The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

Trump now realizes the Data Centers are going to cost the republicans votes. The property near Data Centers will be worthless as the Data Centers generate large amounts of noise and use large amounts of electric and water. Many Communities are now trying to block data Centers from being built in their community. Now Trump says he will require that new Data Centers build their own electric generating facilities. Why are electric bills going up? Government deals. In effort to bring more business to the state they are willing to give away the farm. In one recent deal WV was going to make other electric user pay huge electric bill of an aluminum manufacturer. The aluminum manufacturer agreed to pay for its own electricity if the price aluminum was high. The poorest people in WV would have no choice but to pay for one of the richest companies in America electric. The deal fell through but the idea that the poorest people should pay the for richest people electric is not dead. Since electric bills are going up when a Data Center is built the practice is no doubt being used with Data Centers. The idea that the population could be in effect taxed by an economic deal is terrible. My electric bill has gone up 50% and a Data Center plus a huge plant have recently been built I can't help but wonder how much of their electric bill I am paying. Maybe they agreed to pay a small portion of their electric bill. There needs to be a law that the rich must pay for the electric they use that the cost cannot be shifted to others.

The ultra rich are always complaining about the "redistribution of wealth" but I would have to agree that there is a "redistribution of wealth" but it is the opposite of what the ultra-wealthy are complaining about. Take the Mercades plant built in Alabama. The state of Alabama gave Mercedes $500 million as an incentive to locate in Alabama. Where did that $500 million come from? The taxpayers of Alabama. Where was this "wealth transferred to?" To one of the richest companies in the world. This is being repeated every day across America, maybe not on such a large scale but it is happening. It is called Economic redeveloping. It is a game that pits each state against every other state. There is a bidding war for each company a bidding war funded by tax dollars. The bids get higher and higher; the sky is the limit. If it sounds like bribery, it is. It needs to be outlawed as bribery. This is a redistribution of wealth scheme but one the ungodly greed see no problem with.

Redistribution of wealth in last 40 years has been redistributed to the ungodly greedy. An affordable college education that has been redistribute to the ungodly greedy by huge tax cuts for the ungodly greedy. How do we know the wealth has been redistributed to the ungodly greedy not the way the ungodly greedy want you to believe? Easy there has been a huge redistribution of wealth to the ungodly greedy over the last 40 years.

Between 1989-2025 The richest .1% went from 8.6% in 1989 to 15% of the wealth.

Between 1989-2025 the bottom 50% went from 3.5% to 2.5%.

it is interesting that the top .1% has 15% of the wealth of the country while the bottom 50% has only 2.5%

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill robbed school lunch program to give to that richest .1%.

Yes, there is a huge redistribution of wealth, but it is being redistributed to the richest Americans.

The rich always complain that their wealth is being redistributed to poor. How is wealth created in the first place? When a car company manufactures cars that is wealth being created. Who actually creates that wealth? The thousands of workers who actually manufacture the cars. Where does most of that wealth go from manufacturing those cars? Into the pockets of the CEO who is paid million and given millions in stock options. It seems to me that is redistribution of wealth. The workers created the wealth, and the CEO needs a dump truck to carry away the stolen wealth, and the fat cats complain about "their wealth" being redistributed. In America there is no longer a relationship between who creates the wealth and who reaps the rewards.

The ungodly greedy have now realized that the unequal distribution of wealth is a problem that is going to come back and bite them as it did throughout history. During the French Revolution the rich were roasted on a spit and fed to their wives. So now the very people who bribed their way into this distribution of wealth believe they can repair it. Some of the rich have decided to give most of their wealth away. One thing they can all agree on is they don't want the government involved in anyway. There are various schemes be proposed to solve the problem.

We already had a solution for the wealth distribution back in 1913 it was called income tax. Income tax was a tax placed on "excess wealth" no working man was subject to income tax. Income tax was only placed on the working man to help pay for WWI. The income tax rate was a high as 98% on the ungodly greedy in the 60s but they did not pay anything close to that because of various deductions. Kennedy cut the income tax rate on the ungodly greedy from 90% to 70%. It has been cut by republicans during almost every republican administration since, so now even trillionaire pays no income tax.

