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

[Guns Guns Guns]

I think it is astonishing that you are going to take the approach that OWS isn't protesting capitalism.

I think it is the mark of the liar that you are that you posted these for the first time after pretending you had already shown proof that Occupiers have the same message as Mao.

I think you are stupid enough to think that these videos prove your point.

Where are the videos of OWS protesters quoting Mao "to the letter", which is what you claimed and pretended you'd already proven?

I think you are trying to weasel out by changing your claim from "exactly the same as Mao" to "protesting capitalism".

Now, slink back to your Alabubba doublewide, drink a case of cheap beer, and deep-fry your turkey, loser.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think it is the mark of the liar that you are that you posted these for the first time after pretending you had already shown proof that Occupiers have the same message as Mao.

I think you are stupid enough to think that these videos prove your point.

Where are the videos of OWS protesters quoting Mao "to the letter", which is what you claimed and pretended you'd already proven?

I think you are trying to weasel out by changing your claim from "exactly the same as Mao" to "protesting capitalism".

Now, slink back to your Alabubba doublewide, drink a case of cheap beer, and deep-fry your turkey, loser.

LOL... Like I said, when I post the people saying exactly what I said they were saying, which is the exact same thing Mao said, you want to play cute... First of all, Mao spoke Chinese, so the sounds coming from his mouth did not sound like the sounds coming from the OWS people, who mostly spoke English, I think... BUT... the "MESSAGE" is identical. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's your business, but that is the case.

OWS is the modern version of Maoism. The richest 1% have everything, the other 99% have nothing... Capitalism sucks... The wealth needs to be redistributed to the masses... it's the same exact message, and same exact proposed solution. Run from it if you want to, the beans have already been spilled. Lob insults and put-downs all you like, call me every name in the book, I really don't give a flying fuck! I think THAT is the mark of your profound dishonesty and lack of substance.

 

[Onceler]

Capitalism isn't a perfect system; unfortunately, there are flaws. One of those flaws is that the old adage "the rich get richer" is true - ultimately, the gap between rich & poor will keep growing. And that's what we've seen over the past decade+ - the rich have gotten richer, while regular wages have stagnated.

It's the growing inequity that is the target of the OWS movement. As a capitalist, I'm glad someone is talking about it, because the trend is a bad one if you extrapolate it out through the years.

Are there communists who are drawn to OWS? Absolutely. But it isn't a communist movement.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL... Like I said, when I post the people saying exactly what I said they were saying, which is the exact same thing Mao said, you want to play cute... First of all, Mao spoke Chinese, so the sounds coming from his mouth did not sound like the sounds coming from the OWS people, who mostly spoke English, I think... BUT... the "MESSAGE" is identical. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's your business, but that is the case. OWS is the modern version of Maoism. The richest 1% have everything, the other 99% have nothing... Capitalism sucks... The wealth needs to be redistributed to the masses... it's the same exact message, and same exact proposed solution. Run from it if you want to, the beans have already been spilled. Lob insults and put-downs all you like, call me every name in the book, I really don't give a flying fuck! I think THAT is the mark of your profound dishonesty and lack of substance.

Really, liar?

Still pretending your video clips contain exact quotes from Mao? List 'em. If they don't match exactly - which is what you claimed - your lies are exposed. Go ahead.

Still pretending you've posted proof of your lies?

Still pretending you're one of the 1%?

Still pretending you're anything but a blustering idiot?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Capitalism isn't a perfect system; unfortunately, there are flaws. One of those flaws is that the old adage "the rich get richer" is true - ultimately, the gap between rich & poor will keep growing. And that's what we've seen over the past decade+ - the rich have gotten richer, while regular wages have stagnated. It's the growing inequity that is the target of the OWS movement. As a capitalist, I'm glad someone is talking about it, because the trend is a bad one if you extrapolate it out through the years. Are there communists who are drawn to OWS? Absolutely. But it isn't a communist movement.

