift and prudence, qualities which are only less valuable to the community than actual service and labour. But the great difference between the two classes of income remains. We are all sensible of it, and we think that that great difference should be recognised when the necessary burdens of the State have to be divided and shared between all classes.

HERE straightUp LEAVES OUT ANOTHER COMPLETE PAGE OF CHURCHILL'S SPEECH, THUS:

The application of this principle of differentiation of income-tax has enabled the present Government sensibly to lighten the burden of the great majority of income-tax payers. Under the late Conservative Government about 1,100,000 income-tax payers paid income-tax at the statutory rate of a shilling in the pound. Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, reduced the income-tax in respect of earned incomes under £2,000 a year from a shilling to ninepence, and it is calculated that 750,000 income-tax payers - that is to say, nearly three-quarters of the whole number of income-tax payers - who formerly paid at the shilling rate have obtained an actual relief from taxation to the extent of nearly £1,200,000 a year in the aggregate. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present Budget has added to this abatement a further relief - a very sensible relief, I venture to think you will consider it - on account of each child of parents who possess under £500 a year, and that concession involved a further abatement and relief equal to £600,000 a year. That statement is founded on high authority, for it figured in one of the Budget proposals of Mr. Pitt, and it is to-day recognised by the law of Prussia.

Taking together the income-tax reforms of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd-George, taking the two together - because they are all part of the same policy, and they are all part of our treatment as a Government of this great subject - it is true to say that very nearly three out of every four persons who pay income-tax will be taxed after this Budget, this penal Budget, this wicked, monstrous, despoliatory Budget - three out of every four persons will be taxed for income-tax at a lower rate than they were by the late Conservative Government.

You will perhaps say to me that may be all very well, but are you sure that the rich and the very rich are not being burdened too heavily? Are you sure that you are not laying on the backs of people who are struggling to support existence with incomes of upwards of £3,000 a year, burdens which are too heavy to be borne? Will they not sink, crushed by the load of material cares, into early graves, followed there even by the unrelenting hand of the death duties collector? Will they not take refuge in wholesale fraud and evasion, as some of their leaders ingenuously suggest, or will there be a general flight of all rich people from their native shores to the protection of the hospitable foreigner? Let me reassure you on these points.

The taxes which we now seek to impose to meet the need of the State will not appreciably affect, have not appreciably affected, the comfort, the status, or even the style of living of any class in the United Kingdom. There has been no invidious singling out of a few rich men for special taxation. The increased burden which is placed upon wealth is evenly and broadly distributed over the whole of that wealthy class who are more numerous in Great Britain than in any other country in the world, and who, when this Budget is passed, will still find Great Britain the best country to live in. When I reflect upon the power and influence that class possesses, upon the general goodwill with which they are still regarded by their poorer neighbours, upon the infinite opportunities for pleasure and for culture which are open to them in this free, prosperous, and orderly commonwealth, I cannot doubt that they ought to contribute, and I believe that great numbers of them are willing to contribute, in a greater degree than heretofore, towards the needs of the navy, for which they are always clamouring, and for those social reforms upon which the health and contentment of the whole population depend.

And after all, gentlemen, when we are upon the sorrows of the rich and the heavy blows that have been struck by this wicked Budget, let us not forget that this Budget, which is denounced by all the vested interests in the country and in all the abodes of wealth and power, after all, draws nearly as much from the taxation of tobacco and spirits, which are the luxuries of the working classes, who pay their share with silence and dignity, as it does from those wealthy classes upon whose behalf such heartrending outcry is made.

HERE straightUp CONTINUES WITH CHURCHILL SPEECH, THUS:

I do not think the issue before the country was ever more simple than it is now. The money must be found; there is no dispute about that. Both parties are responsible for the expenditure and the obligations which render new revenue necessary; and, as we know, we have difficulty in resisting demands which are made upon us by the Conservative Party for expenditure upon armaments far beyond the limits which are necessary to maintain adequately the defences of the country, and which would only be the accompaniment of a sensational and aggressive policy in foreign and in Colonial affairs. (IN 1904, CHURCHILL LEFT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND CROSS THE FLOOR OF PARLIAMENT AND BECAME A LIBERAL CANDIDATE FOR N.E. MANCHESTER AND JOINED LORD GEORGE. SO AT THE TIME OF THIS SPEECH, HE WAS WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY, NOT THE CONSERVATIVE (TORIES) OR THE SOCIALIST PARTY, AND WAS 29 YEARS OF AGE. We declare that the proposals we have put forward are conceived with a desire to be fair to all and harsh to none. We assert they are conceived with a desire to secure good laws regulating the conditions by which wealth may be obtained and a just distribution of the burdens of the State. We know that the proposals which we have made will yield all the money that we need for national defence, and that they will yield an expanding revenue in future years for those great schemes of social organisation, of national insurance, of agricultural development, and of the treatment of the problems of poverty and unemployment, which are absolutely necessary if Great Britain is to hold her own in the front rank of the nations. The issue which you have to decide is whether these funds shall be raised by the taxation of a protective tariff upon articles of common use and upon the necessaries of life, including bread and meat, or whether it shall be raised, as we propose, by the taxation of luxuries, of superfluities, and monopolies.

WE NOW COME TO straightUp's CONCLUSIONS AND OPINION HE HAS FROM ALL OF CHURCHILL'S SPEECH ABOVE HE PROFESSES TO HAVE READ:


...The taxation of luxuries, superfluities and monopolies... To this the American conservative still refuses to concede. (THE TAX ON "MONOPOLIES" CHURCHILL WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS AN LAND TAX ON THE INCREASED VALUE OF LAND, NOT JUST THE BASE VALUE. WE HAVE LAWS AGAINST MONOPOLIES -- IN THE TRUE SENSE OF MONOPOLIES, NOT IN THE SENSE CHURCHILL WAS USING THE WORD; AND LAND IS ANNUALLY VALUATION ACCESSED AND TAXED UPON THE INCREASED VALUE, IF ANY, AND THE TOTAL ALWAYS, JUST AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH AT THAT TIME IN 1909 IN ENGLAND.) The most common excuse is that such a tax will make wealth punitive and will degrade the incentive to work toward what we seem to regard as a right to luxury and superfluities. I don't think it was Churchill's intent to make wealth punitive and it certainly isn't mine either. But with 80% of the wealth concentrated in the top 5%, it is without a doubt THE place to find the money that we desperately need, (THE TOP 1 PERCENT PRESENTLY PAY SOME 50 PERCENT OF ALL INCOME TAX REVENUE. A TAD OVER 50 PERCENT OF THE ADULT POPULUS PAY NO INCOME TAX AT ALL. IF YOU TOOK ALL THE MONEY AND ALL THE ASSETS OF THE TOP 5 PERCENT OF TAX PAYERS, IT WOULD NOT COVER OUR ANNUAL EXPENDATURES OR OBAMA'S TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS ANNUAL DEFICITES WITH NO BUDGET AT ALL IN PLACE. EVEN THEN, IN THE SECOND YEAR, WHO COULD YOU TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND ASSETS FROM, Eh? straightUp?) ,much like the situation Churchill himself was explaining when he said his proposed land tax would "yield all the money that we need..." (PLEASE NOTE THE ... PROCESS WHERE straightUp SEQUESTERS OUT THE NEXT THREE WORDS, WHICH IS "FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE," YOU SEE, THAT IS NOT THE CASE straightUp IS PLEADING.) ,and I'm sorry but a tax on wealth, no matter how large the sum, is not as damaging to a person's welfare as a tax on income, no matter how small. (TOTAL UNMITIGATED HORSE DOU'VERS. "NO MATTER HOW LARGE", WHAT IF THEY TAKE YOUR WHOLE WEALTH, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY MORE DAMAGING THAN TAXING JUST YOUR INCOME FOR THE YEAR. AND, THE OBAMA PLAN IS TO CONFISCATE YOUR 401 AND IRA RETIREMENT PLANS YOU HAVE BEEN SAVING FOR YOUR WHOLE WORK LIFE. THE FACT straightUp IS WILLING TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT SAYS MORE ABOUT HIS BRAIN DEAD LIBERAL IDEOLOGUE, THAN IT DOES EVEN ABOUT THE IDIOCY OF THE STATEMENT ITSELF.) And get this... the rest of his sentence... (HERE straightUp USES THE ... TECHNIQUE TO AGAIN SEQUESTER OUT THE "FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE" LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIS POINT. AS HE USES IT, THE PROCESS WAS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AT BEST.) "and that they will yield an expanding revenue in future years for those great schemes of social organisation, of national insurance, of agricultural development, and of the treatment of the problems of poverty and unemployment, which are absolutely necessary if Great Britain is to hold her own in the front rank of the nations." ... (HERE straightUp INTELLECTUALLY DISHONESTLY TRUNCATES CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE, THUS: "The issue which you have to decide is whether these funds shall be raised by the taxation of a protective tariff upon articles of common use and upon the necessaries of life, including bread and meat, or whether it shall be raised, as we propose, by the taxation of luxuries, of superfluities, and monopolies.") ...Sound a little progressive there? I GUARANTEE you that if Fox News covered this speech today they would be raging about what a socialist Churchill is for suggesting a tax on wealth (NOT SO, NOT ON "WEALTH" IMPLYING WITH THE REST OF HIS STATEMENTS AN INCOME TAX ON THE WEALTHY TOP 5 PERCENT, BUT RATHER CHURCHILL ADVOCATED TWO NEW TAXES: A LAND TAX ON THE INCREASED PRESENT VALUATION OF LAND ON ONLY 1/5TH THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASED PRESENT VALUATION; AND A LAND TAX ON THE CAPITAL VALUE OF "UNDEVELOPED URBAN AND SUBURBAN LAND". CHURCHILL WASN'T ADVOCATING AN INCREASE IN INCOME TAX.) to cover benefits for all in the form of... date I say? Social programs. (THE T***H IS CHURCHILL WOULD BE SHOCKED AT WHAT straightUp IS REPRESENTING AS WHAT CHURCHILL WAS ADVOCATING. BUT FOR A LIBERAL SOCIALIST, THE OUTCOME YOU WANT JUSTIFIES THE MEANS YOU GET, Eh straightUp?)

Well, you don't want to listen to me, don't want to listen to Obama... How about you frickin listen to Churchill then? The message is the same. TAX WEALTH! (THAT STATEMENT IS A "FRICKIN" DAMN LIE!!!")

Churchill's view on tax as described in his 1909 speech remained consistent during his entire career and it's been the template for my own view on taxes for at least 15 years. I actually think we should drop income tax entirely. If we tax wealth we really don't need it. (NOT SO, THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY EVEN IF YOU TOOK ALL THE INCOME OF THE TOP 5 PERCENT TO COVER THE TRILLION DOLLOR ANNUAL DEFICITS OF OBAMA. WHAT straightUp IS REALLY ADVOCATING IS TAXING WEALTH IN THE FORM OF CONFESCATING EVERYONE 401 AND IRA PLAN MONEYS. THAT IS WHAT HE IS WANTS WHEN HE USES THE WORD "WEALTH", HE JUST DOESN'T SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT.) The only reason why we still have it is because the greed at the top 1% is uncompromising and the gullibility of the conservative is endless. (IT'S THE GREED OF THE BRAIN DEAD INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST LIBERALS LIKE straightUp, THAT WANT EVERYONE'S 401 AND IRA PENSION PLAN MONEYS THAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIKE IF THE LIBS WIN THE 2014 MID TERM E******NS THAT WILL BE THE ISSUE THEN.) So instead we fret over the variations of income tax like the i***ts we are.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF WINSTON CHURCHILL'S SPEECH:

I have only one word more to say, and it is rendered necessary by the observations which fell from Lord Lansdowne last night, when, according to the Scottish papers, he informed a gathering at which he was the principal speaker that the House of Lords was not obliged to swallow the Budget whole or without mincing.* I ask you to mark that word. It is a characteristic expression. The House of Lords means to assert its right to mince. Now let us for our part be quite frank and plain. We want this Budget Bill to be fairly and fully discussed; we do not grudge the weeks that have been spent already; we are prepared to make every sacrifice - I speak for my honourable friends who are sitting on this platform - of personal convenience in order to secure a thorough, patient, searching examination of proposals the importance of which we do not seek to conceal. The Government has shown itself ready and willing to meet reasonable argument, not merely by reasonable answer, but when a case is shown, by concessions, and generally in a spirit of goodwill. We have dealt with this subject throughout with a desire to mitigate hardships in special cases, and to gain as large a measure of agreement as possible for the proposals we are placing before the country. We want the Budget not merely to be the work of the Cabinet and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we want it to be the shaped and moulded plan deliberately considered by the House of Commons. That will be a long and painful process to those who are forced from day to day to take part in it. We shall not shrink from it. But when that process is over, when the Finance Bill leaves the House of Commons, I think you will agree with me that it ought to leave the House of Commons in its final form. No amendments, no excision, no modifying or mutilating will be agreed to by us. We will stand no mincing, and unless Lord Lansdowne and his landlordly friends choose to eat their own mince, Parliament will be dissolved, and we shall come to you in a moment of high consequence for every cause for which Liberalism has ever fought. See that you do not fail us in that hour.

