nanana

Well said BootmanLA

I think you’re conflating cost of “society” with cost of “government.” I would argue that it is actually liberals who want the benefits of “society” but want to shift the cost of it via “government” to those who may not perceive benefit. It would be helpful to take your argument out of the ethereal plain and make it concrete. In the absence of specific examples, I’m left to imagine the “benefits” of society: mass murder of imperial subjects to the tune of trillions hmmm; the lack of respect and boundaries for citizens rights and savings; the perversion of the education system; eminent domain; over-legislation and regulation of morality, etc I’m personally not an absolutist libertarian, but I think the scope of government is vastly out of whack and generally should be curtailed. I’d start pulling back on wealth transfers to the rich, over-legislation of morality where there’s not a consensus, and offensive military expenditure, and generally limit excess expenditure for which the Fed invents money and inflates away savings. My bet is that most of the areas you would cite as “the benefits of society” are not places I’d start on, but a less ethereal, less imaginary set of benefits might help at least to help me understand the big ideas behind “benefits of society.”

I asked John Bolton to marry me and said no, so I asked Expedia to send him free airfare AND hotel to Sanaa Yemen where I learned from YouTube how to simulate a drone mouth that could suck war-semen out of a neocon and pour it over studio 54 of the past, the harlot that I never Was but wished to be who could cum against a velvet rope in the New York -15-degree sky in my major Tom suit. Happy Halloween dear John Bolton of the nuclear skies. Kisses through my harelip-shaped drone-mouth

Both Harris and Trump seem to be ready to start WWIII but also to be saying that they wouldn't. For example, Trump seems to want to de-escalate Ukraine, whereas Harris doesn't seem to want to de-escalate Ukraine. Both Trump and Harris seem to want to de-escalate Gaza, but Trump seems to be in Miriam Adelson's pocket about expanding the glass parking lots around Israel to the West Bank, though he also says he'd stop the violence on day one and seems to be making headway among at least Michigan Muslim's population. I don't trust either of them to let their fawning voters in on the cigar-room-equivalent back deals. Biden just called half the country garbage, which not even Lincoln had ever done. There are at least two faces (trump/harris) maybe even three (RFK Jr) or four (Stein) or five (West) or even our own dear faggot Chase Oliver (Libertarians) in the high heels race to govern. My baton is burning my hands, and I am just looking to sneak into a relay race to pass this burning baton to some unsuspecting hermaphrodite in a misgendered port-o-potty and make sweet love while ravens, crows, and other city-birds gobble down evidence of malfeasance of either one or the other bird-party, wearing my sexy clothes to make the faggots submit, or maybe it was to make the doms leak and bulge, fuck I forget the script, started improvising, suddenly Larry David was voyeuring the audition and asked me to play Janet Yellin in the sisters of Perpetual Indulgence production of Ben Hur meets Empress Xoe of Byzantium. I tried to find a free elephant- or camel-ride on UBER, but they said that the fart tax would be $21000 per intersection, each of which has either a stop sign, a tri-color flashlight gobbling up wind farm credits. I decided to shoot myself out of this iOS videogame, ready to break the screen from the inside, but I knew that my efforts would only simulate owner-tears and cause a long telephone call with an empathy-trained CSR who ultimately was eunuched into offering a $10 discount on a new 10-year plan that offered ONLY a 40%-per-year fee-escalation and connected me with RocketMortgage, who would be willing to bill the first payment to my non-existent great-in-vitro-grandchildren which they would fund in return for permanent ownership. I tried to get out of the call by failing a headache, but their neural scans revealed to all, including well-meaning-but-vulnerable "ME" whoever the fuck that is that the speaker was 94.77% likely to be a situational liar. That was exactly the percentage that my childhood priest estimated when I was found upside down on a st andrews cross in the confessional at my best friend's church. Oh the webs we weave when we practice to deceive. HAPPY HALLOWEEN, YOU FUCKERS, FUCKEES, GLOVES (PASSIVE FISTEES), AND VERSATILE VIRTUALS AND PHYSICALSl, NO MATTER WHAT PARTY(BOY) D / R / L / I YOU MAY WISH TO HAUNT!

