Paladin77 Paladin77

Why are you a democrat?

Why are you a democrat?

What is it about democrats that is so appealing? Do some research into the party and you will find a snake pit of corruption, sexism, homophobia, and racism unparallel in politics. Hypocrisy unrivaled by any political party.

 

Civil rights was the enemy of the democrat party. I know this because I watched it happen.

 

Here is what the democrats did for civil rights. Medgar Evers was murdered by Byron De La Beck a prominent democrat and member in good standing with the KKK. While in jail he was visited by the governor of Mississippi to show his support for the man. The governor was also a prominent democrat.

 

Did you know that in the south you could not get elected to any office unless you were first a member in good standing with the KKK and then you had to be a democrat.

 

When there were civil rights marches in the south the good democrats would attack the people marching. They turned police dogs on the crowds and used fire hoses to break up the peaceful protests. This was all done by democrat officials. Yet they want you to believe it was the mean old republicans that were the ones doing this.

 

How about gay rights?

It was the democrats that tried to rid the city of gays in New York under the guise of family values. Yes, there was a republican mayor when the tipping point was reached but it was started by the previous democrat administration and continued by the democrat police chief.

 

It is fun to see how the democrats point to Senator Strom Thurmond as a republican racist. No one seems to remember that he was a member in good standing in the democrat party, left the party to run for president lost his bid then joined the Republican Party after he renounced racism as a condition of joining the party. Why is it that the democrats don’t demand this from their members?  Any democrat that was a member of the KKK has never had to renounce his allegiance to racism as a condition to being a member of the party. Hell, the Kennedy boys never had to repudiate their father who supported Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. Could it be that the democrats welcome the ideas of Hitler?

 

More racism:

During the 60’s and 70’s the welfare system was running out of people, they were getting jobs and leaving welfare. So the great idea was that people did not know what the government could do for them so they went out and recruited people to leave work and go on the public teat. Their reasoning was that poor and minorities could not cope with working for a living and needed government assistance to raise their quality of life. My sister was a licensed clinical psychologist with a disability was sucked into that and stayed on welfare until her death from her disability. My sister was borderline, she could work but did not have to because the family could take care of her. She reasoned why we should do it, when the government would do it. For others it was much worse. In order to get on welfare you could not have a stable family, the man had to leave in order to get this free money. The government took over as head of the house. Family break-ups were the rule of the day. This kept the family in need of the government.

 

Schools and racism: Instead of treating each school as either good or bad by the teachers teaching, poor schools were disadvantaged by the system because they got less money. Or so the lie goes. One of the best schools was an all black or at the time (negro) school in Washington D.C. they had ten year old school books yet were in the top 5% of the nation in academic achievement. I know this because my stepfather was one of those students tested. Once it became known that white kids in democrat areas were being bested by Negros we had federally mandated school bussing. This part is great instead of bussing white kids to black schools they bussed black kids to white schools. Your classmate is now ten miles away so if you needed to discuss class work or stay after school on a project you had to find your own way home. Get the kid up at 6AM to catch the bus and get you to a school by 8AM you are already up two hours before your class mates. Who has the advantage by the end of the day? The logical thing would be to keep the kids in a local school and demand more from the teachers. That was the purpose of no child left behind but it was written by Senator Ted (Adolf) Kennedy so it was doomed to fail. The Washington School system spends $14K per student per year and produced the lowest number of graduates per year. A private school, a moderately good private school charges between three and eight thousand a year per student with a 90 % graduation rate in the D.C. area. Smarter kids make for smarter citizens which make for a smarter electorate. Smart people are bad for crooked racist politicians. I went to private school because my mother, Single most of my life, my father died when I was four and my stepfather was worthless as a parent. She was a NYC cop and strict democrat. My aunt is now a retired school principal and a democrat. Her husband my uncle on my fathers side was the only republican I knew growing up. He was a cop and had a real estate business.

 

I sent my first child to school in India because they had better schools and drugs were not going to screw up his life. Out of my three children only one my daughter is a democrat, unwed mother and only the fact that she is not an American citizen keeps her off of welfare. She went to public school at the insistence of her mother. My youngest child was home schooled and will be starting his own business when he turns 22 this year. I hope and pray.

