I'm confused about why conservatives always accuse liberals

>>31408488
>accuse liberals of being anti-gun..
Because most of them are

you're an outlier

>>31408488
If you vote for Antigun politicians you are anti gun, full stop
Your words mean nothing, your actions mean everything

File: thompson.jpg (73KB, 1200x628px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1200x628px

>>31408504

I'm not convinced that's true. I think there's just more loud complaining housewives, and rich hollywood people that can afford a security team to feel safe in the democratic party that have hijacked the dialogue.

Most of my friends in college were acid loving pot smoking hippies all had guns and loved to go shooting. Only the girls gave us shit about it.

So both democrats and conservatives are confused about the second amendment. It's a liberal idea. There's no denying this.

Follow the money.... Is it simply that gun manufactures support and lobby to GOP candidates and not democrats? Are democrats actually trying to extort kickbacks from manufactures with these "gun control" threats?
I think money speaks louder than rhetoric in politics. This must be part of the story.

I think there's more Hunter Thompson types out there than people realize.

>>31408488
This is a losing fight. There are no moderate thinking people on /k/. You have to be far right for them to think you're not anti-gun here.

It's sad, because the gun community would have much more supporters if they weren't so xenophobic.

>>31408531

You're implying you agree with every single issue your chosen politician stands for? How is that even possible? There's dozens of issues on the table. I've never seen a politician in line with all the issue.

So if you vote for a pro-life candidate that makes you pro life? If I'm pro choice and pro gun I'm not allowed to vote?

What the fuck are you even talking about. You must be unaware of all issues, or you personally vote only based on gun control issues (which would make you completely myopic.)

>>31408488
Sure Non-authoritarian Leftists are sometimes pro gun.

However modern popular "liberalism" Is highly Authoritarian and nanny statist.

Hence Liberals are anti-gun.

Pro tip Authoritative Conservatives and Neo-Cons are not always pro gun and usually only 'support' gun rights to help differentiate themselves from authoritative Liberals.

>also i responded to the b8

File: 1372726996114.png (33KB, 775x591px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 775x591px

>>31408488
Because US politics function on a retarded two-party system that mash up the extremely wide range of political beliefs the people have under two worthless parties.

>>31408488
Politics is a zero-sum game now.

If you vote for a candidate that's expressed anti-2A views (and in Hillary's case, would control SCOTUS to produce a more anti-2A court), then you're anti-gun.

>>31408595
>>31408591

So has the word liberal changed in meaning? Or is it simply being used wrong by everyone?

How can you be liberal and authoritarian?

The way I see it both parties are incredibly conservative. The only thing the GOP has right is gun control, and the only thing Demo's have right is pro-life.

>>31408615
>Or is it simply being used wrong by everyone?
kinda

words change

language is very easy to manipulate

don't know where you live, but every liberal i've met has been anti

>>31408609

Well I never stated I'm voting for Hillary.

In my mind environmentalism, sustainability and a clean energy infrastructure is the top issue.

The NRA is too well organized to even worry about hilary getting anywhere with gun control. If obama couldn't get free healthcare to pass, Hillary won't get gun control.

So if I did vote for Hillary, knowing full well she won't be able to do shit about gun control because the lobby and gun freaks are too powerful to let it pass, then I'm not actually anti-gun for voting her it.

As long as the NRA stays organized there's really not that much to worry about.

>>31408646
What can lobbyists do if a case goes to SCOTUS?

If Hillary gets control of SCOTUS, I would genuinely be concerned. The dissenting opinions in DCvHeller spoke volumes to me.

>why do people accuse me of being antigun when I vote for the political party who has antigun policies as a significant part of their platform?

Inb4
>b-b-but I'm a CLASSIC liberal!
If you vote Democrat you are voting for an antigun political party. Stop defining yourself as a "liberal," it no longer describes your speshul snowflake "muh individual rights and working class" party. Today it is used to describe the nanny state and censorship party. Vote whoever you want but you faggots need to get it through your thick skulls that nobody cares that the old guys at your local range gave you a nasty look when they learned that you voted for the political party trying to make them into felons for their hobby. It is not gunowner's responsibility to all start suddenly voting democrat in a bid to turn them progun from within. If you want liberal to stop being a nasty word amongst 2a supporters then change your party's view of guns.

Hi guys I'm a murderer but I don't kill people that much. How did things get so flip flopped that murderers = killing people? Also I'm a Muslim, why do people think Muslims = bombs?

How did this happen?

here's a tip: stop doing liberal things and stop calling yourself a liberal (i.e. grow a pair and become a real man)

You truly are confused OP

>>31408642

I'm from Boston. We all vote for Kennedys and support Irish Independence (although we don't always condone the violence of the IRA).

I live in Florida now.

Maybe people are just sheep so they assume if they have liberal ideas they have to be against guns because that's what they see on TV?

I think reclaiming the second amendment as the liberal idea it was when it was written could help change people's mind on the issue.

It's almost tempting to be anti-gun just because republicans love them so and it's fun to troll them.

File: image.jpg (145KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 612x612px

>>31408488
OP you should probably check yourself in the mirror and figure out who the fuck you really are because you seem like the kind of person I'd want to stay miles away from.

Oh and stop with the liberal nonsense if you care about yourself and other human beings

>>31408488
The problem is, I think, that a lot of Conservatives equate Liberals with Progressives. They're opposites, but they're opposites in a subtle way: Liberals derive their policy from their principles, and Progressives derive their principles from their policy. Progressivism also tends to have an awful lot of Marxist baggage along with it. A lot of Progressive policies come from Liberalism originally, so it can be easy to confuse the two, and the Progressives don't help matters by essentially using Liberalism as a Trojan Horse to sneak Marxism into Western governments without setting off people's commie alarms.

As someone who considers himself a staunch classic Liberal I agree with you; Liberalism is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, particularly the ideas of John Locke, and the right to keep and bear arms, for self-defense or to resist government, is deeply tied in with that.

What we true Liberals need to do is go on the offensive against the Progressive vermin that have infested our bloc. Their ideas and morals are authoritarian and illiberal, no matter how many Liberal issues they co-opt. Progressivism (aka the Regressive Left) is a cancer that must be purged.

>>31408559
Hunter S. Thompson was the last Great American. Rest in peace you magnificent bastard.

>>31408678
Just fuck off already. You think you know how things work but you don't.

>>31408559
Brother, it may not be you that hates guns, but the people you vote for do. Name a democratic president that hasn't supported or at least given lip service to stricter gun control.

