CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, ABBAsFernando: Thanks for that input straight from the heart and quality mind. :D :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The Peace Prize for bringing folks together, you think


Bonnie & Clide plied the same trade, thievery, but in a slightly different fashion

straightUp Loc: California

The winner of what oldroy?
;)

straightUp Loc: California

Get away from the computer... LOL. Go do you project. I have other things to do too. (It's a lot of work being an evil Stalinist). I sure as s**t ain't going to immerse myself in more shoveled loads of seething nit-picking.

But this...

No deal. I advocate freedom of thought and freedom of expression. As long as I am not tossed off the forum I will continue to welcome your posts on my threads and I will continue to post on yours. My only promise is that I will remain civil. You will see no personal attacks from me that don't serve to reference attacks from you. Of course you have every right to ignore my posts if you choose to.

Honestly, CrazyHorse... There was no reason for you to get so pissed off when I posted my thoughts on the 1909 speech.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straightUp: I have responded to your rebuttal which adequately describes what you attempted to accomplish that I objected to. I also said why I don't have time to deal with what I consider to be mental masturbation, even if it wasn't. My time I can dev**e to 1PP is limited. I have asked that you leave my posted threads and my posts alone, and I will leave yours alone. If you do not, I will ask the administration to instruct you to leave my posts alone. I am not trying to constrain you from your relations and comments to all the other massive number of posts on 1PP.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

" 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)."

(Detroit)

"’ 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."

(Substitute [Mr.Attlee] with Obama)


"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.”

(Sounds like it could apply today)

"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."

(Obamacare)


"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!) "


(StraightUp, here is what I was saying to you in that earlier post)


"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.)"

(Again,straightUp, this is what I was trying to explain to you in that same earlier post)


"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. "

(To a tee)


STRAIGHTUP said:
"No deal. I advocate freedom of thought and freedom of expression."


(I think we can ALL see now, what you advocate for)


STRAIGHTUP said:
"Honestly, CrazyHorse... There was no reason for you to get so pissed off when I posted my thoughts on the 1909 speech."

(Is this because you got caught?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


< Gentlemen, (CrazyHorse & StraightUp)

I composed a post when this topic was in it's infancy, where I stated "this is why I joined OPP". I believe now that that statement was very premature. The knowledge that I gleaned from this thread, and its posts, is why I joined OPP. Thank you both for the obvious effort you each put forward, I thoroughly enjoyed reading you both.
StraightUp, I asked a question above, please feel free to ignore it, and it's not an attack question, just a general observation question>

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Worried: Outstanding thoughtful post analysis and response. Keep up your good work. :D :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

straightUp Loc: California

I was adding a side note... "an interesting note to add". I did NOT contradict nor did I intend to contradict ANYTHING CrazyHorse posted. In return CrazyHorse attacked my credibility, called me names, told everyone to ignore me... WTF?

And I did NOT misquote Churchill. Anything else beyond direct quotes is subject to a person's interpretation and from that standpoint CrazyHorse has no more authority on Churchill's thoughts than anyone else.

I know my opinions aren't popular here - most of the time, they simply aren't understood. I know that some of you are offended by what I post but I NEVER attack people personally and my opinions are always honest.

If you don't like my opinion then fine, you can even say so. But if your're going to attack my credibility, call me names and try to exclude me from participating then I'm going to let you know what you're doing.



CrazyHorse's response is moot and a lie because I provided a link to the entire 1909 speech and yet CrazyHorse is trying to say that I was being selective. But despite all his little excuses and rules the fact still remains that "The very act of saying anything about a person is in fact, a representation."


Maybe if anyone on this entire forum actually knew what socialism is... Taxes does not equal socialism. Granted socialism relies on taxes but so does any form of government. I advocate taxing wealth, yes... and I was being general yes because my point wasn't to explain my specific personal views on tax other than a common element I share with Churchill's views on taxes.
Specifically, I advocate taxing value that is not critical to a persons well-being.


