Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 2:31:47 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		maybemaybenot,
 
Does your state have a domestic partnership law on the books?  Or does your company have a provision where you can add someone to the insurance that you designate that is not related by birth or marriage?



_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to maybemaybenot)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 2:51:48 PM   
IvoryKing


Posts: 1
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline 		It amazes me how simplistic and narrow some individuals are. As anyone who has taken 9th grade history can tell you, bend the political pectrum and the ends meet. There is no real difference between fascism and communism- Totalitarianism and big goverment come under many an auspice. Conservative ideology centers on the concept of small government, responsible fiscal policy and a strong military. Liberal ideology promotes big government, larger spending on social programs. But these two rules of thumb do not necessarily translate to Republican or Democrat, they are more apt to describe the difference between Libertarian vs Populist.

Furthermore, I can think of numerous politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are guilty of limiting personal freedoms and promoting censorship in some form or another. Jimmy carter is by definition, a liberal, yet was an annoying born-again Christian who very much tried to limit "pornography" and many of the activities we discuss on these boards. Tipper Gore is similar. Hillary Clinton and Joe Liebermann crusaded against the video gams Bully and GTA. Why, b/c they know way more than you of course, and know what is best for you you should be grateful to have someone to tell you what to think and need and feel (insert sarcastic grin here).

Don't kid yourself, both parties are a perversion of their original, moderating intent. The Republicans of the past 20 yrs want to sell fear and the Democrats want to take your wallet, and tell you what you should feel so you can be nice. I vote Libertarian, perhaps not the most likely to win, but certainly the most honest...

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 2:56:42 PM   
maybemaybenot


Posts: 2817
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline 		In Massachusetts, it is city by city, or town by town. Off the top of my head Cambridge and Boston have these laws on the books. I know there are more, but those are the two I am most familiar with. I do not live in a city with domestic partnership laws.

No, on the insurance question. You can only insure yourself, spouse < gay or straight> and children. Or if you happen to be gay, we have a special option for two same sex people who are unmarried and live together. Same exact benefits as everyone else, at less of a cost to the employee than a family plan, or a mother and child plan or a plan for two married people. My previous employer had the same options. And I know of many employers who have followed suit here in Mass.

                            mbmbn

_____________________________

Tolerance of evil is suicide.- NYC Firefighter

When tolerance is not reciprocated, tolerance becomes surrender.

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 2:58:25 PM   
maybemaybenot


Posts: 2817
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline 		SoT:

Let's agree to disagree, OK.

You seem incapable of understanding that I am referring to a place that exists, and a place I live in that allows gays to marry. And the unfairness that is shown to non gays who live and breathe the exact same situations as their gay counterparts.
I have repeatedly told you I am speaking about here... in Massachusetts..... not elsewhere. Using this state as an example of the Nirvana you so desperately desire. You repeatedly tell me that it doesn't matter if there are dicriminatory practices in a place that exemplifies your basic premise, which leads me to believe you are not looking for equality for all, but for favoritism for yourself.

My gay counterparts at work are/were outraged that we hetero's are not given the option to carry our non married partners on our insurance. Many of them have petitioned the company for fair treatment for all. I have yet to meet one person who can defend such a policy, until today.

I get it. You don't want to hear any cases, facts or scenarios that don't fit into your idea of how life will be if only gay marriage  becomes legal and  the entire human race can sing Kumbaya in unison.

                                         mbmbn



(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:07:45 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

You seem incapable of understanding that I am referring to a place that exists, and a place I live in that allows gays to marry. And the unfairness that is shown to non gays who live and breathe the exact same situations as their gay counterparts.


Actually, in MA, there SHOULD be a parity between gay unmarried couples and straight unmarried couples. This is because in MA, it is possible for gay couples to get married. Either all unmarried couples must be allowed a group of rights or none of them must be allowed that right. It is as simple as that.

In the other 49 states, however, the situation is still as described and must be changed.



(in reply to maybemaybenot)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:07:51 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		That sounds like a mess of confusing and contradictory legislation and the insurance policies should be changed to apply equally to all types of family structures, IMO.  Most likely someone here who works in the insurance industry can state more about how such plans and their financing are determined.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to maybemaybenot)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:15:00 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		I'll have a crack......

Conservatives value authority.

Conservatives value the discipline of those caught breaking the rules.

Conservatives tend to see no charm in change - presumably 'head of the house' isn't up for negotiation.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:31:21 PM   
maybemaybenot


Posts: 2817
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I'll have a crack......

Conservatives value authority.

Conservatives value the discipline of those caught breaking the rules.

Conservatives tend to see no charm in change - presumably 'head of the house' isn't up for negotiation.




LOL, sounds like most dominants I have met. It can be charming, in it's own little way.