We get it, you aren't a single issue voter, and you aren't going to vote republican just because of guns. That's ok. It's admirable to stand by your beliefs. I just don't think it's worth it.

>>31408615
>Dems
>pro-Life

What?

And both parties are full of Statists, it's just the GOP doesn't want to fuck with your rights anywhere near as much. All Dems and 90% of the GOP still see the government as the solution to everyones problems though, and that's a problem.

>>31408615
liberal doesn't mean libertarian. the common use of liberal isn't the old definition, it means left-wing. the left wing is inheritantly pro-equality, at the expense of freedom. the right wing is the other way around. as for who you vote for, i'm a socialist economically, but i'll never vote for those "liberal" commies in the "democrat" party.

>>31408701
Reagan was anti-gun and you Conservatives love to lick his boots. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

>>31408488
>At the time it was written the second amendment was an EXTREMELY liberal idea.
Yes
>Power to the people, in the form of fire arms is about as left wing as it gets.
Nope, because the left wing is now socialist

>>31408696
Pls go back to pol

This thread is so about gun control and political shit that it squeaks.

>>31408708
Left-wing is a spectrum. Same as right-wing. Not all right-wingers are fascists, and not all left-wingers are socialists. This is not a difficult concept.

>>31408662

"Stop doing liberal things"

Ok, I'll stop everything I believe in because some guy on the internet thinks politics has something to do with his sexual identity.

Talk about Freudian issues man. Have you ever been to a psychologist? Or is psychoanalysis a jewish liberal conspiracy as far as you're concerned?

See this is why I can't take GOP seriously. Disagreeing with them somehow threatens their manhood.

>>31408646
Are you high? Obamacare got passed, with no GOP support, and then the GOP caved like a bunch of pussies and funded it. If Hillary wins she will get activist judges appointed to the SCOTUS, and Bloomberg will fund some bullshit case up the court system and they'll defang the 2nd so much it'll be dead in all but name.

>>31408704
That's why real Liberals have to call ourselves classical Liberals.

>>31408717
Who the fuck is talking about sexual identity?

This is why liberals are too insane to carry on a normal conversation with.

>>31408730
Not him, but you're the one who started bringing in apples and oranges analogies and ad homs, I don't think you have the high ground here.

>>31408729
or libertarians because it actually means something in the current year and won't get people confused (at least as much)

>>31408703

Typo, i meant pro choice.

And the GOP does fuck with your right, by pushing big energy/industry interests over public health. Pipeline spills and fracking are a perfect example of this.

>>31408488
You are a weenie that thinks everything will be ok even if you don't fight for gun rights. That's one major problem here.

>>31408615
You are thinking of classical Liberalism which died around the turn of century and limped on until about the early 1970's when it was crushed when dems when 100% full retard "Muh feelings and Children" mode and kept that up until today.

Political Spectrum's and Political Definitions change rapidly.

The way I look at it, Regardless of the Petty retarded political theater issues. A strong 2nd Amendment keeps the people in large positions of power and wealth from throat fucking the poor and middle classes harder than they do already. and it help keeps the Authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum at bay.

>>31408733
I see, birds of a feather

>>31408706
>Muh Ray Gun!

Doesn't excuse anti-gun policy being a defining component of the Democrat platform. The fact of the matter is the government is anti-gun, however only one party actively campaigns for it and it isn't the Republicans. With how much the left brings up Reagan I seems like you faggots have more reverence for him then the right does.

>>31408678
The Democratic party as it existed under JFK is dead. It's almost entirely the anti-Liberty anti-gun party now.

If you're liberal, you're ammoral, but guns kind of exist outside of the realm of that morality.

Most liberals want to take away guns because guns in the hands of opposition threaten their morality and the concrete-ness of it.

Most liberals who like guns generally do so because they view government as something that stops them from pushing further liberal morals.

Pro-gun liberals can be useful allies in a civil war but unless they dedicate themselves to true conservative reformation then I wouldn't trust one.

>>31408747

It's the world against you and your testicals. Hold them tightly. From your cold dead hands....

>>31408736
The problem is that Libertarian has a connotation too, that of anarcho-capitalism, which I don't agree with. A Classical Liberal is a soft Libertarian, which describes me pretty well.

>>31408753
Did I ever say I was a Democrat? No? Congratulations, you stumped yourself.

I hate both parties, and professional politicians in general. They have never had the people's interests in mind and they never will. Your problem here is you're conflating ideas with a political party that ostensibly claims to have those ideals (but in reality doesn't).

>>31408756
>ammoral
>their morality
>pushing morals
One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong

>>31408736
>>31408736
>or libertarians because it actually means something in the current year
Yeah.

a lie

>>31408771
>One of these things is not like the others
>One of these things just doesn't belong
I'm not him, but nothing really stops an amoral person from pushing moral values onto others. I sure know I do it.

>>31408559
Do you vote for politicians who want to disarm the people? It's a simple yes or no.

>>31408756

How can you state that liberals are amoral, then say "push liberal morals"

If you're amoral, then you don't have morals. All you're doing here is contradicting yourself.

>>31408488
>Power to the people, in the form of fire arms is about as left wing as it gets.

No it isn't. The left has always been linked with authoritarianism, the state monopoly on violence, and the removal of all individual freedoms.

>>31408704
>Socialist
>Doesn't like commies

Socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, and it's end goal is communism. What the fuck are you smoking? And yeah yeah I know >>>/pol/ but have you not noticed the perfect correlation between socialism and insane gun control? Increasing government power increases gun control every time.

>>31408742
That's why I said they're Statists as well. And the only reason those scary evil big energy lobbyists have control over them is due to liberal policies giving them control. Because government workers are people too, they're corrupt. When you give a group (gov) power over something, eventually someone in that group will sell it, and there's no way to stop that outside of just not giving that power to them in the first place.

>>31408766
*testicles
>>31408771
>Did I ever say I was a democrat?
>did i say I was voting for Hillary?
>did I say.......?

that's the problem, nobody knows what you really stand for. All they care is that you insist on calling yourself a liberal.

It's a mistake from the start. If you want to be party-free, then for your own sake, ditch the label of liberal to start with.

>>31408789
>attack grammar

A liberal moral is something that is moral in the eyes of a liberal.

They are still ammoral since liberal morals suck ass.

Is that enough context clues for you?

>>31408786

Yes. Because I want to instigate a coup.

File: 1463439207745.jpg (39KB, 373x391px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 373x391px

>>31408807
>They are still ammoral since liberal morals suck ass.
That is not what amorality is.

