Tucker Carlson said last night that we are seeing the end of neo-liberalism...

OK, but I mean things that ACTUALLY happened, not your right wing disinformation psyop

>Exxon Bans LGBTQ Pride and BLM Flags
I think ppl are sick of that shit. It's just a very tiny minority.

I have to laugh! Tucker said something? Then you can bet the opposite is true.

Your wishful thinking aside, right wing bias is on the way out, it's a non-survivable detour that the human species is going through right now, but its long term prospects are nil.

Idiot

Attached: trump-mouth-saying-wrong-closeup.jpg (735x473, 93.95K)

>doesn't know what neo-liberalism means

lol why did youtube shut it down? because it didnt really happen?
sorry man i hate trannies and FLORIDA MAN WON BIGLY

Attached: suhneed.png (900x1195, 1.61M)

Oh ok, so Helena Kerschner doesn't exist? She's literally all over Rumble and Odysee right now.

>Tucker Carlson
Tucker is an insecure homosexual feeding bullshit to his tiny audience.

The massive infighting on the left is proof it's breaking down at the core. It's all fads and fashion for the libtards, they will just adopt something new that they think makes them look like less of a baby killing mongoloid piece of shit and virtue signal it on their fagbook page for all their faggot fake friends.

Attached: 146215462_3786738518041503_4306499977901015874_o.png (526x526, 296.66K)

Proof: trust me guys

>neo-liberalism

Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism,[1] is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism.[2]:7[3] A significant factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them,[4][5] it is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society; however, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly debate

HOLY FUCK YOU'RE STUPID.

Imagine being such a stupid piece of shit. 'HURR DURR OBJECTIVE REALITY IS JUST A RIGHT WING PSYOPP HURR DURR RUSSIAN COLLUSION IS REAL HURR DURR GAS PRICES ARENT BECAUSE OF BIDEN POLICIES" Fuck, people like this should go straight through the woodchipper, and then the leftovers should be put through the incinerator just for good measure. You're actual fucking trash and genocide of morons like you would genuinely be a positive thing. Go die in a fire, you piece of shit.

So no credible sources, got it

Fake news

Imagine trying this hard to pretend neoliberal isn't predominantly used to refer to establishment democrats when even your own dogshit leftist propoganda outlets contradict your blatant lie, you fucking moron.

Attached: Screenshot_20220430-165234_Chrome.jpg (1080x2280, 399.66K)

Still wrong asshole.
REAL Americans are sick and tired of the endless LIES and HATE from braindead republicunt shitheads like you and Fucker Carlson.
KYS now asshole, your time is OVER.

Thank Christ comrade Carlson is on this.

"Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism, is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism."

"I don't like reality so I'm going to live in a delusion instead."

Time will be a harsh teacher to you, my deliberately dishonest friend.

My bad, someone beat me to it Cope. Words have these things called "definitions". If you left out the 'neo' part I could maybe see an argument here, but no, comrade carl went full retard.

Then Tucker is an idiot. Neoliberals are Reagan era conservatives that want to lower taxes and deregulate markets and influence spending.
He IS right in that its going away but not for the reason he things. Its more that the woke culture is winning (by far) and are waking up to the idea that lowering taxes and barriers for the elite really only help those at the top and not anyone else...

Attached: 5h6pe1hu75n01.jpg (598x746, 26.84K)

There you go, being deliberately dishonest again, oh you! If you knew anything about language you would understand full well that language isn't handed down from on high by the people who write dictionaries, it's completely the other way around. The people who weite dictionaries merwly catalogue language that emerges naturally from common use . There are countless words whose definitions have changed over time, and new terms are constantly being coined. Are you honestly retarded enough to think that these changes and inventions only happen because someone at miriam-webster decided one day that the word 'mark' would suddenly double as a verb? That it had never been used that way until the moment a lexographer had put pen to paper? Either you're out of yoir depth or you're being dishonest and you know it, eithet way you're full of shit when you try to pretend that neo-liberal doesn't refer to the likes of the Clintons and other establishment Democrats

Inb4 dipshit response about typoes in my text, Im writing this on my phone in haste

He’s a lot smarter than you will ever be. Go eat a bag of donkey balls

No need to attack grammar when the post itself is retarded. Did you read my post? 'Liberal' has a connotation in modern usage. 'Neo-liberal' does not. Karl is actively trying to CHANGE the connotation. That is the problem. And for what? To push his left wing agenda?

