straightUp Loc: California

Well, you do seem awfully confused, but you have been all along. It's really not that difficult. First of all, I didn't butcher, or even edit anything you said, in fact I quoted you directly. I didn't even paraphrase you. Then I brought up an excerpt from Churchill's speech that clearly conflicts with what you said. Your not going to rip apart my latest post because you can't and you are starting to realize that your rhetorical tricks aren't standing up to my argument. You would be better off just "chalking this one up as a loss". Gotta say though, I got a giggle out of your posturing as someone who is holding my hand and walking me through this thread. I wasn't born yesterday. I knew your game from the start.

Have a nice day worried... Go find some pot-smoking teenagers to argue with - you'll stand a better chance. ;)

straightUp Loc: California

That's basically what I was trying to say. It was like stepping on a land mine. LOL.

At some point early in this thread I called Winston Churchill a "reasonable conservative". He was not only pragmatic but he was also empathetic. His understanding of society as a whole made him a superb statesman. Tea Party conservatives today are nothing like him. Not even close.

Granted, Churchill had little tolerance for socialists but as I was also trying to say earlier... He was dealing with real socialists at a time where socialism was on a global rise. The extreme conservatives in America today, especially in the Tea Party think anyone who isn't an extreme right wing fanatic is a socialist.

justkillingtime

Churchill was a conservative in the proper sense. Like Burke before him Churchill feared the mass concentration of both wealth and poverty. Unlike the Tea Party Churchill understood that wealth equals power and it must be regulated as power is regulated or else people with wealth will invariably drive the impoverished into revolution and in the ensuing chaos nobody’s wealth will be safe and secure. To a conservative the main goal is stability, not liberty which can too easily become license.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

< Again, nice try StraightUp, I'm not confused in the least bit. If you think I have been all along, they why would you engage me in this topic on page one? How interesting it is that you now take this posistion only after CrazyHorse has persuaded me to his side of the argument.
You most certainly did edit, one example I even found comical. In fact you left an error behind, where you mispelled your own words, not mine, when originally there were no spelling errors, but nonetheless still evidence of your editing process, proving yet again CrazyHorses' assertions that you are a "credibility cripple", and "intellectually dishonest".>

Exhibit "A"- my words are NOT the ones contained in the quotation marks. Also please note, in all my responses herein were contained in these symbols < >, yet they are now conveniently omitted.

Worried for our children wrote:
"my point wasn't to explain my specific perwhich to sonal views".... Yes it was!, you even stated as much in your original post. [end exhibit]

<There are more of these, but I think one will suffice.>


<Also, thats an interesting quote of mine that you chose, about "chalking it up". In your previous post you denied recognizing that as part of my advice, only electing to recall my "well-duh" comment as advice. Again a fine example of your "cherry picking" proclivity.>

< Speaking of giggling, it's funny how now that I don't agree with your side of whats been said in this thread, you now accuse me of playing a "game" all along no less. If that were even remotely true, then again, why would you even bother to engage me? >

< You know StraightUp, you couldn't even be a man about this whole thing, instead of simply saying 'ok worried, sorry you see it that way, but we're all entitled to our opinions', or anything similar, you chose to end it with that last line in your quote above, only reaffirming my suspicion that I should pity you. Perhaps you're the pot-head I've talking to all along.>

< Btw, I asked my college aged daughter what a "computer engineer" might be, as you claim you are in your bio. She said, all that is is someone who received a certificate for attending a "school" such as ITT Tech. Seems as though you're one that really likes to puff himself up. Now that there, is reason to giggle.>

See you around, you "intellectually dishonest", " credibility cripple", socialistic propagandist, hypocrite, manipulator of words; misfit.

straightUp Loc: California

sure you are.


morbid curiosity.


You were always on his side of the argument.