Doublewide Dixie doesn't get it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Capitalism isn't a perfect system; unfortunately, there are flaws. One of those flaws is that the old adage "the rich get richer" is true - ultimately, the gap between rich & poor will keep growing. And that's what we've seen over the past decade+ - the rich have gotten richer, while regular wages have stagnated.

It's the growing inequity that is the target of the OWS movement. As a capitalist, I'm glad someone is talking about it, because the trend is a bad one if you extrapolate it out through the years.

Are there communists who are drawn to OWS? Absolutely. But it isn't a communist movement.

But here is the thing, it is natural that "the rich" will get wealthier at a faster rate, because of what the differences are in the individuals.

If you held a marathon race... would you expect people who routinely participate in marathons, to remain in pace with people who have never ran a marathon? Wouldn't it make sense that people who are used to running marathons and conditioned to it, are going to naturally be better at it, than someone who doesn't? Well, the same can be said about wealth acquisition. People who have the know-how to make money, are going to be naturally better at it than those who don't, therefore, they are going to make money at a faster rate. This "alarming trend" is not really surprising or alarming at all, it is perfectly natural and normal.

Now... let's discuss how to "fix" that... the reality is, you can't really do much about a natural phenomenon, it is going to happen. Taking the wealth from those who know how to create wealth, is not the solution. Especially if you plan to assign "government" to the task. The reason: Corruption and Greed. The Great Redistribution never happens! The money is confiscated from the wealth-creators, and stolen by those with authority and power, leaving the poor and middle class in the exact same boat they were already in... only now, you no longer have the wealth-creators to drive the economy. This makes matters even worse, because, for every "rich person" out there spending their money to make money, there are dozens and dozens of middle class and poor people who are dependent on their spending... if they no longer have wealth, they can't spend it.

Who was it, Kennedy who said, "a rising tide floats all boats?" He was a democrat, but his economic strategy was very conservative and totally opposite of what the OWS people are saying. His philosophy was, grow the hell out of the economy, let rich people keep their money, spend it, re-invest it, do anything with it but stick it away in securities somewhere, because if they are spending, everyone will benefit. You LOWER their taxes, not INCREASE them! You make it attractive for them to SPEND their money, not hide it away and protect it. Liberals tend to think of things in "static" terms, in their mind, there is only so much money out there, and the wealthy have most of it... but the fact is, our economy operates on buying and spending the money already out there. When someone spends money, someone else makes money. Productivity creates wealth, not just for the wealthy, but for everybody. Productivity needs to be encouraged and rewarded, but when we raise taxes and restrict capitalism, it makes it impossible to reward productivity.

Free enterprise capitalism isn't perfect, that is true. But it is the best system man has ever devised for raising people from poverty, and the track record speaks for itself. Do we need to have some regulations on capitalism, sure... we already have plenty! What we DON'T need to do, is get stupid and turn on capitalism completely, like those in the OWS movement are doing.... like Mao Zedong did in China... the results of that also speak for themselves, millions dead, millions more starving and in worse shape than before... the idea did not work, you can't "redistribute wealth" and expect adequate results.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Doublewide Dixie doesn't get it.

No, YOU don't get it, and you never will, because you are a simple-minded little twit. You have relegated yourself to obscurity here, as most posters have you on IA and don't even bother responding to you anymore. You're such a fucked-in-the-head idiot, that you don't even know how to get your message across to others without offending them and driving them away.... I wish the whole Democrat Party was like you, we could get rid of them in fairly short order, if that were the case.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

But here is the thing, it is natural that "the rich" will get wealthier at a faster rate, because of what the differences are in the individuals.

If you held a marathon race... would you expect people who routinely participate in marathons, to remain in pace with people who have never ran a marathon? Wouldn't it make sense that people who are used to running marathons and conditioned to it, are going to naturally be better at it, than someone who doesn't? Well, the same can be said about wealth acquisition. People who have the know-how to make money, are going to be naturally better at it than those who don't, therefore, they are going to make money at a faster rate. This "alarming trend" is not really surprising or alarming at all, it is perfectly natural and normal. What we DON'T need to do, is get stupid and turn on capitalism completely, like those in the OWS movement are doing.... like Mao Zedong did in China... the results of that also speak for themselves, millions dead, millions more starving and in worse shape than before... the idea did not work, you can't "redistribute wealth" and expect adequate results.

