CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

"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 Communist 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) (Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948).



Three years after the war, the U.S. capitalist system was helping the recovery of Brittain 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 Summerskill doles to all of us today.” .... To apply the Socialist principle of equality 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.”

(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 immigration laws) 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.



“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 Communist world. There they take all. There no one has anything except the salaries paid them by the privileged Communist 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 Brittain from unreasoned crushing Socialist policies, just as he had saved Brittain 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

Compair Sir Winston to OPotHead

straightUp Loc: California

It's Britain, not Brittain. ;)

Winston Churchill is my favorite conservative of all time and I'm not being funny, I'm totally serious. I agree with just about everything he ever said. But here's the thing... He was talking about socialists in post-war Britain, not liberals in 21st century America. If you think they are the same thing you are sorely mistaken. The socialists Churchill was referring to actually were socialists at a time when the socialist movement was at it's peak.

There *IS* a socialist party in America today but it's very small and obscure compared to what it used to be. Most American liberals today are progressives, not socialists. If you think they are the same thing, you are again sorely mistaken. In fact the progressive movement was actually started by Republicans under Theodore Roosevelt to defeat the socialists, which during that time were gaining serious power in Washington. The reason why socialists all over the world were gaining so much power at that time was that workers were being grossly mistreated and exploited by capitalists of the Industrial Revolution. BTW, a capitalist is one who makes money simply by owning capital (a means of production) such as a factory. Socialism promised the workers community ownership of the factories. This way profit is shared more fairly between those who actually did the work. The progressives basically said look, how about we let the capitalist maintain ownership but we force them to be more fair with your compensation? As the progressives secured things like the 40 hour work week and minimum wage, the drive to take over ownership of the factories died down, socialism lost it's wind, at least in this country and private property was saved.

So... while socialism takes away private ownership, progressivism protects it and is actually itself, a form of regulated capitalism. Of course there will always be a desire among extreme capitalists to take as much as possible and to that end fight regulation, tax and any other cost factor that diverts money from their pockets and they will use the examples of failed socialists systems to describe the desires of socialists and progressives alike... or anyone for that matter who dare suggest any kind of balance or compromise and it is indeed the believers of such propaganda who learn nothing and are mentally petrified.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

What is the most debated law passed by Democrats without one vote from the Republicans? I will answer for you and say it is the ACA that Obama is installing piecemeal these days. I believe that the law was an attempt to get us to socialized medicine in jerks and spurts. Wasn't that one of the most socialist things the British put into effect shortly after ridding themselves of Churchill? We will be very near that situation as soon as enough Americans go to the exchanges because they don't have health insurance any other way. You explain to me what happens once the Federal government controls insurance and has no competition.

Come on, you aren't stupid but according to the end of your post you think I am so tell me how you are right and I am wrong.

straightUp Loc: California

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


Speech by Winston Churchill
Edinburgh, July 17, 1909

A year ago I was fighting an election in Dundee. In the course of that election 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.

Here Winston actually makes a distinction between socialists toward which he had little tolerance and liberalism toward which he was willing to compromise. As a conservative, Churchill didn't like taxes at all but he understood the need for them and he found a worthy compromise in liberal thinking. This is what made him a "reasonable conservative" as opposed to the uncompromising conservatives that dominate the right-wing in America today. BTW, if you read the entire speech you will see that his reference to monopoly is in the ownership of land. I own 4.5 acres in CA... no one else owns that specific 4.5 acres, only I do so I have a monopoly on that land.

Anyway, he goes on to say this...

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.

Here, he is referring to the benefits of land tax being "neutralized" by the detriments of taxing people for the "necessaries of life" which in America today would include tax on supplies and income. 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...


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.

I have to agree with him... I don't have a problem with investment income either and yes, there *is* - *some* degree of thrift and prudence to be recognized, but that doesn't preclude me (or Churchill) from also recognizing the huge difference in actual exertion, especially when looking for the least punitive way to fund a State.

Finally, he lays out the bottom line...

