When I look at your post I see "RARVRAR RAEHE SFFFUGUTRY RAPAA BRRR GRAAA!!!" So let me attempt to look beyond your psychologically defensive reaction to a viewpoint in opposition to yours.
Either watch Fox news, or wait for me to post it on the forum, soon. But, you will tell me that you hate Fox and, "RARVRAR RAEHE SFFFUGUTRY RAPAA BRRR GRAAA!!!", and then I will tell you that you are the true arbiter of ignorance because all you want is to listen to one point of view, and don't care that you miss out on genuine information that you just don't like because it offends your pov.Could you please direct me, Risen, to the Maoists and Stalinists in the Obama administration? By pointing out Mao's death toll, do you mean to suggest that we are moving in this direction?
No, it's good, on the very surface. The point of the thread is to discuss collectivism, with some reference to how the collectivist emphasis is present in the current political climate, and part of the direction of "change".I'd like to ask also if and where you disagree with that 1995 Obama quote. Is the thought that people should help each other out and work together to face problems really so offensive to you?
I disagree with the idea that we must operate as a collective, for the collective good, because that is not what has gotten us where we are. Most people barely know where they've been or where the country has been, much less where they are going. Most people wouldn't even realize the differences.
Ok, some companies make dum decisions. There were many businesses who supported Hitler. That is both off topic, and not indicative that all business is bad. If that's what you think, I should take your chair, your computer, your phone, and your house in the name of wealth redistribution and relieve you of the horrid products of "big bad business". But like i said, off topic. But I know you will meander off on your own tangent anyway.
And it was the tactic of Franco's fascists in Spain to use millions of dollars of goods supplied by Texaco, General Motors, and other US corporations. It's easy to forget the parts of history that don't support your views, isn't it?
Who said this was a debate? Oh yea, you are trying to debate me. Or are you debating the article? I didn't write the article, so perhaps you should make a choice on what it is you oppose: me, the article, or the article's message. I know you'll choose option number 1 .The way this whole debate you've set up is framed is ridiculous, too.
An original topic or argument isn't a straw man. YOU are a straw man. In fact, you've got some straw in your ears and hair. I can pick it out for you if you want.Have you ever heard of a Straw Man?
"Socialists"- Straw manIt's generally what happens when you let one side define both positions in an argument. You also get -10 internets for quoting Ayn Rand, and -50 for quoting someone else quoting 'Ms. Rand.' And hey, just what definition of socialism are you using anyway? Socialists were NEVER in support of the bailouts (let me repeat for shock factor: no true socialist ever supported the bailouts) because socialists recognize the way corporate influence has infiltrated the state for obvious corporate benefits.
"Bailouts"- Straw man
"Ayn Rand"- Straw man
Self respecting INTPs don't play around in the haystack all day . Shame on you . I just know you're gonna attack me now.