Doublewide Dixie keeps repeating his lies, even after they were exposed.

Hilarious.

As for his 'marathon' example, imagine that a tiny group of runners bribed the officials so they would have an unfair advantage over 99% of the other contestants.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, YOU don't get it, and you never will, because you are a simple-minded little twit. You have relegated yourself to obscurity here, as most posters have you on IA and don't even bother responding to you anymore. You're such a fucked-in-the-head idiot, that you don't even know how to get your message across to others without offending them and driving them away.... I wish the whole Democrat Party was like you, we could get rid of them in fairly short order, if that were the case.

If people have me on IA, it's because they fear being humiliated.

People who lack the wit to debate well "get offended" because they are exposed as losers.

I don't want to "drive you away", I want you to debate like an adult - take a position, then support it with facts and reasoned arguments.

If you can't, that's not my problem. It's yours.

Nice that you pretend to be an American patriot while admitting that you want to silence your opposition and establish a single-party system....

 

[apple0154]

You're joking, right? Every idiot they have interviewed in the OWS movement has said very emphatically and vociferously, they want to get rid of CAPITALISM! Every 'complaint' they had was based on the evils of capitalism and capitalists. If they aren't protesting against capitalism, please do tell us, what your interpretation has been, because I think most of thinking rational America believes they are opposed to capitalism. Have they been 'misunderstood', idiot?

They are protesting againt rampant, corrupt, no rules capitalism.

Come on, Dix. You can think this through with a bit of effort. Were the bail-outs, the US taxpayer's money that the banks and investment companies received, given by a socialist named George Bush? Was the money offered and given by the leader of communist USA? Or was it all done in the name of capitalism?

I know you can come up with the right answer, Dix. Be confident. You can do it, Dix!

 

[apple0154]

See there you go, slipping away from reality, again.
Any time you can't support your original assertions, you attempt to spin the discussion off to an area that you feel more in control of.

I'm not "attempting to spin the discussion off to an area I feel more in control of". I am trying to get you to post the links in the hope that as you view them you will see the error of your assertions because I'm sure the links do not support your assertions. That's all. I'm giving you a chance to correct your errors.

Do try.

 

[Lowaicue]

Well tell me what ignorance I have exposed, if that's the case. I mean, you're a decent moral person, right? Doesn't it bother you that someone is exposing ignorance? Don't you feel obligated to at least try and enlighten? Tell me how I am wrong about what Mao advocated? Tell me how I have misinterpreted the OWS protests? I am a good listener, if you have some wisdom to share on the subject, I welcome it! The last thing I want is to be ignorant!

I think the problem is, I am absolutely right, and you know that I am... but you can't really admit that. So you end up making really stupid comments, like "not the same kind of capitalism" and when I call you on it, you get frustrated. "Bourgeois" ..Funny little French word.. doesn't sound like it's spelled, so Jughead probably has no idea how to say it... That's the word Mao used to describe the "Evil Capitalists" of his time. How were they different from the Wall Street bankers of today? I want you to explain it to me, because I detest ignorance, I want to learn!

I'll say this once again. Then it is up to you what you do.

The reasons that lay behind Chairman Mao's revolution (actually he was just one of several, but he survived to write his name on it) are vastly different from the motivation of the Occupiers. [Caveat: You cannot accurately 'quote' Mao because the two languages, Chinese and English, 'work' in different ways; so what we have is an approximation.]

