Liberals are the ones supplying israel, making BDS illegal, now making protests illegal. If you ask them “do you support genocide?” of course they’ll say no. They’ll just continue shaking hands with them, buying and selling weapons systems from them, buying their spytech and strawberries, making joint science projects and smearing everybody skeptical of israel as anti-semite.
Liberals are sinking refugee ships in the mediterranean , when people dare to escape hellhole liberals made 20/15/10 years ago in countries mentioned in the picture above. Who funds frontex do you think? Its not landed fucking gentry or council of kings. What do you think aircraft carrier group is doing near israel, having a nappie time?
And fox news are liberals. And have you seen reddit?
EDIT: I didn’t realize I’d stumbled into a specific socialist space, I was reading all of this as “liberal” in
the typical usage in American politics—because that’s the way I’ve encountered its usage 99.99% of the time in my life. Why don’t you all say capitalist instead of liberal?
——————(Original comment):
Umm, it doesn’t matter who is in office, America would be supporting Israel because they’re our ally and a vital toehold for our interests in the region. If you think a republican president/cabinet wouldn’t be saying and doing all the same shit then you’re really washed.
“Fox news are liberals”
Oh, so no wonder you’re blaming it all on liberals, in your mind literally 99% of the population are liberals?
You’ve clearly spent far too long just telling yourself all the bad things are cuz of liberals rofl. Next you’ll be saying it was liberals behind the citizens united ruling and liberals cutting taxes for corporations, and defunding the EPA, and trying to ban contraception, and make voting harder for citizens, and gerrymandering to disenfranchise black voters.
Next you’ll say Liberal presidents have historically been worse for the economy! (Go ahead, look it up)
Those are definitionally ‘liberal’ policies because they ‘liberate’ corporations from government oversight, rather than a technocratic policy that would place their oversight under government bureaucracy, or a socialized policy that would place their jurisdiction under an element of popular consent.
Even more so, they are historically liberal policies because liberalism is historically and definitionally about privatizing the rights of aristocrats to be bought and sold on the market, rather than outright socializing and creating universal access to them. While some avenues of policy have been socialized, (usually after years and years of legal battles to just make things run smooth) most things in the U.S. are run liberally, by liberals, usually at this point in time either neo-liberals or conservative liberals. Policies like Citizens United are explicitly conservative neo-liberal policies because they increase the freedoms of those with the most access to the market.
Just because you are ignorant of politics and history doesn’t mean that we are.
Hell, I’ll even make a correction. Most policies have been ‘technocratized’, not even socialized, with most towns acting through partially elected corporate boards where the town manager is hired, with most of those managers practicing methods of neo-liberal austerity. or running tax haven development schemes. That being said, while there are family dynasty corporations and politicians, I don’t know of any hereditary lords, so they definitely aren’t royalists, so they kinda have to be some flavor of liberal.
I’m sorry if what I’m about to say is completely wrong, but I disagree with calling Fox News liberal.
I don’t think words have absolutely constant meanings, their definitions can change if people start using them in a different way. That has happened with the words “liberal” and “conservative” where they are used to refer to a different set of political positions than 200 years ago (mostly because people advocating for feudalism and aristocratic rule are few and far between nowadays).
So I think that Fox News would be “liberal” in the original meaning of the word, but not in the current understanding of the word.
Although you have a point about words not having absolute meanings, the usage of liberal the poster everyone is dunking on is pretty much only used in the us and Canada. Most of the rest of the world uses liberal in the original sense of the word (see the liberal party in Australia for example)
I probably wouldn’t describe Fox News as liberal myself. Obviously they are liberals, but in context it makes more sense to refer to the channel as conservative.
My gripe is just with libs being politically illiterate, while claiming we don’t know what words mean
The problem, as others have pointed out, is that only in America is the term “liberal” twisted to mean just one part of the liberal spectrum. Words aren’t unchangeable, but if just one place on the entire planet is using the term “liberal” that way - in a way that obfuscates real political understanding - it should be pushed back against.
You’ve clearly spent far too long just telling yourself all the bad things are cuz of liberals rofl. Next you’ll be saying it was liberals behind the citizens united ruling and liberals cutting taxes for corporations, and defunding the EPA, and trying to ban contraception, and make voting harder for citizens, and gerrymandering to disenfranchise black voters.
all of those folks are ideological capitalists, and that makes them liberals. as opposed to monarchists or communists.
If you think a republican president/cabinet wouldn’t be saying and doing all the same shit then you’re really washed.
Yes, the more extremist and even more chauvinist bloc of liberals also do it. Both ruling parties are imperialist liberals, with one being in coalition with fascists and theocrats and the other being at war with a tiny handful of right wing tepid sucdems who are trying and failing to do entryism into it.
Not population no, but every single usa politician on national level is a liberal. EPA was founded by nixon who is also a lib.