 

I am not saying that democrats are the root of all evil in the country. I just wonder why people flock to a party that is historically racist and corrupt.

 

So if you rely on the government to take care of you then you must be a liberal and they are recruiting again. If you want to stand on your own two feet and possibly fail a few times before you get rich you are a conservative. If you are on the fence you are most likely a republican.

21,108 views 49 replies
Reply #26 Top

What I find interesting is the assumption that being a Democrat or Republican somehow decides on wehther you are an American or not. From the outside, both look pretty much the same.
End of quote

From the outside looking in you miss the points being made. It is not whether you are an American or not that is just a distraction from the left and has nothing to do with what is going on. If what you are doing is wrong and you are called on it, the best defense is to say that the person is calling you un-American. Rather than prove that what you want to do is best for the country.

The ones I know personally are always proud of their country, love BBQ, are proud of their military, friendly, helpful, love big cars, are passionate about what they believe and some try to sell you anything (yankee stereotype a la PT Barnum). Really, the stereotypical american is apolitical, loves McDonalds and thinks that sports where you don't score several points for something are dull.
End of quote

LOL You sound like a Birt! Good read on most Americans but please understand that when it comes to politics it just looks crazy there is a reason for it. Not always logical but still a reason.

And one thing I haven`t seen anywhere is a concrete plan on how the Republicans would have saved the banks and your automible industry and got things back up and working again. It is always easier to complain than having a better idea (and alot more fun when you don't have the responsibility).
End of quote

The plans were put out there by President Bush but our Congress would have no part in it. When President Obama took over then it was a problem created by Mr. Bush. Two years before this fell apart Mr. Bush called on the Congress to fix the problem. Rep Frank said there was no problem and the Mr. Bush was a racist.

Now Mr. Bush is still a racist and did nothing to fix the problems on his watch, according to the left. The president does not write the laws the Congress does. The democrats were in power when the laws were written so who was at fault. A republican president pointing out that there was a problem coming only looked like politics being played rather than a desire to fix a serious problem.

The logical fix would have been to let the companies fail, Someone would step in and buy the profitable parts and trash the rest. In doing the stimulus package that Mr. Bush refused to sign we made it worse, and more painful and longer lived.

Reply #27 Top

The companies might go under and new ones rise, that is the way of the world. But (and I am not an economist but that is not hard to grasp) You really really need banks no matter what or everything would have crashed. Companies need money, don't they - and if there aren't credit banks around to give them money, it creates sort of a problem for everything. So, the government, any government really (had it been McCain, he would have had to do something about the banks as well) had to be saved at all costs. Otherwise, even those businesses that didn't have a problem them would have gone bye bye (sorry for the oversimplification, it helps me to see context in compex systems) 

You sound like a Birt!
End of quote
Try Kraut (and I really love that stuff too, we used to make our own)

hah, when the Conservatives were in power the left did the same - they just pointed fingers instead of coming up with a way to solve the problem the best way. That really puzzles me, there is no, nada, nichts, cooperation going on in finding a solution between people with different political backgrounds. You automatically don' take each other seriously which is really a shame as there are smart people on both sides (and idiots).

Reply #28 Top

So, the government, any government really (had it been McCain, he would have had to do something about the banks as well) had to be saved at all costs. Otherwise, even those businesses that didn't have a problem them would have gone bye bye (sorry for the oversimplification, it helps me to see context in compex systems)
End of quote

 

No, not really. The banking system here allows for government take over if they have more than 10% of their total assets in unsecured loans or debt. So when the banks say they are hurting for money it means that they are close to 11% of their total assets at risk. That still leaves 89% of their assets to cover the money the bank is using and the FDIC will cover the rest so the banks that are in trouble would be prohibited from loaning money until they get that debt off their books. The banks that were not in trouble would be able to loan money and keep the economy running. What happened was the stimulus package came out saying they would give money to banks that had too many bad mortgages without qualification. What the banks did was buy companies that had the bad mortgages so they could get the government money. Once the money was given out then the government changed the rules and started to dictate the pay of the bankers. The banks quickly tried to give the money back to the government and the government said no! was that simple enough for you?

