Saying the Nazis, et. al .have free speech does NOT mean we support them. That's not freedom works.

1. Free speech does not mean that Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK say whatever they want
2. Those groups of people you've mentioned are people on the right
3. Liberals don't hate other peoples' free speech. In fact that's the very opposite. Liberals support free speech but dislike hate speech, while Conservatives censor liberals for them telling the truth while they utilise hate speech.

Newsflash - being a liberal doesn't make you good.

Newsflash:

I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive but I could be seen as a hardcore liberal though if I wasn't progressive.

Also being conservative doesn't make you good either, oOpS

Nonsense

Bullshit salad.

1. Free speech was especially included in the Bill of Rights for speech that you don't like. If you put limits on speech it is no longer free. It is the right of the individual to be able to say and think whatever they want. Even if they are complete idiots and they hate people for whatever reason.

Liberals hate Trump and Trump voters with as much or more passion than the KKK hates black people. If hate the criteria for silencing speech then liberals need to have their speech severely regulated.

2 Wrong. They are still leftists even though they recently have migrated to the Republican Party. Don't confuse the Republican Party with the right. Most of the voters who are Republican are on the right but the Party has shifted so far to the left that it convinced the Neo-Nazis and the KKK to leave the Democrat Party. But those two groups have always been on the left, the radical left.

Just because the lie has been repeated so much everyone believes and will argue with anyone who disagrees with it. However, when you do your own research you'll find that Neo-Nazis are so much more ideologically aligned with Democrats than anything on the right. The same is true with Hitler's Nazis. Read what the Nazis believed in and compare it with the Democrats. It's almost identical. The KKK was started by Democrats. I have no idea what their political ideology. All I know is they hate blacks, Hispanics, Asians. In addition they hate Christians who do not align with their Christians beliefs. They hate Catholics, Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and so on. Whereas, liberals hate ALL Christians and the don't care to much for Jews either.

3 Wrong. Liberals are trying to control free speech, worse now than ever before. The fact that you think people that both you and I have serious disagreements with should not have a right to speak is just part of it. Going further, conservative speech is under attack. Starting with Obama, who tried 3 times to institute a system where people could report dissidents to the Federal Government. The FBI worked with Twitter to control the type of speech that was allowed on Twitter.

Biden is trying to do the same thing that Obama tried. He wants do know who are speaking out against him.

"Freedom doesn't fail. It is taken away by evil people. Laissez-faire is far better than government controlled markets and always has been. Basically, would you rather be ripped off by one guy one time or perpetually be ripped off by the government? If a business ripped you off because of a free market then you would never go back to them for repeat business. You most likely will tell your friends to stay away and when enough word got out that business would collapse because of their own stupidity.

But if the government enforces controls on all businesses based on the actions of one or two then that causes all businesses to hire more personnel to comply with those regulations to prevent them from doing something they never did in the first place. Now they have to either reduce production staff to pay for these overhead employees to try to main the price of their product (which lowers the quality) or they have to raise their prices to compensate for this additional cost."

See image

"In all cases the consumer, the individual suffers because now they are getting ripped off because of those government regulations. And they are getting ripped off by every business whom those regulations are imposed on.

The more regulations the lower the quality and/or higher the prices of their merchandise, if they can remain in business at all. We are seeing part of that now. Ever since COVID the grocery stores offer fewer products, are out of products and/or the quality of what they do have has gone down."

But the prices would have been skyrocketing anyways, just google price gouging.

"On top of that is the World Economic Forum telling all governments who have sworn fealty to them to follow a new economic theory called Modern Monetary Theory. MMT says that if a government needs money they should just print it. When this theory first reared its ugly head economists laughed at it because it causes inflation."

You already told me about the MMT

"This is why things are costing so much more in countries who are following this insane theory."

Nope, it's actually lowering prices because yes prices may increase but not as fast a rate as if the economy was left alone. Free market activists believe that profit is their number one goal in life and they want to do anything to get as much profit as they can to get people to cough up more money to give profit for rich stock market investors. People would not get their fair share, not even the government because free market activists also tell us that taxation is no good and is therefore worth avoiding.

The government won't be able to look after non-business people and not everyone wants to be in business especially because of the greedy big corps that refuse to pay their taxes and refuse to help people out. No they're not a charity but I think it is a standard for businesses to be corporately socially responsible.

"Hong Kong, since England lost the lease, has become increasingly controlled by the Chinese government. Quality has gone down."

Yes China did bring in a National Security Law in 2020, but that didn't affect Hong Kong's capitalist system as they would be able to continue practice their economic system according to Paul Chan

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/fractured-foundations-assessing-risks-to-hong-kongs-business-environment/

"Nope, it's actually lowering prices because yes prices may increase but not as fast a rate as if the economy was left alone."

Have you read a book on economics???

"Free market activists believe that profit is their number one goal in life"

Have you ever met a Free market activist? I haven't. I don't think they exist. The only activists I see are those pushing for the government to control their lives.

In a way I guess you could call me a free market activist. I do not hold rallies or marches but I do want a government that is powerless. One that does not affect my life in anyway. One that isn't dreaming up knew ways to steal money and my rights from me.

For one who is so absolutely convinced that free market businesses are only interested in money and nothing else, you sure turn a huge blind eye to governments. Governments, ALL governments, are and have only been good at 3 things, stealing, killing and enslaving. Yet somehow you put all of you trust in Marxists governments (the worst at stealing, killing and enslaving) and call business owners the problem.

What is wrong with earning a profit? Why is that some great evil to want to be able to put food on the table, put clothes on your back and try to live a life that you enjoy or feel fulfilled in? Why is that such an evil?

Businesses MUST earn a profit. Without a profitable business then they cannot pay their employees. Their employees MUST earn a profit. If they don't they cannot support themselves or their family.

Earning a profit is not greed. Earning a profit that makes you rich is not greed either.

Complaining about rich people IS, however, envy and covetousness. Envy is far, far, far more destructive to the individual than greed is.

But greed is NOT the reason why people start businesses. Many times it is fear of poverty. Other's start businesses because they want to be their own boss. Other's think they can build a much better widget than currently exists.

For true greed, you need a government. Governments exist because of greed. That is why they steal money and power. It is all about greed. The bigger and more powerful a government becomes the more greedy it gets. That is why Marxism is so popular. It justifies government greed while lying to the people about equality and fairness.

"Have you read a book on economics???"

Yes, but have you ever considered what would happen if a country continues to lower its taxes?

"Have you ever met a Free market activist? I haven't. I don't think they exist. The only activists I see are those pushing for the government to control their lives."

So you're saying that you're not a free market activist? But what about those people like Adam Smith and Thomas Sowell that you've mentioned before, they're free market activists themselves.

"In a way I guess you could call me a free market activist. I do not hold rallies or marches but I do want a government that is powerless. One that does not affect my life in anyway. One that isn't dreaming up knew ways to steal money and my rights from me."

Fair enough, I believe you. There are also differentiating degrees of how much one is an activist, but I guess the closest amount of activism you do with your free market views is to post your views on imgflip and stuff like that.

"For one who is so absolutely convinced that free market businesses are only interested in money and nothing else, you sure turn a huge blind eye to governments. Governments, ALL governments, are and have only been good at 3 things, stealing, killing and enslaving. Yet somehow you put all of you trust in Marxists governments (the worst at stealing, killing and enslaving) and call business owners the problem."

Business peoples have been stealing peoples wages, hence why they had record profits in Australia. I don't know about American businesses whether they've got record profits, but Australia certainly has businesses who had record profits, to which the ACCC even had no choice but to investigate it, which the ACCC is very weak at looking after everyday households from inflation due to price gouging from big corps.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/consumer/2023/08/18/price-gouging/

"What is wrong with earning a profit? Why is that some great evil to want to be able to put food on the table, put clothes on your back and try to live a life that you enjoy or feel fulfilled in? Why is that such an evil?"

I'm not against profits but there has to be a certain amounts of profits that should be reconsidered to be expenses because many workers who work for those big corps such as Coles and Woolworths have experienced wage theft even though it is illegal to underpay staff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--jMe_-vdZc

Also, it is not illegal to put up prices above the inflation rate in Australia however doing so because the inflation is high is not an excuse for them to rip people off. Even small businesses are being gobbled up by big corps.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-09-27/big-companies-increasingly-swallow-competitors-could-hurt-economy

"Businesses MUST earn a profit. Without a profitable business then they cannot pay their employees. Their employees MUST earn a profit. If they don't they cannot support themselves or their family."

1. Profit is not a bad thing, its how the businesses earning their profit and what they do with the profit that is bad. Like what happens to that profit when they earn it? Give it to shareholders? They're already rich as is. The poor and middle-class actually need to be looked after, and businesses are certainly not doing that despite the efforts of CSR which is what you'd call "wokeness".
2. A profit is earned after the paying of employees. Businesses can still make a loss and still pay their employees but they wouldn't have had enough revenue in the first place to pay the workers, simply because they don't get enough customers (this is what small businesses are more likely to face than big corps).

"Earning a profit is not greed. Earning a profit that makes you rich is not greed either."

Again its how they earn the profit that is greed. Try work in a business and see what they're doing, and good luck being a whistleblower of a big corp.

"Complaining about rich people IS, however, envy and covetousness. Envy is far, far, far more destructive to the individual than greed is."

And how are the rest of the average Americans gonna live, considering how expensive it is to live there. To go to a restaurant, you've gotta pay tips. Wages are far lower in the US than in Australia. Interest rates I'm pretty sure in the US are higher than in Australia.

https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/

"I'm not against profits but there has to be a certain amounts of profits that should be reconsidered to be expenses because many workers who work for those big corps such as Coles and Woolworths have experienced wage theft even though it is illegal to underpay staff."

It is real easy to look at a business and not understand the pay structure. I could go into a long explanation of how the Labor Theory of Value does not work but I got better things to do with my time. That theory was created by people who looked at businesses and did not understand why labor earns so little while management earns so much.

When people (i.e. governments) imposes laws on businesses to try to equalize the wages between management and labor the quality of the product always goes way down. The price goes way up and the business will soon fail.

There was a company in the US who was run by a Progressive. He decided that every employee was going to be paid exactly the same and their salary would be quite a bit above the national average. It was reported in the media. What was less reported was about 6 months later they went out of business.

That was just one example but it is not a hard concept to understand. The value of the labor performed is NOT the value of the laborer. People are invaluable but labor only has value to the person they are performing that labor for. Pushing a broom has almost no value to the person paying the person to push the broom so that person will not get paid much.

Government provides absolutely no value whatsoever to the business but they force business to pay them. Government laws force businesses to hire and pay people that have no value to the manufacturing of the product. But because the law makes the imposition on business complicated they have to pay people who are capable of understanding the intricacies of the law a higher wage. Their only value to the business is keeping the business in compliance to the law. The problem with that is it makes the price of the product go up without the quality increasing. It is hidden government tax.

If you think profits of a business should be capped then you do not believe in freedom. Another misconception is that if a person has more money than you then they are somehow evil. What another person earns has absolutely no bearing on mine or your life. It does not make us poorer.

Wealth is not finite, it is infinite. Wealth is created in the exchange of goods and or services.

"It is real easy to look at a business and not understand the pay structure. I could go into a long explanation of how the Labor Theory of Value does not work but I got better things to do with my time. That theory was created by people who looked at businesses and did not understand why labor earns so little while management earns so much."

You didn't look at the A Current Affair video haven't you? There were managers that experienced wage theft and took a class action against their company.