THERE ARE TWO FOOTNOTES THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE THAT I HAVE NOT INCLUDED.

CONCLUSION

Like Churchill's statement of Mr. Balfour: "there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat.", neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda. And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour: "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.", similiarly, the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminutaion. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. CrazyHorse


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straightUp like a lead balloon: Your profound ego isn't justified. Perhaps you should stick to your Libertarian sites you find more challenging.

straightUp Loc: California

You're right... I guess it would have been more accurate to say that their intellect is often eclipsed by their emotion - keeping in mind that an eclipse is not a state of being, but a point of view. (When the moon eclipses the sun it it only from out point of view on Earth that we see it.)


I don't agree. Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say that conservatives do not commonly associate emotions with the conservative side. Perhaps this get's back to points of view again.




LOL - Well, first of all, that's hard advice to take in a forum where much worse has been thrown at me.... OFTEN. Compared to the direct insults that come at me with names like moron, i***t and scumbag, saying "well, duh" somehow seems light-natured. But more importantly, when I say things like that it's rarely (if ever) an inadvertent slip or a case of getting carried away. Usually, I'll issue "incendiary" phrases when I know the other person is already shut down. At that point I'm not expecting the other person to open up to *my* view. But sometimes if I turn the heat up a little the other person makes a bigger effort to explain his/her view and I might even learn something which is a bigger win for me anyway. I actually like the rough nature of some of the conversations, even when people are trying insult me. It's a more honest form of communication and it reminds me of the House of Commons LOL.

But thanks for the advice anyway... Generally speaking, it *is* good advice.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

"LOL - Well, first of all, that's hard advice to take in a forum where much worse has been thrown at me.... OFTEN. Compared to the direct insults that come at me with names like moron, i***t and scumbag, saying "well, duh" somehow seems light-natured. But more importantly, when I say things like that it's rarely (if ever) an inadvertent slip or a case of getting carried away. Usually, I'll issue "incendiary" phrases when I know the other person is already shut down. At that point I'm not expecting the other person to open up to *my* view. But sometimes if I turn the heat up a little the other person makes a bigger effort to explain his/her view and I might even learn something which is a bigger win for me anyway. I actually like the rough nature of some of the conversations, even when people are trying insult me. It's a more honest form of communication and it reminds me of the House of Commons LOL."

You know StraightUp, you're absolutely right. I lost sight of who I was responding to. After I posted the part about the "well-duh" comment, I felt like a jerk. You definitely do take a lot of $hit from people, and you almost never resort to name calling in return. I would like to retract that statement, and opologize, that was kind of a cheap shot, and I'm sorry for that.

Also, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, about which side can't check their emotions. It just boils down to a point of view anyway, not a big deal.

Even though I almost never agree with your politics, I'm happy to see that you stand your ground, and don't run away and hide, I admire that about you. As you may, or may not know, I read just about everything that is posted in here, about 98% of it, but I don't always comment. It's nice to come across a discussion like you were having, I enjoy a good debate. I'll comment at times as I did with you, just to let whoever know that someone is paying attention.

With all do respect, I just have to add that, it is not good practice to try to conform direct quotes to suit your point of view, as you attempted with Churchill's speach. To put it simply, you got caught, and CrazyHorse called you out on it, I think he could've been a lot harder on you than he was, and I think he exhibited a good deal of restraint. As I am,( and previously was),aware that he is not your biggest fan. Guess you'll just have to chaulk that one up to a loss, keep your head up, and move on. As I see it, you have no rebuttal.

Good luck, and thanks for getting back to me.
Just my two cents on that, do with it what you will.

straightUp Loc: California

Crazyhorse...

The demands of my job don't always allow me the time to dive into in-depth discussions on the Internet whenever I want to. I replied to the shorter posts while saving a response to yours for later.

From what I can tell, you are either lying about reading all that material or you are being modest about your expertise on Churchill. That is indeed an impressive reading list.

With regard to your hostility toward me - I'm OK with that. It shows that you're passionate about what you think.

With regard to your suggestion that I am somehow manipulating Churchill's words to suit my ideology - well, that's bulls**t. What I am doing is finding what I honestly think is a common point between my thoughts on political economics and a public figure that I have always respected, probably because my parents, being English conservatives and having lived through the war, have always presented him as a hero, but also because of my own limited reading about the man.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but there is no dishonesty, nor is there a socialist agenda as I am not a socialist. And seriously folks, this is an Internet forum with anonymous participants, not a decision-making congress, there is no reason why a socialist or anyone else would deny his association. So get over it.

I am printing out your post so I can read it later this weekend and I will respond as best I can because with the effort you put into that last post I feel you deserve it.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straighUp: Well, we will see what the substance of your reply is then. BTW, I don't lie about anything, and if you want a real war, keep implying it again as a possibility, and I will take the shackles off of my adjectives.

straightUp Loc: California

Thank you.


I agree that we should agree to disagree ;) ...and that it does boil down to points of view, realizing that the unchecked emotions we see almost always erupt from the those we argue against. For me it's usually conservatives for you I'm sure it's usually liberals. And it's not big deal - it's human nature. I guess I forget that sometimes.


Don't jump to conclusions yet... Notice my bookmark response, which I posted before seeing your latest post. I just haven't had the time to read through his post yet. Check back on Monday. If I have nothing by then go ahead and make your own conclusions.

;)

straightUp Loc: California

Be here Monday... and don't waste your time trying to scare me with your adjectives... I've had mine restrained too. One more thing, my friend... When someone outright announces the intentions of another person he is always at risk of being a liar.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straightUp: Which pursuant to your definition, is precisely what you did when you said I either lied or ... Moreover, says the dictionary: "Lie: 1. A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Anything meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. ..." I have other things to accomplish, so don't instruct me where I have to be.

Yankee Clipper

straightUp Loc: California

So... here is my rebuttal. Note: I am highlighting Crazyhorse quotes and the Churhill quotes that Crazyhorse cites in red.

Just so we all understand each other on what just happened...
My comment on a common point I feel I have with Winston Churchill has invoked a direct and personal attack on my credibility. So... ad hominem as they say. But fallacies aside, and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.

And so, his primary issue... as he stated it in his opening paragraph.


I don't hold myself out as an expert on Winston Churchill. I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill


Just so * I * understand...
I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude
...means that Crazyhorse is claiming sufficient expertise to conclude...

that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill
...”it” being the “object” of the sentence isn't clearly identified in CrazyHorse's language, but I think we can assume “it” refers to Churchill's 1909 speech.

...”ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill” is where I am being accused (I assume) of interpreting the speech with my own representation of Churchill. Of course, this is the exact thing the accuser himself did. The very act of saying anything about a person is in fact, a representation. And one's own representation is all one has to offer. Crazyhorse presents an entire resume (which I will assume is honest) on his expertise and the only value I can see in doing that is to give credit to his representation of Winston Churchill.

Now, Crazyhorse * did * use the term “ideologued”, which he may think sets me apart. I assume this term is suggesting that my specific “representation” of the speech is an effort to endorse some kind of ideology. Since I don't advocate any particular ideology, I have to assume from context what he thinks this ideology is. One clue might be this...

neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.
A socialist agenda... of course, this is after all the entire point of the original post at the top of this topic where Crazyhorse selects (or “cherry picks” as he says when accusing me) a series of Winston Churchill quotes that emphasize his subject's opposition to socialism as further suggested by his title, “WINSTON CHURCHILL on Socialism”. So... really, who is the ideologist here?

But hypocrisy aside, and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.

Presented as a “general statement” of my supposed “idealoging up” of Churchill's 1909 speech, he makes the following accusations, which he repeats again, verbatim, in his “conclusion” at the end of the post.

Like Churchill's statement of Mr. Balfour: "there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat.", neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.

And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour: "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.", similiarly, the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminutaion. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to.


After that he goes into his supporting arguments. Before I get into each of them, I want to first respond to the primary charges of this ad hominem attack. I will number them for reference as I respond to his supporting arguments.

1. Socialist Agenda?
First of all... I don't have a socialist agenda. I am not even a socialist. One might describe my opinions as “sounding” socialist but that would be the opinion of another person, not myself. I am certainly not a self-described socialist nor a member of the Socialist Party. As for an agenda... well, the only thing I was suggesting is that we consider taxing wealth instead of income. I don't see how that particular argument can be associated with socialism. The closest ideology I can think of to what I am suggesting is Geolibertarianism.

Definition of Socialism:
My understanding of socialism on a fundamental level is based on the idea of public ownership.
Merriam-Wesbter:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory t***sitional between capitalism and c*******m and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I haven't suggested public ownership of anything... I * have * suggested a tax on private ownership (of wealth), which itself is an affirmation of private property not a denial of it as the socialist might advocate. Maybe Crazyhorse has a different definition of socialism than I do. As it happens, Crazyhorse presented his original post as a definition of socialist philosophy based on selected quotes by Winston Churchill, one of which he emphasized greatly by making it the first sentence in his original post.

“We are oppressed by a deadly fallacy. Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” - Winston Churchill, Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland. 1948.

Well, I don't advocate failure or ignorance and I don't base my ideas on envy. Then again, any socialist would say the same thing right? Clearly, this is one of Churchill's rhetorical statements. I don't think Churchill was actually “defining” socialism with this statement as Crazyhorse is suggesting. I am pretty sure he already knew the technical definition of socialism and I'm sure he was able to assume his audience did as well, which provided the context that allowed him poetic license to say what he did.

So Crazyhorse is using fragments of rhetorical speech to create a loose, wide-reaching definition of socialism that exceed the boundaries of almost every technical definition of socialism that I have ever seen. Therefore, I suggest that his accusation of me having a socialist agenda is false.


2. No principal or degree of of intellectual honesty that I won't abandon?
And Crazyhorse knows this for a fact? He is aware of every principal known to man and that I am willing to abandon every one of them? He knows that I am willing to abandon every level of intellectual honesty? First of all how does anyone know that much about a person, much less a person whom he only knows through a handful of anonymous posts on the internet? And secondly, where is his evidence?

3. False Representation and Lost virtue?
Crazyhorse said...

the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminutaion.He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to.

[/quote]
I quoted one statement from the speech and said that I agreed with it. I did not change or modify Churchill's statement in anyway. How is this presenting his positions falsely?

And how does one secure an accurate assessment of another person's virtue through a handful of anonymous posts on a political Internet forum? Even if he could prove that I misrepresented Churchill's positions, how would he know it wasn't an honest mistake?

A credibility cripple who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. Yeah, that smells like fear. Fear that someone has the intellectual capacity to call out his bulls**t. So everyone, don't listen to him. He has no virtue.


4. Cherry-picking and ommisions?
This accusation wasn't presented in his opening statement nor his conclusion, but he makes this accusation repeatedly throughout his supporting arguments.

First let me point out that I did in fact say this at the start of my post...
I've posted some excerpts to emphasize the points I want to make... The entire speech can be read at http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

So what Crazyhorse did is find additional excerpts to emphasize the points he wanted to make while accusing me of intentionally omitting them.
I didn't copy the entire speech to the post because I didn't want to make the post too long for anyone to want to read. I did however post the link so anyone can read it and verify my own statements. Copying the entire speech to the post isn't any more “honest” than posting a link to the complete transcript of the speech.

So... on to the supporting arguments...


First of all, Crazyhorse left out my comment entirely and attacks me for not explaining something that had no bearing on it. So let me bring up my comment – here it is...


Here Winston actually makes a distinction between socialists toward which he had little tolerance and liberalism toward which he was willing to compromise

A distinction between socialism (that attacks capital) and liberalism (that attacks monopoly)... The only thing Crazyhorse seems to be explaining is his own confusion by emphasizing that the socialists were in the labor party not the liberal party... Well, if Churchill was putting socialists in one hand and liberals in another then that should have been quite obvious.

Also, it's misleading to say that the Labour Party was the “socialist party” because not everyone in the Labour Party was a socialist and not all socialists were in the Labour Party. Then again Crazyhorse describes the American Democratic Party as socialists so again, he must be using that expanded, every-other-person definition of socialism.

