BlackDude

10 hours ago, harrysmith25 said:

There's probably another punchbowl somewhere that has a line, if you like the "queue chat"

Clever. But since you responded to me, I prefer the “say what you mean” line. 
 

16 hours ago, harrysmith25 said:

  

No, that' just something someone who's seen more Spike Lee movies than dicks would say
(Hell, more SL movies than sunlight if we;re being really real)

Anyway, man looking back at this thread, those were all some really long-winded ways of saying "No" weren't they

Did I miss the punch line? Spike Lee! Lol

Don’t believe the lies. Most gay men fuck. Some of these categories are onscreen created to avoid saying the don’t want to fuck YOU 

Hairy. Gypsy/wandering. Arab are my favorite 

15 hours ago, LoadMyHoleSF said:

Surprisingly, there is talk in San Francisco of reopening bathhouses. They closed in the 80s due to the AIDS pandemic. Oddly enough, the license jurisdiction became the purview of the police department, which for years never allow them to reopen. Surprise surprise. The law was recently revoked. The local papers have reported the possibility of two bath houses opening. The cost is projected to be in the million so we’ll see what happens. Fingers crossed! I’m hoping that San Francisco can be a Mecca for gay people once again, especially with everything happened in the United States. 

I don’t think that’s going to happen. Castro is full of straights and crying sports are getting raided.

Professional gays trying to be “respectable” among straight society sold SF out long ago. 

I’m hear what you say. I see your looks. I feel your false superiority complex. Telling yourself how much better than you are than me. I know it’s fake. You projecting your unhappiness on me. 

 I know you’re jealous. Envious of my freedom. I dont have to spend the weekend at baseball, or soccer games. Or at the pumpkin patch: When I wake up, the day is fine. Every weekend is mine. I go where I want, when I want.

I know you’re probably stuck at home with a woman you don’t want. She’s more than likely overweight or maybe has an aged as well as you hoped. And you can’t stand her. And she probably can’t stand you. but you can’t leave of being for fear of being put on a child support. So you’re stuck. Miserable and unhappy. 

I stick my dick where I want. I cum without fear. You can’t stick yours anywhere unless a check is attached to it. Am I selfish? Maybe…but in happy and selfish. 

And if you hoping I get something, this isn’t the 90s. They got new stuff? To keep me healthy. 

You don’t care about all the other BS that comes along with this lifestyle. We have my own problems. But don’t project your unhappiness onto me.

You are stuck. And jealous. 

And if so, how was it? 

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Your understanding is incorrect.

The *actions* Hunter Biden took (with respect to paying his taxes late, and purchasing a gun when he legally wasn't allowed to) may have occurred before Joe Biden became president. That said, the investigation into his taxes did not begin until 2018, well into the Trump administration, and there is some evidence (and much suspicion) that Trump's DOJ opened that investigation under pressure from the president's team, to harm Joe Biden politically. Note that this began around the same time that Trump began pressuring Ukraine to announce a sham investigation into the Bidens for the purpose of hurting Biden's chances in the 2020 election, pressure for which he was later impeached. It's important to note that by the time the investigation began, Biden had already paid the late taxes AND the associated penalties, circumstances which normally result it (at most) misdemeanor charges with a non-custodial sentence.

The gun charge is one for which federal prosecution is almost never used absent some other circumstance, such as the gun being used in commission of another crime. Substance abusers buy guns every day, signing the form declaring that they are not, in fact, users of illegal drugs, and no charges are ever brought simply for that false statement.

Your implication that he was "gun toting" and "cocaine smoking" (while NEITHER was charged in the indictment) is a smear tactic worthy of the racists you supposedly abhor. 

All that said, the point is that if his name had been Hunter Jones, these cases would have been resolved without a special counsel, without the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating them, and we'd have never read the first word about them unless we're law nerds reading every plea bargain in every federal court. But his name is Hunter Biden, and as such, the GOP pushed all sorts of norms out the window in their zeal to "get" something on the Bidens, all because they can't defend the lifetime of criminality their own candidate (and now president-elect) has engaged in.