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. 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.

...The taxation of luxuries, superfluities and monopolies... To this the American conservative still refuses to concede. 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, much like the situation Churchill himself was explaining when he said his proposed land tax would "yield all the money that we need..." 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.

And get this... the rest of his sentence... "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." ...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 to cover benefits for all in the form of... date I say? Social programs.

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!

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. 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. So instead we fret over the variations of income tax like the idiots we are.

straightUp Loc: California

1. Not one Republican voted for the ACA because not one Republican would have been reelected if he/she did. From the conservative perspective, the ACA was more about partisan politics than fixing an ineffective health care system.

2. The ACA is not a socialized system. Despite how many times Fox News repeats the mantra of fear there is STILL do no socialism in the ACA. Aside from the public option, the ACA is only a series of regulations applied to providers who remain structurally untouched. There is no nationalization of providers and so far as we know there are no plans for it either.

3. By contrast, the British do have a socialized health care system, that most of them love. I spent a fair amount of time there and I can say their system has it's downsides (every system does) but overall, it's a good system and there is no motion among the people to get rid of it.

4. By contrast, the American system (if you can even call it that) is a hodge-podge of profit-driven businesses that rank among the most ineffective and expensive in the developed world. Treatment is suggested by doctors according to patient needs but approved or denied by accountants according to profit potential. It's twisted to say the least. For a country that led the world in technology, it's an embarrassment. Our only claim to superiority in health care is cancer treatment an that's mostly because it's the most profitable area of medicine due to the incredible number of cancer patients produced by a complete lack of proactive treatment.

Sorry, back you your question...

1. *IF* the public option pushes out all the other insurance companies, it will not be from government mandate; it will instead be from a lack of competition from the private sector. So shame on them for being so lame.

2. Suggesting that such a thing could happen doesn't say much for your faith in the American spirit of enterprise. Certainly, the public option will raise the bar and make the current practices of the insurance companies unfit to compete, but that will help clear the way for leaner more effective businesses to step up to the plate.

They say that necessity is the mother of invention. By launching a public option it will be necessary for the insurance companies to reinvent themselves or at least work harder and leaner to stay competitive. Sometimes industries get fat and lazy and they need a kick in the ass. I feel this is one of those times. The public option is basically saying look, I'm a non-profit option that puts patients before dollars. What are you going to do about it? The ACA does not include any rules that say insurance companies can't come back with something better. It will still be an open market.

Honestly, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Now this is why I joined O.P.P.

This was a pleasure to read.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

More liberal/progressive crap! Every person that is on the government dole (welfare, ebt cards, free phones, etc.) has "unearned income". The socialist vs. progressive argument may have been somewhat valid in 1947, but things have changed (you may have noticed). The modern lib/progressive always yaks about "compromise". The conservatives are supposed to "compromise", but the libs/progressives/socialists don't want to hear it. They want what they want, the exact way they want it. Whether you call yourself a liberal, progressive, or socialist, the goals are the same: steal from the "wealthy" to give to the "poor". The only problem is that whatever you steal from the wealthy will never be enough to satisfy the poor.
You talk about "compromise". How about "compromising and having those people that "collect money and services from the government pay something back in the form of taxes?? Not only do 47% of the people in this country NOT pay taxes, but many get a "refund" from the government. How does one get a refund from something they never paid in the first place?
The greed of the top 1% of taxpayers requires them to pay 70% of the total taxes paid in this country each year. If the government taxed them at 100%, it still wouldn't pay for everything that the government wastes on entitlement programs. The definition of "wealthy" in this country has changed to "anyone making a profit". These people are expected to work hard, employ people, and give more and more of the fruits of their labor to those that do not work, have children they cannot afford, and complain that whatever they get "free" is not enough. The "government" now does legally what Jesse James had to use a gun to do.

straightUp Loc: California

of course :roll:


Ok... So how does that change anything I've said? Or are you just... reacting.


And how exactly does that constitute a change?


