BootmanLA

I don't want to dissuade you from following your doctor's advice, but I would caution: there is far, far less margin for error with 2-1-1 than with daily. Any of the following could happen: --You take the first (double) dose at 10 PM Friday on the assumption you're going to have sex early Saturday evening and you don't want to forget on Saturday afternoon. But then Saturday night rolls around and your partner's not in the mood until midnight or later. --You have sex 12 hours after your double dose (good so far!). But then - do you take the second dose 24 hours after the sex, or 24 hours after the first dose? If you choose the first one, it'll be 36 hours between dose 1 and dose 2. Is that okay? Can you remember to find out before the time comes? (Answer: it's 24 hours after the first dose). --You have sex 8 hours after the double dose, and you plan to take the second dose 16 hours later (total of 24 hours since the first dose). But you have sex twice more in the next few hours, so at the 22 hour mark, you're dozing off because you've been up for so long, and you sleep for 10 hours. Dose missed. --You're doing well through the first and second doses - right on time. But on the day you're to take the third dose, you get called into work in a rush for a day you were supposed to be off, and in the rush, you forget the pill at home. You don't get to take it until 6 hours after you were supposed to. And so on and so on. None of those guarantees you're going to get infected (you'd have to be fucked by a poz guy with a load that was not only detectable but enough to overcome the limited protection that "screwed up" 2-1-1 still provides). But it's not as safe as daily. It's still better than nothing, obviously. It's workable, with more work on your end. But not as protective as daily.

People who smoke cigarettes often do not have a clue how much that smell pervades their system, possibly because their own smell/taste buds are deadened from the constant presence of tar and nicotine. Then again, I've known smokers who were so persistent at it that they wouldn't even jack off without a cigarette in their hands, so the smoke smell could have been almost directly applied.

Don't forget the one Hair Furor shared with his strumpet, sorry, I mean, wife, who was press secretary for more than 3/4 of a year (281 days) without ever holding a single press briefing. Not ONE.

Yes, he certainly does. And apparently has it in for this site and for our esteemed leader.

I have to say, it's nice to wake up and NOT have to grab my phone to see what fresh hell has broken loose politically based on his latest mood swing. It's nice to wake up and see a message from his Press Secretary clarifying a slightly confusing statement she'd made yesterday, this time clearly and unambiguously, without a swipe at the press. It's nice to see one actually qualified nominee after another presented to the Senate for confirmation. It's almost like we're a normal country again. The tears of the Qnuts bewailing that they were had - they're just the delicious sprinkles on top.

The one video made (with willing participants) I've seen online showed any number of white-hooded guys getting fucked. And the event is promoted, broadly speaking, as a safer-sex one. Not that there isn't a lot of raw action as well - but if you spend a lot of time on this site, you'd get the impression nobody uses condoms anywhere, anytime, any more. But a hefty percentage of the profiles I look over on places like Growlr or Scruff specifically mention either using condoms or preferring men who do.

As I understand it, there's zero tolerance for drug usage at the event itself, and they screen to make sure people aren't too high coming in. Couple of quotes from the website: "As to guarantee the quality of stallions and provided mares, in interest of all, we reserve the right to refuse entry to completely unsuitable people or those heavily under the influence of alcohol or drugs." and "Apart from the minimum age of 18, there are no other further restrictions, however, we do reserve the right to reject certain people away at the entrance door. These include people who: - are highly under the influence of alcohol, - are clearly under the influence of drugs," This isn't a tweaker party. It's a themed sex party, not a drug rave with sex.