No you don't. You don't even have the slightest clue what I advocate because you're too busy demonizing me. Which is fine if that's what you're into. But I guess I'm wasting my time trying to have intelligent conversations here.


I didn't get caught doing anything... I know how fallacies work, I know how rhetoric works, I've been writing about politics for a long time and I know the score and it doesn't matter how many times you guys twist my words and repeat your charges, it doesn't make them true.



Uh-huh.

straightUp Loc: California

Just an added note... Socialism failed in this country before it even got started. The real offense of socialism is public ownership. I lived in England for a while where industries were nationalized. THAT is socialism.

In America, the progressive movement saved private ownership by offering a compromise to workers on compensation but keeping the ownership of capital private.

Personally, I don't have a problem with some of the socialism I see in places like England although it does have it's faults and weaknesses, just like any other system. However I don't think it's a system that would work very well in this country.

Seriously, we have far more dangerous issues at hand than this stupid scare about socialism. You guys are like those Japanese soliders on those Pacific Islands that didn't know the war was over... Hey, newsflash... Socialism is dead. Get over it.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

I read your comments to me, I'm going to try and get back to you about this later tonight. Frankly, right now I'm speechless.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

StraightUp asked; "I was adding a side note... "an interesting note to add". I did NOT contradict nor did I intend to contradict ANYTHING CrazyHorse posted. In return CrazyHorse attacked my credibility, called me names, told everyone to ignore me... WTF?"


< WTF? ...... Honestly, I didn't even check your reference to the quotes above. The focal point of CrazyHorse's assertions was that you were misrepresenting Churchill, not that you were trying to contradict CrazyHorse. I can see where you feel slighted at his assertion that your voice be dismissed by all readers, I read it diffrently. If I remember correctly, when I first joined here, CrazyHorse advised me of his genuine distaste for socialists, socialism, etc; I believe his words were, "attack! attack! attack!" - What I feel he was doing, was exposing your socialist bent, and he did it masterfully. He, IMHO, was not angry so much as he was zealously trying to send up a red f**g for other readers not to buy into your socialistic view points.

"He called me names"..... Really...are you that thin skinned? If so I think you're in the wrong kind of forum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"And I did NOT misquote Churchill. Anything else beyond direct quotes is subject to a person's interpretation and from that standpoint CrazyHorse has no more authority on Churchill's thoughts than anyone else."

< The focal point of CrazyHorse's assertion was that you misrepresented Churchill, not that you misquoted him. Wh**ever you feel like you were attempting by this, you were exposed as a propagandist for socialism, by your own words, and your own admission, proving CrazyHorse's original assertion. Do youremember the advice I tried to give you at the beginning of all this, about "chalking it up", you admitted it was good advice, you should have heeded it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I know my opinions aren't popular here - most of the time, they simply aren't understood. &#127775;<CrazyHorse has made it abundantly clear now>&#127775;I know that some of you are offended by what I post but I NEVER attack people personally and my opinions are always honest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"CrazyHorse's response is moot and a lie because I provided a link to the entire 1909 speech and yet CrazyHorse is trying to say that I was being selective. But despite all his little excuses and rules the fact still remains that "The very act of saying anything about a person is in fact, a representation."

< "moot and a lie"... I hardly think anyone who took the time to read this entire thread would come that conclusion. - Yes, you provided the link, to which you had to have known nobody was going to read, I admit that I didn't even read your link, just after I had read CrazyHorse's post of Churchill, and I enjoy reading Churchill. CrazyHorse exposed you in this manner as being "selective", "cherry picking", I believe was the term.

"Excuses and rules"... By that do you mean his response?, I don't recall any excuses on his part, and if by rules you mean the ones that govern a debate, or discussion....then yes I saw those.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Maybe if anyone on this entire forum actually knew what socialism is... Taxes does not equal socialism. Granted socialism relies on taxes but so does any form of government. I advocate taxing wealth, yes... and I was being general yes because my point wasn't to explain my specific personal views on tax other than a common element I share with Churchill's views on taxes.
Specifically, I advocate taxing value that is not critical to a persons well-being."

