[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 Nazi 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 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.
(Its no different today. When Liberal policies fail, they tell us its only because we havent 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 cant say it if liberals dont want to hear it; and not only that, you cant even think it, as its 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 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.
(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 Englands 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 its 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.
(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 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 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 vote.", 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. Translated into concrete terms, Socialistic 'society' is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent election,... 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 straightUps 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 straightUps 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 straightUps 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 Nazi 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. Its just a matter of common sense and common knowledge. But you see straightUps 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:
sic1 : 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 transitional between capitalism and communism 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 transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.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 straightUps 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 Nazi 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 bullshit.
(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 "bullshit") 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.htmlSo 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.