All Activity

The Ryan White Program [think before following links] https://ryanwhite.hrsa.gov/ Also some states have similar programs

Man can I come over and have you breed me please Sir 😈 ☣️ 🤤. I'll be in the area at the end of the month for work.

I love dumb bottoms like this, I've bred so many. Feel free to dm me their contact next time one frustrates you. 😉

i have not read your response yet... so here goes. my initial (and continuing) thoughts and feelings to this question is to feel 99% inadequate to the task of answering. IOW, IDK, and any other answer seems presumptuous. my own particular moral code includes a primary idea that violating another's autonomy ranks up there as a top guiding principle. Though, intuitively, giving away money for a 'good' cause feels like a 'good' gesture on the surface... but, i'm back to worries of presumption. When my sons were teens, i posed a sorta similar question to them (and me) on the topic of love: "Is it love to give a child chocolate cake for breakfast because they want it?" i think the answers to this kind of question reveals more about the person answering than it actually does to answer the question? (aside: your question also makes me feel vulnerable lol). At that point, i was trying to help them see that there isn't a universal answer to the question. If they answered no, objecting about health considerations i'd insert, what it the child was dying and only had a week to live? An intro to situational ethics. But, $100 trillion is not a piece of cake, eh? Money is power and influence. i do conclude that one person is ill equipped to handle that amount of power, but there is still no getting around it... well, maybe AI lol. At this point, the democratic process is looking, not so much "good," as it is potentially more universally considerate. i think something i would include as a possible "prime directive" in a democratic process would be the principle that 'I' can be wrong. To me, that is one of the biggest dividing factors in the human race (i.e., the notion that i (and mine)'know' i/we am/are right and i/we "know" you (and yours) are wrong. To me, that introduces (imposes?) grace in the process of decision making, because we all are in the same position of knowing and seeing in part.

I once sucked over 100 one night in Los Angeles at an Orgy... Lifetime has got to be close to 10k, I was at about 4500, then I found Sniffies.

I prefer to only fuck safe-only bottoms. The thing is I can't always convince them to go raw, I often don't even try. I can always convince them that I'm wearing an intact condom though. So I get my seed in every one regardless. I experience a full body tingling orgasm when I cum inside someone who thinks we're fucking safe. I pursue that experience at every opportunity, and I'm very proud of the boys who don't know they've given me so much extra pleasure.

Your medical information can’t be shared with someone unless you specifically sign off on it. That includes your emergency contact. They would be notified in an emergency but should not be told of the reason. There is the caveat that, if you are incapacitated and not able to consent to treatment, they may need to discuss your condition with them to treat you/save your life.

@tallslenderguy So to start with an answer to your Qs, first consider the above thought experiment -- typical in philosophy, economic, and political science. What did you do in thinking about that? The only (simple) answer is to do absolutely NOTHING with the offered gold but stick in room/box and tell no one. Answer: Even at that high volume of $, you can never help everybody. Let's say you cash it in and dole it out to people and groups you think are worthwhile, there will always be others you've missed or can't get to. But you've now flooded the gold market and devalued it. You get back to a fraction of the original (supply/demand -- markets, not capitalism). That then undermines all world currencies, which begin to collapse, as they're foundation is stores of gold. That, then, triggers global 'systems collapse' (search on that phrase). Society is 'a system' and systems need to be as self-sustaining as possible either independently or in groups. The human body is a great example of inter-related systems to provide an analogy...simply: it's better not to need a ventilator to breathe than to need one. Most times, government programs are the ventilator. UHC is a great example but let's only consider one of many aspects for sanity. And, with it, only the 48 contiguous states. A construct to understand one issue with UHC is population density via OMB/Census Bureau defined Urban Areas ("Places" with minimum 5k+ population or 2k+ Household; I'm using caps here to imply a defined term). 80% of our population live in Urban Areas but those cover only 3% of our land area. It's easier to provide UHC (or ANY service) in densely populated places...but a government program can't be selective. So everyone would be required to pay the same by increased personal taxes and/or increased consumer prices as corporate taxes get passed along. But rural populations always get less -- and that's OK if they're not required to pay for services they can't really use. And this is where partisans, Democrats here but both sides across issues, stop considering other people. The 20% outside Urban Areas makes up ~30%+ of Republican voters. What's in it for them? And the cutoff of 5k people is a arbitrary thing. It's not like a city of 7,500 people is a glowing megalopolis. But I don't want to answer your Qs purely from a UHC perspective. It's just illustrative. Government isn't a system, people are systems and the society we put together. Government programs are ventilators. They try to fix a problem but, like a ventilator, it shouldn't be permanent. At minimum government programs should not create more problems, like increased debt. I won't get into that here. But, as a centrist, I will consider any program -- even a program I dislike -- if it's paid for. I will ignore any program which is not, even if I like it. It's hard to consider Democrats viable after their spending plans in the 2020 primary -- where multiple candidates funded multiple proposals from the same increased revenue stream, mainly on the progressive wing. And the few times they were called out for it, the reply: "it's not the plan, it's the idea." No. I can sit here and say no one should have to work so they can play all day long! That idea is great. But it's bogus. But consider your Q, simplified here, "what should a government provide." That's sorta a Democratic perspective -- "what can government do?" I look at that this way: "How can government help the most yet be involved the least?" I'm looking for a balance. Think ACA. It's about paying for private healthcare. It's not government-run or facilitated healthcare. Principally, that's balance. Opposite side example, to demonstrate this from convos with conservative/libertarian friends, I argue: "Financial market regulation is an absolute necessity due to greed and market manipulation." But those convos don't happen on this site! I'd say it there if they occurred. But this is way too long. I'll leave it there but happy to have a conversation about issues, topics, etc around it, or anything.

Ah cool, fun and interesting question. i despise AI as a substitute for individual expression. i've been on a few gay dating sites where scammers were using it to reply to attempts at engaging... which i get coming from scammers, but when i see guys using it as a tool to connect? Makes me a wee bit crazy. i'm going to answer the question, thinking on it, and would also like to read your answer to the through experiment as well, and that we both answer prior to reading the others response? What think you?

B1g- Yes thats exactly what I mean, if i get hospitalized for my heart issue or anything else..

Funch 💋💧

Yes 💋 💧

Better swallow 💧💋💧

Pulled pork with plenty of Hot Sauce to add to the memories.