01-15-2021, 02:58 PM
Lets define "Liberal".
Just like the definition of the word Privacy has been altered to no longer mean "Privacy is hiding something Right" to "Privacy is hiding something you have done wrong". Most importantly that definition has been altered at a SUBCONSCIOUS LEVEL. Liberal has also had its definition altered. Liberal means different things to different people. A classic "Liberal" would support "Liberty", which is where the word comes from. Today those who are not in positions of power still believe this. Those are your average Democratic voters. Then there are the "Liberals" in charge. Their ACTIONS really define what they are. They wear the LABEL of "Liberal" in order to affect the voters perceptions of them. But make NO MISTAKE they are NOT DEMOCRATS. They are full scale hard core COMMUNISTS. They tell you one thing, then do what ever the hell they want. And I think as many people have just learned with the GOP betraying Trump, is many of these "Liberals" are REPUBLICANS.
Change of topic for two seconds. IF this were a "true Representative Democracy" as described on paper, then if 0% of the population supported a bill, then 0% would vote for a bill. Likewise, if 100% of the people supported a bill, then 100% of our representatives would vote FOR that bill. But that is not what we see happening. This is quite evident on things people have publicly felt very strongly about. What we DO see is about 30% of all bills are passed. It seems to operate without rhyme or reason. We hate this bill! 30%. We love that bill! 30%. And that holds true until you get to the top 1%. THEN and ONLY THEN do we see the operations of a Representative Democracy, where 100% of rich people want a bill passed then that is what they get. Often times they write it themselves.
When our Representative Democracy only reflects the will of the top 478 richest people in the world, then we do NOT have Democracy, or a Republic, but rather a Plutocratic Oligarchy. This is HOW Silicon Valley has gotten the laws passed which only benefit them, and always at your expense. A perfect example of this is Twitter, and how they Perma-Banned Trump, yet, hypocritically opposed to being censored themselves. And that is the thing that people fall for. They want Censorship when they think they wont be the ones being censored. Twitter WANTED Censorship. Or, they want FREE SPEECH for ALL, not just some. Twitter got exactly what it asked for, and are now unhappy with getting what they want. Moral here is for people that support Censorship, how well is that gonna work if their expression to call FOR Censorship is BANNED under the very laws they are trying to support?
Twitter and Google and Apple have all abused their power to exercise monopolistic control over ANY and ALL competition. Parler may be the first of MANY, INCLUDING RonPaulForums.com to fall to the many injustices of Censorship and Monopolistic control. For the record, RPF is already banned on Facebook, right? Links to our site have been deemed "dangerous" and we must be censored?
Connect With Us