Reply #29 Top

The companies might go under and new ones rise, that is the way of the world. But (and I am not an economist but that is not hard to grasp) You really really need banks no matter what or everything would have crashed
End of quote

Not necessarily, it would depend on the severity of the problem - if you're talking about a couple of banks, even big ones, then you would probably be able to avoid a complete crash by allowing them to fail. If every single bank is likely to go under then it is a much more serious problem. However even in this situation it would be possible to have a partial solution - pick out the strongest banks (not biggest, but rather the ones most unlikely to go under), and offer them basic money to survive and keep the financial system flowing. Meanwhile ensure that the banking system has as few barriers to entry as possible so new firms can always enter to provide credit should huge gaps appear (from competitors failing). Then make sure that when a company does fail the administration process is handled as quickly as possible, since this will allow the financial system to get back on it's feet. So for example a huge bank fails with masses of debt such that no-one is interested in purchasing it as a whole (debts included) - it's assets are sold to the highest bidder, which will include it's various branches and systems. These will be of value, and likely will be purchased by competitors (or alternatively a new company) so things can keep on functioning. In the short term there would be obvious issues, but these wouldn't last too long, and could also be alleviated - so for example the government could guarantee individual savings up to a hefty limit to prevent bank runs on the remaining banks, and they could also look at allowing people to withdraw money from the failed bank from competitors (with government money provided to the competitors for this) to ensure daily life can continue to function. It would cost a fair amount, but not as much as writing blank cheques to any bank that is 'big enough' (which long term has dire implications if not addressed)

 

Moving forwards the government could look to prevent the problem reoccuring a number of ways, one way being to prevent any bank becoming too large (so the failure of one or even several banks wouldn't have anywhere near as bad an impact).

 

What is it about democrats that is so appealing? Do some research into the party and you will find a snake pit of corruption, sexism, homophobia, and racism unparallel in politics. Hypocrisy unrivaled by any political party.
End of quote

Yeah they're so hypocritical, next they're going to be standing on a platform of family values, attacking their 'immoral' rivals for not adhering to the same set of values, and then doing the same thing themselves...

Reply #30 Top

I heard it a litttttle more complicated, but for me the whole finance world is a book with 7 seals. My brother tried to explain it.. he works at large bank in the legal department, and according to him the US does not have alot of banks that do everything, like most banks do in Germany. (You call the Universal banks?)  You can invest money, get a credit, get a mortgage on your house etc all from the same bank. The big credit banks (Lehman brothers et al) were not only banks, they were the backbone on which all the others (other banks, economy) depended. Many german banks were in trouble because they invested money with Lehman for example, or sold their crediters to them (its a ridiculous way to make money). The huge credit banks were not only a little bit in trouble, they were broke (last spring and summer, right) and that messed up the whole world of finances.

That's at least what I heard or what stuck with me. My brother explained (or tried) to me that because the largest credit and investment banks all went bankrupt in short order drastic action was necessary.

Oh yeah, didn't they try to pay out manager boni from the bailout? I found that really impudent, why do you think not allowing wasting money is dictatorship?

Well, we'll see how the future will turn out. Your country and my country are in debt over their ears anyway, so whats a little more? Gotta think the big picture, it prevents you from despair lol

Reply #31 Top

Like the bankers did?
End of quote

The bankers did not risk anything. The laws were written in such a way that the Federal government would back all the paper Fannie and Freddie wrote. It was guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Then the same people that wrote the laws said they would not back the bad paper. Just like they did to social Security 40 years ago when they took one trillion dollars out of the fund and promised to pay it back. When the time came to pay it back they said Social Security was in crisis, we need to raise taxes to pay it off and it will go bankrupt in less than 10 years. There was no real risk if the Congress kept their word but like most liberals their word is only good until it stops echoing off the walls once it is given.

Again to restate the obvious. The Congress promised to back the bad loans, then reneged and blamed the banks for believing the Congress.  Yes, it was stupid to trust the government when liberals are in charge but who would believe that they would break their word twice in a row. With no confidence in the government banks began to get very weak. The liberals blamed the banks for making bad loans, yet the law says if they did not make the bad loans that the Congress would shut down the banks for racism. The real problem is that the Congress makes the laws and they have no idea how business should be run.

