nanana

I agree with your point here BootmanLA. It is unfortunate that time and space force one to take shortcuts in crafting a message. Thanks for manifesting the diversity there.

My other challenge with liberals is that they take the assertions of bureaucrats at face value. A lot of the values espoused are great. But there is less effort to understand whether it was talk or walk. Peace all. We may not agree but I’m happy we share the same planet.

I bet You cannot honestly say you read him. So many citations in his book. Please let me know if I’m wrong.

Hi Viking8x6, I don’t take issue with your point about injustice and whether “taking” is justified. My point was that a mentality of abundance doesn’t come from wealth, but instead creates wealth. It comes from an ability to value what others do not value. “Taking” may be “justified” but doesn’t add to the wealth of the planet, just moves it around. I distrust the motivation to fight over a limited resource and trust a motivation to conceive of new value and expand the pie. Poor leaders just redistribute. Great leaders show people their own power to self-generate. I think NEDenver’s point about whether the word “triggered” is offensive is a perfect illustration of the differing starting points of the current evolution of woke versus non-woke. A woke take on the world would start with whether a statement was “offensive” or not. A non-woke take would start with whether a word was a good expression of an empirical experience. Since I have witnessed people being triggered, including myself, I see a value in capturing and expressing the truth. For me, this is another challenge I have with the woke mindset. It starts with the premise that other people should think your fantasies are more important than their truth. I’m willing to coexist with your fantasies, but I’m not willing to have my truth obliterated. The seeming desire to obliterate empirical experience makes me think that a woke approach will insulate me from the reality and diversity of thought required to hone the quality of argumentation beyond ad hominem snark, which thickens this thread. I’m sure the guys chiming in here are great guys who wouldn’t need to tear down others to come into their own glory, the kinds who would even deign to help anyone with a subarctic IQ find their greatness 🙂.

To be clear, it is the inability to hear without being triggered that comes across as mental illness, NOT the lovely woke idea that all of Gods children are miracles.

I wouldn’t say I’m conservative but definitely less liberal than I used to be. The aspects of the current version of woke that don’t appeal to me are the unfocused victimhood of it. I’d distinguish that from focused victimhood. If an actual person hits me for example, I’m actually a victim of that persons violence. If there’s merely a premise that I look like someone or are otherwise part of a class of people that might have victimized someone or a distant relative, then that drifts toward collective punishment and creates a toxic culture that encourages people to assume the worst in each other. It gets tiresome to talk about all the things you can’t control, and there’s something insidious about this creeping prejudice. I think It is great to “fight” for justice but even better to lift everyone up to discover their own power to create their own heaven. I often find the current version of woke to be more about taking something from another class of people rather than a mentality of abundance. HOWEVER, like everything else, this version of woke is probably at least partially a parody of how liberals actually think and emphasizes the worst and most objectionable qualities of their intentions like most issues that get hollowed out by incessant partisanship. Still, I have been around enough liberals who just launch into tirades about people for whom they have no genuine curiosity that “woke” has become a mostly unpleasant exercise in stereotyping and having thought be shut down and narrowed. I look forward to a day in which individuals are more valued and listening and exchanging unique original thought without triggers is more cultivated.

Let’s all get knocked up and have our butt babies on Inauguration Day. Just to prove we at least have timing down pat.

Unfortunately, most districts are lopsided, regardless of gerrymandering, and not terribly competitive. Swing states have that distinction because competition matters. If you are a blue in a red state or a red in a blue state, you have to live vicariously.