"When people (i.e. governments) imposes laws on businesses to try to equalize the wages between management and labor the quality of the product always goes way down. The price goes way up and the business will soon fail."

Minimum wages in America have not been increasing at a national level since 2009. But in Australia, $23.23 an hour is nothing. In fact, many of the workers are teenagers and they have a different minimum wage scheme based on their age. No its not discrimination, they don't have to pay bills and other expenses, so their wage may be more decent than a full time worker at a supermarket.

"There was a company in the US who was run by a Progressive. He decided that every employee was going to be paid exactly the same and their salary would be quite a bit above the national average. It was reported in the media. What was less reported was about 6 months later they went out of business."

I guess he went extreme but people get paid based on their experience and role they take. And their business may have tried to be ambitious but ended up one of the 45% of businesses that go broke within 5 years.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1010/top-6-reasons-new-businesses-fail.aspx

"That was just one example but it is not a hard concept to understand. The value of the labor performed is NOT the value of the laborer. People are invaluable but labor only has value to the person they are performing that labor for. Pushing a broom has almost no value to the person paying the person to push the broom so that person will not get paid much."

So you support wage theft? A wage increase won't shut down a business. It'd only just lower their profits, which what's the worst that can happen? A mere worse performance on the stock market, and who invests on the stock market? Rich people.

"Government provides absolutely no value whatsoever to the business but they force business to pay them. Government laws force businesses to hire and pay people that have no value to the manufacturing of the product. But because the law makes the imposition on business complicated they have to pay people who are capable of understanding the intricacies of the law a higher wage. Their only value to the business is keeping the business in compliance to the law. The problem with that is it makes the price of the product go up without the quality increasing. It is hidden government tax."

So you want slavery in the workforce?

"If you think profits of a business should be capped then you do not believe in freedom. Another misconception is that if a person has more money than you then they are somehow evil. What another person earns has absolutely no bearing on mine or your life. It does not make us poorer."

It's nothing to do with freedom? It's just to give people a fair go and to get the big corps to cough up so others can get their fair share. This is not communism by the way, this is just common sense policies that would look after the 99% of people that are not CEOs ore business executives.

"Wealth is not finite, it is infinite. Wealth is created in the exchange of goods and or services."

While prices have gone up, profits have gone up. Shouldn't wages go up too? No it is not inflationary too as from 2013 to 2019, average wages grew faster than inflation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/07/wage-growth-vs-inflation-heres-when-workers-may-catch-up.html

"But greed is NOT the reason why people start businesses. Many times it is fear of poverty. Other's start businesses because they want to be their own boss. Other's think they can build a much better widget than currently exists."

Name one big corp that has been established in the last 5 years? I've heard from someone that about 80% of businesses go bust within 5 years, hence because they don't earn enough revenue to make a profit. People that are greedy don't want to start a business, they want to be in the big corps to only make small businesses harder to establish, lowering competition, hence raising prices.

"For true greed, you need a government. Governments exist because of greed. That is why they steal money and power. It is all about greed. The bigger and more powerful a government becomes the more greedy it gets. That is why Marxism is so popular. It justifies government greed while lying to the people about equality and fairness."

Marxism is not that popular, but liberalism in America is more popular than liberalism in Australia. Most Australians are either neoliberals or conservatives.

"Name one big corp that has been established in the last 5 years?"

Unless they were very fortunate there are no "big corp" that are only 5 years old. Normally it takes a lot longer before they become big.

"Most Australians are either neoliberals or conservatives."

Each country has different definitions of what a liberal and conservative is. There is a lot of confusion there. What a neoliberal is in Australia might be the complete opposite of what it is in the States. I have no idea.

What I do know is in America liberals, either knowingly or unknowingly, are Marxists. When Marxism infested America over a century ago, it took control of the Universities. From there it gained control over our public school system and our media. It has moved into some churches. Now most of the CEO's of the largest corporations in America (and probably the world) are Marxists. The top 3 finance companies in the world are Marxists. Blackrock being the largest.

Currently Blackrock is buying up houses all over the US to drive the cost of home ownership way up to make it unaffordable. This is part of the WEF's plan. They put out a video (and then removed it) where they laid out their plan for the world. They said in the video, "You will own nothing and be happy", later they said, "you will rent everything".

First off the WEF thinking that they can make people happy is absurd. People who suffer from depression are not going to suddenly be happy because of the WEF's plans. Renting everything does not make me happy. Happiness can only happen when people are free. When you rent, you are not free. You have to live under the rules of those who own that you rent.

"Unless they were very fortunate there are no "big corp" that are only 5 years old. Normally it takes a lot longer before they become big."

That's the point. New businesses that appear don't end up that big in a quick amount of time. The newest big corp I can recall is a company called 'Canva'

It's an Australian company that was established in 2012 and is could be listed on the ASX (Australia's Stock Market) as there was a rumour last year about it. That's according to a pro-business source called the Australian Financial Review.

https://www.afr.com/markets/equity-markets/asx-prepares-for-most-important-listing-in-200-years-20211231-p59l2t

"Each country has different definitions of what a liberal and conservative is."

Like Australia's mainstream conservatism is America's neoconservatism.

"What a neoliberal is in Australia might be the complete opposite of what it is in the States. I have no idea."

Neolibs in Australia are generally more centrist to centre-right but in America, they're like just centrist I think. Centre-right politics in America is dead.

"What I do know is in America liberals, either knowingly or unknowingly, are Marxists."

This is completely false. Marxism is a far-left ideology, yet liberalism is only centre-left.

"When Marxism infested America over a century ago, it took control of the Universities. From there it gained control over our public school system and our media."

I now wonder why older people aren't so liberal. It's because they weren't educated politcally properly. And the media has probably gotten more to the left but only within like the last 40 years. Apparently I saw somewhere that CNN was right leaning. Can you confirm that CNN was right leaning in the '80s and now centre-left?

"It has moved into some churches."

Since the 2000s.

"Now most of the CEO's of the largest corporations in America (and probably the world) are Marxists. The top 3 finance companies in the world are Marxists. Blackrock being the largest."

Sure three out of two hundred plus big corps may be liberal, but the vast majority are conservative and their CEOs vote Republican such as Elon Musk. He's even openly endorsed Ron DeSantis (which conservative media even said so, here's one)...

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/11/26/elon-musk-backs-ron-desantis-in-2024/

"Stakeholder capitalism is NOT capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. Stakeholder capitalism is fascism. It is slightly different than Mussolini's fascism. Mussolini took control of all if the businesses but he let those who were running the business (and had all of the business experience) remain at the head of the business. But those businesses were heavily controlled by the government."

Fascism = Fascism. There cannot simply be more than one completely different style of fascism. They're all linked to the far-right.

"This is how freedom is destroyed by this new 21st century fascism."

Freedom is not destroyed, it is only getting better.

"You clearly have no clue what free market economics is. But even worse you only have a textbook idea of what Marxism is and have never looked around to see what Marxism looks like in the real world. I use the term Marxism because describes socialism, fascism, communism and Nazism. Because all of them are either the brainchild or heavily influenced by Marx’s communism."

Marxism is nothing to do with Nazism or fascism. Marxism is more to the left, yet nazism and fascism is more to the right.

"Fascism = Fascism. There cannot simply be more than one completely different style of fascism. They're all linked to the far-right."

When I said "Mussolini's fascism" I meant that in the possessive, as in it was his. I didn't mean that in Mussolini's version of fascism. Fascism is socialism without destroying private ownership. It is functions identical to socialism, in that, while the person can own his/her own business, they have no control over it. In the end it is still government controlling the means of production.

Technically that puts fascism slightly to the right of socialism. What it does not do is put fascism on the far right. I suppose in the liberal fantasy world where conservatives, libertarians and anarchists do not exist, then fascism is on the far right. It is the far right of the far left. But individual liberty does not exist on the far left because the far left is complete authoritarianism. It is complete government control and the individual is expendable.

In the real world, the far right is the total absence of government. None. That is the extreme far right. And there are light years between the far left and the far right. About a half a step to the left of the extreme far right is the U.S. Constitution. It created a limited, virtually powerless, small federal government. It is a document from We The People to tell the government it's limits. Everything in the Constitution and the first 10 amendments is all about putting restrictions on the government and not the people. The laws created in Congress were to be minimal and mostly about further restricting the government, not the people. The only laws that affected the individual was laws that prevented one or a group of individuals from infringing the inalienable rights of another individual or group of people.

The bulk of the laws were supposed to be created by the states and not the federal.

And that is how is was in America until the Marxist infestation over a century ago.

The America right became the sole defenders of the US Constitution and for that the left calls us fascists.

We are light years away from fascism. We are the most anti-fascist people on the planet. We are also anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-Nazi. We are anti-authoritarianism. You want a government who tells you how to live your life, to wipe your butt for you and kiss you goodnight. You want to own nothing and try to call that happiness.

"When I said "Mussolini's fascism" I meant that in the possessive, as in it was his. I didn't mean that in Mussolini's version of fascism. Fascism is socialism without destroying private ownership. It is functions identical to socialism, in that, while the person can own his/her own business, they have no control over it. In the end it is still government controlling the means of production."

You still cannot understand what I'm saying, are you? Google fascism. There is only simply one kind and that's it.

"Technically that puts fascism slightly to the right of socialism. What it does not do is put fascism on the far right. I suppose in the liberal fantasy world where conservatives, libertarians and anarchists do not exist, then fascism is on the far right. It is the far right of the far left. But individual liberty does not exist on the far left because the far left is complete authoritarianism. It is complete government control and the individual is expendable."

Nonsense. I'm a progressive and I do not fantasise libertarians, conservatives, and anarchists' lack of existence. I'm actually a critic of Antifa because they're a far-left group that are destroying the purpose of being progressive. Just like with Neo-Nazis being the bad apples to Right-Wing populists because they criticise nazism because they know that nazis are further to the right than MAGA, yet are destroying the purpose of being a "right wing patriot".

There are two different types of libertarians, which there is the lib-right libertarians which is what you think is the only real type of libertarianism. While they may be economically right wing, they're actually socially progressive. Like they'd want to either decriminalise or legalise marijuana as they claim that we're in a "nanny state", which yes I support decriminalisation of marijuana but for a different reason. The other kind of libertarians are civil libertarians, which they do stuff like taxing the church and want to legalise drugs (which they'd go further than the Australian Greens). The Greens in Australia want to decriminalise marijuana because they believe (which is true) that personal use of marijuana should be a health issue not a criminal issue. Moving on...

"You still cannot understand what I'm saying, are you?"

When you put it like that, you're right. I can't understand you. But that has everything to do with bad grammar and not what you are saying.

"Google fascism. There is only simply one kind and that's it."

There is a new type that the WEF is pushing on us all. It is a variation of Italian fascism.

When it comes to the definitions of fascism, I'll bet if I did Google fascism, I would find hundreds of different definitions. Everyone seems to have their own version. Some think it just means racism. Others think it is anything a conservative says.

Progressives in the early 20th century didn't make much distinction between communism, fascism, nazism and socialism. Progressives celebrated them all. This is actual history that you can look up. They all thought that Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were the "men of the future".

I am not making any of that up and it is not revisionist history. It is actual history. Progressivism is Marxism. Marxism is the foundation of nazism, fascism and Marxist communism. Socialism predated Marx but every socialist today has been heavily influenced by Marx.