Reply #32 Top

Yeah they're so hypocritical, next they're going to be standing on a platform of family values, attacking their 'immoral' rivals for not adhering to the same set of values, and then doing the same thing themselves...
End of quote

When the republicans have and issue with a member that breaks the rules he is forced out of leadership positions, that is part of the rules for republicans. The democrats have no such rule. where is the hyporicy? When a democrat breaks and ethics rule they stay in power until they go to jail. We don't demand that democrats follow the same values but we will contrast ourselves using those values.

Reply #33 Top

where is the hyporicy?
End of quote

I see hypocracy as saying one thing but doing another - here's a quick example from these very forums:

https://forums.joeuser.com/357605

 

Reply #34 Top

I see hypocracy as saying one thing but doing another
End of quote

Good points made, but you miss the point, You have one party the republicans that want and stand for family values. You have another party that does not. When a member of the republican party fails to live up to his words and obligations the other party points its finger. Fine that is politics. Yet the Democrats are happy to lie to your face and you accept it without so much as a complaint. When Gary Hart told the press to follow him if they liked he was not as bad a cheater as Ted Kennedy they followed him and got pictures of him with some topless babe on a boat named monkey business. When John Kennedy was president he used to have women brought to him in the White House. The press knew it and said nothing. When Mr. Clinton was president and the scandal broke out, all we heard was it was a personal matter and none of our business. Why do we need to be peaking into peoples bedrooms. The story was broken by liberals that wanted to destroy Mr. Clinton not republicans. Once the story broke it had to be investigated because the charges were numerous and although swept under the carpet was a violation of federal law and all we heard about was the politics of personal destruction. Yet the women's organizations that supported Mr. Clinton did not attack Mr. Clinton for being a cad they attacked the women for being sluts! That is hypocrisy. Senator Packwood was forced out of office for kissing a staffer and those same women's groups wanted to tar and feather him, for being a rapist. It was a political ploy that worked and still works today. If the person that fails is a republican he is a hypocrite if the person is a democrat then the woman is a slut or a republican plant.

If you want to say the person is a hypocrite because he says one thing and does another I will stand with you. The republican party has not in my adulthood accepted this behavior sexual or otherwise, so you can’t say the party is a bunch of hypocrites even when members of that party are. On the other hand the democrat party only cares about winning. Its okay to be for woman’s rights and be a skirt chaser they will still support you.

John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, all had affairs while in office and it was okay. Most had affairs with staffers and it was still okay, against the law but still okay.

Two no name republicans had affairs and it is horrible and hypocritical of them to do so because they said they stood for family values. I say no name because until it hit the news I had not heard of them. When I wrote that the democrats were hypocrites unrivaled it is because they have said and done whatever it took to destroy the opposition while at the same time support people doing the exact same thing. Even today you don’t see republicans rushing to defend these two guys, it is a personal matter and none of our business if the democrats are to remain consistent.

A general officer in the Air Force had an affair with a subordinate and lost his job and retirement when it became known because it violated military and federal laws. The President had an affair with a subordinate and he kept his job. A female officer had an affair with an enlisted woman’s husband and was fired and the woman’s groups flocked to her support. Pick a side and stick with it.

While we are at it what is it with female teachers screwing their students? If a male teacher did the same thing they would put the pervert so far under the prison they would have to mail him fresh air and sunlight.

Reply #35 Top

Good points made, but you miss the point, You have one party the republicans that want and stand for family values. You have another party that does not.
End of quote

 

I disagree; I feel that comes across as rather shallow. I would venture to infer that the only reason that the one party claims they're the party of family values, is due to expediency. Historically, when the GOP was first founded, they were widely considered the radicals. I could see the party leaders thinking that they would have a foothold if they pandered to a specific base. Granted, this goes for both sides - but to say that one party is exclusively one or the other...is BS.

The parties work to get re-elected, that is the one thing that remains constant.

 

The republican party has not in my adulthood accepted this behavior sexual or otherwise, so you can’t say the party is a bunch of hypocrites even when members of that party are. On the other hand the democrat party only cares about winning. Its okay to be for woman’s rights and be a skirt chaser they will still support you.

