Is that something that you would rather talk about than the economy and fiscal policy?
Seems to be something Mr. Castro would rather talk about. Perhaps because he disagrees with you -
He does want to increase spending. He said so.
Regards,
Shodan
Not in the slightest. There are words there, and those words actually mean things. It would be best practices if you actually read and responded to the words that people write, rather than what fits your narrative better.
For instance, I said only that we do not need to increase spending to have a solvent government, but that we do need to raise taxes.
I then pointed out that there were some projects that could use some doing, and unless we want to shortchange the baby boomer’s on their social security, spending will increase. I am in agreement on that, I would like to see spending increase also.
Though, when I brought up the subject of tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, along with giveaways of the treasury to the well off, it was you who wanted to change the subject to russia, rather than to engage in a dialogue about economic or fiscal policy.
Do me a favor, please pay attention to the fact that I said that this recounting was a memory, not a reporting of actual events pieced together from documentary (notes, voice recordings, etc) evidence.
Castro did not, as I told you previously, immediately “pivot” from an “uncomfortable” point to one he was more assured of. As I noted in the OP, one should NOT quote the OP as actual quotes from the man. Were I trained as a reporter, recording the conversation, or other you would be on more steady ground. But you are not and are, in fact, purposely mischaracterizing his responses to me, in a meeting in which you did not participate.
Any more mischaracterizations of my meeting with the man must stop.
Regards,
The person who actually had the conversation.
If Mr. Castro didn’t pivot away from “tax and spend” meaning raising taxes and increasing spending and mention Russia, then you are the one mischaracterizing the conversation.
I took your word for what happened. My bad.
Regards,
Shodan
Did you not read the entire OP, or are you being purposely obtuse? Did you not see post #31, or did you merely decide to ignore it?
Serious questions, because I told you your interpretation was incorrect, yet you still persisted even knowing you were wrong. I want to know why you continued to lie about this especially after you were told your interpretation was flat-out incorrect.
Why?
As an observer, I vote for purposely obtuse.
This is a warning for accusing another poster of lying. This is not permitted in this forum. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
Don’t do this. If you want to take shots at other posters, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I neglected to mention this earlier. What you did was interpret literally when it was made clear it wasn’t literal. The previous note is also for you as well -Do not imply other posters are lying in this fashion.
[/moderating]
Well, my apologies then for seeming to accuse you of lying.
I understand that it wasn’t a literal word-for-word transcription. But you said
However -
(Emphasis added.) I would say that being perplexed and concerned and defeatist is pretty uncomfortable. And you also said -
So it did seem like an uncomfortable point, or at least a perplexing, concerning, and defeatist one, and he did pivot, or at least you characterized it as such.
Regards,
Shodan
This appears disingenuous to me; “he was uncomfortable with the topic” carries implications that “he was perplexed and concerned and defeatist about the topic” does not. Your attempt to equate the two is not convincing.
To assert that someone was “uncomfortable with the topic” implies that the person is dishonorably trying to avoid a topic that honor would require he address. Whereas “he was defeatist about the topic” implies only that the person is pessimistic about dealing successfully with the issue.
Equine veterinarian: this horse is now dead.