OWS movement: We've seen this before!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
It all worked out. I fixed the window myself and considering the time it took compared to the 10% I kept it was one of my better investments/jobs.
apple0154
MEOW
Also, when companies go bankrupt often suppliers are cheated. For example, an installer would order 50 windows and pay for half and tell the supplier they would pay for the rest as they received the money from installations. They install all the windows and fold. The supplier never gets paid.
Why can't the supplier sue the installer if the installer has a home? A private car?
The point is people can open businesses and if the business goes bankrupt they still keep all the money they made from the business. Why? Why are people allowed to open businesses ranging from roofing to hair salons without any qualifications?
As I said before the capitalist system is, or is becoming, a system where people just grab what they can and that's going to change. There will be a new world order. It's coming.
apple0154
MEOW
I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. After hearing your craziness about having millions of dollars in Germany your name is in the lunatic file.
apple0154
MEOW
Dixie doesn't have any clue how social policies/governments work. He's been brainwashed by propaganda from the past. A McCarthy throw-back. A communist under every bed.
If only he'd do a little research on things like government medical he'd see not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. He'd learn that government services provide for a better life for everyone.
apple0154
MEOW
The windows were brand name ones. The problem was the installer.
I almost always go with large corp products. I'm not a big fan of "small business".
Bfgrn
New member
It's interesting you use the words ""useful idiots". The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”
The closest twins to the communists in Russia we have in America are the right wingers that have turned 'laissez faire' into a religion.
For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address such problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).
The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.
The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.
But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.
One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.
Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
More spewings of Maoism. Almost everything you just said can be found in the teachings of Mao. Yet you defiantly claim that isn't what you are advocating. It's EXACTLY what you are advocating.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. After hearing your craziness about having millions of dollars in Germany your name is in the lunatic file.
Well, if you told a believable story, I might believe you. What you said, doesn't comport with logic. You went to a Home Fair... well, any Home Fair is going to screen participants, they don't just let in any old man with a rusty truck and hammer and no credentials. And reputable manufacturer of windows, is not going to authorize such a person to do installation. If their work is as shoddy as you claim, no bonding company would touch them, and they wouldn't have a license. So just all the way around, your tale is hard to believe. Even IF this cat somehow managed to jump all hurdles, get himself into a Home Fair, and do the job you claim he did, there are any number of outlets for you to complain and get satisfaction, starting with the Home Fair people. Based on common sense, I believe you are lying. I think you made all of this up, because you thought it sounded plausible and people would buy it, but you didn't count on people being much smarter than you. It's always best if you stick to reality and honesty instead of resorting to fantasy and lies. Just sayin...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Doesn't sound like MY problem, sounds like YOUR problem. Like I said, you are correct, Communism is indeed non-liberal, and once we become a Communist system, your precious social liberal agenda will be dead forever. Do you really think Communists would put up with people camping out on Wall Street? Or protests of ANY kind? That's when they move in the tanks and clear you out. Communists don't put up with liberal whinefests, they just put a bullet in your head and be done with you.
Well they better get to conforming, or we are going to be converted to Communism, then it will be too late.
Socialism is the precursor to Communism. Once we've gotten to socialism, the next step is Communism, and the end to all Liberalism. This is why they call you "useful idiots" ...you are idiots, in that you don't see this coming, you are useful, in that you are enabling it to happen.
Communism follows Socialism, as Socialism is a precursor to Communism. You can't just implement Communism, it has to evolve from Socialism, which must be established first. All of this is laid out by Marx. Much of what you are saying is absolutely correct, when we finally get to pure Communism, you can kiss every liberal initiative you've ever dreamed of, goodbye! You're not going to have any say, about health care (the reason countries with nationalized health care don't go back, apple), you won't have any say about social policies, gay people will be executed along with minorities, or anyone who threatens the hierarchy.
Bfgrn
New member
What you haven't been able to wrap your head around is the authoritarian personality, from leaders to followers is a conservative trait, not a liberal trait. The Soviet Union is an ultra conservative society.
cawacko
Well-known member
Yes political conservatism in the U.S. is just like political conservatism in the old Soviet Union. That makes perfect sense.
Bfgrn
New member
Except the tenets, orthodoxy and beliefs are diametrically opposite.
The Soviet Union even had their own 'tea party' in the late 1980's. A tea party of Stalinists.
When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?
What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.
Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?
The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 1989
Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.
While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.
A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists''
'I Am a Stalinist'
''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.
Kira A. Korneyenkova was at the rally last Sunday outside the Ostankino Television Center, and she joined several hundred other people in enthusiastic cheers as speaker after speaker called for a fight against ''liberal, Zionist forces'' that seek to control Soviet society.
''I am a Stalinist,'' the 53-year-old schoolteacher said proudly, ''and I think our so-called glasnost has divided our nation. It is our duty to fight against such elements.''
Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So why do Liberals fawn all over this idea like it's the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind? Do you not realize Communism will be the end to anything you think of as liberal today? I guess that would be the "idiot" part of "useful idiot." Now, American Conservatism, under a capitalist free market, free enterprise system, is NOT Communism, it is the opposite of Communism. You want to connect two words together and make them the same, without examining context. Again... the "idiot" part of "useful idiot" at play. What you can't wrap your little pea-sized brain around, is the very thing you idiots are advocating, is the thing that will ultimately destroy liberalism as you know it. The Communists will not tolerate dissent from Liberals, whinefests about "rights" and whatnot... they will move in the tanks, and line you all up at a ditch and put bullets through your head. So many dissenters were killed under Pol Pot, they had to implement a policy of killing 2-3 people per bullet, so as not to waste bullets. That's where we are heading, and you Liberals are proudly leading the way!
apple0154
MEOW
As I said, it happened. Whether or not you believe me is of little importance. Actually, it's of no importance. You're a lunatic, Dix.
Bfgrn
New member
Hitler would not tolerate liberals either. What you refuse to comprehend Dixie, is ALL authoritarians are conservatives.
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
apple0154
MEOW
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If it happened, explain how it happened, since I explained how it's virtually impossible it could have happened? You attended a Home Fair... who sponsored the Home Fair? Did they do a thorough screening of the businesses involved, or did they just let anyone with a rusty truck and hammer in the thing? Who was in charge of that? What was the name of the bonding company who backed this installer? What did the window manufacturer have to say about authorizing someone like this to install their product? Did you contact the SBA or BBB about this, if so, what did they have to say? Why didn't you take the business to small claims court? Until you start answering some pertinent questions here, there is no way to believe your story, it has far too many holes in it. We're a consumer-driven nation, and as such, we have a plethora of consumer-based protections built in to the system. Your story doesn't account for any of them, and you seem to presume we live in 1911 America and not 2011.
apple0154
MEOW
Hitler would not tolerate liberals either. What you refuse to comprehend Dixie, is ALL authoritarians are conservatives.
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
(The Speeches of Adolph Hitler) For a moment I thought it was a tea party speech!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE AUTHORITARIANS! ...Keep repeating that over and over until it sinks into your empty cranium, DUMBSHIT!
American TEA Party Conservatives believe in FREE markets... FREE enterprise... FREEdom! They believe in the CONSTITUTION which guarantees FREEDOM (NOT AUTHORITARIAN RULE)! They believe in states rights... not authoritarian dictation of what states WILL do! They believe in LESS Government intrusion into our lives and MORE personal responsibility. Across the board, everything an American Conservative believes is the antithesis of Communism. While we see these miscreants in OWS, touting Maoist and Communist philosophy, like it's the Holy Grail!