File: horse.jpg (56KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x960px

>>31408795
This is true, and the huge issue is kids being indoctrinated in school and popping out of the propaganda machine thinking that socialism will fix "the problem" and that "evil capitalists" are to blame, when all the while it was the same greed and evil that has always existed.

meanwhile, communism IS the end goal, or a form of jackboot control that is very close to it.

when someone says "I am a liberal" they are announcing to the world that they have been duped, and they do not truly understand the way the world works.

>>31408488

The only good Democrat is jim "pounding vagina from French Indochina" webb. The rest are statist assholes

The only good republican is Ron Paul. The rest are statist assholes.

>>31408807

That's not grammar, that's semantics and diction.

But I wouldn't expect you to know the difference since you can't even see how you're still contradicting yourself.

There's really no way to argue with you when you don't make any sense.

>>31408615
The word Liberal(in this context) has changed in that they used liberal ideas to write the constitution, but conservatives want to hold fast to it and liberals want to use it "liberally" in what ever way will help their agenda

>>31408790
So has the Right, if you only look at the extremists on both sides. The Religious Right has always been about authoritarianism and using the government to enforce morality.

>>31408796
>that's the problem, nobody knows what you really stand for. All they care is that you insist on calling yourself a liberal.
That's a problem with you being a narrow-minded ignoramus, not the way I communicate.

>It's a mistake from the start. If you want to be party-free, then for your own sake, ditch the label of liberal to start with
Again, the problem here is that you can't tell the difference between ideals and political parties. What do you suggest I call myself if I support Liberal ideals but not the Progressive-infested Democrat party?

>>31408807
>They are still ammoral since liberal morals suck ass.
>Amoral
>Having morals

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. You also can't spell it apparently.

>>31408841
Again, you're falling for the Progressives' tactic of calling themselves Liberal to trick reasonable people into confusing the two.

>>31408756

Amoral=no morals
Immoral=wrong, morally.

The amoral doctor performed an abortion which s immoral.

>>31408488
>I'm confused about why conservatives always accuse liberals of being anti-gun...
because they are

>>31408876
No, Progressives are anti-gun. Liberals, true Liberals anyway, are pro-gun.

Progressives claim to be Liberal when they aren't, and you are helping them do it by refusing to recognize the distinction.

>>31408795

Socialism's end goal isn't communism. A socialist institution can exist in a perfectly healthy capitalist environment. i.e. Social Security (regardless of how it's been mismanaged)

You could run a business with a socialist model. This could be as simple as sharing stock with employees. At it's heart socialism is simply workers own the means of production, not a simply a capitalist owner.

A capitalist owner can share ownership with his employees as incentive for better moral and harder work ethic.

This raises management issues obviously (possibly problems).

But I don't see communism and socialism as being fundamentally intertwined.

Also keep in mind that pre-soviet russia wasn't exactly pure capitalism. Nor was pre communist China.

In fact both those nations used totalitarianism as a means to enact communism, which kind of misses the point in my opinion. Seems like it would need to develop naturally in order for it to function in a healthy way.

>>31408846

If by always you mean since Reagan's first campaign courted them. Before that religions group by large stayed out of the political arena.

>>31408646
The NRA can't make laws.

>>31408875

An amoral doctor allowed a woman to die from birth complications that could have been prevented with an abortion.

The baby also died.

That baby was hitler.

>>31408488
Here is the thing op.

I get you a bit. Classical Liberal who goes for the John Locke/Thomas Pane Political opinions.

You care about the environment and are not a fan of Laissez-faire capitalism. but want to retain gun and constitutional rights.

But here is the thing. The Current Political Climate is hostile To traditional western Civilization These people don't see it as the only thing that allowed them to even express their opinions but as this enemy that needs to be destroyed. These modern Liberals who have Hijacked the term Liberal Are Bent on fundamentally changing Western Civilization Into something of their own design. While Retroactively punishing white males or people they deem "problematic" or "deplorable". Literally a 1984 type Government. Complete with emotional arguments and manipulation and Doublespeak And Doublespeak As they fucking change all the definitions of words to avoid "micoagressions"

Step One is avoiding that.

Step Two is fixing the things you don't like that are right wing within the view of western democracy/Representative Republic

>>31408795
>Increasing government power increases gun control every time.
hitler was against gun control
economics and other politics don't always correlate.

>>31408488
Because the modern Democrat party is anything but Liberal. And the modern Democrat Party is officially anti-gun. Just as the Right has laid claim to being "Pro Gun" The left has laid claim to being "Liberal".

>>31408913

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill

I think you don't fully understand the role of lobbyists in law making.

>>31408920
The current political climate consists of cultural marxism and critical theory.

>>31408488

>I'm confused about why conservatives always accuse liberals of being anti-gun...

Because they passed the assault weapons ban in 1994. They want to straight up ban guns, full stop.
>they just want to be assault rifles!
okay what's an assault rifl?
>any firearm that meets these arbitrary criteria
But it'll affect muh deer gun
>you don't need a assault weapon to hunt!
It's not an assault rifle
>yes it is because we said it is so we have to ban it
Okay can I have a bolt action with a scope?
>Sure, but if it has a composite stock and a removable magazine then it's a sniper rifle!
>needs to be banned!
The end goal of all gun control is confiscation.

Conservatives read the constitution.

>>31408559
Statistics prove you wrong. Most liberals identify as Democrat, and the majority of Democrats want gun control. The ones who are liberal and identify as Independent are the ones more likely to support gun rights.

File: 1387474898874.jpg (655KB, 1936x1296px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1936x1296px

>>31408922
The Nazis were extremely popular though, which is why they could allow the Aryan übermensch to retain their firearms. They were in support of the party, after all. Only when a government does not work for its people, or is not accepted by the population, does it need to start restricting the ownership of weaponry to the point where it could be considered disarming the populace.

>>31408922

Can you give examples besides hitler please? Do people no longer respect Godwins Law? Have I been on the internet too long?

>>31408946

>The ones who are liberal and identify as Independent are the ones more likely to support gun rights.

And vote for libertarians

>>31408807
>>31408815
Isn't it funny how other people's beliefs are "politics" while yours are either "morals" or "common sense" depending on your side?

There's a difference between actually liberal and leftist.

>>31408923

This is what I'm thinking.

We can't equate liberal with democrat anymore.

>>31408930
Exactly

>>31408893
You have no clue what socialism even is. Socialism is the government control of the means of production. That's it. A business offering perks to employees to keep them happy is capitalist as it gets- you have to keep your employees happy or they'll leave and work somewhere else. Social Security is an (horrifically managed and an example of why the government should get out reeee) example of social spending, not socialism.

I bet you think Scandi countries are socialist too.