this is a highly elegant, erudite response boatmanLA, thanks for it, will chew on it for a bit. without conceding your points, I would like to share that I have blind spots, and love those who help me see them. your initial point about the media seems wrong, as Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard, and other investors seem to own everything in such a way as that even Matt Stoller might write about the cartels and trusts in his substack. Here's a link to a clearly scripted commentary from the supposed right and left. I lean into folks who can - or even who cannot but dare to - demystify the unison in this: [think before following links] https://rumble.com/v1x4ioc-never-forget-this-is-extremely-dangerous-to-our-democracy.html. I am a fan of analyst such as Maslow, Piaget, Torbin and Cook-Greuter who analyze the adult stages of development ([think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7090352/). Agreed that children start off as shaky blobs who are their instincts, then perhaps notice that their mothers do anything for them when they cry, then perhaps appreciate their parents' brothers' and sisters' support, then enjoy winning arguments, then enjoy producing results, then start questioning their certainty, then have appreciation for criminals/popes/double-fuckers/elementary-school-teachers, then question meaning.... Action Inquiry is a lovely book..; "If our 'adversaries' are antagonized..." this smacks of an inability to appreciate unintended consequences. trust me, if bolivia invaded and shut down your gang-bang, you would eventually adopt jihad. if this is too short-hand, it is incumbent upon all of us to understand when we are crossing other peoples' boundaries. sure, we can fail to understand this, but our pleas of innocence will not be FELT DEEPLY by those with insight. agreed that as kings on the block, USA can decide to ignore karma, but karma has agents. you point about medicine: doctors used to do house calls, where they could collect evidence of the living conditions of their patients. they used to think patients were their customers. now, having been brainwashed by obamacare, they are more like droids with no insights without some health care app. their patients are more like fidget-spinners than children of god. As for your point about insurers looking to boost profits, you may be right, but this is a failure of entrepreneurship rather than of capitalism. The pattern from Venice of the 12th century onwards is that the privileged use their influence over government to FREEZE entrepreneurs out and collude with government to cement profits by making the market too complex and restrictive. Only lawyers and big corporations have time to wade through 50,000 pages of law. Eventually the poor give up and seek out advocates to milk everyone else. The poor would be much wealthier if they had freedom rather than a maze of lawfare. COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR POINT ABOUT TAX POLICY FAVORING CAPITAL OVER LABOR. IF WE CAN'T AGREE ON ANYTHING ELSE, I'd happily partner with you to change this state of affairs. We don't agree about Schedule F employees. As for point about gerrymandering, I am currently going through an evolution in my view of the legitimacy of the Federal Government. I have recently come to appreciate that the Constitution was a compact among independent governments, who, like Hungary, Andorra, and Finland, may have thought they were joining the United States not so much to make a president into a dictatress/king/moster, but more to facilitate trade, free passage, etc. the United States' creditors were mainly interested in the constitution so that they could secure a repayment of their loans. It would be like the mafia IMF enforcing austerity measures on its impoverished debtors. There was a voluntary element to joining the United States, which noun remained plural until the Civil War. To be clear, I am not a fan of GERRYMANDERING, but most bring many assumptions into their analysis, which are not warranted. Anyone who cites the POWER of the central government would seem to want to centralize decision-making and take it out of the hands of people close to the ramifications of power. While nothing is perfect, I would rather see many mistakes being made by many small people rather than some demogorgon who imagined that its expertise was superior to the peccadillos of all citizens. (but we agree that this would not lead to perfection, my view is that it is more of a risk mitigation to centralizing power in the hands of some DEMENTED IDIOT far from understanding me and my boudoir). WE DO AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE "SHIT OUT OF LUCK" when the government class forgets that they are servants. God has watched many a generation suffer at the hands of Herods, Maos, Netanyahus, Lenins, Hitlers, Nebuchadnezzars, Trump/Bidens, and other people for whom I pray to have the wisdom to see that we are all gods children who should be free to pursue our interests as long as we don't agress others. I'm not sure that I agree that it doesn't matter when people realize that they are in the hands of God. It's a pretty incredible discovery to realize that even if you don't believe in God, God believes in you. We are in agreement that many high crimes have been committed in god's name. There is no excuse for that. I have no doubt that God doesn't need anyone to suck up to him, and that as the Quran says, god needs no partners. Anyone pretending to be a partner of God is babbling without a jaw. Tell me more (in $ and other figures) about your point about green subsidies versus fossil fuel subsidies. I do not oppose what you assert, but my spider sense tells me that the fossil-fuel oligarchs of the gilded age and the racketeers of the green new deal have more in common than not. As for your point about economic conservatives, I am going to be charitable and pretend that your point is that economic conservatism is rare. On that point that I am imagining you made, we agree. Well over 51% of the population has realized they can make decisions and bill those decisions to someone else. both parties rape the Treasury (though with a condom, so no DNA evidence is available). Trump was profligate with taxpayer funds. But anyone who asserts that Biden was a good steward of American taxes while leaving $80B worth of arms in the hands of those who might use those arms against us; who's son was emolumenting the shit out of UKRAINE, CHINA and other focus areas of the BIG GUY are playing partisan with the facts. Let's all secede, make tiny sodomy countries, have a lot of fun inside each other, love each other for our powerful male hormones, but also love unsexy people for the fact that god created them, and laugh together in our gifts of disagreement. In case anyone wondered, I am a generalist not an expert. Thanks to the experts who know everything about nothing but still tell the world what to do. I love being bossed around. to the Bottoms: FUCK YOU (with an exciting penis) to the TOPS: FUCK ME!!! to the versatile (FUCK YOURSELVES, but leave room up yourself for dick-company.). HAHAHA. Hugs and wide smiles to all. P.S. Jerry Mander sounds like a great drag king name...