The first step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that you have a problem the second step is to look what worked in the past. Third step is to apply what worked in the past. We had an alternative minimum tax that made sure the rich paid a minimum tax on their income. What it did was limit the amount of exemptions they could claim. You calculated your taxes with exemptions than if you calculated the minimum tax you had to pay.

No they didn't.

You're confusing the French Revolution 1789 with The Jacquerie (1358). A medieval peasant revolt in France where chroniclers recorded gruesome (and likely exaggerated or propagandistic) claims of nobles being roasted on spits and fed to their wives centuries before the French Revolution.

My reference I believe, placed the incident during the French Revolution. I have used the incident many times and nobody questioned it. It would take me weeks to find the original reference so we will just specify that it took place sometime in France. Burning people at the stake was a common practice in Europe so it is likely that being burned at stake could be taken a step further. You would have to admit that somebody who's family was starving to death while the rich got richer might harbor a grudge. I suspect that far worse took place after all if you would behead royalty a little barbeque would not be out of the question

Burning people at the stake was not common practice in late 18th Century Europe.

It's the same as saying that the exploits of Captain John Smith and Pocahontas were typical of modern America.

Check your facts before you make sweeping and usually incorrect historical statements.

Or stay in your own back yard, nobody disputes your knowledge of West Virginia.

Argue with facts and sources, not what you imagine.

The fact that your inaccuracies have not been picked up before merely shows that your audience was ignorant.

It was probably referring to a French revolution, not the French Revolution. And, as izzy points out, lots of these stories were embellished as tales were passed down over generations in order to justify continuing hatred and persecution. Hell, the bible is filled with them – as well as outright fabrications.

It looks like Wikipedia begs to differing they place witch burnings being common between 1450 and1750. So that looks like witch burnings were common in the 18th century.

Witch burnings even took place in America

It is an extremely short step from burning someone at the stake to roasting them on a spit both involve burning a human being.

I had a source for that, and I still have that source in my library however locating it would take more time than it is worth. I don't use the Dewey Decimal System in my library I finish a book and put on the shelf. I would estimate that I read that book 20 years ago. That would place it back about 17 feet on the shelf. I don't remember the title but remember the general subject. I could probably narrow it down to 100 books which I would have to reread to find the exact quote. It is just nitpicking. The point is minor. It is your play pen, and you can believe it or not it is up to you. As for me I believe my source it sounded perfectly reasonable at the time. If you viewed it as happening today it would be very improbable, but it was a different time. You can never escape the context of the time you live in when you make judgements. There was a lot worse being done at the time. Short of having a time machine and going back and filming the incident no proof is possible. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Are you the one that claimed that witch burnings didn't happen in the 18th century? Maybe you should check your sources. Did you imagine that?

You want to make your judgement based on the context of life today not in a far different time and place. It would be like people in that time period claiming airplanes could not exist in this time period. They could not escape the context of their time period. It is shocking in the context of today, but it would not have been shocking in the context of the time. Burning witches was common burning the rich would not be considered out of the ordinary at the time. Once the burning starts it is hard to tell who will be burnt.

Quote Wikkipedia, don't make claims.

Witch burning was not widespread in the late 18th Century.

1750 is your last time period and it's mid not late 18th Century.

I can only find one case of a person burned to death, and that was in Poland not France.

1750 is in the 18th century and even if witch burnings were not widespread at the end of the 18 century that does not mean that witch burning were not still taking place at the end of the 18th century.

Things like witch burnings would follow a bell curve distribution and may have peaked in the middle 18th century but may have continued into the 19th century. Witch burnings were not outlawed until 1768 in Austria.

I am sure the book in question was written about the distribution of wealth that at that time was not nearly as bad as it is today. There is a mathematical equation that predicts a revolution. If memory serves it was that richest portion of the population held 90% of the country's wealth while the bottom 90% of the population held only 10% of the country's wealth. The rich would go to war if they lost even 1% of their 90% of the wealth but the bottom 90% of the people would let the rich take everything up to the last 1%. At that point their families are starving and there is a revolution. This has occurred time and time throughout history and the ungodly greedy know that it becomes more likely with every dollar they use politics to steal. Many are moving to New Zealand and some now have residence built in abandon missile silos.

