nanana

Even Mozart's Requiem was finished by his student Franz Xaver Sussmayr. @rawrawraw76 has so many great stories that AI could probably do a decent job of channeling his writing style. Love the idea.

What beautiful writing, linking the yearnings of the heart, dick, and ass and fusing them together so excitingly and profoundly, transforming a load shot into an unprotected hole from jizzjoy into destiny itself. I thought I would love Juan and want to revel in his conquest of Daniel FOREVER, until I peeked ahead to Logan and Felix and their story, which keeps evidence mounting that you are able to titillate us by creating characters with raw desire to act out nasty gay impulses and transcend stereotype to achieve authentic connection. Thanks for sharing your talent @DomTopTwnk!.

If my sex life were to be as a palindrome, as an 18-year old I took my first three loads from delegates to the 1987 Democratic convention. May my last three loads come from delegates to a future convention of Republicans, or whatever party exists to carry the torch of the right to help this two-winged country to continue to fly, and not in circles.

I am wary of raising this topic, but I think my breaking point with this simple phrase has finally arrived. Before I make my point, I do strongly agree that tribes misunderstand and mistreat each other and that powerful tribes take things from smaller weaker and sometimes from bigger stronger tribes and that this is an ugly quality of human nature. There is, however, an invisible and to-be-celebrated quality that needs to be part of the story. Anybody who has “privilege” today, be they white black red brown purple or yellow, is likely to have had ancestors who acted not only in their short term interests but in the interests of their future generations to build wealth and social and political mechanisms to insure its transfer to future generations. BTW I do NOT think this quality is exclusive to any one race. I would also say that this quality can coexist with a willingness to treat people of other races unfairly, depends on the individual. If I were someone who had a consciousness and looked beyond my immediate family of children and nephews / nieces to find good stewards for my efforts to build fortunes and good societies, I would look for people who demonstrated skill and motivation to protect and build personal and social assets. I would pray for the wisdom to see beyond the surface in selecting stewards, but I would be unlikely to choose a steward who thought their time was well spent complaining about others’ fortune rather than cultivating their own abilities to sustain themselves and pay it forward. I think these variables play a huge role in the perception of “privilege,” and if we as faggots with our typical choice to exit the gene pool benefit less from a long view, then we can at least hope that 25th century faggots benefit from their ancestors’ efforts to pass on “privilege.” I will close this diatribe with a reminder that I utterly concede that in many instances tribes have treated each other unjustly and that many fortunes have been built with injustice. But to me, failing to acknowledge the positive aspects of a multi-generational consciousness is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The solution for privilege is NOT in my view to entrust people who have only a me-consciousness with “equitable” portions of wealth they didn’t earn but instead to do a better job of expanding multi-generational consciousness and expanding knowledge of self-sufficiency. In parallel, helping those who have built muscle for personal and societal wealth building to see past the surface to identify truly worthy stewards of great wisdom.

While this statement seems correct when applied to the context of the immediate future in which the winning party drives government, it seems to neglect the reality of building new parties, which often require long periods out of power before they gain the influence to win. It also seems to conflate an average Joe picking the winning horse versus an average Joe “winning.”

Nice 😉. Adding another pithy favorite, though may be dated now: Q: What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A: Democrats want the poor to be corrupt too.

This is a great point, but it may miss the longer term consequences of disoncentivizing alternative viewpoints. If you look at history, almost all progress has been catalyzed by deviant thinkers. When deviants are silenced, the globe-eternity population loses lots of benefit. I also wonder about people who demonstrate an inability to coexist with people who disagree with them and wish for those people to have as little power over me as possible. So. to those people who wish to cancel, I say, please be as strident and as loud as you wish so you can be outed and isolated from any levers of power, control mechanisms, and groups who prioritize free-thinking as a path to an innovation-rich future.

I’m pretty non-partisan and love to be double-fucked, so would love to have one of each mount me at the same time while we all work together to churn up a beautiful bi-partisan cumhole representing peace and joy from a deep deep place in my being.

