Obama preaches communism loud & proud as ever

[JoeNormal]

How can you be so dense? You act as though the idea of personal freedom is some radical idea that not enough people are into. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Obama is not saying we need to eliminate personal freedom. He just believes government serves an important purpose. To simply dismiss it as "evil" is a harmful concept. A sense of leadership in this country is important.

You're right - a sense of leadership is important. But that's not what Obama is conveying here. Instead, all he's doing is preaching about the collective (as usual).

For Christ's sakes, the idea of personal freedom can co exist with the idea of collectivism.

Not in the black-and-white world of 50 IQ point right wingers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the creepy reactionaeries can learn what the terms actually mean and use them correctly, get back to me.

 

[bripat9643]

For Christ's sakes, the idea of personal freedom can co exist with the idea of collectivism.

Wrong. The two things are mutually exclusive. Collectivism dictates that I must do what the mob decrees, not what I want.

 

[bripat9643]

For Christ's sakes, the idea of personal freedom can co exist with the idea of collectivism.

For Christ's sake, no it can't.

For Christ's sake, how fuck'n stupid are you?

For Christ's sake, here is the definition of "collectivism" you dumb-ass...

Collectivism |ke 'lekte, vizem|
The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

How do I have personal freedom if the group has priority over me?

BUt we do that all the time... even in Capitalism.

In fact, ALL rights are collectively granted.

Just ask the Japanese-Americans in 1942.

Rights aren't granted. You're born with them. Government can defend or violate your rights, but it doesn't grant them.

 

[bripat9643]

For Christ's sakes, the idea of personal freedom can co exist with the idea of collectivism.

For Christ's sake, no it can't.

For Christ's sake, how fuck'n stupid are you?

For Christ's sake, here is the definition of "collectivism" you dumb-ass...

Collectivism |ke 'lekte, vizem|
The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

How do I have personal freedom if the group has priority over me?

Talk to the folks in Denmark or Sweden, etc., meathead.

What would that prove?

 

[bripat9643]

You're right - a sense of leadership is important. But that's not what Obama is conveying here. Instead, all he's doing is preaching about the collective (as usual).

For Christ's sakes, the idea of personal freedom can co exist with the idea of collectivism.

Not in the black-and-white world of 50 IQ point right wingers.

It doesn't exist in reality. Just as a triangle cannot have 4 sides in reality. Collectivism is the opposite of individual freedom. Of course, liberal turds don't want the public to know that because they are busily doing everything they can to undermine freedom and bring on the totalitarian collectivist state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your statement, bripat, clearly reveals you do not understand clear definitions, historical narratives, and political philosophies.

Libertarianisn, just like communism, is guaranteed to fail every time because most liberts refuse to recognize human character and those who do understand intend to use it for malignant purposes.

 

[bripat9643]

Your statement, bripat, clearly reveals you do not understand clear definitions, historical narratives, and political philosophies.

Libertarianisn, just like communism, is guaranteed to fail every time because most liberts refuse to recognize human character and those who do understand intend to use it for malignant purposes.

You're too much of an imbecile to even bother arguing with, Fakey. You don't evey attempt to defend your claims. All you do is dispense ad hominems.

Both definitions have been posted, and they demonstrate irrefutably that collectivism is incompatible with liberty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to defend my claims about libertarianism and communism: they have been explained competently and completely elsewhere. That is why you answer with ad homs, bripat, because you can't defend libertarianism.

Your false rendering of collectivism is unacceptable. By that, you mean any government or social action with which you don't agree. That's nonsense.

Now let's see if you can reply without ad homming and with evidence.