John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, all had affairs while in office and it was okay. Most had affairs with staffers and it was still okay, against the law but still okay.
End of quote

 

Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford...Point being, it happens not just in the Democratic party, but in politics in general - scandals are its bread and butter. Oh, and since we're on the case of morality, what happened to forgive and forget? Or cast thy plank from thy own eye? People make really stupid mistakes, but is it our business to tell them what to do? I'm sorry, but if someone has an affair - then: 1. That is between them and their spouse/family. 2. The affair alone doesn't mean that all of what they've done well is null and void. Yeah, they made a huge mistake, but do you crucify the man for the flaws he has?

 

You say these things are personal matters, but yet you bring them up. They're an issue to you, and there is nothing "personal" about that.

 

that wanted to destroy Mr. Clinton not republicans.
End of quote

Oh really? Proof?

 

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #36 Top

Historically, when the GOP was first founded, they were widely considered the radicals.
End of quote

Yes, back then the GOP were the liberals, they sought change of the status quo, to right the moral wrongs of the country as they saw it at the time. Over time the conservatives were democrats that wanted to keep the status quo and their reputation was really tarnished. They took the mantle of liberalism and in the 30’s started to paint the GOP as conservatives. They adopted the beliefs of liberalism and made it their own suddenly they were against the KKK and all the tings the GOP was against while supporting them to stay in power. This is how they got the Negro vote that got FDR in power. In reality they were socialists that used liberalism to advance their agenda.

John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, all had affairs while in office and it was okay. Most had affairs with staffers and it was still okay, against the law but still okay.
End of quote

Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford...Point being, it happens not just in the Democratic party, but in politics in general - scandals are its bread and butter.
End of quote

Okay, of the two parties which one supported, defended and protected the people that made these stupid mistakes? As I pointed out before, when Mr. Clinton was feeling up woman, and treating them like dirt, the women’s groups that supported him continued to support this behavior they say they despise and one of the reasons they formed the groups in the first place. The republicans that messed up are not supported by the party after they were shown to be hypocrites. What you fail to see is I am not saying they are bad for having the affairs, I am saying that one party will stand up for their stated beliefs while the other party will ignore their stated beliefs to further their agenda. That is the hypocrisy I am pointing to.

You say these things are personal matters, but yet you bring them up. They're an issue to you, and there is nothing "personal" about that.
End of quote

Not at all, the reason we were told that it was okay that Mr. Clinton’s reprehensible behavior should be ignored was because it was a personal matter and none of our business. Ignore the fact that he lied under oath. A violation of the law that he was convicted of, and lost his law license as punishment. Has an affair with a federal employee that was his direct suburbanite, a violation of federal law, designed to protect women in the workforce from bosses that are sexual predators, a law that he enforced while president when he fired the general for doing the same thing. Where do you see the equivalent hypocrisy on the republican side? Were those republicans protected by the party? No. Were we told that it was okay and a personal matter to be ignored by republican operatives? No because that is not acceptable by the party, and its stated beliefs. How do you justify the trashing of your beliefs and not be seen as a hypocrite?

I work for DHS, which is under the Executive branch of government. Every year we have to take 6 hours of classes on civil rights, one of those classes is on sexual harassment. Any person that is under my direct control is off limits even if both parties are willing participants because even the perception of wrong doing is a violation of the law.

Reply #37 Top

Not at all, the reason we were told that it was okay that Mr. Clinton’s reprehensible behavior should be ignored was because it was a personal matter and none of our business. Ignore the fact that he lied under oath. A violation of the law that he was convicted of, and lost his law license as punishment. Has an affair with a federal employee that was his direct suburbanite, a violation of federal law, designed to protect women in the workforce from bosses that are sexual predators, a law that he enforced while president when he fired the general for doing the same thing. Where do you see the equivalent hypocrisy on the republican side? Were those republicans protected by the party? No. Were we told that it was okay and a personal matter to be ignored by republican operatives? No because that is not acceptable by the party, and its stated beliefs. How do you justify the trashing of your beliefs and not be seen as a hypocrite?

