politics for the 21st Century  

KDR305 47M/47F
247 posts
2/24/2006 6:24 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

politics for the 21st Century

Let's just pretend for one second that there were couple of things that politicians weren't allowed to talk about publicly.

Sex and Religion.

Boil that down over the past 10 years or so.

Remove every political statement that refered to either of those issues. Both of which do not belong in the political process in the first place.

Whatever your feelings on the issues; remove those 2 items from the debate, and you might learn something. Not only about the other side, but of your own as well.

I'm constantly amazed by how many people on this site support the current administration. Even though those is power would snuff out this site and all like it if they ever had the chance.

Not only does this site invite open discussion of sexuality and experimentation, it also welcomes Homosexuality and BD/SM for those who lean that way.

Sounds to me like a "faith-based" initiative in the making.

Either way though..... take the past 10 years. Remove sex and religion from the equation and tell me your thoughts on the political environment we've been living in.

Who do you trust and why? Who has done a better job, and why?

Let's get dirty.

Be warned.... you will be expected to follow up any comment you make with actual facts. Another new twist I'm adding to the political discussion.


outdoorsman3174 43M

2/25/2006 12:06 am

Let's see, if we get rid of sex and religion in politics then we would be forced to talk about trivial things. Things like the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, trade, the budget, etc..

Let's see, 10 years.. I guess that we would need to start with Clinton. If we got rid of the news stories involving sex, there may very well be no written record that he was ever actually president. Oh sure, he helped to create 22 million jobs, which helped the DOW go from 2000 to 10,000, and left office with a 200 billion dollar budget surplus, but those things aren't as interesting as a stained dress and a curiously located cigar. I didn't like him much while he was in office, but looking back, I think he may have been the best president of my lifetime so far.

Then there's W. If not for his deep religious beliefs he may have never been president. Sadly, I actually voted for this guy in 2000 when I was living in Florida. In a way, all this is my fault.

If we get past religion with him, all we're left with is the first war in American history started for specific purpose of creating profits for the military industrial complex. Then of course there is the massive corruption that is coming to light in the GOP. The leaking of classified information for the purpose of political gain, the illegal spying on American citizens, the multiple pieces of legislation written by special interests like the pharmaceutical and credit card companies, and the fact that the only 2 pieces of legislation that he even threatened to veto were a ban on torture and a bill that would prevent the UAE from having control of some of our ports. Those can all be ignored because from all outward appearances it looks like we may very well have the antichrist living in the whitehouse. I guess we're back to religion again.

outdoorsman3174 43M

2/25/2006 10:17 pm

And what party do I belong to?

I notice that you didn't dispute all the other stuff, I wonder why?

KDR305 47M/47F

2/26/2006 9:26 am


You obviously saw exactly where I was going with this one.

I can't help but wonder if you intended the "antichrist" comment the way Mizz took it. To my eyes, you could have hyphenated it (anti-Christ) or used the words "false Christian" and I would have gotten the same meaning from it.

Which was to point out that through all of his religious rhetoric and attempts to combine politics and Christianity, his behavior is by no means "Christ-like".

I don't know how well you know Mizzkitka at this point, but rest assured she is not a right wing zealot. She truly is willing and able to listen to the other side. She has expressed her concerns and frustrations with Dubya and his ilk to me several times.

I think she truly enjoyed your post until the "antichrist" comment. I think she felt that it nullified many of the excellent points you'd made up until then.

I think she might feel slightly outnumbered and somewhat put-upon during political discussion on here, but she never shies away from expressing her opinion. And she's always fair.

Thanks for stopping by! Hope to see you again.


KDR305 47M/47F

2/26/2006 9:37 am


Generalizations are par for the course in a political discussion my dear.

No offense taken.

Like when I say: "Most republicans are half-wits without the ability to form an original thought." I'm obviously not talking about you.


Also... in your head-to-head with outdoorsman, I think you might have forgotten that he admits to having voted for Bush in 2000. So the two of you actually have something in common. A certain level of perceived responsibility for the many disagreement you both have with the administration.

Outdoorsman also admitted to not originally being a fan of Clinton, but seeing Clinton in retrospect as possibly "...the best president of my lifetime so far."

So he's not only capable of making decisions on his own, but is willing to look back and reevaluate a previous opinion.

How about a direct reply to my original post, now that you've had the opportunity to repond to his? I'm very interested to hear whether or not you think I made a valid point.


outdoorsman3174 43M

2/26/2006 11:55 am

The question was:

Let's just pretend for one second that there were couple of things that politicians weren't allowed to talk about publicly.

Sex and Religion.

I don't think politicians talk sex it as much as the media does when talking about the politicians. It's not like Clinton ever gave a speech on "The great sexual escapades Ive had in my days."

Bush will occationally let on in a major speech about prayer, or moral values, but in fact he is just pandering to the religious right. Nothing I have seen as far as his actions leads me to believe that he actually holds christian values.

Unless we're talking Old Old Old school, 1012 AD, Pope Urban II, Lets wash away our sins with blood Christian values. Those are a bit difficult for most americans to relate to.

I think the only reason Sex and Religion are such a focus, is because the Right has made them a focus. These topics are two of the best weapons the GOP has. Gays, Guns and God. If these topics were off limits, Todays Republicans would have nothing to run on.

outdoorsman3174 43M

2/26/2006 1:45 pm

In the past 10 years I would agree with you that "religious right" and "right" are probably the same thing.

What's emerging now is a difference between the "religious right" who are "Neo-Conservatives", and traditional conservatives.

Liberals who are sick and tired of being called liberals and calling themselves "Progressive"

Conservative Politicians have taken to calling themselves "Defendants", and liberal politicans are now calling themselves "Useless".

Conservative lobbyists are calling themselves "Power Brokers" and Liberal Lobbyists have started calling themselves "Non-existant".

It's amazing how semantics can really paint things in a whole new light.

KDR305 47M/47F

3/2/2006 11:42 pm


you said:

"i would like to see a concentration on terror, preparedness for chemical warfare (which i am certain is an inevitable threat to the world) education in our public schools, grants for college student regardless of their color, helping katrina victims in ALL areas affected, (including my state of texas that helps so many of them every day,) healthcare, assistance to iraq, assistance to americans with HIV, as well as other countries, military concentration, homeland security, border protection, a new beginning to legal citizenship laws so that others can come here legally or not at all, oil alternatives."

Can you please explain to me which part of the above paragraph represents the goals of the current administration?

Not just their words, but their actions?

They are against virtually everything you mentioned.


KDR305 47M/47F

3/2/2006 11:44 pm

outdoorsman and mizz~

it's 2:45 AM. I MUST get to bed. Rest assured I will come back to this discussion over the weekend.

Please stand by.

Thanks for your thoughts.


Become a member to create a blog