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

[One_Tycoon]

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?

I never said that there wouldn't be poor people. In a pure Capitalist economy without govt hindrance...there would still be that low pool of people that are poor. It's up to them to rise out of it.

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

Are you trying to use that old Leftist trick by implying that Somalia is a Pro-Capitalist's dream country. You wouldn't do that would you.

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?

Why would a child that comes from money get a entry job at Wal-Mart. Of course they have that choice if they wish to do so. But the entry-jobs are specifically there for people who are not well off. An opportunity to get a first job. Hence the argument for getting rid of the minimum wage instead of asking for it to be raised even more.

If a young person wants to work for a company at 5 bucks an hour and that's all the business can afford to pay.....they should be allowed to do so. Instead it's illegal unless the company pays them 7.25 and thus he never gets the job nor the experience and the employer probably has to pick up the slack and work the extra hours themselves.....unless you're a multinational corporation who has enough capital and your net profit margins allow you to keep hiring despite the govt burden imposed by yes....LIBERALS.

[Young Stribling]

Because most users here are bigoted and misogynistic chauvinists.

Spoken like a true child of the enlightenment. The spewing of a few multi-syllabic words does not a mind make. Don't worry though son, you'll grow up.

[Spray_resistant]

When I think of the term conservative synonymous words come to mind like old fashion, outdated, rigid, inflexible, and resistant to change.......don't want to be that

[Young Stribling]

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

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. Capitalism and the free market is the solution for everyone, not those bastions of Socialist ideas like Cuba, N.Korea, Venezuela etc., Centralized State Governments are the death knell of personal freedom.

[Young Stribling]

Lower forms of humans, yes.

Quick! Hire this teenager while he still knows everything.

[Canelo Phresh]

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

[Young Stribling]

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.

Liberalism 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.

[Young Stribling]

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

There aren't any....Read about 'The Tragedy of the Common'.
The goal of Liberal/Progressives is to have two classes of people, a large dependant class relying on the largesse of a huge impersonal centralized government. And for that 'largesse' they have to give their vote to keep in power those that give the hand out's. And a Ruling class of ELITE's who tell us how to live our lives, when to jump, and how high. And when they've run out of other people's money(ours), they will leave the sinking ship like rats do, and leave the Great Unwashed (us), to our fate.

[MBE]

I never said that there wouldn't be poor people. In a pure Capitalist economy without govt hindrance...there would still be that low pool of people that are poor. It's up to them to rise out of it.

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.

Are you trying to use that old Leftist trick by implying that Somalia is a Pro-Capitalist's dream country. You wouldn't do that would you. [/B]

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?

Why would a child that comes from money get a entry job at Wal-Mart. Of course they have that choice if they wish to do so. But the entry-jobs are specifically there for people who are not well off. An opportunity to get a first job. Hence the argument for getting rid of the minimum wage instead of asking for it to be raised even more.

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.

If a young person wants to work for a company at 5 bucks an hour and that's all the business can afford to pay.....they should be allowed to do so. Instead it's illegal unless the company pays them 7.25 and thus he never gets the job nor the experience and the employer probably has to pick up the slack and work the extra hours themselves.....unless you're a multinational corporation who has enough capital and your net profit margins allow you to keep hiring despite the govt burden imposed by yes....LIBERALS.[/COLOR][/B]

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.

[MBE]

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.

I'm not suggesting the 'punishment' of anyone. Just that rampant exploitation of those less fortunate should be prevented. We are hardly 'punishing' the super rich by saying they have a moral obligation to pay some taxes.

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

The Paris commune?

Presently, the town of Marinaleda in Spain.

Although I would argue that a true socialist state has never existed.