If you're a "former liberal" defecting to the right, then you should only have two modes: 1) angry convert who is further to the right than almost anyone or 2) quiet supporter of the preexisting movement. If you're just going to influence right wing politics towards the left, then you're no different than the idiots who flee leftist shitholes like California only to continue voting democrat in their new homes.
So should former liberals be allowed to oppose the war in Iran? Is that driving right-wing politics towards the left or the right? What about opposition to tech monopolies and corporate power? The problem is that 'left' and 'right' are often quite arbitrary terms, at the very least on some issues.
Former liberals should be completely silent, because by definition a former liberal is someone whose judgment is suspect and should not be trusted. Or uttered aloud.
Like a single mom, their existence is proof that they make bad choices.
And that's giving them the most generous interpretation of assuming that said ex liberal is genuine. Most are not.
Compromise: the right should do a factory reset back to 1692.
A lot of these "former liberals", the non-Bernie supporters, are fanatical zionists. James Lindsey, this guy, Dave Rubin, the Gays Against Groomers people. I wonder if there is a correlation there. I don't believe in a grand conspiracy, but it is very odd.
The problem always lies in that their sexual tendencies IS their identity.
We don't need to identify as straight, that's called being normal. The more your sexuality defines you, the more you look for ways to stand out using your sexuality which leads to darker paths for many. Just my own theory.
I really can't see how anyone can justify surrogacy. You are literally separating mother and child (if she bears it, it's her child, DNA be damned), hurting both in ways they may never completely comprehend, so that you can have a pet kid. And you pay them.
I get it. I've had a number of men discuss the idea with me and I know a guy who would 100% get it done if it was affordable. It's not just for gay men. A lot of men who want children would rather be a single dad raising a surrogate child then deal with women. It's not ideal but for a lot of men, the choice is single dad with surrogate child or being single and childless. Single dads raise kids better than single mothers and since our society is fine with single mothers we should enable men to be single fathers if they want to be.
If opposing the buying and selling of children to degenerate sex pests makes me retarded, then call me Simple Jack, because I am full retard on this issue.
I think that's the same guy who is totally okay with liberal progressive propaganda being pushed in the zeitgeist. So while he might say he's not buying babies himself, he seems to be of the mindset that he's totally okay with faggots who do.
Nah, I just don't get involved in soap opera shit. Intersectionality is when you are linking yourself up with problems so far removed from the ones you've set your mind to that you end up being someone else's slave.
I can't think of a single thing federal statute wise that has improved since 1992.
If he had said 1995, then the assault weapons ban has expired since then, but it wasn't around in 1992.
Bad stuff has been struck down since then, some state laws improved. Are taxes better overall? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I guess Gringrich and Co got rid of alot of legacy New Deal crap like openly paying people to not grow corn, but that was just reintroduced in the years after Gingrich's ousting with a nominal cover of 'Grassland Preserves'
They may say they are against feminism but they still support the system that enables feminism in the first place.
For example instead of being against LGBT in women's sport, he should have said "I am in favor of trannies in women's sports because now the women feels the pain of seeing their opportunities stolen like women do with men".
Instead the tradcon cuck like everyone else, bowing to the gynocentric system.
Wanting women's sports isn't really feminist but common sense. Wanting separate spaces for males & females like Walsh does isn't about wamminz rights but recognizing the obvious differences between the sexes.
You don't fight crazy feminists with logic, you do it with another crazy ideology.
Since LGBT is built upon feminism they can't take it down without taking down the feminist rhetoric first.
If you're a "former liberal" defecting to the right, then you should only have two modes: 1) angry convert who is further to the right than almost anyone or 2) quiet supporter of the preexisting movement. If you're just going to influence right wing politics towards the left, then you're no different than the idiots who flee leftist shitholes like California only to continue voting democrat in their new homes.
So should former liberals be allowed to oppose the war in Iran? Is that driving right-wing politics towards the left or the right? What about opposition to tech monopolies and corporate power? The problem is that 'left' and 'right' are often quite arbitrary terms, at the very least on some issues.
Former liberals should be completely silent, because by definition a former liberal is someone whose judgment is suspect and should not be trusted. Or uttered aloud.
Like a single mom, their existence is proof that they make bad choices.
And that's giving them the most generous interpretation of assuming that said ex liberal is genuine. Most are not.
This is why I only listen to Nazi podcasters, none of the baggage of "reformed" liberals and no coping about Trump like many conservatives are doing.
MIGA and libertarianism (as currently manifest) are not right wing.