                         mbmbn

_____________________________

Tolerance of evil is suicide.- NYC Firefighter

When tolerance is not reciprocated, tolerance becomes surrender.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:44:03 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

Which still doesn't answer my question of how these are "liberal" laws as you claim.


Domestic violence laws across the country are a large result of lobbying by feminist groups.  I'll give you a hypothetical.  Let's say I'm married (I'm not), and my wife likes me to smack her around during love making.  It's completely consensual, and she enjoys it.  One night during one of our passionate play sessions, the neighbors overhear us.  Concerned, they call the police.  The police arrive, and my wife answers the door.  The police see visible bruises on my wife.  The police in most jurisdictions I'm aware of have to arrest me for domestic violence.  Despite protests from my wife, they have to do it according to the law.  If I'm convicted (even though it's a misdemeanor), I lose my constitutional right to own a firearm.  All of this is the result of lobbying by liberal groups.  Don't get me wrong, I find spousal abuse repugnant, and I do understand the intent of the law.  Be that as it may, it still the result of intrusion into private life by liberal do-gooders. 

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 3:45:07 PM   
allyC


Posts: 778
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		A Fast Reply... Republicans and Democrats are pigeonholed into being everything the media and hype says they are. The reality is that the individual cannot be pigeonholed so easily. For some, fiscal concerns and national security concerns outweigh social issues.  My owner and I are both for small government.  We don't believe in the idea of legislating morality in the slightest, however, our vote depends on what will help keep food on our table, a roof over our heads and what will protect our family from those who seek to do harm to America.  We also believe in the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean we are anti-gay or pro-life.  It doesn't mean we don't believe in charity and helping those less fortunate.   These are social issues that have been pegged as being Republican or conservative issues.  They aren't always that way when it comes to the individual.  It comes down to priorities for most people.  For some, gay marriage is at the top of that list.  For others it isn't.  Every issue can't be the most important one. You will find that the individual is much different than the party line leads you to believe. Well wishes, Cav's ally

< Message edited by allyC -- 2/22/2009 3:48:06 PM >

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 4:10:58 PM   
MasterShake69


Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		since you couldn't answer it, ill just tell you.  It was just" the seriousness of the charges" was the lone requirement for an investigation to take place with zero evidence..  So a college student writing his thesis was the origin of the democrats investigating Reagan and Bush.
One of Bill Clinton first actions as president was to launch an investigation of the outgoing president.  Republicans warned Bill Clinton not to renew the special prosecutor statute but he didn't listen.  Democrats believed it was just going to be a weapon used by democrats against republicans.  2 short years later it was being used for the first time by republicans against democrats.


quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

No.  Make a seperate topic about it, because it has absolutely no relevance here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

learn about the October surprise and the low standard it set for investigations.  Tell me what was the standard of evidence?
then ill respond to your question.;)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

Clinton's treatment was payback for what occurred to both Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan. 


So, again, you are confirmiing for us that neo-cons are in fact ten years old?



(in reply to KaineD)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 4:41:10 PM   
DominantDamsel


Posts: 42
Joined: 5/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

The origianal intent of my post was not a "How dare you" but rather a "Why do you"? Yes. It seems to me that conservative, right wing, "moral America" agenda is directly opposed to and dangerous to anyone who practices an alternative lifestyle in any manner. I therefore asked why someone would align with a group that I feel is directly opposed to their right to practice their lifestyles in peace.

So far, by the way, I have not gotten a single response saying "I am conservative because" and then setting out a reason. I am sure there are some out there, but what I have gotten so far is at best a petulant "I can be a conservative if I wanna" and at the worst the general "Look how rotten the liberals are".

Again, I ask what issues conservative d/s community members consider more important than their civil liberties that cause them to overlook the part of the agenda that would be just as glad to see them disappear from the face of the earth?




I'm conservative because I believe in traditional values and conservative principles. I'm not in favor of big government. I am a Christian, despite being interested in and practicing D/s and some BDSM.

I'm not in favor of gay marriage for the simple reason that I believe that opening the door to gay marriage also opens the door to polygamists to want to marry as well. They will demand their civil right to marriage just as the glbt crowd is currently doing. When that happens, that will do away with the concept of monogamy, which is what marriage is based upon. Monogamy is the foundation of marriage and I believe very firmly in traditional marriage and do not want the concept done away with. I believe that this is part and parcel of the liberal agenda -- to do away with and destroy traditional concepts like marriage.

I am bisexual. One can actually BE gay, bisexual, lesbian, or transgendered and still be against gay marriage, believe it or not.

I am also not in favor of pornography. There are countless Americans with pornography addiction that is so bad, they are surfing porn on their employer's dime. Pornography destroys the ability to be emotionally connected to and
intimate with another and is impacting our youth in this nation in a very negative manner. I have read an enormous amount of research on the damage pornography does to those whom its tentacles wrap around. I'm not in favor of it. It's dangerous.

