Liberal Nazism in Europe

[Siberian]

In Czech Republic a man took his son from a kindergarden without wearing a mask.

He was brutally beaten and detained by police right in front of his little son, which got psycological trauma.

And not a sound of protest from liberals.
While in the US when police detain a serial criminal, a narcoman being under effect of narcotics who resisted arrest, a covid holder which also did not wear a mask - the World turns upside down and BLM storm shops and burn police cars...

 

[Pogo]

Cult of Ignorance Get the fuck out. "Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

 

[Siberian]

Cult of Ignorance Get the fuck out. "Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

lol, if there is liberal totalitarianism, liberal oppression, liberal censorship - why can't there be liberal Nazism?

like

Elite schools drop Isaac Newton's name from physics laws to deal with racism, Internet says 'it's beyond ludicrous'

Cancel culture seems to be affecting elite prep schools as report finds that Newton no longer associated with laws of physics

meaww.com

 

[Pogo]

Cult of Ignorance Get the fuck out. "Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

lol, if there is liberal totalitarianism, liberal oppression, liberal censorship - why can't there be liberal Nazism?

like

Elite schools drop Isaac Newton's name from physics laws to deal with racism, Internet says 'it's beyond ludicrous'

Cancel culture seems to be affecting elite prep schools as report finds that Newton no longer associated with laws of physics

meaww.com

NONE of those things exist. It's like saying "cold heat" or "dry rain". And the link you plopped in here for who knows what reason, has nothing to do with Liberalism at all. Matter of fact LITERALLY NOTHING you've put in this thread has jack friggety squat to do with Liberalism. You just plunked it in the thread title because you don't know any better.

Don't sit here and peddle bullshit and call it chocolate, K? If you have no clue what some term means, then just don't use it.


/thread

 

[Siberian]

well, Poggo, if you are/were a well educated > 70 years old European which still remembers the true meaning of many terms, like Liberalism and Socialism and can tell the difference, then I would agree with you.
But then you must the be a Republican if you are an American, supporting real Liberalism - freedom of speech, you must reject wide spread censorship in the US and the EU, condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone.

I can continue what Liberalism is and what you must comply with to call yourself a liberalism. Do you?

And what of said above is present and even more, what is not exterminated with white hot iron in the US and Europe of Liberalism which I described?

If course I agree that True Liberalism cannot be a tyranny, but present US and European "liberalism", represented by Democratic party, LGBT aggressive mob and EU beurocrats is an opressive tyranny, which brutally suppressses any opposition.

I use recent American and Western European understanding of the word "Liberalism".

I gave you examples, you so far talk with slogans.

 

[Siberian]

another example of Liberal Tyranny, in which no alternative view is allowed....

State University in NY Suspends Student for Saying 'A Man Is a Man, a Woman Is a Woman'

A university in New York has reportedly suspended one of its students after he shared an Instagram post in which he asserted “a man is a man, a woman is a woman.”

www1.cbn.com

this is just one example of censorship among numerous ones..

YouTube REMOVES video of Trump’s CPAC speech from RT channels – yet it’s ok with the SAME video posted by Western outlets

Having a video of former US President Donald Trump’s speech at CPAC may get you warnings and a deletion from YouTube, but apparently only if you’re RT, as the platform seems to selectively apply its arbitrary and capricious rules.

www.rt.com

 

[Pogo]

well, Poggo, if you are/were a well educated > 70 years old European which still remembers the true meaning of many terms, like Liberalism and Socialism and can tell the difference, then I would agree with you.
But then you must the be a Republican if you are an American, supporting real Liberalism - freedom of speech, you must reject wide spread censorship in the US and the EU, condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone.

I can continue what Liberalism is and what you must comply with to call yourself a liberalism. Do you?

And what of said above is present and even more, what is not exterminated with white hot iron in the US and Europe of Liberalism which I described?

