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

[Gods We Faked]

Sure it is. *******ism and Capitalism are not compatible. But this was just my cue....As in One_Capitalist. So i wouldn't worry about it.

At least as compatible as conservatism though. The amount of tax money required by the right for military and law enforcement spending alone is outrageous, not to mention the millions of soldiers and prisoners who are unable to either produce or consume.

[One_Tycoon]

At least as compatible as conservatism though. The amount of tax money required by the right for military and law enforcement spending alone is outrageous, not to mention the millions of soldiers and prisoners who are unable to either produce or consume.

I respectfully disagree...please bare with me as this might be a tad bit long.

First we would have to define what me and you view as Conservatism....but lets put that aside for the moment. ************* are part of the Pro-Capitalism/Small-Govt tent and can be persuaded to come around on some of their views, despite some of their deficiencies. And I'm not talking about professional *************...like the John McCain-ites who sit on a foreign relations committee, but ************* in the private sector. The same cannot be said for ******** who are always on the opposite side of the spectrum...whether it's on taxes, regulating of the market or always preferring revenue increases over spending cuts. From a party POV...we can always find allies and common ground with the **********s. I don't have anything in common with ********s.

Yes...Military spending should be much smaller but lets keep in mind that if there is anything the Federal Govt is supposed to spend our tax money on in a Constitutional Republic...it's military spending. Not on Welfare and Social Programs. As far as Prisons...what can we do? We can get rid of a lot of laws and there would be less criminals to lock up. I have also heard all the arguments for privatizing the prison system, which sounds appealing but I'm somewhat iffy about it.

Since we're both generalizing about groups anyway, lets address the third group...the LIBERTARIANS. Personally, I don't call myself a Libertarian. I just prefer Capitalist. If I was forced to pick a sub-group to call myself as, Minarchism sounds pretty good to me:
[A right-wing Minarchist...how's that?]


Libertarians [particularly the young ones who just came around and probably voted for *****] come off as very snarky to me. They claim to be above the Left Vs Right fray to feel superior, but almost always prioritize taking up the Left's cause on a host of social issues before they ever touch the fiscal ones. Whether it's on Gay marriage, Drug laws, Pro-choice, Religion, etc,.... before they ever talk about spending cuts, lowering regulations/taxes etc,. Some of them mention the Federal Reserve here and there and add in a few Rothchild references...but that's not good enough. It seems like a leftist criticism of greed/banks/Capitalism to me, rather than a real criticism of the Monetary system. They also always try to kill off one of their own in the ********** Party for not being "pure"...while they let the ********s slide and do as they please. Could this be because they really are ********? I don't know.

I also don't like the word LIBERTARIAN...it sounds awfully similar to *******. It's like saying.. "I'm not a Vegetarian I'm a Vegan" [Puke].

[Gods We Faked]

[QUOTE=One_Fatcat;14092028]

Yes...Military spending should be much smaller but lets keep in mind that if there is anything the Federal Govt is supposed to spend our tax money on in a Constitutional Republic...it's military spending. Not on Welfare and Social Programs. As far as Prisons...what can we do? We can get rid of a lot of laws and there would be less criminals to lock up. I have also heard all the arguments for privatizing the prison system, which sounds appealing but I'm somewhat iffy about it.

The military budget is bloated to the point that I think we can say it's far surpassed what's constitutionally allowed to keep us safe. I can't speak out as small government and fail to mention easily the most bloated military in the entire world. Any law that doesnt directly keep somebody safe should be eliminated and these people should be given an opportunity to contribute. Is it better to pay $50,000+ a yr to support a prisoner than it is to pay $50,000 a year to a welfare recipient? I don't want to have to pay to support either, if you have an argument in favor of one over the other I'd like to hear it.

Libertarians [particularly the young ones who just came around and probably voted for *****] come off as very snarky to me. They claim to be above the Left Vs Right fray to feel superior, but almost always prioritize taking up the Left's cause on a host of social issues before they ever touch the fiscal ones. Whether it's on Gay marriage, Drug laws, Pro-choice, Religion, etc,.... before they ever talk about spending cuts, lowering regulations/taxes etc,. Some of them mention the Federal Reserve here and there and add in a few Rothchild references...but that's not good enough. It seems like a leftist criticism of greed/banks/Capitalism to me, rather than a real criticism of the Monetary system. They also always try to kill off one of their own in the ********** Party for not being "pure"...while they let the ********s slide and do as they please. Could this be because they really are ********? I don't know.