Did you know the Waco survivors were acquitted on the basis of self-defense? Your general arguments and hissie fits seem mainly to be about your inability to abide with or understand the appeal of gun ownership. You seem to think that the government is the only group of people who should get to kill innocents and get away with it. Without evaluating your personal opinions, do you really expect everyone else’s options to emanate from your personal opinions? Are you just mister civic Everyman that the gun sellers in Waco should just lay down their arms on your recommendation? I would describe it more as a mosquito net. I like To hike in the great wild AND I like to have some time away from small buzzy bite that adds limited value when exploring commonalities in the bunk with men whose insights I’m seeking. Both are fun. I’m there. I’m here. It’s a bit rich to praise yourself for your conversational intrepidity on a bareback website, seems pretty sheltered from the normies if you ask me. This seems to be classic leftie projection to me. Again you cast yourself as spokesperson for society and imply that people should not start from their own premises and create their own lives because society. I have obligation to accept your starting points just because you’ve convinced yourself that your not a snowflake.

I do conclude that the FBI, in an effort to overcome its racist past, mounted the PATCON campaign that purposefully demonized peaceful mostly white (Branch Davidians were integrated) groups that were out of the mainstream, also to justify additional budget. I think they abused their power, with the infiltrators often being more active and numerous than the believing membership. Ideally for me it’s not so much average as leaders who do not mistreat or steal from others. I’m very uninterested in random mediocrity from leaders. I do fear that our species may be unable to kick its tribal mafia habit, or at least kick it permanently. I agree that with freedom come consequences. But I’ll give the greatest rewards to leaders who can create the most space for each individual and group to pursue maximum freedom with the lowest number of involuntary restrictions possible. It’s very complex and tough. Peace

There is a lot of self-flavor in the style of your question NEDenver. It’s open to interpretation. I apprecIate the leftie boys for honoring the request 🙂.

This is hardly the best advertisement I’ve heard for the government. You’re in effect writing, “Self-defense failed to work against the government, which abused them anyway.” not that any of us are slaves to the American Declaration of Independence it’s still worth quoting: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.“ In your example I think most people would voluntarily sign up to avoid the confusion. However, many use “unworkability” as a premise to usurp the freedoms of others, which is an error.

The Branch Dravidians were like the Unitarians, total evil government abuse of power, and no credit to any mindless NPC who just accepted FBI propaganda /Janet Reno apologetics about slaughtering innocent children among others. Shameful. for full disclosure I’m diabetic but I was Not in the least offended by cuckie, though honestly cuckie it seems a bit mean-spirited, all good though, diabetes is MY problem. This is a perfect teaching moment for the concept of “voluntarism.” If certain populations take risks, what’s wrong with them finding a voluntary risk pool to distribute that risk? Usually these controversies become national psychodramas because the risk takers think everyone else owes them the obligation to pay for the risks they take. It may be NICE to pay for someone else’s choice to climb a mountain without the proper equipment, but when too much cost of those risks are shifted to people who don’t even think the risk taking should be legal, or when it becomes cost-prohibitive to pay for the mitigation, the system crashes. Even more divisive if the risks relate to morality (drug use, smoking, guns, abortion, barebacking, overeating, etc.). I’m a big fan of collectivism as long as it’s voluntary and the data is transparent.

I think I had followed your original point but communicated it glibly. DC has ranked-choice voting on the ballot. I welcome any guidance.

I read it along with the Bible, the one repeated theme that resonated with me was “thou shalt not make partners with god” though I liked The idea that the zealous god of the Koran might bring himself to whimsically forgive sinners by his own discretion. (Apologies to all Muslims who think I may be distorting the widdom, it is not intentional but just very bad memory.). My takeaway from that was that anyone on earth trying to act on gods behalf may be misguided. I know It’s a common practice to evaluate groups of people, and I think is a reasonable practice. However, the bigger the group being evaluated, the more diversity of extremes will be found. In fact, it seems like a fundamental axiom of any religions that if they are to survive they must embrace enough contradiction to appeal to all personalities who are willing to pass the religious memes on to the next generation. On a random note, when I went to visit my out gay friend in Pakistan and his (fully accepting) family, the driver and I had discussion about Islam and Christianity. He was very disturbed by the whole concept of the Trinity but very excited when I told him about the Unitarians. For me it matters less whether you agree with me or not but whether you are able to coexist with me without violence and let god or the great void be my judge.