Hi @Cumfilledbottomboi, I find this to be a reasonable assessment but with a relatively focused, narrow aperture. If you were up for widening the aperture, how would you critique Democrats on how far they are willing to go to distort perceptions of underlying truths, dismiss evidence and shirk facts in favor of talking point s that make a mockery of logic, and relentlessly use the government to secure profits for their elites? While your aperture remains focused on Trump, it seems to remain blind to the unfortunate fact that perniciousness exists in both parties and probably in human nature.

My god told me that penises stuck into men’s asses are a truly magical beautiful connection for a significant cohort of gods beautiful children.

Huzzah huzzah @tobetrained, after less than a year of Trumpery, I’m surprised that not all Democrats have become Libertarians, seeing the agencies they created to solve some out-of-context pain-point surprise-surprise repurposed when the inevitable transfer of power happens 4 to 8 years later, leaving us with increasingly irrelevant, worked-around NPC missions that contradict each other as some new program is overlain to counteract the unintended consequences of the last program. The result is a labyrinthine regulatory environment that favors special interests. We lost the virtue of our democracy when 51% figured out how to shift their costs to the 49%, and when businesses figured out how to fool the majority of voters into guaranteeing their profits by pretending to care about have-nots while legislating programs that create massive markets from government largesse. (Breathe NaNaNa breathe.) It is unfortunate that so many Americans do not have the ability to see beyond the happy words of politicians to the longer-terms consequences of tax-theft.

This particular forum is Called “LGBT Politics” but if you get out of this section you may get your hardon back ;-), and you can post a pic on the thread called “Show Us Your Dick”

As someone who’s not a Republican but did have certain hopes for Trump, I was Initially happy to see signs that he was taking positive steps in Israel (ceasefire negotiations), Ukraine, corruption (USAID), deficit reduction (DOGE). free speech (dismantling mis-dis-information boards in government pressuring social media censorship and fighting EU Digital Services Act), foreign aid, etc., I have seen too many counter examples (Iran bombing, loss of momentum in Ukraine, Venezuela, failure to capitalize on DOGE and ramp up of military budget, deportation of legal residents due to pro-Palestinian views to see him as any less ambiguous than pretty much ALL presidents before him.

sounds awesome! this is posted under fiction though, is this a real club? happy to pre-connect with any existing members on the site...

For full disclosure neither a Trump supporter nor anti-Trump, but think I’d pass as more conservative than many if not most on this site. 1) UN speech: a) extemporised without benefit of teleprompter. Seemed to tap Trump’s themes of unfair trade and defense deals, manipulation of climate change concerns to steer economies towards more state intervention and wreck energy security, ending wars, cultural and crime concerns relating to illegal immigration. Tone seemed typical Trump braggadocio, affection for little people and leaders he disagreed with (comments about really liking Lula da Silva). Also offers of help, e.g., US energy sales. I’d imagine it could be a bit embarrassing to be in the audience but also that audience would want to hear Trump’s views. I heard nothing that would make me embarrassed to be an American; at the same time there are some proxy back stories he seemed to obscure, e.g., drugs from Venezuela but not Colombia; Gaza genocide. 2) Dept of War speech: combo of braggadocio, motivational praise, and back-handed also motivational praise, seemed slightly patronizing, slightly appreciative. Seems similar in approach to many speeches I’ve heard from various of my past organizations’ leaders, most of whom give an impression that if it weren’t for them, the organization would have continued in a sorry direction. Best analysis I’ve read is that the whole convocation was really about enabling coordinating two of the “coms” around upcoming coordinated military maneuvers in Latin America and Middle East to shut down Venezuela- Iran cooperation. But doing it in a way that obscures it thus getting everyone into a meeting. This seems typical Trump, where you can’t take what’s going on on the surface at face value, e.g. pretending to negotiate with Hamas in UAE to set them up for Israeli bombing. I’m hoping it lands with my liberal brethren that over focusing on what Trump says in public is not necessarily the best way to “understand” him. I only jumped in when I saw that none of our real right-wing barebacker brethren had yet responded (and wanted to review the files shared). But like the OP I ‘d be interested in their take, hoping one shares his skinny.