Next, Crazyhorse says this...


Here Crazyhorse makes more unfounded assumptions about my “agenda” while suggesting that I truncated and sequestered the speech. My answer to this is in my response to his ad hominem attack #4. If I posted a link to the entire speech, I am not truncating or sequestering anything.

Next...


Crazyhorse... think about it... if there was an annual evaluation of real estate upon which any increased valuation was taxed then why would Churchill be campaigning for it? And yes, it is “common practice” in the United States today. Again, nothing you mention here has any bearing on what I posted nor does is suggest any intellectual dishonesty or “ideologing” on my part.

Next...


Well, again... ad hominem attack #4... And as for the 1st sentence being the exception. That was the sentence in which Churchill explained something relevant to my comment... the one you left out.


Note: the first sentence in blue is the quote from Churchill. Uppercase red (except for my name which is lower case of course), is Crazyhorse's comment followed by the rest of the Churchill quote, then my comment, then his comment.

So... Crazyhorse... What difference does the method of taxing land make to this argument? Read the Churchill quote and then read mine... Churchill's point was that grinding tariffs on the necessaries of life and the materials of manufacture neutralized the benefit of their land tenure. The only comment I added was that in America today sales and income tax can also be categorized as a grinding tariff on the necessaries of life – they certainly subtract from a person's purchasing power to secure such necessaries. What does Churchills specific brand of land tax have to do with whether not not other countries neutralize the benefit of their own land tax?



Thank you for the added commentary but how does this support any of your ad hominem attacks on me?



First of all, you are explaining something I already explained...but again, you left my comment out. Let me put it back in...


You suggest that Churchill wasn't using the term in it's true sense, but he was. You are confusing an example of monopoly more familiar with Americans with the definition of what a monopoly is. Yes, we have laws against specific forms of monopoly but not all forms. We have no laws against land monopoly in the sense Chuchill is referring to.



Crazyhorse, you're confused again... I said 80% of the WEALTH is in the top 5%. Then you go off about how the top 1% pays 50% of all INCOME tax. I wasn't talking about income I was talking about wealth! They are NOT the same thing. Obviously, you're not really understanding what Churchill was saying when he was trying to explain the difference between sources of revenue. Also, I think you are wrong about a “TAD over 50% of the adult populus” paying no income at all. My understanding is that every American is taxed at least 10%.The only ones that don't pay are c***ters. I don't know what ratio that represents but I'm pretty sure it's not anywhere near 50%.



All the money and all the assets? You mean net worth? ...of the top 5% would not cover our annual expenditures? Are you sure about that Crazyhorse? Where are your numbers? What are your sources? Or are you just throwing that out there – hoping no one will challenge you?

I got some numbers and some sources... ready?

Deficit (2013) = $973 billion
This year (2013) the federal government estimated the total deficit will be $973 billion. Down from the 2012 deficit of $1,087 billion. Source: Federal Budget, as presented at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com. Granted, deficit spending has been known to exceed budget estimates when the government goes “off-line” to borrow money from the Federal Reserve, something the Bush administration did excessively, but the Congressional Budget Office checks that and their latest estimate for this year is only $642 billion, so it doesn't look like Obama is following suite.

Total Government Spending (2012) = $6 trillion
This is the total spending by the federal government in 2012... $6 trillion. Source: Federal Government (Historical Tables) as presented on http://www.usgovernmentspending.com.

Total Wealth (Net Worth) in Top 5% = $35.2 trillion
Government spending is easy to cite. Each year Congress produces a concise budget and the IRS establishes a concise tax liability. Both deficit spending and total spending can be calculated from there. Wealth however, is much harder to estimate, due to it's private nature. The result is a wide range of estimates on total net worth with the differences being in what components are included. On the low side there are estimates based on GDP (around $14 trillion), but that's a very limited, and according to many economists, a misleading view. Dr John Rutledge of Rutledge Capital suggests using the Z1 document (Flow of Funds of the United States) published by the Federal Reserve because it contains data that applies to the total “balance sheet”. Rutledge used the Z1 document to estimate a total net worth of $188 trillion in 2008, during the depths of the recession. His breakdown includes $46 trillion in tangible assets which I noticed matches the figure provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for that year AND $141.5 trillion in financial assets for a total of approx. $188 trillion.

To make my point and disprove yours, I am going to stick with the $46 trillion in tangible assets as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau because the census also breaks that number down by demographic. First, let me note that the U.S. Census Bureau reports total tangible assets at $56.8 trillion for 2010 Q4, with 36.4% of that held by families in the top 1%, the greater portion of the 62% held in the top 5% (to correct my earlier 80% estimate). So, 62% of $56.8 trillion = $35.2 trillion.

So... you are wrong! According to known sources, the top 5% DOES indeed have enough “money and assets” ($35.2 trillion) to cover the total government expenditure ($6 trillion) and to do that they would only need to be taxed at 17%... AND that's based on tangible assets only which is estimated at only a quarter of the total wealth!



Not true... I included the entire passage, including those “three words” and then made comments with references to specific words at the end. If anything, Crazyhorse is the one being dishonest by accusing me of something I didn't do.


Here Crazyhorse says I used the “technique AGAIN but he's referring to the same supposed omission that he already accused me of. Milking it Crazyhorse?




Again, I preceded my comment with the entire passage including the parts that Crazyhorse is again accusing me of sequestering.

In general, my comments at the end of that fully disclosed passage were focused on specific points that I wanted to make. So when he says I left out certain words that don't make my point he is right, it's called focus... but that's why I preceded the comments with the fully disclosed passage. Also, I took care that none of the words in the speech that I left out of my commentary actually conflicted with the points in my commentary. I think if Crazyhorse had the slightest idea what my points actually are, he might have noticed that. But instead he seems to be ignoring the points I am actually trying to make and replacing them (in his mind) with his own predetermined delusions about what my objectives are. That's like planting an illegal item on my person and then arresting me for possession.

...and he's calling ME dishonest?


OK... perhaps I didn't make that clear enough, I was referring to taxes that actually exist. As far as I know, there is no example of wealth being taxed 100%. Your argument seems a little far-fetched to say the least.


Personal insults aside, your accusation that the “Obama Plan” is to confiscate our 401K and IRA retirement plans is something I have not seen any proof of. Is is Obama's “secret” plan? Am I being accused of intellectual dishonesty by a delusional conspiracy theorist?



This is a case of Crazyhorse calling me a liar because I said something he didn't understand. Gotta love being accused by ignorance. I said (obviously with tongue in cheek) that “Fox News would be raging about what a socialist Churchill is for suggesting a tax on wealth”... I repeat... WEALTH! Then Crazyhorse calls that a lie because Churchill wasn't suggesting a tax on income...

* blink *

...is anyone getting this? Wealth and income are not the same thing folks. That's not some socialist propaganda, that common knowledge. The IRS, the U.S. Census, the Federal Reserve all make clear distinctions between wealth and income...





No, it's not Crazyhorse. You yourself said that Churchill was proposing two taxes, one on the increased valuation of land and the other on the capital value of undeveloped land.” These are examples of wealth not income.

I guess I can call on Winston Churchill once again to prove my point... Again, from the same 1909 speech, in this passage, Churchill consoles those who worry that his tax on wealth will overburden the rich, which is exactly the same concern I hear from conservatives today.


You will perhaps say to me that may be all very well, but are you sure that the rich and the very rich are not being burdened too heavily? Are you sure that you are not laying on the backs of people who are struggling to support existence with incomes of upwards of £3,000 a year, burdens which are too heavy to be borne? Will they not sink, crushed by the load of material cares, into early graves, followed there even by the unrelenting hand of the death duties collector? Will they not take refuge in wholesale fraud and evasion, as some of their leaders ingenuously suggest, or will there be a general flight of all rich people from their native shores to the protection of the hospitable foreigner? Let me reassure you on these points.

The taxes which we now seek to impose to meet the need of the State will not appreciably affect, have not appreciably affected, the comfort, the status, or even the style of living of any class in the United Kingdom. There has been no invidious singling out of a few rich men for special taxation. The increased burden which is placed upon wealth is evenly and broadly distributed over the whole of that wealthy class who are more numerous in Great Britain than in any other country in the world, and who, when this Budget is passed, will still find Great Britain the best country to live in. When I reflect upon the power and influence that class possesses, upon the general goodwill with which they are still regarded by their poorer neighbours, upon the infinite opportunities for pleasure and for culture which are open to them in this free, prosperous, and orderly commonwealth, I cannot doubt that they ought to contribute, and I believe that great numbers of them are willing to contribute, in a greater degree than heretofore, towards the needs of the navy, for which they are always clamouring, and for those social reforms upon which the health and contentment of the whole population depend.


So, there we have it...

If anything, Crazyhorse in his haste to discredit me has only discredited himself. Maybe we should all do more to try and understand each other instead of wasting our credibility on prejudice and persecution.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straightUp:

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON SOCIALISM IS THE THREAD I PUT UP ON 1PP FOR CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT. I wrote the thread for my website http://www.alumnishockerblackandgolds.com 6 years before and posted it on my website on 13 June 2007. I did not change it at all, but just posted on 1PP as it was, thinking it might be of interest to posters of 1PP. The post considers 5 Winston Churchill relative late speeches in his life time, from 1947 to 1951, Sir Winston passed on in 1965 at age 91, so these speeches would have been written and delivered by Churchill between the ages of 73 and 77. It should be noted that straighUp chose not to discuss any of the 5 Churchill speeches I put up on the thread for consideration, but rather chose to cherry pick two sentences and a paragraph from a 8 page Churchill speech advocating land tax on the increased or present valuation of real estate, not just on its original base value tax; which speech was given in Scotland in 1909 when Churchill would have been 35 years old and for a brief time aligned with the Liberal party, from his normal conservative party alignment. I will leave the reader to conclude why he thinks straightUp chose to accomplish ignoring the speeches offered by the thread in his much later lifetime, and cherry pick a Churchill speech 38 to 43 years earlier in Churchill's life. Remember, Churchill fought Socialism his whole life, including his World War II fight against N**i Germany's National Socialism. But straightUp presented Churchill as supporting a tax on "Wealth", a clear Socialist agenda.

So, the following is the THREAD I put up for consideration on the issue of primarily Socialism, with my current hi-liting:


"We are Oppressed by a Deadly Fallacy. Socialism is the Philosophy of Failure, the Creed of Ignorance and the Gospel of Envy"

Re: Socialism Defined

Socialist philosophy – if it can be considered a philosophy, bankrupt as it is – as evidenced by liberal democrats today, was succinctly defined by Winston Churchill some 60 years ago in a number of speeches, and although a little long, I should think is appropriate reading for any American citizen over the age puberty, thus:



“Confiscatory taxation has been applied to wealth to an extent only practised* in C*******t countries. All our daily life is increasingly subjected to ten thousand Regulations and Controls, in the enforcement of which a multitude of officials, larger than any army we have ever maintained in time of peace, is continually employed. Hundreds of new crimes have been invented for which imprisonment or penal servitude may be inflicted. In fact, on every side and by every means the machinery for the totalitarian grip upon British society is being built up and perfected. One could almost wonder whether the Government do not reconcile themselves to the economic misfortunes of our country, to which their mismanagement has so notably contributed, because these misfortunes give the pretext of establishing even more controls and an even larger bureaucracy. They make mistakes which make things worse. As things get worse they claim more power to set them right. Thus they move ever nearer to the scheme of the All-powerful State, in which the individual is a helpless serf or pawn. (It’s no different today. When Liberal policies fail, they tell us it’s only because we haven’t had enough of it, and we should be patient and swallow another dose).

And here I come to the remark of the Prime Minister

last Saturday when he said, ‘Some do not understand the amount of Freedom which we rightly give to an Opposition to criticise*.’ The word that struck me in this sentence is the word 'give’. So it is Mr Attlee who gives us rights to freedom of speech and political action, and we are invited to be grateful for his magnanimity. But I thought these same rights had been won for the British people beyond dispute or challenge by our forebears in bygone generations. These were the rights for which, to quote a famous Whig phrase, ‘Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold’ And now it is Mr Attlee who thinks he has given them to us. Let him cherish these illusions, but let him not be so foolish as to try to take them away. Well it was said, ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’. Small steps and graduated stages are the means by which, in the history of many countries, the freedom of great and noble races has been slowly frittered and whittled away.” (Emphasis added) (Parenthesis added) (Conservative Party Conference, Brighton, 4 October 1947).