I work for DHS, which is under the Executive branch of government. Every year we have to take 6 hours of classes on civil rights, one of those classes is on sexual harassment. Any person that is under my direct control is off limits even if both parties are willing participants because even the perception of wrong doing is a violation of the law.
End of quote

 

In my opinion: What he did is between him and his wife/family, Period. It was only brought out to smear him, drag him in the mud, etc. It's typical politics that both parties are guilty of. It's disgusting.  Yes, he lied under oath and should've been prosecuted....for THAT and yes he did a number of other things that were illegal. However, we're not the morality police. The law should not dictate what others can and cannot do in the confines of their personal lives. 1984 anyone?

 

Paladin, as much as you are trying to be an apologetic for the republicans and an unbiased basher of the democrats - both parties are guilty of it. It serves no constructive purpose to point fingers at whatever party and whine about them. They both do it now, they will both do it for a long time.

 

they sought change of the status quo, to right the moral wrongs of the country as they saw it at the time.
End of quote

Buahahahahaha! Dude, you can't be that naive. They were NOT trying to right the moral wrongs; they merely used things like slavery as their platform to power.

Okay, of the two parties which one supported, defended and protected the people that made these stupid mistakes?
End of quote

 

Both.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

 

Reply #38 Top

In my opinion: What he did is between him and his wife/family, Period. It was only brought out to smear him, drag him in the mud, etc. It's typical politics that both parties are guilty of. It's disgusting. Yes, he lied under oath and should've been prosecuted....for THAT and yes he did a number of other things that were illegal. However, we're not the morality police. The law should not dictate what others can and cannot do in the confines of their personal lives. 1984 anyone?
End of quote

 

I think you are ignoring my points. The republicans were after Mr. Clinton because he broke the law. The sex was not the issue it was the lie from a sitting president under oath. The supporters of the president screamed it was a private mater. We should not investigate the law being broken by the president, He was impeached for it but not convicted. He was convicted of lying under oath and lost his law license.

 

Reply #39 Top

Okay, of the two parties which one supported, defended and protected the people that made these stupid mistakes?



Both.
End of quote

Proof?

Reply #40 Top

I think you are ignoring my points. The republicans were after Mr. Clinton because he broke the law. The sex was not the issue it was the lie from a sitting president under oath. The supporters of the president screamed it was a private mater. We should not investigate the law being broken by the president, He was impeached for it but not convicted. He was convicted of lying under oath and lost his law license.
End of quote

 

Mmm, I remember growing up and researching/reading all about it. On the outside you may think it was merely about him breaking the law, but the republicans still took advantage of it to go after him and loosen his grip on power. It was, like I said, politics.Maybe that's my cynical side showing, but it certainly comes across

 

I still stand by my comment:

 

You say these things are personal matters, but yet you bring them up. They're an issue to you, and there is nothing "personal" about that.
End of quote

 

Reply #41 Top

Mmm, I remember growing up and researching/reading all about it. On the outside you may think it was merely about him breaking the law, but the republicans still took advantage of it to go after him and loosen his grip on power. It was, like I said, politics.Maybe that's my cynical side showing, but it certainly comes across
End of quote

If the republicans took advantage of it then they would have convicted him but most republicans did not vote to convict. You may have read about it but I lived through it. The published reports supported the democrats that it was all about sex and the law was just the excuse to go after him.

You say these things are personal matters, but yet you bring them up. They're an issue to you, and there is nothing "personal" about that.
End of quote

This is what I mean by you are ignoring my points and the facts. I did not say this, the democrat supporters of the President said this! I have a wife and four girlfriends so it is not an issue for me. Yes, my wife knows about them. Unlike the President I do not sneak around behind her back. Don’t act shocked I have written about it before it is not a secret. The president was a lawyer, a law professor, and chief law enforcement officer of the United States that knowingly broke several laws while in office. Perjury can get you as much as 7 years in prison, he lost his law license. He was impeached by the Congress but they failed to convict him. That was done out of politics. Once the lies became public they had no choice if they waned to get re-elected which is why he was let off the hook. Now if the president had lied for purposes other than self protection I would not have cared. Presidents lie all the time in issues of national security. He lied to dodge a scandal.