>>31408922
Saying certain groups of people you don't like based on their religion isn't gun control? Can I see some of the medals you surely must have in mental gymnastics?

>>31408952

I like this, but the font sucks, and photoshop fags here able to make this look less autistic?

>>31408963
No. I'm a moral nihilist with a relatively objective view on the world. Everyone's "morals" are just subjective views on this world.

>>31408956
>>31408952
no, it wasn't a great example, but he had absolute government power and allowed guns. that disproves the argument, "Increasing government power increases gun control every time." hitler shows that that cannot be true, so my socialist-guns4everyone fantasy world can exist.

>>31408957

Except libertarians have a shitty stance on industry vs the environment.

Ideally I'd like to see something like a Libertarian party, but with a Green party stance on environmental issues.

>>31408488
The regressive left has nothing to do with liberalism.

>>31408976
>>31408991

>>31408901
>Before that religions group by large stayed out of the political arena.
That is horseshit and you know it. The Abrahamic religions, at least, are authoritarian by definition, and authoritarians have always used government as the means to their end.

>>31408920
Not OP, but I agree with you to a certain extent. Cultural Marxism, hijacking of the term Liberal and Orwellian nonsense are the biggest problem we face currently. But the way to deal with this is to not give them that ground in the first place. Insist on calling them what they actually are, Progressives, and refuse to concede the term Liberal to them. Give these people an inch and they'll take 10 miles.

>>31408922
>hitler was against gun control
That is blatant nonsense given that he instituted it.

>>31408964
>>31408965
>>31408996
This

>>31408976
>Saying certain groups of people you don't like based on their religion isn't gun control?
wut

>>31408976
>Socialism is the government control of the means of production.
No. It's society's control of the means of production. The people's. The government is not the people.

>>31408991
Except that the Nazis banned weaponry from their political opponents, the Jews and other undesirables. The Soviet government also banned civilian ownership of firearms.

http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

>>31408991
If your "socialist guns4everyone" fantasy doesn't care about people the government can call enemies of the state arbitrarily then sure. Just wait until that same hammer you have the gov to smash people you don't like eventually gets swung at you, retard.

>>31408996
sargon pls go

>>31408488

You are anti gun though

It didn't matter what you believe, it's how you vote.

Virtually all Democrat politicians are anti gun, and a vote cut then is a vote against your 2nd amendment

I don't support the entire GOP agenda, but I do by default with my votes.

>>31409005
>The government is not the people

So you think that governments are comprised of alien shapeshifters then, who just LOOK like humans.

>>31408893
>Socialism's end goal isn't communism
Is it opposite day today? Or just pinko apologetics day?

File: 1471438088115.png (81KB, 278x260px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 278x260px

>tfw could probably be considered liberal on most shit because I do support gay rights/marijuana legalization/some amount of welfare and social security/would support amnesty on immigration if it could somehow be guaranteed that the government wouldn't turn into an Orwellian nightmare
>can't vote for candidates who are for these things because they hate guns/hate personal liberty/read 1984 and thought "What a shining utopia!"
>all the republicans I want to support are generally progun and pro-liberty, but are beholden to retards that don't live their lives at all according to their religion but expect others to do it by force of law

I want to get off this wild ride.

>>31408976

dude... read fucking wikipedia. Socialism is SOCIAL CONTROL of means of productions, meaning the PEOPLE. Not the government.

You're thinking of communism

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment."

>>31409014
>You are anti gun though
>It didn't matter what you believe, it's how you vote.
Nice mental gymnastics dickass.

>>31409021
I know that feel anon. I know that feel.

My solution is to sink into a drunken miasma of Jameson, weed and lewd alien threads and try to ignore politics.

Spoiler alert: it doesn't work.

>>31409001
>>31409009

>>31409004
I meant certain people cant have guns based on their religion, typing on phone.

>>31409005
Oh, so you're actually retarded. Ok then.

How does a society control the means of production dumbass? Either through the government with socialism or by billions upon billions of individual choices in a free market. I bet you bought Bernie's whole "democratic socialism" line didn't you?

>>31409028
Governments

Now get this, it might blow your mind.

Governments are made UP of people.

File: 1464614995135.jpg (31KB, 457x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 457x450px

>>31409017
"The people" is commonly used to include everyone in that people. The government consists of a select group of individuals who most often do not truly represent the entirety of "the people". I don't know if you've read or heard about the US constitution, but its preamble begins with the words "We the People of the United States". This "People" is not the government.
You may have heard of the 2nd amendment as well. It talks of "the people" here as well. The people are in fact the people of the USA and not the government.

>>31409017
There's a difference between "the government IS 'the people'" and "the government is a group of people, separate and distinct, with a number of interests that may be at odds with the rest of the people."

>>31409038
>I meant certain people cant have guns based on their religion, typing on phone.
Ah, gotcha. Just wanted clarification.

>>31409043
So you're in favor of mob rule then, where everyone is fighting over who has the most means of production?

File: hqdefault.jpg (27KB, 480x360px)

27KB, 480x360px

>>31409042
>implying

>>31409036
He basically said "actions speak louder than words." That's not fucking mental gymnastics.

>>31409017

The government is comprised of an elite group, either elected or birthed or fought to power. The "people" refer to the masses, typically not elite.

You're losing your argument so you're trying to use sarcasm to derail it. Please stop, we're allanonymous. No one cares if you're wrong.

>>31408965
We really cannot. Look at every major political issue recently.
>Marriage "Equality"
- The wedding cake case - Leveraging the police to enforce conformity to a politically defined social norm. *Not Liberal*.
>Health Care
-The workplace insurance case. -same thing *Not Liberal*
-Obamacare - Leveraging the law to coerce a citizen into buying a product from a private company. Really really not Liberal*
>Gun Control
-Forcing responsibility of an act upon the demographic group of the perpetrator. *Ultra not liberal*

Do we see a theme here? I could go on and on, literally *ALL* Of the DNC''s official platform is authoritarian, more authoritarian than the RNC's in almost every case.

>>31409017
>implying they aren't lizard jews

>>31409042

Governments are made up of an elite social class of select people.

You know this. Please stop.

File: 1473272638198.jpg (47KB, 621x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 621x502px

>>31409038
>How does a society control the means of production dumbass? Either through the government with socialism or by billions upon billions of individual choices in a free market. I bet you bought Bernie's whole "democratic socialism" line didn't you?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the ideology itself is based on the idea of the people, especially the workers controlling the means of production. It is not about the GOVERNMENT, but the people. Christ, you managed to make me mad in one obnoxious post.
What you are describing is known as STATE socialism, aka. the Soviet piece of shit system.