And given that Trump's people have rather LOUDLY declared their intent to continue pursuing charges against Biden, no matter how trumped-up those charges are, Joe Biden took a step to put an end to that kind of bullshit. Is it ideal? No. But not a single fucking Trumpanzee has ANY moral high ground to stand on demanding that Biden be "ideal". JFC, Ivanka Trump's father-in-law (while under investigation for tax fraud) set his whistle-blowing brother up with a prostitute to then out the brother to his wife as a philanderer, in the hopes of shutting him up. Kushner, the father-in-law, did a significant stint in federal prison for that. Trump pardoned him, and has just named him as US Ambassador to France.

So spare me your crocodile tears for Biden's actions. Maybe if Republicans weren't such shitty people, backing such a shitty presidential candidate, Democrats could do a better job of living up to the ideals that they at least try to honor. 

So it looks like his actions occurred while Biden was vice president, as I originally stated. Thank you for the clarification.

And wasn’t he kicked out of the navy for drug use? And he was charged for the gun, and convicted, right? So I don’t think that’s a smear tactic. It’s a fact.

Had his name been Hunter Jones from Detroit, Chicago, or Baltimore, he would have been locked up, and the key would have been thrown away. 

Textbook case of ”rules for thou, but not for thee!”

How was this politically motivated? From my understanding these prosecutions started while Biden was vice president. This is actually pretty funny coming from the author of the 94 crime bill. But I guess gun toting and cocaine smoking only get you life if you’re ever certain demographic in Biden’s eyes. Maybe that’s something his mentors Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond taught him?
 

Situational ethics and moral relativism. 

I think I just missed another opportunity. This hot, middle aged, “rough” looking Russian type guy, tats and all, was in the grocery store. Hot as fuck, he crunches  down to get something off the bottom shelf to reveal no underwear under his grey sweats. Beautiful ass. I mean they were damn near falling off. He had to see me staring. I was going to make a joke about cooking or something but I froze. Obviously he has no woman at home: he’s in the grocery store struggling buying bread with ill filling clothes. 
 

My dick is so fucking hard: but bummed because I froze. 

1 hour ago, nanana said:

The people who can be definitively linked to an immoral act. It’s not good enough to say they “look” similar or were “born” into it. Children have no control over their circumstances, and the world is never going to be “fair.” Economic winners are always going to do something that pisses off others. As I said before, I am HIGHLY in favor of people and groups who feel that what they inherited was affected by past injustice to do something about it. However, there are two examples at different extremes of this and many examples in the middle of them: 1) build the capabilities to have the life you want; and 2) focus on taking away things from others that have been poorly distributed by past injustices. As I said there are reasons to do both, but I think the second path is likely to be less effective the farther it is in time, especially generationally, from the injustice. Also, the more unfocused the remedy is on the ACTUAL PEOPLE who did it. The wider the net especially to people who had no originating role in the injustice, the greater likelihood the remedy will be perceived as a new injustice rather than a remedy applied to the right people for the right people.  That is partly why elites love to tell stories about injustices were long past capable of doing anything about in the present, to distract from current injustice that could actually be tagged to the originator. The search for ancient injustices keeps us ricocheting and degenerates into stereotypical thinking, whereas building a skill and a legacy is harder to take away. 

The government allowed it. And we can widely identify that. And they can remedy it. This is not about jealously of “economic winners.” 

And many of the last slaves died during our parents lifetimes. I have family who was alive during Jim Crow, the GI bills, etc.   

You may have no control of the circumstances you were born under, but you do have control over the decision to produce justice. 

Since I have no “gaydar” other than the obvious, what are some signs a man may be interested in you.

One subtle sign I think I missed was the second head nod. Sometimes when you make eye contact with another gentleman in person you both were nod had acknowledge. Well this hot guy did it to me. Then looked back, and did it again. I didn’t think anything of it until I was out in the car leaving and I’m like that I missed a good opportunity?

What do you think? What are some other signs subtle or not?

On 11/15/2024 at 5:59 AM, tallslenderguy said:

i was going to put this in the Bigly thread, but see it's been closed.  Despite the frequent forays into snark, i thought there was some descent debate and discussion as well in that thread.  Ah well. Here's  an opinion piece i read this morning. i have not verified it's authenticity, but still have known enough people who have similar thoughts and feelings that i think it's a valid piece from a real person. Here's a partial excerpt with a link to the entire piece. 

"Commentary: I am a Mexican American who voted for Trump. No, I don’t hate myself

I’m a proud, first-generation, college-educated and gay Mexican American with undocumented family in the United States, including a mother who was previously deported to Mexico, and I experienced homelessness as a child. I am everything Democrats claim to support, right?