China had centuries of absolute misery under various emperors and dynasties. The first major revolution was 'led' by Dr. Sun Yat Sen who lived/stayed in a house not 10 minutes drive from here while he planned the overthrow of the Qing dynasty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Lau_090111_5.JPG/220px-Hung_Lau_090111_5.JPG

The revolution of 1911 came, in large part, from the frustration of the people who wanted their rulers to get rid of the foreigners (see boxer). Then came WWI and the rise of the KMT. The CCP was formed in 1919 and led to a tussle between the communists and the newly formed Nationalist party under Chiang Kai Shek. In the early 1930s the Japanese took over Manchuria and China was faced with a cruel war against the Japanese (Nan jing). Meanwhile the Russians had come to the aid of the CCP to counter the support for the KMT from the US. Communes were set up (not many). So you now had a country influenced by the Sino Japanese war, the CCP/KMT war, the Russians, The Americans and most of all, perhaps, the intense poverty of the masses.

How would YOU get out of that?

When Chairman Mao took control he wanted to pull the people out of their intense poverty and to get rid of the KMT for ever. ( The father of a friend of mine drove for one of the KMT leaders and her family fled to HK when Chiang escaped to Taiwan) To achieve his aims he introduced a series of five year plans which were largely unsuccessful and tried to introduce a more egalitarian society (also failed!). The rich then became the object of blame. THEN, not as a cause of the revolution. The revolution was agrarian in nature, it had to be because over 90% of the Chinese worked on the land. Landlords were exploiting their tenants and were seen as just one of the problems that had to be solved. Houses were confiscated and landlords were sent to work the land as equals of the peasants.

By the 1960s Mao was losing his grip and his 'delightful' wife and her three buddies (the Gang of Four) launched the Cultural Revolution. Possibly the blackest time in the history of modern China and a period that often gets confused with 'Mao's' revolution.

Now, think about the Occupiers.

Honestly do you think they are the same?

By the way, there are bound to be some innaccuracies in the above, I am not an historian.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not "attempting to spin the discussion off to an area I feel more in control of". I am trying to get you to post the links in the hope that as you view them you will see the error of your assertions because I'm sure the links do not support your assertions. That's all. I'm giving you a chance to correct your errors.

Do try.

And as I've said before; it is you that is in need of finding your way back after you've worked so hard to bury what was originally being discussed.

You did the same behavior on the old AOL board and you haven't changed one corner of your little round room of deflection, since then.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They are protesting againt rampant, corrupt, no rules capitalism.

Come on, Dix. You can think this through with a bit of effort. Were the bail-outs, the US taxpayer's money that the banks and investment companies received, given by a socialist named George Bush? Was the money offered and given by the leader of communist USA? Or was it all done in the name of capitalism?

I know you can come up with the right answer, Dix. Be confident. You can do it, Dix!

It is true, Democrats and Republicans passed the bailouts and TARP... Bush, McCain, Obama, Biden, the Clintons... every one of them told us we had to pass it, the economy was at stake... Do you know the ONLY group of people who defiantly OBJECTED to this? THE TEA PARTY!

Now have a big tall glass of STFU, and ENJOY!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'll say this once again. Then it is up to you what you do.

The reasons that lay behind Chairman Mao's revolution (actually he was just one of several, but he survived to write his name on it) are vastly different from the motivation of the Occupiers. [Caveat: You cannot accurately 'quote' Mao because the two languages, Chinese and English, 'work' in different ways; so what we have is an approximation.]

China had centuries of absolute misery under various emperors and dynasties. The first major revolution was 'led' by Dr. Sun Yat Sen who lived/stayed in a house not 10 minutes drive from here while he planned the overthrow of the Qing dynasty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Lau_090111_5.JPG/220px-Hung_Lau_090111_5.JPG

The revolution of 1911 came, in large part, from the frustration of the people who wanted their rulers to get rid of the foreigners (see boxer). Then came WWI and the rise of the KMT. The CCP was formed in 1919 and led to a tussle between the communists and the newly formed Nationalist party under Chiang Kai Shek. In the early 1930s the Japanese took over Manchuria and China was faced with a cruel war against the Japanese (Nan jing). Meanwhile the Russians had come to the aid of the CCP to counter the support for the KMT from the US. Communes were set up (not many). So you now had a country influenced by the Sino Japanese war, the CCP/KMT war, the Russians, The Americans and most of all, perhaps, the intense poverty of the masses.