>Neo-liberal does not have a connotation

Tell that to Vox and the the hundreds of other media establishments that say it does. Tell that to every political commentator of the past three decades. You're wrong about it, just admit it. It's okay, we're all wrong about shit sometimes and you are objectively wrong about this this time.

So you're just lying now. Here's an application of using words this way:
P1) da news says left = government control
P2) Republicans pass govment contwol
C) Republicans are raging Marxist globohomos
QED, you're retarded. I know you think you're owning a lib or something, but you're not. If you want to have an honest conversation, feel free to start.

>You're lying
> You're retarded
Maybe look in a mirror before you go saying that to other people
>I know you think you're owning a lib
I never said that, but since you seem to think I'm owning you, well, I guess somewhere deep down even you realize that you have in fact lost the argument.

> thinking everything is an argument
You leftists need new material.

I'd also like to point out that 'da news' here is not just, 'the news,' it's decades of documented common usage, literature and multi-media that says "neo-liberal" refers to establishment Democrats. Bill Clinton is literally the poster child for neoliberalism according to every major source from wikipedia ro and article you will find on a google search. You're the dipshit pretending that it meams what you want it to mean based on the equivalent of some blog entry by karen mcnonamerson. "I FOUND A DEFINITION SOME NOBODY WROTE ON THE INTERNET, SO JUST IGNORE ACTUAL DECADES OF COMMON USE LITERATURE AND MULTIMEDIA BECAUSE THIS FUCKING NOBODY THAT NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF SAYS I'M RIGHT"

Thats the level of retardation and copium you're on here.

Right wingers are the problem because no one should be allowed to own private property you don't own anything and you're a sexist disgusting nazi stop using karen as an insult stop resisting stop living or ELSE

What the hell are you even talking about? Show your definition and, if it's even different, explain why it's correct over the other's posted.

I love how you're so desperate to keep up the lie that you're pretending like I didn't provide you with a source for my argument, but I'll humor you.

Here's the vox article again (not my go to source as I generally despise them, but a source nonetheless)

vox.com/platform/amp/polyarchy/2019/6/11/18660240/democrats-neoliberalism

Here's wikipedia (you have to scroll down a bit, pic related)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Yet another source

lithub.com/how-the-democrats-ditched-economic-populism-for-neoliberalism/

Or just google "Democrat neoliberal" or "bill clinton neololiberal"

Inb4 "waaaaah I don't like those sources!" Of course you don't you don't like anything that contradicts your confirmatuon bias, but unfortunately for you there are a million more that confirm.

Attached: Screenshot_20220430-180432_Chrome.jpg (1079x1450, 565.59K)

What's confusing is we seem to agree? I don't get your argument. Virtually all U.S. politicians fit this.

You were arguing that 'neo-liberal' isn't used to specifically refer to establishment democrats, I demonstrated that it does in fact have that usage. It has other uses as well, but it does have that specific usage.

>industrial grooming racket

why are you people so fucking dumb? there isn't some conspiracy. there are just some misguided people incorrectly classifying people as trans when they aren't. this is why i'm against letting them put kids on HRT. these retards act like the science is settled, but it isn't.

I never argued otherwise. That's the point of the conversation - people trying to make the term fit fit a narrative. The U.S. has been Keynesian (aka Neoliberal) for a long time. Nixon famously said so. It was austerity rollbacks under Reagan that began to change public perception but all he did different was change the verbiage and which sectors got government funding.

The problem isn't the verbiage, the problem is the agenda, it doesn't matter what you call it if politicians are profitting and maintaining their power to the detriment of the people, the actions arw the problems, playing stupid word games will never change the underlying reality of the situation. Word games can omly change peoples perceptions, not the actual reality

So why are you arguing? You're repeating my point back at me. Carlson is playing word games. Not because it changes the underlying meanings, but because it changes how people behave when they hear those words.