< Surely you're refering to me when you say "anyone", and the answer is yes, I understand the definition of socialism, it was given in posts I believe by both of you, only when CrazyHorse defined it, the only thing he didn't accomplish was having your picture next to it, and having it added to every dictionary on the planet.
"my point wasn't to explain my specific personal views".... Yes it was!, you even stated as much in your original post. And above, you are still insisting on the tax on "wealth".... and that you share a similar view on taxes with Churchill, after you have been shown by CrazyHorse that you, and Churchill are the polar opposite on taxes, and "wealth" in particular. And in the very next breathe you claim to advocate for the tax on "value that is not critical to a persons well-being".... not even sure I understand that ending.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No you don't. You don't even have the slightest clue what I advocate because you're too busy demonizing me. Which is fine if that's what you're into. But I guess I'm wasting my time trying to have intelligent conversations here."

< Yes, I do, you stated it above yet again, but I like CrazyHorse's version better, it's more defined than even your own words.
"demonizing" you..... Really!!??.... Now thats more than a little bit of a stretch, won't you admit?.... and if you want intelligent conversation, stop crying in your soup, and retire the b***h lines.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I didn't get caught doing anything... I know how fallacies work, I know how rhetoric works, I've been writing about politics for a long time and I know the score and it doesn't matter how many times you guys twist my words and repeat your charges, it doesn't make them true."

< Like hell you didn't get caught, CrazyHorse pegged you right from the start. He called you out, and backed it up, using your own words against you, and I'll say it again, it was done masterfully.
Yes it is quite apparent you're familiar with rhetoric, fallacies, and now socialist propaganda as well. Thats not a condemnation, just a fact. It doesn't make you an evil person, only your views on how a government should work. In fact my closest friend shares similar ideals as you, and the only way we have remained friends, is that we never discuss politics.
You say that you've been writing about politics for a long time.... well I can only hope that there was another "CrazyHorse" around all that time to prevent your socialistic governmental ideals from infecting any weak minds. And anyone with only half a brain, will read this and realize, nobody "twisted" your words whatsoever, your words spoke volumes all by themselves.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Uh-huh."

< Yes!, that was a sincere statement. Like I told you already, I almost never agree with your politics", although now it has become a lot more certain, it does not mean that "StraightUp" as a person,is an evil, awful individual.
I truley did enjoy that read, and I do thank you both. >

straightUp Loc: California

First of all, the only thing he did masterfully was make a fool out of himself. He couldn't have been further off base if he tried! I can tell he has a problem with socialism but seriously how is he going to help avoid it if he can't even identify who the socialists are? This fanatic shooting everything that moves isn't going to help.



That's not the point. You KNOW I get called a lot of names in this forum and I don't even blink an eye. The only reason why I brought it up was to illustrate the nature of his attack.


I didn't SAY that he said I misquoted him. I just said that I didn't and that anything else is a representation.


LOL... a propagandist for socialism... Yeah, you guys are really smart. How about you actually show me the words I typed where I admit to being a socialist? Can you even do that? Of course you can't. Either you guys are r****ded or you're playing a game of witch-hunt, where it doesn't matter what the person really thinks the point is just to demonize him. Kind of a moron game if you ask me.


Your advice to, which I responded, was about limiting the use of inflammatory words. I think it was my use of he term "well, duh" that you thought was so offensive that it was worth counseling me. That's when I said...
"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 I explained why I wasn't going to take your "advice" although I did say it was good advice, "generally speaking".

And why should I have heeded it anyway? YOU might think CrazyHorse won something... But you think I'm a socialist... AND you think socialists are a major threat to this country so of course you have an emotional desire to see me taken down. Well... all I can say is, get someone who can actually do it.


See, here's where you are dead wrong. I can't be responsible for the laziness of other people. I posted a link so that if anyone had any doubt about what I said they could read it. Here's the reasons why I posted a link.

