Why is '*******' so often used as a derogatory term around here?

[New England]

becuase it's generally a limiting philosophy, the way conservatism is. anybody who navigates policy with any measure of success is not limited by a stamp he put on his forehead in calling himself conservative or *******.


if you vote ******* just because you're *******, it's a bad thing. the same is true with ************* who vote based on their conservatism.


and yes, of course i'm registered as an independent. i don't vote if i don't see a candidate i like.

[One_Tycoon]

I tend to call them Leftists and Socialist-Collectivists. ******* is a broad term...nothing wrong with Classic *******ism. As for American *******ism on social issues....from a free market perspective one could care less. In fact it's economically a good thing the more low wage people have ********s and spare the economy a lifetime worth of costs. You may even call it fiscally conservative. It's a good thing if they're gay and don't reproduce...unless you're Peter Thiel or something. ******** agree that overpopulation is a problem. There are things that even Capitalism can't solve...and that's more people than natural jobs (not forced by govt created jobs) are available.

[MBE]

I tend to call them Leftists and Socialist-Collectivists. ******* is a broad term...nothing wrong with Classic *******ism. As for American *******ism on social issues....from a free market perspective one could care less. In fact it's economically a good thing the more low wage people have ********s and spare the economy a lifetime worth of costs. You may even call it fiscally conservative. It's a good thing if they're gay and don't reproduce...unless you're Peter Thiel or something. ******** agree that overpopulation is a problem. There are things that even Capitalism can't solve...and that's more people than natural jobs (not forced by govt created jobs) are available.

But in capitalism you need a poor underclass for others to succeed, no? It's very difficult to sustain one without the other without centralized state regulation.

[BostonGuy]

"bias ******* media"

[One_Tycoon]

But in capitalism you need a poor underclass for others to succeed, no? It's very difficult to sustain one without the other without centralized state regulation.

No...not at all. Underclass is another socialist-collectivist term to incite the so called class warfare...which also is a misnomer. There are no classes, only individuals.

If you're stuck in a entry job position at Wal-Mart and not trying to better yourself...that is entirely your problem. Someone else won't be that ******. Yes, theoretically the CEO needs the labor jobs necessary to keep the business going, but nowhere does it say that the people doing that job are stuck in a 'Class' like a bunch of peasants with the overlords watching over them. Yet that's how some like to spin it as.

[MBE]

No...not at all. Underclass is another socialist-collectivist term to incite the so called class warfare...which also is a misnomer. There are no classes, only individuals.

If you're stuck in a entry job position at Wal-Mart and not trying to better yourself...that is entirely your problem. Someone else won't be that ******. Yes, theoretically the CEO needs the labor jobs necessary to keep the business going, but nowhere does it say that the people doing that job are stuck in a 'Class' like a bunch of peasants with the overlords watching over them. Yet that's how some like to spin it as.

Firstly you state not at all. Do you have an example of a truly capitalist society that doesn't have a group of people on the poverty line?

You can call it 'class' or as you put it 'more low wage people', all I'm doing is referring to a group of individuals by their similarities and giving those similarities a title for ease of reference.

Try telling the kid in a Mogadishu slum collecting bottle caps that he isn't trying to better himself.

Furthermore when was the last time a child from a power elite took an entry level job at Wal-Mart? And when was the last time the child of an entry level Wal-Mart employee took an entry level job?

The statistics imply divisions between these groups of people that can be loosely defined as classes if you so choose.

[madsweeney]

Because most users here are bigoted and misogynistic **********s.

[IMG]//2.bp.blogspot.com/-oVDzbP8Q-q4/UDhiASgGMNI/AAAAAAAACXs/5M2ZAY0uz3I/s1600/JFK+-+*******+COPY+V+Low.jpg[/IMG]

Except by today's definition...JFK is a conservative. Hell, he was too conservative for most ********s back then.

******* is really an inaccurate word to describe the current political ideology that the left use, their ideology is more in line with socialism and/or communism...hence why its used as a derogatory term. Political ideologies are fine, but call them what they are, the left uses ******* inaccurately, the right mocks them for it. Much like how neo-con **********s are mocked for calling themselves conservative, when really they're more in line with facism.

[madsweeney]

I tend to call them Leftists and Socialist-Collectivists. ******* is a broad term...nothing wrong with Classic *******ism. As for American *******ism on social issues....from a free market perspective one could care less. In fact it's economically a good thing the more low wage people have ********s and spare the economy a lifetime worth of costs. You may even call it fiscally conservative. It's a good thing if they're gay and don't reproduce...unless you're Peter Thiel or something. ******** agree that overpopulation is a problem. There are things that even Capitalism can't solve...and that's more people than natural jobs (not forced by govt created jobs) are available.

Classical *******ism is more like modern libertarian-ism and conservatism (the non-morality by law ************* at least).

[madsweeney]

But in capitalism you need a poor underclass for others to succeed, no? It's very difficult to sustain one without the other without centralized state regulation.

There will always be people who are naturally less intelligent, skilled, or motivated so there will always be low-producers. Why would you punish those who excel in life due to their natural gifts, self-modivation, and plain luck...doesn't work in nature, doesn't work in society long-term.

[madsweeney]

Firstly you state not at all. Do you have an example of a truly capitalist society that doesn't have a group of people on the poverty line?

You can call it 'class' or as you put it 'more low wage people', all I'm doing is referring to a group of individuals by their similarities and giving those similarities a title for ease of reference.

Try telling the kid in a Mogadishu slum collecting bottle caps that he isn't trying to better himself.

Furthermore when was the last time a child from a power elite took an entry level job at Wal-Mart? And when was the last time the child of an entry level Wal-Mart employee took an entry level job?

The statistics imply divisions between these groups of people that can be loosely defined as classes if you so choose.

Show me a truly socialist state that hasn't ended in an extreme unbalance of classes.