Reply #42 Top

If the republicans took advantage of it then they would have convicted him but most republicans did not vote to convict. You may have read about it but I lived through it. The published reports supported the democrats that it was all about sex and the law was just the excuse to go after him.
End of quote

 

I lived through it as well, though I was young.

 

This is what I mean by you are ignoring my points and the facts. I did not say this, the democrat supporters of the President said this! I have a wife and four girlfriends so it is not an issue for me. Yes, my wife knows about them. Unlike the President I do not sneak around behind her back. Don’t act shocked I have written about it before it is not a secret. The president was a lawyer, a law professor, and chief law enforcement officer of the United States that knowingly broke several laws while in office. Perjury can get you as much as 7 years in prison, he lost his law license. He was impeached by the Congress but they failed to convict him. That was done out of politics. Once the lies became public they had no choice if they waned to get re-elected which is why he was let off the hook. Now if the president had lied for purposes other than self protection I would not have cared. Presidents lie all the time in issues of national security. He lied to dodge a scandal.
End of quote

 

I'm not saying that him lying was right. I was only saying that you kept bringing up the affair - which if it was personal and none of your concern, then why use it...

 

I'm not shocked, but I am curious though: why do you have a wife and four girlfriends?

Reply #43 Top

 

I'm not saying that him lying was right. I was only saying that you kept bringing up the affair - which if it was personal and none of your concern, then why use it...
End of quote

He broke the law and was convicted of it. the next question is what laws did he break. He lied under oath. about what? having an affair. This coming from a man that says he is all for women's rights, and not treating women as sex objects. No matter how it is said the sex had to come out or you are shading the facts.

I'm not shocked, but I am curious though: why do you have a wife and four girlfriends?
End of quote

I live a lifestyle of master and slave. My slaves are my willing property. My wife is not in this lifestyle.

Reply #44 Top

He broke the law and was convicted of it. the next question is what laws did he break. He lied under oath. about what? having an affair. This coming from a man that says he is all for women's rights, and not treating women as sex objects. No matter how it is said the sex had to come out or you are shading the facts.
End of quote

Two things...albeit that little voice in me is telling the second part is unwise...

1. Hmm, no one is perfect. Yeah, we should expect better, but perfection? Please.

2. I'm assuming, logically, that your m/s arrangement is done with consent. Still though, how is that different than treating women as sex objects? To each their own and I respect your ability/right to live such a lifestyle.  Hoever, I find it hard to believe that there is a difference between treating women as sex objects, and then women being treated as slaves (sex objects?). You're putting them in a sense of submission either way; It sounds like you've got double standards bit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it is coming across.

I live a lifestyle of master and slave. My slaves are my willing property. My wife is not in this lifestyle.
End of quote

Ahhhhhh, BDSM-esque? Still though, why? What made you choose that lifestyle?

Reply #45 Top

 

1. Hmm, no one is perfect. Yeah, we should expect better, but perfection? Please.
End of quote

This is not desiring perfection it is expecting the leader of a nation to have more self control, to not lie when asked a question, and to own up to ones actions. THat is not perfecton that is normal. He wanted the job, no one made him take the job.

2. I'm assuming, logically, that your m/s arrangement is done with consent. Still though, how is that different than treating women as sex objects?
End of quote

This is their choice to serve, and they seek me out rather than me on the hunt. Sex is only a small component of the relationship.

Hoever, I find it hard to believe that there is a difference between treating women as sex objects, and then women being treated as slaves (sex objects?). You're putting them in a sense of submission either way; It sounds like you've got double standards bit.
End of quote

Only because you don’t know the lifestyle. You are on the outside looking in rather than being in the know.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it is coming across.
End of quote

You are wrong but that is only because of ignorance. It is difficult to explain the difference if all you know is what you read on the net.

Ahhhhhh, BDSM-esque?
End of quote

Not even close. Completely different lifestyle. One has little to do with the other.

Still though, why? What made you choose that lifestyle?
End of quote

It started at age 5 like most people that is when I chose my sexuality. All people fall into one of two sides. Dominant or submissive. I chose dominant heterosexual. I got into the life when I was 13 and 5 years later was a master. If you want to discuss this further write me privately as this is not the forum for this topic.