If course I agree that True Liberalism cannot be a tyranny, but present US and European "liberalism", represented by Democratic party, LGBT aggressive mob and EU beurocrats is an opressive tyranny, which brutally suppressses any opposition.

I use recent American and Western European understanding of the word "Liberalism".

I gave you examples, you so far talk with slogans.

.Whelp number one above all, **YOU** do not tell **ME** what I "must do" so let's get that straight right off the bat. You loaded a world of rhetorical detritus in there, much of it only quasi- or tangentially related to Liberalism, but that's priority one and it may tell you more about me than what follows.

I am not European though I have spent considerable time there, but that time has pretty much zero to do with any political philosophies, as that's not what I was there for. I do not believe terms (Liberalism, Socialism, whatever) need to be remembered, but simply understood. I do not see learning (anything) as a finite endeavor; it is never "finished", therefore one doesn't "remember" as if an event from the past.

I am not a Republican, or any other political party label -- I've never seen any point in joining/affiliating with a political party. It's like Fecesbook, the question being "what will this give me that I don't already have?" the answer being "nothing". I do not believe in binary thought, ergo I do not believe the universe is made up of two atoms called "Democrat" and "Republican". That's absurd. I absolutely do support Liberalism, but then I also understand what it is, and what it is not --- and what its opponents ceaselessly try to pervert it into. They will always be opposed as long as they're dishonest about it.

As a Liberal I do reject censorship, where I see it, but again I'm aware that there walk among us those who cry "Censorship!" where it does not exist, apparently unaware of the distinction between being "censored" and being "not entitled". For example Rump and "social nets moguls", presuming that means Tweeter and Fecesbook et al. Rump is not entitled to troll the whole world using somebody else's platform. That access is up to that electronic venue, and frankly I think they waited WAY too long to put a stop to what was obviously socially destructive and self-obsessed behaviour --- but that irresponsible delay was their choice, not mine and certainly not Rump's. Fuck him and everybody who thinks like him. And I don't use any of that shit myself, I've always seen it as pointless narcissism and a complete waste of time, consequently I neither know nor care how many "Rump supporters" --- as if that label could even be defined in the first place ---- may have been booted off. WHO CARES. That would be like worrying about how many slugs are on the golf course right now. That's their problem.

I am invested in the stock market but I really don't give a shit what the Exchange chooses to list. Again that's their call, not mine. But related to this I CAN discern the distinction between social pressures and politics, only the latter of which has anything to do with laws or the Constitution. Social pressures, such as making cigarette smoking "uncool", are the true Democracy. The prevailing social winds determine in what direction they blow. And sometimes, often in fact, they go overboard before the pendulum swings back. Democracy is messy. One should feel free (and I certainly do) to oppose those winds when they do overblow, but that has nothing to do with Liberalism unless it crosses over into the realm of Law.

Not sure what the bit about "white hot iron" means but to conclude, Liberalism is absolutely NOT represented by "the Democratic party, LGBT aggressive mob and/or EU beurocrats", whatever they mean, *NOR* have I EVER suggested it is. Liberalism is a philosophy, not a political party, not a "mob" aggressive or otherwise, not a gaggle of "bureaucrats". It is independent of ALL of that. It DISbelieves in social class striation, which is why Liberalism is diametrically opposed to racism and/or bigotry. Liberalism simply believes that government derives from the consent of the governed and that it stays out of the way of those governed except where it must intervene simply because no other entity can do it, such as building infrastructure. It has absolutely ZERO to do with who's wasting their time on Twatter, what the fuck a tiny ice cream company in Massachusetts chooses to call its flavours, or what books the Dr Seuss estate chooses to discontinue. If it was meddling in any of that --- it would not be Liberalism. A Liberalist (preferrred term for person) may be a Democrat, a Republican, a No Party like me, a bureaucrat, a plumber, a Twatter, any or none of the above. Again, dichotomy is for those who self-confine to binary minds.