Today we are continually harangued by the liberal thought police, and told what language it is we are allowed to use. It may be true, but you can’t say it if liberals don’t want to hear it; and not only that, you can’t even think it, as it’s a thought crime if they think their proscription was what was in your mind.



“We are oppressed by a deadly fallacy. Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Unless we free our country while time remains from the perverse doctrines of Socialism, there can be no hope for recovery. ... The Socialist Government in London has become dependent upon the generosity of the capitalist system of the United States. We are not earning our own living or paying our way, nor do the Government hold out any prospect of our doing so in the immediate future.” (Emphasis added) [color=red(Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948).[/color]



Three years after the war, the U.S. capitalist system was helping the recovery of Britain and Europe with aid under the Marshall plan, but the Socialist party held the British Government since the end of the war and had set Socialist policy with devastating affects.



“In our view the strong should help the weak. In the Socialist view the strong should be kept down to the level of the weak in order to have equal shares for all. How small the share is does not matter so much, in their opinion, so long as it is equal. They would much rather that everyone should have half rations than anybody should get a second helping. What are called ‘the lowest income groups’ before the war when there were no rations[,] in fact consumed under the ‘wicked Tories’ one and [a] half times as much meat and more than twice as much sugar as Dr Summersk**l doles to all of us today.” .... To apply the Socialist principle of e******y at all costs is, in fact, to lay down the law that the pace of our advancing social army must be the pace of the slowest and the weakest man. Such a principle is, of course, destructive of all hopes of victory in social and philanthropic advance.” (Note: Tories were the conservatives, of which he was a member)

(Emphasis added) (Parenthesis added) (Forum Cinema, Devonport, 9 February 1950)



Subsequent to the war, and England’s attempted recovery, the Socialist policies five years later, still imposed food and gas rations.



“I must, however, draw your attention to the characteristic remark by Dr Dalton, the new Minister of Town and Country Planning. In announcing one of his minor concessions he said, ‘This is an experiment in freedom. I hope it will not be abused.’ Could you have anything more characteristic of the Socialist rulers’ outlook towards the public? Freedom is a favour*; it is an experiment which the governing class of Socialist politicians will immediately curtail if they are displeased with our behaviour*. This is language which the head of a Borstal Institution might suitably use to the inmates when announcing some modification of the disciplinary system. What an example of smug and insolent conceit! What a way to talk to the British people! As a race we have been experimenting in freedom, not entirely without success, for several centuries, and have spread the ideas of freedom throughout the world. And yet, here is this Minister, who speaks to us as if it lay with him to dole out our liberties like giving biscuits to a dog who will sit up and beg prettily. This characteristic of the official Socialist temperament and attitude in office should not pass uncensured* by the British people who expect Ministers of the Crown to behave as the servants and not as the masters of the nation.” (Emphasis added)(Usher Hall, Edinburgh, 18 May 1950).



Today it’s no different with our Congresses’ wheedled Amnesty Bill in face of a massive illegal invasion. Why is it do you suspect, that when: elected officials who are elected in a representative capacity, and who put their left hand on the Bible and hold up their right hand swearing to uphold the laws of the land (including limited quota i*********n l*ws) and to protect and defend the United States of America; thereafter determine to dislike the existing laws they have sworn to uphold; simply ignore their constituents and the vast majority of American opinion against this illegal Mexican and Latino invasion (and I might add it turns out not a few fanatic Moslem terrorist) and attempt to bridle the American people and pass a new law to make legal citizens out of Mexican, Latino, Moslem invaders, and obligate American Citizens taxpayers to pay for it and live with them? Upon what American principle is this allowed or even considered? The answer can only be that once elected they believe they were elected to “rule” by fiat, and so simply ignore their constituents’ desires. (In this paragraph I extended my comments briefly to the issue of "immigration")




“Egypt, Persia, Albania, the Argentine and Chile compete with each other in the insults and the humiliations they inflict upon us – and what is the cause? It is the attempt to impose a doctrinaire Socialism upon an island which has grown great and famous by free enterprise and valour and which six years ago stood in honour* though not in size at the summit of the world....Taxation is higher than in any other country outside the C*******t world. There they take all. There no one has anything except the salaries paid them by the privileged C*******t aristocracy. British taxation is higher now than it was in the height of the late war – even when we stood alone and defied all comers.

“Is not that an astonishing fact? Six years of Socialist Government have hit us harder in our finance and economics than Hitler was able to do. Look at the effects you face of devaluation abroad. We are an island with a population of fifty millions living on imports of food and raw materials, which we have to buy by our exertion, ingenuity and craftsmanship. We have to pay across the dollar exchange twelve hours of work, with hand or brain, to buy what we could before have got with eight hours.” (Emphasis added)

(Royal Wanstead School, Woodford, 21 July 1951)



The result was the British people returned the Conservative party with Winston Churchill for his second term at the age of 77 as Prime Minister of the Government, to save Britain from unreasoned crushing Socialist policies, just as he had saved Britain from Germany. And even today, history teaches the Liberal Democrats nothing – they never learn. Nothing can penetrate their ideology or petrified minds.



* English spelling at the time.

P.S. WINSTON CHURCHILL'S MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN


StraightUp choose a 1909 Churchill speech to cherry pick having ignored the 5 speeches I quoted some 38 to 43 years later in Churchill's life; one has to assume because they did not offer any support for straightUp's support of Socialism and an attack on "Wealth". But before we consider straightUp's rebuttal, lets look at a couple of Churchill statements around the time of the 1909 Scottish Edinburgh speech on additionally taxing the present value of real estate, not just the original base value:

On 26 July 1897 at the age of 22, Churchill made his first political speech: "The dried up drain-pipe of radicalism" at Claverton Down, Bath. Discusing an Employers' Liability Bill, he called Workmen's Compensation Bill, Churchill said: "Radicals, who are never satisfied with Liberals, always liberal with other people's money (laughter), ask why it is not applied to all. That is like a Radical - just the slap-dash, wholesale, harum-scarum policy of the Radical. It reminds me of the man who, on being told that ventilation is an excellent thing, went and smashed every window in his house, and died of rheumatic fever. (Laughter and cheers.) That is not Conservative policy. Conservative policy is essentially a tentative policy - a look-before-you leap policy; and it is a policy of don't leap at all if there is a ladder. (Laughter.) "Never Give In!, The best of Winston Churchill's Speeches", Selected by His Grandson, Winston S. Churchill, p. 3-4.

So even in his very first political speech at age 22, Winston Churchill evidenced he was a conservative, not a liberal and not a Radical liberal.

On 22 Jan. 1908, in a Cheetham, Manchester speech entitled "SOCIALISM: 'ALL YOURS IS MINE!', with the grandson's introduction: "In the ranks of the Labour Party there were to be found many hard-line Socialist, to whose presence in the Liberal coalition Churchill took the strongest exception, while anxious not to alienate the working-class v**e.", Churchill said: "The Socialist - the extreme and revolutionary party of Socialists - are very fond of telling us they are reviving in modern days the best principles of the Christian era. They consider they are the political embodiment of Christianity, though, to judge by the language which some of them use and the spirit of envy, hatred, and malice with which they go about their work, you would hardly imagine they had studied the teaching of the Founder of Christianity with the attention they profess to have given to the subject. - (Hear, hear.) But there is one great difference between Socialists of the Christian era and those of which Mr Victor Gray son is the apostle. The Socialism of the Christian era was based on the idea that "all mine is yours', but the Socialism of Mr Gray son is based on the idea that 'all yours is mine'. - (Cheers.) Id. at p. 27-29.

So, again, in 1908, we see Churchill attacking Socialism.

On 4 May 1908, in a speech at Kinnaird Hall, Dundee, entitled: "What is Society", Churchill said: "And what is society? I will tell you what society is. T***slated into concrete terms, Socialistic 'society' is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent e******n,... Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individual. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist...Your tramways and so on; your great public works, which are of a monopolistic and privileged character - there I see a wide field for State enterprise to embark upon. But when we are told to exalt and admire a philosophy which destroys individualism and seeks to replace it by collectivism, I say that is a monstrous and imbecile conception which can find no real foothold in the brains and hearts - and the hearts are as trustworthy as the brains - in the hearts of sensible people. (Loud cheers.)" Id. at p. 31-32.

So here are 3 more Churchill speeches, his very first political speech in 1897 at age 22 and two more in 1908, shortly before straighUp's cherry picked speech in 1909, in which clearly Churchill attacked Socialism: "[L]iberals always liberal with other peoples money"; "[j]ust the slap-dash, wholesale, harum-scarum policy of the Radical"; "all yours is mine"; and "collectist" as opposed to "individualist". Without doubt, Churchill his entire life never supported Socialism or their fundamental Socialist policies.


NOW LETS LOOK AT straightUp’s REBUTTAL SPEECH HE CHOSE TO CHERRY PICK.

So... here is my rebuttal. Note: I am highlighting CrazyHorse quotes and the Churchill quotes that CrazyHorse cites in red.

Just so we all understand each other on what just happened...(This is a set up strawman technique to argue from. The reader should keep in mind that it was a CrazyHorse posted thread that straighUp chose to post up another Churchill speech, and argue as to a position he asserted and alleged was Churchill's opinion and position, it was not!)

My comment on a common point I feel I have with Winston Churchill has invoked a direct and personal attack on my credibility. (This alleged common point asserted against my thread of Churchill, I believed to be falsely stated as Churchill's opinion. It was not an "attack" on straightUp's credibility, it was a resulting "conclusion" drawn from straightUp's false assertion. If it was ad hominem, it was so because straightUp made it so by asserting that his, straightUp's opinion, was Churchill's opinion: "Well, you don't want to listen to me, don't want to listen to Obama...How about you frickin listen to Churchill then? The message is the same." Accordingly, it became ad hominem precisely because of straightUp's alleged common point is not a common point with Churchill. StraightUp did it to himself.)
So... ad hominem as they say. But fallacies aside, and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, (I just provided the full 8 page Churchill speech for the reader's consideration, not just straightUp's two sentence and a paragraph.) and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.

And so, his primary issue... as he stated it in his opening paragraph. (It was not a primary issue, but was simply my statement to the readers of my background that resulted in my conclusion from reading straightUp false assertions of Churchill.)


I don't hold myself out as an expert on Winston Churchill. I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill (straightUp chose this Churchill speech, not me. It was not one of the original 5 speeches I quoted from in the CrazyHorse thread originally drafted and posted for my own website some 6 years earlier in 2007.)


Just so * I * understand...
I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude
...means that Crazyhorse is claiming sufficient expertise to conclude...(I simply presented my background reading of Churchill in support of my opinion. In short, it was not an opinion lightly formed.)

that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill

...”it” being the “object” of the sentence isn't clearly identified in CrazyHorse's language, but I think we can assume “it” refers to Churchill's 1909 speech. (Here we have an exhibit of straightUp obfuscation and mental masturbation. I clearly identified it: "with his representation of Churchill", it's in the same sentence. You see if straighUp can represent my sentence was muddled and he had to assume what it meant, then he thinks it makes him look more intelligent than the person he is responding to. It is just playing to your ego and a form of mental masturbation, plain and simple.)

...”ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill” is where I am being accused (I assume) (More sophistry and mental masturbation) of interpreting (no, representing) the speech with my own (opinion and straightUp’s false) representation of Churchill (contending it was Churchill).

Of course, this is the exact thing the accuser himself did. The very act of saying anything about a person is in fact, a representation. And one's own representation is all one has to offer. (Not "Of course", but Not Hardly! There is a vast difference between what I accomplished and the misrepresentation that straightUp accomplished. In the original thread, I provided large segments of five different Churchill speeches and let Churchill speak for himself. In straightUp's response he ignored the 5 presented Churchill speeches, and provided two sentences and a paragraph of an 8 page speech, and then misrepresented what Churchill said, convoluting the word "wealth" to his own meaning not at all what Churchill was talking about, not even in argumentative context. 'And one's own representation is" not "all one has to offer." If you are intellectually honest you let the person you are quoting speak for himself, and you don't convolute it to something different and claim it for the other person, as did straightUp.)