I know the two type of libertarians. I will never understand the left leaning libertarians because at the core of libertarianism is freedom. And with freedom comes the free market. You cannot have a free market without freedom. And let me stress, this is individual freedom, not Marx's collective freedom. This means that each individual is 100% responsible for their own lives and actions and the government plays no role in that whatsoever.

I've always thought the left leaning libertarians were only into libertarianism to legalize drugs.

When a leftist becomes a libertarian they have to understand that but I don't think they quite get it. Most leftists lump libertarians in with conservatives and call them fascists. Fascism is just not a label that applies to either conservative or libertarian. Not in any way, shape or form. Especially not in America. Maybe your Australian conservatives are different than American but American conservatives have as much in common with fascism as the night has with the day.

Most American conservatives when questioned would sound more like libertarians but they just don't know that.

"When you put it like that, you're right. I can't understand you. But that has everything to do with bad grammar and not what you are saying."

Maybe you may not be understanding the Aussie grammar.

"There is a new type that the WEF is pushing on us all. It is a variation of Italian fascism."

The WEF has nothing to do with fascism.

"When it comes to the definitions of fascism, I'll bet if I did Google fascism, I would find hundreds of different definitions. Everyone seems to have their own version. Some think it just means racism. Others think it is anything a conservative says."

Google is generally more left leaning so it won't show the definition you want, but the definition an average person would want.

"Progressives in the early 20th century didn't make much distinction between communism, fascism, nazism and socialism. Progressives celebrated them all. This is actual history that you can look up. They all thought that Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were the "men of the future"."

I doubt they celebrated Hitler or Mussolini but Stalin wasn't as violent as Hitler or Mussolini. But don't forget Mao was the key guy when China was communist.

"I am not making any of that up and it is not revisionist history. It is actual history. Progressivism is Marxism. Marxism is the foundation of nazism, fascism and Marxist communism. Socialism predated Marx but every socialist today has been heavily influenced by Marx."

Nazis were also anti-communist and communism is marxism in practice. Nazis were fascists too. Progressivism is more libertarian than any of the other ideologies you've mentioned in this point.

"I will never understand the left leaning libertarians because at the core of libertarianism is freedom."

Maybe learn about what the civil libertarians are saying. If you want to pick one side, you've gotta listen to both sides on what they say and decide based on which one is true and is more powerful. Lefties are powerful when they choose to, but conservatives are always powerful to the rube. But lefties can be more powerful than conservatives but don't want to always be powerful because there are new conspiracies coming out and it gets tiring to debunk these lies from conservatives.

"And with freedom comes the free market."

Only for business CEOs and executive people who make up 1% of the corporation. As for the workers I mean servants who work for these corporations, their jobs are literally dangerous. Wage theft, rise in assaults against workers for retail, road accidents for delivery drivers, health issues, and many other things. They're also the lowest paid workers in the entire work force and are working for big boss who isn't the manager. Even the manager can feel the empathy for the wage theft that they experience. Yeah managers can even experience wage theft.

But at the end of the day, workers who would work for these businesses for free market may do it for a sacrifice but also need to be looked after because their jobs are very dangerous. If blue collar workers get a good pay, why can't gig economy workers get paid well? There are many factors like the fact that many of the workers aren't qualified, but it also may be the only job they can get because they may not have done well in school.

So think again, work at a department store for a year and you can tell me your experiences of it whether you got looked after by your CEO as well as your average wage and other things.

"You cannot have a free market without freedom."

False, more people can get freedom if the economy is regulated. Some people cannot just get the things they want because it may be too hard for many factors such as what their parents jobs were like, where they lived, and others.

"And let me stress, this is individual freedom, not Marx's collective freedom. This means that each individual is 100% responsible for their own lives and actions and the government plays no role in that whatsoever."

And collectivism is better than individualism.

"I've always thought the left leaning libertarians were only into libertarianism to legalize drugs."

They could do.

"Maybe your Australian conservatives are different than American but American conservatives have as much in common with fascism as the night has with the day."

I'm not just saying this because I'm an Australian. You ask an average Democrat on this site, they'd say something similar.

"Most American conservatives when questioned would sound more like libertarians but they just don't know that."

Like what, ban on same sex marriage, abortions, immigration, the right to choose their own religion, etc. Even conservatives have forced people to be in military in some points in their lives.

"In the real world, the far right is the total absence of government. None. That is the extreme far right. And there are light years between the far left and the far right. About a half a step to the left of the extreme far right is the U.S. Constitution. It created a limited, virtually powerless, small federal government. It is a document from We The People to tell the government it's limits. Everything in the Constitution and the first 10 amendments is all about putting restrictions on the government and not the people. The laws created in Congress were to be minimal and mostly about further restricting the government, not the people. The only laws that affected the individual was laws that prevented one or a group of individuals from infringing the inalienable rights of another individual or group of people."

What's the difference between far-right and extreme far-right to me? Nothing. MAGAts may not be nazis, but nazis are still fascists but basically beyond just the standard form of fascism.

"The bulk of the laws were supposed to be created by the states and not the federal."

So you'd want the president to do not much? Then why have a United States of America if the states do 90%+ of their own laws. Australia was pretty much like this until 1901 (I'm only referring to once they've been colonised by the British).

"And that is how is was in America until the Marxist infestation over a century ago."

Well, America isn't the only country to do this. Get over it.

"The America right became the sole defenders of the US Constitution and for that the left calls us fascists."

The America right are also originalists and individualists, hence why they're fascists. Time's changing, we've gotta move on. There's nothing to conserve because it has pretty much all failed.

"We are light years away from fascism. We are the most anti-fascist people on the planet. We are also anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-Nazi. We are anti-authoritarianism. You want a government who tells you how to live your life, to wipe your butt for you and kiss you goodnight. You want to own nothing and try to call that happiness."

Anti-authoritarian? Sure you might be though since your economic views you told me were more libertarian than an average Trumpy guy's views, hence why Vivek Ramaswamy is good for your views but not mine.

But to add to this, fascists want to ban same-sex marriage, they want to ban abortions, they want to control the immigration policies to which they'd even want to cut the amount of legal immigrants, which would cause more illegal immigrants to come because they're not welcomed but need refuge anyway. They risk their lives just to migrate to the nearest wealthy country on their region (the Americas). Don't forget, fascists would want to cut spending on international defence but want to increase spending on domestic defence since they're not anti-war.

1. We do like free speech, but you guys don't like free speech from the left.
2. The Democrats haven't always been on the left, they were once upon a time a Conservative Party before the party switch.
3. Liberals are not controlling free speech. They're cracking down on hate speech which there is a difference between free speech and hate speech

https://theconversation.com/there-are-differences-between-free-speech-hate-speech-and-academic-freedom-and-they-matter-124764

1. That's true, we don't like free speech from the left and the left doesn't like free speech from the right. But the difference is the right isn't trying to silence the left.

2. Yes I know about the liberal vs conservative switch. It happened about a century ago when the Marxists wanted to brand themselves with the positive "liberal" moniker. Instead they ruined it. That's how the Libertarians came about. Both liberal and libertarian comes from the same root word as liberty. But these new Marxist liberals are the furthest thing from those who promote liberty. Conservatives, as the Marxists now call the the right, had to change the meaning of "conservative" to mean conserving the Constitution and the principals this nation was built on.

3. And just who is it that defined what is hate speech? Some hate speech is really obvious but that's not always the case. Canada, several years back labeled the Bible as hate speech. Everytime s conservative opens their mouth there is always a bunch of liberals yelling about that being hate speech.

But as much as hate speech, real hate speech, is detestable, it is still the right of the individual to say it. When you rationalize a limitation on an individual's right then it's not long before that entire right has been rationalized away. The fact that we have rights, which are given to us by our Creator and not by the government or any man or woman, is like fingernails on a chalkboard to the Marxist left. The Marxists do not believe in or support individual rights and liberties and they do not accept that there is any power higher than the state.

So while we may not like what some one else says, we just have to put up with it because one day your speech will be labeled as hate speech. And believe me, there is nothing more hateful than the Marxist liberal ideology. Anyone who runs around labeling people as haters just because they do not march 100% in lockstep with the left, does NOT believe in individual liberty nor to they believe in the ideals and principles this nation was founded on. The left used to rationalize their hatred by saying they were, "hating the hater". Hating the hater is still hate and it is the worst kind of hate. You 1st have to judge someone as a hater, and the majority of the time that judgement was false.

I, personally, do not hate people, I hate ideologies. Any ideology that takes freedom away from the individual in any form or in any amount, I hate that.

"Is that what you think the right is doing? There are actual actions being taken by Biden that have a direct negative impact on the economy. I can elaborate on them but I don't have all day. In fact all Democrats seem to be trying everything in their power to destroy the economy."

The economy was expected to have a negative impact from COVID, the Russian Invasion of Ukraine and lack of climate action from Donald Trump.

Biden's debt came because of the negative impact from the three factors I mentioned earlier, whereas Trump's debt came from things like tax cuts.

Biden actually created jobs and has delivered many economic policies for working families that haven't been overturned by the Supreme Kangaroo Court because they don't give a stuff about the economy. They (as in Conservatives and the SCOTUS) don't give a stuff about the economy because they just want to get angry and play the blame game on Biden.

"This is not just about not understanding the economy, it is a bigger issue."

Which conservatives don't understand about the economy. Because if they lower government spending, private consumption increases. And if private consumption cannot be controlled, then we see recessions. That's Keynesian Economics 101. Regulate the economy and we see less recessions.

While government spending should be high, it would easily be controlled (compared to private consumption).

"They are aiding and abetting the World Economic Forum in facilitating the great reset. Biden raised taxes and that always has a negative impact because people have less money. Biden is also printing money at a faster rate then they can destroy old currency. When there are more dollars in circulation each new dollar added to the total brings the value of each existing dollar down. We see this as inflation."

Raising taxes is a good thing, it just means that wages can grow and that would mean the economy would grow at a more controlled way.

"It is not that everyone just decided to raise the price of everything they sell, it is because the dollar is worth less so it takes more dollars to purchase stuff."

If the economy slows down because the government spending decreases, then a recession can occur. Which this would mean that inflation would come after the recession because unemployment would be significantly up.

If there is a low unemployment rate, inflation is higher, and vice versa.

TAX CUTS ARE NOT DEBT!!!!!!! TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!!!!

The people are not liable for the government irresponsibility. I don't vote for Democrats because they love finding new ways to steal our money and spend it on stuff I do not approve of. Why should I have to be burdened by Democrats complete lack of responsibility and stupidity????

If you think we aren't taxed enough, you do know that you can volunteer more of your income to the Federal Government. They won't stop you. So you go right ahead and give them until it hurts.

John Maynard Keynes was an idiot. He helped FDR prolong the great depression 10 years longer than it should have gone all because government spending was too high.

FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr said, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

That's Keynesianism. FDR was in direct contact with Keynes. He listened to Keynes economic advice.

If you want to study the economists who actually know what they are talking about then look up Adam Smith, Frederick Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. There are a lot other but that is a good start.

You cannot control the economy. Every attempt by the government to put controls on the economy has led to economic downturns, recessions and the Great Depression.

Taxation is theft. Raising taxes is just increasing the theft. Familiarize yourself with the broken window fallacy. Taxation is a broken window. Taxation never has a positive effect on the economy. You just cannot take money out of the economy and ever expect good results.

The economy slows down in direct response to the government trying to control the economy. It does not slow down because of a lack of spending. That is a myth.

