nanana

Should we be sad or happy that Olaf Schultz is now more like a geranium folded into a bible than a German Prime Minister? Please discuss you sexy bareback homos you! Then maybe comment on the joys of cumming in a group hole at the Lab or alternatively of having fuckers tip your butt-liquid content closer to that of a watermelon or human milkshake rather than that of a charcuterie board or full-size butt-boy.

PS - I include both business owners AND laborers in the category of producers. And - we don’t have capitalism in this country, we have fascist corporatism, where the government provides some guarantees for certain businesses, e.g., military industrial complex, regulated industries, big pharma, etc.

An assertion not borne out by the data. Certainly people will have noticed that gas prices fluctuate. The price of a TV, a microwave, a transistor, and other goods that benefit from innovation and productivity-of-learning-and-repetition gains fall in price. Houses rise and fall in price. The Fed invents imaginary money for its friends and thus makes the dollar worth less. Limitations in supply or changed in demand also affect the rise or fall of prices. Disincentivizing producers is a GUARANTEED method of creating scarcity and driving up prices. Lower-than-market-rate interest rates is another time-tested guarantee that people will be fooled into overpaying for things. Ultimately money is a mechanism for ensuring that producers wish to continue to produce. Anyone who thinks producers should be forced to produce without reaching an agreement with a consumer is an advocate of slavery.

While this may technically be true, it is laughably free of upstream and downstream consequences. Upstream, what obligation does anyone in the market have to produce ANYTHING, even if they are overpaid by the consumer. It’s comical to think that a value-producer is a slave to someone downstream. It’s laughable to think that a value chain is ATTRACTIVE to anyone who cannot make some kind of living. It’s downright Minnie Pearl RIDICULOUS to think that anyone has an obligation to take an UNSUSTAINABLE LOSS by continuing to participate upstream from non-payers in the value chain. Agreed that for disruptions to the value chain, suppliers may decide that it’s in their legitimate interests to take a loss to keep the value chain on LIFE SUPPORT. Tell me, what’s in it for producers to continue enslaving themselves to people downstream who can’t afford to make the value chain SUSTAINABLE? Is that really so hard for socialists to understand? What do the CONSUMERS do in an economy that disincentivizes the PRODUCERS? Please help me see what I’m missing.

a very brainy, but not so hearty, answer, I guess if I can no longer afford beef, I should call boatman to be corrected about my perceptions about the quality of my life.

@BootmanLA, I appreciate your argumentation, which is factually formidable but feels incapable of a universal empathy. It rarely feels as if we are going to land on some new insight V/R, usually feels to someone with my strengths and weaknesses as if some dated insight is going to be regurgitated. But to play to your strengths, I do not conceal that Trump has a penchant for creating less-than-affectionate nicknames. Perhaps my attempt to distinguish "woke" stumbled on something more representative of a variety of individuals not pegged to a single group. I will try harder next time to distill the essentials of "woke" and concede your point. NEDenver arrogates all of the insights to his side, which convinces me that there will be no interesting give and take to arrive at a new profound understanding. Feeling sublime and not upset in the least, I wish the out-of-luck left-wingers much joy in their failed semi-coherence, which perhaps they are too lofty to be introspective about. Street-sense / elite-sense... so many good options and paths to gaining a deep understanding of the world. Sadly, the left-wingers usually kow-tow to expertise and authority to gain their self-value. We are all touching a man's nether-regions, and to my way of experiencing it feels like a hole. To another's way of experiencing, it feels like a worm or maybe a big tree. Actually, it's both, and I pity those who only see either/or and not both. I leave you to your bitterness or your explosion of discovery about how to move us all forward.