Greetings lads of raw is law: at the risk of being accused of misquoting @BootmanLA for malicious rather than playful purposes, voting for anyone besides a democrat or republican has been characterized as jacking off in he voting booth. To me, a libertarian-minded independent, this smacks of another example of arrogating all the fun and privilege to the already-priviledged major parties (I’m pretty sure I got @BootmanLAexactly backward, but since I’m not mounting a polemic here, I hope this dyslexic analogy will cause no offense. How do folks feel about expanding the number of booth whacks (meaningful votes) by allowing voters to vote 1st-2nd-3rd choice? It would seem to solve the problems that the D/R uniparty has with the Jill Steins of the world by scooping up their vote when their party is eliminated and the next choice is redistributed. It would also seem to solve the problems of the little parties, which often are barred from the ballot unless they can meet certain criteria. What sayeth the great bareback ulamaa?

On a side note I want to be a voting booth, as recognized by permanent markers tallied up in my glutes. I have petitioned the voting commissions all over the country to stop recognizing ballots that depend upon mail-in (unless female- or male- masturbated DNA evidence of identity) non-DNA-infused butt-or-cunt ballots. Sluts of America we could save democracy from the uniparty if we only married our holes to forensically-minded voter-fraud experts. I also chose the option to replace my face on my drivers license with a cum-imprint that stays “wet” to the touch but not wet enough to be an AI father to non-children

Great points NEDenver, and I am very appreciative that you noticed my naivety, which may be my only remaining boyish quality. I cannot fully explain the bitterness of that era of the right. Also, please remember that a surprisingly high proportion of Obama voters voted for Trump, so it is at least a mischaracterization to suggest that MAGA was monolithic. Looking further back to right/left history, I do think that many of the liberal shibboleths of that era, which I embraced as a liberal youth, have turned out to be much more problematic than the simple pat stories I was told (McCarthyism, which I bet most liberals take at winners-write-history textbook face value; or the Rosenbergs; or the lack of attention to the Israeli theft of nuclear secrets or Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, which was covered up by LBJ). What I CAN speak to is why the right may be winning hearts and minds among disaffected Democrats (lockdowns, deplatforming conservatives and pretending they need baby guardrails for “misinformation” more than the 1st amendment, Afghanistan, Hunter Biden laptop, Russiagate lies, TDS, trying to erase the 1st 4th 9th 10th amendments, siding with criminals and illegals over workers and thus raising the cost of civil society, just to share a few of the stories that have risen up in the 21,000 +/-daily news cycles that have passed since the Voting Rights Act was passed 60 years ago. To be fair, there are Republicans leaving for the Democrats, like Bloody Liz Cheney and other neocons that know how to flatter Democrats to get their wars by boogeymanning the libs. The rich have always made their money by scaring the poor but I used to trust Democrats for being able to discern corporate fraud. Now I find the right to be generally more astute at this except when their direct interests are at play. I am aware that the MAGA movement may not be the prettiest debutante at the ball, but the more neocons leave the party, the more likely America First will be seen not as the hateful slogan I thought it was when I first Heard it and more like a trust that all nations are better off when they focus on their problems and stop meddling in the business of others. maybe it’s time to update mental models, assess actual risk rather than worrying about all of the stupid things we say, and hold ALL politicians in the uniparty and beyond it accountable for their actions rather than the venting they do instead of being violent.

