The Watering Hole

So, if the 2 candidates are Hilary and Trump, which looks very possible, who ya pickin?

Well, I'm not an Elector so I usually see more than two choices...

Why vote at all, other than it's your right to do so, if you vote, for example, a 3rd party candidate with no hope of winning?

Winning?  heh heh  I don't know that it's about winning like a football game

If I take the time to vote, I'm voting for 1 of the 2 people who have a chance to win. Otherwise, why do it? Seems like a complete waist of time.

I see Hilary will likely win on the democratic side, for example. So, I don't have a choice, I have to vote against her because the republicans candidates are better than her. Not much, but.... even Trump.

I guess I could write in Snoopy or some shit like Romney seems willing to do.

I've been right 3 times. One time with Obama, and 2 times with Bush jr. I give Bush credit for what he was able to do considering the circumstances. But he made a huge mistake, like massive, on the Iraq deal. I can see how people would dislike him for that 1 decision alone. Had no choice but Obama the first time.

So no, considering the ones I've picked correctly only, total fuck ups pretty much. Not that it mattered much. (my 1 vote)

Why do it if you picked the "loser"?

You weren't "right", especially not on Jr.'s first run, that one took special help to get through

If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.

Mark Twain


I've quit paying attention to "the issues" because they're all bullshit but I still observe the spectacle every now and then for some schadenfreude - also, because it's fricken everywhere... can't fully avoid it.

The Big Show!

[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1457111556/0#5 date=1457231624]Why do it if you picked the "loser"?

You weren't "right", especially not on Jr.'s first run, that one took special help to get through

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016

I did it because I had a chance to vote for the better person, imo. 1 of the 2 were going to win.

And 1 was going to lose, the trick is in making you think you did good for betterment of the country or maybe just your club, y'know, the people you care about.

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016You can blame Bush for every bad thing that happens if you want. From now to eternity.

Nal, just the decisions he was responsible for and has taken credit for.

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016And yes, the possible candidates on the republican side are superior to the 2 possible winners on the democratic side. No question about it.

They are true  Übermensch!!  What are the superior positions they have put forward?

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016I mean, Hilary is sitting on top right now. I find that unbelievable. I think that says a lot about the shape of our voters. Sadly, Americans just can't get passed this Clinton crap. I can't imagine why anyone would vote for that woman unless they are ignorant of what their doing or something. I think she should be waterboarded in order to get her to tell the truth and when they find her guilty, they should put her in jail.

She'll just say "Ahhh dee truth, I do not even know what is dee truth

Don't worry, most potential voters agree with you:

BINGEWOOD — Mar 07, 2016[quote author=Hookbender link=1457111556/0#9 date=1457356447]

I did it because I had a chance to vote for the better person, imo. 1 of the 2 were going to win.

And 1 was going to lose, the trick is in making you think you did good for betterment of the country or maybe just your club, y'know, the people you care about.

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016You can blame Bush for every bad thing that happens if you want. From now to eternity.

Nal, just the decisions he was responsible for and has taken credit for.

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016And yes, the possible candidates on the republican side are superior to the 2 possible winners on the democratic side. No question about it.

They are true  Übermensch!!  What are the superior positions they have put forward?

Hookbender — Mar 07, 2016I mean, Hilary is sitting on top right now. I find that unbelievable. I think that says a lot about the shape of our voters. Sadly, Americans just can't get passed this Clinton crap. I can't imagine why anyone would vote for that woman unless they are ignorant of what their doing or something. I think she should be waterboarded in order to get her to tell the truth and when they find her guilty, they should put her in jail.

She'll just say "Ahhh dee truth, I do not even know what is dee truth

You totally don't need to look into positions to vote, I mean claimed hand/cock size alone is a great way to make your choice so you can be "glad"

I don't hate her. Thats giving her to much credit. I'd rather have no feeling at all concerning that witch. But yes, I dislike her.  ;D

Well, Trump is a racist, sexist, megalomaniac asshole who cares only about himself and his ego, so he's got that going for him.

charger — Mar 07, 2016Well, Trump is a racist, sexist, megalomaniac asshole who cares only about himself and his ego, so he's got that going for him.

How is he racist?
How is he sexist?

