Are Liberal Politics Anti-Male?

[user43770]

Hahahaha... man you americans are so fvcking stupid I can't do anything but laugh at you anymore.

I'll ignore your audacity this time.

How much does your country pay for defense? How much does mine?

Oh, and it's "world defense" I'm paying for?

 

[user43770]

I'll ignore your audacity this time.

How much does your country pay for defense? How much does mine?

Oh, and it's "world defense" I'm paying for?

Hahahaha... man you americans are so fvcking stupid I can't do anything but laugh at you anymore.

Your country will be Muslim soon enough, so it's cool

 

[AttackFormation]

I'll ignore your audacity this time.

How much does your country pay for defense? How much does mine?

Oh, and it's "world defense" I'm paying for?

Hahaha, the EU pays many times more for defense than Russia does, which is the only country we're supposed to be spooked by. Our universal healthcare is cheaper than your sh!tty scam system, if we had the same scam that you do we and the rest of Europe would have to dismantle our defense to pay for it. Just google countries spending on healthcare. And no it doesn't go toward medical research, if you check out R&D spending compared to other categories you'll see that.

By the way, the military spending America does abroad reaches other countries' central banks as dollars. What do they do with them? they buy treasury bonds, which finances the same spending in a circular cycle:

No one is asking America to spend so much on war, that's like a gaslighting victim tactic. You check a list of the assassinations, wars, interventions and clandestine fundings carried out by America in the 20th and 21th centuries, like detailed by John Perkins or Smedley D Butler before him, and tell me it's for "defense"? LOL.

I know your brain is fact-resistant and it would also attack your identity to reconsider what you believe, but I'm still going to say what reality actually is.

 

[user43770]

I know your brain is fact-resistant and it would also attack your identity to reconsider what you believe, but I'm still going to say what reality actually is.

You know I'm not an idiot, right?

America has been the world power for what, 70 years?

Who do you think pays the bills for your non-producing country?

 

[AttackFormation]

Yea that's what I thought, zero arguments and no change. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into. At least it's your own country and your own state, thank god for that.

 

[user43770]

Yea that's what I thought, zero arguments and no change. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into. At least it's your own country and your own state, thank god for that.

I don't believe in God, you fag.

I know the full state of our economics because Trump made it clear

 

[AttackFormation]

I don't believe in God, you fag.

I know the full state of our economics because Trump made it clear

Neither do I, it's just a saying.

Of course

 

[user43770]

Neither do I, it's just a saying.

Of course

Just a saying, huh? Lightweight over here.

Do some research into where your country gets its money bro

 

[AttackFormation]

Do some research into where your country gets its money bro

I already have. It comes almost exclusively from private banks creating credit, and governments that practice austerity exacerbate it.

 

[user43770]

Just a saying, huh? Lightweight over here.

Do some research into where your country gets its money bro

I already have. It comes almost exclusively from private banks creating credit, and governments that practice austerity exacerbate it.

I don't like your constant videos, bro

 

[AttackFormation]

I don't like your constant videos, bro

I know bro I'm sorry, just can't be bothered to waste energy on writing for a fact-resistant audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

 

[user43770]

I know bro I'm sorry, just can't be bothered to waste energy on writing for a fact-resistant audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

Where do you think your banks are getting the money, bro?

Where is my government getting the money?

Robbing Peter, they never pay Paul.

They send it off to

 

[user43770]

Give me a sec

 

[user43770]

@AttackFormation

So where do you think the money has been coming from to fund your failed state?

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

There's a reason that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. They now have money and don't need handouts.

Its comical. The real conservatives were that in their youth. Its comical when women are at slut walks skiing down cawk mountain but post wall now found jebus and wants to get right with God.

Meanwhile hotter girls are turning 18 19 20 21 every day.

 

[Spaz]

Looks like this discussion went off a tangent.

You guys shouldn't limit ur idealism to either left or right.

It's all chains...

 

[speed dawg]

Fvck knows why I even bother making a post as I can't be bothered to care anymore, but I can't resist. I regret making this post because I don't want to argue, but now I don't want to delete my effort.

Private oligarchy that takes control of government is typically the reason why governments are used aggressively against the rest of the citizens. Concentration of economic power leads to concentration of political power, and vice versa. That's what history has been, not a history of large masses of people democratically deciding to oppress poor little "producers". "Government" is not a monolithic alien.

The share of gdp growth that goes to the lower parts of society has flatlined or been cut back in the recent several decades, not increased. We are seeing wealth inequality get back to the 19th century and before, and it's not because of migration.

The reason why "producers" ie workers are taxed more is to shift taxes off property and finance (especially in particularly corrupt countries like Argentina where the oligarchs simply steal those taxes through financial schemes involving things like debt payments), which have always been the way to get wealthy since ancient history (aside from crime), and on to work and consumption. You can have a country with everyone working. You can't have a country with everyone living off of capital gains (including interest). No idea where you are getting the idea from that most of the population is living off of welfare handouts or whatever.

History and contemporary reality is exactly the opposite of right-libertarian descriptions, which is of course precisely the intention of its ideologues as that portrayal is necessary for their deductive logic to work which in turn makes their economic theory "work". The start of the policies and institutions that gave rise to western civilization was in the Near East, and was with a public system based in the palaces and temples, not privatization and "spontaneous order" from atomistic barter.

