OT - Matt Light on Laura Ingraham this eve. (9/11)*

[BoilerBonz]

Those folks are there in opposition to the people on the other side wearing swastika's and chanting for white supremacy. Says a lot about you and others that you have a problem with the opposition, not the ones calling for the deaths and/or removal of minorities, jews, and gay people.

Again, you chant CNN talking points. Being against evil, like neo-Nazis or the KKK, doesn't necessarily make one any better, or good, if your cure is as a bad as the disease.

The main political rival of the Nazis, in the day, were the Communists, who between Lenin, Stalin, and Mao murdered far more people even than the evil Nazis. The parallel we have today is the Alt Right opposed by the Radical Left Antifa. The former may be described as neo-Nazis and the latter are Progressive Leftists, most of whom profess to be Communists, are opposed free-speech rights for anyone who disagrees with them, and believe they are justified in using violence because their opponents are Nazis. Problem is -- as we're already seeing, they ignorantly define anyone who disagrees with them as Nazis. So violence and physical obstruction of free speech is justified, in their warped minds, against virtually anyone not on the hard left of the political spectrum.

Both the Alt Right and the Antifa are poison, period. I worry more about Antifa only because my own experience is that I've seen them on the rise much more so than the Alt Right. And a lot of otherwise intelligent people are naive enough to think the Antifa is just great because they're anti-Nazi. Also, Antifa is seducing tons of ignorant young college students with their propaganda. I don't see that happening nearly so much so with the Alt Right. But if you honestly think the Antifa are the Girl and Boy Scouts of America, then I see why you're confused.

 

[WLBoiler]

You're apparently going to an internet site to "fact check" the origin of quotes. You're not going to original source documents. So you don't know whether Churchill ever said it, in a speech or conversation, or wrote it? What you do know, and I agreed with you about, is that Churchill did not originate the quote.

Many attribute the origins to Francois Quizot, but others -- apparently not recognized on the site you're looking at -- attribute the origins to Sam Adams. Still others claim it originated with Edmund Burke, although no one has documented it in Burke's writings. But that doesn't mean he didn't use the term in conversation or say it in a speech. At least one American newspaper stated in the 1980s that Churchill was known to use the phrase. Maybe they were incorrect? I don't know, and you don't know. But that's almost certainly how the misattribution to Churchill emerged in error as "common knowledge" during the 1980s.

Regardless, the only thing fake is the attribution to Churchill as its origin, which I did not do, but would be an understandable error by anyone given it was once accepted as common knowledge. The quote, itself, has been around for up to two hundred years and retains its meaning.

Holy $hit you’re not very bright. Didn’t figure I’d return to this thread and see you still tap dancing around the fact that there is no record of Churchill ever using that phrase.

You don’t seem to understand how to find an authoritative source because the internet is a bit too impressive and flashy for you.

So after piling on your original bs, your correct path should have been, “whoops, got excited, I was wrong.”

It shouldn’t take this many posts to explain this to you guys.

Unless you can comprehend that there are real and fake “sources,” and the difference between them, and maybe how to find an authoritative source, then you can mail back your diploma to Hovde Hall. While you’re at it, start using a bit more of discerning eye when it comes to the garbage you ingest on social media and how it affects your personal views. Your tribalism doesn’t get more value than facts and reality.

 

[hunkgolden]

Holy $hit you’re not very bright. Didn’t figure I’d return to this thread and see you still tap dancing around the fact that there is no record of Churchill ever using that phrase.

You don’t seem to understand how to find an authoritative source because the internet is a bit too impressive and flashy for you.

So after piling on your original bs, your correct path should have been, “whoops, got excited, I was wrong.”

It shouldn’t take this many posts to explain this to you guys.

Unless you can comprehend that there are real and fake “sources,” and the difference between them, and maybe how to find an authoritative source, then you can mail back your diploma to Hovde Hall. While you’re at it, start using a bit more of discerning eye when it comes to the garbage you ingest on social media and how it affects your personal views. Your tribalism doesn’t get more value than facts and reality.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

 

[WLBoiler]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

And?

 

[hunkgolden]

And?

What's your question?

 

[WLBoiler]

What's your question?

Not sure why you jumped in, but thanks for bolstering the facts.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Not sure why you jumped in, but thanks for bolstering the facts.

Uh, I think this is what he was referring to by providing the link:

"By 1986 the saying had moved to the lips of Winston Churchill as indicated by the following excerpt from the “The Hartford Courant” of Hartford, Connecticut: 17

Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head. If there’s any truth to the observation, one wonders what to make of today’s college students."

Just because you can't find it on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. Search all Churchill's original sources, then maybe you can conclude something?

Your arguments make me think you're the type who wrote all his term papers by cutting and pasting from google searches.

 

[WLBoiler]

Uh, I think this is what he was referring to by providing the link:

"By 1986 the saying had moved to the lips of Winston Churchill as indicated by the following excerpt from the “The Hartford Courant” of Hartford, Connecticut: 17

Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head. If there’s any truth to the observation, one wonders what to make of today’s college students."

Just because you can't find it on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. Search all Churchill's original sources, then maybe you can conclude something?

Your arguments make me think you're the type who wrote all his term papers by cutting and pasting from google searches.

Lol.

Churchill died in 1965.

The article describes the different ways it was misattributed and different versions of it.

You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Lol.

Churchill died in 1965.

