Leftists blown into the fucking stratosphere

Leftists blown into the fucking stratosphere.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fiEwcM17C4Q
youtube.com/watch?v=j8lXR1XdUCg
youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZr7g
twitter.com/AnonBabble

my fucking sides

>democrats
>left

Democrats = liberals = SJWs = leftists

Really makes you think

youtube.com/watch?v=fiEwcM17C4Q

How can one man be this based? Why won't he share, Sup Forums?

Progressivism and true liberalism are technocally on the right. Have you never even seen a political compass?

I'm talking about liberals ca. 2000s, not fucking Voltaire.

Maybe ted Nugent should play at inauguration

laffo

The guy shat himself for a week to dodge the draft for vietnam. Not that based, but he is a little based.

based ted
youtube.com/watch?v=j8lXR1XdUCg

Still offended.

I mean...if he means it this is pretty cool of him. Tongue firmly in cheek, but there is nothing wrong with some harmless jokes.

Thanks Uncle Ted.

Very truly yours,
A black Hillary voter

lockean liberalism is neither left nor right. Its philosophy that doesnt map well onto a modern political litmus.
He's clearly talking normspeak.
Progressivism on the other hand, is definitely left in normspeak, I dont even know what you would call progressivism other than a counterpoint to lockean liberalism.
chomsky / alinski?

you bought into that fake news eh?

plz turn off your tv

This is what happens when you hunt animals and eat them. You become based like Ted Nugent

He was smart enough not to fight for ZOG. Good man.

No Locke is left.

But in the most cuck way possible? Come on man

They are leftists, go back to /r/socialism cuckold.

>Black
>Hillary Voter

I'm genuinely curious, what brings you to Sup Forums?

Locke established natural rights, the structure of a republic (not the first), lays the basis for individual soverignty and the social contract.

from that he defines tyranny and argues the obligation of free men to overthrow tyranny.

locke's writings argue for a governemnt structure that intends to maximize freedom for the most possible people.

Its not really political at all, its structural.

That is a vicious sense of humor

Very nice desu

>maximize freedom for the most possible people
the foundation of classical liberalism tho

dunno if you are arguing or agreeing

...

devilish & based nuge

Progressivism is far left, it's quasi-communism

I believe that hearing opinions that are different from yours helps you strengthen your own ideas while also taking into consideration legit issues that those who disagree with you have.

I've been on Sup Forums (tv, vr, sp and fit) for years, I've lurked Stormfront since 2008. Got into listening to Anti-WhiteGenocide podcasts about 2 years ago which took me to "Alt-Right" podcasts, which brought me to pol this past Spring.

Came to Sup Forums to figure out if Trump actually had a shot at winning. By September I was telling all the white libs I know that he was winning and it was a done deal.

I don't disagree with you guys on that much, its more so the extreme degree is a bit further than I think is helpful most of the time. Also there is way more complaining and legit hate rather than coming up with solutions.

Niggers are bad. But not all blacks are niggers, and little to nothing is being done to stop young black kids (some with potential) from becoming niggers.

SJW suck the fun out of life and rarely make things better...but their hearts are in the right place. If they were only able to communicate better their opinions might even be considered.

I'm a hetero christian, but if you want to be a muslim, bisexual, transgender person with a gun...you do you. Just don't be obnoxious, dont push it on people, don't be a twat about it, and be a decent member of society and you and I will be able to co-exist just fine.

>their hearts are in the right place
[citation needed]

>I'm a hetero christian, but if you want to be a muslim, bisexual, transgender person with a gun...you do you

Fuck off, not all ideas and lifestyles are equally valid, and some ideas and lifestyles actively undermine societal cohesions. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization. There's no way around that. It is a barbaric, Iron Age dogma that would set us back hundreds of years if it took over.

This hippy bullshit of "just do what you want, maaaneee" is what is killing the West. There have to be standards of morality that are upheld by a society, or else we will surely be destroyed.

You need to destroy the neoliberals and globalists in your party.

Its the only way to make any leftish ideas competitive, if nothing else I believe that monocultures are dangerous inherently. Without taking a serious look inside the democratic party and reforming. The identity politics that the left has been playing with for the past decade is the empowering the actual hatred here. The hate culture here will spread. It's already becoming more popular on Sup Forums than it used to be. Without a strong opposition this COULD become mainstream.

from white male trump voter

Yes and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is just a swell, fair country full of elected officials

>not all ideas and lifestyles are equally valid
Agreed but you don't keep doing behavior if it isn't getting you anywhere. Its survival of the fittest, the positive ideas and lifestyles will thrive and grow.

Compare Sup Forums now to Sup Forums a few years back. NOBODY would have guessed that traditional values and threads of "Which Christianity should I choose" or "How can better strive to have a stable home and a happy healthy family" would be at the heart of it.

>Islam...would set us back hundreds of years.
Also agree. But look at Canada & America- do you REALLY think that shit is taking over? Again, I bring you back to the rebirth of traditional values in millennial being cultivated.