Crazyhorse presents an entire resume (which I will assume is honest)(Here straighUp impliedly wants to question and suggest I am a liar with respect to the citations of Churchill books I provided the reader as background to understand the basis of my understanding of Churchill. Every book that I cited is in my library. I have read every book line by line, sentence by sentence, and hi-lited as I was reading. In fact, I can hardly read without using a hi-liter. It is a smaller part of a more sophisticated 3 color procedure I developed in very structured schooling in undergraduate school, and two graduate universities. The six volume set of Churchill's own The Second World War, upwards of 4,000 pages, to my knowledge, is not now available in the United States or even in London from the Folio Society from which I purchased the books at considerable expense, a number of years ago. If you said to me, send me page x of any of the six volumes, I could scan the page into my computer and e-mail it to you. And, I could do that for any of the books I cited except the 15th source which is not a book, but a folder of World War II documents.) on his expertise and the only value I can see in doing that is to give credit to his representation of Winston Churchill. (Not my representation of Churchill, I did that by quoting Churchill in large segments of 5 speeches of my original posted thread, in hi-liting Churchill's language in the entire speech I presented of straightUp’s selected Churchill speech some 40 years before the 5 speeches I presented, and then only presented 2 sentences and a paragraph. Unlike straightUp, by presenting the entire speech, I wasn't "representing" what Churchill said, I was presently exactly what he said for the reader to read himself. I just hi-lited specific parts or Churchill's words, to draw attention to those parts I thought were not supportive of straighUp's representation of Churchill. An intellectually honest procedure, as opposed the straightUp's procedure. What straightUp is attempting to accomplish, is to muck up the procedures with sophistry, and pretend there is no difference in the honest citing of Churchill I accomplished, and the fallacious argument straightUp accomplished. Not so!)

Now, Crazyhorse * did * use the term “ideologued”, which he may think sets me apart. I assume this term is suggesting that my specific “representation” of the speech is an effort to endorse some kind of ideology. Since I don't advocate any particular ideology, I have to assume from context what he thinks this ideology is. One clue might be this... (straightUp is always having to assume this or that, to give him a strawman to argue against. What sets straightUp apart is his sophistry, his misleading fallacious argument that he continually is willing to accomplish. StraightUp doesn't have to assume anything; I said it was his liberal socialist agenda. StraightUp falsely alleges he doesn't advocate any particular ideology. Not so, straightUp advocated socialism, pure and simple, a tax on "wealth". He can say what he will or may, but words mean things, and the bottom line straightUp was pleading, saying it was Churchill, was a tax on "wealth", in the general sense of "wealth", Socialism; not a tax on the present increased value of real estate that Churchill was talking about. Now, straightUp can't pretend otherwise. He got caught in his fallacious argument and sophistry, and he can't now do more of it in an effort to squirm his way out of the dishonest hole he created for himself.)

neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.
A socialist agenda... of course, this is after all the entire point of the original post at the top of this topic where Crazyhorse selects (or “cherry picks” as he says when accusing me) a series of Winston Churchill quotes that emphasize his subject's opposition to socialism as further suggested by his title, “WINSTON CHURCHILL on Socialism”. So... really, who is the ideologist here? (Just more mental masturbation. I presented quotes of Churchill on the issue of Socialism. Churchill, after all, fought Socialism all his life, including the English Labour Party socialism, and led Great Britain's fight against the German N**i brand of "National Socialism". But discussing the issue to Socialism doesn't make me an ideologue. I wasn't advocating Socialism, I was attacking it. StraightUp was on the other hand advocating Socialism, a tax of "Wealth", by which he meant wealth generally, Socialism pure and simple. I didn't cherry pick anything, rather I presented large segments of 5 Churchill speeches within 5 years of each other, on his opposition to Socialism he fought all of his life. StraightUp on the other hand cherry picked one speech some 40 years previously, and then cherry picked 2 sentences and a paragraph, and then further applied his misleading sophistry and fallacious argument to conclude Churchill supported Socialism. The shear audacity of straightUp contending Churchill supported Socialism, that he fought against in a World War, is just remarkable. No one has to even read 14 books and a folder of World War II documents to know that Churchill never supported Socialism. It’s just a matter of common sense and common knowledge. But you see straightUp’s exhibited ego is such that he believes he can mentally masturbate the English language, and fallaciously argue any agenda de jure he has, including his exhibited liberal socialist agenda.)

But hypocrisy aside, (Here the pot calls the kettle black. The hypocrisy is all straightUp's, as I have just pointed out) and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.


Presented as a “general statement” of my supposed “idealoging up” of Churchill's 1909 speech, he makes the following accusations, which he repeats again, verbatim, in his “conclusion” at the end of the post. (The technique of presenting the conclusion up front, which straightUp subtly complains of, is a technique suggested to me by a former professor. Professors have a lot of papers to grade, and they want to know right off the top if the student understands the issues and reaches the proper conclusions, not have to read the entire paper to find out the conclusion. Accordingly, the procedure is to say the conclusion up front and how you are going to get there, so that the reader knows where you are going, and then say the conclusion again at the end. It is simply a persuasive technique.)

Like Churchill's statement of Mr. Balfour: "there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat.", neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.

And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour: "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.", similarly, the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminution. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to.


After that he goes into his supporting arguments. Before I get into each of them, I want to first respond to the primary charges of this ad hominem attack. I will number them for reference as I respond to his supporting arguments.

1. Socialist Agenda?
First of all... I don't have a socialist agenda. (Sophistry, pure and simple. Sorry straightUp, but you are what your words say you are.)
I am not even a socialist. One might describe my opinions as “sounding” socialist (admission) but that would be the opinion of another person, not myself. (That's because you are intellectually dishonest about it. Your words say what you are. Words mean things to most folks, and not just game playing.) I am certainly not a self-described socialist (In short, he doesn't admit it.) nor a member of the Socialist Party. (So what, neither is Obama, to my knowledge.) As for an agenda... well, the only thing I was suggesting is that we consider taxing wealth (Which is an admission of a Socialist policy) instead of income. I don't see how that particular argument can be associated with socialism. (Taxing "Wealth" is precisely a Socialist policy. Obama's tax the "rich" and give it to the "poor", "redistribution", Socialism plain and simple.) The closest ideology I can think of to what I am suggesting is Geolibertarianism. (Horse feathers. Because you are a liberal socialist ideologue, you now try to craw fish out of the socialist hole you dug for yourself. Oh, I'm not a socialist, I just talk like a socialist, act like a socialist, and plead for socialist policies; you are what your words tell people you are in the normal sense of the words you use. You sir plead socialist policies, and can clearly in reason be considered a socialist, notwithstanding your willingness to falsely deny it.)

Definition of Socialism:
My understanding of socialism on a fundamental level is based on the idea of public ownership. (Here we have another strawman argument against a limited partial element definition of Socialism; presented as if that is the only definition or considerations for the scope of Socialism)

Merriam-Wesbter:sic
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory t***sitional between capitalism and c*******m and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Since it is Winston Churchill speaking, lets take a look at the British authoritative dictionary: Says the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY: “socialism A political and economic theory or policy of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, capital, land, property, etc. Also spec. in Marxist theory, a t***sitional social state between the o*******w of capitalism and the realization of C*******m.”

Says the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY: “socialist A. noun. An advocate of or believer in socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism. Also, a member of a socialist political party.
B. adjective. (Of a person, party, etc.) supporting, advocating, or practising socialism; (of an idea, theory, etc.) in accordance with socialism.”

Accordingly, with straightUp’s taxing of his general definition of “wealth”, a socialist policy, straightUp is an “adherent” and “supporter” of socialism, “supporting” and “advocating” “ideas” “theories”, etc. in accordance with socialism; and therefore meets the English definition of SOCIALIST.

Moreover, as stated by the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, by its use of “etc.”, its dictionary definition is just a general definition and not absolutely controlling or limiting. It's just to give you a general idea of the subject matter. And, here are some Winston Churchill definitions, that straightUp is not anxious to provide:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envoy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill cited by dbleach3

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poor." Winston Churchill cited by dbleach3

"Insurance, Life: The only anxiety which the Socialists have about nationalizing life insurance is whether it will lose them support among the very large number of insurance agents... What they now seek is the control of the vast sum of money which represents the savings over many years of millions of people to provide by self-denial and forethought, for their widows, their orphans and their own old age or infirmity. The control over this great mass of investments would be another most powerful means of bringing the whole financial, economic and industrial life of Britain into Socialist hands." 1950, 28 January, Woodford,Essex. (Balance, 167.) Churchill by Himself, edited by Richard Langworth, p. 414.)



I haven't suggested public ownership of anything... I * have * suggested a tax on private ownership (of wealth)(And by this straightUp means a tax of "wealth" as a general definition, not Winston Churchill's pleaded for tax on the additional increased present value of real estate, which was already taxed on the original assessed value; now a common tax recognized and applied everywhere in the United States, and other countries as well.), which itself is an affirmation of private property not a denial of it as the socialist might advocate. Maybe Crazyhorse has a different definition of socialism than I do. As it happens, Crazyhorse presented his original post as a definition (Not exactly so; as a criticism of socialist philosophy) of socialist philosophy based on selected quotes by Winston Churchill, one of which he emphasized greatly by making it the first sentence in his original post.

“We are oppressed by a deadly fallacy. Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” - Winston Churchill, Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland. 1948.

Well, I don't advocate failure or ignorance and I don't base my ideas on envy. Then again, any socialist would say the same thing right? Clearly, this is one of Churchill's rhetorical statements. I don't think Churchill was actually “defining”(In fact he was criticizing socialism) with this statement as Crazyhorse is suggesting. I am pretty sure he already knew the technical definition of socialism (Here straightUp tries to cleverly limit Churchill to a "technical" sic "general", definition of Socialism - Just more limited strawman sophistry) and I'm sure he was able to assume his audience did as well, which provided the context that allowed him poetic license to say what he did.

So Crazyhorse is using fragments of rhetorical speech to create a loose, wide-reaching definition of socialism that exceed the boundaries of almost every technical (By calling it a technical definition instead of just the general dictionary presentation of the word, he can then argue against his strawman "Therefore"...) definition of socialism that I have ever seen. (Well now you have the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY definition.)
Therefore, I suggest that his accusation of me having a socialist agenda is false. (And from this fallacious argument we are all to understand that straightUp doesn't support socialism, notwithstanding he advocates taxing "wealth" generally, a socialist policy, and pretends that that is what Churchill was advocating; and this for the man who fought the British Labour party and socialism his entire life, including the German N**i brand of National Socialism leading Britain and the World during World War II. Now, you have to be on a real ego trip to have the unmitigated audacity to make such a claim for Churchill. Would Churchill were here to defend himself against straightUp's never ending mendacious arguments.)


2. No principal or degree of of sicintellectual honesty that I won't abandon?
And Crazyhorse knows this for a fact? He is aware of every principal known to man and that I am willing to abandon every one of them? He knows that I am willing to abandon every level of intellectual honesty? First of all how does anyone know that much about a person, much less a person whom he only knows through a handful of anonymous posts on the internet? And secondly, where is his evidence? (straightUp exhibits by his arguments on my thread, that his intellectual dishonesty is not bounded by any degree of spewed sophistry. He exhibits his sophistry is ego driven, and not principled. It is accordingly not a stretch to conclude that straighUp would do it on any issue.)

3. False Representation and Lost virtue?
Crazyhorse said...(What I said was: "And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour; 'The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.', similarly,

the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminution. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to." Nor has my opinion changed.)

[/quote]
I quoted (you cherry picked one sentence form the 8 page Churchill speech, completely out of context of what Churchill was saying by changing Churchill's meaning of his use of the word "Wealth")
one statement from the speech and said that I agreed with it. I did not change or modify Churchill's statement in anyway. How is this presenting his positions falsely? (You changed Churchill's the meaning of the word, as stated multiple places above.)

And how does one secure an accurate assessment of another person's virtue through a handful of anonymous posts on a political Internet forum? Even if he could prove that I misrepresented Churchill's positions, how would he know it wasn't an honest mistake? (By the character of the misleading intellectually dishonest fallacious arguments you were willing to make.)

A credibility cripple who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. Yeah, that smells like fear. (Alinskyite argument) Fear that someone has the intellectual capacity to call out his bulls**t. (I quoted Churchill in 5 speeches all within 5 years of each other, and let the reader draw his own conclusions as to what Churchill meant. Please note, that now straightUp calls these Churchill quotes "bulls**t") So everyone, don't listen to him. He has no virtue.(Just another Alinskyite childish argument by straightUp. The readers can decide who has virtue and who does not.)


4. Cherry-picking and omissions?
This accusation wasn't presented in his opening statement nor his conclusion, but he makes this accusation repeatedly throughout his supporting arguments.