I'm not sure why you aren't viewing these as capitalist opportunities and vilifying those whose mission it is to stop them instead of those wishing to allow it. The average marriage is around $28,000, wedding planners, decorators, bakers, photographers, florists, bands, caterers, d****rs, travel agents, airlines, hotels all lose money. By keeping drugs illegal not only are our tax dollars being flushed in a failed attempt to control them it's preventing tons of jobs and keeping money out of the U.S economy. Growers, pickers, QAs, packers, transporters, wholesale and all the businesses they supply etc. are hurt by these policies. ******** clinics employ doctors, nurses, secretaries etc. No offense intended, but you also seem to be letting off one of your own while ignoring their anti capitalist policies. I am a ******* in the dictionary definition sense on the word and that viewpoint is why I support capitalism, freedom of choice. I believe all people deserve a choice in how they behave as long as nobody injured in the process and the only thing the above things seem to hurt are the feelings of *************.

[One_Tycoon]

The military budget is bloated to the point that I think we can say it's far surpassed what's constitutionally allowed to keep us safe. I can't speak out as small government and fail to mention easily the most bloated military in the entire world. Any law that doesnt directly keep somebody safe should be eliminated and these people should be given an opportunity to contribute. Is it better to pay $50,000+ a yr to support a prisoner than it is to pay $50,000 a year to a welfare recipient? I don't want to have to pay to support either, if you have an argument in favor of one over the other I'd like to hear it.

I know that the Military budget is bloated...we agree. I am talking theoretically about what the federal govt is supposed to spend [and not spend] our money on, not how much. Which is clearly too much.

As for the 50,000 question. It would be a prisoner by default. Of course it would depend on what the prisoner did but certainly there will always be prisoners for having done something wrong. On the other hand... It's not the govt's job to run a welfare program [whether it's AFDC, TANF, Medicaid, SNAP etc,.]

I'm not sure why you aren't viewing these as capitalist opportunities and vilifying those whose mission it is to stop them instead of those wishing to allow it. The average marriage is around $28,000, wedding planners, decorators, bakers, photographers, florists, bands, caterers, d****rs, travel agents, airlines, hotels all lose money. By keeping drugs illegal not only are our tax dollars being flushed in a failed attempt to control them it's preventing tons of jobs and keeping money out of the U.S economy. Growers, pickers, QAs, packers, transporters, wholesale and all the businesses they supply etc. are hurt by these policies. ******** clinics employ doctors, nurses, secretaries etc. No offense intended, but you also seem to be letting off one of your own while ignoring their anti capitalist policies. I am a ******* in the dictionary definition sense on the word and that viewpoint is why I support capitalism, freedom of choice. I believe all people deserve a choice in how they behave as long as nobody injured in the process and the only thing the above things seem to hurt are the feelings of *************.

Of course we agree on decriminalizing/legalizing drugs [that's a given] and all it's economic benefits. But that wasn't the point. The point was that if it's about economics... all the Libertarians seem to do is take up a cause the Leftists already have got covered. They're doing the Leftists dirty work for them and undermining those who are actually trying to reduce the size of govt and grow the economy. Why is that? And usually the leftists don't support it for Free Market reasons, but because they would like to use the drugs themselves. The gay marriage thing...I don't care one way or the other. In fact one could make a fiscally conservative argument that it's a good thing that there are gays and women who are getting ********s...not leaving any offspring behind since we need a reduction in population anyway. And most of them tend to be Big Govt supporters who vote for ********s so it's a good thing when they don't have children. It's a Win-Win.

I'm not letting anybody off the hook...just looking at who is in the Small Govt/Free Market Tent and who isn't. You don't align yourself with ******** [who by nature favor more govt] and do their bidding for them while criticizing everyone in the Small Govt Tent for not being 'pure'.

And what do you mean you're *******? Classical *******:
If yes...then that's a good thing though that term is out of fashion. I did invite you to my CNA group page for a reason. I must've liked one of your posts.

[Gods We Faked]

I know that the Military budget is bloated...we agree. I am talking theoretically about what the federal govt is supposed to spend [and not spend] our money on, not how much. Which is clearly too much.

As for the 50,000 question. It would be a prisoner by default. Of course it would depend on what the prisoner did but certainly there will always be prisoners for having done something wrong. On the other hand... It's not the govt's job to run a welfare program [whether it's AFDC, TANF, Medicaid, SNAP etc,.]

I'm against the phrasing "did something wrong". I believe the only purpose prison serves is to segregate those which pose a threat to society. Murderers, rapists and robbers are the only wrong doers I'll willingly to pay to keep away from me. I don't want my hard earned money going to punish people because others have a moral objection to what they do, me paying for another persons moral beliefs is a form of welfare as far as I'm concerned.

