RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


Sunshine119 -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 12:00:18 PM)

Caitlyn,

I hope you don't mind, but I just sent this information to my most conservative Dom. In our house its like Carville and Matalin! Just loved it and don't mind that you hijacked this thread to post it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Well ... I'm somewhat in the habit of putting that little winky thing at the end of a line, to indicate harmless teasing.

[;)] <--- (like this one here)

BUT ... since you started this ... and mentioned balanced budgets and conservatives:

The last Republican President to submit a balanced budget was Eisenhower, who submitted two balanced budgets in his four year administration. Before him, a Republican President had not submitted a balanced budget since Abraham Lincoln was in office.

The list of Democratic Presidents that have submitted balanced budgets is long. Just in the last 60 years or so:
Clinton - 5
LBJ - 2
Truman - 2
FDR - 6

That's 15 balanced budgets to 2, since the beginning of FDR's three terms.

Since the start of the second world war, for every dollar the debt has increased while a Democratic President was in office, it has increased $2.87 with a Republican President in office. If you look at that same time period, with a Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress, the debt has increased $11.23 for every dollar it increased with a Democratic President and Democratic control in Congress. In all fairness, the majority of that gap belongs to just two Republican Presidents, Ronald Reagan and our current President. Our current President has raised the national debt in five years, more than every Democratic President combined, since the founding of our nation.

Please forgive me for highjacking this thread, and thank you for your time ... cc






LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 12:33:46 PM)

i am a repub and a conservitive its true most are not about war no one wants war but its about what is the morally right thing to do let people die or save people its burdon that i would never want but respect those that have to do the right thing i guess its easy to sit on the side lines a judge but then again everyone does but let it besaid one the does nothing gains nothing knowlege is all how you use it good or bad one produces other takes away from

tag your it your turn
[&:]




Petruchio -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 2:49:27 PM)

quote:

I suspose there is many reasons to why we come here and see a lack of acceptance for others and even feel it directed towards ourselves, I know I felt it. I would even be so bold to say that we have on occassion been unaccepting of others from time to time, I know I have.


I was in a business meeting yesterday talking about– of all things– the surfing lifestyle. The conversation turned to posers and wannabees and how to identify them from their surfboards. The theory is that some board signature endorsements are 'OK' and others imply 'posers'.

It made me realize that those who just squeaked in through the gate are quick to shut others out. People who are secure in themselves, never seem to exclude others. After all, everyone had to start somewhere.

My hypothesis is that people who judge others as wankers, wannabees, and posers, are themselves posers.




Petruchio -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 2:56:06 PM)

quote:

i am a repub and a conservitive its true most are not about war no one wants war but its about what is the morally right thing to do let people die or save people its burdon that i would never want but respect those that have to do the right thing i guess its easy to sit on the side lines a judge but then again everyone does but let it besaid one the does nothing gains nothing knowlege is all how you use it good or bad one produces other takes away from


Umm, next time hold off on the scotch (or weed or…?) because it's hard to understand what the hell you're saying, an insult to republicans (and democrats) everywhere. Also, a copy of Strunk & Wagnall's could help.




KnightofMists -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 2:59:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio


It made me realize that those who just squeaked in through the gate are quick to shut others out. People who are secure in themselves, never seem to exclude others. After all, everyone had to start somewhere.

My hypothesis is that people who judge others as wankers, wannabees, and posers, are themselves posers.



I think you have a two points here....

One... Is that confident and secure people in there lifestyle choices tend to be more inclusive and open-minded with others. I share this thought process. I thnk such people becuase of there own acceptance and security with themselves are better able to accept and be open-minded to others.

Two... Just becauase I agree with point one, I don't think one can conclude that those that are judgemental of others being wankers, wannbe etc are in of itself are themselves in that same group. I don't see that the two are related. We all have the ability to judge others and often do. How we responded to different people is going to be varied. I consider wankers, wannabes etc to be a question of honesty... so don't we all have the right to judge the intergity of a person. Because we judge ones intergity does that make us dishonest? I think it comes down on who we make that judgement... how we react to those we judge negatively and on what foundation do we make these judgements. Too often people make these judgements on fairly thin reasoning processes!

thanks for the post... was a good thought to consider




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 3:04:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Well ... I'm somewhat in the habit of putting that little winky thing at the end of a line, to indicate harmless teasing.

[;)] <--- (like this one here)

BUT ... since you started this ... and mentioned balanced budgets and conservatives:

The last Republican President to submit a balanced budget was Eisenhower, who submitted two balanced budgets in his four year administration. Before him, a Republican President had not submitted a balanced budget since Abraham Lincoln was in office.

The list of Democratic Presidents that have submitted balanced budgets is long. Just in the last 60 years or so:
Clinton - 5
LBJ - 2
Truman - 2
FDR - 6

That's 15 balanced budgets to 2, since the beginning of FDR's three terms.

Since the start of the second world war, for every dollar the debt has increased while a Democratic President was in office, it has increased $2.87 with a Republican President in office. If you look at that same time period, with a Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress, the debt has increased $11.23 for every dollar it increased with a Democratic President and Democratic control in Congress. In all fairness, the majority of that gap belongs to just two Republican Presidents, Ronald Reagan and our current President. Our current President has raised the national debt in five years, more than every Democratic President combined, since the founding of our nation.

Please forgive me for highjacking this thread, and thank you for your time ... cc




I already said just because someone calls themselves a conservative doesn't mean they really are. So, what's your point? Alot of people get elected on false premises. So, why the breakdown of all the economics. When I already said many "conservatives" don't display conservative values.

So, your arguing a point I already conceded before your reply.

If it is to demonstrate that democrats are truer fiscal conservatives than most republicans, well that's a entirely different discussion, and something I never referenced. Well, that can be argued how exactly they got the balanced budget and what exactly did they do to the tax structure, military, welfare programs, and how sustainable was the policy. Which is a very long-winded discussion.

Whichever, my point wasn't entirely directed at you, you were just the last one in the thread that referenced such things that I noticed. Sorry, if you were offended.




caitlyn -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 3:46:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Sorry, if you were offended.


When a person makes the choice to discuss politics, they better have thick skin. I wasn't the least bit offended, so there is no need to apologize ... although I do appreciate the sentiment. [:D]

It would be fair to point out though, that it certainly wasn't liberals that elected Republican Presidents.

As an aside, I got those figures off the C.B.O. website, so they are probably reasonably accurate, or at least non-partisan.

Excellent debate though ... and thank you for participating. [:D]




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/21/2006 8:41:37 PM)

quote:

Excellent debate though ... and thank you for participating.


Exactly what were you debating?




Petruchio -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/22/2006 1:36:02 AM)

quote:

Exactly what were you debating?


Ya gotta watch caitlyn– She's a sexy sub with brains, but nooooo pushover.




caitlyn -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/22/2006 6:32:20 AM)

Yeah well ... some people can't recognize a blow-off line when they see one. [;)]




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/22/2006 6:32:34 PM)

LOL[;)]. Consider me blown.




LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Acceptance to be US? and Accept for others to be Them? (1/24/2006 11:33:19 AM)

changes comes through conflict





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125