Wrong.

Democrats have accepted a progressive platform, ignoring decades worth of change and focusing on erroneous issues. They have built campaigns on a foundation of misleading airs and fake vibes.

Voting for Donald Trump does not make me racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic or any other “ist” and “ic” I’ve been called. I, along with more than half of the voting public in America, am sick of the self-righteous and label-obsessed left alienating us over differing opinions.

In her concession speech, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed to have built strong coalitions. What she did was the opposite. She did not motivate enough Black voters, Latino voters, Asian voters, Jewish voters, union voters and female voters to cast their ballots for her. Fewer women voted for Harris than they did Joe Biden, even with abortion being a top issue. To the very end, Harris ignored the data; she ignored what voters needed."

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/commentary-am-mexican-american-voted-131500521.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_NTK_T2&ncid=crm_19908-1202929-20241115-0&bt_user_id=wU8przkQslG8%2BgQgEkTQ7DrYat2QR1cLn%2BDaVmZzxngIqJCvefWqmIQ%2BWVYABQxG&bt_ts=1731673543360

I’m calling cap in this voter. Many say one of the reasons of Democrats losses because they focused too much on Latinos and immigration. Harris campaign wasn’t offering vibes to Latino voters. They were offering tangible resources.

I’ve been saying it for years, and I said it on here: most of the races of have experiences come from the Latino and Asian community. And unfortunately, lots of Latinos see the clearest, most pure form of whiteness in the Republican Party. They equate success and prosperity as proximity to whiteness. And unfortunately, as statistics show, they are not wrong.
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Geraldo Rivera, the list goes on and on.

This may only be surprising to white voters. But everyone else has been saying this for decades: if the Democrats are depending on the flood of Latino voters to vote for them for the next century, they are on a fools errand.

On 11/13/2024 at 3:38 PM, nanana said:

A cross-partisan toast to the end of the Bush-Clinton-Cheney era. May their bloody legacy recede into oblivion. 

They don’t care. Their money has been made, legacies entrenched. 

1 hour ago, nanana said:

For those of you who enjoy research into unintended consequences: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf. Unfortunately even things as well indented as DEI sometimes have consequences that are the opposite of the intended result. 

Let me first say that I do not agree with DEI programs as they are instituted at all.
 

But from my understanding, the gist of that studies argument against DEI is white people telling themselves they’re really not racist and instituting reparative programs makes them really mad and more racist.
 

I don’t think that’s a legitimate argument against DEI. 

7 hours ago, nanana said:

I say, all people rise up and be your highest selves. If you think shaming is an effective tactic then by all means don’t let me tell you what to do. I’m only advocating targeting the right people to shame. Collective punishment has a way of turning individual justice into a group-level beef. 

Producing Justice is a punishment?

On 11/23/2024 at 8:19 PM, Erik62 said:

SORRY😢, over the last 10-15yrs Australian government's (Federal & State) have increasingly made people to feel that being of British heritage "white" is something to be ashamed of. Anyone of British heritage are being made to feel that they are dirty, thieves, illegal land grabbers, rapists, kidnappers & genocidal murderers. Last 26 Jan 2024, a white Australian wearing a baseball cap, with a national🇦🇺flag insignia, was arrested for inciting racial disharmony. Like the US, we have a very proud history of defense service & often any display of national pride (flag display, clothing, discussion) is seen as creating racial disharmony & discrimination. The ILM movement is exactly that. There is no EXTENDED Title version that makes reference to ALM (All Lives Matter). Those of British heritage are PARIAHS in the country that they built into the modern & prosperous entity, to which tens of thousanands of refugees & migrants wanted to come to for a better life. It is illegal to own or sell German medals, insignia, uniforms, display a swastika. Yes, Indigenous Lives Matter takes nothing else into consideration except ILM. 

Very SAD 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬. 

Often times, people telling the truth, as history is seen about white shaming. 
 

On an individual level, if you’re not practicing racism, you should have nothing to be ashamed about. But if you’re from the perspective that black and indigenous people should quote “take their L” and move on while you enjoy the fruits of colonialism and injustice systems then yes you should be ashamed.

22 hours ago, nanana said:

 

Sorry, didn't pick up on what you meant by #1 until right now when I was supposed to be working on some deadline, oops.