Reply #46 Top

Not even close. Completely different lifestyle. One has little to do with the other.
End of quote

 

Mmm, there's still similaritis, and it can actually - from what you've said so far - be similar.

 

This is their choice to serve, and they seek me out rather than me on the hunt. Sex is only a small component of the relationship.
End of quote

But they're still objects, right?

 

This is not desiring perfection it is expecting the leader of a nation to have more self control, to not lie when asked a question, and to own up to ones actions. THat is not perfecton that is normal. He wanted the job, no one made him take the job.
End of quote

 

...and he paid for what he did. It's in the past; it's vamoose, it's done for.

 

Only because you don’t know the lifestyle. You are on the outside looking in rather than being in the know.
End of quote

 

That may be so, but then again as I realized the other evening - I'm not a fan of anyone submitting. So perhaps that is clouding my sight.

 

It is difficult to explain the difference if all you know is what you read on the net.
End of quote

That's assuming all I've read is on the net. I've actually talked at length with certain practicers (rw?).

 

Send me a pm and we can carry on. I'm still interested. *shrugs* I'm interested in learning about things.

Reply #47 Top

But they're still objects, right?
End of quote

No, they are property to do as I please like a car or a house or a pair of shoes. They are not objects of desire.

...and he paid for what he did. It's in the past; it's vamoose, it's done for.
End of quote

The issue is the liberals trying to find the conservative equivalent to point a finger at. anything that is even close to what Mr. Clinton did they point to, to show that conservatives are hypocrites, ignoring the laws being broken. It is against the law to accept money from non U.S. citizens. Mr. Gore did that. they could not find an equivalent so you don't hear about it. But sex scandals will always be around and most people like to gossip so it will always come up.

That may be so, but then again as I realized the other evening - I'm not a fan of anyone submitting. So perhaps that is clouding my sight.
End of quote

Right! But for these people this is their fantasy that has been building in them for decades, and they finally get a chance to live it. I understand it but could never live that part of the lifestyle. For me it is repugnant to submit to someone like me.

That's assuming all I've read is on the net. I've actually talked at length with certain practicers (rw?).
End of quote

In which discipline? There is bondage, discipline, bondage and discipline, sadomasochism, dominance and submission and master and slave as well as the fringe elements. Each one is very different and in some cases mutually exclusive. The people that don’t have a clue call it BDSM. Now we are at the point of discussing inside baseball.

Reply #48 Top

The issue is the liberals trying to find the conservative equivalent to point a finger at. anything that is even close to what Mr. Clinton did they point to, to show that conservatives are hypocrites, ignoring the laws being broken. It is against the law to accept money from non U.S. citizens. Mr. Gore did that. they could not find an equivalent so you don't hear about it. But sex scandals will always be around and most people like to gossip so it will always come up.
End of quote

Mmm, sadly.

In which discipline? There is bondage, discipline, bondage and discipline, sadomasochism, dominance and submission and master and slave as well as the fringe elements. Each one is very different and in some cases mutually exclusive. The people that don’t have a clue call it BDSM. Now we are at the point of discussing inside baseball.
End of quote

 

As far as I can remember all. Mmm, I only used the term BDSM as a generalized term.

 

 

 

 

Reply #49 Top

As far as I can remember all. Mmm, I only used the term BDSM as a generalized term.
End of quote

Right, it is a general term for outsiders not the insiders. That is why I listed each general discipline rather than using BDSM. This term came up in the late 60's when people used personal ads that charged ten cents a letter. So if you were into bondage you wrote seeking B partner or if you were into S&M you wrote SM or if you were skilled in all the basics then you were into BDSM. When the internet got fired up in the 80's the term was loosely used as a sign post of peoples interest rather than what people actually do. Each of those disciplines are tools where as Dominance & Submission as well as Master/ Slave are relationships. Bondage is not a lifestyle it is a kink used by people in the lifestyle. A dominant and a submissive live a style of life where one partner is dominant and the other is submissive. In my lifestyle my slaves serve me. they choose to serve, I agree to own them. I have obligations as well as the slave or slaves. We live this lifestyle 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This is a bit more than being with someone for a few hours a week and tie them up and have hot sex after or during the session and never see that person again until it is time to play again.