>>31409064
>You're losing your argument even though I've barely said anything

Are all Anarchist-Socialists this stupid?

>>31409066
Evil party and the moron party.

The moron party, the Republicans, pass a law that's stupid, authoritarian, but they're doing it because they believe it will do good: Patriot act

The evil party then screams about how evil and immoral and awful the moron party is, and how they'll get rid of the law. Then the evil party, the Democrats, get in control, and expand the law to its breaking point. Proving how evil they actually are.

>>31408488
hold on a second

I´m leberal as fuck myself
a "true" liberal
> Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas

not that neo-liberal bullshit
that´s just retarded

pro-gun & 2nd Am too

>>31409066

I think you're confused about Obamacare. It was a public option. It would have actually benefit consumers of private healthcare by adding competitions and bringing rates down, while also helping people that simply can't afford insurance.

I went to college in canada, it was great, no medical bills. here in the states even with my work insurance I have to pay $150 just to see a doctor.

>>31409078
>my fairy tale system will work because i say so, even if all attempts at it are failures

>>31409059
No, he says that by voting for someone you automatically agree with everything they say and do. Which is nonsense.

>>31409066
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned the Democrat party was never really Liberal. I mean heck, they were the party of slavery and segregation. That's p much the antithesis of Liberal.

File: 1393415477212.jpg (22KB, 488x305px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 488x305px

>>31409052
>correct a retard on his ridiculous assertion that the government is the people
>lol so u want mob rule :D
Christ almighty anon, I'm having to control my anger here to not just reply with insults and prompts to commit suicide.
Do atleast try to make an effort when posting. Think about what you're typing, the things you're discussing, before you post.

>>31409099
>my fairy tale system
>my
I hope for your sake that you're underage and your brains just haven't developed enough. Stop jumping into ridiculous assumptions if you don't want people to think you're a complete moron.

>>31409103
Okay, answer me this, if people violate the tenents of Anarcho-socialism, who enforces it?

What if they want to change something?

What if 49% of the people disagree with a policy?

>>31409038

>How does a society control the means of production dumbass

It's very simple if you look at it on a small scale. If a group of workers own the factory they work in, that's socialism.

I'm not advocating it, just trying to explain to you what it is because you have it wrong. There's problems that occur when you scale it up.

>>31409111
>stop poking holes in muh gommuninsm
kys

File: 1398547887911.png (191KB, 386x328px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 386x328px

>>31409112
>Okay, answer me this, if people violate the tenents of Anarcho-socialism, who enforces it?
Anyone with power and the capability and will to do so. Maybe no one.
>What if they want to change something?
See above.
>What if 49% of the people disagree with a policy?
Then 49% of people disagree with a policy.
Just what in the world are you trying to argue here, anon? Stop jumping into assumptions.

>>31409102
You might not agree 100% with whatever that political says, but you must be willing to accept their positions and be co.for table with them to vote for them. If you say "I'm pro gun!" and the vote for a candidate who bases one of their positions off of "nobody should have guns!", then you accept that you are comfortable enough with their anti gun policies to give them your vote. So no matter how much you say, "I'm pro gun!", your actions speak otherwise.

File: hunter2.jpg (231KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 2000x1333px

OP here. Glad to see at least some people have ideas similar to mine. Of course there's some nuts posting, but that's to be expected.

I appreciate all the replies. I gotta get back to work.

>>31409135
So... mob rule then. Where anyone who can rile a few people up and get a few sharp pointy sticks can be the new powerful group, and so on and so forth.

File: 1398864340754.png (27KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 527x409px

>>31409131
I'm just going to rely on the wisdom of Poe's law and hope for your sake you're a bored autist.

>>31409140
Your position is unreasonable because it forces people to abandon pragmatism and co-operation despite differences entirely.

>>31409084

Understanding the definition of socialism makes you one? I never once said I advocated it. I simply understand the concept and you don't. I was trying to help you from embarrassing your ignorant self in public by educating you on the definition.

>>31409147
And what in the world is your point, anon? As I said, stop jumping into assumptions.

>>31409142
>everyone who agrees with me is sensible
>everyone who disagrees with me is just a nut
You are more "progressive" than you think.

>>31408893
>Socialism's end goal isn't communism

HAHAHAHAA

OH BOY THAT'S FUCKING RICH

>>31409151
Welcome to the two party system.

>>31409160
He sounds like an average person to me.

>>31409155
Because you said you didn't like government, therefore you must be an anarchist.

>>31409142
yeah, thanks for stirring up a political gun-control thread shit stew on /k/ and leaving. have a great day, fucker

>>31409182

By that logic the founding fathers were anarchists because they didn't like the government of British Monarchy?

Weird that anarchists set up such an extensive government huh?

>>31408928
>NPR

>>31409018
More self interested bourgeois day. Only the middle class wants to stop at socialism

Because the political spectrum literally doesn't mean shit.

You believe in what you want to, not what a party or your favorite political label says.

>>31408565

>no moderate thinkers here
>follow up with insult about another issue

This is why liberals aren't taken seriously

>>31409175

I mean if you agree with Lenin then the goal of socialism is communism. But I mean that's the guy that was pushing for his unique brand of communism, so of course he would say that.

But socialism existed before Lenin and communism. So how the fuck the goal of socialism be something that wasn't even invented yet?

>>31409203

Check every source. Let me know if you find a lie of half truth in the article.

Pro-tip: you won't

>>31409097
>Does Obamacare require purchase of a product? (In this case health insurance)

>Does this product come from a private corporation? (Insurance companies)

>Is there a penalty for failing to purchase this product? (Tax increase?)

The answer to all three is *YES*. Statism that is "good for the chilluns" is still statism you fascist fuck.

>>31408730
>(i.e. grow a pair and become a real man)
??

>>31409225

Xenophobic isn't an insult. lol. Funny that you would assume it is one.

>>31408559
>Only the girls gave us shit about it.

Women overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

>>31409235

How is something that is "free" considered a purchase?

And no it Obama care was going to be a public option, it wouldn't have been run by an insurance company, it was going to be a government insurance agency.

I was against Mitt Romney required insurance in MA when it started, then it got it, and Masshealth was the best insurance I ever had and I love it now.

So I was wrong. I can admit it. I have personal experience in this area, which I believe is worth more than all of your conjecture. It's actually a good thing.

