But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Uh, no you need to prove your claim to be true before I set about trying to prove a negative. Things are not true simply because you want them to be.

I did... have you not read the thread, moron?

 

[Jarod]

I did... have you not read the thread, moron?

I've read it and you don't.

 

[The Dude]

Dixie must be carrying himler

 

[Lowaicue]

YES, to the letter... they ARE!

I have already told you about this. It is not a debatable matter. Give it a rest.

AND even if there was a group promoting Maoist theory what the hell does it have to do with you? You are against ANYTHING that is even vaguely progressive from cuddling pussy cats to bombing New York.

So go back to your shack, Jack and try to kindle a fire for that chip you carry.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have already told you about this. It is not a debatable matter. Give it a rest.

AND even if there was a group promoting Maoist theory what the hell does it have to do with you? You are against ANYTHING that is even vaguely progressive from cuddling pussy cats to bombing New York.

So go back to your shack, Jack and try to kindle a fire for that chip you carry.

Let's go through this step by step...

Mao believed bourgeois capitalism was preventing prosperity among the masses in China.
The OWS Libtards believe Wall Street capitalists are preventing prosperity in America.

Mao believed it would benefit the people to redistribute the wealth of bourgeois capitalists.
Wallbangers believe it would benefit the masses to redistribute the wealth of the richest 1%.

Mao believed people are all equal, and should share in all economic equity.
Libtards believe the rich aren't paying their fair share, even as they pay 80% of the bill.

You want to tell me how the OWS movement isn't exactly the same thing as Maoism?

So you can 'tell me about this' all you like, you condescending limey bastard, you're either ignorant of Maoism, or lying about it. One is as bad as the other in my opinion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Uh, no you need to prove your claim to be true before I set about trying to prove a negative. Things are not true simply because you want them to be.

Uhm... there is no "claim" made... it is a matter of documented history, I don't have to, or need to prove history, dumbass. Things aren't simply not history because you don't want them to be.

 

[Bfgrn]

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Combat Liberalism

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

The poignant verse penned by John Lennon years ago, and recorded by the Beatles in the song, Revolution, gives amazing insight into the OWS movement. How many of you were actually aware that the protesters are advocating Maoist philosophy? I bet not many, because in every interview and news report, while 'leaders' and 'followers' struggle with what exactly they hope to accomplish, they avoid mentioning it is the precise message of former Chairman Mao. Because of the brilliance and wisdom of Lennon, they realize they can't just come out and tell us they support Maoist philosophy, we would shun and ostracize them in short order... you ain't gonna make it with anyone, if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao. So they yammer around and speak in platitudes about the 1% vs. the 99%... Greedy capitalists making money off the poor... the overall inequity of wealth.

If you take some time to look up Chairman Mao Zedong, and you read about the "People's Revolution" in China, which brought Mao to power, it is uncanny the remarkable resemblance to the message of the OWS movement. Almost universally, the points are the same, and the objectives of the protests are identical. Mao believed that China's wealth must be redistributed, that the 'upper class' had gained far too much advantage over the average citizen, and that if they could just balance economic equity among the masses, it would unleash his country's greatness. Through class envy, Mao initiated this class warfare, the same as we currently see Liberals engaging in today. He and his sycophants worked the population into a frenzy, eventually overthrowing the government and paving the way for the Mao Dynasty. Oh, it was all done with the best of intentions, everyone, including John Lennon, thought Mao's ideas would work... if only they could confiscate the rich people's money and give it to the poor!

Shortly after Mao came into power, he implemented a host of anti-capitalist policy, China became isolationists, refusing to trade with capitalists or participate in the capitalist markets. Of course, this resulted in dramatically decreased trade revenues, and fostered widespread poverty across China. Mao began by closing banks and financial institutions, arresting bankers and businessmen who engaged in capitalism, executing those who breached his stringent anti-capitalist measures. When conditions in China began to worsen, and the people who had caused the revolution began to get restless, Mao kicked it up a notch, he began literally killing off the wealthy population, and confiscating their fortunes. In theory, if they killed the richest 1%, and gave the money to the 99%... things would be better economically. In practicality, it didn't work. As the central government realized the windfall from executing the rich, the people in the government became more greedy and corrupt, and the money which was supposed to filter down to the masses, never made it to them, instead, it was gobbled up by the political elite, who then controlled all the power in China.

In the end, it is estimated Mao executed 3-4 million "political prisoners" (their only crime was being wealthy.) The Maoist philosophy (same as OWS) never worked... even after sparking an all-out revolution and overthrowing the government. Still, the followers of the philosophy didn't give up, they pressed on... sparking the same revolution in Cambodia decades later, leading to the infamous reign of Pol Pot. Now... Pol Pot believed totally in Mao's philosophy, he just thought Mao implemented it incorrectly. With a few 'tweaks' he just knew the idea could work. The biggest problem Pol Pot had with Mao's implementation, is that he allowed too much time to pass before he started executing the wealthy, and he spent too much time trying to justify the killing. So Pol Pot immediately began mass executions, to get the wealth redistributed more quickly, before the government turned corrupt.... but the problem is, people who are killing folks for being wealthy, are already pretty darned corrupt to begin with. After setting the record for most heinous and brutal dictator in human history, Pol Pot was finally stopped by Vietnam... Communist Vietnam! Yes, it became so atrocious, reprehensible and intolerable, the other COMMIES had to intervene to stop it!

You say you want a Revolution?

Do you, really?

Yep.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Mao believed it would benefit the people to redistribute the wealth of bourgeois capitalists.

There really wasn't much of a bourgeois society in China back then. Most of the rich people were of an aristocratic class that inherited huge swaths of land and used it to extract rent on the working people. While the aristocrats did nothing, the working people produced all and gave it to them. The most just part of Mao's rule was when he hung the landowners and gave their land to the people who actually worked, and that's what I think we should do today. Death to the aristocrats! Death to the 1%!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Mao believed people are all equal, and should share in all economic equity.
Libtards believe the rich aren't paying their fair share, even as they pay 80% of the bill.

Dixie, I feel so fucking robber that comes up to you, puts a bullet in your fucking head, takes everything you own, and then has to pay taxes on that stuff that he stole from you. What a tragedy! All this wealth that he has created by taking from others, producing nothing on his own, and now he has to give a small portion of it back to those he stole from!

True freedom is the freedom of the productive class to rise up and take what is rightfully theirs. Your freedom is the freedom of slavery, the freedom of theft.

 

[Lowaicue]

Let's go through this step by step...

Mao believed bourgeois capitalism was preventing prosperity among the masses in China.
The OWS Libtards believe Wall Street capitalists are preventing prosperity in America.

Mao believed it would benefit the people to redistribute the wealth of bourgeois capitalists.
Wallbangers believe it would benefit the masses to redistribute the wealth of the richest 1%.

Mao believed people are all equal, and should share in all economic equity.
Libtards believe the rich aren't paying their fair share, even as they pay 80% of the bill.

You want to tell me how the OWS movement isn't exactly the same thing as Maoism?

So you can 'tell me about this' all you like, you condescending limey bastard, you're either ignorant of Maoism, or lying about it. One is as bad as the other in my opinion.

Well I'd much prefer to be a condescending Limey bastard than a brain dean ignorant yank.
When I was with Mao I asked him quite a lot of questions about his philosophy. To be honest he had very little to say. In fact he said absolutely nothing. Not surprising really. He had been dead for fifteen years!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Uhm... there is no "claim" made... it is a matter of documented history, I don't have to, or need to prove history, dumbass. Things aren't simply not history because you don't want them to be.

When have you successfully proven anything, doublewide Dixie?


You claimed that OWS and Democrats are Maoists. Prove it.

​

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The Chinese are forming partnerships and trading all over the world, BUT if they were to 'take over' anything it would have to be useful. So you are safe for a while.

You seem to think "overtaking" is synonymous with "taking over" as in conquering.

Christ, you're thick.

 

[Lowaicue]

You seem to think "overtaking" is synonymous with "taking over" as in conquering.

Christ, you're thick.

No need for you to use my surname.

 

[apple0154]

So now, what you are saying is, the "message" of OWS is not important really... it's not about raising the economic standards of the poor at all... as is claimed. It's about exacting punishment on the current people who are rich, because they are rich. It doesn't matter if the wealth never gets redistributed and corrupt political elite and their cronies become the new rich, that's fine... so long as the current rich people are punished. Thanks for clarifying that, it took a lot of nerve to actually admit it.

I see you’re trying to comprehend even though you’re doing rather poorly. What I am saying is the message is important and OWS want a more equitable distribution of wealth. However, history has shown us that regardless of whether a more equitable distribution results the current wealthy pay a heavy price. Simply put, it’s either voluntarily share or it will be taken, regardless of consequences.
Again, it doesn’t matter what you or I think is fair or reasonable or preferable. We know what has happened in the past. Try to grasp that important point.

I don't even understand what you retard ass is yammering here. Do you not think people are led to believe lies everyday, in every election, since we've had elections? And what the fuck "injustice" are you mumbling about? That rich people are allowed to keep the money they earned? That rich people aren't executed for being richer than you? That we won't allow government to violate the constitution and confiscate their property? What exactly is this "injustice" as you see it? And how does a Maoist philosophy that has proven to do the polar opposite of helping the poor, become your answer to this "injustice?"

At least you admit you don’t understand what I’m saying and that’s a good start. I explained the injustice in Msg 49, “No one wants to take everything from the wealthy. They just want fairness and I explained this before using income as an example. If the average person makes $50,000/yr and can afford to provide four dinners each evening for their family that means a person making $500,000/yr can provide 40 dinners for the four people and the person earning $5 million a year can provide 100 dinners for each of the four persons in his family. Nobody deserves 100 dinners when others are going hungry.” Surely you can understand that.

Again, retard... The natural state of things is, wealthy people get wealthier, and do so at a faster rate than poor people. This is largely due to MOTIVATION and not some advantage they are given over others. Our laws and form of government ensures we all have the same freedoms and rights, no one is left out, no one is getting special treatment, we all have the same exact opportunity to become wealthy. The difference is our drive and motivation to do so. It's RETARDED to think something is WRONG because wealthy people are becoming more wealthy, while poor people are not. Just plain RETARDED!

No, we do not all have the same opportunity to become wealthy. Do you honestly believe a person born in the ghetto has the same opportunity as an individual born into a wealthy family? Do you think a woman who was born to a welfare mother has the same chance as Chelsea Clinton to become wealthy? As for motivation being the determining factor I’m not sure whether you’re suffering from naivety or stupidity. While motivation is important it is mostly luck and circumstance.

Again, it is the natural state of things for the rich to get richer, it's what they do! Government can't deal with the problem because it's not a problem, it's the natural way things work in a free capitalist society, and it's perfectly alright for that to happen. Ideally, everyone would have the determination, drive, ambition and motivation, to use our free enterprise capitalist system, to become as wealthy as they want to. What you want to do, is shut down the free enterprise capitalist system, and have the government redistribute the wealth, which history shows is a nightmare every time it has ever been tried. Millions of people die, the poor people become even worse off, and the "rich" are simply replaced with another set of people who are even more corrupt than the ones replaced.

It depends on how the capitalist society operates, under what rules. Just like any society. There are socialist societies which benefit everyone and there are socialist societies that stifle people. Again, determination, drive, ambition and motivation are great but they are not the main factors. Do you think Bill Gates was the only human being on the planet working on computers in a garage? Do you think the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who participate in sports and who never become super stars is due to a lack of motivation and ambition?

Well if that's not what you want to happen, it seems like you'd be speaking out against the Maoist Communists who want it to happen! Instead of threatening the rich to capitulate or else. You appear to NOT know what history has shown, because you want to repeat something that has been tried numerous times, didn't ever work, resulted in atrocities beyond belief and poor people becoming worse off. But then, as you revealed earlier, this isn't really about helping the poor, it's about punishing the rich because you are jealous of what they have.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? I’m not saying a revolution is beneficial for the poor. I’m saying revolution happens. There comes a point where the poor have so little to lose they don’t care if they lose it all because they’re going to take the wealthy down with them.

As for my supposed jealousy you couldn’t be more off the mark. As I’ve said before I have a comfortable lifestyle. I retired early and my wife, who is nine years younger, earns a six figure income. I hope there never is a revolt but history and current events definitely point in that direction.

Look at the uprisings in the Middle East and Africa. Many protesters were beaten and died. While others may be “free” I’m sure the resulting chaos has resulted in shortages and a tougher life for many. Was it worth it?

Is owning a gun more important than being able to feed your family? Is owning a gun more important than having a home? Is owning a gun more important than being able to send your child to college? Is owning a gun more important than being able to see a doctor when you or a family member becomes ill?

If people are willing to fight and die for the right to own a gun what do you think people’s feelings are about the above mentioned things? Either the government can address the problems or the people will.

Think, son. Think.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I see you’re trying to comprehend even though you’re doing rather poorly. What I am saying is the message is important and OWS want a more equitable distribution of wealth. However, history has shown us that regardless of whether a more equitable distribution results the current wealthy pay a heavy price. Simply put, it’s either voluntarily share or it will be taken, regardless of consequences.
Again, it doesn’t matter what you or I think is fair or reasonable or preferable. We know what has happened in the past. Try to grasp that important point.

It's never happened without a revolution and overthrow of the government, is that what you believe is coming? We still have an electoral process, and there is still the possibility of relegating you to political obscurity and forgetting about you forever. I think those chances are much better than a revolution turning us into Communist China.... but maybe that's just me?

At least you admit you don’t understand what I’m saying and that’s a good start. I explained the injustice in Msg 49, “No one wants to take everything from the wealthy. They just want fairness and I explained this before using income as an example. If the average person makes $50,000/yr and can afford to provide four dinners each evening for their family that means a person making $500,000/yr can provide 40 dinners for the four people and the person earning $5 million a year can provide 100 dinners for each of the four persons in his family. Nobody deserves 100 dinners when others are going hungry.” Surely you can understand that.

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.... You and the people behind this movement, are not going to be honest with their intentions. As you have so honestly put it, you are willing to murder people and take their property, if that is what it takes. Your example numbers mean nothing, monetary values mean nothing following a revolution. We know from history, revolutions like the ones in China and Cambodia have ended badly. Rich people couldn't afford to buy anything, they were executed. Poor people didn't get extra meals, they were pushed into more destitute poverty. The ruling class prospered, but they were the least concerned about fairness.

What I understand is, in a free capitalist society, every person deserves to keep the fruits of their labor. It is their property, and you have no right to it. It should be entirely up to them, who they want to buy dinner for with their own money. That's how freedom works.

No, we do not all have the same opportunity to become wealthy. Do you honestly believe a person born in the ghetto has the same opportunity as an individual born into a wealthy family? Do you think a woman who was born to a welfare mother has the same chance as Chelsea Clinton to become wealthy? As for motivation being the determining factor I’m not sure whether you’re suffering from naivety or stupidity. While motivation is important it is mostly luck and circumstance.

We don't have the same circumstances, you seem to be confusing circumstances with opportunity. Yes, we ALL have the same opportunity, and no, we don't all have the same circumstances. I know of numerous millionaires who were born in the ghetto, in the projects, under the worst of circumstances, but they had the same opportunity as we all have, and through their motivation, ambition, and determination, they became wealthy. Their stories include very little "luck" and they had to overcome the most severe circumstances. So you are just plain flat out wrong about this. Oh, and I am sure, you aren't suffering from naivety, you are definitely stupid.

It depends on how the capitalist society operates, under what rules. Just like any society. There are socialist societies which benefit everyone and there are socialist societies that stifle people. Again, determination, drive, ambition and motivation are great but they are not the main factors. Do you think Bill Gates was the only human being on the planet working on computers in a garage? Do you think the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who participate in sports and who never become super stars is due to a lack of motivation and ambition?

There has never been a socialist society greater than our capitalist society. Ambition, motivation, drive, determination, and opportunity... those are ALL that matter in becoming successful at anything. As for the other Bill Gates' or would-be sports stars, I can't attest to their situation, since they are imaginary hypotheticals, but I would guess they lacked something Bill Gates and premier athletes had, in the way of motivation, ambition, drive, determination, or opportunity. Or maybe they weren't as talented and should have devoted their energy to something else? This doesn't change the fact we all have the same opportunity to become successful and wealthy.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? I’m not saying a revolution is beneficial for the poor. I’m saying revolution happens. There comes a point where the poor have so little to lose they don’t care if they lose it all because they’re going to take the wealthy down with them.

Revolutions mostly happen out of ignorance, and through propaganda efforts of others. In the end, "the rich people" still exist, and the poor people are even poorer. Meanwhile, millions of innocent people are executed in the process, for an ideology that has not, and will not, ever work.

As for my supposed jealousy you couldn’t be more off the mark. As I’ve said before I have a comfortable lifestyle. I retired early and my wife, who is nine years younger, earns a six figure income. I hope there never is a revolt but history and current events definitely point in that direction.

I don't believe you. I think that is precisely what motivates you and every other Commie socialist, jealousy. And the "revolt" is coming in November of next year, led by the TEA Party, but I don't think it's the one you were hoping for. You see, in this country, we have a constitution and it stipulates our power is derived from the Creator, and can't be alienated.... other places where revolutions overthrew governments, didn't have that. We go to the polls and "revolt" with our votes, and that's what is heading your way next year... are you ready? I don't think you are.

Look at the uprisings in the Middle East and Africa. Many protesters were beaten and died. While others may be “free” I’m sure the resulting chaos has resulted in shortages and a tougher life for many. Was it worth it?

We're not them.

Is owning a gun more important than being able to feed your family? Is owning a gun more important than having a home? Is owning a gun more important than being able to send your child to college? Is owning a gun more important than being able to see a doctor when you or a family member becomes ill?

The right to own a gun is, that's for sure.

If people are willing to fight and die for the right to own a gun what do you think people’s feelings are about the above mentioned things? Either the government can address the problems or the people will.

Think, son. Think.

But you're not going to get Utopia. Think son, think! Feeding people requires resources, those resources have to be produced from somewhere, they don't just magically appear at will. At some level, labor has to produce the resources, there is no other alternative. Therefore, there is no such thing as "free lunch" or free anything else. Someone has to pay for it, some labor has to be exerted. Owning a home also requires resources, someone has to produce those, they don't just magically appear. College professors and doctors don't work for free, someone has to pay for their services. You want to live in a fantasy world where people don't have to work for stuff, where government is there to hand it out like candy, and you don't have to do anything. That is not reality based, it is a fantasy. Believing in something that is not real and impossible to achieve, is a very dangerous ideology and road to go down.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Dixie with his Reds under the beds bullshit just lives on another planet, he is one of the most articulate madmen I've ever come across on these forums. The OWS protesters are, in the main, decent people albeit a little naïve. The minimum that is being demanded is the passing of a new Glass-Steagall Act and a concerted attempt to stop the obscene culture of paying bonuses to people who are not only just doing their jobs, but risking other people's money to do it. We are willing to do that in the UK, but it's pointless if the big banks just move everything abroad to Switzerland or Singapore. Timothy Geithner recognised that in 2009 but fuck all has been done about it since, I see nothing to stop the exact same shit happening again if the Eurozone implodes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCUCZcFhssuY&pos=1

 

[Alias]

Dixie with his Reds under the beds bullshit just lives on another planet, he is the most articulate madman I've ever come across on these forums. The OWS protesters are, in the main, decent people albeit a little naïve. The minimum that is being demanded is the passing of a new Glass-Steagall Act and a concerted attempt to stop the obscene culture of paying bonuses to people who are not only just doing their jobs, but risking other people's money to do it. We are willing to do that in the UK, but it's pointless if the big banks just move everything abroad to Switzerland or Singapore.

"In the main". LOL. Priceless. Your pals in the media had to invent incidents to make the Tea Party evil, and now you have it displayed daily and all you can say is...."The OWS protesters are, in the main, decent people albeit a little naïve."

Liberals lie.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie with his Reds under the beds bullshit just lives on another planet, he is the most articulate madman I've ever come across on these forums. The OWS protesters are, in the main, decent people albeit a little naïve. The minimum that is being demanded is the passing of a new Glass-Steagall Act and a concerted attempt to stop the obscene culture of paying bonuses to people who are not only just doing their jobs, but risking other people's money to do it. We are willing to do that in the UK, but it's pointless if the big banks just move everything abroad to Switzerland or Singapore. Timothy Geithner recognised that in 2009 but fuck all has been done about it since, I see nothing to stop the exact same shit happening again if the Eurozone implodes.

The OWS protesters are the scum of society, best we can tell. The cities are having to clear them out so they can disinfect the areas and keep them from becoming uninhabitable. Most of these people are Anarchists, who don't want ANY political party to control power, they want lawless anarchy! The "new Glass-Steagall" was passed in 2009 by Congress, under the name, Dodd-Frank... which is ironic, since it was both Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who prompted the collapse of FM&FM with their stupidity. You Brits should be spending your time on your own message boards, discussing your own fucked up mess, and leave us Americans to deal with this one.

As I so aptly pointed out to LowIQ (he never responded to it)...

Mao believed bourgeois capitalism was preventing prosperity among the masses in China.
The OWS Libtards believe Wall Street capitalists are preventing prosperity in America.

Mao believed it would benefit the people to redistribute the wealth of bourgeois capitalists.
Wallbangers believe it would benefit the masses to redistribute the wealth of the richest 1%.

Mao believed people are all equal, and should share in all economic equity.
Libtards believe the rich aren't paying their fair share, even as they pay 80% of the bill.

You want to tell me how the OWS movement isn't exactly the same thing as Maoism?

Oh yeah... the first people Mao executed? THE BANKERS!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Doublewide Dixie is correct in saying a huge transfer of wealth has occurred. He is incorrect in identifying the beneficiaries.