0
25

[–] fusir 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

There is nothing liberal about them. They aren't even asking for tolerance for their life choices but control your opinions (defining tolerance as the government's policy toward something). They already have that and the only thing left is thought control.

[–] [deleted] 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] MarcusA 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Labels matter, especially in the red pill game. I started using the label of "Leftists". It strips the positivity that "liberal" used to hold.

Ill bone up on OPs details so I am able to support my new usage of the word "communist". Language matters and in recent years, the communists have been winning.

1
0

[–] White-Supremacist 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It's like using the term children or 'teens' to describe blacks who commit a crime instead of niggers.

Call it what it is.

2
-1

[–] Trumptastic 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Yeah that classical liberal Jefferson was the biggest communist ever, and Ron "share all the wealth with everyone" Paul might as well be Stalin...... Words have definitions and liberal doesn't mean what u think it does just because progressives are trying to distort facts.

2
19

[–] 12077050? 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

McCarthy did nothing wrong.

1
7

[–] logos_ethos 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

0
4

[–] TheSeer 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

My God there is a lot of triple parentheses in that list.

8
6

[–] Uncle_Tractor 8 points 6 points (+14|-8) ago 

Yes he did; He abandoned some of the basic principles of western civilization, such as the presumption of innocence and the freedom of speech. McCarthy was no better than today's progressives.

1
17

[–] captainstrange 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

He was society's "reaction formation" to being infiltrated by people using our own principles against us. They tell us to keep the high ground so we stay were they can control us.

1
7

[–] KILLtheRATS 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

It was and still is war time. The constitution does not protect people who want to destroy it.

1
5

[–] I_TakeupSpace 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Those rights you're talking about only apply to humans.

One has only to look at history to understand that communists aren't human.

0
1

[–] 12077210? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah, honestly I don't know much about him. Just remember (((history classes))) about him hating commies.

5
5

[–] Diggernicks 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

Really? So by that logic metoo accusing men of sexual misconduct ruining their careers with no evidence did nothing wrong also? Witch hunts are always pure fail. No exceptions.

0
4

[–] TheSeer 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Well, what if a witch hunt ends up hunting actual witches? Like in the case of McCarthy?

3
2

[–] hifags18 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

Holy shit, I'm not a fag, but I have such a boner when I think about McCarthy in the senate...we need him back badly

0
2

[–] 12077200? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah your McCarthy - boner knocked down trees in Alaska it was so big. It's on the news bro. :p

[–] [deleted] 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
8

[–] googlehangoutsnow 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Liberal was a disguise so as to dissociate themselves from the communists and their crimes in the eyes of others.

0
11

[–] GoldShekelSteinBerg 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Bolshevik jews.

0
9

[–] SmokeyMeadow 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I've taken to calling them "faggots."

0
5

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Short, succinct, directly to the point. I like it!

1
8

[–] european 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Norman Dodd and reece committee on unamerican activities referred to oligarchical collectivism.

"He then argued that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations

0
4

[–] TheSeer 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Socialism for the rich (i.e. gov't subsidies, bailouts and impossibility of bankruptcy), and capitalism for the poor. That is the current system.

1
8

[–] captainstrange 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Don't call them Liberals anymore.... they're Communists and they are attempting to take over the USA

"Thats mccarthyism!" proceeds to ignore.

Call it socialism/marxism, follow with "socialists killed 100 million people in the 1900s"

Then when the open out-in-public socialists say "Thats mccarthism!" respond with "no, uh, you're thinking of communists."

And if you say "100 million murdered under socialism", and they respond with the same line "no, uh, you're thinking of communists."

Say "communists, socialists, same thing."

They'll REEE and go into semantics, and by then, you've won, because most people don't give a shit about the 'comparative gender-fluid studies of neocolonial blah blah blah' differences between socialism and communism.

And if they respond "Thats not real communism!' doublekek. Good time to respond with Wait, I thought you were a socialist? Why are you defending the communists who murdered millions of christians? At which point about half of them will argue "christians are scum and deserved it. REEEE ATHEISM!! I'm half the podunk christians age and twice as smart!" and in which case, for anyone watching the debate, the communist scum will reveal themselves as so far up their their own asshole they're now qualified to self perform an up-close colonoscopy. The other half, if they don't respond in an anti-christian tirade, will instead say "That was mostly economic, they starved because of x, y, z."

And in which case you may respond "oh, so thats how socialism works. I always wondered how without allowing people to own property or work for themselves the soviet socialists managed to feed everyone. Turns out they didn't."

They'll REE again and some of them will mention some obscure commune in commiefornia or something, which you should at this point pretend have not heard them mention--over and over again, to their frustration. Most of them though will simply respond with "Thats not real communism!" again, excellent opportunity to ask them why they're defending murderous socialism if they're a communist. It won't compute and their head will explode, and they won't know, in their hurry to virtue signal, which is the least 'dangerous' option to call themselves. At this point you may respond with "Oh I wasn't aware the socialist soviets weren't real socialists (keep confusing socialism/communism in the same sentence intentionally). Venezuela gives oil money to people. They seem to be doing a good job."