Of course they are, jesus christ.
You think internal infighting between libs who want to skate on global rent extraction and worker exploitation vs liberals who want to exploit workers and planet is some important distinguishing fight? Who increased oil production then by permitting it everywhere? Was it supreme court maybe? Obama was fairly proud of that achievement as i recall.
From 70s onwards usa economy is static piece of shit, here, show me on this graph where liberals are not in power:
Or i should refer to stock market, the true economy, not this useless household income figure right?
You may say republicans slash taxes and doing starving the beast, but somehow dems are never resurrecting those taxes. There is some sort of mechanism as i recall, which allows the gear to go on way, but stops the other way, if only there was a name to that effect.
Also also, do you think dems supported mandela at the time of apartheid south afrika?
Do you think they supported Martin Luther King?
Operation cyclone was started by carter, cuba siege was started by kennedy, clinton exploded pharmaceutical factory in sudan. Obama has decreased black house ownership,
but it is all coinky dinkies in the world of no memory liberal, because in their mind they don’t support it, its just how it happened, it was our ally, it was our enemy, blah blah blah
You’ve the writing style of a teenager. I will assume you are, so forgive my condescension:
Assume ignorance and then ask for elucidation rather than take positions you are unaware of.
That said, liberalism is the dominant and hegemonic ideology of the capitalist world order. A conservative and liberal both support property rights and nominal support - on a spectrum - for equality and liberty.
(e.g: The conservative party in AUSTRALIA is literally called the Liberal party)
Therefore, liberals as a term by socialists encompass left-liberals and right-liberals, dems v gop, labour v Tories, etc. All on the same spectrum of Liberalism and capitalism.
Why even use the term liberal at all then and not just say “capitalists?” I don’t often find myself in specifically socialist spaces so I assumed by liberal you just meant leftist in general.
Because an ideological adherent who is also just a worker is different than people who own capital goods (means of production).
In other words, Just because you work for the king doesn’t mean you’re a noble, just that you profit off of the aristocracy.
Leftism or leftist are always anticapitalist, and always seek the abolishment of private ownership of capital goods in favor of collective ownership and planning. A leftist isn’t a Bernie Sanders supporter who just wants college or free healthcare.
@[email protected] Ask yourself who “our interests” represent. Are the destroyers being sent to Israel making your life better? Or are they being used to enable a genocide across the world from you rather than being money spent to help you?
Liberals are the ones supplying israel, making BDS illegal, now making protests illegal. If you ask them “do you support genocide?” of course they’ll say no. They’ll just continue shaking hands with them, buying and selling weapons systems from them, buying their spytech and strawberries, making joint science projects and smearing everybody skeptical of israel as anti-semite.
Liberals are sinking refugee ships in the mediterranean , when people dare to escape hellhole liberals made 20/15/10 years ago in countries mentioned in the picture above. Who funds frontex do you think? Its not landed fucking gentry or council of kings. What do you think aircraft carrier group is doing near israel, having a nappie time?
And fox news are liberals. And have you seen reddit?
EDIT: I didn’t realize I’d stumbled into a specific socialist space, I was reading all of this as “liberal” in the typical usage in American politics—because that’s the way I’ve encountered its usage 99.99% of the time in my life. Why don’t you all say capitalist instead of liberal?
——————(Original comment):
Umm, it doesn’t matter who is in office, America would be supporting Israel because they’re our ally and a vital toehold for our interests in the region. If you think a republican president/cabinet wouldn’t be saying and doing all the same shit then you’re really washed.
“Fox news are liberals”
Oh, so no wonder you’re blaming it all on liberals, in your mind literally 99% of the population are liberals?
You’ve clearly spent far too long just telling yourself all the bad things are cuz of liberals rofl. Next you’ll be saying it was liberals behind the citizens united ruling and liberals cutting taxes for corporations, and defunding the EPA, and trying to ban contraception, and make voting harder for citizens, and gerrymandering to disenfranchise black voters.
Next you’ll say Liberal presidents have historically been worse for the economy! (Go ahead, look it up)
Those are definitionally ‘liberal’ policies because they ‘liberate’ corporations from government oversight, rather than a technocratic policy that would place their oversight under government bureaucracy, or a socialized policy that would place their jurisdiction under an element of popular consent.
Even more so, they are historically liberal policies because liberalism is historically and definitionally about privatizing the rights of aristocrats to be bought and sold on the market, rather than outright socializing and creating universal access to them. While some avenues of policy have been socialized, (usually after years and years of legal battles to just make things run smooth) most things in the U.S. are run liberally, by liberals, usually at this point in time either neo-liberals or conservative liberals. Policies like Citizens United are explicitly conservative neo-liberal policies because they increase the freedoms of those with the most access to the market.
Just because you are ignorant of politics and history doesn’t mean that we are.