And finally just to add, I'm also aware that there are myriad wags on this site who intentionally misrepresent it by portraying some of these "bureaucrats' or Twatters or whoever, as "Liberals" when their actions clearly indicate otherwise (such as for example this yahoo whose post just appeared in my notifications --- cluelessly he finds a word on the street and thinks he can make a projectile out of it by packing it in bullshit, never bothering to find out what the word is made of). They do this in order to construct what we call a Strawman argument, which is a fallacy and as such, incompetent argument. One must presume they do this because they're scared shitless of what Liberalism is --- freedom.

The meaning of Liberalism does not change just because some asscrack politicians of the 1940s try to hitch it to the infamous "Red Scare" or because George Bush in 1988 chooses to spit the word as if an insult. It is in fact what our nation is founded on, and those tactics are plainly dishonest. They are essentially the same thing as dick-tating "what you must do" and as such will always be vehemently opposed, as all dishonest rhetoric must be.

 

[ESay]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

 

[Siberian]

lol, Pogo, you must be more than 21 years old to legally buy alcohol in the US.
or you must be a fish to breath with water.

when I tell you what you must do to be considered a liberal it is exactly from this category of undisputed facts and your self-proclamed "liberalism" can't change it.

even if you feel being a 33d gender, or a fish, or a "Liberal" in your peculiar understanding - it doesn't make you a being you "feel" you are..

Saying "you must" I just point at physical limits you for some obscured reason think you can cross, while in reality you can't. For example, if you are a totalitarian person, you can't be a liberal. And YOU MUST BE not a totalitarian person to lecture me on Liberalism It is me who must explain to you what it is

I agree with you that Liberalism is freedom and I would be ready to discuss with you Liberalism in THIS TRUE meaning and not in American one - if you really were a Liberal.

But when after claiming Freedom, you say - WHO CARES if Trump is silenced and his supporters are banned. His behaviour is destructive so fuck him and all them.

Well, I can tell you that there cannot be more socially a destructive behaviour than LGBT pattern, which is a suicide of a society and forced imposition of this pattern on a society is genocide, a forced and fast exctinction of a society.

For example - A common lesbian has 9 times smaller number and bisexual woman - 2 times smaller number of children than a common heterosexual woman.
And it's like this in all American "Liberalism", which is agressive extermination of a society and silencing everybody who opposes it. A forced extermination of a society...

And a true Liberal would never deny my or whoever's right to think this way, to act this way and to prevent destruction of the society. Because I have not less rights, or Trump has, according to True Liberalism.

Then, the US is a barbaric police state, which does not have direct presidential elections, whose electoral system is outdated, if not prehistoric, ineffective, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRANSPARENT, very easily manipulated and results are falsified.

The crisis which the US is in - is not a coinsidence. Politically the US is stuck in middle ages with its fake 2 party system, which (before Trump) was giving people a choice between left anf right hand of the same Masters - the Big Money. Your presidents are actors who have no real power - just look af how easilly Trump was silenced with a single move of the finger of the Big Money.
And outsorcing censorship to IT giants does not turn your police state into a free society.

The fact is - people in the US cannot speak freely. Whatever excuses for this you invent.

And you call it Liberalism

funny.

You MUST stop talking nonsense to, again, start lecturing me and to be viewed seriously.

 

[Siberian]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech

**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.

If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.

 

[ESay]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech

**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.

If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.

Of course I dont watch Soloviev's shows.

About Facebook and Twitter. If their business activity contradicts anti-monopoly regulations, then they should be divided. But only if it is based on these regulations.

As private businesses they should be able to operate freely and decide what services they provide and to whom.

 

[Siberian]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech

**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.

If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.

Of course I dont watch Soloviev's shows.

About Facebook and Twitter. If their business activity contradicts anti-monopoly regulations, then they should be divided. But only if it is based on these regulations.

