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

[MBE]

Itz laughable how liberables have painted themselves as non racist when it was they who fought against civil rights and abolition.

That was a completely different political climate when being a ********** meant you were predominantly left-wing. It bares no relation to today.

[rorymac]

Itz laughable how liberables have painted themselves as non racist when it was they who fought against civil rights and abolition.

Moronic. Are you saying that I fought against abolition? To group people by their predecessors' actions is laughably ******.

[rorymac]

*******ism is in the business of placing blame. I mean what would the left do without a Society of Dependance. Success is demonized and punished, beliefs other than their own are scorned, and although they crow about tolerance, they're not really for it. What they are for is telling others how to live their lives, and getting laws passed to make them do it. They think Religion is for fools and then turn around and worship Global Warming,with that card carrying fool Al Gore as their Pope. It's all just a hackney'd sop****ric ideal that was worn out by the time it hit the 60's. Smart, ambitious, young entrepreneurial Capitalists made all those things we find essential in our lives today. Not wanna be revolutionaries with gripes.

Anyone in the business of blame isn't really a *******.

Also, you can be a capitalist and still be *******.

[squealpiggy]

In Socialism you need a PERMANENT underclass, no? The 'underclass' is thrust into financial oblivion by failed left wing/Socialist policies, that leave the world looking like Detroit.

I told you that you had no clue what socialism meant.

Moronic. Are you saying that I fought against abolition? To group people by their predecessors' actions is laughably ******.

It's also incorrect. The person who posted that is confusing ******* with ********, when it was Demco**** who were on the wrong side in the American Civil War.

[New England]

Lower forms of humans, yes.

I don't necessarily think it's fair to call them "lower forms" just because they are ******.

i can't see how you'd talk like this and expect to be unbiased, or have a true understanding of policy.

if you come across conservative policy that you appreciate you've got to label yourself a "lower form of human," or "******."


it's complete ignorance to believe that ******* policies are the only ones with any value. you're shooting yourselves in the foot.


you're bright guys. i expect mo. compromise is the lifeblood of policymaking.

[Russian Crushin]

******** have no morals!

[squealpiggy]

i can't see how you'd talk like this and expect to be unbiased, or have a true understanding of policy.

if you come across conservative policy that you appreciate you've got to label yourself a "lower form of human," or "******."


it's complete ignorance to believe that ******* policies are the only ones with any value. you're shooting yourselves in the foot.


you're bright guys. i expect mo. compromise is the lifeblood of policymaking.

US punditry has distorted the meaning of the words ******* and conservative immeasurably. Conservative policies are not necessarily il******* and ******* policies can often be conservative. These are opposites only in US politics.

[One_Tycoon]

True but there needs to be apparatus in place to give them a fair opportunity to do so, like equality of education, otherwise their progress will forever be hindered by their competitions unfair advantages in social mobility.

That's if you want to create a just and fair society.

NO...there really doesn't need to be a 'apparatus' [whatever that means] in place. And "Equality" [<---Socialist-Collectivist Sleaze words Alert] is a subjective, broad term. The only thing education needs is a free market make-over. The Dept of Education needs to be abolished, that's a waste of time.

The only reason private schools are so expensive is because they can't compete on a price for price level with the quasi-monopoly of public schools who are paid for via the usurping of taxes. This idea that only rich kids can go to private schools only exists because of govt being involved so heavily in Education. Families could have more options and choose where to send their kids to school....and they would if ALL schools competed against each other for your hard earned money across the board... whether for cheaper tuition, quality of school's infrastructure and/or quality of teachers. Shop and compare around. As it is right now...there is no incentive. Lazy people who have no interest in producing become public teachers so they can have their 3 months off the year, get pension & benefits for life.... with students who are forced to go there for "free". Keep in mind that I'm only talking about the U.S.

Yes and no, I'm just using it as an extreme analogy for the effects of capitalism without a social safety net. How can you rise up out of that situation exactly?

Somalia is not Capitalism. if you believe that then we already know where your head is at on these matters.

I don't think entry level jobs simply exist to give people a starting opportunity. They exist and vastly outnumber other jobs because that's what the economy demands, and it isn't for the majority of people to rise up and out of, but to mostly stay in their present predicament.

This is incorrect.

How do you know it's all the bussiness can afford to pay, and not simply all the bussiness wants to pay? Perhaps a minimal wage structure could be calibrated company to company based on their annual turnover.

That's not very Free Market Capitalist of you. Having a central planning govt entity audit businesses and tell them what they should pay workers...when those bureauc**** have no understanding of what it takes to run a independent business.

No...all we need is voluntary mutual agreement. Employee and employer agree what the worker should get paid. If no agreement can be made, the person takes his labor or skills elsewhere. What you're advocating for might be close to FascISM or SocialISM. It can be a lot of ISM's depending on who you ask, but it sure isn't CapitalISM.

[One_Tycoon]

Anyone in the business of blame isn't really a *******.

Also, you can be a capitalist and still be *******.

No...you really can't. Unless you're talking libertine urges and other social issues. In a Free Market Capitalist system...you're allowed to be a drug using, promiscuous, unmarried or what-have-you. You're also allowed to start your own privately run business and implement "Workers Self-management" policies and give your employees a piece of the profits, as opposed to a set wage.

All of that is allowed providing you stay out Govt economic policy. That's where *******ism and Capitalism part ways. There should be no such thing as Economic policy anyway. Besides the basic restrictions regarding polluting your neighbors property and some other minor things....Capitalism at is a self-regulating system where individuals, consumers, businesses regulate each other. See my signature picture...it says SEPARATION OF STATE AND ECONOMY. Sounds familiar doesn't it...kind of like church and state. That's for effect to make it sink in to those of the leftist kind who like the latter but not the former.

[MBE]

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]NO...there really doesn't need to be a 'apparatus' [whatever that means] in place. And "Equality" [<---Socialist-Collectivist Sleaze words Alert] is a subjective, broad term. The only thing education needs it a free market make-over. The Dept of Education needs to be abolished, that's a waste of time.

The only reason private schools are so expensive is because they can't compete on a price for price level with the quasi-monopoly of public schools who are paid for via the usurping of taxes. This idea that only rich kids can go to private schools only exists because of govt being involved so heavily in Education. Families could have more options and choose where to send their kids to school....and they would if ALL schools competed against each other for your hard earned money across the board... whether for cheaper tuition, quality of school's infrastructure and/or quality of teachers. Shop and compare around. As it is right now...there is no incentive. Lazy people who have no interest in producing become public teachers so they can have their 3 months off the year, get pension & benefits for life.... with students who are forced to go there for "free". Keep in mind that I'm only talking about the U.S.

I think looking from the outside you fail to realize the shortcomings of for-profit education. Unlike state funded schools, having to carefully balance customer satisfaction can greatly skew the quality of education. When the number one priority is making financial profit then the education will reflect that. Granted its in your interest to provide a high quality of education to increase customer numbers. But what happens when a child is failing his classes due to bad behavior? I've experienced times when the truth has been concealed to keep the customer coming.

Now comparing that to my present employment in the public sector I find it much more beneficial that I don't have student retention numbers to deal with and can focus on providing the best education possible.

When I look at the privatization of the rail networks in England I can see what a disaster that has been. Year on year prices have increased and services have stagnated. This is the result of priorities to shareholders and not customers. Furthermore when we look at the banking mess and the government bail out I would prefer to see a renationalization of a great many industries to prevent the selfish destruction a great many individuals have wrought on our country for their only personal ends.