This. I’m sick of libs coming around flaunting political illiteracy and saying we’re the ones who don’t know what words mean
Hell, I’ll even make a correction. Most policies have been ‘technocratized’, not even socialized, with most towns acting through partially elected corporate boards where the town manager is hired, with most of those managers practicing methods of neo-liberal austerity. or running tax haven development schemes. That being said, while there are family dynasty corporations and politicians, I don’t know of any hereditary lords, so they definitely aren’t royalists, so they kinda have to be some flavor of liberal.
I’m sorry if what I’m about to say is completely wrong, but I disagree with calling Fox News liberal. I don’t think words have absolutely constant meanings, their definitions can change if people start using them in a different way. That has happened with the words “liberal” and “conservative” where they are used to refer to a different set of political positions than 200 years ago (mostly because people advocating for feudalism and aristocratic rule are few and far between nowadays). So I think that Fox News would be “liberal” in the original meaning of the word, but not in the current understanding of the word.
Although you have a point about words not having absolute meanings, the usage of liberal the poster everyone is dunking on is pretty much only used in the us and Canada. Most of the rest of the world uses liberal in the original sense of the word (see the liberal party in Australia for example)
I probably wouldn’t describe Fox News as liberal myself. Obviously they are liberals, but in context it makes more sense to refer to the channel as conservative.
My gripe is just with libs being politically illiterate, while claiming we don’t know what words mean
The problem, as others have pointed out, is that only in America is the term “liberal” twisted to mean just one part of the liberal spectrum. Words aren’t unchangeable, but if just one place on the entire planet is using the term “liberal” that way - in a way that obfuscates real political understanding - it should be pushed back against.
Worse than who? Every president was liberal
all of those folks are ideological capitalists, and that makes them liberals. as opposed to monarchists or communists.
Yes, the more extremist and even more chauvinist bloc of liberals also do it. Both ruling parties are imperialist liberals, with one being in coalition with fascists and theocrats and the other being at war with a tiny handful of right wing tepid sucdems who are trying and failing to do entryism into it.
Yes, that is correct. We live in a liberal democracy. Here’s a definition of liberal to help you out:
Everybody in America except for the far left is basically a liberal.
Not population no, but every single usa politician on national level is a liberal. EPA was founded by nixon who is also a lib.
Of course they are, jesus christ.
You think internal infighting between libs who want to skate on global rent extraction and worker exploitation vs liberals who want to exploit workers and planet is some important distinguishing fight? Who increased oil production then by permitting it everywhere? Was it supreme court maybe? Obama was fairly proud of that achievement as i recall.
From 70s onwards usa economy is static piece of shit, here, show me on this graph where liberals are not in power:
Or i should refer to stock market, the true economy, not this useless household income figure right?
You may say republicans slash taxes and doing starving the beast, but somehow dems are never resurrecting those taxes. There is some sort of mechanism as i recall, which allows the gear to go on way, but stops the other way, if only there was a name to that effect.
Also also, do you think dems supported mandela at the time of apartheid south afrika?
Do you think they supported Martin Luther King?
Operation cyclone was started by carter, cuba siege was started by kennedy, clinton exploded pharmaceutical factory in sudan. Obama has decreased black house ownership,
but it is all coinky dinkies in the world of no memory liberal, because in their mind they don’t support it, its just how it happened, it was our ally, it was our enemy, blah blah blah
You’ve the writing style of a teenager. I will assume you are, so forgive my condescension:
Assume ignorance and then ask for elucidation rather than take positions you are unaware of.
That said, liberalism is the dominant and hegemonic ideology of the capitalist world order. A conservative and liberal both support property rights and nominal support - on a spectrum - for equality and liberty. (e.g: The conservative party in AUSTRALIA is literally called the Liberal party)
Therefore, liberals as a term by socialists encompass left-liberals and right-liberals, dems v gop, labour v Tories, etc. All on the same spectrum of Liberalism and capitalism.
Why even use the term liberal at all then and not just say “capitalists?” I don’t often find myself in specifically socialist spaces so I assumed by liberal you just meant leftist in general.
Because an ideological adherent who is also just a worker is different than people who own capital goods (means of production).
In other words, Just because you work for the king doesn’t mean you’re a noble, just that you profit off of the aristocracy.
Leftism or leftist are always anticapitalist, and always seek the abolishment of private ownership of capital goods in favor of collective ownership and planning. A leftist isn’t a Bernie Sanders supporter who just wants college or free healthcare.
leftists, and most other people on earth, don’t use the word “liberal” the same way Americans do.
As for “vital toehold for our interests in the region,” could you expand on this? What do you mean? And how do you feel about it?
@[email protected] Ask yourself who “our interests” represent. Are the destroyers being sent to Israel making your life better? Or are they being used to enable a genocide across the world from you rather than being money spent to help you?
Ummmmmmm, acksuallllllyyyyy