As private businesses they should be able to operate freely and decide what services they provide and to whom.

the problem of the US is that it goes in wrong direction, silencing the voices of reason, like this one

Facebook exec says Zuckerberg is TOO POWERFUL and Facebook should be BROKEN UP, in undercover interview

Benny Thomas, Facebook's Global Planning Lead, told a reporter from Project Veritas that his company is as powerful as a country, and needs to be broken up. “No king in history” is as powerful as Mark Zuckerberg, he claimed.

www.rt.com

while the problem of Ukraine is that it chose wrong, stupid gods, the West which is lost and confused himself... and brainlessly follow what the West demands, which it does not for sake of Ukrainian interests, but to profit from Ukrainian naive stupidity...

 

[ESay]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech

**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.

If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.

Of course I dont watch Soloviev's shows.

About Facebook and Twitter. If their business activity contradicts anti-monopoly regulations, then they should be divided. But only if it is based on these regulations.

As private businesses they should be able to operate freely and decide what services they provide and to whom.

the problem of the US is that it goes in wrong direction, silencing the voices of reason, like this one

Facebook exec says Zuckerberg is TOO POWERFUL and Facebook should be BROKEN UP, in undercover interview

Benny Thomas, Facebook's Global Planning Lead, told a reporter from Project Veritas that his company is as powerful as a country, and needs to be broken up. “No king in history” is as powerful as Mark Zuckerberg, he claimed.

www.rt.com

while the problem of Ukraine is that it chose wrong, stupid gods, the West which is lost and confused himself... and brainlessly follow what the West demands, which it does not for sake of Ukrainian interests, but to profit from Ukrainian naive stupidity...

About Facebook I already said. If it violates anti-trust regulations, then it should be split. But only based on these things.

About repelling the Section 230, which is mentioned in the article, I dont think it is a good idea. Because making social networks accountable for the content posted by their users will lead to increasing censorship of the content.

Taking away their right to delete the content at their will will breach the right of a private owner to impose the rules how they want to operate their property.

About Ukraine and choosing the West. Different people have different reasons why they supported this move. I believe in the ideas the Western society was built on (or was tried, at least). It might be that West is enduring some sort of cultural crisis but I believe it will be able to overcome it.

 

[Siberian]

condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone

What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.

Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.

Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.

Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech

**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.

If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.

Of course I dont watch Soloviev's shows.

About Facebook and Twitter. If their business activity contradicts anti-monopoly regulations, then they should be divided. But only if it is based on these regulations.

As private businesses they should be able to operate freely and decide what services they provide and to whom.

the problem of the US is that it goes in wrong direction, silencing the voices of reason, like this one

Facebook exec says Zuckerberg is TOO POWERFUL and Facebook should be BROKEN UP, in undercover interview

Benny Thomas, Facebook's Global Planning Lead, told a reporter from Project Veritas that his company is as powerful as a country, and needs to be broken up. “No king in history” is as powerful as Mark Zuckerberg, he claimed.

www.rt.com

while the problem of Ukraine is that it chose wrong, stupid gods, the West which is lost and confused himself... and brainlessly follow what the West demands, which it does not for sake of Ukrainian interests, but to profit from Ukrainian naive stupidity...

About Facebook I already said. If it violates anti-trust regulations, then it should be split. But only based on these things.

About repelling the Section 230, which is mentioned in the article, I dont think it is a good idea. Because making social networks accountable for the content posted by their users will lead to increasing censorship of the content.

Taking away their right to delete the content at their will will breach the right of a private owner to impose the rules how they want to operate their property.

About Ukraine and choosing the West. Different people have different reasons why they supported this move. I believe in the ideas the Western society was built on (or was tried, at least). It might be that West is enduring some sort of cultural crisis but I believe it will be able to overcome it.

lol, the ideas the Western society was built upon...
Europe has always been totalitarian and selfish, these are 2 main principles of the West. It burnt heretics, killed millions in Crusades, killed millions in colonial expansion, Communism, Nazism - all invented and implemented in Europe.
If not USSR the World would have lived now in a big Nazi concentration camp.
If not Russia the World would have been by now a big British colony.