Now, I have to defend him when you say, he cares only about himself. If that were true, he damn sure wouldn't be running for President. Talk about a huge pay cut for 4 or 8 years. He obviously cares about his country to take all the shit he's having to take. His wife is hot and educated, speaks several different languages as well. He's successful as hell. He's clearly not a politician, and that's exactly what we need, imo. And, if we could get the politicians out of the senate and congress, we'd be that much better off in the long run. He's no worse than any of the other folks running. And, all the politicians on both sides are scared as hell of him because he's gonna call it like it is.

I don't see any problems. Am I missing something?

You really don't get anything off Trump but, "great guy, good choice"?

Hookbender — Mar 08, 2016[quote author=charger link=1457111556/0#15 date=1457387544]Well, Trump is a racist, sexist, megalomaniac asshole who cares only about himself and his ego, so he's got that going for him.

I don't see any problems. Am I missing something?

Yes. If you don't see racism, sexism, and sheer douchebaggery in everything that guy does, you are missing pretty much every word out of his mouth.

"We don't need politicians" sounds great, until you elect people who aren't politicians. Like the tea partiers who took over congress and pretty much made, umm, nothing happen for the last 6 years.

You realize that Trump has promised to expand libel laws, and erode the 1st amendment, so he can sue people who say bad things about him?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432037/donald-trump-libel-first-amendment

Great article.

Because a claim must be false to be libelous, truth is an absolute defense against libel. So, for instance, if I write that Donald Trump is a blazing jackass who has driven his companies into bankruptcy four times, mainly because he doesn’t know how to handle debt, Trump can’t do anything about that, because it is true. If I write that Trump is poorly positioned to take on Wall Street because he owes practically every bank on the street enormous sums of money, I’m golden, because it is true. If I write that Donald J. Trump is a lowlife who has cheated on his wives and betrayed his own family and the families of others through his remarkable personal commitment to adultery, Trump has no recourse, because this is true. If I write that the fact that Melania Trump was a client of Trump’s dopey little modeling agency strikes me as creepy indeed — I advocate the separation of sex and payroll — I’m on solid ground, because the facts of the case are not in dispute. If I write that you credulous yokels who believe that Trump is self-funding his presidential campaign have fallen for an obvious lie, I am protected by the fact that this is documented truth.

If Trump is elected, it's not because of his merits. It's because he's the loudest, most arrogant, most bigoted asshole around, and for some reason Americans are dumb enough to buy that as power.  It's the same reason Putin keeps getting elected.

Wow. I feel ya bro.

However, this guy looks at the glass half empty.

Who cares about his personal life? I don't. I don't care if he's fucked half the girls in Brazil. On his business dealings, he's living the dream. He's failed a few times. Oh my, what a devil.

IMO, I think people view power differently than you suggest it. People are sick of politicians that take care of themselves, and their friends...... then worry about the country when it's beneficial or convenient for them. They want someone who owes these pieces of horseshit nothing, like Trump. It doesn't have to be Trump, it just happens to be him.

Look at all the shit Obama promised during his campaign. Did it all come true? Yes or no question. Then why would anyone think Trump will suddenly have the "power" to send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico? Shit ain't happening. I can deal with a wall or whatever, illegals should be stopped in some way on all our boarders. But the folks that are here need to pay taxes, be identified, and put in the system and we need to move the fuck on from all this bullshit and deal with real controllable issues, like how many bases around the damn globe, do we fucking need? Like getting and staying the fuck out of the middle east. We can control those things, for example. And the money we save and take in, (in taxes) may not fix things, but it will help and harm no one. These are types of things that Americans are frustrated with. And their frustrated to the point of wanting someone, anyone, who isn't a self serving piece of shit like the politicians we have today, to actually move the country forward and work on fixing the obvious massive bloated expenditures and massive in our face problems we've had for years. I travel in the southeast, and I can tell you our roads are fucking pitiful. Their bad enough that I've considered selling my motorcycle because chunks of concrete are missing on the damn interstate. Fucking pot holes everywhere. It's dangerous, on a bike at least.

