PDA

View Full Version : Obama: The Collectivist



DonGlock26
09-20-2012, 09:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsobm33ATC0&feature=player_embedded#!




Democracy with a small "d"? Just a small "d"? So, why not a big "D"? The collectivist elite need more power?


Americans want liberty and jobs. They don't want collectivist EBT cards and incredible national debt.

Stuck_In_California
09-20-2012, 09:26 AM
http://pepperhawkfarm.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/thieves-and-crooks.jpg

Cigar
09-20-2012, 09:28 AM
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/120629-must-have-been-a-good-week-for-america.jpg

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 09:32 AM
It is Nursery School after all . Put some pictures on the wall children .
You never told us about your learning difficulties with words . It's a shame to see you so SIC but coping in your own little way .

Well done . Back to your desk now little Sic .

Cigar
09-20-2012, 09:52 AM
I collect Di-cast 24:1 Cars

Chris
09-20-2012, 10:21 AM
Obama is a collectivist (socialist) of the worst kind, a European-style social democrat. Socialist abandoned the idea of state ownership of captial long ago for managing it through taxation and regulation in order to redistribute wealth. Obama is a master at this.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:24 AM
Collectivist and socialist aren't necessarily the same thing, Chris. I'm a collectivist but not a socialist.

Chris
09-20-2012, 10:25 AM
Collectivist and socialist aren't necessarily the same thing, Chris. I'm a collectivist but not a socialist.

Then you misunderstand socialism as economically defined. I'm not much interested in emotional definitions.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:29 AM
Then you misunderstand socialism as economically defined. I'm not much interested in emotional definitions.

Nonsense, Chris. We've been through this already. Virtually all pre-modern societies were collectivist societies and many if not most societies are today. Were/are they also socialist? Of course not. That would be silly.

Chris
09-20-2012, 10:47 AM
Nonsense, Chris. We've been through this already. Virtually all pre-modern societies were collectivist societies and many if not most societies are today. Were/are they also socialist? Of course not. That would be silly.

As expected you're equivocating still between voluntary social cooperation, in the form of social traditions and institutions, and coerced political central planning, with attendant redistribution of wealth. Socialism as defined economically is just that, central planning, be it liberal socialism or conservative socialism or just plain crony capitalism.

One doesn't usually refer to a respect for social traditions and institutions collectivism, well, you do, but I've never heard it before.

The topic here is Obama, it's political, collectivism is central planning, for him through taxation and regulation--Obamacare is both!

Goldie Locks
09-20-2012, 10:51 AM
No, I will individually decide on my fate.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:53 AM
As expected you're equivocating still between voluntary social cooperation, in the form of social traditions and institutions, and coerced political central planning, with attendant redistribution of wealth. Socialism as defined economically is just that, central planning, be it liberal socialism or conservative socialism or just plain crony capitalism.

One doesn't usually refer to a respect for social traditions and institutions collectivism, well, you do, but I've never heard it before.

The topic here is Obama, it's political, collectivism is central planning, for him through taxation and regulation--Obamacare is both!

No, you're insisting that collectivism entails coerced central planning. It does not. Collectivism is as much cultural as it is political. Much more so, in fact. While I would concur that the Mulatto in Chief has socialist and cultural Marxist sentiments I will continue to point out that these terms should not be used interchangeably. They do not necessarily mean the same thing. This should be clear to you by now. You have a habit of identifying anyone who speaks favorably of collectivism as a socialist. Indeed, if anyone is equivocating it's you.

Chris
09-20-2012, 10:59 AM
Collectivism is as much cultural as it is political.

The topic is plainly political.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:59 AM
No, I will individually decide on my fate.

No one decides their fate by definition.

Goldie Locks
09-20-2012, 11:05 AM
Collectivism regards group action over individual action. The difference between socialism and collectivism is that collectivism does not purpose a system of government like socialism. While collectivists may not be socialist, socialists are also collectivist. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Goldie Locks
09-20-2012, 11:06 AM
No one decides their fate by definition.

I was just using Barry's words, but I do in fact decide my own fate, by my actions.

A lot of times people use fate, when what happens to them are a result of their own actions...guess that's what I'm trying to say.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:12 AM
I was just using Barry's words, but I do in fact decide my own fate, by my actions.

A lot of times people use fate, when what happens to them are a result of their own actions...guess that's what I'm trying to say.

No worries.