I'm in favor of traditional values and beliefs. I believe very strongly in God. I do not want the word "God" removed from our currency. I don't want the word "God" taken from the pledge. I don't care for the liberal agenda.

Hopefully, I've now answered your questions. Attempts to convince me that my beliefs and stance on the liberal agenda are wrong and mistaken are a waste of your time, so please don't bother. I'm a proud conservative and will continue to be. I don't believe conservative politicians are interested in getting into my or anyone else's bedroom and stopping what I do with another adult, as long as that is consensual and does not truly harm the other.

Obviously there are points at which domestic violence can be confused with wiitwd. Consent is not a defense in some cases of serious brutality and I agree that it should not be. Domestic violence is wrong and an impossibly out of control problem. What we are doing as a community should look different. For those for whom it doesn't, I'm willing to accept that some of these may fall between the legal cracks and they may face discrimination and even prosecution. It goes with the territory. One does not throw the conservative baby out with the bathwater, despite the few problems conservatism may present when it conflicts with this lifestyle.

Hope I've clarified enough here for you.

< Message edited by DominantDamsel -- 2/22/2009 4:44:34 PM >

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 4:47:42 PM   
MasterShake69


Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		The people believing in the October surprise conspiracy thought Reagan had sent Bush Sr to negotiate with the Iranians.  The theory had Bush somehow gaining access to a Air force base and piloting the Sr-71 blackbird to Iran.  With Bush getting off the plane and meeting with the Iranians convincing them not to release the hostages until Reagan was sworn in as president.  Anybody that is remotely familiar with the Sr-71 blackbird are laughing hysterically right now.  The only evidence required to start the investigation of Reagan and Bush was the seriousness of the charges with zero evidence.  An allegation out of the wild imagination of a college student. Democrats have a habit of lowering standards ;)



quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

Clinton's treatment was payback for what occurred to both Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan.  Learn about something called the October surprise.  What was the level of evidence needed to start an investigation.  You will be surprised by all that was required to go after republicans ;)   Then learn about from the actual negotiations of carter and the Iranians why the hostages were released at that time.  At no time did the investigation ever interview anybody from the carter administration.  You couldn't actually have the truth in it ;)



It's a little difficult having faith in your long-term memory of events dating back to the Carter administration when you apparently don't remember that we had a discussion about your October surprise theories just a few days ago on another thread.

As for the rest of your post, it was a bit disjointed, so you'll have to clarify for me exactly what you were trying to say.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 4:53:56 PM   
MasterShake69


Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		now didn't Obama and Mccain have basically the same position of gay marriage?  that they both supported civil unions but not gay marriage ;)




quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales



Once again, the issue comes to a basic point. An unmarried heterosexual couple can CHOOSE to get married and enjoy all the protections and benefits that that civil contract offers. If the do not get married, it is because they choose not to enter into that civil contract and take advantage of those protections and benefits. A gay couple cannot chose that option. They are legally prevented from entering into that civil arrangements, no matter the depth of their commitment, their willingness to abide by its responsibilities as well as reaping it's benefits or the effects that this will have on their lives. As long as this is the case, any bone they are thrown to say "see....we're not all that bad, we just don't want you getting married." is like saying that in the old south, a black and a white could ride the same bus, but the blacks had to sit in the back.

I would also like to point out an apparent inconsistency in your posting. First you say that we should not count the religious antipathy for homosexuals as anything that the government should be concerned with, yet point out that some companies allow same sex couples to take advantage of couple's insurance privileges. Let's keep in mind that there is no government requirement for a company to allow same sex couples to be recognized in any way. It is a private decision made from company to company. And many companies are not so inclined to give a same sex couple the "privilege" of any benefit.

Again, allowing two people of the same gender the same rights and choices as two people of different gender is not favoritism. It is equality.



(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 5:21:00 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mastership

The people believing in the October surprise conspiracy thought Reagan had sent Bush Sr to negotiate with the Iranians.  The theory had Bush somehow gaining access to a Air force base and piloting the Sr-71 blackbird to Iran.  With Bush getting off the plane and meeting with the Iranians convincing them not to release the hostages until Reagan was sworn in as president.  Anybody that is remotely familiar with the Sr-71 blackbird are laughing hysterically right now.  The only evidence required to start the investigation of Reagan and Bush was the seriousness of the charges with zero evidence.  An allegation out of the wild imagination of a college student. Democrats have a habit of lowering standards ;)



quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

Clinton's treatment was payback for what occurred to both Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan.  Learn about something called the October surprise.  What was the level of evidence needed to start an investigation.  You will be surprised by all that was required to go after republicans ;)   Then learn about from the actual negotiations of carter and the Iranians why the hostages were released at that time.  At no time did the investigation ever interview anybody from the carter administration.  You couldn't actually have the truth in it ;)



It's a little difficult having faith in your long-term memory of events dating back to the Carter administration when you apparently don't remember that we had a discussion about your October surprise theories just a few days ago on another thread.