For me there is a pretty clear distinction between presenting a government view of something versus the government trying to get another point of view shut down and disappeared. In the first scenario people get to compare the sense of both statements. In the other scenario there’s only one statement to consider. There’s extensive evidence the Biden administration pressured social media to disappear information. In my view, as much as “objective fact” might exist, I don’t see any authority with the purity of motive to be entrusted to adjudicate it, certainly not on my behalf. I have a lot less trust than you do that organizations actually stop doing things, I think they usually figure out how to morph them. I think we may agree that there is a tendency to focus on past injustices while ignoring current, as-yet-unnoticed injustices. I think we may agree that it’s always a good time to hold politicians accountable for good governance. Trump specifically has said he would dismantle the government’s ability to manipulate social media into banning people and suppressing their speech. I don’t think it would preclude the government from promoting anti-smoking messages. But what do I know? I am going to continue being skeptical of what any politician says and believe actions and efforts to be transparent.

There’s a lot of evidence that the Biden administration pressured social media to deplatform and repress people whose views contrasted with their own, as extensively reported by Matt Taibi among others. Multiple administrations attempted to prosecute Julian Assange for reporting on US war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere. Do these not meet your definition of censorship? Perhaps they don’t fit a model of having to be approved by the government before being published?

Hi @BergenGuy, can you give some examples, and can you comment on whether the government practices censorship whether or not it’s illegal? thanks!

Thanks for making me explain more clearly. I was thinking of illegal immigration and inflation, which affects a lot of relatively poor voters and definitely has an impact on a broader set of voters. You raise a great point, but I think the billionaire class has captured both parties. Inasmuch as Trump reduces inflation and puts economic policies in place that generate (rather than just redistribute) wealth, I think the poor are likely to notice it more. The biggest wealth transfer and destruction of economic well-being was the COVID lockdowns, which threw a lot of people out of work, wrecked a lot of small businesses and made the billionaires a lot of money. I blame Democrats much more than Republicans for that. But I still Like the point you made that tax reductions are also likely to put more money in the hands of the wealthy.

That is much more a woke leftist thing to do, but agreed I will not be happy if Trump does not follow through on his promise to ban censorship and government “misinformation” manipulation. This mostly happens to people on the right, but it’s also bad when it happens to people on the left.

This smacks of a blind-spot that will keep the leftists out of power for quite a while (thankfully). The Democrats lost because they keep deciding to transfer wealth out of the pockets of those who paid into the system and into the pockets of those who didn’t. The working class sees this clearly and voted with its feet, which tiptoed away from name callers and toward people who realize you have to do something to get something. Charity is great but theft is not so exciting.

With all due respect to the left, which clearly demonstrated its lack of touch with the win-strategy and its inability to channel the majority voters this cycle, it’s much more than “just any social movement they [the right] don’t like…” the reason the right doesn’t like woke is usually 1) collectively blaming groups of people for cultural or other phenomena that preceded their lifespans, e.g., something that happened more than 100 years ago; 2) failing to see the consequences to other people’s lives of immediately stopping something perceived as a social ill, e.g., driving a gas’s-powered car; 3) shifting burdens to the public coffer; 4) misattributing an action to bigotry, hatred, or some other self-absorbed interpretation rather than to natural differences among individuals; 5) collective punishment; 6) race-based assumptions about how various groups SHOULD think. Woke failed big-time this year. I hope people who don’t understand the negative aspects of woke can evolve and appreciate how un-winning a strategy it is to blame everyone else. From what I’m seeing from most Democrats post-election, they don’t seem to be generating winning insights. “The country is more fascist than we thought.” These kinds of insights are likely to keep them on the losing path for quite awhile and alienating them from all the people they spend their time making wrong. I would hardly count anything the left does in the way of accusations as treating people decently. But by all means keep preaching to the choir and failing to see the good qualities of people, which exist in abundance once you become less interested in labeling people and more interested in getting to know them.

Best of luck to all partisans tomorrow. May your favorite candidate win. Hopefully we’ll come out of this still in a republic filled with peace, tolerance, and integrity. And many happy choices to make in the future.

The first time I got double-fucked was in a hot tub. I don't remember what we used. Guys were funny don’t think they liked each other both kept whispering in my ear to dump the other while they were both up in my ass.

Love it 🙂. Shooting a lot of semen into a political conversation makes it (and anything else) much better! Batter batter swing 🙂.

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.