Who doesn't? Don't you want what you want, the exact way you want it? And whether or not the conservatives want to compromise is up to them, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. So what it is exactly that you think the "libs/progressives/socialists" don't want to hear? So far... you aren't really saying much.


Ah... yes, of course. The famous bitch line. Every conservative sheep in the flock tosses that one out. There's lot's of unqualified bitch lines out there... "all men are pigs", "conservatives are stupid"... these derogatory stereotypes come in handy when your arguments can't keep up with your emotions. Just don't expect me to be impressed.


That's the only problem? Well, my friend you have nothing to worry about then, because satisfying the poor with stolen cash isn't the objective of progressives OR socialists. All the progressives want is a safety net to prevent people from starving in the streets and the socialists are more concerned about workers sharing ownership of what they produce.


That's pretty much the idea... seems your not so different from a progressive after all. ;)


That's a fallacy. I laugh every time I see a 53% bumper sticker and think "what an idiot". That 53% figure represents the percentage of people who didn't pay enough tax during the year so they owe at the end. The remaining 47% percent are the people who paid the right amount during the year and break even or overpaid during the year and get a refund.

It's funny as hell to watch people who don't pay enough taxes during the year declaring themselves as part of the 53% who pay taxes while insisting that those who overpaid their taxes don't pay any at all. It's even funnier when people who DO overpay their taxes and get the difference refunded think that because they had to pay taxes they are part of the 53%.


LOL - if you actually tried to understand how taxes work instead of parroting the bitch lines, you would know that they don't.


Well, after your 47% fallacy, I'm a little wary of accepting more numbers from you as having any basis in truth and I can't remember what the actual numbers are. I'd have to look. But I know that the higher up the income ladder you go the more you pay and that results in a small percentage of people with the highest income paying the largest percentage of tax. But no one pays more than 30% of his/her own income; that is the ceiling on the tax brackets. I currently pay 28%, which I'm guessing based on your rough demeanor is more than you pay. A few years back during my peak I was paying 30%, but even then I didn't pay nearly as much as let's say Rush Limbaugh, one of the biggest cry-babies in the top 5% who's annual income is in the multi-millions. I was paying the same percentage that he did, but I was very close to the bottom of that bracket. So 30% of what I made was a tiny speck compared to 30% of what he made. But conversely, the 70% that I got to keep was also a tiny speck compared to the 70% he was keeping. According to the conservatives that scream for a flat tax there isn't anything wrong with that.

Again, I gotta laugh at how people like Rush get poor people like you to sympathize with their plight having the burden of paying "70%" of the taxes. Aw, boo-hoo.


If you're still referring to the top 1%, probably not. That's because the common reference to the "1%" is based on wealth and your 100% is based on income tax... tax on wages. The top 1% of the wealthiest people don't even need wages. According to Romney's excuses for hardly paying any income tax, his income in 2011 was actually less than mine. So no, I wouldn't expect the top 1% to have much income to tax. But wealth is a whole different story. As Churchill made quite clear.

With more than 80% of the wealth in this country crammed into the top 5% you could probably tax their wealth at 10% and have enough money not only to "waste on entitlement programs" but also pay off our national debt.


LOL... well, the term is very ambiguous, but profit doesn't always lead to wealth. When I was running a small business most of my profits went to supporting a family. I was only able to save a small fraction of it and that was the extent of my wealth. My definition of "wealthy" is any accumulation of wealth that is self-sustainable... in other words enough money that if invested wisely could yield enough returns that additional income from wages is no longer necessary.


Yeah, the people that *I* consider wealthy can hardly be expected to work hard unless it's what they like to do. I personally don't expect much of anything from them. It's nice when they use their money to build companies and provide jobs, but people in the middle-class can do that too, you don't need self-sustaining wealth to start a company, that's what business loans are for.