What do you think of Modern Monetary Theory. If you haven't heard of it then look that up. MMT is the exact theory that Biden under the direction of the World Economic Forum is running the country on. This theory used to be laughed at. I would laugh at it now if it wasn't so scary.

"TAX CUTS ARE NOT DEBT!!!!!!! TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!!!!

The people are not liable for the government irresponsibility. I don't vote for Democrats because they love finding new ways to steal our money and spend it on stuff I do not approve of. Why should I have to be burdened by Democrats complete lack of responsibility and stupidity????"

The Democrats don't steal money, taxation is just purely the way the government can spend money on key areas that private businesses cannot do.

"If you think we aren't taxed enough, you do know that you can volunteer more of your income to the Federal Government. They won't stop you. So you go right ahead and give them until it hurts."

Compare the income tax rates in America to Australia to Scandinavia. America have some of the lowest tax rates in the world, yet you complain about the low tax rate. Try living in Scandinavia where they have really high taxes that serve the elderly, so they can live for free as their culture wouldn't vibe with superannuation unlike in Australia, where yes we do have higher tax rates than in the US, but as an Australian our tax rate isn't high enough.

In fact, Australia is getting their stage 3 tax cuts that the Albanese government are refusing to overturn. The stage 3 cuts basically benefit high-income earners with the changes to taxation rates.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/16/stage-three-tax-cuts-cost-blowout-predicted-with-the-wealthy-and-men-to-benefit-most

"John Maynard Keynes was an idiot. He helped FDR prolong the great depression 10 years longer than it should have gone all because government spending was too high."

False, the tremendous increase in federal spending during World War II (1941-45) definitively ended the Great Depression.

https://www.thecollector.com/economic-effects-of-the-great-depression/

"If you want to study the economists who actually know what they are talking about then look up Adam Smith, Frederick Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. There are a lot other but that is a good start."

These economists believed in the free market and the free market has failed us

https://time.com/5956255/free-market-is-dead/

"The Democrats don't steal money, taxation is just purely the way the government can spend money on key areas that private businesses cannot do."

And why can't private businesses do what the government can do? Because the government won't let them.

I don't know about Australia but in the US we have a law that a private business cannot compete with the Post Office. We have laws against a bank printing their own currency. There tons of laws that prevent businesses from doing the job the government is doing for much, much less and with better results.

We literally just do not need the government in our lives at all. They have nothing to offer us that we cannot do for ourselves. They have to pass laws just to make themselves appear to be relevant and necessary.

I am not an anarchist but I'm pretty close to that. I do believe in the original intent and purpose of the US Constitution. It provided a government that was not supposed to be involved in your personal matters at all. It didn't not interfere with businesses in any way. It was very small and powerless.

If the government is providing a service that only benefits some of the people then it is a service that is best left to the people to provide. Those who do not need or want those services still are being forced to pay for them. They get no return on their investment.

"Compare the income tax rates in America to Australia to Scandinavia. America have some of the lowest tax rates in the world, yet you complain about the low tax rate."

Until Trump, America had the high corporate tax rate in the world. But does it matter if our tax rates are high or low?

Let me put it this way. Slavery can be defined as having 100% of your labor taken from you. I know that is not the only definition but it is essentially what happens. You are forced to work and all of your work goes to benefit someone else. If that is the case then at what percentage point are you no longer a slave? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%? Are you no longer a slave if you are forced to give up 10% of your labor by force? Is it 1%. Now take this into consideration, those who owned slaves did not take 100% of the slave's labor. Part of their labor went to food, shelter and clothing.

Only at 0% taxation are you no longer a slave.

"I don't know about Australia but in the US we have a law that a private business cannot compete with the Post Office."

Have you heard of a private courier?

"We have laws against a bank printing their own currency. There tons of laws that prevent businesses from doing the job the government is doing for much, much less and with better results."

Money that isn't created by the government is illegal money because it would not be approved by the government as it would be inflationary.

"We literally just do not need the government in our lives at all. They have nothing to offer us that we cannot do for ourselves. They have to pass laws just to make themselves appear to be relevant and necessary."

Yet your policies lead toward unnecessary surveillance of one person's social life, from banning same-sex relationships, to banning islam, to even limiting women's movement. That's what fascists want.

"I am not an anarchist but I'm pretty close to that. I do believe in the original intent and purpose of the US Constitution. It provided a government that was not supposed to be involved in your personal matters at all. It didn't not interfere with businesses in any way. It was very small and powerless."

Isn't anarchism just a far-left ideology? Plus thank you for admitting that you're an authoritarian since you said that your ideology is close to the far-left anarchism. But yes, fascists are authoritarian.

"If the government is providing a service that only benefits some of the people then it is a service that is best left to the people to provide. Those who do not need or want those services still are being forced to pay for them. They get no return on their investment."

What about with commodity prices?

"Until Trump, America had the high corporate tax rate in the world. But does it matter if our tax rates are high or low?"

Until Trump was POTUS, America only had the highest corporate tax rate out of OECD countries of 39%.

But right now, the UAE has the highest corporate tax rate in the world of up to 55%. And they are ranked as one of the best countries in the world for business.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world

https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-6-countries-with-the-highest-corporate-tax-rates/

"Let me put it this way. Slavery can be defined as having 100% of your labor taken from you. I know that is not the only definition but it is essentially what happens. You are forced to work and all of your work goes to benefit someone else. If that is the case then at what percentage point are you no longer a slave? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%? Are you no longer a slave if you are forced to give up 10% of your labor by force? Is it 1%. Now take this into consideration, those who owned slaves did not take 100% of the slave's labor. Part of their labor went to food, shelter and clothing.

Only at 0% taxation are you no longer a slave."

Since did you care about slavery? The Republicans who abolished slavery was when they were liberals, before the party switch.

"Since did you care about slavery? The Republicans who abolished slavery was when they were liberals, before the party switch"

That is a myth. Liberalism, classic liberalism as defined by John Locke, is not found in the Democrat party in by any stretch of the imagination. Liberalism today the polar opposite of what the classical liberals were. They do not believe in individual liberty. Marxism is what modern liberalism is based on.

Conservatives have been greatly maligned by the left (who are absolutely obsessed with race). The last thing any conservative wants is people enslaved. It does not matter at all about a person's skin color, we do not want anyone enslaved.

To make it very obvious about who the American left really is, a movie was released in the theaters about a month ago. It was based on the attempts of a man named Tim Ballard and his organization, Operation Underground Railroad, to rescue children who had been kidnapped and sold into sex slavery (which by the way has grown larger than all of the slaves brought to North, Central and South America during the slave trade).

This is a movie one would expect everyone to get behind, regardless of political affiliation. But not so. The Democrats called it right wing propaganda and began a campaign of trashing the movie and now they are attacking Tim Ballard. Why? I don't know.

Human trafficking of children for sex is the most disgusting thing in the world right now. But the Dems are apparently opposed to any attempts to stop it or even put it in a bad light.

There was a switch of Democrats in the 50's and 60's to the Republican party but it had absolutely nothing to do with racism. There was a very scary issue happening during that time. The Cold War with the Soviet Union. People who were opposed to socialism, fascism, nazism and communism, who were Democrats woke up to find their party promoting all of that. Many of them remembered the Progressives great love for Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin from before WWII. They bolted from the Democrat party to the Republican party. The Democrats who had figured out that rather than lynching blacks they could manipulate them, took the opportunity to claim that those Democrats who became Republicans did so because they were racists. And that is why the left believes the right are all racists. And they won't even listen to us when we try to explain what I just said to you.

"That is a myth. Liberalism, classic liberalism as defined by John Locke, is not found in the Democrat party in by any stretch of the imagination. Liberalism today the polar opposite of what the classical liberals were. They do not believe in individual liberty. Marxism is what modern liberalism is based on."

Marxism is not modern liberalism, but it is communism in theory. Liberalism does believe in individual liberty unlike conservatism.

"Conservatives have been greatly maligned by the left (who are absolutely obsessed with race). The last thing any conservative wants is people enslaved. It does not matter at all about a person's skin color, we do not want anyone enslaved."

Conservatives were the ones that created slavery and even created segregation. That's the Democrats (after the party switch) that ended segregation, to which segregation was unconstitutional.

"Conservatives were the ones that created slavery and even created segregation. That's the Democrats (after the party switch) that ended segregation, to which segregation was unconstitutional."

Once again, another liberal Marxist trying to tell me what I think.

Here. Let me help you what that. The Democrats or traditional conservatives (as defined by Thomas Hobbs) were the ones who promoted (they did not create) slavery. Slavery has been around for about as long as mankind has been around. Everyone on the planet is a descendant of a slave and a slave owner if you go back far enough.

The Europeans learned about enslaving Africans from the Muslims. They had been (and still are) enslaving Africans for 500 years before Europeans got the idea. Then it was Africans who captured other Africans to sell to white slave merchants.

Technically speaking, there were no slaves prior to about 1650ish. Prior to a case brought before the English court to sue for ownership of a slave, everyone that came to the Colonies as servants were indentured servants. The difference is that indentured servants were not owned and some worked for a period of time and were set free. So even though Africans were brought here by force they were indentured servants. Most of them were indentured for life so there really wasn't any difference between a slave and an indentured servant.

That case to sue for ownership was brought to the English court by a black man, Anthony Johnson, who sue for ownership of an servant who had been indentured to another person but was on loan to Johnson. Johnson wanted to keep the servant as his property. He lost his first case but he tried again and that is when slavery started.

When the early 20th century Progressives (Marxists) began to push their ideology they wanted to appear to be the good guys and Americans knew (because we were much better educated back then) that liberalism was the positive ideology that this country was built on and what made us the freest nation to have ever existed. So they hijacked it and began to claim they were for individual liberty. It was a lie. They were for collective liberty. The claimed that it benefited the individual because the individual was free from having to make decisions about their lives. The collective (aka the oligarchy because a collective cannot think so they need central planners) would do all of the decision making for the individual.

"Here. Let me help you what that. The Democrats or traditional conservatives (as defined by Thomas Hobbs) were the ones who promoted (they did not create) slavery. Slavery has been around for about as long as mankind has been around. Everyone on the planet is a descendant of a slave and a slave owner if you go back far enough."

There was even slavery during the bible times too. But slavery was introduced by the Dems to America when they were actually conservative.

"When the early 20th century Progressives (Marxists) began to push their ideology they wanted to appear to be the good guys and Americans knew (because we were much better educated back then) that liberalism was the positive ideology that this country was built on and what made us the freest nation to have ever existed."

Just look at what is going on and the truth speaks for itself.

"So they hijacked it and began to claim they were for individual liberty. It was a lie. They were for collective liberty."

You keep blaming the left for what conservatives do.

It was when the early 20th century Progressive took the name "liberal" that this switch you have been talking about started. Left with no alternative those who were not Marxists were stuck with the moniker, "conservative". So we adapted it and changed it to mean that we are the ones trying to conserve our freedom because your side has no clue about what freedom means.

If you truly understood freedom then you wouldn't be for so many controls and regulations being put on people and businesses. This notion that you have to mix socialism with capitalism to make it better is just as idiotic as mixing dog crap into the brownie mix just because they are both brown. What you end up with is crap.

So to put things into better perspective, Democrats in the early part of American history fought to preserve slavery. Democrats since the early part of the 20th century are no fighting for a different kind of slavery. One where the people are enslaved to the government.

And recently they appear to be supporting sex slavery and pedophilia as well.