>>31408488
i have this gun and im now considering painting it like this

>>31409102
>he says that by voting for someone you automatically agree with everything they say and do. Which is nonsense.
That's not what he said. But again, actions speak louder than words. We know who you support politically

>politics in /k/
>>>/pol/

File: fgsfds.jpg (14KB, 335x352px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 335x352px

>>31408615
it's socially paired with modern Progressivism, which labels itself as Liberal. In America we have the Far Right and the Extreme Right. They are both heavily capitalist political organizations. The actual party philosophies have changed around specific paradigms in American history, effectively reversing the roles multiple times under the leadership of key politicians. Currently the Democrats are proto-fascists that are actively attempting to expand federal powers and the Republicans are anti-federal bigots that defund and sabotage the bureaucracy in favor of state's rights and hyper-conservative legislation. If that sounds horrible and Orwellian, it is and that's why everyone is in a constant state of unrest. Both parties actively limit the lower classes' access to wealth and political involvement and strengthen large businesses.
In this dynamic, moderate partisan politics is largely irrelevant. Both parties intentionally turn their supporters against one another in order to control more of the legislative houses with inflammatory rhetoric over moral issues. Firearms is one of their current bullet points. The Republicans, being about weakening federal oversight, want to enable states to make whatever laws they please over firearm ownership. The genie is out of the bottle, why bother trying to put it back in? Since they've had control over the lower houses the majority of Republican states have loosened restrictions on firearms laws to the point that several have turned into Constitutional and shall issue states, of course with a generous helping of related taxation. The Democratic states seek to remove private civilian ownership of firearms retroactively in order to stem what they view as a root cause of violence amidst widespread social unrest. They are attempting to do so at the Federal/Supreme Court level to bring all the states in alignment. Efforts have only exacerbated the violence and proliferation of firearms whilst heightening public fears.

>>31409275
>In America we have the Far Right and the Extreme Right.
How you know you're talking to someone who is so extreme left you're not sure if they're still on this planet.

>>31409258
It's free? Please explain my insurance bill then. Because if it's free I write a check for no good reason every month. If It's a "Public Option" Why is that check made out to Anthem fucking Inc. a publicly traded corporation? If it isn't coerced why did I pay a damn fine for failing to write said check, to said corporation?

>>31409264

That'd be sick. Could you do it in like a translucent coat?

>>31409269
No you don't.

I don't vote in general elections often, because most politicians who get past the primaries are too much of a compromise for me. But that doesn't mean I can't allow some degree of compromise.

>>31409292

exactly, it's all relative from where you stand. Which is we should define CONCEPTS as liberal or conservative, and not people.

>>31409293

The public option that Obama originally proposed was blocked by the GOP congress. What you're paying for now is a ghost of the original bill, with many concessions made to the GOP who are in the pockets of the private insurance companies.

/explained

Look at the original public option proposal. You would have a free option, like in Hawaii.

>>31409317
Not him, but there is no "free" option.

You pay for it in your taxes. I'm Liberal but I think Obamacare is retarded. Partly because me and a lot of people I know got our hours at work cut as a result of it,

>>31409317
We avoided that shit, but still got the garbage we have. Yes, it's unfortunate.

>>31409293

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

It wouldn't have been completely free, but it would have been MUCH cheaper

>>31408488
Ever voted for a democrat? If the answer is yes, then you aren't progun.

>>31409325

I have free health care in massachusetts because of my income bracket. It's great.

>>31409348
Fucking freeloader

>>31409347

this is completely untrue. Many democrats are progun.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/pro-gun-democrats-silenced-as-party-veers-left-on-/

you've bought into the propaganda.

>>31409325
Yes, but you still pay for it in taxes when people without insurance are treated in the ER and can't afford to pay for it. Preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency medicine.

>>31409317
>Obama care isn't authoritarian because it began life as a bill that wasn't authoritarian.

>The fact that the bill that was *actually fucking signed into law, by the fucking president it's named after* is heavily authoritarian makes no difference.

I'll take "Moving the Goalposts" for 1,000 Alex!

Answer: Today's fucking Daily Double.

>>31409348

>works 40 to 60 hours a week
>pays taxes
>gets called freeloader

LOL ok pal. Thanks for the tip.

>>31409362
You can't expect honesty out of liberals

>>31409298
the main problem would be a nice paint job would be ruined by one range trip but that might look cool still. either way painting a revolver is gonna look like shit. still tempted tho plus my revolver is scratched to shit.

File: nixon.jpg (148KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 768x432px

>>31409370

>>31409370


Yes Liberals are famous for being liars.

>>31408571
Hasfuns are typically one-issue voters

>>31409368
The 40 hours a week you spend dealing drugs and stealing isn't a real job, Jamal.

Go to your congressman and ask for more of your neighbor's money.

>>31408488
Because most of your politicians run on anti gun platforms or at least semi anti gun platforms and liberals keep voting for them.

>>31409371

It would certainly be a show/home defence piece.

It's be worth ruining the paint to take down an intruder, but not for target practice. Oh god imagine the headlines you'd make standing your ground with a gun like that LOL

>>31409355
Oh I agree. I wouldn't mind /actual/ universal healthcare, but Obamacare is just a handjob for the insurance companies, which I hate. Actual universal healthcare makes economic sense based on economy of scale; when everyone pays in, it's cheaper for everyone. It's literally the only socialist-esque policy I'd ever support.

>>31409238
Not same anon, but yes, it is. Nationalism =/= xenophobia.

>>31408571
Because you stupid.

Gun rights are not like "every other law" or issue. They are fundamental principles of self-defense, not a debate on trade tariffs or school funding.

If you vote for anti-gun politicians you are attacking this principle. Unfuck yourself.

>>31409409
>It's literally the only socialist-esque policy I'd ever support.
You should move to a country where they do that.

>>31409411
Ah yes, because extremism and single issue voting isn't the perfect way to turn yourself into a useful idiot for politicians.

Oh wait, it is.

>>31409390

I mean I assume you are trolling, but poe's law and all. I work in food service. Also working on my masters degree, which i would not be able to afford even with the partial scholarship if I had to pay 400+ a month for full insurance coverage. I also have some serious health issues so I'd probably die if I went without it.

>>31409422
Nah, I'm not leaving the US. It's not a live or die issue for me, I can do without it just fine. Just saying that I'd support it if implemented properly and responsibly.

>>31409422

Yeah a country like Hawaii or Massachusetts.

>>31409426
Things like Free Speech, gun ownership and right to privacy area non-fucking-negotiable. Unfortunately sometimes the only candidates up for a given election all have unforgivable flaws.

>>31409411
Why's it my fault that every opponent against gun control is also a proponent for laws and policies I cannot bring myself to support?