Compromise: the right should do a factory reset back to 1692.
A lot of these "former liberals", the non-Bernie supporters, are fanatical zionists. James Lindsey, this guy, Dave Rubin, the Gays Against Groomers people. I wonder if there is a correlation there. I don't believe in a grand conspiracy, but it is very odd.
The problem always lies in that their sexual tendencies IS their identity.
We don't need to identify as straight, that's called being normal. The more your sexuality defines you, the more you look for ways to stand out using your sexuality which leads to darker paths for many. Just my own theory.
Good spot Antonio. Reminiscent of the neoconservative "pay no attention to the Trotsky t-shirts" movement
How about 1099
1065
--JRR Tolkien, probably
You can't enjoy the benefits of a Christian society without being Christian or observing a Christian moral frame.
I really can't see how anyone can justify surrogacy. You are literally separating mother and child (if she bears it, it's her child, DNA be damned), hurting both in ways they may never completely comprehend, so that you can have a pet kid. And you pay them.
And then the fags rape the kid.
I get it. I've had a number of men discuss the idea with me and I know a guy who would 100% get it done if it was affordable. It's not just for gay men. A lot of men who want children would rather be a single dad raising a surrogate child then deal with women. It's not ideal but for a lot of men, the choice is single dad with surrogate child or being single and childless. Single dads raise kids better than single mothers and since our society is fine with single mothers we should enable men to be single fathers if they want to be.
u/WeedleTLiar
All of these alleged former liberals need to be expunged. They're running the same tired playbook.
Gays should read the room and lay low for the next few decades.
If opposing the buying and selling of children to degenerate sex pests makes me retarded, then call me Simple Jack, because I am full retard on this issue.
All I see are two faggots vying for our attention.
Don't give them it.
You're the faggot. Still crying about Walsh when he's one of the few consistent right wing voices. Are you out here buying babies too
I think that's the same guy who is totally okay with liberal progressive propaganda being pushed in the zeitgeist. So while he might say he's not buying babies himself, he seems to be of the mindset that he's totally okay with faggots who do.
Nah, I just don't get involved in soap opera shit. Intersectionality is when you are linking yourself up with problems so far removed from the ones you've set your mind to that you end up being someone else's slave.
Now fetch me my coffee :)
Literally fucking who?
Some pedo faggot.
Haven't heard his name mentioned anywhere in a few years, so my guess is not any more and he's desperate for any attention at all from anyone.
I remember saying on the donald that this was going to happen with the acceptance of liberals into the republican party in 2016. The head mod agreed
I can't think of a single thing federal statute wise that has improved since 1992.
If he had said 1995, then the assault weapons ban has expired since then, but it wasn't around in 1992.
Bad stuff has been struck down since then, some state laws improved. Are taxes better overall? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I guess Gringrich and Co got rid of alot of legacy New Deal crap like openly paying people to not grow corn, but that was just reintroduced in the years after Gingrich's ousting with a nominal cover of 'Grassland Preserves'
Faggots can have a say because they are backed by feminist women. After all LGBT is based on the feminist blueprint of "muh oppression".
And who allowed feminist women to speak? Teadcons like Matt Walsh. He and his similars are also part of the chain of problems.
LOL you're deadass claiming MATT WALSH is pro feminist.
They may say they are against feminism but they still support the system that enables feminism in the first place.
For example instead of being against LGBT in women's sport, he should have said "I am in favor of trannies in women's sports because now the women feels the pain of seeing their opportunities stolen like women do with men".
Instead the tradcon cuck like everyone else, bowing to the gynocentric system.
Wanting women's sports isn't really feminist but common sense. Wanting separate spaces for males & females like Walsh does isn't about wamminz rights but recognizing the obvious differences between the sexes.
You don't fight crazy feminists with logic, you do it with another crazy ideology.
Since LGBT is built upon feminism they can't take it down without taking down the feminist rhetoric first.
Is he for repealing the 19th amendment and ending no fault divorce and family courts?
He's 1000% for ending no fault divorce and undoing the bias against men in family courts.
He's not against women voting at all but is for very stringent voter requirements including people on the gov dole like welfare queens.
I wish we could factory reset to 1952.
1852
0AD bam i win
70 AD
gays should be straight up executed, they're all pedos and bags of STD's any reasonable person would automatically put such creatures to death
Yes please!
letting gay people adopt kids would be a drop in the bucket vs the size of the problem.
so anyone proposing it is "fucking brain dead."