There are ebbs and flows but eventually everything evens out. America had the "free love" hippy, dippy 60s...and that never came into full fruition. We didn't need to strong arm hippies. We never had a flower child President.

Society is NOT going to be destroyed. Keep strengthen the beneficial societal norms and the weak ones will either die off or remain in purgatory as "here...but not really effecting anything"

Western people, with western values, who happen to pray in a different way to a different deity won't destroy society because those people will have inherently Western values at heart.

I'm a Catholic but I'm not about to start burning down gay bars because MUH BIBLE. Western Civ's law and order prevails.

>Niggers are bad. But not all blacks are niggers
Don't.
They're so bad, a black that can act like a person is a statistical fucking outlier. They're niggers, plain and simple.
>its more so the extreme degree is a bit further than I think is helpful most of the time
It's a forum, we're not running a campaign.
>their hearts are in the right place
Hah, sure.
>muslim
>dont push it on people
oh, boy

>Agreed but...and grow.

Maybe if we were living in some Darwinist society where stupidity were punished; too often it is rewarded. Welfare has seen to the destruction of survival of the fittest.

>But look at Canada & America- do you REALLY think that shit is taking over?
I can't believe that you DON'T. Churches are increasingly empty and unused, whereas more and more mosques are built every year. Additionally, second generation Muslims are more radical than their parents by almost any metric. Don't be blind.

>There are ebbs...that never came into full fruition
Oh but it has. The sexual liberation movement responsible for the destruction of the family unit? Started in the 60s. Progressivism and anti-racism? Started in the 60s. The hippy movement has done immeasurable damage to our culture.

>Society is NOT going to be destroyed.
Yes, societies have never been destroyed before, right?

>Western people, with western values, who happen to pray in a different way to a different deity won't destroy society because those people will have inherently Western values at heart.

Fucking kek, how can you unironically believe this? Islam is not just another flavour of Christianity; it is a barbaric religion that makes explicit demands for world conquest and submission to the faith in a way that Christianity never does. You're a fucking idiot if you think they're just going to pray to a different God and then go about their business. The Boston Bombers, the San Bernadino shooters, the Orlando nightclub shooter; all of these people were totally Westernized, but Islam remained at the root of their beliefs and caused them to commit horrendous acts of violence. Islam is poison for the mind.

...

Stop trying to "reclaim" liberalism, it's not going to work. For almost a century now it has belonged exclusively to useful idiot democrat partisans who constantly have shit stuck up in their urethra

Ned " Kill All Leftists Dead" Nugent is my hero.

We need to meme this guy into office next.

>Ted Nugent
Literally who?

liberalism is neither left nor right. it doesnt involve policy.

showing democrats how they are wrong, exercises the only advantage the right has. Debate.

a more neuanced way to define left and right in the US might actually be by ideologues and pragmatists.

youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZr7g

Of course it does now that it includes positive liberties, often even at the cost of negative ones.

underage b&

God i fucking hate ted nugent

Checkled

Checkd

How you gonna be over 18 years old and post cringeworthy shit like this?

>often even at the cost of negative ones.
this is progressivism
they are not at all synonymous.

Oh so he hasn't been relevant since the 70s. Thanks user.

ya, I really dont know what he does now other than shit on democrats.

dgaf.

>might actually be by ideologues and pragmatists

Then every group that disagrees with each other would be vying to be recognized as a pragmatist. Are you retarded or something?

>liberalism is neither left nor right. it doesn't involve policy

Yes, it does involve policy. Even in its original incarnation it involved policy, that's why the American revolution took place, they didn't like the policy and wanted to make their own. Modern "liberalism" no matter how it compares to the original liberalism is completely synonymous with fiscally and socially left wing beliefs. You will find no self described liberal saying "I hate niggers." What you think the word should mean is utterly irrelevant because the word already has a near-universally accepted meaning, just like how I can't rewrite the entire fucking dictionary to suit my own political agenda

>but if you want to be a muslim, bisexual, transgender person with a gun...you do you. Just don't be obnoxious, dont push it on people, don't be a twat about it, and be a decent member of society

I agree with you, the problem is that these particular groups at the current point in time are doing just that. Muslims in Indonesia are fine, Muslim communities in France who are knowingly harboring bataclan shooters for years afterwards are fundamentally not fine.
Trannies can do whatever they want to their own bodies. But forcing society to bend backwards to accommodate their delusions, and trying to get sex-change operations for 3-years-olds is most certainly not OK.
The current radicalization of the Right is in response to the massive radicalization of the Left.
Anyway you sound like a reasonable, rational person so we probably have more similarities than differences. It is mainly a difference of perception and context.

the american revolution wasnt about policy, thats extremely nieve.

There was policy that could be pointed to that represented a state of tyranny. That the structure of government did not suit free men. The tax issues were emblematic of a deeper problem.
>"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"
Was also only a rally cry, you will see if you look at history, that ben franklin after being sent to england actually declined 2 token seats in the house of commons that were offered to the colonies. Having a voice was not enough, The americans wanted soverignty and self-determination which were not possible with 2 token seats.

As for the rest of your post (read rant). liberalism is still synonymous with "right", republican value in france and much of europe. And is the only possible way to refer to or discuss liberal philosophy.

It is also true that something like gay marraige could easily be classified as both left-liberal because it is a policy issue of the left and also is an exercise in self-determination. That doesnt make liberalism left of center it means that the political left have adopted a stance on policy change to make it more liberal. This is also a correct interpretation of the common dictionary definition to which you are referring.

The problem here is not that people are trying to change the definition of what liberal means, the problem is that you have a very nieve understanding of what the language you are using actually means.

>you have a naive understanding of what the language you are using actually means

Australia's centre-right party is called the "Liberal Party" but it also called the "Coalition" and some other things, I know exactly what you're talking about when you say liberal to you is the republican right, but I'm saying it's wrong, because anyone I talk to who is not from Australia, when I use "liberals" to refer to our incumbent government it confuses them, because for them left-wingers are synonymous with liberalism. The only people I've spoken to ever in my life that liberalism has this right wing connotation for have been fellow Australians, and most of them use the word in two contexts as I do, they could be referring to the government or referring to left wing political ideologues depending on context.

>There was policy that could be pointed to that represented a state of tyranny. That the structure of government did not suit free men. The tax issues were emblematic of a deeper problem.

YES. That is exactly right. It was the policy of the British monarchy that spurred the revolution by those who believed it to be tyrannical and immoral. Why are you arguing with me on this point?

>Rome circa 300th year of our lord
>"lol guys the empire has lasted for 300 years, this decline is just an ebb we'll totally recover"

>liberal to you is the republican right
refer to >YES. That is exactly right. It was the policy of the British monarchy that spurred the revolution by those who believed it to be tyrannical and immoral. Why are you arguing with me on this point?
because the policy was proof-positive of the state of tyranny. The brittish enacted a policy which was tyrannical, ie. that it was a tax on the governed which was not inflicted on the governors.

In lockean liberalism this is the definition of tyranny. It was not a revolution over "I dont want to pay taxes". It was a revolution stating "If the laws are not enforced equally upon everyone, we have a moral obligation to establish a new government".

What did he mean by this?

I also find it really weird that ausies refer to left-right the same way americans do. I'm pretty sure this is a neologism that literally refers to the seating arangement in the US house/senate.

dont your toilets flow up into the tank or something over there?

>because the policy was proof-positive of the state of tyranny. The brittish enacted a policy which was tyrannical,

Yes, and the revolutionaries opposed this tyrannical policy. We need to stop agreeing on this at some point for it to be an actual argument, are you suggesting that the American revolution didn't define classic liberalism or something?

>lockean liberalism is neither left nor right

Who cares? My point was basically nobody outside of Australia thinks of liberalism as referring to anything other than modern left wing "progressivism" and the term has been co-opted to mean such. Pretending the term doesn't immediately bring left wing politics to mind for the average person accomplishes nothing, you should stop trying to reclaim the word and just work with what you've got instead. There's a reason why "classic liberals" refer to themselves as classic liberals or libertarians after all

>I also find it really weird that aussies refer to left right the same way americans do

Why is it weird? It's a near-universal language that liberalism means left wing politics. The only reason why our liberal party is contradictory to the "liberal" agenda is because the party is older than the modern usage of the term. Which is why Australians treat the word as if it has two meanings depending on context

>implying democrats aren't leftists

your rebrand is a failure

Wait nevermind I realized you weren't specifically referring to "liberalism/conservatism" but rather "left/right" themselves, but the explanation is similar. Even if it originated in America it's essentially become the de facto way of categorizing ideologies in english speaking countries especially

it comes from french revolution seating arrangement actually

no, the revolutionaries opposed a tyrant.

American revolution didnt define classical liberalism at all. Locke was probably the first Liberal. The declaration of indepence preamble was literally plagiarized from the two treatisies of government.

UK was arguably a quasi-liberal government in the 1600's. The two treatisies of government was a look at the government established by william of orange after the glorious revolution and a subtle indirect critique of it, suggesting how it could better represent the people.

The US may be the first country that tried to actualize liberalism into a government, but it didnt originate here, nor were all of the ideas novel to existing democracies.

>upvote

in support of
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

>The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

> My point was basically nobody outside of Australia thinks of liberalism as referring to anything other than modern left wing "progressivism"
no, this is common in much of europe aswell.
but on Sup Forums and when talkign about american politics liberalism and left-progressivism definitely have a strong correlation to the nieve.

I'm not trying to reclam a word, I'm not even trying to break the conception, or reject the correlation. Most of the time both the conception and correlation are accurate, but imprecise. I am only identifying that there is more nuanced less nieve understanding of the word in the same way an engineer might try to explain what heat and temperature are (or accuracy / precision for that matter).

Serially tho

>no, this is common in much of europe aswell.

The American usage of Liberal is closer to the original meaning of the word.

negative
common usage usually refers to democrats broadly.
read thread, I've already had this discussion.