>>31409442
>Things like Free Speech, gun ownership and right to privacy area non-fucking-negotiable
You're right, in my opinion. Which is why I can't vote for establishment candidates. But that doesn't mean other people can't compromise if they see fit without you dictating to them what they believe.

>>31409438
There's a world of difference between a state doing something and the federal government doing something.

>>31409422

The lack of free healthcare actually ends up costing the taxpayers MORE in the long run. The insurance companies and the medical providers have the same parent companies, so they're only overcharging themselves for the ridiculous prices in the USA (the same drugs and services cost 10% as much in canada) Which gives them an excuse to increase the insurance rates and continue to record record-breaking profits.

You'd basically pay 10% of what you pay insurance companies in the form of taxes for the same sort of coverage under a well organized free Health Care Bill...provided it had provisions to protect against the sort of racketeering that's going on now.

>>31409473

Good point.

But since i'm already paying 30% of my life to the feds I'd rather have health care than another 100 f-22's in the air force that are retired before they ever see action.

>>31409468
I'm not the person who you replied to. All I am saying is that you can take very few issues to be "primary" and all other issues to be "secondary." For instance gun-rights primary, but I look at things like ending the drug war and pro-choice politics as secondary things I would also prefer.

>>31409473
The only difference is scale. Not saying I wouldn't rather have states handle certain things, but the difference isn't that huge.

>>31409478
Amen. Fuck the republicans and their traditionalist religious authoritarian horseshit.

>>31409494
Ah, we agree. Nice when that happens, eh?

File: f22.jpg (83KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 638x479px

>>31409486

It was estimated by the end of production, $34 billion will have been spent on procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion, around $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

>>31409495
>traditionalist religious authoritarian horseshit.
I deleted my post since I didn't mean to quote the other post. Honestly, they'd have so much more going for them if they didn't cling to religious values and just rode by on being fiscally responsible.

>>31409495
>The only difference is scale
Yeah. That and some of the founding principles of our nation on States rights and a limited government.

It's not your place to try and force a policy like this on every state in the union. Push it to your own state capital.

>>31409021
I feel much like you, except I don't support amnesty.

My solution to the illegal alien issue is levying ruinous fines against people who employ illegals.

Make employing illegals more expensive than employing legal residents, and you'll solve the problem.

Immigration needs reform, but amnesty is a terrible starting place for reform.

We also need to gut our tax code.

>>31409478
It's not just that, it's their toxic stance on immigration, on free speech, on a state level an honest to goodness Poll Tax.

>>31409508
Seriously. I'd have no problem voting GOP if they didn't insist on forcing their personal morals on other people and stuck to limited government and fiscal responsibility. And if they didn't have a serious problem with corruption and crony capitalism.

>>31409512
And if you understood the constitution, you'd know that that actually IS the federal government's place. The constitution gives the feds the right to regulate interstate commerce. Healthcare is interstate commerce.

>>31409516
>Make employing illegals more expensive than employing legal residents, and you'll solve the problem.
This is the best solution to the problem imo. I don't have a problem with legal immigration, but illegal immigration is bad for everyone concerned except the corporate fuckheads who exploit illegals to the detriment of both them and the citizens.

>>31408646
Oh I see, it's not your problem other people will take care of it for you. Typical liberal mindset. I get it that the options all suck but with the supreme court justices that are leaving/already dead it's not about what hillary can do its about what gun grabbers can do for the nest 20 to 30

>>31409536
And you would consider the federal government directly handling the healthcare of citizens to be a mundane regulation of interstate commerce?

>>31409387
Clinton

>>31408727
Are YOU high? Obamacare was twisted and mutated from its original intent, mostly to appease Republicans, which didn't work. Then the Repubs voted 52 times to repeal it, wasting time and money. So now we're left with a neutered Health law, nothing else got done, and politics grew even more polarized.

>>31409536
I agree with you on a lot of what you say, but a quick caveat.

> Health care is interstate commerce.

Not necessarily, the problem is the interstate commerce clause has been expanded to mean "Anything that *might* be interstate commerce" which is all commerce, so it's become just the commerce clause. My health care may or may not be interstate. If I, my doctor, and my insurer all are in my state, feds shouldn't touch it.

>>31409589
Well said

>>31409575
If the insurance agency and healthcare network used is multi-state, then yes.

>>31409589
>If I, my doctor, and my insurer all are in my state, feds shouldn't touch it.
And all of their supply chain etc. is in-state then yeah, I agree. But how likely is that?

>>31409620
Not relevant, if a medicine comes from out of state then that feds can regulate *That medicine* this gross expansion of the interstate commerce clause is a major root issue to federal overreach. In no way should an interstate product infect an entire business with federal bulls hit simply because it's used in that business.

>>31409620
>But how likely is that?
Pretty fucking likely. Consider Kaiser Permanent, one of the largest private organizations in this country serves California, and a couple other states, with both insurance and health care at hospitals. Literally millions of people get their insurance from them and then go see their doctors and it's all in CA. There are many setups like this all over.

>>31409620
You're trying to misuse the Constitution to do something at the federal level that should be handled by states.

>>31408678
>It's tempting to destroy freedom for the lulz

Well you sure as fuck sound like a true liberal now.

File: IMG_0306.jpg (68KB, 576x418px)

68KB, 576x418px

>>31409666
this is why liberals can not be fucking trusted. All of their "but I like guns" is crocodile tears and garbage that they will gladly throw away for an ounce of self preservation.

File: image.png (376KB, 403x672px)

376KB, 403x672px

>>31409666
>not ruining everything for everyone else for the lulz
Go back to hell satan, this is our domain

File: 1472344755827.jpg (41KB, 336x476px)

41KB, 336x476px

>>31409536
>And if they didn't have a serious problem with corruption and crony capitalism.

>implying the democrats don't have the exact same problems

>>31409775
Again, where do you get the assumption that I'm a Democrat? I hate this "if you're not with me, you're with my enemy" mindset. It's simplistic and idiotic.

>>31409317
Literally no Republicans voted for Obamacare you mongoloid. The Democrats passed it on their own. Stop drinking their Kool aid and crying their bs party line saying the GOP ruined their disastrous plan. They wrote it and they passed it. It's their fault and their doing.

God damn it people fucking believe every headline they read holy fuck. We're doomed as a species if this is the best we can do.

>>31408488
>>31408559
YOU personally might be a pro-gun liberal, in fact many liberals might be pro-gun.

But EVERY politician who identifies as liberal is anti-gun.

>>31409785
I didn't, but in your post you specifically singled out the Republicans for something the democrats are also highly guilty of.