I guess *some* people might "expect" the "haves" to work their asses off and give free stuff to the "have-nots". I personally don't know any... don't remember actually meeting any. It's certainly not tenant of progressive or socialist thought. But your welcome to your delusions, they certainly amuse me. Although I do feel a slight pang of discomfort at seeing people like you bent over the table with your pants down, profusely defending those who are screwing you.


I think a more accurate analogy is that the government does what Jesse's gun used to do and it's the people that control the government that does what Jesse used to do.

...and seriously, if there is any robbing going on it's the rich robbing the poor not the other way around. It's just that the rich tend to be smarter and seem to have no trouble confusing the poor about what's really happening. So... how is your ass feeling?

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

I just got me some popcorn, I'm hoping this isn't over yet.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

LOL. Starving in the streets??!! What country do you live in? There are plenty of "safety nets" for people in need in this country.

I'm glad to hear that you were in the 30% tax bracket! Just don't expect me to be impressed.

It's too bad that the 70% of income that you got to keep was just a tiny speck of what Rush Limbaugh got to keep.
You were only able to save a small fraction of it and that was the extent of your wealth.

Aw, boo hoo.

"...it's the rich robbing the poor."

That's a pretty good bitch line you have there, also.

"I guess *some* people might "expect" the "haves" to work their asses off and give free stuff to the "have-nots". I personally don't know any... don't remember actually meeting any. It's certainly not tenant of progressive or socialist thought."

Are you kidding??!!

{I]I[/I] feel a slight pang of discomfort at seeing people like you bent over the table with your pants down defending tax and spend libs that are giving away your precious 30%. As usual, the more we pay in taxes, the more the government finds to spend it on.

I also feel a more than a slight pang of discomfort at your apparent interest in my ass whether it's over a table with my pants down or how it's feeling.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, duh... Isn't that what you folks are whining and bitching about? The safety nets that the progressives put in place? That's WHY people aren't starving in the streets... in this country.

This is a perfect example of political comedy...

1. Progressives put up safety nets so people don't starve.
2. Retards bitch about them.
3. Progressive says "but they're there so people don't starve"
4. Retard says "but people aren't starving, we have safety nets."

ROFL


Oh, I know you are. ;)


I'm not the one who's crying... I'm perfectly fine with the wealth that I have. Rush is the one crying about having to pay taxes.


No, that's a part of my response to YOUR bitch line. Nice try.


No, I'm not.


What you don't understand is that I'm proud to give away my 30%. I actually LIKE the idea of providing for others and contributing to a better society. LOL - I bet that just blows your mind.


LOL - you're so lost.

The government doesn't hold money in their hands while looking for ways to spend it. The government decides what needs to be done first then they collect taxes (or take out loans) to meet the need.


You probably wouldn't feel so worried if it didn't happen so much.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

LOL. You're a riot, straightup. Too bad you don't have clue about what you're talking about. The real political comedy here is you. You regurgitate the lib/prog lines perfectly without any semblance to original thought.

straightUp Loc: California

That's all you got? Denial? Well, OK - run along then.

To Worried for Our Children, Sorry for the disappointment - It's disappointing for me too - I'd love to find a worthy opponent. I can usually find stronger arguments in the more Libertarian sites. Conservatives tend to be heavy on emotional outrage and lacking in intellect, which they humorously try to compensate with $10 words.

I was glad to have been able to do a bit on Winston Churchill though, truly a great man with great ideas.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Thank you, but no apology is needed, I was rather enjoying your discussion. Perhaps "snowbear" was getting frustrated, not only with you, but others on other topics as well, and it carried over to you, it happens. You both appear knowledgable on each side of your posistion, I'm not so sure I would agree that "snowbear" is lacking intelligence, so much as patience(with you anyway).
Emotion is not commonly associated with the conservative side, most often it is the liberal that can't check emotion at door, so to speak.
I too wish this could've lasted, but as they say all good things must come to an end. Just happy I didn't make a lot of popcorn 😝

Maybe in the future you could leave out incendiary words such as, "well duh", those will cause a discussion to fail right then and there. Food for thought, good luck "straightUp", see you around.