They wanted a minimalist state, did they?
Is this a statement, or a question? If it's a question, why are you asking me? Google it yourself.
If it's a statement, does it come with a point, or are we just sharing interesting facts?
How do you achieve equality without using wealth redistribution and a giant state?
Good question. Again, I'm not sure why you're asking me. Personally, I'm not sure 'equality' can be achieved, but that would depend on how you define the word.
I provided you statsitical(sic) evidence that ..
You gave me an image file of a survey that had a pool less than 100. That is not conclusive evidence of anything.
Instead you argue over a "TERM".
I have not argued over any terms. I provided you with the definition for a word you misunderstood. That's not an 'argument'.
It's educating you with facts.
It doesn't matter if they call themselves liberals if they do not support freedom of speech as much as the opposition, does it?
Uh, yes.. no? I'm not sure. That's a run-on sentence that makes the meaning ambiguous at best. I assume English is not your native language?
But you're correct if you're trying to say that it's a persons actions that count, and not their preferred labels.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify the obvious, but sure, ok.
You gave me an image file of a survey that had a pool less than 100. That is not conclusive evidence of anything.
And in a later comment I provided the general social survey according to which more republicans than democrats support freedom of speech in all matters.
It asks those polled among other things "should a communist/racist/homosexual (...) have the right to give a speech".
according to which more republicans than democrats
Uh-huh. So is this the part where I have to explain that a 'liberal' and a 'democratic party supporter' are not the same thing?
And what about the rest of my comment?
You're wrong, and not just a little wrong, but wrong in every statement you've made in about every possible way.
You should be proud, that is not a small feat.
They wanted a minimalist state, did they?
How do you achieve equality without using wealth redistribution and a giant state?
I provided you statistical evidence that republicans are more supportive of freedom of speech than democrats. Instead you argue over a "TERM".
It doesn't matter if they call themselves liberals if they do not support freedom of speech as much as the opposition, does it?