And when I hear people like Sanders saying yes, we will raise taxes on everyone, I get so pissed I could shit my pants. The government is spending money left and right, as fast as they can spend it. Roads are falling apart etc. We are not really even fighting in the middle east, just dropping million dollar bombs every damn day. Our government rules us, and the fuckers are suppose to be working with, and for us. Not Israel, not Iraq, not any of the middle east. They could give a shit less about us. It's time for a change. Maybe not Trump change, but if that's where change starts, so be it.

So, again. How is he racist? How is he a sexist? And I'll add, how is he any different, other than Bill being a politician and getting some in the oval office, from ole Bill Clinton? On a personal level? Never heard you call out the liberal pricks.

And just for the record, if he were elected, Trump would just be the President anyway. Nothing will get considerably better until the politicians are out of the senate and congress. That needs to happen more so than a non-politician President by far.

But you know what the other half is full of, right?  heh heh

And by the way, Trump getting some on the side is a liberal action. What are you bitching about? ;D

I think fucking outside of commitment is pretty universal...

Yes. It's a liberal action exercised by conservatives and liberals alike.  :D

Hookbender — Mar 10, 2016
Who cares about his personal life? I don't. I don't care if he's fucked half the girls in Brazil. On his business dealings, he's living the dream. He's failed a few times. Oh my, what a devil.

I don't care about that. My point was, Trump wants to revoke the 1st fucking amendment of the Constitution. The author was just pointing out things he has done that are covered by the first amendment. I wasn't pointing to those things specifically, I could care less who Trump fucks, except that ultimately the people he will fuck if elected are you and me.

IMO, I think people view power differently than you suggest it. People are sick of politicians that take care of themselves, and their friends...... then worry about the country when it's beneficial or convenient for them. They want someone who owes these pieces of horseshit nothing, like Trump. It doesn't have to be Trump, it just happens to be him.

Umm... Trump is already promising his "friends" all sorts of jobs.  Like Carl Icahn, even Sarah Palin?  Did you completely miss all that?  And what makes you think that because Trump is a rich megalomaniac power-grubbing asshole, he's going to be looking out for people like you and me?  When's the last time a Republican administration passed a meaningful tax cut for people making less than 250k a year?

deal with real controllable issues, like how many bases around the damn globe, do we fucking need?

What's Trump's position on this?

Like getting and staying the fuck out of the middle east.

Again, what's Trump's position on this? I haven't heard a single statement from him saying we need to not go to war. In fact, the opposite.

And the money we save and take in, (in taxes) may not fix things, but it will help and harm no one.

Where is the savings in Donald Trump's plan? How are we going to make more tax money and/or spend less under Trump?

I travel in the southeast, and I can tell you our roads are fucking pitiful. Their bad enough that I've considered selling my motorcycle because chunks of concrete are missing on the damn interstate. Fucking pot holes everywhere. It's dangerous, on a bike at least.

What's Donald Trump's plan for infrastructure spending? That's an important issue, and one that the Republicans have been refusing to fund for 6 years. Is Donald going to change the Pubs' minds?

And when I hear people like Sanders saying yes, we will raise taxes on everyone, I get so pissed I could shit my pants. The government is spending money left and right, as fast as they can spend it. Roads are falling apart etc.

You obviously haven't listened to Sanders, because he's not said he was going to raise taxes on everyone.  But good try.

We are not really even fighting in the middle east, just dropping million dollar bombs every damn day. Our government rules us, and the fuckers are suppose to be working with, and for us. Not Israel, not Iraq, not any of the middle east.

"The U.S. must continue to nurture and safeguard our special relationship with the state of Israel. This relationship must remain the cornerstone of our policy tactics through the entire Middle-East region, as it has been for administrations of both parties for more than half a century.
Why do we have this special relationship? It is not out of charity, guilt, or what some call “ethnic lobbies.” We have been there for Israel because Israel is there for us. Israel is a stable democracy in a region filled with dictatorship."
--Donald J Trump.

So, again. How is he racist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

How is he a sexist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/18-real-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women_us_55d356a8e4b07addcb442023

And I'll add, how is he any different, other than Bill being a politician and getting some in the oval office, from ole Bill Clinton? On a personal level? Never heard you call out the liberal pricks.