>tfw love guns
>tfw also love social democracy and civic nationalism

I just want a country where everyone contributes to creating a healthy and successful society where you get to do fun stuff like shoot guns and cultivate a culture of belonging, responsibility, and duty.

Guns started off as the great equalizer, giving the peasant a surefire way to take down the asshole knight or giving a 5'1 woman a chance at stopping a 6'2 rapist. Guns should never be owned or worshipped by those who have been duped by a handful of Washington lobbyists and politicians who politicized firearms for the sole sake of generating more profits and votes.

>>31409808
I think he meant things like are keeping him from voting republican.

>>31409808
I didn't single them out, anon. I said they had a problem with it. Never said the Dems didn't.

File: ManThinkingOfBomb.jpg (31KB, 500x333px)

31KB, 500x333px

>>31409785
your position is too entrenched with the enemy for right wing individuals to think any differently.

Your pla!

step one: be a liberal "but i like guns guise"
step two: call everyone who doesn't like you/your position "simplistic and idiotic"
step three: vote for anti-gun loliticians and say "it'll work out because NRA will keep things safe"

you are literally holding hands with the devil and crying to us at the same time about "how come people think liberals are bad"

it's disgusting tbqh

>>31409785
>Hey guys, I'm a liberal!
>OMG y u assume I'm a democrat?

???

>>31409442
This x1000. The fact people don't get this is crazy. If you want to vote for people that are good on these AND everything else, educate yourself on candidates and fucking vote in your primaries. 99% of the time the shitty cuck incumbent wins due to name recognition alone.

>>31408814
moron.

>>31409858
We all have our dreams anon. That dude wants to stage a coup. I would like to slot floppies in short shorts while flirting with the squad machine gunner.

What's your dream anon?

>>31409584
NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT.

DEMOCRATS PASSED IT 100% ON THEIR OWN.

THEY WROTE IT.

THEY MADE IT SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANTED. EVERYTHING IN IT WAS WHAT THEY WANTED IN IT.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

>>31409835
>your position is too entrenched with the enemy for right wing individuals to think any differently.
But it isn't. You assumed that because you're belligerent and spoiling for a fight when there doesn't need to be one.

>be a liberal "but i like guns guise"
No but necessary. A Classical Liberal cannot be anti-gun and still be applying their principles consistently. You're using the word Liberal to mean Progressive. I'm not a Progressive.

>call everyone who doesn't like you/your position "simplistic and idiotic"
I didn't call anyone simplistic and idiotic for not agreeing with me. I called someone simplistic and idiotic for assuming that because I don't like their pet party, I worship the party they don't like.

>vote for anti-gun loliticians and say "it'll work out because NRA will keep things safe"
You're confusing me with the OP. I'm not him. I don't vote for anti-gun politicians, but I don't vote for politicians who want more prayer in schools either.

>you are literally holding hands with the devil
>people who disagree with me are evil
And now you're doing exactly what you accused me of. Congratulations, you've proven your hypocrisy.

>>31409847
>a set of ideals is the same as a political party
???

>>31409892
Chill out bruh, turn off the cruise control for cool and light a j or something.

>>31409903
>lol stop worrying about facts, bro, just go get high!

Man, it must be amazing living your life like a fucking child.

>>31409917
Nice strawman, cockbreath. Never said I disagreed, just to cool it with the capslock. Makes you look more like an edgy child than me.

>>31409903
>>a set of ideals is the same as a political party
The party that follows those ideals yes.

>>31409936
The Democrat party isn't and has never been Liberal. But even if they were, you're still wrong.

>>31409929
>"i never said"
>what makes you think
>where do you get the idea that
>i didn't do that
>you're confused
>you're doing the same thing
>chill out
kek

>>31409967
It is pretty funny that you consistently miss the point and insist on attributing things to me that I never said, I agree. But no, I'm sure you have the power to read my mind.

>>31409929
When did I even say you disagreed? I'm mad at how fucking apathetic all these retards are that get told a fact and ignore it or just don't care despite using the lie the fact just corrected as the basis for their argument.

Facts matter. If they don't to you that's a problem with YOU, not me.

>>31409962
You know how "gay" used to mean happy but now it means homosexual?

By modern definition you are a libertarian and the Democratic party is liberal.

Get with the times.

>>31408646

If anything should be learned it should be that if they can't get things passed through Congress, the Democrats will use and abuse the other branches of the government to backdoor their agenda in.

The easy way to understand the modern Democrat party is to take your perception of the Republican party and then imagine if they were smart enough to actually pull off what the Democrats accuse them of. It's like watching a lawyer run circles around a rube and then claim that the rube is overpowering him.

>>31410010
The ironic part is how the Democrats are giving teeth to all these parts of the government, never thinking that if "le Drumpf XD" wins he can take those new (but still unconstitutional) powers and ram the dildo of big gov up their ass instead. I pointed this out to a Bernie supporter once and his response was basically "well we have to elect the right people" as if that wasn't fucking retarded.

>>31409991
>When did I even say you disagreed?
>Facts matter. If they don't to you that's a problem with YOU, not me.
The answer to your question is contained within your own post.

>>31409992
I refuse to allow Progressives to co-opt my terminology. My one concession is to specify "Classical" Liberal.

I'm not a Libertarian, because I'm not a hardcore laissez faire market anarchist. I'm a moderate capitalist who believes in individualism and a hands-off approach to social issues. Classical Liberal is the only label that comes close to describing my position, and I'm going to keep using, it Progressives and Conservatives be damned.

>>31410043
This is the type of shortsighted lunacy I hate about the Democrat party. They don't realize that big government is a double-edged sword.

>>31409992
Oh the irony that is /K/

>You can't call an AR-15 an assault weapon because it has no select fire! REEEEEEEE!

>Kek bro, liberal means what the DNC says it means because muh common usage.

Are we autistic here or not?

File: al-gore-little-girl-1024x683.jpg (122KB, 1024x683px)

122KB, 1024x683px

>>31408993
>Likes guns
>Hates industry

Pick one anon. You can't make guns and bullets without industry unless you've created some sort of biomass weapon that organically forms and decays. y-yer not a zerg are ya?

>>31410068
This

>>31410081
>you can't have industry without being extremely environmentally irresponsible
Nice false dichotomy friendo.

>>31410068
Nice false equivalency

>>31410130
Actually, that's a pretty fitting example. Also, learn what false equivalency means, you're using it all wrong.

>>31410130
Autistic vs not autistic isn't a false equivalency there buddy.

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-09-21 18:55:10 Post No.31410241
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-09-21 18:55:10 Post No.31410241 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/89772425