The "Slave Reparations" movement is a great example, but people could argue that it is a straw man for the point, since I  am not aware that any jurisdiction has passed "Slave Reparations," so I pick it more because it is a clear illustration of what I  was talking about rather than because it is more than a wish of a few percentage of our fellow citizens.  There are many muddier examples, but let's get the water out of the mud until it is crisp pottery that makes a good illustration.  

There have been periodic attempts to get various states and/or the federal government to pass a law to remunerate descendants of slaves for the agreeably unjust conditions and economic deprivations they experienced.  Since slavery was outlawed in 1865, a day-old slave-owner when the amendment passed would be 158 years, 11 months, and 8 days old.  It is unlikely that a 1-day-old would have achieved a high level of agency, so let's pretend that 18-year-olds whose families owned slaves (a tiny minority even in the South) who had reached their majority and who were in a position to actively REJECT the lives they had been born into were able to make full use of their "agency".  They would be 176 years, 11 months, and 8 days old).  It is unlikely that even very good gene therapy or vampirism would have enabled any slaveowner to live that long.  So, there's no way to apply reparations to anyone who had any agency at that time.  

Lest people wonder whether I deny the potential legacy to the progeny of slaves, I do not.  I am sure it has a multi-generational effect.  But when I  try to translate that into a percentage effect, and when I try to get the state to levy reparations against all citizens, many of which were not progeny of slaveholders, many of which were post-1865 immigrants with no direct or indirect role in slavery, I  find the traceability, onus, and practicality problematic.  

Let me also say that there have been many subsequent injustices, racial and otherwise, since 1865 (limiting myself so I don't overtax the patience of you gorgeous bareback sluts, inseminators, and receptacles) to African Americans (but I could pontificate on the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Italian, the Mexican Bracero dues-paying that happened).  

After 1865 at the hands of state and Federal government, trotted Jim Crow laws, FDRs creation of Social Security for whites and Welfare for blacks, the redlining of black neighborhoods by FDR's administration, Brown versus the Board of Education, the Civil Rights era, the "Great Sociaty" reforms of LBJ that may have had the unintended consequences of making black families jump through government hoops to qualify for subsidies, Dixiecrats, etc.  

Each of these injustices should be subjected to the same analysis of whether it is possible to trace the injustice to an ACTUAL PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE and levy their profits from the bad behavior.  If it can be done, then okay for all of us.  If there were a way to have a more traceable payback to the source of injustice, I  would not at all be opposed.   The more diffuse and collective and involuntary the payback becomes, the more I  oppose it.  Let me be accountable for things I DID, but let me question the collective punishment I suffer when the real criminals or sources of injustice were just people who LOOKED like me.  (I'm mostly Caucasian by the way.)

I am VERY EXCITED, however, to be part of VOLUNTARY solutions that help all of God's children see and achieve their full potential.  

I  would also say, however unfortunate it may be from an individual perspective, that bloodlines have an effect on the POSSIBILITY to access past generational investment and the mindset of investment in FUTURE generations.  For example, if I  were born a princess as high-born as many of you are, you beautiful pixels, my parents might have indoctrinated me into a view that I was a 32nd-generation-prince(ss), which may have affected my allegiance to my class, my burden to carry the bloodline forward, and my desire to conform to (or potentially rebel against) my predecessors' expectations, including (happy or unhappy) impregnation of a (willing or unwilling) female spouse, and multi-generational accumulation wealth and capital.  If I  were an orphan (or academic middle-class trash like I actually am), I may have less consciousness that my decisions were a multi-generational investment in my 7th generation (to cite the time-horizon of native American tribal decision-making).  There may have been a contribution to my mentality of discrimination in the past that deprived me of my multi-generational consciousness that gained me access to past wealth (perhaps finagled from others) and gave me a consciousness to pay it forward so future members of my family could benefit.  There may be much injustice in this, but I  am not at all convinced that I  could quantify the portion gained from finagling (BAD & WRONG, BUT MAYBE SO FAR IN THE PAST IT BECOMES TOO WOVEN IN WITH OTHER VARIABLES) versus multi-generational investment consciousness (NOT BAD, PERHAPS UNDESERVING OF PUNISHMENT). (THIS MORALITY IS MUCH MORE RELEVANT TO BREEDERS than to most gay culture, which has mostly opted out of the gene pool, though please accuse me of simplifying if you think this diatribe is too short...). As much as DISCRIMINATION plays out in inter-generational wealth, so does a MULTI-GENERATIONAL investment consciousness play out.  