What the West successfully presents to various Papuans, including Ukrainians is its wealth, falsely claiming it is a result of "democracy", while in reality it is a result of unprecedented robbery during colonial period and its inertia, an accumulated development which has put the West once in colonial era on the top and from which it is slowly slipping down when colonial era is over.
Western "democracy" was tranquility and quitness caused by extreme wealth, people were content, no real problems to quarrel about.

But as soon as first real problems emerged, as level of life declined - the West immediately started demonstrating its ugly totalitarian face with full force.

Look at the Democratic repressions in the US, look at increasingly Nazi Europe.

generally speaking, for you it will be increasingly a tragedy to follow the path you will keep realizing is wrong, for me it's a great show!

 

[Pogo]

lol, Pogo, you must be more than 21 years old to legally buy alcohol in the US.
or you must be a fish to breath with water.

when I tell you what you must do to be considered a liberal it is exactly from this category of undisputed facts and your self-proclamed "liberalism" can't change it.

even if you feel being a 33d gender, or a fish, or a "Liberal" in your peculiar understanding - it doesn't make you a being you "feel" you are..

Saying "you must" I just point at physical limits you for some obscured reason think you can cross, while in reality you can't. For example, if you are a totalitarian person, you can't be a liberal. And YOU MUST BE not a totalitarian person to lecture me on Liberalism It is me who must explain to you what it is

I agree with you that Liberalism is freedom and I would be ready to discuss with you Liberalism in THIS TRUE meaning and not in American one - if you really were a Liberal.

But when after claiming Freedom, you say - WHO CARES if Trump is silenced and his supporters are banned. His behaviour is destructive so fuck him and all them.

Well, I can tell you that there cannot be more socially a destructive behaviour than LGBT pattern, which is a suicide of a society and forced imposition of this pattern on a society is genocide, a forced and fast exctinction of a society.

For example - A common lesbian has 9 times smaller number and bisexual woman - 2 times smaller number of children than a common heterosexual woman.
And it's like this in all American "Liberalism", which is agressive extermination of a society and silencing everybody who opposes it. A forced extermination of a society...

And a true Liberal would never deny my or whoever's right to think this way, to act this way and to prevent destruction of the society. Because I have not less rights, or Trump has, according to True Liberalism.

Then, the US is a barbaric police state, which does not have direct presidential elections, whose electoral system is outdated, if not prehistoric, ineffective, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRANSPARENT, very easily manipulated and results are falsified.

The crisis which the US is in - is not a coinsidence. Politically the US is stuck in middle ages with its fake 2 party system, which (before Trump) was giving people a choice between left anf right hand of the same Masters - the Big Money. Your presidents are actors who have no real power - just look af how easilly Trump was silenced with a single move of the finger of the Big Money.
And outsorcing censorship to IT giants does not turn your police state into a free society.

The fact is - people in the US cannot speak freely. Whatever excuses for this you invent.

And you call it Liberalism

funny.

You MUST stop talking nonsense to, again, start lecturing me and to be viewed seriously.

Go fuck yourself. Your anject ignorance of terms you don't understand and fling like so much poo is YOUR problem, not mine. You've been corrected and that's the end of it. Don't sit here and waste my time; go wallow in your clueless ignorance and don't EVER ass-ume the arrogance to try to tell US what our own foundation of government is, from fucking Siberia.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

So true. So very true.

That is why people need to call you and other complete authoritarians like you something other than "liberal"

 

[Pogo]

"Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

So true. So very true.

That is why people need to call you and other complete authoritarians like you something other than "liberal"

I'm afraid there are no "authoritarians like me". According to how English works, that would require me to first actually be an authoritarian. Otherwise the phrase is inoperative as there is no "authoritarian" with which to compare.

This is kinda basic stuff. I'm thinking even Siberians could figure it out. By which I mean the dogs.

