Jump to content

BergenGuy

Members
  • Posts

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BergenGuy

  • Birthday 01/01/1962

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bergen County, NJ
  • Interests
    Kinky bb top, piss, spit, exhibitionism, role play. Poz-friendly
  • HIV Status
    Neg, Recently Tested
  • Role
    Top

More Info

  • BarebackRT Profile Name
    BergenGuy
  • Adam4Adam Profile Name
    BergenCountyGuy
  • Recon Profile Name
    BergenCountyGuy

Recent Profile Visitors

6,917 profile views

BergenGuy's Achievements

Fanatic

Fanatic (10/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

168

Reputation

  1. Were those views merely contrasting opinions or were they presenting objectively false information? Although, either way, I don't agree with pressuring a media outlet over anything. I'm a First Amendment fanatic. However, there is nothing wrong with the government talking with media outlets about how they can help present factual information during, say, a health crisis like COVID. At least, that didn't use to be controversial, These days, there are probably people who object to anti-smoking public service announcements. But, all that has been reported and the Biden administration has ended those conversations. So, again, I'm wondering what "censorship" is Trump ending? Or, is that "censorship" yet another canard like his "war on Christmas"?
  2. No, I can't. That's why I was asking what "censorship" that Trump is supposed to ban.
  3. "Censorship" by whom? Censorship by the government is already illegal except in certain, very limited, circumstances.
  4. I'm sure that there will be some attempts. But, just because a senator, even a majority leader, wants something to happen doesn't mean that it will. I'm not being naïve. But, there are some things that congress people and senators who are facing re-election in two years will not want to face ... and one of them is a lot of very angry older people. What they'll do is more insidious. They just won't do anything. That's politically much easier. All they have to do is hope that Democrats are in power when it finally comes time to reduce Social Security/Medicare benefits due to insufficient funding.
  5. He did say that, and then was rapidly, very rapidly, forced to retract it (the typical "I was misunderstood"). Social Security is the third-rail of politics because older people vote at a very high rate. I suspect that there's a number of things that they'll do first before having the stomach to take on Social Security.
  6. Some guys do that because some apps are message-limited. Unfortunately, that's also the MO of catfishers. When a guy suggests that very early in the conversation, I just drop him. Otherwise, I know that he's going to be telling me all about cryptocurrency trading.
  7. Why? Because your "clarification" still reads as gay being a choice: Perhaps you mean to say that acting upon one's same-sex orientation is a choice. But, the orientation itself ("gay") is NOT a choice.
  8. I think that it could be argued that if an athlete wants privacy, that individual can just turn off geolocation on their account. There is no reason to ban that feature for every athlete. That comes across as very paternalistic. Why should everyone lose that feature because some athletes come from LGBT-hostile cultures? Now, on the other hand, if Grindr has legitimate liability concerns (I'm not sure what those would be) then it should turn off the service. It is a business, after all. Personally, I won't interact with guys on Grindr who don't have their distance turned on (unless I can see them in my grid). There are just too many cat fishers out there. Even guys with distance turned on can be cat fishers, but in my experience it is a much smaller percentage than those who are hiding their distance.
  9. The "Respect for Marriage Act" would at least require that the Group C states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Of course, if the Republicans hold the Senate, the House and the White House, they could simply repeal the law. I don't really expect the filibuster, which would be the only way to stop them, to survive if Republicans win across the board. They'll want to do as much damage in two years as possible knowing that, historically, they'll lose the House or Senate in two years.
  10. He left only after his attempt to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes failed. After that, it is irrelevant whether he "stayed" in the White House or not. His presidency ended at noon on January 20. At that point, he would just be a trespasser if he had physically remained in the White House.
  11. Paragraph breaks are always appreciated. Stories that are a single, dense block of text are very difficult to read.
  12. This is a well-written series, as are other stories by the same author. But, I agree with you. I'd rather not see images in stories (any stories, not just this series). A well-written story provides enough detail that I build an picture in my mind based on what I think is hot, and the images never match my imagination.
  13. At one time, Roe seemed safe. But, then the composition of the entire court system rapidly and radically changed within just a few years. That's why I worry about the future. It doesn't take a majority, or even a substantial minority, to push through change. It just takes a enough single-issue voters who are razor-focused on that goal, while the rest of us split and dither over what we should seek next and refuse to unite as a bloc against the single-issue voters.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.