Of course we agree on decriminalizing/legalizing drugs [that's a given] and all it's economic benefits. But that wasn't the point. The point was that if it's about economics... all the Libertarians seem to do is take up a cause the Leftists already have got covered. They're doing the Leftists dirty work for them and undermining those who are actually trying to reduce the size of govt and grow the economy. Why is that? And usually the leftists don't support it for Free Market reasons, but because they would like to use the drugs themselves. The gay marriage thing...I don't care one way or the other. In fact one could make a fiscally conservative argument that it's a good thing that there are gays and women who are getting ********s...not leaving any offspring behind since we need a reduction in population anyway. And most of them tend to be Big Govt supporters who vote for ********s so it's a good thing when they don't have children. It's a Win-Win.

I'm not letting anybody off the hook...just looking at who is in the Small Govt/Free Market Tent and who isn't. You don't align yourself with ******** [who by nature favor more govt] and do their bidding for them while criticizing everyone in the Small Govt Tent for not being 'pure'.

And what do you mean you're *******? Classical *******:
If yes...then that's a good thing though that term is out of fashion. I did invite you to my CNA group page for a reason. I must've liked one of your posts.

You do also agree that banning gay marriage is anti capitalist though? It's an unneeded government restriction that hurts business, plain and simple.
I should have stated I am ******* instead of a *******.
adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas.
I would say I'm an individualist above all else both socially and economically. I didnt mean to imply classical *******ism, but only because it's not common phrasing. Economic individualism and classical *******ism are basically synonymous terms.

[One_Tycoon]

I'm against the phrasing "did something wrong". I believe the only purpose prison serves is to segregate those which pose a threat to society. Murderers, rapists and robbers are the only wrong doers I'll willingly to pay to keep away from me. I don't want my hard earned money going to punish people because others have a moral objection to what they do, me paying for another persons moral beliefs is a form of welfare as far as I'm concerned

.

Oh yeah...it's that simple? Fraud? Running a ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff? Does Identity theft qualify as robbing? I'm not gonna get into a detailed list of what qualifies going to jail for, but I agree that it starts with murder, **** and theft. Everything else is up for debate. So the disagreement was just semantics.

You do also agree that banning gay marriage is anti capitalist though?

I thought I made it clear that I'm in favor of it by saying 'I don't care about it one way or the other' [though i'm not too enthused about it]...followed up by my fiscally conservative argument about why it's a good thing. However that's not a priority. It's already happening state by state and will continue to happen as the momentum is on Gay marriage's side. There should be other things on Libertarians plate. Leftist organizations are doing just fine with that...we don't need so called Libertarians co-opting the movement while tearing down others who might call themselves Libertarian or Conservative Libertarian...like a Rand Paul for example .

[Krewella Boyy]

******** support genocide.

[One_Tycoon]

I would say I'm an individualist above all else both socially and economically. I didnt mean to imply classical *******ism, but only because it's not common phrasing. Economic individualism and classical *******ism are basically synonymous terms.

See...this is too many labels, hence why it can open up a useless debate purely on semantic grounds. *******, individualist this and that...it's easy for people to disagree about the basic definitions of these labels if too many of them are thrown around. You find one that best fits your overall views...surely there has to be a better one than *******.

[rorymac]

******** support genocide.

Pretty ridiculous statement

[Gods We Faked]

.

O

h yeah...it's that simple? Fraud? Running a ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff? Does Identity theft qualify as robbing? I'm not gonna get into a detailed list of what qualifies going to jail for, but I agree that it starts with murder, **** and theft. Everything else is up for debate. So the disagreement was just semantics.

If the crime resulted in purely a loss of money or possessions I would be for the penalty being restitution with all assets beings seized and sold if necessary and a heavy garnishment on all future earnings until it's paid off. A private institution could be hired to protect you from identity theft if one so chose.



I thought I made it clear that I'm in favor of it by saying 'I don't care about it one way or the other' [though i'm not too enthused about it]...followed up by my fiscally conservative argument about why it's a good thing. However that's not a priority. It's already happening state by state and will continue to happen as the momentum is on Gay marriage's side. There should be other things on Libertarians plate. Leftist organizations are doing just fine with that...we don't need so called Libertarians co-opting the movement while tearing down others who might call themselves Libertarian or Conservative Libertarian...like a Rand Paul for example .

I just felt you would be against the government interference hurting all the businesses who would benefit from gay marriage. The debate against gay marriage is never from an economic standpoint, it's always about whether someone finds it to be icky or not.