I am not sure if this article originates the concept but it explains the concept well: [think before following links] https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back

It's interesting that many here seem to blame Trump for being able to channel the discontent of (just to make a short sentence, yes, could be more precise) the flyover states for watching the Democratic-Republican businessmen export jobs for the past 30 years and divert our money to war, financialization, and other elite interests. I read an interesting analysis that suggests that the real divide in this country is between the "virtuals" (ie, people who could do their job on a laptop from anywhere, who have thus severed any loyalty they have to terroir, tend to be disconnected from a visceral sense of what it takes to build wealth and security), versus the "physicals" (ie., people whose jobs are inherently tied to a location, e.g., farm, construction, the factories that used to be in America but are now overseas, who can see the physical results of their efforts etc.). I am certainly rooting for our liberal friends to mount a less-than-hysterical, less-than-virtue-signaling, empathetic play for the votes of the "physicals," but I don't see it happening as long as they have TDS and catastrophize about Trump's faux pas and style. It would be great to see the Democrats formulate policies that don't destroy the assets of the "physicals," but they keep inflating away the efforts of the "physicals" and giving free money to people who haven't paid into the system, and they seem to have a blind spot as to why people don't trust them anymore. I'd love to see the liberals reclaim their ability to stand for peace, tackle corporate fraud, and (if their economic models can do this, which I truly doubt since they can't tell the difference between creating wealth and redistributing [stealing] it) figure out how to create space for people to benefit from their efforts, which will grow the pie for all. The best way to make a country toxic is to shrink the pie and then lie about it. Failure to understand this is a choice to be hysterical and a choice to have no meaningful insight. Trust me, when people think us faggots are getting something for nothing, all the tolerance will evaporate in a short minute regardless of who we've been voting for. hntnhole, I bet you can do better than that, watching inflation destroy the capacity of the lower middle class and even middle class to make it is not "anything and everything." it's pretty concrete and puts people in a headspace to lash out about style-of-living issues.

There’s a huge difference between praising someone and forgoing lies about them. There’s plenty real to complain about with Trump as NEDenver may be correctly, or maybe hyperbolically, alluding to. As much as I don’t love Trump I find It hard to understand the TDS he inspires. Maybe we should look to late 19th century health practices for treating hysteria and masturbate our liberal brethren just to calm them down.

Sorry LIBTH this is almost assuredly misinformation ([think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.factcheck.org/issue/charlottesville-rally/). I remember when I used to accept MSM at face value, and the way I felt Completely bamboozled by the edits and mis/dis/mal-information that I had Previously taken at face value. I hope you add skeptical thinking and research to your repertoire it is highly empowering. If you want to sling mud at conservatives fora lack of critical thought thinking, I’m all for it and am sure that with a little practice you could be a great model of evenhanded critical thinking. We’d all be the better for it and for practicing de-escalation and appreciative intelligence rather than demonization. peace!

Liberals rarely own their contribution, which is necessary for any reconciliation. Not much owning from our dear LiIBZ on this thread.

Do folks think the government has the right to lock down and jail people just because some myopic scientist says - thanks to big pharma data - that it’s “necessary”? What part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights upholds this?

Faggots, it would be fun to know how many of you have spunk up in you right now. If so are your swimmers from the same father or are you a mixing bowl? What did you do in gratitude for the chance to be liquefied? Spunkless faggots, it would be fun to know what plans you have to rehydrate your guts. Fuckers, you are so outnumbered. What are you doing to work overtime to help the surplus faggots absorb their purpose?

What percentage of the supply chain disruption was the actual health issue and how much was the government reaction? How much of wage rises were about having to compete against the government which was paying people not to work?

Great points all! I will try to provoke discussion on various topics that I think would resonate with right-or-center-leaning or left-averse homos periodically, but also get out of the way for some free flow. I'll also share my opinions but enjoy respectful diversity of thought. Military: What do folks think of the "peace through strength" argument? Many people say this phrase, often on the right side. My own view is that it requires at least another layer of nuance. For example, peace through strong defense of borders (I am not opposed to this at all) versus peace through strong proliferation of bases wrapped around other countries (as if China had bases in Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver, Tijuana, Havana, and Tortola), backing and enabling bullies (Netanyahu), using idiots (Zelensky) to inflame rivals, and cucking allies (thanks to EU and NATO, Europe is US's little bitch, too pussy to defend itself [Nord Stream] and too lazy to try.). I believe in non-aggression, which means I am against both flavors of US empire from the right (dominate other tribes and exploit natural resources) and left (make enemies of traditional culture and let the neo-cons work leftists up to start "humanitarian" wars and make fag-tribute-money for the military-pharma-industrial complex). But, I would defend myself, my community and my nation's borders happily, with an axe if necessary. I also am tired of government asserting a monopoly on my own self-defense. I imagine these views would alienate both conservatives and liberals. But I think pieces of these views would resonate with both. Does that make me right-leaning, left-leaning, or somewhere in the middle?