First let me point out that I did in fact say this at the start of my post...
I've posted some excerpts (You cherry picked 2 sentences and a paragraph out of an 8 page speech 40 years before the 5 Churchill speeches that I posted significant paragraphs from.) to emphasize(No, to totally intellectually dishonestly re-characterize what Churchill said and pretend Churchill said it, when he in fact did not, to make your own points, apparently because you just couldn't stand a man of Churchill's standing criticizing your socialist agenda.) the points I want to make... The entire speech can be read at http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

So what Crazyhorse did is find additional excerpts(Another straightUp lie. I posted the entire 8 page Churchill speech, and just hi-lited Churchill language contra to the position straightUp was pleading for Churchill.) to emphasize the points he wanted to make while accusing me of intentionally omitting them.
I didn't copy the entire speech to the post because I didn't want to make the post too long for anyone to want to read. I did however post the link so anyone can read it and verify my own statements. Copying the entire speech to the post isn't any more “honest” than posting a link to the complete transcript of the speech.(An unacceptably lame attempt at an excuse for straighUp's intellectually dishonest sophistry and mendacious argument. Given his exhibited propensities, can it be doubted that straightUp figured no one would bother reading the entire 8 page Churchill speech and he would get away with his fallacious argument as Churchill's position.)


I have spent 3 hours last Saturday and some 2 hours Tuesday to arrive at this point in response to straightUp's ego driven mental masturbation "rebuttal". I am in the process of personally building a 20 foot by 40 foot garage and work shop, with the exception of 21 cubic yards of cement that I had two workers help me poor, and the shingles that will go on Friday that I am having a crew accomplish. I still have siding, four large doors that I will build, and two garage doors 16' and 8' that I will have turn key installed, as well as electrical wiring to be installed. I need to get the project buttoned up before winter hits, so I have only about a month and a half to get it buttoned up to the point of internal finish work. I also have some of my normal work load that I am floating as much as possible to allow more time for my garage/work shop project.
Accordingly, my continued willingness to suffer straighUp's mendacious spew of his sophistry, is beyond reasoned endurance, the continuation of which I will not endure. I have neither the time or inclination for it. MuckitUp can have the rest of his convoluted mental masturbation, and the last word. The readers of 1PP can decide where the merit lays, and communicate however they will. But as I have previously said, muckitUp is a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. I'm out.

I will make the following offer I hope will be accepted: If muckitUp will not post on my posted threads, or my posts; I will not post on his posted threads, or his posts.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I quoted one statement from the speech and said that I agreed with it. I did not change or modify Churchill's statement in anyway. How is this presenting his positions falsely?

And how does one secure an accurate assessment of another person's virtue through a handful of anonymous posts on a political Internet forum? Even if he could prove that I misrepresented Churchill's positions, how would he know it wasn't an honest mistake?

A credibility cripple who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. Yeah, that smells like fear. Fear that someone has the intellectual capacity to call out his bulls**t. So everyone, don't listen to him. He has no virtue.


4. Cherry-picking and ommisions?
This accusation wasn't presented in his opening statement nor his conclusion, but he makes this accusation repeatedly throughout his supporting arguments.

First let me point out that I did in fact say this at the start of my post...
I've posted some excerpts to emphasize the points I want to make... The entire speech can be read at http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

So what Crazyhorse did is find additional excerpts to emphasize the points he wanted to make while accusing me of intentionally omitting them.
I didn't copy the entire speech to the post because I didn't want to make the post too long for anyone to want to read. I did however post the link so anyone can read it and verify my own statements. Copying the entire speech to the post isn't any more “honest” than posting a link to the complete transcript of the speech.

So... on to the supporting arguments...


No, it's not Crazyhorse. You yourself said that Churchill was proposing two taxes, one on the increased valuation of land and the other on the capital value of undeveloped land.” These are examples of wealth not income.

I guess I can call on Winston Churchill once again to prove my point... Again, from the same 1909 speech, in this passage, Churchill consoles those who worry that his tax on wealth will overburden the rich, which is exactly the same concern I hear from conservatives today.


You will perhaps say to me that may be all very well, but are you sure that the rich and the very rich are not being burdened too heavily? Are you sure that you are not laying on the backs of people who are struggling to support existence with incomes of upwards of £3,000 a year, burdens which are too heavy to be borne? Will they not sink, crushed by the load of material cares, into early graves, followed there even by the unrelenting hand of the death duties collector? Will they not take refuge in wholesale fraud and evasion, as some of their leaders ingenuously suggest, or will there be a general flight of all rich people from their native shores to the protection of the hospitable foreigner? Let me reassure you on these points.

The taxes which we now seek to impose to meet the need of the State will not appreciably affect, have not appreciably affected, the comfort, the status, or even the style of living of any class in the United Kingdom. There has been no invidious singling out of a few rich men for special taxation. The increased burden which is placed upon wealth is evenly and broadly distributed over the whole of that wealthy class who are more numerous in Great Britain than in any other country in the world, and who, when this Budget is passed, will still find Great Britain the best country to live in. When I reflect upon the power and influence that class possesses, upon the general goodwill with which they are still regarded by their poorer neighbours, upon the infinite opportunities for pleasure and for culture which are open to them in this free, prosperous, and orderly commonwealth, I cannot doubt that they ought to contribute, and I believe that great numbers of them are willing to contribute, in a greater degree than heretofore, towards the needs of the navy, for which they are always clamouring, and for those social reforms upon which the health and contentment of the whole population depend.


So, there we have it...

If anything, Crazyhorse in his haste to discredit me has only discredited himself. Maybe we should all do more to try and understand each other instead of wasting our credibility on prejudice and persecution.[/quote]

I think there is a chance that you may be able to find some pertinent information on this link about George Bernard Shaw who was the main creator of the Fabian Socialists in Great Britain. You will find him talking one way in the late 19th century and very different in the early 20th century. I guess you don't think that people like Churchill can change their thinking as you say didn't happen so maybe Shaw didn't manage that in his later years.

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory/NonMarx_Socialism/Fabian_soc/george_bernard_shaw_and_the_fabi.htm

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

[quote=CrazyHorse]Quid Pro Quo, straightUp:

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON SOCIALISM IS THE THREAD I PUT UP ON 1PP FOR CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT. I wrote the thread for my website http://www.alumnishockerblackandgolds.com 6 years before and posted it on my website on 13 June 2007. I did not change it at all, but just posted on 1PP as it was, thinking it might be of interest to posters of 1PP. The post considers 5 Winston Churchill relative late speeches in his life time, from 1947 to 1951, Sir Winston passed on in 1965 at age 91, so these speeches would have been written and delivered by Churchill between the ages of 73 and 77. It should be noted that straighUp chose not to discuss any of the 5 Churchill speeches I put up on the thread for consideration, but rather chose to cherry pick two sentences and a paragraph from a 8 page Churchill speech advocating land tax on the increased or present valuation of real estate, not just on its original base value tax; which speech was given in Scotland in 1909 when Churchill would have been 35 years old and for a brief time aligned with the Liberal party, from his normal conservative party alignment. I will leave the reader to conclude why he thinks straightUp chose to accomplish ignoring the speeches offered by the thread in his much later lifetime, and cherry pick a Churchill speech 38 to 43 years earlier in Churchill's life. Remember, Churchill fought Socialism his whole life, including his World War II fight against N**i Germany's National Socialism. But straightUp presented Churchill as supporting a tax on "Wealth", a clear Socialist agenda.

So, the following is the THREAD I put up for consideration on the issue of primarily Socialism, with my current hi-liting:


"We are Oppressed by a Deadly Fallacy. Socialism is the Philosophy of Failure, the Creed of Ignorance and the Gospel of Envy"

Re: Socialism Defined

Socialist philosophy – if it can be considered a philosophy, bankrupt as it is – as evidenced by liberal democrats today, was succinctly defined by Winston Churchill some 60 years ago in a number of speeches, and although a little long, I should think is appropriate reading for any American citizen over the age puberty, thus:



“Confiscatory taxation has been applied to wealth to an extent only practised* in C*******t countries. All our daily life is increasingly subjected to ten thousand Regulations and Controls, in the enforcement of which a multitude of officials, larger than any army we have ever maintained in time of peace, is continually employed. Hundreds of new crimes have been invented for which imprisonment or penal servitude may be inflicted. In fact, on every side and by every means the machinery for the totalitarian grip upon British society is being built up and perfected. One could almost wonder whether the Government do not reconcile themselves to the economic misfortunes of our country, to which their mismanagement has so notably contributed, because these misfortunes give the pretext of establishing even more controls and an even larger bureaucracy. They make mistakes which make things worse. As things get worse they claim more power to set them right. Thus they move ever nearer to the scheme of the All-powerful State, in which the individual is a helpless serf or pawn. (It’s no different today. When Liberal policies fail, they tell us it’s only because we haven’t had enough of it, and we should be patient and swallow another dose).

And here I come to the remark of the Prime Minister

last Saturday when he said, ‘Some do not understand the amount of Freedom which we rightly give to an Opposition to criticise*.’ The word that struck me in this sentence is the word 'give’. So it is Mr Attlee who gives us rights to freedom of speech and political action, and we are invited to be grateful for his magnanimity. But I thought these same rights had been won for the British people beyond dispute or challenge by our forebears in bygone generations. These were the rights for which, to quote a famous Whig phrase, ‘Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold’ And now it is Mr Attlee who thinks he has given them to us. Let him cherish these illusions, but let him not be so foolish as to try to take them away. Well it was said, ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’. Small steps and graduated stages are the means by which, in the history of many countries, the freedom of great and noble races has been slowly frittered and whittled away.” (Emphasis added) (Parenthesis added) (Conservative Party Conference, Brighton, 4 October 1947).



Today we are continually harangued by the liberal thought police, and told what language it is we are allowed to use. It may be true, but you can’t say it if liberals don’t want to hear it; and not only that, you can’t even think it, as it’s a thought crime if they think their proscription was what was in your mind.



“We are oppressed by a deadly fallacy. Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Unless we free our country while time remains from the perverse doctrines of Socialism, there can be no hope for recovery. ... The Socialist Government in London has become dependent upon the generosity of the capitalist system of the United States. We are not earning our own living or paying our way, nor do the Government hold out any prospect of our doing so in the immediate future.” (Emphasis added) [color=red(Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948).[/color]



Three years after the war, the U.S. capitalist system was helping the recovery of Britain and Europe with aid under the Marshall plan, but the Socialist party held the British Government since the end of the war and had set Socialist policy with devastating affects.



“In our view the strong should help the weak. In the Socialist view the strong should be kept down to the level of the weak in order to have equal shares for all. How small the share is does not matter so much, in their opinion, so long as it is equal. They would much rather that everyone should have half rations than anybody should get a second helping. What are called ‘the lowest income groups’ before the war when there were no rations[,] in fact consumed under the ‘wicked Tories’ one and [a] half times as much meat and more than twice as much sugar as Dr Summersk**l doles to all of us today.” .... To apply the Socialist principle of e******y at all costs is, in fact, to lay down the law that the pace of our advancing social army must be the pace of the slowest and the weakest man. Such a principle is, of course, destructive of all hopes of victory in social and philanthropic advance.” (Note: Tories were the conservatives, of which he was a member)

(Emphasis added) (Parenthesis added) (Forum Cinema, Devonport, 9 February 1950)



Subsequent to the war, and England’s attempted recovery, the Socialist policies five years later, still imposed food and gas rations.



“I must, however, draw your attention to the characteristic remark by Dr Dalton, the new Minister of Town and Country Planning. In announcing one of his minor concessions he said, ‘This is an experiment in freedom. I hope it will not be abused.’ Could you have anything more characteristic of the Socialist rulers’ outlook towards the public? Freedom is a favour*; it is an experiment which the governing class of Socialist politicians will immediately curtail if they are displeased with our behaviour*. This is language which the head of a Borstal Institution might suitably use to the inmates when announcing some modification of the disciplinary system. What an example of smug and insolent conceit! What a way to talk to the British people! As a race we have been experimenting in freedom, not entirely without success, for several centuries, and have spread the ideas of freedom throughout the world. And yet, here is this Minister, who speaks to us as if it lay with him to dole out our liberties like giving biscuits to a dog who will sit up and beg prettily. This characteristic of the official Socialist temperament and attitude in office should not pass uncensured* by the British people who expect Ministers of the Crown to behave as the servants and not as the masters of the nation.” (Emphasis added)(Usher Hall, Edinburgh, 18 May 1950).