First, Donald Trump could not be more different from Bill Clinton.  Second, I have never had a conversation with you about Bill Clinton's upcoming election because we were barely on the internet when Bill Clinton was running for office. We definitely weren't on a message board together.  Third, I could care less about Donald Trump's sex life, though I feel immensely sorry for whatever poor woman has to tolerate sex with him. I never said anything about his sex life and I don't care about it... in fact it's Donald who brought up his dick size as a qualification for office, not me.

I find this interesting a lot in talking with Trump supporters and listening to what they have to say.  They have NO IDEA what Trump actually supports.  He's a kind of tabula rasa.  They decide that because he's not a Washington politician, and because he speaks his mind, he has a whole bunch of views on what he will do for the country that they agree with.  Without even actually knowing what any of those views or policies are.  Do you actually know anything about Trump's policies?  It doesn't seem like you do.  I could be wrong.  For example, his middle east policy?  Does he want to go to war in Syria?  Does he want to continue drone strikes?  Does he think we should increase military aid to Israel?  Do you know any of those things?

Hookbender — Mar 10, 2016Yes. It's a liberal action exercised by conservatives and liberals alike.  :D

Having an open marriage could be considered to be being liberal within your commitment, but when a conservative (or liberal) cheats they aren't more liberal, they're just a cheater.

BINGEWOOD — Mar 10, 2016[quote author=Hookbender link=1457111556/0#23 date=1457630704]Yes. It's a liberal action exercised by conservatives and liberals alike.  :D

Having an open marriage could be considered to be being liberal within your commitment, but when a conservative (or liberal) cheats they aren't more liberal, they're just a cheater.

man, it's rare that I can agree with something completely these days... but that's perfect.

Charger

I gave you a lot of my positions on issues, not Trumps. I know full well what he supports with no detail mind you. but it's not an individuals fault, completely, if said individuals news source is TV only.

He will be in charge of the country. The status of the country. He is a businessman. I'm giving the businessman concept a chance. No candidate, that I'm aware of, is in favor of getting out of the middle east shit storm completely and closing bases. As you know, no one gets everything they want in a candidate. Almost impossible.

See, I can get past his ego and bullshit and focus on the experiment. The businessman concept. The national debt was 5 trillion dollars when ole bill was Pres in 2000. It 18 trillion now and counting. See a trend in those figures? And even with that kind of debt, we still give billions a year to Israel and no telling how much to other countries, alone. Not to mention all the other stupid shit we do, like wars for no apparent reason other than we don't like what their leaders do.

Shit, maybe a businessman will look at the entire picture and actually take on one of the biggest concerns about government, at least to me, the debt.

Shit, why not try it. Can't do any more harm than the rest of the guys. I must say, or admit, and it's not easy for me.... I think Bill was one of our best Presidents, and that's what counts by the way, while at the same time a total fragment of a vagina on the moral side. And thats my point. I don't care about the personal business dealings, for the most part, or who they had sex with, or how many times they've been married, or if they every farted in church. The business concept, or approach. Hmmmm. Wonder if that would work. Can't be any worse, really, when you compare. Why not?

Just imagine that Trump came up with a good idea and either the republicans or, the democrats, in the senate and congress were blocking it. Just imagine how scared those horseshit eating, pathetic fucktard's in those 2 clubs would be. Every one would get called out in a huge way by big mouth Trump. If he could put together a sentence of sanity, all at one time, that is. Might bring to the table a touch of accountability and transparency that maybe we just "thought" we wanted.

I really think if he's elected, it has a chance to change politics, possibly forever. It will definitely be different, I would think. See, the hope isn't to elect the great Donald Trump, the hope is to use him to change politics for the better in the future. Which,  would make our country stronger and better in the future, hopefully.

If he makes it, he's got my vote against Hilary. No doubt. But not from any major policy point or stance at this point, not from any misguided pipe dream I may have received from fox news, although close,  ;D, I'm making up my own scenario. Fuck it.  ;D

BINGEWOOD — Mar 10, 2016[quote author=Hookbender link=1457111556/0#23 date=1457630704]Yes. It's a liberal action exercised by conservatives and liberals alike.  :D

Having an open marriage could be considered to be being liberal within your commitment, but when a conservative (or liberal) cheats they aren't more liberal, they're just a cheater.

I'm not judging the person, I'm labeling the action.

Cheating isn't being liberal, it's reneging on the contract/agreement one has with another person/people(I guess), this where an open marriage/relationship could be considered more liberal but both/all sides would be agreeing to this liberal stance.

Your label is not really correct.

That's just a play on words. To label it cheating, the action, assumes, or directly implies, that the person has done some terrible act of some kind. And that person may have. Your assigning a judgement, cheating, before I get there.

Liberal- open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

See, the definition of liberal doesn't assign blame, then define the word. It defines the word. I'm pointing out that the act of cheating is a liberal act, according to the definition. One can't be a cheater, before this liberal action takes place.

You can call me a cheater, but you'd be wrong. However, you could call my sexual behavior liberal because I plow  more than 1 field from time to time.

And, morally, we could both be right. But I'm not going down that road.  

Hook, although I understand your position, I don't believe Donald trump is any sort of wonderful businessman. In fact it's been independently shown that if he had taken the money he inherited to start with, and stuck it in the stock market, he would have made more money by now than he has in all his business dealings.  The thing is, Donald has reprehensible policies.  He hates Muslims, Mexicans, and foreigners.  He admires the way Vladimir Putin has decimated Syria's rebellion.  He endorses people at his rallies beating up black people.  He hasn't said much of anything about anything, but loudly shouts down anyone who questions him about anything he's said in the past, or stood for.  As far as taxation goes, you do know he proposed a one-time 45% tax on millionaires to reduce the debt?  And you talk about Sanders wanting to tax people?  

I respectfully disagree on his sway over Congress.  Him standing up and calling out Congress if they refuse to do what he wants is not only going to make them hate him more, but it's going to get old for us to listen to.  We would be sick of listening to him yell and bully after about a month.  That kind of thing gets old, and it's not effective. No one in the Congress cares if the president yells at them. He'd have to be incredibly popular for that to work, and what do you think the chances are that Donald Trump would be an incredibly popular president?

Then why do conservatives scream freedom?  heh heh

charger — Mar 12, 2016Hook, although I understand your position, I don't believe Donald trump is any sort of wonderful businessman. In fact it's been independently shown that if he had taken the money he inherited to start with, and stuck it in the stock market, he would have made more money by now than he has in all his business dealings.  The thing is, Donald has reprehensible policies.  He hates Muslims, Mexicans, and foreigners.  He admires the way Vladimir Putin has decimated Syria's rebellion.  He endorses people at his rallies beating up black people.  He hasn't said much of anything about anything, but loudly shouts down anyone who questions him about anything he's said in the past, or stood for.  As far as taxation goes, you do know he proposed a one-time 45% tax on millionaires to reduce the debt?  And you talk about Sanders wanting to tax people?  

I respectfully disagree on his sway over Congress.  Him standing up and calling out Congress if they refuse to do what he wants is not only going to make them hate him more, but it's going to get old for us to listen to.  We would be sick of listening to him yell and bully after about a month.  That kind of thing gets old, and it's not effective. No one in the Congress cares if the president yells at them. He'd have to be incredibly popular for that to work, and what do you think the chances are that Donald Trump would be an incredibly popular president?

I think the chances of him being a popular President is equal to the chance he'll become President.

As far as millionaires go, I can only wish to have that problem. That's a poor argument to make, coming from a liberal. I don't see a huge problem with a one time 35% tax.

Trump has the thing going for him. Whatever that is. Americans will listen to Trump throw a fit about a certain congressman, or senator, and it will put the spot light on that person. Just a guess on my part. He seems to have that ability, at least with the media.

OK, he throws a spotlight on a Senator, and then what?  Did ya check his Chicago rally, he kinda pussed out even with that big mouth, didn't exactly see agreement among the people, wouldn't that be required for the spotlight to work?



Breaking a contract isn't being liberal with the contract, the terms have already been put forth and agreed upon, it's throwing it out entirely.

breach would be the word.

from latin "liber" means free.

liberty, liberation and liberal are all references to freedom.

why is this used as some kind of reference to degenerate morality?

BINGEWOOD — Mar 12, 2016OK, he throws a spotlight on a Senator, and then what?  Did ya check his Chicago rally, he kinda pussed out even with that big mouth, didn't exactly see agreement among the people, wouldn't that be required for the spotlight to work?



Breaking a contract isn't being liberal with the contract, the terms have already been put forth and agreed upon, it's throwing it out entirely.

Who said anything about a contract? But, I'll bite.

If Donald, for example, had sex with other women while married, and that caused a divorce.... then so be it. If he gets married again, after say, 2 instances of sex with other women has caused a divorce, fill in the blanks here. A women marries a man who has sex outside the marriage, she knows this.

In this case, Donald would still be liberal with his sexual habits outside his marriage. The woman marries the man, signs this "contract"..... and then what? Donald and his sexual habits are still liberal actions and if the woman who marries him expects anything different, she could be labeled insane. By the true definition of the word. Nothing changes the original point that Donald is a sexually liberal person. And having more than one partner for sexual activities is his norm and those actions are still....... liberal actions.

In this case, the "contract" is useless, with the exception of the financial parts. The moral part of the contract doesn't have to mean shit. Their are few morals in a court of law. Lots of people's morals are different, or they vary greatly.

50% of marriages end in divorce. 50% of those contracts don't mean shit. There is no penalty in court for breaking the contract by cheating, for example. It's just a good reason for divorce. That said, the action of cheating can cause a divorce if the other partner considers the action cheating. However,  take out the judgement part, the word cheating, or cheater, your still left with the liberal action of sex with multiple partners. The word cheating or cheater, simply implies that said person did something wrong, morally. I'm not concerned about morals, only labeling the action of sex with multiple partners as liberal. Even in the 50% of successful marriages, the contract really doesn't mean shit. They have a conservative marriage. their would be no liberal action taken in this case.  

You seem to be hung up on morals. Get that out of your mind and you'll probably see my point.

ironsheep — Mar 12, 2016breach would be the word.

from latin "liber" means free.

liberty, liberation and liberal are all references to freedom.

why is this used as some kind of reference to degenerate morality?

I started to respond to this, then decided I better ask for clarification. I'm not certain as to what you mean, exactly.

You can liberate yourself from a committed relationship but I don't know that it would be a liberal action in relation to the commitment, the terms are already set, they can't get more liberal or conservative based on the actions of one of the parties, both could renegotiate new terms to make their commitment more "liberal"


You can be liberal with your fuck choices but as you said it would be outside of commitment.

You can also liberally fuck the person you are committed to, does that make you more conservative in relation to your commitment?


Personally I think the idea of "traditional marriage" being conservative is funny because traditional marriage used to mean that daddy bought you a bride, maybe even when you are children.  Still goes on all over...

what I'm saying, Hook, is that one should not surrender the term "liberal" to authoritarians.

liberal properly describes the person who really believes in freedom - the one that believes voluntary cooperation is the only legitimate mode of interaction.
the man who respects his neighbor by default and covets nothing.

there are very few liberals around today.

calling authoritarian collectivists (so-called left or right) "liberal" is not an insult, it's an elevation in status they don't deserve.

BINGEWOOD — Mar 12, 2016You can liberate yourself from a committed relationship but I don't know that it would be a liberal action in relation to the commitment, the terms are already set, they can't get more liberal or conservative based on the actions of one of the parties, both could renegotiate new terms to make their commitment more "liberal"


You can be liberal with your fuck choices but as you said it would be outside of commitment.

You can also liberally fuck the person you are committed to, does that make you more conservative in relation to your commitment?


Personally I think the idea of "traditional marriage" being conservative is funny because traditional marriage used to mean that daddy bought you a bride, maybe even when you are children.  Still goes on all over...

Your still getting stuck on these word things. Forget commitment, forget morals, forget cheating, etc.

Before it's any of these things, it's a liberal action. That's all I'm saying.

Traditional- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.
Conservative- holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.

Not much difference in the two words.

ironsheep — Mar 13, 2016what I'm saying, Hook, is that one should not surrender the term "liberal" to authoritarians.

liberal properly describes the person who really believes in freedom - the one that believes voluntary cooperation is the only legitimate mode of interaction.
the man who respects his neighbor by default and covets nothing.

there are very few liberals around today.

calling authoritarian collectivists (so-called left or right) "liberal" is not an insult, it's an elevation in status they don't deserve.

I'm still not sure I understand. I wasn't calling Trump a liberal, if that's where your going. I'm just saying that having more than 1 sexual partner is a liberal "action".

so are you saying that you never intend a negative connotation when you use the word "liberal"?

maybe I'm just assuming you're using it as a pejorative when you aren't... if so, my bad.

Hookbender — Mar 13, 2016[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1457111556/25#39 date=1457823409]You can liberate yourself from a committed relationship but I don't know that it would be a liberal action in relation to the commitment, the terms are already set, they can't get more liberal or conservative based on the actions of one of the parties, both could renegotiate new terms to make their commitment more "liberal"


You can be liberal with your fuck choices but as you said it would be outside of commitment.

You can also liberally fuck the person you are committed to, does that make you more conservative in relation to your commitment?


Personally I think the idea of "traditional marriage" being conservative is funny because traditional marriage used to mean that daddy bought you a bride, maybe even when you are children.  Still goes on all over...

Your still getting stuck on these word things. Forget commitment, forget morals, forget cheating, etc.

Before it's any of these things, it's a liberal action. That's all I'm saying.

Traditional- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.
Conservative- holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.

Not much difference in the two words.
Well... it's traditional for some Native Americans to take peyote and go on three-day psychedelic trips in the desert.  It's not exactly conservative, though.

I think this is not the correct use of "liberal".  The word I would use here is "libertine."

libertine
noun
1. a person, especially a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters.
synonyms:      philanderer, playboy, rake, roué, Don Juan, Lothario, Casanova, Romeo; More
2. a person who rejects accepted opinions in matters of religion; a freethinker.

adjective
1. characterized by a disregard of morality, especially in sexual matters.
2. freethinking in matters of religion.

ironsheep — Mar 13, 2016so are you saying that you never intend a negative connotation when you use the word "liberal"?

maybe I'm just assuming you're using it as a pejorative when you aren't... if so, my bad.

Maybe, maybe not. In the context of this discussion, neither good nor bad. I haven't gone their. I use the word "action" for a reason. I haven't let my mind judge the person. I look at the facts, the action or actions. I label the action as a liberal one. Not a conservative act by far.

The rest of the stuff you and Binge are talking about, implies, or requires one to add unstable variables into the equation.

charger — Mar 13, 2016[quote author=Hookbender link=1457111556/25#41 date=1457874367][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1457111556/25#39 date=1457823409]You can liberate yourself from a committed relationship but I don't know that it would be a liberal action in relation to the commitment, the terms are already set, they can't get more liberal or conservative based on the actions of one of the parties, both could renegotiate new terms to make their commitment more "liberal"


You can be liberal with your fuck choices but as you said it would be outside of commitment.

You can also liberally fuck the person you are committed to, does that make you more conservative in relation to your commitment?


Personally I think the idea of "traditional marriage" being conservative is funny because traditional marriage used to mean that daddy bought you a bride, maybe even when you are children.  Still goes on all over...

Your still getting stuck on these word things. Forget commitment, forget morals, forget cheating, etc.

Before it's any of these things, it's a liberal action. That's all I'm saying.

Traditional- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.
Conservative- holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.

Not much difference in the two words.
Well... it's traditional for some Native Americans to take peyote and go on three-day psychedelic trips in the desert.  It's not exactly conservative, though.

I think this is not the correct use of "liberal".  The word I would use here is "libertine."

libertine
noun
1. a person, especially a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters.
synonyms:      philanderer, playboy, rake, roué, Don Juan, Lothario, Casanova, Romeo; More
2. a person who rejects accepted opinions in matters of religion; a freethinker.

adjective
1. characterized by a disregard of morality, especially in sexual matters.
2. freethinking in matters of religion.

Absolutely not. That's a extreme exaggeration.

Look at it this way.

If I possibly could have insulted anything or anyone, it would have been the ACTION. Not the people involved.

Is the action separate from the participents?  

BINGEWOOD — Mar 15, 2016Is the action separate from the participents?  

Doesn't concern me. My thoughts are about the action or actions. The personal aspects, well, you be the judge. I don't think I can be any more clear. I'm not addressing the morals, personal side,  or people involved. This isn't hard Binge. You've understood more complicated issues, why are you having such a problem here?

Heh heh  I hearya, I just think it's a bit more complicated than that...