I appreciate the thorough response BootmanLA. You say that the media doesn't steal the country blind, but I would argue that if you look at ownership of the media, you'll find that it all traces back to the same corporations that own our big racket industries, like pharma, or arms, etc. The same people that lobby Congress for special status and tax loopholes. Whether or not we agree on that, I appreciate you raising the point, as I realize my point was less than clear. 1. You write, "'love and compassion for themselves' is not a conservative achievement. It's something fully mastered by most children by the age of two," which is good for a laugh, but I think most gays, at least of a certain age, will have had to grapple with having to work through a lot of shaming from conservatives. Now, I think that shaming is much more likely to come from woke people who are on a mission to shame the world into agreeing with them. I wish them all a little more self-love and confidence to exist in a highly diverse world filled with people who will never be woke clones. 2. You're assuming that most redistributions in our system go from the rich to the poor, but I think there's a huge redistribution to the rich from inflation, which their investments can outlast. I wish I had the source, but I read that the working class has had over $50T diverted away from them over the past 50 years thanks to Inflation, which is much more devastating to the poor than to the rich, and using fake money to pay for war and welfare wrecks the middle class and robs the poor of what little independence they have. 3. I see we have some common ground on the empire issue. I don't disagree with your point about NATO, but I do not see a credible threat to the American homeland, and I think we unnecessarily antagonize a huge number of enemies by maintaining 800 bases encircling those who don't submit to our control. We also encourage a lot of local bullies. 4. I tend to agree, but I think the left doesn't seem to notice how much worse health inflation has been since the government got involved, and also how much a thinking medical profession has been replaced by central-government bureaucratic protocols that dumb down our doctors, make them order takers, and raise expense unnecessarily. Agreed that there is a lot of corporate welfare in this space that drives up costs. 6. I don't disagree with your point that a different party might gut the teeth of a regulatory agency, but it is INCREDIBLY PREDICTABLE that government changes hands every 4-12 years, so a bit of foresight would have seen that coming. 7. I agree that our two parties like to gerrymander and rig the elections. I think from what you are writing that you would agree with me that Congresspeople OFTEN are out of line with their constituencies. I don't think this is true of only conservative representatives, but on that we may not agree. 8. On this point we DEFINITELY don't agree. Government is mostly in the business of turning rights into privileges and pretending to grant things. This is more akin to a protection racket than a true grantor of rights. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the founders may have been under the presumption that they were "granting" things, but that in my view is a hideously arrogant assumption. 9. I don't share your interpretation of this point. Unfortunately, I see the government misallocating capital, corporations shifting attention from real problems, and profiteering. The green industry racket has outgrown any "fossil fuel" racket, while I am pretty sure real environmental destruction continues at a massive scale while being ignored by the activists chasing the shiny penny issue. I do think that like "liberals," "conservatives" are a diverse bunch. I agree that social conservatives are likely to want to act as nannies, and I think the overturning of Roe versus Wade really makes your point here. I think that libertarian conservatives or economic conservatives are much less likely to act in the way you describe. I tend to agree that we will have to make a less than ideal choice that favors either Democrats or Republicans. Good luck to all in making choices that further a world we can all thrive in.

