He is a big R, so your assumption is 100% incorrect. I have been debating him for years.

The actual definition of a Liberal is that the person is a free thinker, creative, and would like to find new ways to do things.

The people who founded the US were Liberals.

The definition of Conservative is a person who wants to use traditional ways of solving problems.

The US actually isn't based on allowing rich people to run everything, that is a traditional view about royalty.

Anyway, the hated "Liberal" is not a Liberal according to the definition.

They tend to promote the same ideas as the 60s which was over 50 years ago. It's the same exact kinds of messages about sexual politics, racism, etc. So, it's a traditional message.

They do not have solutions, so they don't promote new solutions to old problems.

Liberals today are complainers about classic problems, the environment, pollution, sex, racism. They have no answers.

Modern Liberals are very vocal Bourgeois, not Liberals.

Bourgeois are middle class people who want to maintain a fake bubble of stability so that they feel comfortable in their fairly easy life.

That's why they want to censor and shut down unpopular topics.

For instance, if you get into talking about homosexauls, no matter what you say is wrong, unless it's delusionally positive. The same goes for race issues, you cannot talk about them unless it's positive. With the environment, you must say cars are bad, or else you are bad.

If you say, what can we do to help black people improve, you are bad. If you say, yes but we need cars, you are bad. You cannot talk about trannies, you must agree men can get pregnant. It's all to preserve the fake bubble Bourgeois live in so they don't have to think others are uncomfortable and so they don't have to do anything about it.

Real Liberals were always focused on poverty and equal opportunity, but that is not talked about at all any more. That's because you can't deny poverty, so you ignore it to maintain the bubble.

If real ibs didn't want to be associated with the woke authoritarian fuks, they would have kicked them to the curb.

But no, you got in bed with them.

"The definition is the only definition"

Are you serious?

https://gprivate.com/5z3em

Spoiler alert: there are multiple definitions including these two:

1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

You're a joke. The fact that you fancy yourself an intellectual makes it even funnier

When liberals like OP start complaining about being on the receiving end of what anyone opposing liberals is getting, that might point to the pendulum starting to swing back.

When it does...

Just don't forget who people like OP were when they found it fun to label people because they had opposing views - but aren't keen on being on the receiving end of said labels.

He is a big R, so your assumption is 100% incorrect. I have been debating him for years.

Once again, you do not know how to think clearly.

The founding fathers of the US were radical progressives and extremely interested in social welfare.

A Progressive is defined as, politics aimed at representing the interests of ordinary people.

That's what a Liberal is and their goal is to find new ways to help society.

A conservative believes in royalty oriented social structure and that people are less important than royalty. In modern times there's no difference between rich people and royalty.

Anyway, the word "progressive" is used incorrectly by many people today. It's not "progressive" to push policies for trannies, teach kids about anal sex, etc because those topics are not of interest to ordinary people. Tranniies are EXTRAORDINARY people and helping them first is not liberal or progressive.

Once again, learn the terms you are using.

Many people who say they are progressive---are not.

Fuking laugh at anyone who thinks this isn't the case regardless of letter (R) or (D) Next to a name.

Lmao I was like Lmao.
Fuking lmao if you think either party actually gives a chit about you. Fuking lmao if you think either party isn't bought by big business. Fuking lmao if you think the social agenda of either party is actually going to make it better for the average person.

It's too far gone boyos.

When liberals like OP start complaining about being on the receiving end of what anyone opposing liberals is getting, that might point to the pendulum starting to swing back.

When it does...

Just don't forget who people like OP were when they found it fun to label people because they had opposing views - but aren't keen on being on the receiving end of said labels.

Interesting.

Did you call out those liberals?

No, you did not.

Thanks for proving the exact point I was making. It's all good to fit labels onto people, until that person happens to be you, right?

Lay down, and rot.

Interesting.

Did you call out those liberals?

No, you did not.

Thanks for proving the exact point I was making. It's all good to fit labels onto people, until that person happens to be you, right?

Lay down, and rot.

Interesting.

Did you call out those liberals?

No, you did not.

Thanks for proving the exact point I was making. It's all good to fit labels onto people, until that person happens to be you, right?

Lay down, and rot.

Interesting.

Are you a beavercel?

They have a Liberal party - the US does not.

I have no idea whats happening in this thread

If you can say that you are a liberal, you're part of the problem.

Also, "none of them believe the nutty BS", but they're happily supporting all the way apparently, just LOL.

Liberal and hypocrite - don't these words have the same meaning?

Liberal and hypocrite - don't these words have the same meaning?

OP is a typical far left liberal who identifies as a right of center moderate.

Negged.

Actually I do.

No sympathy from me, and I doubt you'll get any from anyone with half a brain.

Go lie in the bed you and your kin made for themselves.

You mean like what you did with my post?

Why would I need to show something like that?

I don't understand, why would I need to show myself calling out aconservativepost?

Well, you claim to be a liberal who doesn't agree with the liberal agenda - but has no indication of actually disagreeing with said agenda.

Now, feel free to tell me why I would need to show myself calling out a "conservative postI disagree with".

This is the third time I am asking the same question...

I’ll look at it, and I appreciate breaking it down a little more. I’m sure this helps in terms of generating votes and campaign donations - but no.

I’m me. Period. Paragraph.

Maybe the fourth time will be a charm...

Why I would need to show myself calling out a "conservative postI disagree with".