We are all equipped with a filter when we read something we decide whether it is true or not based on our filter. When it comes to bible the only true words would pass my filter would be "the, and." Another part of the context was that it took place during a revolution where killing is common. Dead is dead, you can only kill somebody once. Once they are dead you can't hurt them anymore. What is done to the body after death is just against societal conventions. Another factor is what people wish to be true. Jeffery Dahmer did not use a spit he had to cut his victims up into smaller parts. While rare cannibals do exist. During a revolution law is suspended and pretty much anything goes. That is why I believe the author was correct, and the rich cat was roasted.

Use facts and sources not rhetorical arguments.

Give one example, sourced, of an aristocrat being burnt on a stake during the French Revolution.

Failing that, one witch burned at the stake, other than the aforementioned Barbara Zdunk burned in Poland.

Anna Goldi doesn't count either she was burned post mortem and the trial caused such widespread revulsion that witch trials pretty much stopped thereafter.

So, other than the above, just one example of an aristocrat, or witch, being roasted on a spit or burned at the stake in Revolutionary France.

Just 1 example.

The burning incident was documented in the book. That is where it came from.

Maybe we should document every person killed in the French revolution.

No doubt you belie that the Holocaust never took place also. There are Holocaust deniers, but you are the first to deny that witch burnings took place. It is generally held that not only witch burnings took place but heretics were also burned at the stake. It would be like saying lynchings never happened in America because we don't know their names.

All sort of atrocities took place in the French revolution including beheading of royalty, but you want to deny this one. Even during the revolution people would not want to document murder as law would eventually return and they could be prosecuted for the crime.

A group of businessmen in town had been blocking our contract for the third time. I had a picket sat up around one of businessmen business that cost him his lunch business. But this involved the Police and fire department also. A police car showed up at one of the businesses at night and shot the windows out business's vehicles. I got investigated over the incident but that is not how I played the game. I never found out who did it, but I talked to a policeman who told me if you do anything like that you never tell anyone. That is the way this burning would have happened the guy that did it will not brag about making it hard to document.

"A book" means nothing.

Name book, publisher, author and page number.

That's how grown ups argue.

You are disgusting, because you have nothing other than vague nonsense you then accuse me of denying the Holocaust.

That's low, even for you.

Your problem is you can't stand being wrong, and you are wrong so very often.

Instead of arguing rationally you trade smears and insults.

You use straw man arguments. I never said witch burning never happened in Europe I said in never happened during Revolutionary France.

It's like talking to a lobotomised Donald Trump, puerile, ignorant and stupid.

You must be a nightmare to live with.

You've managed to prove one thing though, septic tanks are full of ****.

Books are responsible for preserving most of man's knowledge. Like I said before you have a filter and you can decide what you believe to be true and what you believe to be false, but you must agree to let others have the same privilege. This is not a reference book where all the sources must be documented. This is more of a casual exchange of ideas.

This is not a reference book nor is it going to become one. The chances of me finding it before I die are slim.

You simply like to nit-pick. That may be how people holding reference books argue but as for the rest of us this is not a life and death match. Over the years I have read thousands of posts, but I remember very few that used name of book, publisher, author and page number. I don't think I have ever seen a publisher credited on the internet.

You would deny that witch burnings took place or at least the time period. People were being burnt at the time and to deny that one specific burning did not take place does not make sense.

There are a lot of people over here who deny the holocaust took place. People often deny what they don't want to accept.

I have no problem with being wrong, but I will never pretend to be wrong when I am right.

This is not a criminal court law where you must prove your case beyond a shadow of doubt. This is more like civil court where you must show a preponderance of the evidence. People were being burnt at the time so there is a preponderance of evidence.

Wikipedia begs to differ and said that witch executions and the French Revolution both took place in the 18th century.

You are like a dog with a bone you just can't let go. Me thinks it is too much about nothing.

I must not be too hard live with we have been married 54 years, and it has been pretty smooth after the learned to stop throwing things. She had a hell of an arm but a lousy aim.

Books are wasted when you can't even name them.

When asked to provide evidence for your claims you call me a Holocaust denier.

That is something only a real piece of **** would do.

I have a degree in English. I don't appreciate being spoken down to by an idiot who can't even name the colour of a book he claims to have read.

I doubt you've read anything more challenging than Dr Seuss.

You're rude, bullying, mendacious and quite stupid.

And clearly a ******* creep who frequents Hooters.

I'm done with you, you're a low life piece of crap.