Be rule do warcrimes
Be rule do warcrimes
Picture shows a pride parade. A group of people are carrying a banner that says "LOCKHEED MARTIN" over a rainbow graphic.
You're viewing a single thread.
Liberalism in a nutshell:
When the new gay CEO unfairly fires 2000 workers, gay and straight alike 🤑👌
IDK, I'd rather the people making the weapons be on our side.
As a Queer person what the hell do you mean? The gears of the military industrial complex are lubricated with the blood of the innocent.
Do you believe that if the US didn't make weapons, then everyone else would also just stop making weapons?
It's not like they're arming queer people.
It’s not like they’re arming queer people.
... this may come as a shock, but the US and its allies are the primary countries upholding LGBT rights in their own nations at this point in time.
Even back in 2009 Pacifists understand what endless conflict would lead to, exactly what we're seeing today.
You know what disarming leads to?
Invasion by a hostile force.
Just ask Ukraine. They're a very peaceful people, very into disbanding the military, defunding the military industrial complex, even getting rid of fighter jets and their nuclear weapons.
Ah yes because the US is going to be invaded by... Canada? Mexico? Uzbekistan? Seriously what the hell are you talking about? If you actually think that upholding the American empire has benefitted Americans then you're just a liberal.
The US isn't about to be invaded by anyone. We have a very powerful military. So there is no threat in the world we live in, aside from the threat from internal extremists and asymmetrical warfare (ie terrorism). If the world were quite different, and we had no military power, we'd be at risk from a number of adversaries. Possibility the greatest threat would be foreign-backed "separatism" as occurred in Ukraine in 2014 (which is simply a covert invasion that is disguised as a civil war).
There's literally nothing wrong with being a liberal. It's really quite preferable to a number of the alternatives. It must kill you that the majority of people don't remotely support your political views.
Ah yes, if you're the biggest and most violent bully in the school yard, you don't have to worry about being beat up. Just say "they hate us for our freedom" in the mirror 3 times while ignoring any sort of actions we do as a country that might make other people or countries want to attack us. I swear, your exact message could've been said by the average republican in 2008.
Funny, when I opposed the Iraq invasion in 2001 (and 2008 and beyond) I was called a bleeding heart liberal, but now I'm accused of supporting the Iraq war, "enhanced interrogation," "extraordinary rendition," "indefinite detention," Guantanamo Bay, etc for saying there's nothing wrong with being a liberal.
I really wish the world would pick one definition of liberalism rather than just labeling whatever they don't like "liberalism."
I seem to recall that the apex of Republicanism in 2008 was the Tea Party, which I never identified with in the slightest. No, that was 2009. 2008 was when Mitt Romney was campaigning on the idea of strapping the family dog to the roof of the car. Is that what you think liberalism is? A Mitt Romney republican?
How about, instead of arguing definitions of words that are constantly misused by people who want liberalism to mean anything stretching from neoliberalism to communism (which is weird how you'd take conservative's definition of liberal at face value), you talk about how much your individual ideas have ratcheted to the right instead? I'm also not the original person who blamed your position on your liberalism.
Insular, America-centric, "we must have the most firepower to protect us from the evil people", is absolutely the rhetoric used by republicans in 2008. Maybe if you traveled back in time, you'd be voting for Mitt Romney regardless of how safe his dog was. It's entirely a fear-based position to have, and that's been the republican MO for a while. Our military industrial complex makes us less safe because it constantly creates situations that guarantees its own existence. Protecting your comfort through global threat of violence is a cowardly position to uphold.
At which point in history should we have gotten rid of all of our boom?
The point where America stopped defending itself and started becoming a global empire (roughly after WWII).
I'm sure the Soviet Union would have disarmed in response, as seen by their holsum reactions to democracy in what-would-become-the-Warsaw-Pact
You do realize that the Warsaw Pact was created in direct response to NATO?
You do realize that the Warsaw Pact was created in direct response to NATO?
Did you miss the 'what-would-become' in 'what-would-become-the-Warsaw-Pact'?
You... do realize that NATO was founded after the Soviets couped democracy in Czechoslovakia, right?
... right...?
Our side you mean the side of imperialism and neocolonialism, of the invasion of Iraq, of the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Korea, and the interventionism in Chile, Libya, Iran (Mosaddegh era), and the support of the banana republics? Fuck that, that's not my side.
Agreed, as a Queer person I do not stand with the military industrial complex, nor the politicians that are payed off by them, nor the military that uses their weapons against the innocent.
Is it better to be a queer person in a nation with a strong military that respects and integrates queer people, or a queer person in a nation with a weak military that imprisons and sometimes lynches queer people?
Queer rights and small government not only are not contradictary but actively work together to from a free society, so no I will not engage in your false liberal dicatomy.
Great. What's keeping you from moving to these free societies?
What's this nonsense? How does reducing military expenditure lead to imprisonment and lynching of queer people? Is the only thing keeping the Military Industrial Complex from murdering queer people giving the former enough money?
What's this nonsense?
It's called a question. There are two scenarios alternate. There is no supposition of cause and effect.
Sure, then I refuse to answer your question