 

[Siberian]

lol, Pogo, you must be more than 21 years old to legally buy alcohol in the US.
or you must be a fish to breath with water.

when I tell you what you must do to be considered a liberal it is exactly from this category of undisputed facts and your self-proclamed "liberalism" can't change it.

even if you feel being a 33d gender, or a fish, or a "Liberal" in your peculiar understanding - it doesn't make you a being you "feel" you are..

Saying "you must" I just point at physical limits you for some obscured reason think you can cross, while in reality you can't. For example, if you are a totalitarian person, you can't be a liberal. And YOU MUST BE not a totalitarian person to lecture me on Liberalism It is me who must explain to you what it is

I agree with you that Liberalism is freedom and I would be ready to discuss with you Liberalism in THIS TRUE meaning and not in American one - if you really were a Liberal.

But when after claiming Freedom, you say - WHO CARES if Trump is silenced and his supporters are banned. His behaviour is destructive so fuck him and all them.

Well, I can tell you that there cannot be more socially a destructive behaviour than LGBT pattern, which is a suicide of a society and forced imposition of this pattern on a society is genocide, a forced and fast exctinction of a society.

For example - A common lesbian has 9 times smaller number and bisexual woman - 2 times smaller number of children than a common heterosexual woman.
And it's like this in all American "Liberalism", which is agressive extermination of a society and silencing everybody who opposes it. A forced extermination of a society...

And a true Liberal would never deny my or whoever's right to think this way, to act this way and to prevent destruction of the society. Because I have not less rights, or Trump has, according to True Liberalism.

Then, the US is a barbaric police state, which does not have direct presidential elections, whose electoral system is outdated, if not prehistoric, ineffective, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRANSPARENT, very easily manipulated and results are falsified.

The crisis which the US is in - is not a coinsidence. Politically the US is stuck in middle ages with its fake 2 party system, which (before Trump) was giving people a choice between left anf right hand of the same Masters - the Big Money. Your presidents are actors who have no real power - just look af how easilly Trump was silenced with a single move of the finger of the Big Money.
And outsorcing censorship to IT giants does not turn your police state into a free society.

The fact is - people in the US cannot speak freely. Whatever excuses for this you invent.

And you call it Liberalism

funny.

You MUST stop talking nonsense to, again, start lecturing me and to be viewed seriously.

Go fuck yourself. Your anject ignorance of terms you don't understand and fling like so much poo is YOUR problem, not mine. You've been corrected and that's the end of it. Don't sit here and waste my time; go wallow in your clueless ignorance and don't EVER ass-ume the arrogance to try to tell US what our own foundation of government is, from fucking Siberia.

lol, it is always pleasant to see how truth burns someome's ass.
You are not the first "liberal" whose totalitarian nature has been exposed.
Calm down, your hysteria can't help you.

 

[Siberian]

"Liberal Naziism" is an oxymoron. They're DIRECT OPPOSITES.

So true. So very true.

That is why people need to call you and other complete authoritarians like you something other than "liberal"

I'm afraid there are no "authoritarians like me". According to how English works, that would require me to first actually be an authoritarian. Otherwise the phrase is inoperative as there is no "authoritarian" with which to compare.

This is kinda basic stuff. I'm thinking even Siberians could figure it out. By which I mean the dogs.

exacly, I completely support you here, you are totalitarian, not authoritarian.

You MUST have the ability to rule to be authoritarian.

While for being totalitarian you may be just a small bug, advocating or supporting totalitarian oppression (against Trumpsters, for example).

 

[whoisit]

In Czech Republic a man took his son from a kindergarden without wearing a mask.

He was brutally beaten and detained by police right in front of his little son, which got psycological trauma.

And not a sound of protest from liberals.
While in the US when police detain a serial criminal, a narcoman being under effect of narcotics who resisted arrest, a covid holder which also did not wear a mask - the World turns upside down and BLM storm shops and burn police cars...

Well they got what they ' tolerated' just like us. We are sick with tolerance here too. And in just a much trouble as they are. Our children will pay for our ass kissing stupidity.