If people knew that what they preach is simply the same austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation of Europe's feudal ages or 19th century but under rebranded slogans and fake logics, they'd be even less popular than already. Mises, Hayek and Friedman are just a trio of con artists peddling the same things that Rome's oligarchy did 2000 years ago, along with hacks like Carl Menger and his fake economic history. We actually got a recent example of their intentions in Europe itself when they sent their economic pupils to the dissolved Soviet Union as "advisors" to help create and justify the Yeltsin kleptocracy there, as elsewhere like the Pinochet dictatorship. The goal is the same as with every other aristocracy in history: privatize banking, infrastructure and real estate to themselves, make themselves tax exempt, and suck out the rest of the population.

But the most tragic thing is that the so-called "left" parties today are just scams. They are not left wing on economic policy at all. It's just a theater. Taxes on work and consumption and policies adopted from the right wing of austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation are not left wing economic policies. They don't even talk about how banks really work, or the difference between cost and price and what economic rent is, that people like Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, Simon Patten etc. were writing about centuries ago. But nothing is better for the right than having a weak, corrupt, incompetent left. But that is what "representative democracy" is, a corruption which inevitably is corrupt.

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least, neglect persons of poor or mean conditions... is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." - Adam Smith. Although not the most informative citation as it contains no mention of economic policy, it's a nice note to end this wasted post on.

In other words, you are saying that the government should regulate the private sector? To that, I would agree. And that is precisely where I differ from many idiot tea party type conservatives. The middle ground, a crazy concept, right? Me personally, I think the government should only minimally regulate some things like education, but majorly regulate other things, like infrastructure. It should not be 'running' much of anything.

 

[AttackFormation]

In other words, you are saying that the government should regulate the private sector? To that, I would agree. And that is precisely where I differ from many idiot tea party type conservatives. The middle ground, a crazy concept, right? Me personally, I think the government should only minimally regulate some things like education, but majorly regulate other things, like infrastructure. It should not be 'running' much of anything.

"Government" is actually an incorrect word for this, if you want to properly define things. What people really mean when they say "government" is a state, which is a particular top-down form of government. But every organization in life whether schools, families, companies, associations or a whole society like a tribe, they're all "governed" in some way. The question is always who is doing the governing and what does it look like?

When you think of it that way you start thinking about goals and how to accomplish them rather than which side of the playground you want to be on.

And yes, the idea that the world could ever be regulation-free is absurd and that's because of negative externalities. The problem is that it's a lot easier to be ignorant than informed.

For example, most of the toxic metals like lead and mercury that fall over Sweden are actually not from here, but are carried here by the weather from elsewhere in Europe yet this may not be something that the ones causing the pollution or consuming the products of the industrial plants care about. Leaded gas is even more toxic for health than regular emissions which is why it is now banned, but this may not be something the person manufacturing or driving the car cares about and it's not something people will be aware of when they reminisce to the "good old days". There's a class of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons which used to be widespread, but have been phased out by the Montreal Protocol because they deplete the ozone layer. These are just some of the more obvious examples of how a regulation-free world is an absurdity.

But again, it's easier to simply thrown a simplistic self-centered tantrum the way right-libertarians do than try to cooperate reasonably, and it's easier to be ignorant than informed while the belief perseverance effect means humans are not primarily swayed by facts. For example, you yourself believe that America is a "christian nation" and was founded as one, despite your own founding father messiah figures being documented as mocking the bible, religion, christianity, and creating laws to guarantee a secular state.

 

[speed dawg]

For example, you yourself believe that America is a "christian nation" and was founded as one, despite your own founding father messiah figures being documented as mocking the bible, religion, christianity, and creating laws to guarantee a secular state.

Here's an example for you. Separation of church and state was enacted when ONLY Christianity was around in the United States. The differing opinions were only differing sects of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson could have never imagined a non-white America. Much less islam, satanism and all the other religions. The founding fathers were human, just like we are.

Thus, your thinly veiled insult has no point whatsoever. Not to mention those conservatives are, at minimum, more factually grounded than most liberals.

I do agree with the majority of your post, though. I can't reason with liberals, so I ignore them. I have to try and unite conservatives, so they are who frustrate me the most when they venture off into stupid-land.

So while we agree (as in you and I), we don't really agree, and we certainly aren't on the same side about most things.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I was a liberal until I hit my mid-40's. Always voted Democrat, went to their protest marches, and read the magazines.

It took you until your mid-40's to realize that liberal ideology is anti-male??? Well, better late than never I suppose.

Liberalism is good for the weaker members of society. It puts the power of government behind them, making sure they get a fair share.

"Liberalism" (which, in contemporary use, has become nearly synonymous with socialism) removes wealth from the creative, hard-working, entrepreneurial and productive segment of society and gives the vast majority of it to the sprawling and ever-increasing bureaucratic class. A few scraps get thrown to the so-called "weak" and "needy" (many of whom can be more accurately described as lazy) - just enough to keep them voting for the party of handouts.