Without suggesting that people are immutable, and also without suggesting that thieving bigots of the past may have discouraged people from maintaining a multi-generational investor consciousness, it is hardly fair to expect the most far-sighted investors to adopt the habits of the most happy-go-lucky, here-and-now investors.  

Lady Fortune is a multi-generational bitch, and if we stay at her roulette table, Washington of the 22nd century may finally rival Baghdad of the 11th century or Giza of the 10th century BC.  

So basically, black people just need to the their “L” and move on?

2 hours ago, Poz50something said:

You do realise that Joy Reid talk about quite a bit more than just the black community on MSNBC…I get that you’re conservative, so could you tell me where there is representation at Faux News? Serious question…

I don’t watch Fox News. I’m independent. 

3 hours ago, Poz50something said:

Yeah…. I guess Silk and Diamond, aka Polyester and cubic zirconia have got their fingers on the pulse of black society. 

About as much as Joy Reid and Van Jones do 🤣

37 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Obama urged black voters to vote for Harris. Over 80% of them did. Yes, that's down from Biden in 2020, but it's still a trickle of a change. Won't have "any sort o [sic] influence or sway"? Mary please. 

He has no sway. Those numbers are going down, and will only decrease as the boomers die out. He cannot galvanize people to the polls anymore.

1 hour ago, stillbreedin said:

the obamas have a whole lot of activities. they are hardly done

And those activities won’t include having any sort o influence or sway in the black community. A community who was once his most loyal constituency 

It took 10 years for the rest of the country to figure out what we knew already. Obama is done, his legacy is tarnished.   
 

Good riddance 

On 11/10/2024 at 4:39 PM, BootmanLA said:

That probably does happen, on occasion. But it's really about pointing out that 350 years of oppression - and the cumulative effects of that oppression in terms of things like generational wealth and advancement - are real things, and a bunch of snowflakes on the right thinking "he's blaming me for that". It's reached the point where one can't honestly point out that these problems existed for centuries and they're still having effects today without those fucking snowflakes screaming that you can't blame THEM for this and how DARE you think I should have to give up ANYTHING to make up for the way things are even if part of the reason those snowflakes aren't in the same boat is their ancestors benefitted from that oppression.

Nobody I know is calling for "immediately" stopping anything of the sort. Again, that's the snowflake rightwing exaggerating a position in order to attack it. Google "strawman fallacy". All the left has to do is hint that maybe, just maybe, X or Y or Z is something we should work on reducing or phasing out, and the right immediately accuses the left of wanting to rip X or Y or Z out of their hands immediately, forever, and with no compensation whatsoever.

Some burdens are rightfully the burden of the commons. The problem is that the right only wants the bare minimum of burden on themselves (ie through public levies) because they're perfectly comfortable ignoring people starving to death, freezing to death, dying of preventable diseases in the streets, etc. and don't want to have to pay a dime towards something that doesn't directly put at least 15 cents back into their own pockets.

Most bigotry IS about "natural differences among individuals". The classic example is same-sex marriage: not one straight person has to give up a single fucking thing if straight people get married. Not ONE thing. And yet they opposed it, in big numbers, for decades. That wasn't because of individualized dislike of particular individuals. It was plain old bigotry. Pretending otherwise is ignorant.

Again, the right thinks anything designed to ameliorate bad things that happened already is "punishment" for people today. They think all taxes are punishment. They think having to obey laws is punishment. It's a self-centered attitude that is hysterically hypocritical because those same people drive on publicly-financed streets and sue people in publicly-financed courts and use publicly-financed governmental agencies to vindicate what they see as their due. 

Although we rarely agree on anything political, I do agree with a lot of what said here. However, it is really hard to break down these peoples definition of woke when they are so vague.
 

The entire attack against woke is just rooted in a bunch of racists saying “we won and we’re not sharing any of it. Move on.” They are like children who can’t fully express themselves with words. 
 

And instead of just saying what they really want to say, because they know how ridiculous and indefensible that sounds, they have to come up with 100 different ways to explain it.
 

On 11/8/2024 at 11:20 PM, nanana said:

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. 

More clarification on #1 would be nice.
 

Because if I misinterpreting it wrong, that kind of sounds like people just accept their losses and move on?