"It was when the early 20th century Progressive took the name "liberal" that this switch you have been talking about started. Left with no alternative those who were not Marxists were stuck with the moniker, "conservative". So we adapted it and changed it to mean that we are the ones trying to conserve our freedom because your side has no clue about what freedom means."

You must be confused. The Dems were centre-right, and the GOP were centre-left. Remember when Liz Cheney compared herself to Abraham Lincoln? That was ridiculous. She compared herself as a neocon (in other words not a liberal) to Abraham Lincoln (which he was a liberal if he was alive today).

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/cheney-no-lincoln/

"If you truly understood freedom then you wouldn't be for so many controls and regulations being put on people and businesses."

Regulations are there for health and safety reasons but ridiculous laws such as banning same-sex marriage is no regulation but is just pure authoritarianism and individualism.

"This notion that you have to mix socialism with capitalism to make it better is just as idiotic as mixing dog crap into the brownie mix just because they are both brown. What you end up with is crap."

You don't mix socialism with capitalism. There are different degrees of capitalism. There is free-market capitalism which is what you'd believe in and believe is the only capitalism. And there is regulated capitalism which is what I believe in.

"So to put things into better perspective, Democrats in the early part of American history fought to preserve slavery. Democrats since the early part of the 20th century are no fighting for a different kind of slavery. One where the people are enslaved to the government."

Because they were conservative.

"And recently they appear to be supporting sex slavery and pedophilia as well."

Supporting LGBTQ+ rights is not "sex slavery and pedophilia". In fact 82% of pedophiles are heterosexual

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/30/fact-check-lgbtq-community-rejects-false-association-pedophiles/5462805002/

"There was even slavery during the bible times too. But slavery was introduced by the Dems to America when they were actually conservative"

That's just not factually true. The Democrat party didn't exist until some time after the United States became a nation when the Constitution was ratified 1788. Slavery and indentured servitude existed over a century before that.

And it actually wasn't conservatives. It was everyone, liberal and conservative. And like I told you liberal and conservative in 1788 were the exact opposite of what they mean today.

If you're going to study American history you had better do a much better job because what you know is false.

"That's just not factually true. The Democrat party didn't exist until some time after the United States became a nation when the Constitution was ratified 1788. Slavery and indentured servitude existed over a century before that."

Slavery became law in 1776 through human chattel slavery. While there may have not been any presidents, Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, to which he abolished slavery through the 13th amendment.

https://libguides.fau.edu/primary-sources-slavery-abolition

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abraham-lincoln-elected-president

"And it actually wasn't conservatives. It was everyone, liberal and conservative. And like I told you liberal and conservative in 1788 were the exact opposite of what they mean today."

Because the culture was much different. However, the liberals were the ones who eventually abolished slavery. Just like with White Australia Policy. The Protectionist Party started it, the Australian Labor Party supported it and gradually phased it out, which they abolished WAP in 1973.

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/end-of-white-australia-policy

"Slavery became law in 1776 through human chattel slavery."

The United States didn't officially start until the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Slavery became English law in 1655, when Anthony Johnson sued to have ownership of John Casor and won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

1776 is just when the colonies declared their independence from England

"Because the culture was much different. However, the liberals were the ones who eventually abolished slavery."

The root of the word liberal is same as the root of the word liberty. It means freedom. Over the years many claim to stand for freedom, while other's resisted that freedom.

Classical liberalism was interested with maintaining the rights of all people to be free. The more free the better. No liberal in the Unites States today is pushing for individual liberty at all. They want strict government controls over the people and business.

Liberalism today is the furthest thing from liberty. The switch happened because people who wanted power and control over the individual (Marxists) wanted to sell a new kind of liberty, collective liberty. Freedom of the collective. The individual is stuck with the burden of living their lives for the collective and not for themselves.

These are toxic narcissists. Power hungry control freaks who will say or do anything get and keep that power.

And now we have an international cabel of tyranny in the World Economic Forum. Unfortunately this push to abolish freedom at the individual level. My president and your PM are both fully on board with this evil. They both want this evil Great Reset to actually happen. They want to end capitalism, which by it's very nature cannot work without a free people.

"The United States didn't officially start until the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Slavery became English law in 1655, when Anthony Johnson sued to have ownership of John Casor and won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

1776 is just when the colonies declared their independence from England"

Glad you found when slavery started. But it was expanded years later.

"The root of the word liberal is same as the root of the word liberty. It means freedom. Over the years many claim to stand for freedom, while other's resisted that freedom."

That was classical liberalism. Which is a failed ideology alongside with Laissez-faire. Just look at Hong Kong...

https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1851411/laissez-faire-policy-has-failed-hong-kong-many-ways

"No liberal in the Unites States today is pushing for individual liberty at all. They want strict government controls over the people and business."

That is completely false. Liberals believe in health and safety of people by doing regulations that are firm but kind. Vaccine mandates for example helped reduce COVID deaths not just because one got vaccinated but also, other wouldn't have had COVID spread as much, but to be fair COVID did spread faster under new variants than under Alpha and Delta strains. There would have been more deaths from COVID if vaccines didn't exist. Also, vaccines got us out of lockdowns, which you guys are completely anti-lockdown.

"Liberalism today is the furthest thing from liberty."

False, that's conservatism that is the furthest thing from liberty. They even want to ban same sex marriage, ban women's rights to choose whether they want to end their pregnancy or not, the right for the elderly to not suffer from diseases.

"The switch happened because people who wanted power and control over the individual (Marxists) wanted to sell a new kind of liberty, collective liberty. Freedom of the collective. The individual is stuck with the burden of living their lives for the collective and not for themselves."

Marxism is a very poor example for your argument. They're literally communism in theory, which is a minority fringe group of the left. Communism and liberalism is apples and oranges.

"These are toxic narcissists. Power hungry control freaks who will say or do anything get and keep that power."

Ironically, that's what conservatives want.

"And now we have an international cabel of tyranny in the World Economic Forum. Unfortunately this push to abolish freedom at the individual level. My president and your PM are both fully on board with this evil. They both want this evil Great Reset to actually happen. They want to end capitalism, which by it's very nature cannot work without a free people."

They don't want to end capitalism, but they do want to end free-market capitalism by regulating capitalism. But that's just common sense, because free-market capitalism has failed working families. They weren't able to get a fair share, which the only way they would survive is if they have a six figure job or if they can manage an inheritance from a family relative who had a six figure job years ago. Free market capitalism kept real wages frozen if we were lucky, but generally shrunk the real wages, especially during high inflationary periods from low unemployment.

I think this might be the last comment you made that has a reply link to it. So if you were planning on replying to this comment and you don't hear back from me it is because I cannot. They have taken all the reply links away.

"That was classical liberalism. Which is a failed ideology alongside with Laissez-faire. Just look at Hong Kong..."

Freedom doesn't fail. It is taken away by evil people. Laissez-faire is far better than government controlled markets and always has been. Basically, would you rather be ripped off by one guy one time or perpetually be ripped off by the government? If a business ripped you off because of a free market then you would never go back to them for repeat business. You most likely will tell your friends to stay away and when enough word got out that business would collapse because of their own stupidity.

But if the government enforces controls on all businesses based on the actions of one or two then that causes all businesses to hire more personnel to comply with those regulations to prevent them from doing something they never did in the first place. Now they have to either reduce production staff to pay for these overhead employees to try to main the price of their product (which lowers the quality) or they have to raise their prices to compensate for this additional cost.

In all cases the consumer, the individual suffers because now they are getting ripped off because of those government regulations. And they are getting ripped off by every business whom those regulations are imposed on.

The more regulations the lower the quality and/or higher the prices of their merchandise, if they can remain in business at all. We are seeing part of that now. Ever since COVID the grocery stores offer fewer products, are out of products and/or the quality of what they do have has gone down.

On top of that is the World Economic Forum telling all governments who have sworn fealty to them to follow a new economic theory called Modern Monetary Theory. MMT says that if a government needs money they should just print it. When this theory first reared it's ugly head economists laughed at it because it causes inflation.

This is why things are costing so much more in countries who are following this insane theory.

Hong Kong, since England lost the lease, has become increasingly controlled by the Chinese government. Quality has gone down.

"They don't want to end capitalism, but they do want to end free-market capitalism by regulating capitalism. But that's just common sense, because free-market capitalism has failed working families."

Stakeholder capitalism is NOT capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. Stakeholder capitalism is fascism. It is slightly different than Mussolini's fascism. Mussolini took control of all if the businesses but he let those who were running the business (and had all of the business experience) remain at the head of the business. But those businesses were heavily controlled by the government.

Stakeholder capitalism is government and businesses forming public/private partnerships. It is voluntary right now because there are an awful lot of people who have been indoctrinated by Marxism and they want to comply. For the rest the world's biggest lenders (i.e. BlackRock, Vangaurd, and a few others) are forcing businesses to comply with ESG standards. And how it works is if XYZ Corporation has suppliers who have a low ESG score then that will bring XYZ’s score down. So it cascades just in case 123 Corporation who supplies XYZ with the raw materials needed to make widgets does not want to comply with the imposed ESG standards. Because of that XYZ corporation will have to find another complying business to by the raw materials from. 123 Corporation will eventually be force to shut down unless they and all of the businesses they do business with comply.

This is how freedom is destroyed by this new 21st century fascism.

“They weren't able to get a fair share, which the only way they would survive is if they have a six figure job or if they can manage an inheritance from a family relative who had a six figure job years ago. Free market capitalism kept real wages frozen if we were lucky, but generally shrunk the real wages, especially during high inflationary periods from low unemployment.”

You clearly have no clue what free market economics is. But even worse you only have a textbook idea of what Marxism is and have never looked around to see what Marxism looks like in the real world. I use the term Marxism because describes socialism, fascism, communism and Nazism. Because all of them are either the brainchild or heavily influenced by Marx’s communism.

If you talk to an anarchist (anarcho-capitalists, not anarcho-communists), they will tell you that free market economics cannot exist when there is a government. While I agree 100% with that, a mostly free market can exist and it can deliver on raising the poor out of poverty as well as making the rich richer.

The more government intervention the less the effectiveness of accomplishing those two things. Simply put, you and I have never seen a truly free market. There was a time when the US market was the freest in the world. There was also a time after we began to lose freedom that Australia had the freest market. But neither of us can point to anything that has happened in our life time that was a direct result of free market capitalism. All we know is corporatism. Corporatism is the forerunner of fascism.

The reason why Marxism can never and has never accomplished the ambitions they promote is because it is total government control and the complete removal of private ownership. It robs the individual of all incentive to produce anything. It always has. As a result, it produces the worst poverty mankind has ever seen. Income inequality is seen at the worst levels under Marxism. Only those in control have all of the wealth and those who are not in control live at the whim of those in control.

"You cannot control the economy. Every attempt by the government to put controls on the economy has led to economic downturns, recessions and the Great Depression."

Like Obama's regulations to the economy has made the GFC worse? Actually, it ended the GFC.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-18/barack-obamas-economic-legacy-might-be-judged-well-by-history/8191220

"Taxation is theft. Raising taxes is just increasing the theft. Familiarize yourself with the broken window fallacy. Taxation is a broken window. Taxation never has a positive effect on the economy. You just cannot take money out of the economy and ever expect good results."

Real GDP growth has increased because Government spending goes up, but then private consumption is the highest contributor to the Aggregate Demand.

