Those are definitionally 'liberal' policies because they 'liberate' corporations from government oversight, rather than a technocratic policy that would place their oversight under government bureaucracy, or a socialized policy that would place their jurisdiction under an element of popular consent.
Even more so, they are historically liberal policies because liberalism is historically and definitionally about privatizing the rights of aristocrats to be bought and sold on the market, rather than outright socializing and creating universal access to them. While some avenues of policy have been socialized, (usually after years and years of legal battles to just make things run smooth) most things in the U.S. are run liberally, by liberals, usually at this point in time either neo-liberals or conservative liberals. Policies like Citizens United are explicitly conservative neo-liberal policies because they increase the freedoms of those with the most access to the market.
Just because you are ignorant of politics and history doesn't mean that we are.
Hell, I'll even make a correction. Most policies have been 'technocratized', not even socialized, with most towns acting through partially elected corporate boards where the town manager is hired, with most of those managers practicing methods of neo-liberal austerity. or running tax haven development schemes. That being said, while there are family dynasty corporations and politicians, I don't know of any hereditary lords, so they definitely aren't royalists, so they kinda have to be some flavor of liberal.
I’m sorry if what I’m about to say is completely wrong, but I disagree with calling Fox News liberal.
I don’t think words have absolutely constant meanings, their definitions can change if people start using them in a different way. That has happened with the words "liberal" and "conservative" where they are used to refer to a different set of political positions than 200 years ago (mostly because people advocating for feudalism and aristocratic rule are few and far between nowadays).
So I think that Fox News would be "liberal" in the original meaning of the word, but not in the current understanding of the word.
Although you have a point about words not having absolute meanings, the usage of liberal the poster everyone is dunking on is pretty much only used in the us and Canada. Most of the rest of the world uses liberal in the original sense of the word (see the liberal party in Australia for example)
I probably wouldn't describe Fox News as liberal myself. Obviously they are liberals, but in context it makes more sense to refer to the channel as conservative.
My gripe is just with libs being politically illiterate, while claiming we don't know what words mean
Those are definitionally 'liberal' policies because they 'liberate' corporations from government oversight, rather than a technocratic policy that would place their oversight under government bureaucracy, or a socialized policy that would place their jurisdiction under an element of popular consent.
Even more so, they are historically liberal policies because liberalism is historically and definitionally about privatizing the rights of aristocrats to be bought and sold on the market, rather than outright socializing and creating universal access to them. While some avenues of policy have been socialized, (usually after years and years of legal battles to just make things run smooth) most things in the U.S. are run liberally, by liberals, usually at this point in time either neo-liberals or conservative liberals. Policies like Citizens United are explicitly conservative neo-liberal policies because they increase the freedoms of those with the most access to the market.
Just because you are ignorant of politics and history doesn't mean that we are.
This. I'm sick of libs coming around flaunting political illiteracy and saying we're the ones who don't know what words mean
Hell, I'll even make a correction. Most policies have been 'technocratized', not even socialized, with most towns acting through partially elected corporate boards where the town manager is hired, with most of those managers practicing methods of neo-liberal austerity. or running tax haven development schemes. That being said, while there are family dynasty corporations and politicians, I don't know of any hereditary lords, so they definitely aren't royalists, so they kinda have to be some flavor of liberal.
I’m sorry if what I’m about to say is completely wrong, but I disagree with calling Fox News liberal. I don’t think words have absolutely constant meanings, their definitions can change if people start using them in a different way. That has happened with the words "liberal" and "conservative" where they are used to refer to a different set of political positions than 200 years ago (mostly because people advocating for feudalism and aristocratic rule are few and far between nowadays). So I think that Fox News would be "liberal" in the original meaning of the word, but not in the current understanding of the word.
Although you have a point about words not having absolute meanings, the usage of liberal the poster everyone is dunking on is pretty much only used in the us and Canada. Most of the rest of the world uses liberal in the original sense of the word (see the liberal party in Australia for example)
I probably wouldn't describe Fox News as liberal myself. Obviously they are liberals, but in context it makes more sense to refer to the channel as conservative.
My gripe is just with libs being politically illiterate, while claiming we don't know what words mean
deleted by creator