I realized your question was never answered, so to remedy that (and to explain for others, as needed): Twitter, like all online services, has a set of "Terms of Service" - the agreement between the subscriber/user/member and the service provider itself. Although it covers a lot of miscellaneous legal stuff, like "we're not responsible if Twitter goes down, you can't sue us for not providing your tweets fast enough, etc.", the main point of interaction with the users is in what kind of content can be posted. Twitter is more relaxed about nudity and sex in pictures and video clips than many other services are (where even the outline of a cock in jeans can get a warning). But there are rules against some of the most extreme stuff, and also against threatening or harassing other members. Sometimes, the Twitter's AI programming flags a tweet as problematic content and sends a warning; other times, someone reports a tweet to a moderator, who then has to review it and decide how it fares under the rule. If the tweet is judged objectionable, then usually (a) it's hidden from all but the original poster and the person who flagged it; (b) the original poster is asked to either delete the original tweet (and endure a temporary suspension, typically 12 hours, from the service) or appeal the objectionable ruling; and (c) the original poster is locked out of Twitter pending resolution. If you appeal, you're locked out until a decision is reached, and there's no guarantee it will resolve in your favor, and that might take much longer than the 12 hours imposed if you agree to delete the tweet. (If you lose the appeal, I think you stay suspended until 12 hours after you finally give up and delete the tweet). That's Twitter Jail - the limbo where you can't post but your account isn't terminated.

Correct. There are several companies which DO offer life insurance (both term or whole) to HIV-positive individuals, but there are a number of "catches". First, the cost is going to be higher than for someone who is HIV-negative. How much higher depends on the company. Second, there are several other things which (depending on the company) might exclude you from getting coverage. For instance, if you've had hepatitis, you could be out of luck. If you've had any AIDS-defining illness (ie Kaposi sarcoma, pneumocystis pneumonia, wasting syndrome, cytomegalovirus disease, etc.) then you're almost certainly out luck, Another big no-no is intravenous drug use - that's essentially a guaranteed NO. Third, they'll order their own HIV tests and other bloodwork (drug screens, etc.) and no doubt will require submission of your medical records. They're likely to require two or more years of being undetectable on a regular basis, be under an HIV specialist's care, and be no older than a given age (say, 60). The age limit is so that they can get enough years of premiums out of you before you're expected to kick off and still make some money on your payments. I'd imagine some states have more companies competing in this space than other states - several in California, for instance, not so many in Wyoming.

Alternatively, lube up heavily with one of those "cum-like" lubes like Spunk. Might be enough to fool someone. Worst case, jack off earlier, save the load, mix the spunk with the Spunk, and then you'll have the appearance, texture, and smell of being loaded up.

Apparently McShitbag was shocked and distressed to learn he would not be released on bail before trial and will have to suffer weeks or months of the non-organic food he is being fed. Might inspire a plea bargain of some sort sooner rather than later.

On another site recently, I pulled up a profile of someone in a city I'm planning to visit, post-Covid. It contained this gem: "Hey people! Dunno who needs to hear this, but it's 2014 now and everyone has a camera in your phone, so don't tell me you don't have a recent picture!" He listed his age as 58. But given his spotty updating, that could mean he's 58 or 65. Or older if he added the pics note sometime after originally posting his age.

For any site that takes credit cards for processing of *anything* - memberships, merchandise, whatever - expect that this purge will hit sooner rather than later, because merchant processing is the squeeze point. Or rather, its the card companies themselves (ie VISA, Mastercard, American Express, etc.) rather than the merchant processors like Stripe, Square, etc. The card company sets the rule as to what kind of purchases can be made with their card, and the processors are required to adhere to those rules, at the risk of losing the ability to process cards at all for failure to comply. A completely free-to-the-browser site might escape for a good while, but very few of them can support themselves just with ads.

And yet, here you are.

In one sense this is simply the fundamental, basic rule: Consent may be withdrawn at *any* time, by either party.

Realistically, federal prison is much less likely to have those issues (many fewer violent criminals) than state prisons. Not saying it can't happen, but federal prisons are much, much safer places than a state pen.

True. I'd been meaning to go back and look up whether Texas was one of the states that forces EC votes to match the state results (since the Supreme Court had ruled that states did indeed have that power). But Texas is not one, so he actually only got 304. Thanks for prompting me to go back and confirm that!

Yes, his mommy says his little stomach gets upset if his food isn't all organic. What a fucking snowflake.

So, you're saying she has not, in fact, been canceled. Glad we agree on that fact, whether you want to believe "shrill, hysterical" voices did or did not do something. What those voices did, in fact, is heighten people's awareness of her opinions on an issue of public interest. That way, people who think her dismissal of transgender issues is abhorrent can avoid giving her additional money by not buying her books; and assholes who want to show everyone they're assholes can buy the book and show it off. Nobody's silenced, nobody's "canceled", and the free market decides. That same free market that conservo-libertarifarts always tout as the solution to everything.