"What do you think of Modern Monetary Theory. If you haven't heard of it then look that up. MMT is the exact theory that Biden under the direction of the World Economic Forum is running the country on. This theory used to be laughed at. I would laugh at it now if it wasn't so scary."

The MMT got the economy to rebound faster than anyone had hoped

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/business/economy/modern-monetary-theory-stephanie-kelton.html

"This is very real. And this is what YOUR president is doing to our economy."

My president? I'm an Australian and my Prime Minister is Anthony Albanese. But as for you, since when did you believe Joe Biden was president since you claim that Trump "won" the election.

Well then. I didn't know that.

So when there are several videos taken of people running the same ballots through the ballot processing equipment and several videos of trucks showing up after the polls have closed then I am not allowed to say that I think our last election was rigged?

Because you are from Australia then you haven't watched Biden over the years. You have never wondered how people could be so stupid to keep sending this moron back to the senate election after election. The man is genuinely an idiot. The only thing he is really good at is graft. He went into office poor and now he is a multimillionaire. And the the 2020 election season comes up and now we find out that this moron (and I am not saying that just to insult the man, he really is a moron. He can't think his way out of a paper bag) has gone senile. And we're supposed to believe that a senile idiot got more votes than any other president in the history of this country????

We watched the election. We saw them, for the first time ever, stop counting ballots for about an hour. Then when they started counting again, magically Biden was ahead of Trump. And in some of the polling places Biden had the exact same number of votes that Trump had before they shut down.

So has your PM sworn fealty to the World Economic Forum, like the United States has? If so.... good luck with that. You're about to watch your economy collapse, just like we are.

False. We did NOT watch that happen.

Democracy died while you were asleep. That's why you didn't see it.

What Democracy?

The ability to vote and have your vote actually count. That democracy.

Trump failed trying to steal the vote.

"Trump failed trying to steal the vote."

Yes, he did fail. So riddle me this Moddaman, why are they trying to prosecute him if he failed to commit a crime.

You don't get prosecuted for failure, otherwise he would outlive God with all the time he'd have to serve,,,

"You don't get prosecuted for failure"

And yet, Trump is on trial for failing to get more votes in Georgia.

So if Trump was such a criminal, and committing crimes while serving in public office is bad then I'm sure you won't be voting for Biden. Because Biden's the biggest crook to have ever made it this far in public office.

Trying to steal an election is illegal even if you fail.
Asking for 11,780 fake votes is illegal even if you fail.

You're not getting it, aren't you. You're so focused on Trump failing to get the votes he asked for that you are missing the gross miscarriage of justice.

IF HE FAILED THEN HE DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. THEREFORE HE SHOULD NOT BE ON TRIAL FOR A CRIME THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT.

I yelled that just in case you didn't hear me. I know you don't care about justice, you just want to see Trump in jail. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter to you.

If you give the government the power to put innocent people in jail then what will you do when they put you in jail?

Again. See if you can follow:
People. are. not. prosecuted. only. if. thy. succeed. in. completing. the. crime.
That's ridiculous.

hahaha, did you say "Trump in jail"? Seriously?
You need to pay more attention. Trump doesn't go to jail. Ever. His charged accomplices do. They're already named and set to go in all his indictments, as it Trump's standard "Too stupid and old to know what he was doing when he did what he was doing" defense.

"Again. See if you can follow:
People. are. not. prosecuted. only. if. thy. succeed. in. completing. the. crime.
That's ridiculous."

All I have to say to you is "fiat currency".

What Modda said is what I'd say

What does it matter to you. You're an Aussie. You only get the filtered and sanitized news from the US in Australia. So all you know is what Modda said. What you don't know is all of the stuff you will never hear in the sanitized news.

There was actual voter fraud and it was massive. And the people behind it are not Americans. They are from a global organization that will affect you as well. The World Economic Forum. They are the ones who have all of the leaders of the free world (such as Australia and the US) in their control. If you have ever heard any of your politicians at any time use the phrase, "Build back better" then they are controlled by the WEF. If you hear of anyone promoting smart cities, they are controlled by the WEF.

What is the goal of the WEF? A new 21st century global fascist regime. They their plans behind COVID and climate change. They may or may not be behind the COVID-19 virus. I am not saying that. But the controls that all governments have put their citizens through in the world came from the WEF. Climate change (whatever that is supposed to mean) is a tool. It matters not if it is real or not, it is a tool being used by the WEF to control the world. To impose restrictions on people much like what China and North Korea does to their people. They do not want to destroy nations, just their economies. They want nations retain their borders and their identities, they just want to be the one who controls those nations.

Their great reset is already happening.

"What does it matter to you. You're an Aussie. You only get the filtered and sanitized news from the US in Australia. So all you know is what Modda said. What you don't know is all of the stuff you will never hear in the sanitized news."

Says you who relies on far-right media that misinforms your thinking. MSM actually publishes their articles online readily, much more easy to see on Google than far-right propaganda from sites like Breitbart, Newsmax or Infowars.

"There was actual voter fraud and it was massive. And the people behind it are not Americans. They are from a global organization that will affect you as well. The World Economic Forum. They are the ones who have all of the leaders of the free world (such as Australia and the US) in their control. If you have ever heard any of your politicians at any time use the phrase, "Build back better" then they are controlled by the WEF. If you hear of anyone promoting smart cities, they are controlled by the WEF."

Rubbish! Trump lost, get over it. Even DeSantis believes that Trump lost the election...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/04/desantis-2020-trump-election-fraud/

"Their great reset is already happening."

Rubbish!

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-wef-reset-idUSL1N2ZS0WD

"Says you who relies on far-right media that misinforms your thinking."

That's your uninformed opinion. Stop trying to stereotype people on the right. I do NOT watch Fox News, I did not read Breitbart, Newsmax and especially Infowars. Alex Jones is scary.

Try searching for anything pro-conservative (and by pro-conservative I mean ideas like smaller government, liberty, the Constitution, lowering taxes, eliminating regulation, stop out of control spending, stop printing money, how rotten a president Biden is and devaluing the dollar. Stuff like that) on Google and count how many pages you have to go through before you find an article that is actually "pro" and not "con". Google has weighted their searches to be pro-liberal. They hide all of the pro-conservative articles several pages in if they have any at all.

"Rubbish! Trump lost, get over it. Even DeSantis believes that Trump lost the election..."

I DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUMP!!!!! I honestly wish he would back out of the 2024 presidential race. I supposed it really doesn't matter but I have not seen the level of pure hatred of any Republican president from the left as I have seen in them with Trump. They hate Trump with more passion than the KKK hates black people, than the Nazis hated Jews. I am actually surprised there hasn't been attempts on his life, even after his term in office was over.

Trump was just an average president. He didn't do much of anything that impressed me. We had a much better (pre-COVID) economy under Trump than Obama or Biden but that had less to do with Trump and more to do with Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election.

I don't care if DeSantis believe Trump lost the election.

None of that is the point. I want an honest and fair election and what I saw happen in the 2020 election was pure evil. It was the greatest travesty this nation has ever seen. To me it does not matter if Trump lost as long as he lost by the true voice of the people and not because of an attempt to steal the election. It is the election process I am concerned about, NOT TRUMP.

I want to see Vivek Ramaswamy become our next president. But that won't happen because the only presidential candidate to come of the Republican party and become president that I truly liked was Reagan. All of the other good to great people who have ran never were nominated in the primaries. Vivek will be just another Republican casualty because Trump has it all sewn up to be the next president.

I'm glad you find Trump average. I'd personally think he's worse than average, in fact one of the worst presidents in America's history. I care that DeSantis believes that Trump lost the election because many of your party's supporters still believe that Trump "won" the election.

I'm actually interested that you support someone else besides Trump or DeSantis (that you support Vivek Ramaswamy). What do you know about Ramaswamy?

1. Here's a fact: the left don't always "censor" the right, but the right always censor the left. Just compare politicsTOO and Real_Politics. politicsTOO actually allows MAGAts to comment on the images providing it abides by ToS, but anyone left of centre or not faithful towards fascism or similar ideologies get ban hammered by Real_Politics for one word they say.

2. That case where someone referenced the bible as hate speech was done once with David Popescu being convicted for telling people at a high school that "homosexuals should be executed". Of course Popescu should be convicted of that. It's literally textbook homophobia. Even the bible says that you shall not murder. And the death penalty is murder

3. Your final statement you said is ironically what the Republican Party do: they take people's rights away, like they want to restrict LGBTQ movement, abortion rights, immigrants' rights, any rights except for the free market.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180323155255/http://www.thesudburystar.com/2009/08/08/popescu-guilty-of-promoting-hatred

"Here's a fact: the left don't always "censor" the right, but the right always censor the left."

And how exactly does the right censor the left? By disagreeing with the left? Is that what you call censorship. The left (and it is the far left) controls the media, both news and entertainment, they control the schools and universities and they control social media. In 2020 they took complete control over the election. So how it is the conservatives even have a place to censor leftists. Fox News has even turned left biased. The ONLY thing conservatives have is AM radio (the suckiest of the 2 public broadcasting bands).

I never go on politicsTOO. I mean, I have been there but only twice. I've been on Real_Politics but I just thought it was either like Politics (where liberal memes go to die because no one likes them) or there were no liberals there.

I just read that Norway also recently labeled the Bible hate speech. I don't know who David Popescu is but why take his problems out on the Bible? His problems are his and that doesn't mean that the Bible or all of Christendom is "homophobic". God loves all of his children, even homosexuals. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but it also says lying, adultery, fornication, lust, greed, envy and a whole slew of other sins. Which means that all of us are sinners but God love us anyway.

What rights do Republicans want to take away from LGBT people? What rights does any of them have that the rest of society does not have. If they have a right that I don't then perhaps that is not a right but a privilege. Do you know the difference?

Abortion is not a right, nor has it ever been. Roe v Wade was bogus on all counts. It was a contrived case that was planned by specifically adding words that had nothing to with previous cases so that when the right case came along all of the sudden they could springboard off of those other two cases. The Supreme Court was never put in place to make law. Roe v Wade created law and invented a right to privacy and stretched that right beyond all reason to mean murdering human life. And in case you forgot the Declaration of Independence already covered the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As much as you really want to dehumanize a human life in the womb, it is still human life. And don't give me special cases that account for maybe 1% of all abortions, the vast majority of abortions are performed because the baby is inconvenient.

"And how exactly does the right censor the left? By disagreeing with the left? Is that what you call censorship."

No, they literally ban lefties from having a say because they fear the truth.

"The left (and it is the far left) controls the media, both news and entertainment, they control the schools and universities and they control social media."

Social media is still very much more right leaning. In fact Elon Musk the owner of X (formerly Twitter) has banned many left wing accounts for no reason besides labelling them as "trolls" when in fact its the far-right that stalk leftists (not all of them).

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-chad-loder-twitter-b2271556.html

"In 2020 they took complete control over the election."

No they didn't. People didn't want Trump anymore and never wanted Trump. Trump only won because Hillary Clinton wasn't popular enough in the smaller states or something.

"So how it is the conservatives even have a place to censor leftists."

They still have social media.

"Fox News has even turned left biased."

No, they only just sacked (fired) Tucker Carlson because they were forced to sack (fired) him.

"The ONLY thing conservatives have is AM radio (the suckiest of the 2 public broadcasting bands)."

There's still so many niche far-right news outlets. Just google "democrat wears abortion pin news" and you'll find LifeNews.com, The Washington Times (editorials/opinions only), The Blaze, The People's Voice, The Western Journal,

If you don't have time to google the key terms, I've done it for you and have found you your propaganda sources you probably have never heard of...