Today it’s no different with our Congresses’ wheedled Amnesty Bill in face of a massive illegal invasion. Why is it do you suspect, that when: elected officials who are elected in a representative capacity, and who put their left hand on the Bible and hold up their right hand swearing to uphold the laws of the land (including limited quota i*********n l*ws) and to protect and defend the United States of America; thereafter determine to dislike the existing laws they have sworn to uphold; simply ignore their constituents and the vast majority of American opinion against this illegal Mexican and Latino invasion (and I might add it turns out not a few fanatic Moslem terrorist) and attempt to bridle the American people and pass a new law to make legal citizens out of Mexican, Latino, Moslem invaders, and obligate American Citizens taxpayers to pay for it and live with them? Upon what American principle is this allowed or even considered? The answer can only be that once elected they believe they were elected to “rule” by fiat, and so simply ignore their constituents’ desires. (In this paragraph I extended my comments briefly to the issue of "immigration")




“Egypt, Persia, Albania, the Argentine and Chile compete with each other in the insults and the humiliations they inflict upon us – and what is the cause? It is the attempt to impose a doctrinaire Socialism upon an island which has grown great and famous by free enterprise and valour and which six years ago stood in honour* though not in size at the summit of the world....Taxation is higher than in any other country outside the C*******t world. There they take all. There no one has anything except the salaries paid them by the privileged C*******t aristocracy. British taxation is higher now than it was in the height of the late war – even when we stood alone and defied all comers.

“Is not that an astonishing fact? Six years of Socialist Government have hit us harder in our finance and economics than Hitler was able to do. Look at the effects you face of devaluation abroad. We are an island with a population of fifty millions living on imports of food and raw materials, which we have to buy by our exertion, ingenuity and craftsmanship. We have to pay across the dollar exchange twelve hours of work, with hand or brain, to buy what we could before have got with eight hours.” (Emphasis added)

(Royal Wanstead School, Woodford, 21 July 1951)



The result was the British people returned the Conservative party with Winston Churchill for his second term at the age of 77 as Prime Minister of the Government, to save Britain from unreasoned crushing Socialist policies, just as he had saved Britain from Germany. And even today, history teaches the Liberal Democrats nothing – they never learn. Nothing can penetrate their ideology or petrified minds.



* English spelling at the time.

P.S. WINSTON CHURCHILL'S MOTHER WAS AN AMERICAN


StraightUp choose a 1909 Churchill speech to cherry pick having ignored the 5 speeches I quoted some 38 to 43 years later in Churchill's life; one has to assume because they did not offer any support for straightUp's support of Socialism and an attack on "Wealth". But before we consider straightUp's rebuttal, lets look at a couple of Churchill statements around the time of the 1909 Scottish Edinburgh speech on additionally taxing the present value of real estate, not just the original base value:

On 26 July 1897 at the age of 22, Churchill made his first political speech: "The dried up drain-pipe of radicalism" at Claverton Down, Bath. Discusing an Employers' Liability Bill, he called Workmen's Compensation Bill, Churchill said: "Radicals, who are never satisfied with Liberals, always liberal with other people's money (laughter), ask why it is not applied to all. That is like a Radical - just the slap-dash, wholesale, harum-scarum policy of the Radical. It reminds me of the man who, on being told that ventilation is an excellent thing, went and smashed every window in his house, and died of rheumatic fever. (Laughter and cheers.) That is not Conservative policy. Conservative policy is essentially a tentative policy - a look-before-you leap policy; and it is a policy of don't leap at all if there is a ladder. (Laughter.) "Never Give In!, The best of Winston Churchill's Speeches", Selected by His Grandson, Winston S. Churchill, p. 3-4.

So even in his very first political speech at age 22, Winston Churchill evidenced he was a conservative, not a liberal and not a Radical liberal.

On 22 Jan. 1908, in a Cheetham, Manchester speech entitled "SOCIALISM: 'ALL YOURS IS MINE!', with the grandson's introduction: "In the ranks of the Labour Party there were to be found many hard-line Socialist, to whose presence in the Liberal coalition Churchill took the strongest exception, while anxious not to alienate the working-class v**e.", Churchill said: "The Socialist - the extreme and revolutionary party of Socialists - are very fond of telling us they are reviving in modern days the best principles of the Christian era. They consider they are the political embodiment of Christianity, though, to judge by the language which some of them use and the spirit of envy, hatred, and malice with which they go about their work, you would hardly imagine they had studied the teaching of the Founder of Christianity with the attention they profess to have given to the subject. - (Hear, hear.) But there is one great difference between Socialists of the Christian era and those of which Mr Victor Gray son is the apostle. The Socialism of the Christian era was based on the idea that "all mine is yours', but the Socialism of Mr Gray son is based on the idea that 'all yours is mine'. - (Cheers.) Id. at p. 27-29.

So, again, in 1908, we see Churchill attacking Socialism.

On 4 May 1908, in a speech at Kinnaird Hall, Dundee, entitled: "What is Society", Churchill said: "And what is society? I will tell you what society is. T***slated into concrete terms, Socialistic 'society' is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent e******n,... Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individual. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist...Your tramways and so on; your great public works, which are of a monopolistic and privileged character - there I see a wide field for State enterprise to embark upon. But when we are told to exalt and admire a philosophy which destroys individualism and seeks to replace it by collectivism, I say that is a monstrous and imbecile conception which can find no real foothold in the brains and hearts - and the hearts are as trustworthy as the brains - in the hearts of sensible people. (Loud cheers.)" Id. at p. 31-32.

So here are 3 more Churchill speeches, his very first political speech in 1897 at age 22 and two more in 1908, shortly before straighUp's cherry picked speech in 1909, in which clearly Churchill attacked Socialism: "[L]iberals always liberal with other peoples money"; "[j]ust the slap-dash, wholesale, harum-scarum policy of the Radical"; "all yours is mine"; and "collectist" as opposed to "individualist". Without doubt, Churchill his entire life never supported Socialism or their fundamental Socialist policies.


NOW LETS LOOK AT straightUp’s REBUTTAL SPEECH HE CHOSE TO CHERRY PICK.

So... here is my rebuttal. Note: I am highlighting CrazyHorse quotes and the Churchill quotes that CrazyHorse cites in red.

Just so we all understand each other on what just happened...(This is a set up strawman technique to argue from. The reader should keep in mind that it was a CrazyHorse posted thread that straighUp chose to post up another Churchill speech, and argue as to a position he asserted and alleged was Churchill's opinion and position, it was not!)

My comment on a common point I feel I have with Winston Churchill has invoked a direct and personal attack on my credibility. (This alleged common point asserted against my thread of Churchill, I believed to be falsely stated as Churchill's opinion. It was not an "attack" on straightUp's credibility, it was a resulting "conclusion" drawn from straightUp's false assertion. If it was ad hominem, it was so because straightUp made it so by asserting that his, straightUp's opinion, was Churchill's opinion: "Well, you don't want to listen to me, don't want to listen to Obama...How about you frickin listen to Churchill then? The message is the same." Accordingly, it became ad hominem precisely because of straightUp's alleged common point is not a common point with Churchill. StraightUp did it to himself.)
So... ad hominem as they say. But fallacies aside, and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, (I just provided the full 8 page Churchill speech for the reader's consideration, not just straightUp's two sentence and a paragraph.) and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.

And so, his primary issue... as he stated it in his opening paragraph. (It was not a primary issue, but was simply my statement to the readers of my background that resulted in my conclusion from reading straightUp false assertions of Churchill.)


I don't hold myself out as an expert on Winston Churchill. I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill (straightUp chose this Churchill speech, not me. It was not one of the original 5 speeches I quoted from in the CrazyHorse thread originally drafted and posted for my own website some 6 years earlier in 2007.)


Just so * I * understand...
I have though read enough about Churchill to conclude
...means that Crazyhorse is claiming sufficient expertise to conclude...(I simply presented my background reading of Churchill in support of my opinion. In short, it was not an opinion lightly formed.)

that straightUp had ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill

...”it” being the “object” of the sentence isn't clearly identified in CrazyHorse's language, but I think we can assume “it” refers to Churchill's 1909 speech. (Here we have an exhibit of straightUp obfuscation and mental masturbation. I clearly identified it: "with his representation of Churchill", it's in the same sentence. You see if straighUp can represent my sentence was muddled and he had to assume what it meant, then he thinks it makes him look more intelligent than the person he is responding to. It is just playing to your ego and a form of mental masturbation, plain and simple.)

...”ideologued it up with his representation of Churchill” is where I am being accused (I assume) (More sophistry and mental masturbation) of interpreting (no, representing) the speech with my own (opinion and straightUp’s false) representation of Churchill (contending it was Churchill).

Of course, this is the exact thing the accuser himself did. The very act of saying anything about a person is in fact, a representation. And one's own representation is all one has to offer. (Not "Of course", but Not Hardly! There is a vast difference between what I accomplished and the misrepresentation that straightUp accomplished. In the original thread, I provided large segments of five different Churchill speeches and let Churchill speak for himself. In straightUp's response he ignored the 5 presented Churchill speeches, and provided two sentences and a paragraph of an 8 page speech, and then misrepresented what Churchill said, convoluting the word "wealth" to his own meaning not at all what Churchill was talking about, not even in argumentative context. 'And one's own representation is" not "all one has to offer." If you are intellectually honest you let the person you are quoting speak for himself, and you don't convolute it to something different and claim it for the other person, as did straightUp.)

Crazyhorse presents an entire resume (which I will assume is honest)(Here straighUp impliedly wants to question and suggest I am a liar with respect to the citations of Churchill books I provided the reader as background to understand the basis of my understanding of Churchill. Every book that I cited is in my library. I have read every book line by line, sentence by sentence, and hi-lited as I was reading. In fact, I can hardly read without using a hi-liter. It is a smaller part of a more sophisticated 3 color procedure I developed in very structured schooling in undergraduate school, and two graduate universities. The six volume set of Churchill's own The Second World War, upwards of 4,000 pages, to my knowledge, is not now available in the United States or even in London from the Folio Society from which I purchased the books at considerable expense, a number of years ago. If you said to me, send me page x of any of the six volumes, I could scan the page into my computer and e-mail it to you. And, I could do that for any of the books I cited except the 15th source which is not a book, but a folder of World War II documents.) on his expertise and the only value I can see in doing that is to give credit to his representation of Winston Churchill. (Not my representation of Churchill, I did that by quoting Churchill in large segments of 5 speeches of my original posted thread, in hi-liting Churchill's language in the entire speech I presented of straightUp’s selected Churchill speech some 40 years before the 5 speeches I presented, and then only presented 2 sentences and a paragraph. Unlike straightUp, by presenting the entire speech, I wasn't "representing" what Churchill said, I was presently exactly what he said for the reader to read himself. I just hi-lited specific parts or Churchill's words, to draw attention to those parts I thought were not supportive of straighUp's representation of Churchill. An intellectually honest procedure, as opposed the straightUp's procedure. What straightUp is attempting to accomplish, is to muck up the procedures with sophistry, and pretend there is no difference in the honest citing of Churchill I accomplished, and the fallacious argument straightUp accomplished. Not so!)

Now, Crazyhorse * did * use the term “ideologued”, which he may think sets me apart. I assume this term is suggesting that my specific “representation” of the speech is an effort to endorse some kind of ideology. Since I don't advocate any particular ideology, I have to assume from context what he thinks this ideology is. One clue might be this... (straightUp is always having to assume this or that, to give him a strawman to argue against. What sets straightUp apart is his sophistry, his misleading fallacious argument that he continually is willing to accomplish. StraightUp doesn't have to assume anything; I said it was his liberal socialist agenda. StraightUp falsely alleges he doesn't advocate any particular ideology. Not so, straightUp advocated socialism, pure and simple, a tax on "wealth". He can say what he will or may, but words mean things, and the bottom line straightUp was pleading, saying it was Churchill, was a tax on "wealth", in the general sense of "wealth", Socialism; not a tax on the present increased value of real estate that Churchill was talking about. Now, straightUp can't pretend otherwise. He got caught in his fallacious argument and sophistry, and he can't now do more of it in an effort to squirm his way out of the dishonest hole he created for himself.)

neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.
A socialist agenda... of course, this is after all the entire point of the original post at the top of this topic where Crazyhorse selects (or “cherry picks” as he says when accusing me) a series of Winston Churchill quotes that emphasize his subject's opposition to socialism as further suggested by his title, “WINSTON CHURCHILL on Socialism”. So... really, who is the ideologist here? (Just more mental masturbation. I presented quotes of Churchill on the issue of Socialism. Churchill, after all, fought Socialism all his life, including the English Labour Party socialism, and led Great Britain's fight against the German N**i brand of "National Socialism". But discussing the issue to Socialism doesn't make me an ideologue. I wasn't advocating Socialism, I was attacking it. StraightUp was on the other hand advocating Socialism, a tax of "Wealth", by which he meant wealth generally, Socialism pure and simple. I didn't cherry pick anything, rather I presented large segments of 5 Churchill speeches within 5 years of each other, on his opposition to Socialism he fought all of his life. StraightUp on the other hand cherry picked one speech some 40 years previously, and then cherry picked 2 sentences and a paragraph, and then further applied his misleading sophistry and fallacious argument to conclude Churchill supported Socialism. The shear audacity of straightUp contending Churchill supported Socialism, that he fought against in a World War, is just remarkable. No one has to even read 14 books and a folder of World War II documents to know that Churchill never supported Socialism. It’s just a matter of common sense and common knowledge. But you see straightUp’s exhibited ego is such that he believes he can mentally masturbate the English language, and fallaciously argue any agenda de jure he has, including his exhibited liberal socialist agenda.)