How would YOU get out of that?

When Chairman Mao took control he wanted to pull the people out of their intense poverty and to get rid of the KMT for ever. ( The father of a friend of mine drove for one of the KMT leaders and her family fled to HK when Chiang escaped to Taiwan) To achieve his aims he introduced a series of five year plans which were largely unsuccessful and tried to introduce a more egalitarian society (also failed!). The rich then became the object of blame. THEN, not as a cause of the revolution. The revolution was agrarian in nature, it had to be because over 90% of the Chinese worked on the land. Landlords were exploiting their tenants and were seen as just one of the problems that had to be solved. Houses were confiscated and landlords were sent to work the land as equals of the peasants.

By the 1960s Mao was losing his grip and his 'delightful' wife and her three buddies (the Gang of Four) launched the Cultural Revolution. Possibly the blackest time in the history of modern China and a period that often gets confused with 'Mao's' revolution.

Now, think about the Occupiers.

Honestly do you think they are the same?

By the way, there are bound to be some innaccuracies in the above, I am not an historian.

Thank you for the lesson in Chinese history, I won't question the accuracy or validity, but I think you have misconceptions of the revolution, and the sentiment which drove it. Yes, the people were in much more severe condition, things haven't ever been great in China, but the motivation, the driving force behind the revolution, was the message that bourgeois capitalists controlled all the wealth, and the 'agrarianism' of the people only emphasized the point. They are the 99%ers, and the bourgeois capitalists are the 1%. The same emotional class warfare fueled rebellion and sparked the revolution, and you can go back to Mao's early speeches to find this.

No... it wasn't "exactly the same as" ...let's not be ridiculous... conditions, situations, options... all different at a different time, with different people from a different culture, so yeah, I get that it wasn't "exactly like" the OWS movement. But the fundamental message, the ideology and principles we are hearing from every person who has a clue what the hell these people are protesting, states the very same exact to the letter things that Mao said. It's stunning, really.

Are people just so stupid that they don't understand this has been tried, and failed, or what? I really think that's the case, I really believe there are people who have no clue what happened with Mao, and how the ideology they are running around screaming with OWS, is the exact same thing.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL at Doublewide Dixie expecting anyone to take his "history" references seriously after these gems....

... What the fuck are you talking about now? WWII wasn't fought in Russia, moron! The Russians were our allies against Germany! This all happened before the Soviet Union ever came to be! How can the world wars be responsible for killing something that hadn't even been born yet??? Bizarre! ...

*sigh* come on man... is this what you have now resorted to in order to feel like you got me? Yes, I know... battles were fought on Russian soil... the overwhelming majority of WWII was not fought in Russia! And it damn sure wasn't fought in the Soviet Union, which did not exist yet!

Want to keep blathering about history, doublewide Dixie? Keep digging....

 

[apple0154]

And as I've said before; it is you that is in need of finding your way back after you've worked so hard to bury what was originally being discussed.

You did the same behavior on the old AOL board and you haven't changed one corner of your little round room of deflection, since then.

All talk, no link.

 

[apple0154]

It is true, Democrats and Republicans passed the bailouts and TARP... Bush, McCain, Obama, Biden, the Clintons... every one of them told us we had to pass it, the economy was at stake... Do you know the ONLY group of people who defiantly OBJECTED to this? THE TEA PARTY!

Now have a big tall glass of STFU, and ENJOY!

You insist OWS has the same message as socialists, yet, it was capitalist leaders who bailed out the banks and investment companies. OWS wants change. Don't you?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

All talk, no link.

Typical.

Don't you love Professor of Alabubba History Dixie Doublewides' version of Soviet history?

He says the USSR did not exist during WWII.

But we're supposed to listen to his bloviations about Communism/Mao...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

All talk, no link.

And you're all talk and no direction, except circular.