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/02/08/democrats-wear-love-abortion-pins-showing-how-much-they-love-killing-babies/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/10/unrestrained-ghastliness-lawmakers-abortion-pins/

https://www.theblaze.com/news/democratic-lawmakers-don-abortion-pins

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/democratic-senator-wears-abortion-pin-to-sotu-address/

https://www.westernjournal.com/democratic-senator-wears-creepy-pin-bidens-state-union-see/

"No, they literally ban lefties from having a say because they fear the truth."

Where? Who? I don't fear the truth, I just have never seen any truth coming from the left and it is only getting worse for the left. Your mainstream media flat out lies about anything political. All you need to do is look it up online to see they are lying. You just have to know who to watch out for when you do an online search. Google purposely buries the true on about page 100 or so. Snopes, FactCheck, etc are all left biased. So heavily biased they also lie their butts off.

"Social media is still very much more right leaning.."

Are you serious? How can any rational thinking person every make a statement like that? Are you one of those leftists who thinks the Democrat party is too far to the right? Those people frighten me.

Twitter (post Elon Musk) is not all of social media. Facebook, YouTube, Google, ImgFlip all heavily skew left. Twitter (pre Elon Musk) was so horrible that the even kicked the president of the United States of America off because he was in the wrong party.

"There's still so many niche far-right news outlets."

So the goal is to silence all right wing news outlets and THEN there won't be any censorship???? Do you even know what the word "censor" means? None of those news outlets are mainstream. A lot of conservatives haven't even heard of some of them. The closest to anything mainstream is the Washington Times.

"No, they only just sacked (fired) Tucker Carlson because they were forced to sack (fired) him."

I wasn't talking about Tucker Carlson. This leftward shift at Fox News has been going on for more than a decade. It predates Carlson.

"Where? Who? I don't fear the truth, I just have never seen any truth coming from the left and it is only getting worse for the left. Your mainstream media flat out lies about anything political. All you need to do is look it up online to see they are lying. You just have to know who to watch out for when you do an online search. Google purposely buries the true on about page 100 or so. Snopes, FactCheck, etc are all left biased. So heavily biased they also lie their butts off."

You might be saying that lefties are lying to me but in your mind, your mind is saying I know the lefties are telling the truth but since I lie, I gotta blama da lefties for their bad.

MSM in America are nowhere near as obsessed with politics as when Fox News had Tucker Carlson. But nowadays, Infowars has to be more obsessed with politics than MSM.

And these fact checkers at very most are centre-left but I'd say they're centrist. There has been many cases that many leftists, even Joe Biden has had failed fact checks, and even USA_Patriot76 pointed out that Biden had failed fact checks...

imgflip.com/i/77p7mk

"Are you serious? How can any rational thinking person every make a statement like that? Are you one of those leftists who thinks the Democrat party is too far to the right? Those people frighten me."

No, I'm saying that there has been massive spikes in Far-Right users being followed in mass. I'm a progressive but give more of a stuff about Australian politics than American politics. I'm interested in American politics for the site's sake and because America is a great ally of Australia.

I don't believe the Democrats are too much to the right, they're currently centre-left or centrist by Australian standards but I'd see 'em as a centre-left party. If Biden is no longer the president or is no longer leader and people like AOC step up, the Dems will become more progressive and I'd be glad for them to do so because leadership is kinda weak but nowhere near as bad as in Australia.

"Twitter (post Elon Musk) is not all of social media."

Yes it is. But it's now called X.

"Facebook, YouTube, Google, ImgFlip all heavily skew left."

Which Google is the only one leaning left because it doesn't have specific users that post content on it because its not social media, its a search engine. Facebook is right leaning because of its anti-vax posts it gets. YouTube is right leaning because there is so much conservative content I get even though I barely look on YouTube Shorts. Imgflip is borderline far-right because a handful of users are liberals. The politics stream is full of conservatives like you and the top images are all conservative memes.

PoliticsTOO is so much quieter than the politics stream that I can even scroll and comment on a weeks worth of memes in about idk, 2 hours. Whereas, I can barely go through a day's worth of politics stream memes in 2 hours.

"Twitter (pre Elon Musk) was so horrible that the even kicked the president of the United States of America off because he was in the wrong party."

No, he was kicked out because he incited violence. But X (was Twitter at the time) was the only sensible social network before Musk took over (and it wasn't even liberal back then).

Trump posted everyday on X and before his presidency was over, he was banned as I mentioned to you the reason earlier which I hope I don't need to remind you. If Trump was banned for being in the "wrong" party, then he woulda been banned instantly when he became POTUS. Which that would have been against the first amendment. And don't get me started on the difference between free speech and hate speech.

"Which Google is the only one leaning left"

Google something like Tucker Carlson and Jan 6th, for example. I haven't tried it but I'll bet the entire first page articles about why Carlson was wrong. Then Google something about Joe Biden as climate change and you'll find everything you are looking for right on the first page.

Google's algorithms make it hard to find conservative content. Oh you can find articles about things conservatives are searching for but those articles come from left wing journalists.

It doesn't matter if you log into you Google account our not. Google hides conservative content.

"Facebook is right leaning because of its anti-vax posts it gets."

What? Facebook was throwing people in "Facebook Jail" if they ever posted anything that slightly deviated from the narrative when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine. I even got slammed once when I posted an article from the CDC because it wasn't from WHO.

Now that everyone knows that the vaccine was an utter waste of time, Facebook has lightened up now. Don't forget, we were told repeatedly that if you took the vaccine you would NOT get COVID. I took the vaccine and I got COVID. If I had said that exact sentence on Facebook a year prior I would have been shut down.

"YouTube is right leaning because there is so much conservative content I get even though I barely look on YouTube Shorts."

Your logic is so completely messed up. Just because you can find conservative content on YouTube, Facebook or any other DOES NOT MEAN IT IS RIGHT WING BIASED. When YouTube goes off the rails is when they remove content from PragerU because their fact based videos about U.S. history "violates their community standards". Or when Steven Crowder has to sue them multiple times to stop them from deplatforming him. Or when Glenn Beck cannot even say the title of a book he wrote without the threat of being deplatformed. The book is "The Great Reset: The Rise of 21st Century Fascism". The book is about how the left is swearing fealty to the World Economic Forum and their push to bring about a global fascists regime.

I know you want the complete silencing of all conservative thought but you do not have that right or privilege. The fact that we can get our voice out, although a strained voice, out on social media DOES NOT means that social media is right winged.

"Trump posted everyday on X and before his presidency was over"

Yes, I know that. Why are you justifying him being banned? It was wrong

"Google something like Tucker Carlson and Jan 6th, for example. I haven't tried it but I'll bet the entire first page articles about why Carlson was wrong. Then Google something about Joe Biden as climate change and you'll find everything you are looking for right on the first page.

Google's algorithms make it hard to find conservative content. Oh you can find articles about things conservatives are searching for but those articles come from left wing journalists.

It doesn't matter if you log into you Google account our not. Google hides conservative content."

Before the main articles came out, I remember all there was when Ed Markey wore his abortion pin was conservative news outlet I've mentioned before.

"What? Facebook was throwing people in "Facebook Jail" if they ever posted anything that slightly deviated from the narrative when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine. I even got slammed once when I posted an article from the CDC because it wasn't from WHO."

Those people were just the unlucky ones like Craig Kelly in Australia.

"Now that everyone knows that the vaccine was an utter waste of time,"

No it wasn't. It got us out of lockdown in my state in Australia. And you guys don't like lockdowns either. I get it but once vaccines came out, lockdowns became useless because COVID was spiralling no matter what.

"Facebook has lightened up now. Don't forget, we were told repeatedly that if you took the vaccine you would NOT get COVID. I took the vaccine and I got COVID. If I had said that exact sentence on Facebook a year prior I would have been shut down."

Whether you had the vaccine or not, you woulda got COVID no matter what. It's the new variants of COVID-19 that's making it easier to get COVID. But again, the symptoms aren't as severe with the current variants as like Alpha and Delta strains.

"Your logic is so completely messed up. Just because you can find conservative content on YouTube, Facebook or any other DOES NOT MEAN IT IS RIGHT WING BIASED. When YouTube goes off the rails is when they remove content from PragerU because their fact based videos about U.S. history "violates their community standards". Or when Steven Crowder has to sue them multiple times to stop them from deplatforming him. Or when Glenn Beck cannot even say the title of a book he wrote without the threat of being deplatformed. The book is "The Great Reset: The Rise of 21st Century Fascism". The book is about how the left is swearing fealty to the World Economic Forum and their push to bring about a global fascists regime."

Again, these are unlucky high profile guys who post. But anyone much lower profile would have their content staying. I even saw a Steven Crowder video made by a YouTube Shorts guy and I'm pretty sure I've seen a comment on it a few months prior to seeing it.

Also, with Sky News Australia which is notoriously known for misinformation (I agree with that statement), they only had one video removed from its YouTueb channel and that's when it went beyond the guidelines.

YouTube and other social networks pick their battles, and they only delete when its convenient. But again, some users just get really unlucky.

"I know you want the complete silencing of all conservative thought but you do not have that right or privilege. The fact that we can get our voice out, although a strained voice, out on social media DOES NOT means that social media is right winged."

You're just assuming that just because I'm left wing. I don't want all conservative information gone, I just want all hate speech gone. When conservatives don't discriminate, I don't give a stuff about what info gets deleted. But I pick my battles.

"Yes, I know that. Why are you justifying him being banned? It was wrong"

So you want incitement of violence to stay on X?

"I just read that Norway also recently labeled the Bible hate speech."

You told me about Canada two weeks ago, but I just noticed that you said "also" on your later comment.

To answer about Norway, you might be referring about when Norway outlawed hate speech against transgender people even in private property, which that law came into effect nearly 3 years ago.

But since then, Norway have gotten a lot more to the right, with the current polls suggesting that Norway's centre-right party is the most popular party.

https://www.reuters.com/article/norway-lgbt-lawmaking-idUSKBN2852DL
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/norway/

"I don't know who David Popescu is but why take his problems out on the Bible?"

I wouldn't take the problems on the bible, he's just a bad apple.

"His problems are his and that doesn't mean that the Bible or all of Christendom is "homophobic"."

Well its the interpretation of the bible that is homophobic, not the bible itself.

"God loves all of his children, even homosexuals. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but it also says lying, adultery, fornication, lust, greed, envy and a whole slew of other sins. Which means that all of us are sinners but God love us anyway."

So why don't conservatives love gay people if they lie, get addicted to p0rn in the bible belt, etc...

imgflip.com/i/7w8qez

"What rights do Republicans want to take away from LGBT people?"

For starters the Don't Say Gay Bill has restricted kids from being educated on LGBTQ rights. Also, the Respect for Marriage Act only had support from 47 out of 213 Republicans. That's over 75% of Republicans voting against same-sex marriage, which about a quarter of Republicans would have crossed the floor. That's only one example.

Also in North Carolina, the Republicans have banned gender-affirming surgeries just within the last month.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/16/1123159780/same-sex-marriage-respect-for-marriage-act-congress-senate

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/democrats-house-control-fragile.html

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-health-care-veto-override-north-carolina-536351cc360a92cdd21f298f6212e6d2

"To answer about Norway, you might be referring about when Norway outlawed hate speech against transgender people even in private property, which that law came into effect nearly 3 years ago."