1. I ALWAYS prefer to post links instead of cutting and pasting large amounts of text because it saves space on the servers.
2. Posts that have too many words don't get read.
3. I had a very specific point to make so I focused on that point and I DID identify the quotes as excerpts from the speech AND posted the link to the entire speech.
4. A link to the published speech is a better guarantee that nothing is left out. IF you only read what CrazyHorse cut and pasted then YOU don't know for sure if HE isn't leaving anything out.

Bottom line is... I posted a link to the source. According to all the rules that I know of that IS sufficient and reasonable. Now, calling me dishonest and selective because I linked to the entire speech instead of cutting and pasting it is pretty jacked up.


Yes, like this rule... You have to cut and paste the entire speech into the post or you are being selective... And links aren't good enough... That's not a rule that governs a debate or discussion but it's a rule he used to call me intellectually dishonest.


I don't remember seeing CrazyHorse defining socialism in this thread, what I remember is that he quoted a rhetorical statement by Churchill in which he poetically described socialism as a philosophy of failure." (You know what rhetorical means right?)
I posted the definition directly from the dictionary. I also used England's nationalized industries as an example. I KNOW what socialism is... But honestly, I do NOT get the impression that either you or CrazyHorse does.
The impression I get is that you guys are just very angry people caught up in this media-frenzied war of delusions between the left and the right. As for me I'm just shaking my head thinking I should have taken my friend's advice and invested in the Fox News Channel... They make a k*****g off people like you.


No.. it's not. My personal views are too complex to explain in a single post. What I stated was a small part of my personal view.


Exactly, you don't understand that ending... It's a fine point that neither you nor CrazyHorse are prepared to understand which is why you both flew off the handle when I made the point.

Value not critical to a person's well-being = the money that remains in one's possession AFTER that person has already bought goods and services required to sustain a healthy life.

Here's what Churchill has to say about it... and this is another EXCERPT from the speech. It is NOT the ENTIRE speech... The Entire speech can be read right here... So if you have any doubts about the context... you can read the ENTIRE speech RIGHT HERE ->>

http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

EXCERPT!!!...
"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.

Clearly, he is saying that he does NOT want the tax that HE is proposing to have an adverse effect on the comfort of any class in the UK. I don't consider it to be much of a stretch to say that comfort includes well-being.

The current tax system in the U.S. DOES appreciably effect the comfort of the lower classes. Even at 10% (the lowest tax bracket) typically that 10% cuts into money that is needed to buy medicine or food. It seems to me that Churchill made it a point in 1909 that taxes should not do that. Well, I am making the same point. Not exactly polar opposites.


No, really you don't. Maybe YOUR entire advocacy can be defined in a handful of statements, but don't assume the same thing about mine. The statements I made, that you think define my advocacy are only small points about specific details.


Jesus... :roll:
Do you know what demonizing means?


He failed miserably and made a total fool of himself in the process. He used one fallacy after another... Everything he said was hypocritical and I backed THAT up using his own words against HIM. YOU don't want to see it because you don't like liberals. It's sooo obvious.


Oh, so I'm not evil, just my views on how a government should work is evil. OK... explain that to me.


Don't even go there. "Oh, I know all about you because you remind me of my friend." If you and your friend don't discuss politics you probably don't know much about


You say that you've been writing about politics for a long time.... well I can only hope that there was another "CrazyHorse" around all that time to prevent your socialistic governmental ideals from infecting any weak minds. And anyone with only half a brain, will read this and realize, nobody "twisted" your words whatsoever, your words spoke volumes all by themselves.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Uh-huh."

< Yes!, that was a sincere statement. Like I told you already, I almost never agree with your politics", although now it has become a lot more certain, it does not mean that "StraightUp" as a person,is an evil, awful individual.
I truley did enjoy that read, and I do thank you both. >[/quote]

straightUp Loc: California

So, do the other readers not have minds of their own? Can they not read for themselves and come to their own conclusions? Is it necessary to tell the others to ignore anything I say? Is this an open forum for discussion or did I accidentally step into a conservative hive-mind?