Not the post we were both referring to. (nice try but I'm not that easy to distract)


All that proves, is that I proof read my own stuff... and yeah, sometimes I figure out a better way to say something in the few minutes the site allows you. Probably doesn't make any sense to you but wh**ever... So, what's the big deal anyway? How is that a problem? Are you pretending again...?


So... let me get this straight... you are citing me for dropping your brackets..? Well, first of all, YOU are the one who put MY words into quotes to start with, so when I quoted you, it contained your quoting of me.

Maybe you ought to dump your particular syntax and use the tags provided by the BBS software like this...

original sentence...


...Then you "cherry picked" my words...



Then I responded...


See?


Look, you said that I agreed that your "chalking it up" advice was good advice and I didn't say that at all. So you lied about what I said. I made the correction and said the advice I was endorsing was your advice about inflammatory words. Now your saying that I "denied recognizing" your other advice.

You're either very good at this or incredibly stupid and to be honest, I'm not sure which one it is.


Again, when did you ever agree with me? You had a friendly approach, which was nice, but I never got the impression that you actually agreed with me. The fact that you are saying that you did is even more indicative of the kind of game you play.


Oh... there we go. LOL. I was waiting for that one. "Appeal to Manhood"... ie..."Couldn't you just be a man and accept defeat?"
Let me tell you something... If we were arguing about politics then sure, I could agree to disagree. But we're not really discussing politics, are we..? You and Crazyhorse didn't question me about my views at all. No questions, no requests for clarification. What you did was launch a personal attack on my credibility. That's not something any man is willing to agree on.


Maybe you should stop smoking before you try to write a sentence.


The industry is flooded with certificates that puff themselves up, ever since Novell found out how much money they can make selling them. They all come with titles like Microsoft Certified Engineer. Those certificates are good for entry level jobs which is probably why your college aged daughter is familiar with them. They are useless to someone like me, with a masters in computer science, 30 years of experience in the industry and a patent. Your daughter probably doesn't meet many of us. BTW, she might be a little confused about ITT Tech - that school offers college degree programs as well as certificate programs, but there are no certificate programs for software engineers.


OK - pissy little man who can't stand up to my arguments so he has to resort to personal attacks.
:)

barak

The only thing I had against Sir Winston Churchill was that his Mother was an American!!

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - Fortunately, that was his recessive side - otherwise he would have been a lot more dramatic and reactive. ;)

Lou Loc: Florida

Bravo straightUp !! Bellisimo ! You're dead on target . That is precisely the mechanism of the Tea party Alleged Patriots .
They can not duel NOR deal with facts , but rather a denigration of their opponent because of disagreement . From there on , it is no longer an intellectual endeavor but a matter of naming you a l*****t . You have been marginalized from the getgo , because the facts you present contradicts their world view , indeed their perception and version of reality .
Ergo , you and any facts you have presented are rejected out of hand , and you get branded t*****r , liberal , socialist , Marxist etc., all the descriptions in their parroted dichotomy .
They have from the start ,not only co-opted and twisted , but in fact MADE UP QUOTES from Churchill , Jefferson , Washington and others .
In the case of Crazy Horse , quotes are given that Churchill may not have , BUT probably would have said . The rest just follow , sycophants as it were.


And when actual history contradicts them , you become the liar . The argument is now totally emotional on their part .

straightUp Loc: California

Thanks Lou... Yeah, this thread in particular really shines a light on it right from the OP that narrowed Churchill's comprehensive views down to just one thing... an opposition to socialism, to the almost vicious response to my indications that Churchill may have been a little more sophisticated than that because they thought I was trying to say that Churchill supported socialism.

I actually saved a copy of the thread as an example of how bad it can get.

Lou Loc: Florida

One need look no further than the mindset of the originator of the thread Crazy Horse . Noteworthy historical figures and their quotes are co-opted , twisted or simply as crazy horse did, made up ,to fit their narrow world view . The quotes that are real are t***slated to fit their own narrative , based of what Tea Party Alleged Patriots , SUPPOSE they meant .