But hypocrisy aside, (Here the pot calls the kettle black. The hypocrisy is all straightUp's, as I have just pointed out) and in sporting spirit, the efforts Crazyhorse has put forth is clearly a gauntlet, and I will answer it with equal efforts of my own.


Presented as a “general statement” of my supposed “idealoging up” of Churchill's 1909 speech, he makes the following accusations, which he repeats again, verbatim, in his “conclusion” at the end of the post. (The technique of presenting the conclusion up front, which straightUp subtly complains of, is a technique suggested to me by a former professor. Professors have a lot of papers to grade, and they want to know right off the top if the student understands the issues and reaches the proper conclusions, not have to read the entire paper to find out the conclusion. Accordingly, the procedure is to say the conclusion up front and how you are going to get there, so that the reader knows where you are going, and then say the conclusion again at the end. It is simply a persuasive technique.)

Like Churchill's statement of Mr. Balfour: "there is no principle which the Government is not prepared to abandon, and no quantity of dust and filth they are not prepared to eat.", neither is there any principle or degree of intellectual honesty straightUp is not prepared to abandon, to plead his liberal socialist agenda.

And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour: "The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.", similarly, the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminution. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to.


After that he goes into his supporting arguments. Before I get into each of them, I want to first respond to the primary charges of this ad hominem attack. I will number them for reference as I respond to his supporting arguments.

1. Socialist Agenda?
First of all... I don't have a socialist agenda. (Sophistry, pure and simple. Sorry straightUp, but you are what your words say you are.)
I am not even a socialist. One might describe my opinions as “sounding” socialist (admission) but that would be the opinion of another person, not myself. (That's because you are intellectually dishonest about it. Your words say what you are. Words mean things to most folks, and not just game playing.) I am certainly not a self-described socialist (In short, he doesn't admit it.) nor a member of the Socialist Party. (So what, neither is Obama, to my knowledge.) As for an agenda... well, the only thing I was suggesting is that we consider taxing wealth (Which is an admission of a Socialist policy) instead of income. I don't see how that particular argument can be associated with socialism. (Taxing "Wealth" is precisely a Socialist policy. Obama's tax the "rich" and give it to the "poor", "redistribution", Socialism plain and simple.) The closest ideology I can think of to what I am suggesting is Geolibertarianism. (Horse feathers. Because you are a liberal socialist ideologue, you now try to craw fish out of the socialist hole you dug for yourself. Oh, I'm not a socialist, I just talk like a socialist, act like a socialist, and plead for socialist policies; you are what your words tell people you are in the normal sense of the words you use. You sir plead socialist policies, and can clearly in reason be considered a socialist, notwithstanding your willingness to falsely deny it.)

Definition of Socialism:
My understanding of socialism on a fundamental level is based on the idea of public ownership. (Here we have another strawman argument against a limited partial element definition of Socialism; presented as if that is the only definition or considerations for the scope of Socialism)

Merriam-Wesbter:sic
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory t***sitional between capitalism and c*******m and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Since it is Winston Churchill speaking, lets take a look at the British authoritative dictionary: Says the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY: “socialism A political and economic theory or policy of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, capital, land, property, etc. Also spec. in Marxist theory, a t***sitional social state between the o*******w of capitalism and the realization of C*******m.”

Says the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY: “socialist A. noun. An advocate of or believer in socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism. Also, a member of a socialist political party.
B. adjective. (Of a person, party, etc.) supporting, advocating, or practising socialism; (of an idea, theory, etc.) in accordance with socialism.”

Accordingly, with straightUp’s taxing of his general definition of “wealth”, a socialist policy, straightUp is an “adherent” and “supporter” of socialism, “supporting” and “advocating” “ideas” “theories”, etc. in accordance with socialism; and therefore meets the English definition of SOCIALIST.

Moreover, as stated by the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, by its use of “etc.”, its dictionary definition is just a general definition and not absolutely controlling or limiting. It's just to give you a general idea of the subject matter. And, here are some Winston Churchill definitions, that straightUp is not anxious to provide:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envoy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill cited by dbleach3

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poor." Winston Churchill cited by dbleach3

"Insurance, Life: The only anxiety which the Socialists have about nationalizing life insurance is whether it will lose them support among the very large number of insurance agents... What they now seek is the control of the vast sum of money which represents the savings over many years of millions of people to provide by self-denial and forethought, for their widows, their orphans and their own old age or infirmity. The control over this great mass of investments would be another most powerful means of bringing the whole financial, economic and industrial life of Britain into Socialist hands." 1950, 28 January, Woodford,Essex. (Balance, 167.) Churchill by Himself, edited by Richard Langworth, p. 414.)



I haven't suggested public ownership of anything... I * have * suggested a tax on private ownership (of wealth)(And by this straightUp means a tax of "wealth" as a general definition, not Winston Churchill's pleaded for tax on the additional increased present value of real estate, which was already taxed on the original assessed value; now a common tax recognized and applied everywhere in the United States, and other countries as well.), which itself is an affirmation of private property not a denial of it as the socialist might advocate. Maybe Crazyhorse has a different definition of socialism than I do. As it happens, Crazyhorse presented his original post as a definition (Not exactly so; as a criticism of socialist philosophy) of socialist philosophy based on selected quotes by Winston Churchill, one of which he emphasized greatly by making it the first sentence in his original post.

“We are oppressed by a deadly fallacy. Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” - Winston Churchill, Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland. 1948.

Well, I don't advocate failure or ignorance and I don't base my ideas on envy. Then again, any socialist would say the same thing right? Clearly, this is one of Churchill's rhetorical statements. I don't think Churchill was actually “defining”(In fact he was criticizing socialism) with this statement as Crazyhorse is suggesting. I am pretty sure he already knew the technical definition of socialism (Here straightUp tries to cleverly limit Churchill to a "technical" sic "general", definition of Socialism - Just more limited strawman sophistry) and I'm sure he was able to assume his audience did as well, which provided the context that allowed him poetic license to say what he did.

So Crazyhorse is using fragments of rhetorical speech to create a loose, wide-reaching definition of socialism that exceed the boundaries of almost every technical (By calling it a technical definition instead of just the general dictionary presentation of the word, he can then argue against his strawman "Therefore"...) definition of socialism that I have ever seen. (Well now you have the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY definition.)
Therefore, I suggest that his accusation of me having a socialist agenda is false. (And from this fallacious argument we are all to understand that straightUp doesn't support socialism, notwithstanding he advocates taxing "wealth" generally, a socialist policy, and pretends that that is what Churchill was advocating; and this for the man who fought the British Labour party and socialism his entire life, including the German N**i brand of National Socialism leading Britain and the World during World War II. Now, you have to be on a real ego trip to have the unmitigated audacity to make such a claim for Churchill. Would Churchill were here to defend himself against straightUp's never ending mendacious arguments.)


2. No principal or degree of of sicintellectual honesty that I won't abandon?
And Crazyhorse knows this for a fact? He is aware of every principal known to man and that I am willing to abandon every one of them? He knows that I am willing to abandon every level of intellectual honesty? First of all how does anyone know that much about a person, much less a person whom he only knows through a handful of anonymous posts on the internet? And secondly, where is his evidence? (straightUp exhibits by his arguments on my thread, that his intellectual dishonesty is not bounded by any degree of spewed sophistry. He exhibits his sophistry is ego driven, and not principled. It is accordingly not a stretch to conclude that straighUp would do it on any issue.)

3. False Representation and Lost virtue?
Crazyhorse said...(What I said was: "And, like the Churchill statement of Mr. Balfour; 'The dignity of a Prime Minister, like a lady's virtue, is not susceptible of partial diminution.', similarly,

the virtue of straightUp is not susceptible of partial diminution. He has intellectually dishonestly presented his own positions falsely as Churchill's positions, and in the process lost his virtue, and become a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to." Nor has my opinion changed.)

[/quote]
I quoted (you cherry picked one sentence form the 8 page Churchill speech, completely out of context of what Churchill was saying by changing Churchill's meaning of his use of the word "Wealth")
one statement from the speech and said that I agreed with it. I did not change or modify Churchill's statement in anyway. How is this presenting his positions falsely? (You changed Churchill's the meaning of the word, as stated multiple places above.)

And how does one secure an accurate assessment of another person's virtue through a handful of anonymous posts on a political Internet forum? Even if he could prove that I misrepresented Churchill's positions, how would he know it wasn't an honest mistake? (By the character of the misleading intellectually dishonest fallacious arguments you were willing to make.)

A credibility cripple who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. Yeah, that smells like fear. (Alinskyite argument) Fear that someone has the intellectual capacity to call out his bulls**t. (I quoted Churchill in 5 speeches all within 5 years of each other, and let the reader draw his own conclusions as to what Churchill meant. Please note, that now straightUp calls these Churchill quotes "bulls**t") So everyone, don't listen to him. He has no virtue.(Just another Alinskyite childish argument by straightUp. The readers can decide who has virtue and who does not.)


4. Cherry-picking and omissions?
This accusation wasn't presented in his opening statement nor his conclusion, but he makes this accusation repeatedly throughout his supporting arguments.

First let me point out that I did in fact say this at the start of my post...
I've posted some excerpts (You cherry picked 2 sentences and a paragraph out of an 8 page speech 40 years before the 5 Churchill speeches that I posted significant paragraphs from.) to emphasize(No, to totally intellectually dishonestly re-characterize what Churchill said and pretend Churchill said it, when he in fact did not, to make your own points, apparently because you just couldn't stand a man of Churchill's standing criticizing your socialist agenda.) the points I want to make... The entire speech can be read at http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

So what Crazyhorse did is find additional excerpts(Another straightUp lie. I posted the entire 8 page Churchill speech, and just hi-lited Churchill language contra to the position straightUp was pleading for Churchill.) to emphasize the points he wanted to make while accusing me of intentionally omitting them.
I didn't copy the entire speech to the post because I didn't want to make the post too long for anyone to want to read. I did however post the link so anyone can read it and verify my own statements. Copying the entire speech to the post isn't any more “honest” than posting a link to the complete transcript of the speech.(An unacceptably lame attempt at an excuse for straighUp's intellectually dishonest sophistry and mendacious argument. Given his exhibited propensities, can it be doubted that straightUp figured no one would bother reading the entire 8 page Churchill speech and he would get away with his fallacious argument as Churchill's position.)


I have spent 3 hours last Saturday and some 2 hours Tuesday to arrive at this point in response to straightUp's ego driven mental masturbation "rebuttal". I am in the process of personally building a 20 foot by 40 foot garage and work shop, with the exception of 21 cubic yards of cement that I had two workers help me poor, and the shingles that will go on Friday that I am having a crew accomplish. I still have siding, four large doors that I will build, and two garage doors 16' and 8' that I will have turn key installed, as well as electrical wiring to be installed. I need to get the project buttoned up before winter hits, so I have only about a month and a half to get it buttoned up to the point of internal finish work. I also have some of my normal work load that I am floating as much as possible to allow more time for my garage/work shop project.
Accordingly, my continued willingness to suffer straighUp's mendacious spew of his sophistry, is beyond reasoned endurance, the continuation of which I will not endure. I have neither the time or inclination for it. MuckitUp can have the rest of his convoluted mental masturbation, and the last word. The readers of 1PP can decide where the merit lays, and communicate however they will. But as I have previously said, muckitUp is a credibility cripple, who no longer deserves to have his opinions considered or listened to. I'm out.

I will make the following offer I hope will be accepted: If muckitUp will not post on my posted threads, or my posts; I will not post on his posted threads, or his posts.[/quote]

Please notice that I brought forth some about one of the most famous socialists in the time in which Straightup was working on Churchill about. George Bernard was the number 1 man in the Fabian Society which was a very socialist group. He talked from his early days about socialism and what it could do for Great Britain but it can be seen from my link that he was changing in his latter days as the Society was breaking up. If he could change then maybe Churchill could do so from his early to his later years.

I think I declare you the winner although straight up did a very hard fought attempt to be the winner.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio