tallslenderguy

i watched several commentaries at the same time as this one, so cannot remember the source. One showed several quotes of Netanyahu doing his own "two weeks" thing. In each quote, he was asserting that Iran was "weeks away" from having nuclear weapons. The quotes went all the way back to 2012. i appreciated the tone of this discussion, particularly the comment that "peace is inherently messy" (paraphrasing). None of this is black and white, there are too many irons in the fire to make any world peace negotiations neat and clean. Both peace and conflict are unstable, but fewer common people die with peace, and fewer weapons manufacturers get rich. It seems no matter how you slice it, the people of all nations end up being at the mercy of, and are often victims of, those in power. If it were possible to do a world pole, i wonder how many people would actually say they are represented by their government?

You mock and disqualify when others cite or link a source, so i am wondering where you get your information? I'm glad you think that i am "not even that bad," because i genuinely want to engage with others here, including you, not spar. You are right, i'm not a dyed in the wool liberal, democrat, progressive, republican or conservative. i do not disagree that people should immigrate to the US legally vs illegally. One small example, i want our government to scrutinize Chinese students because i believe that the CCP is just like N Korea, they want to destroy the US and they use Chinese students to that end. I don't care if democrats or republicans do it, i want my government to represent US concerns, in this as one example. But i cannot substantiate if the current US government is actually going to follow through and do that on a large scale. From what i can ascertain, the past US government has not. I'm more concerned about Chinese Students smuggling in potential bioweapons to clone than Latin Americans coming in to find work. But here is what i mean by substantiation. i can provide what you might reject as a notoriously 'left' source on this story (CNN), what others would reject as a notoriously "right' source (Fox) and then the Justice Department. Do any of these three have a pristine record as objective information sources? Nah. We the people are in a position of having to figure out what is true and what is not. So yeah, i think it's good and healthy to state opposing sides . i have done a lot of conflict resolution between parties and have often found the 'truth' is often somewhere in the middle. i think it's important to speak, and it's important to listen when trying to discover the truth of any specific thing. And yeah, try and substantiate, or at least cite sources as part of that process. Three different sources, and i am guessing we can all find points to agree on even though we disagree with the sources amongst our selves. There is no pristine source and i think it's good to have people looking at things from all angles. i do not suppose any one is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. [think before following links] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/chinese-nationals-charged-conspiracy-and-smuggling-dangerous-biological-pathogen-us [think before following links] https://www.foxnews.com/us/patel-chinese-nationals-charged-smuggling-known-agroterrorism-agent-into-us-direct-threat [think before following links] https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/us/chinese-researchers-smuggle-pathogen-university-of-michigan

Your only answer to why you do not "substantiate" and demonstrate what you say is trustworthy is "why not?" So essentially you are doing the very thing you rail against "leftists" doing in an attempt to "manipulate anything you can so it's more favorable to your...viewpoints." The tax bill is not law, it's a 1000 page proposal. So this does not answer the question of what Trump has actually done. One thing it includes is no taxes on tips... for 3 years. Only 3 years. i agree, it's a good thing (does that make me part of the "majority?), but it is token to only have it for 3 years. Trump has said many things, but what has he actually done that you can "substantiate" he has truly accomplished and also substantiate: "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AGREE WITH." You don't need to "keep going," on my account, you haven't even started. You curse, call names, accuse, make claims... but you do not provide any substance to back your claims. Just "why not?"

You seem to believe what you are saying, i don't think you are just a 'troll' trying to get a rise. Trump is president, the "woke ... regressives" are not in power. Instead of focusing on the "losers,' that's history, will you provide a substantiated list of the things Trump has done so far that you agree with and believe "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS" agree with? Why should we "trust" you? Honest question.

Last night... and again this morning, my FB just left and damn i feel so good. After 5 years now, i have over 1000 of His nuts in me and He definitely owns a piece of me. About a year ago, He morphed from Total Top to versatile Top. me fucking him is pretty standard now, but i have only cum in him once. He always wants to finish by fucking and penetrating me, He calls it "bitching" me, which i find hot. The way He touches and holds my waste and hips when He is pounding me totally possesses me. And, He is one of the only Guy's i can actually feel when He shoots. He rarely makes a sound or has a final deep thrust, i can actually feel His seed going into me, which i find amazing. Though i identify as total bottom, he's an exception for me because i realize he's still finding his identity, and i just love him in a way where it's not really a violation of who and how i am. i have found i can retain my sense of bottom by not having my own orgasm with him. my ideal is to share one orgasm with a Guy (His), and i have only ever had my own orgasm with Him once. He doesn't really seem to need or want me to have my own orgasm, and seems to get intuitively that i am sated by His orgasm inside of me, and He has bred me every single time we've been together, except once, He came in my mouth. i'm grateful for what i have with Him, and i suspect he feels similarly. Though he's really quiet, he is on the DL and always the one who initiates, and that happens 3-5 times a week now for five years.

bottom?

For me, one of the biggest elements of great sex is the connection of mutual need/desire. Given the individuality and complexities of attraction, i think that factor ranks high for most people? I.e., if i perceive how badly a Guy wants to penetrate, fuck and breed me, that pretty much overshadows a lot of other considerations for me. i hooked with a guy in Palm Springs a few years ago who was wheel chair bound because he had no legs from a childhood motor vehicle accident. His legs were gone, all the way up to his pelvis, which also meant He had no glute muscles as well. i love a Mans ass, but not for fucking, it's just a visual turn on for me... visually, even more than cock? Go figure, and i'm a "total bottom." But He said He wanted to fuck me, and that is all it really took. i'm a critical care nurse, so i don't find it awkward when someone is different, emotionally i've been de-conditioned from social conditioning about that sort of thing. Consequently, we just had pure lust/desire for each other and we had a great time. i touched and kissed him in places few if any ever had, and that unleashed a lot of pent up need and desire in Him, which in turn unleashed a lot of pent up need and desire in me. i think "disabled" is often a misnomer that society uses mindlessly. This guy was different, but He was still quiet able to havre the kind of sex we both wanted/needed.

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-stumbles-stairs-air-force-155405631.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall Trump (also) falling upstairs.

a couple of hours ago. i make all sorts of involuntary sounds when getting pounded and bred and it was warm out today, so i left the window open and the ceiling fan on. i wonder if anyone could hear? Creamy, i was just outside washing my car and i started to drip... He leaves my hole kinda gaped and it takes a while to close back up. (_0_)

i too "struggle to see the morality" ... of our current 'system,' or social structure? i think morality is individual, and there are moral and immoral people on both sides of the divide of capitalism and socialism. For instance, i wonder and day dream about a healthcare/pharmaceutical system where say research science is performed built on more of a socialist foundation. Being simplistic, i imagine an enhanced NIH vs "big pharma." i did some investigation a few years back and learned the average cost of developing a new drug in the US is about 5 billion dollars. The shocker for me was that half of that cost was profit. So, i imagine a world where we bypass the corporate structure profit imperative. We could give all the scientists a raise, giving greater incentive to be a scientist in the US, and still have much cheaper drugs. i don't think "profit" is an evil word or concept, but i think we should question how profit is made and distributed. Again, being simplistic. One scientist can use their education in medical research to improve health and the human condition, that same scientist with the same education can go to work for the faux food industry and do research on how to make faux food more addictive (to generate more profit). How does that scientist decide which job to take? Morality and profit both factor in on an individual level. i think things like healthcare and education should not be for (corporate) profit institutions, that such a system becomes self defeating. i think it could be argued that corporations can make sense in some areas of society, but not in all or every? There is corporate greed and the corruption that often accompanies that, but corporate greed is just exponential individual greed. So.... "morality" is an issue no matter how we slice it. America is no where near social welfare as the goal or motivator as a cultural norm. The highest paid 'teachers' in many large universities are sports coaches, because football games played in massive stadiums are a huge revenue source for colleges, while the math club languishes in the basement.

I found this very interesting, pieces to the puzzle of our cultural roots and conditioning.

"As the Trump administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to scientific research, thousands of scientists in the U.S. lost their jobs or grants — and governments and universities around the world spotted an opportunity. The “Canada Leads” program, launched in April, hopes to foster the next generation of innovators by bringing early-career biomedical researchers north of the border. Aix-Marseille University in France started the “Safe Place for Science” program in March — pledging to “welcome” U.S.-based scientists who “may feel threatened or hindered in their research.” Australia’s “Global Talent Attraction Program,” announced in April, promises competitive salaries and relocation packages. “In response to what is happening in the U.S.,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, head of the Australian Academy of Sciences, “we see an unparalleled opportunity to attract some of the smartest minds here.” Since World War II, the U.S. has invested huge amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. That funding helped the U.S. to become the world’s leading scientific power — and has led to the invention of cell phones and the internet as well as new ways to treat cancer, heart disease and strokes, noted Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the journal Science." [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-world-class-scientific-talent-044354089.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_CORE&ncid=crm_19908-1475736-20250525-0--A&bt_user_id=LLKLPqezFjBbQFr7vGpdFavkz%2Ff5iAIN8h9mPIqKG200Q7kpMEwLuiwDb0q8aUN3&bt_ts=1748172747769

my point is, i think it's too general to posit: "democrats can't tell the difference between a demented and undemented leader," even speaking tongue in cheek. That there are many who voted either democrat or republican who did not want either Biden or Trump (or Harris). i watched the Democratic primary debates and none of those in the debates came close to having a chance to actually be chosen by the American people. The republican, democrat parties, and wealthy supporters choose candidates, a comparatively small group of people. Joe public then gets a token choice between who the parties and wealthy contributors select. i wonder how many of us on either side of these debates have reasonable trust in our government. This is an interesting overview of countries around the world and how much trust their citizens have in their various governments. Not putting this out there as necessarily accurate, just interesting to ponder. [think before following links] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/trust-in-government-by-country

The hospital where i work opened a dedicated Covid unit the first week of February 2020, i have >1600 hours caring for Covid+ patients, i had the hospitals first Covid patient. It was a new virus that rapidly mutated, and much of our understanding based on evidence is retrospective, because there simply was not any long term study evidence on a new virus to be had. I was the second person to get the vaccine at our hospital in December 2020. I did not make the decision easily, but after a year of watching patients die, with still little understanding or treatment available, i opted for the vaccine. Of course, there was only short term evidence available. Really, it was pretty amazing that a vaccine was available so early on. i knew first hand the risk of the variant we were dealing with at the time, and i knew of the potential risks of the vaccine. Neither was an easy choice, but i opted for the vaccine, and have had several boosters since. The current variants are more akin to the flu than the original Covid variants, they are less virulent, so the decision to get vaccinated now against Covid, to me, is similar to deciding on a flu vaccine. When the first vaccine came out, we still did not know how much immunity having had the disease would confer, so a decision to opt out of the vaccine when it came out would have been speculative. Given the efficacy of the vaccine, and our current knowledge of the virus, the virus does not confer immunity after being infected. The vaccine prevents or lessens severity of infection. When the first couple iterations of the vaccine came out, the delta variant of the covid virus was still particularly deadly, usually because it evoked a cytokine response that would overwhelm and essentially drown it's victims in cement ("cytokine storm"). I have not seen this severe of a response in the more recent infections, most of the people hospitalized (far fewer) have co-morbidities that put them more at risk.