I just found out about it recently.

"But since then, Norway have gotten a lot more to the right, with the current polls suggesting that Norway's centre-right party is the most popular party."

The only reason for any type of rightward movement is because they had moved so far to the left that it was hurting Norway's economy. They still are a far cry from being called anything close to right-wing. When you push towards socialism, you end up destroying the economy. Socialism and all other variations of statism never work.

"Well its the interpretation of the bible that is homophobic, not the bible itself."

It is not a matter of interpretation. The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. It is a sin. Who decides what is hate speech? The Bible is a road map to follow to find your way back to God. If you choose not to follow it or parts of it, then that is your right. Why is that hate speech?

What rights have been taken away from LGBT people?

"For starters the Don't Say Gay Bill has restricted kids from being educated on LGBTQ rights."

That bill in Florida was never about preventing people from saying the word "gay" in schools or anything like that. That bill was about keeping pornography OUT of schools. This is not about being educated about LGBT rights, this is about teaching 3rd graders how to masturbate and do other things that most parents would object to having their children subjected to.

The school has absolutely no right, whatsoever, to provide that kind of information to kids. If you want to totally screw up your own kids, then you do that at home. You have no right to force that on schools. Schools were created to learn the basics that will help them in their adult life.

Good for North Carolina. All states should follow NC's lead and ban life altering procedures on minors. Only adults should make those kinds of decisions about their lives and only after at least a year of counseling.

If little 7 year old Johnny says he wants to be a girl, in 99.999% of the time, once puberty hits, ALL of those thoughts go out the window. But if you jack little Johnny up on puberty blockers and surgery, then little Janey is going to hate herself and probably end up committing suicide. The left is pushing this is because they hate people.

"The only reason for any type of rightward movement is because they had moved so far to the left that it was hurting Norway's economy. They still are a far cry from being called anything close to right-wing. When you push towards socialism, you end up destroying the economy. Socialism and all other variations of statism never work."

No its because of the conspiracy theories that get people to the right, not what the left do.

"Well its the interpretation of the bible that is homophobic, not the bible itself."

"It is not a matter of interpretation. The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. It is a sin."

In the old covenant it was a sin, but yes the new testament mentioned about us Christians not supposed to be gay, but I'm wondering if any bible verses say that this rule is still in place in the new covenant.

But at the end of the day, whether it is still a sin or not to be gay, I might not be gay myself as a Christian, but I cannot force someone not to be gay because it is simply a human right for someone to have a right to be married to anyone regardless of their sex.

"Who decides what is hate speech?"

The definition tells itself what is hate speech. But hate speech according to the Oxford Dictionary is that Hate Speech is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

"The Bible is a road map to follow to find your way back to God. If you choose not to follow it or parts of it, then that is your right."

No, but at the end of the day, while it is great for our dear brothers and sisters to end up having a relationship with God, we cannot force everyone to be Christian or they burn in hell. I'm not saying Christianity is a religion in what I'm saying next but I can tell you that even the strictest of all strictest religions which Christianity is labelled as a "religion" that religions such as Islam I've been told that they don't force people to follow their religion or they burn in their version of hell.

"Why is that hate speech?"

What was hate speech?

"What rights have been taken away from LGBT people?"

I have told you in other comments.

"No its because of the conspiracy theories that get people to the right, not what the left do."

That is insanity. Conspiracy theories have absolutely nothing to do with bad economic policy. Why is it all of the sudden a conspiracy theory when I mentioned socialism in Norway, yet ever liberal socialist always points to all of the Scandinavian countries when they try to show us how socialism works. Several years back the president of Sweden admitted that socialism nearly killed their country. They had to move to a more market based economy or they would have collapsed.

"In the old covenant it was a sin, but yes the new testament mentioned about us Christians not supposed to be gay, but I'm wondering if any bible verses say that this rule is still in place in the new covenant."

Paul lays out the sins the Roman Christians were doing an among them was homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27.

"The definition tells itself what is hate speech. But hate speech according to the Oxford Dictionary is that Hate Speech is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds."

Okay but then why is that definition strictly adhered to? Why is it that definition of hate speech in practice is much more far reaching? And in all actuality why aren't there constitutional challenges to all hate speech legislation? The 1st amendment is protection of speech that we don't like.

Hate crime legislation is a clear violation of free speech. You are free to say what you want but you do not have the right to be heard. No one has to listen to your hateful rhetoric.

"we cannot force everyone to be Christian"

I never said we can. Christ's teachings are at the individual level. They are for you to choose to follow. No one else makes that decision for you.

The Bible warns people about hell but Paul speaks a lot about grace.

"Islam I've been told that they don't force people to follow their religion"

There is Islam and there is Sharia law. Sharia law came after Islam but is practiced by nearly all Muslims. Sharia IS force. They intend to force you to believe or be killed.

Even without Sharia, the Quran is pretty explicit in its commandment to kill the unbeliever, even if you do not want to kill the unbeliever. With Jews and Christians (the people of the book) Muslims are given an option. Muslims can either kill them or tax them. But then it also tells Muslims to kill all Jews.

"That is insanity. Conspiracy theories have absolutely nothing to do with bad economic policy."

No it's not that conspiracies that have got to do with what you call "bad economic policy", it's just that people are attacking the leadership for no reason just to create a political football.

"Why is it all of the sudden a conspiracy theory when I mentioned socialism in Norway, yet ever liberal socialist always points to all of the Scandinavian countries when they try to show us how socialism works."

30% of Norwegians in the polls support the centre-right party. Most Scandinavian country has a conservative government. Just look at Sweden.

"Several years back the president of Sweden admitted that socialism nearly killed their country. They had to move to a more market based economy or they would have collapsed."

Because they have a far-right government lying to the people of Sweden.

"Paul lays out the sins the Roman Christians were doing an among them was homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27."

Okay, since Paul's tour to Rome has depicted that the new covenant shows that same-sex relationships are sinful. However, this is talking about gay sex. But either way, gay sex is one part of having a same sex relationship, and most people have sex before marriage (besides true Christians ofc). Which even fornification is sinful.

That is actually a good point made. This means that even though it is a sin for people to have a gay relationship, it would have meant that I would personally not be gay myself. But it's none of my business to stop people from falling in love.

This might fall under conversion therapy, but I'm not gay myself but I'm more heterosexual myself.

"Okay but then why is that definition strictly adhered to?"

It's not strictly adhered to in Australia but I cannot comment about what Americans think about hate speech, for I have never been in America.

"Why is it that definition of hate speech in practice is much more far reaching? And in all actuality why aren't there constitutional challenges to all hate speech legislation? The 1st amendment is protection of speech that we don't like."

Then the first amendment should be amended to include hate speech.

"Hate crime legislation is a clear violation of free speech. You are free to say what you want but you do not have the right to be heard. No one has to listen to your hateful rhetoric."

Of course I don't have to take on conservative's hateful rhetoric, I'd in fact call it out as a sign of respect.

"I never said we can. Christ's teachings are at the individual level. They are for you to choose to follow. No one else makes that decision for you."

I know that, but why force people to not be gay just because it is sinful to God's eyes?

"There is Islam and there is Sharia law. Sharia law came after Islam but is practiced by nearly all Muslims. Sharia IS force. They intend to force you to believe or be killed."

Sharia Law is only done by Muslim Extremists, and if you say that all muslims believe in such extremism, it may as well be islamophobia.

"Even without Sharia, the Quran is pretty explicit in its commandment to kill the unbeliever, even if you do not want to kill the unbeliever. With Jews and Christians (the people of the book) Muslims are given an option. Muslims can either kill them or tax them. But then it also tells Muslims to kill all Jews."

The Quran specifically prohibits the killing of innocent people. Chapter 5, verse 32 of the Quran states, "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person -- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/etc/faqs.html

"No it's not that conspiracies that have got to do with what you call "bad economic policy", it's just that people are attacking the leadership for no reason just to create a political football."

Is that what you think the right is doing? There are actual actions being taken by Biden that have a direct negative impact on the economy. I can elaborate on them but I don't have all day. In fact all Democrats seem to be trying everything in their power to destroy the economy. This is not just about not understanding the economy, it is a bigger issue. They are aiding and abetting the World Economic Forum in facilitating the great reset. Biden raised taxes and that always has a negative impact because people have less money. Biden is also printing money at a faster rate then they can destroy old currency. When there are more dollars in circulation each new dollar added to the total brings the value of each existing dollar down. We see this as inflation. It is not that everyone just decided to raise the price of everything they sell, it is because the dollar is worth less so it takes more dollars to purchase stuff.

Businesses operate on the value of currency, not the currency itself. If the value of a Widget is set to value that $1.00 represents in 2020 then in 2023 the value of that Widget remains the same but the value that the dollar represents is now 75 cents. It is going to take $1.25 to buy that Widget.

This is very real. And this is what YOUR president is doing to our economy.

"That bill in Florida was never about preventing people from saying the word "gay" in schools or anything like that."

It's not to do with saying the word "gay", it's to do with teaching kids about LGBTQ rights

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-actually-says-rcna19929

"That bill was about keeping pornography OUT of schools. This is not about being educated about LGBT rights, this is about teaching 3rd graders how to masturbate and do other things that most parents would object to having their children subjected to."

1. LGBTQ rights is not "p0rnography"
2. "P0rnography" being taught in schools is literally illegal everywhere in America. It's basically pedophilia. My first point overrides your possible next point to say "Oh education on LGBTQ rights is p0rnography because I don't know, my television told me to say it".

"The school has absolutely no right, whatsoever, to provide that kind of information to kids. If you want to totally screw up your own kids, then you do that at home."

It's not screwing up kids' lives, it's getting them to be aware of the LGBTQ community which is whether you like it or not social skills. Why social skills? Because it teaches them to be respectful and for them to not discriminate which the bible literally tells us not to discriminate.

Mark 12:31 says that "The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”

What you're gonna tell me is that "that's gonna just do with loving God first, others second, and yourself last." That's part of it. Loving others second includes loving the LGBTQ community which discrimination is certainly no love or respect.

"You have no right to force that on schools."

It's not a matter of force. Many students reject what they learn because they believe it isn't relevant for real life, which some conservative students would probably think that for teaching the LGBTQ rights. Hence one reason that is not to do with homophobia is that Meatball Ron might think it is "useless" for students.

"Schools were created to learn the basics that will help them in their adult life."

Learning LGBTQ rights is basic. I don't know all of the 76+ genders and that should be basic for everyone. But everyone except fascist agree that there are way more than two genders. And don't get me started on what Genesis 1:27 says.

"Good for North Carolina. All states should follow NC's lead and ban life altering procedures on minors. Only adults should make those kinds of decisions about their lives and only after at least a year of counseling."

That is very disparaging from you.

"If little 7 year old Johnny says he wants to be a girl, in 99.999% of the time, once puberty hits, ALL of those thoughts go out the window. But if you jack little Johnny up on puberty blockers and surgery, then little Janey is going to hate herself and probably end up committing suicide. The left is pushing this is because they hate people."

I mean there has been studies not done by anti-trans groups that the evidence to support medicalised gender transitions in adolescents is worryingly weak. This is coming from an unbiased source.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/04/05/the-evidence-to-support-medicalised-gender-transitions-in-adolescents-is-worryingly-weak#

antifa... mic drop

You know Antifa are an anarchy and communist group, not a mainstream left group or an average progressive group. They're far-left, not me. I'm centre-left to left wing as according to my profile-page.