The article describes the different ways it was misattributed and different versions of it.

You are making a fool of yourself.

You are clueless. My point all along has been that we don't know whether Churchill said it, or not, and that it's understandable someone would attribute the quote to Churchill given that was common in the 80s/90s, correct or not. The Hartford paper didn't imply Churchill had just said it, in 1986! They were stating that he was known to say it. As I said earlier, we don't know if the paper was right about this or not? The article is also making the point that a lot of people have been known to say something along these lines, over the years, and it's not possible to determine when it was attributed to someone correctly, or not, without going back to all the original source documents. But you insist he never said it simply because you can't find an internet site attributing it to him as the original source. Of course you can't, he isn't the original source and I never said he was.

 

[WLBoiler]

You are clueless. My point all along has been that we don't know whether Churchill said it, or not, and that it's understandable someone would attribute the quote to Churchill given that was common in the 80s/90s, correct or not. The Hartford paper didn't imply Churchill had just said it, in 1986! They were stating that he was known to say it. As I said earlier, we don't know if the paper was right about this or not? The article is also making the point that a lot of people have been known to say something along these lines, over the years, and it's not possible to determine when it was attributed to someone correctly, or not, without going back to all the original source documents. But you insist he never said it simply because you can't find an internet site attributing it to him as the original source. Of course you can't, he isn't the original source and I never said he was.

This is amazing.

You still don’t know what an authoritative source is.

I’m trying really hard to let you figure this out on your own, and then let you go quietly into the night.

 

[BoilerBonz]

This is amazing.

You still don’t know what an authoritative source is.

I’m trying really hard to let you figure this out on your own, and then let you go quietly into the night.

And your "authoritative source" proves a negative?

 

[WLBoiler]

And your "authoritative source" proves a negative?

Buddy. Let’s go find out the answer...

Who do you suppose collects, archives, and researches every tidbit of Churchill’s life?

Maybe the International Churchill Society?

Welp, maybe they have a section on great Churchill quotes as well as ones falsely attributed to him...

Holy $hit they do!

 

[BoilerBonz]

Buddy. Let’s go find out the answer...

Who do you suppose collects, archives, and researches every tidbit of Churchill’s life?

Maybe the International Churchill Society?

Welp, maybe they have a section on great Churchill quotes as well as ones falsely attributed to him...

Holy $hit they do!

"There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: ‘Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!"

I'm no sure this proves a negative? And I find Addison's argument to be misleading. While it is true Churchill was a member of the Conservative party until switching to the Liberal party in 1904, at age 30, he switched back to the Conservative party in 1924 at age 50, after spending several years as an independent due to his increasing dissatisfaction with Liberal party policies. So it's not hard to imagine Churchill may have said something along these lines, even if the ages in the quote are off by 5 to 10 years from his own, when he switched parties. The other thing to consider is that the UK Liberal party, of the time, was of the Enlightenment and not the Left. Churchill gave numerous speeches emphasizing the differences between Liberalism and Socialism. The UK Labor party arose in the 1920s to champion the latter, and Churchill abhorred socialism. So those who say he was a life long liberal are referring to the term, liberal, in the classical sense, as in the U.S. founding principles, which are conservative by today's standards.

 

[WLBoiler]

"There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: ‘Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!"

I'm no sure this proves a negative? And I find Addison's argument to be misleading. While it is true Churchill was a member of the Conservative party until switching to the Liberal party in 1904, at age 30, he switched back to the Conservative party in 1924 at age 50, after spending several years as an independent due to his increasing dissatisfaction with Liberal party policies. So it's not hard to imagine Churchill may have said something along these lines, even if the ages in the quote are off by 5 to 10 years from his own, when he switched parties. The other thing to consider is that the UK Liberal party, of the time, was of the Enlightenment and not the Left. Churchill gave numerous speeches emphasizing the differences between Liberalism and Socialism. The UK Labor party arose in the 1920s to champion the latter, and Churchill abhorred socialism. So those who say he was a life long liberal are referring to the term, liberal, in the classical sense, as in the U.S. founding principles, which are conservative by today's standards.

There is no record of Churchill ever uttering that phrase (or any derivative of it).

That’s it.

I have no idea why you keep dumping a bunch of other drivel over your posts. You were wrong. I don’t care about your political opinions.

I’m amazed it’s taken so many posts for some of you to identify a real and simple source. A basic lack of understanding and citing credible sources seems to be a widespread issue. And this is the easy stuff.

 

[BoilerBonz]

There is no record of Churchill ever uttering that phrase (or any derivative of it).

That’s it.

I have no idea why you keep dumping a bunch of other drivel over your posts. You were wrong. I don’t care about your political opinions.

I’m amazed it’s taken so many posts for some of you to identify a real and simple source. A basic lack of understanding and citing credible sources seems to be a widespread issue. And this is the easy stuff.

You found an internet site that makes a claim. Then you read it and are repeating it here.

It's not apparent whether the "record" the site refers to is exhaustive, and regardless, no record would include everything Churchill ever stated.

Furthermore, Addison's argument would be unnecessary if there was not some question as to whether Churchill ever used the phrase, or some variation of it.

The larger point is that there is an historical basis for the quote, because it is so apropro, regardless of who originated it or whether Churchill stated it.

 

[roadblock19]

Uh, Fox News sells fear and divisiveness - that’s the problem, not the cartoon

Speaking of... legal fees must be impending