This is a great topic as it seems to create a lot of passion, which can be very exciting to the brain and to other nether regions. With respect to all, I am one of those folks who used to count myself as a liberal libertarian (the freedom to take cum and love who I loved) but who has moved to the libertarian right (the freedom from government abuse) after seeing my trust abused by the uniparty, which channels discord to sow partisanship as a distraction from the fact that it works together against most Americans' and non-Americans' interests. I used to trust the left to oppose war and corporate fraud, and now I think the left has either lost its muscle in this space or else never had it. I would concede that there are important differences between liberals and conservatives, but the political media magnifies and dramatizes the differences while stealing the country blind. It also creates an atmosphere in which it is unsafe to order a la carte from a partially liberal and partially conservative menu and forces partisans to see a deranged worst in each other. I appreciate the values of socialists who want to help others, but I am completely over the tendency to help others by running through other people’s money. Typically the great majority of people you might imagine are "privileged" are nowhere near as privileged as you think they are. If 51% of the people voted that you should kill people, would you do it? or do you have any ethical basis for action? I think there are good people in both major parties, and I think each of the parties has decent points, but both are led by grifters who leave me with little faith that either a Republican or a Democratic platform can address the issues I care about: 1. As much as I respect the liberals for their compassion for the poor, I respect the conservatives for also having some love and compassion for themselves and opposing the woke call to self-annihilate. 2. I don’t respect the left’s view that the stored value of the hard labor of others amounts to a good pirating opportunity. 3. An out-of-control empire that needs to end 4. Out-of-control spending that is destroying common people’s savings and shifting more power to the elites 5. I think the liberals are fooling themselves that they can value people while supporting mass censorship of all who disagree with them (leftists are also censored, and conservatives sometimes ignore this). it is disappointing to see so many free people crave approval from government experts and unable to value the contributions of generalists to the collection of valuable insights. I doubt that the kid who could tell the emperor had no clothes needed a certification or a degree to discern the emperor’s nudity. 6. It is sad that liberals have not noticed that all government agencies are captured by the special interests they were created to moderate in the public interest. yet often liberals just want more government. 7. it is sad that liberals (and sometimes conservatives) think their fellow adult citizens need a nanny and that politicians are good nannies. I find this mentality especially hard to understand on a bareback site. 8. It is sad that liberals have forgotten that government doesn’t create rights. Rights are inherent to sentient beings. The Founders of the country knew that their constitution wasn’t creating rights but instead acknowledging pre-existing rights endowed by the creator. The word "responsibility" doesn’t show up anywhere in the Constitution, 9. A climate agenda that promotes slogans, encourages dogma rather than thought, and undermines innovation 10. People with a mission who need others to glorify their choices instead of creating space for diversity of thought and coexistence. 11. People who have lost their faith in their ability to influence others and instead want the government to make people do things. Although it is not perfect, I think the libertarian approach creates the greatest amount of safe space for radical homosexuals, conservative Mormons, satanists, and video-game addicts. I see no inconsistency in a world that creates maximal space for the differing tribes that inhabit it. It gives both conservatives and liberals a safe space in which to pursue their values in a way that doesn’t eliminate space for others to do their thing. In terms of how I’m voting this year, I hope to find something I can vote for, but I will still vote if all I can find is something to vote against. Happy brain and physical titillations to you all.

Isn’t it time to throw off the fear of cumming in cumholes without curation from big lying pharma? Which along with the censorship industrial complex and the military industrial complex has us all way too beholden to griifters and liars, and will soon have us all begging?

Did Anthony Fauci unnecessarily scare millions of tops and versatiles from happily pumping four decades worth of Gods own blessed sperm into willing versatiles and bottoms just to make big pharma a cool $5T? The patterns of sickness seem to follow drug usage rather than happy absorption of cum…? Or is HIV really that unique virus that makes you sick only after antibodies, and sometimes only 60 years after you contract it, a cool $3K a month for prep, or anti-HiV meds? Billed to the guvment? Thoughts?

Curious if any of you read the book? It would suggest that condoms are useless but avoiding poppers may be wise. Thoughts?

[think before following links] https://web.archive.org/web/20060901194620/[think before following links] http://www.cuteboybbparty.com/loadsfame/loads_of_fame.htm