And if they take the bait and agree, then follow with. "Explains why venezuela can't feed it's people either. Guess socialism doesn't work except for the commisars!"

They'll REE some more "thats not real communism!" and then at which point you may respond "Who said anything about communism? I was talking about the socialists. So you're a communist then?"

And at which point if they deny it, you got em, pinned the bastards good and proper. Lastly, if bystanders are listening, follow with. "See people. I guess if McCarthy were wrong, we wouldn't have a real live communist standing here, right now, in public, defending communism, and the murder of millions, the theft of property, breaking up families, and government rule at the barrel of a gun! Guess McCarthy was right after all!"

At which point you'll probably definitely get shouted at as a 'racist, xenophobe, etc, etc', and my favorite, for some odd reason an 'antisemite'.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] captainstrange 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Amazing, someone was actually honest about deliberately confusing socialism and communism to fuck up discussions on purpose.

Because one leads to the other and our enemies don't argue in good faith. You sound like a butthurt socialist.

the difference has nothing to do with "comparative gender-fluid studies of neocolonial blah blah blah", it's Marx, stupid.

I think they coined a phrase to describe what you just wrote: No shit sherlock. Thats the point

And the instant you run into someone who knows it

Most of the people who 'know it', couldn't find their own ass with two hands in the dark.

your bullshit games falls apart.

Not in my experience. Mostly they just REEEEEEEEEE and stomp off, start shouting, or resort to fighting (and losing badly).

ou could come up with more stupid games and shit to play for that scenario too...

Yes I could. I never tire of harassing kikes, communists, and dumbshit liberals like yourself.

Or you could talk straight and not be a slimy jewish faggot.

You would know about being a slimy jewish faggot, wouldn't you?

But just like the sjws you won't,

Some of us do the dirty work so you can keep your hands clean princess.

because that's hard and may not support your feelings.

Sounds like the only butthurt one is you. kek.

3
-2

[–] Diggernicks 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Tl;dr. Communism and christfaggotry both lead to the same fucktarded end, millions of brainwashed zombies supporting a shit tier tyrannical regime.

1
5

[–] captainstrange 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Christfaggotry got us through the dark ages. Half the shit we came out of the dark ages with wouldn't have been preserved except for the irrationality of religion. Religion makes a good bootstrap against the darkness of civilization's collapse. It also helps to curb against foreign intruders with less scruples as well as to justify the removal of competing demographics: see the jews using their religion to justify demographic replacement of whites, or even the whites using christian manifest destiny to replace the remaining wild-eyed bow-and-arrow-niggers who had been attacking settlers for ages.

a shit tier tyrannical regime.

So you support communism?

Because until atheism isn't full of brain-dead autistics and teenage revolutionary-larpers, atheism won't be accomplishing anything on the scale of nations or civilizations except to destroy them. The enlightenment wasn't even atheist, it was deist. The rights of man were tied to 'nature, the pseudo-religious light of reason, and what is god-given', without which we'd still be in the fucking dark ages trading spices or farming turnips and kissing rings because without god, hey, why shouldn't their be rulers? It's darwinism isn't it?

Except we all know how that turned out. Post roman-collapse we ended up with a bunch of petty shitheads killing each other left and right, all across the world, consolidating power, and then turning to the tradition of marriage facilitated by the church to gain power instead of simply slaughtering one another until no one was left but the survivors. Deism built civilization.

It's not a coincidence the church smashed the "I'm stronger, and more murderous, so I should rule!" unwashed muslim hordes at the doorstep of the byzantine empire. Other religions like jews and mulims know no restraint, not in murder, lying, theft, or fraud. They have neither restraint, or boundary on the worst of appetites. Christianity, like most religions may be successful at least on the quantity of it's violence--and yet it owes a great deal of success to knowing when not to apply it's bludgeons and not merely exhausting the civilizations that adopt it with injudicious or liberal application of those 'tools'. Christianity has rarely been a spendthrift of blood or treasure, unlike other religions, which is why those other religions always have to resort to the loser's trade of lying, infiltration, fraud, and terrorism.

Like it or not, most of the world ain't rational--and it's not beyond reason to believe in some higher power, even if it is more abstract than the christian god, in much the same way as thomas jefferson was more a deist than a theist. We probably can't ever really know "god", and yet no one can honestly deny that we wouldn't have made it half as far as a species without the concept of god as an organizing principle. Lots of people just need something greater than them to believe in, something to fight for. In the bad old days, 'god' was the extended family. These days the idea has been co-opted now by evangelists and shekel-schemers, as you seem to be aware.

0
6

[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Progressivism is the opposite of liberalism.

load more comments ▼ (29 remaining)