Social media and the media in general are private companies. You have no "freedoms" to exercise there. The freedom of speech (to which I suspect you're referring) refers to barring *government* control of your speech. No private company is, or ever has been, obligated to give you a platform on which to speak. As for colleges: private universities, like any other privately owned entity, has no obligation to provide anyone with speaking opportunities, either. Public universities do - but you will find that in ANY case where a "conservative" (usually meaning right-wing bombthrower activist) is booked to speak, the university honors that commitment. So... care to try again? You're batting 0% so far.

Of course it's a myth. Has Rowling been silenced? Of course not. Has she been banned from any platforms? No. Is she still fabulously wealthy? Yes. If she were to go back to writing as opposed to living on the proceeds of what she's made to date (for which I do not fault her, mind you), would she likely have a publisher for her work? Yes. The problem is that for conservo-libertariats, who scream "free markets" at every opportunity and who think it's an intolerable burden on a bakery's rights to be forced to treat gay and straight engaged couples alike when ordering food for a wedding reception, it's suddenly a 180-degree turn when that market says "We find your opinions loathsome and we don't want to patronize you any longer." They demand freedom to express an opinion and then scream "cancel culture!" when they discover a huge number of people simply won't listen to them, and the free market decides it no longer wants to invest money in a losing bet.

Here's my opinion. I don't take political advice from people who can't distinguish between "your" and "you're", between "to" and "too", or "hete" (?) and "here". You also clearly missed my point about AOC, which was that (a) she's too much of a novice to serve as a party leader at this point and (b) she doesn't grasp - or at least, makes no effort to show that she cares about - the fact that different districts have different makeups, and what may sweep her to victory in her district may easily spill over and cost her party two or more seats elsewhere - that she might, at times, be a net loss for the Democratic Party's control of the House. But then, you seem to be one of those "but muh freedomz" people, so bless your heart.

Since I think "cancel culture" is yet another myth by pissed-off white supremacists who are pissed off that they don't control the world in its entirety any more, yeah, I suspect we won't agree on much. That said, I'll respect your right to have any opinion you want, which is not to say I will respect the opinion itself.

Something else some of the people who were duped into thinking Trump is such a brilliant business tycoon: The man got himself banned from Twitter - permanently. He'd built up a loyal following of 70 or 80 million people (to be fair, at least some of those were journalists and other types who needed to follow what he said, even if they disagreed; and I'm sure a few million at least were people who hated his guts. But still: many tens of millions of followers who lapped up his every word. Trump himself realized how powerful that was; he commented at one point before he ran for president that it was like owning a newspaper without the losses. But even more - it was a MONETIZABLE asset. People with tens of millions of followers get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to tweet about products they use and services they like. Given how prolific he is, and how many companies want to reach the MAGA world, he could have padded his bottom line by several million a year with ZERO investment risk - no interest payments, no debt, no complicated tax writeoffs, just a plain old-fashioned cash gusher. (Kinda like when he insisted to his siblings that they had to sell all their dad's thousands upon thousands of apartments and other rental properties, once they inherited them; they were owned free and clear, had a stepped-up basis already, and they literally rained cash. But he wanted to get into the golf course business in a big way, so he traded profitable cash-gushing apartment buildings for cash-losing golf courses.) And he pissed that Twitter revenue away by lying so much to his base about how his election was "stolen", and encouraging them to "do something" about it, that he got banned from Twitter permanently for inciting violence. Ditto for being banned from Facebook, where who knows HOW many companies might have been eager to have their ads appear alongside his page posts. And I do get why he's so desperate to not leave office - he loses his immunity from prosecution at noon-oh-one on January 20, and even he probably realizes he can't pardon himself. And while banks might have been reluctant to apply too much foreclosure pressure on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans coming due in the next four years, loans that he can't pay back, as long as he was president - that won't be the case if he's just Donald J. Trump private citizen. He's put out feelers about a revival of some strand of The Apprentice, but you can bet your ass no network is going to touch that now, after his disgraceful stunt with the attack on the Capitol. Before his presidency, he was annoying, loud, and vulgar, but he's made himself toxic. Couldn't happen to a better (ie worse) person.

Again, bless your heart.