I love how you end every single discussion using ad hominem. What I actually wrote in black and white was this:
Any current member of the EU that wishes to pursue an economic policy that’s contrary to neoliberal capitalism that EU champions will find it impossible to do so because it lacks economic sovereignty required to do so.
This is obviously the case for actual socialist policies such as mass nationalization which would not be allowed under EU policies. This is precisely what Corbyn wanted to do if UK gained economic sovereignty. Thanks for once again clarifying that there is no difference between anarchists and liberals.
This is however not what the OP cover image is about, nor what the “sovernty” discussion in the UK is about. So basically you have no idea what you were talking about and now try to change the topic to make it less obvious that you were just parroting right-wing nonsense.
I have explained in detail what my point is, and that it relates to the wording used by the publication. Feel free to continue arguing in bad faith though since that’s all you seem to do here.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I’ve noticed the same behavior talking with liberal Americans, anything they don’t agree with is dismissed as right wing propaganda.
deleted by creator
Don’t try to wriggle out of it now, Yogthos, your true agenda has been revealed!
😂
I love how you end every single discussion using ad hominem. What I actually wrote in black and white was this:
This is obviously the case for actual socialist policies such as mass nationalization which would not be allowed under EU policies. This is precisely what Corbyn wanted to do if UK gained economic sovereignty. Thanks for once again clarifying that there is no difference between anarchists and liberals.
@poVoq @yogthos get a room you two! 😂
🤣
They actually did few days ago, remember the thread that had like 80 comment long chain XD
This is however not what the OP cover image is about, nor what the “sovernty” discussion in the UK is about. So basically you have no idea what you were talking about and now try to change the topic to make it less obvious that you were just parroting right-wing nonsense.
I have explained in detail what my point is, and that it relates to the wording used by the publication. Feel free to continue arguing in bad faith though since that’s all you seem to do here.