With regard to your assessment on CrazyHorse, I couldn't disagree more. He was way off base. I can tell he has a problem with socialism but seriously how is he going to help avoid it if he can't even identify who the socialists are? This fanatic shooting at everything that looks remotely like a socialist isn't going to help and just because I'm not as frightened about socialism as he is doesn't make me a socialist - it just makes me less frightened.


That's not the point. You KNOW I get called a lot of names in this forum and I don't even blink an eye. The only reason why I brought it up was to illustrate the nature of his attack.


I didn't SAY that he said I misquoted him. I just said that I didn't misquote him and that anything else is a representation. (Context my friend, context.)


LOL... a propagandist for socialism... How about you actually explain that instead of just saying it? Give me just one example of why you think I'm a propagandist for socialism.


Your advice to, which I responded, was about limiting the use of inflammatory words. I think it was my use of he term "well, duh" that you thought was so offensive that it was worth counseling me. That's when I said...
"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" I explained why I wasn't going to take your "advice" although I did say it was good advice, "generally speaking".

And why should I have heeded it anyway? YOU might think CrazyHorse won something... But you think I'm a socialist... AND you think socialists are a major threat to this country so of course you have an emotional desire to see me taken down. Well... all I can say is, get someone who can actually do it.


See, here's where you are dead wrong. I can't be responsible for the laziness of other people. I posted a link so that if anyone had any doubt about what I said they could read it. Here's the reasons why I posted a link.

1. I ALWAYS prefer to post links instead of cutting and pasting large amounts of text because it saves space on the servers.
2. Posts that have too many words don't get read.
3. I had a very specific point to make so I focused on that point and I DID identify the quotes as excerpts from the speech AND posted the link to the entire speech.
4. A link to the published speech is a better guarantee that nothing is left out. IF you only read what CrazyHorse cut and pasted then YOU don't know for sure if HE isn't leaving anything out.

Bottom line is... I posted a link to the source. According to all the rules that I know of that IS sufficient and reasonable. Now, calling me dishonest and selective because I linked to the entire speech instead of cutting and pasting it is pretty jacked up.


Yes, like this rule... You have to cut and paste the entire speech into the post or you are being selective... And links aren't good enough... That's not a rule that governs a debate or discussion, that's a personally made-up rule that he used to call me intellectually dishonest.


I don't remember seeing CrazyHorse defining socialism in this thread, what I remember is that he quoted a rhetorical statement by Churchill in which he poetically described socialism as a philosophy of failure." (You know what rhetorical means right?)
I posted the definition directly from the dictionary. I also used England's nationalized industries as an example. I KNOW what socialism is... But honestly, I do NOT get the impression that either you or CrazyHorse does.
The impression I get is that you guys are just very angry people caught up in this media-frenzied war of delusions between the left and the right. As for me I'm just shaking my head thinking I should have taken my friend's advice and invested in the Fox News Channel... They make a k*****g off people like you.


No.. it's not. My personal views are too complex to explain in a single post. What I stated was a small part of my personal view.


Well, if you don't understand that ending, then maybe you don't really understand my advocacy... ;) If you can climb down from that anti-socialism tank for a moment I'll explain...
Value not critical to a person's well-being = the money (or value) that is not allocated nor required to buy the goods and services required to sustain a healthy life.

Here's what Churchill has to say about it... and this is another EXCERPT from the speech. It is NOT the ENTIRE speech... The Entire speech can be read right here... So if you have any doubts about the context... you can read the ENTIRE speech RIGHT HERE ->>

http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

EXCERPT!!!...
"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.

Clearly, he is saying that he does NOT want the tax that HE is proposing to have an adverse effect on the comfort of any class in the UK. I don't consider it to be much of a stretch to say that comfort includes well-being.

The current tax system in the U.S. DOES appreciably effect the comfort of the lower classes. Even at 10% (the lowest tax bracket) typically that 10% cuts into money that is needed to buy medicine or food. It seems to me that Churchill made it a point in 1909 that taxes should not do that. Well, I am making the same point. Not exactly polar opposites.


No, really you don't. Maybe YOUR entire advocacy can be defined in a handful of statements, but don't assume the same thing about mine. The statements I made, that you think define my advocacy are only small points about specific details.


It's an accurate explanation of what you're doing and I'm not crying about it :roll:, I'm simply pointing it out. When someone has something constructive to say and it gets shut down with accusations of being socialist, despite that person's insistence that it's not... when the response is not to ask for more clarification but instead to continue calling it socialist propaganda... THAT is demonizing.


Hardly. He used one fallacy after another and proved nothing.
YOU don't want to see it that way because you don't like liberals. I get it.


Oh, so I'm not evil, just my views on how a government should work is evil. OK... explain that to me.


Don't even go there. "Oh, I know all about you because you remind me of my friend." If you and your friend don't discuss politics then how can you claim to know anything about his politics? You certainly don't know much about mine.


LOL... and how is someone like CrazyHorse supposed to prevent me from saying anything? If anything his fanatic hatred encourages me.

[quote=Worried for our children]
And anyone with only half a brain, will read this and realize, nobody "twisted" your words whatsoever, your words spoke volumes all by themselves.>
So... you're saying that people with only half a brain share your conclusions. OK, well... that explains a lot actually


Well, I appreciate you trying to leave on a positive note. I still say you don't understand my views. I don't know why you think a socialist would advocate socialism and yet deny being a socialist. Do you ever think about that?

You say you almost never agree with my politics. About 80% of what I've posted here has nothing to do with my politics because my politics are too hard to explain on forums like this. But I have a habit of playing devil's advocate. I try to get people to explain themselves because honestly, they say the damnest things. So, I'd be curious as to what aspects of my politics you disagree with.

straightUp Loc: California

I forgot to add this...



This is another excerpt from the 1909 speech...

WARNING! THIS IS AN EXCERPT! THE ENTIRE SPEECH CAN BE FOUND HERE...

http://savingcommunities.org/docs/churchill.winston/landandincometaxes.html

EXCERPT...
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.

That increased burden placed upon wealth is the tax Churchill was advocating. Now, CrazyHorse, was quick to point out that Churchill's tax wasn't on wealth in general, but on increased value of land specifically. But then he erroneously said that I was implying that he meant wealth in general. I never said that. What I said was that increased land value is a form of wealth and it seems Churchill saw it that way too or he wouldn't have called it an increased burden on wealth.

So, what were you saying about me advocating tax on wealth and being a polar opposite to Churchill? CrazyHorse also said that I wanted to tax everyone's 401Ks and I never said that either. Fact is, that makes him an outright liar. So is that what you're going by? The words of a liar who has a rabid problem an economic theory that compels him to tell others what they should and shouldn't read?

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

< Wow StraightUp!!; you're actually starting to make me pity you. If it was your intent to butcher my reply with your editing process above, to confuse or befuddle any potential future readers of this thread and its posted replies, well I'll have to hand it to you because, you succeeded in confusing me, and I'm the one that wrote it. Once again you display your propensity to "cherry pick", and obfuscate. I think I'm all done holding your hand and walking you through this thread and its posts. We'll just have to let any future readers come to their own conclusions. I don't have the time or inclination to rip apart this latest post of yours. "A" for effort on your part. And for the record, I can only speak for myself here, I am not an angry person at all, until ya piss me off.

Take care StraightUp,

- worried

P.S. I did read your link.

justkillingtime

As President of the Board of Trade and a member of the Liberal Party Winston Churchill was one of the chief supporters of the 1909-1910 People’s Budget. Under this program Britain levied unprecedented taxes on the rich and created the modern British welfare state.

Because of Britain’s welfare programs that country did not experience the Great Depression in that Britain did not see the massive national unemployment that happened in the United States under Hoover. The Great Depression isn’t even called the Great Depression in Britain, but rather the Great Recession or the Great Slump.

Winston was not a conservative by American Tea Party standards.