Regardless of Carlson, the person he interviewed is a real person that actuall exists talking about a series of events that happened to them and actions they took that had real physical consequences that they now regret, and you're arguing that the things that set those events in motion don't exist just because he has a personal bias. It's not him playing word games, its him highlighting an actual issue and you playing word games to pretend it doesn't exist.

Does he have a bias? Yes, does he engage in political sophistry, probably, but that doesn't mean there isnt a real issue underlying this, a la the actual person who actual experienced the issue.

Unless you just want to call them a liar, etc without evidence.

>Regardless of Carlson
We are talking about him. If you want to evade that, please elaborate.
>Unless you just want to call them a liar
See his own words and the official statements of his employer. He is not a "truth teller", if you'll accept more word games on his part.
> ... you are arguing ...
Do you even know what I'm saying? I haven't once mentioned anything outside his verbiage, which has tangible consequences. If you want to discuss a separate issue, make your own thread. If you believe that issue directly affects what we're talking about, and it doesn't, change my mind. Don't divert an ongoing conversation. If you want to keep Karl out of this, do so. Discuss neoliberalism.

Attached: justtryit.jpg (1126x700, 208.54K)

>neoliberalism
I am not confident Tucker has even a shallow idea of what that word means.

Attached: dunningkruger.jpg (593x408, 57.43K)

The only person diverting and evading here is you. This thread was always about the issue, you're just pretending its about the verbiage because you lost that argument. You are literally a perfect example of the OP image.

You even go so far as to deliberately misread my statement about the de-trans person as being about tucker so you can call her a liar without calling her a liar. Its truly remarkable

I suggest *you* go make *your* own thread if you want to continue with this sophistry. This thread is dead anyways, and you're clearly not here in good faith so there's really not much point in continuing, except to let it stand as a perfect example of exactly how leftists like you play word games, try to derail and obfuscate instead of dealing in reality and fact.

What? Who mentioned trans? Is that what you've been on about this whole time? I'm literally just talking about the term 'neoliberalism' and how it's misused by people like Karlson. God I hate speaking in memes but it's 'rent free' with you. Jesus Christ.

See
I don't fully agree with their post, but its an example of one of the many issues on which 'neo-liberals' pander for support,

Also I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt using multiple sources that he is in fact using the word neo-liberal correctly here. In case your memory really is that short see

we've turned the corner but we still have a ways to go until the last heshe kills himself.

I don't recommend posting selfies on this forum my dude

>center-left

Attached: 1627517117919.png (2000x2177, 114.1K)

You're on the wrong board, /pol/troon.
Bugger off now, there's a good lad.

Attached: dunning-kruger club.jpg (697x664, 81.33K)

Thank you for linking that. It doesn't change that Karlson has been misusing the term for years as part of his attempts to put labels on his opposition.

nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/tucker-carlson-romney-monologue-capitalism-social-conservatives-fox-news.html

You have yet to address the meaning of neoliberalism yourself. Want another crack at it without copypasting? Or cite a meaning you agree with 100%?

>ITT: We don't know what neoliberal means

just op or everybody? why@op?

Ah yes, the good ole "This Democrat party politician that millions of Democrat party members voted for isn't a Democrat" Argument.

Inb4 the "This was 30 years ago the Clintons aren't even relevant anymore" argument that ignores the fact that Democrat supporters literally spent 4 years lighting the country on fire because a clinton didn win just 1 election cycle ago. If they're not Democrats why the fuck do they keep getting the Democrat party nomination and why the fuck do registered Democrats like you keep voting for them?

Yes, full-blown Communism is coming.

Attached: 18baa323866d54e0af273ef62e421328874cf8a8_full.jpg (184x184, 14.67K)

i like how long it took you to give somebody else's argument

Not that user, but it seems you don't know how to read a graph. Would you like assistance? For starters, that graph is not placing people by party affiliation. That's something you did.

>You have yet to address the meaning of neoliberalism yourself. Want another crack at it without copypasting?

You first.

I like how you tried to deflect from the fact that you don't have a counter argument.

This was me .
user beat me to it with a longer definition plus unnecessary insult. I also mentioned Keynesian, how it was used, and how it 'changed' ().

>Florida Man winning big against the grooming
LOL kys

Attached: Ex0w1oDVIAAm8TP.png (595x391, 289.66K)