Fate is by defintion something beyond your control. Yeah, people have a nasty habit of blaming "society" or whites, or blacks or whoever as long as it's not themselves.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:25 AM
Collectivism regards group action over individual action. The difference between socialism and collectivism is that collectivism does not purpose a system of government like socialism. While collectivists may not be socialist, socialists are also collectivist. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

That's true. No argument here. Socialists certainly are collectivists but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Chris
09-20-2012, 11:26 AM
Collectivism regards group action over individual action. The difference between socialism and collectivism is that collectivism does not purpose a system of government like socialism. While collectivists may not be socialist, socialists are also collectivist. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Similar to Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness:
Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:29 AM
Ayn Rand appears to be describing 20th century totalitarianism. That kind of association is problematic when it becomes exclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Chris
09-20-2012, 09:20 PM
Yes, she is, but no idea what you're saying, too vague.

But back to the topic, this is long and all I can do is highlight some of it...


"I actually believe in redistribution."
-- Barack Obama, Loyola University, 1998

Shall we play a game?

Which of these things doesn't belong?

Coal.
Health care.
Jobs.
Religion.
Movies.
Gas Prices.
Poverty.

Answer? They all belong.

They all belong to the redistributionist World of Obama.

...

So again. What was it that Mr. Obama said on that tape?

"I actually believe in redistribution."

...

Let's run through some of the groups and individuals that the President has associated with over the years. What were their thoughts on redistribution?

...

Chicago's Socialist Political World: Stanley Kurtz, in his thoroughly researched book Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism,,,:
Obama has adopted the gradualist socialist strategy of his mentors, seeking to combine comprehensive government regulation of private businesses with a steadily enlarging public sector. Eventually, in his hands, capitalist America could resemble a socialist-inspired Scandinavian welfare state.
The list of individual names out of the American far left who have influenced this president and hence the results mentioned above could go on and on...Wright...Ayers...Alinsky...Piven...Harrington .... Again, the list could go on.

...

And the results are already alarming.

...

Why?

...

"I actually believe in redistribution."

Indeed he does. And the results are in.

The Redistributor-in-Chief

Chris
09-20-2012, 09:37 PM
And then there's Thomas Sowell, The Fallacy of Redistribution (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/20/the_fallacy_of_redistribution_115502.html)
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

...

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated....

...

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Goldie Locks
09-20-2012, 09:56 PM
Love Thomas Sowell and he is so correct!! As I have said before redistribution of the pie and how you slice it does not make the pie bigger. There is no growth.

Mister D
09-21-2012, 07:53 AM
Yes, she is, but no idea what you're saying, too vague.

But back to the topic, this is long and all I can do is highlight some of it...



The Redistributor-in-Chief (http://The Redistributor-in-Chief)

Associating all collectivism with totalitarianism is kind of stupid. Understand now? :smiley: Granted, I realize Ayn Rand was a loon.

Chris
09-21-2012, 08:08 AM
Associating all collectivism with totalitarianism is kind of stupid. Understand now? :smiley: Granted, I realize Ayn Rand was a loon.


Associating all collectivism with totalitarianism is kind of stupid.

Again, here, we, and Rand, are talking about political collectivism, the kind Obama engages in, not whatever it is you want to interject as distraction.

Mister D
09-21-2012, 08:21 AM
Again, here, we, and Rand, are talking about political collectivism, the kind Obama engages in, not whatever it is you want to interject as distraction.

Not to worry, Chrissy. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't too vague for ya.:wink:

BTW, Rand is talking about collectivism period. She wrongly associates all collectivism with totalitarianism. Drama queen.

Chris
09-21-2012, 08:42 AM
Not to worry, Chrissy. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't too vague for ya.:wink:

BTW, Rand is talking about collectivism period. She wrongly associates all collectivism with totalitarianism. Drama queen.

And that was rational?

Mister D
09-21-2012, 08:45 AM
And that was rational?

Yes. You said my comment was vague. It wasn't but I happily explained it to you because I have the patience of a saint.

Rand incorrectly associates all collectivism with totalitarianism.

Don't take it personally.

Chris
09-21-2012, 08:47 AM
Again, here, we, and Rand, are talking about political collectivism, the kind Obama engages in, not whatever it is you want to interject as distraction.

But go ahead and ruin another otherwise interesting thread.

Mister D
09-21-2012, 08:49 AM
Again, here, we, and Rand, are talking about political collectivism, the kind Obama engages in, not whatever it is you want to interject as distraction.

But go ahead and ruin another otherwise interesting thread.

You ruined the thread on Benoist, son.

Again, Rand incorrectly and rather dogmatically associates all collectivism with totalitarianism. Don't take it personally. If you want to argue about this for a few days we certainly can but why can't you just accept criticism?