That's where I am NordicBtm. As much as I am somewhat fag-partisan, it disappoints me how little leftist homos understand about theft-economics and the effect it has on supply. Sure, a government can dictate price controls, but it can't motivate producers to produce, which means that the supply dwindles the more the government removes the benefits that naturally accrue to producers. I love the point about lying eyes. Among my objections to woke (too numerous to mention) are that so much of it is about expecting people to ignore their gut and their senses and requires ONLY ONE truth, theirs. This may be an unintended consequence of inclusion (which is not a bad value). I happen to have a more urban sensibility, but I STRONGLY object to a worldview that requires EVERYONE to share this. Also, an unintended consequence of ignoring your gut and senses is leaving a lot of space for the emperor to run around without any clothes (maybe sexy who knows). I like this point PozTalkAuthor. My main reason for abandoning the left wasn't the bon paroles (nice words) they say, but observing that their actions often don't match, as well as that they don't really support freedom. If you are in a protected class but don't pledge their club, they turn on you. As someone quotable said, the Democratic Party in the US is not the left party but the extreme right of tribes. They have lost a wonderful universalist value for a hateful multi-tribal value (fag-tribe included, which is partly why I can't be satisfied by politics that only look at narrow homo interests, no art of co-living displayed, reminds me of my younger days when I thought I could make the world a more tolerant place by sucking off a gang of men in a public square, maybe the world needs to be organized more like dark rooms for each tribe (muslims, evangelicals, faggots, militarists get a thunder dome) and spaces of respect and tolerance for others, maybe meaning that it requires homos to realize that putting a rainbow flag on a 12-year-old's swimsuit may piss a lot of people off. As much as I used to think acceptance was a great endpoint for gay rights goals, I am now too aware that it is not my place to change people and that excess efforts in this space amount to colonialism and eliminate the ability to empathize. My end-goal now is non-violence and the ability to escape a hostile tribe and join a more fitting tribe. And I have definitely noticed a difference between people who want to befriend me for a soul connection versus people who want to befriend me because I fit into some stereotypical slot that helps them tell a surface story about how accepting and titillating their lives are. I like your point PozBearWI. These labels push us into fully appreciating "issue-specific" coalitions and partially appreciating people and maintaining shifting alliances to maintain balance and order. They push us into a cartoonistic view of each other. Love this point SomewhereonNeptune! For full vulnerable disclosure, I have a weakness for dramatic language, which probably is divisive. I have lived long enough to see the cons of this behavior and understand why people with a left-leaning world view may see my comments as provocative. If I were at my best, I would be offering the next generation economic education so they could all become producers able to self-sustain and perhaps become employers for others who may not be able to sustain themselves. When I look at the greater good, I think it has to start in the economics of production and self-sustainment at a micro-, community- and macro level. A small part of this is redistribution (the first leftist solution), but the much greater part is helping people step up into their own power to self-sustain and survive. NONE of that has to do with pronouns. (BUT if you save up and buy your own warehouse, you can keep me out if I don't use your preferred pronoun.)

Would folks prefer actives/tops/masters/sadists as leaders or passives/bottoms/slaves/masochists as leaders? Maybe it would work really well if the MAGA-fucker-President turned the First Pussyboy into the location for the National Easter Egg hunt and then put it on lots of National Committees for bi-partisan cummunity organizing and the nation could sleep more easily knowing the First Pussyboy was absorbing the extremity of the MAGA-fucker President to bring bi-partisan peace to rain down like sweet jizz from the skies.