As for the rest of your post, it was a bit disjointed, so you'll have to clarify for me exactly what you were trying to say.



If Reagen had nothing to do with the release,why do cons give him credit for freeing the hostages and not Carter?

Then of course there were those secrete arms sales to the Iranians not long after.

Quid pro quo?

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 2/22/2009 5:24:05 PM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to MasterShake69)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 6:08:16 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

now didn't Obama and Mccain have basically the same position of gay marriage? that they both supported civil unions but not gay marriage ;)
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

now didn't Obama and Mccain have basically the same position of gay marriage?  that they both supported civil unions but not gay marriage ;)



Yes, and I am fully convinced that Obama is as full of crap on this issue as McCain. I'm not one to be afraid to call "bullshit" on members of my own party. I can think of a lot of issues with which I am at odds with the democratic/liberal/progressive stand. That is the difference between a thinking person and a sheep. And no, I am NOT calling anyone a sheep either directly or indirectly so save your keystrokes.





(in reply to MasterShake69)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 8:18:10 PM   
allyC


Posts: 778
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales I'm not one to be afraid to call "bullshit" on members of my own party. I can think of a lot of issues with which I am at odds with the democratic/liberal/progressive stand. That is the difference between a thinking person and a sheep.
 Bingo.  :)  The same can apply to those who wear the label of republican, conservative, or any other.   Well wishes, Cav's ally

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 8:32:21 PM   
ModeratorEleven


Posts: 2007
Joined: 8/14/2005
Status: offline 		To those of you who insist on bringing minors into this discussion, please stop.  You won't be asked again.

XI


_____________________________

This mod goes to eleven.

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/22/2009 10:39:03 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

Which still doesn't answer my question of how these are "liberal" laws as you claim.


Domestic violence laws across the country are a large result of lobbying by feminist groups.  I'll give you a hypothetical.  Let's say I'm married (I'm not), and my wife likes me to smack her around during love making.  It's completely consensual, and she enjoys it.  One night during one of our passionate play sessions, the neighbors overhear us.  Concerned, they call the police.  The police arrive, and my wife answers the door.  The police see visible bruises on my wife.  The police in most jurisdictions I'm aware of have to arrest me for domestic violence.  Despite protests from my wife, they have to do it according to the law.  If I'm convicted (even though it's a misdemeanor), I lose my constitutional right to own a firearm.  All of this is the result of lobbying by liberal groups.  Don't get me wrong, I find spousal abuse repugnant, and I do understand the intent of the law.  Be that as it may, it still the result of intrusion into private life by liberal do-gooders. 


All this is true, but again, there is a major difference here.

As you indicated, the laws regarding this were formed with good intent.  Many abused women are trapped in a situation where they are too fearful to press charges.  Whether you or I agree this is a good law, the intent of the law is not to invade someone's privacy but to offer protection.

Contrast that with the statements made by Sen. Santorum that I posted earlier.

He believes his job as a legislator is to be the guardian of morality, as he views it, and he believes the government has the right to legislate those moral views.  Something that the religious right of the Republican party seems to believe strongly in.

Here's a quote in case you missed it:

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that.   

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community - 2/23/2009 1:23:54 AM   
MasterShake69


Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline
Just like with Putin being afraid of McCain.  The soviets were afraid of Reagan and so were our other enemies in the world.    Democrats were so scared of Reagan starting WW III that liberal like Ted Kennedy would visit the Russians before the Reagan administration took office.  Kennedy's objective was to let the Soviets know that the American people didn't want war.  When the soviet union broke apart records of that time period were released. That's how i know about that tidbit.
The Iranians negotiating with the carter administration.  They knew if the release of the hostages occurred when carter was president he would take credit for there release.  The Iranians hated jimmy carter because he wouldn't give them the shah.  At the same time they were scared of Ronald Reagan but didn't want him to take credit for anything either.  So they negotiated with and got the carter administration to agree that the release of the hostages take place the moment  between presidents. In the mind of the Iranians it prevented anybody from take credit.  Did Reagan have time to make a threat?  nope.  SO it was nothing Reagan actually did to Iran to gain the Hostages release other then the fear of what he would soon do to them. :)  
However just like with 9-11,  the Iranian hostages being released like that was to difficult for liberals to believe and they came up with crazy conspiracy theory's to cling too.





[/quote]

If Reagen had nothing to do with the release,why do cons give him credit for freeing the hostages and not Carter?

Then of course there were those secrete arms sales to the Iranians not long after.

Quid pro quo?
[/quote]

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.092