And by realize that you were pretty gay, I don't mean that you just were into men and enjoyed looking at underwear ads, I mean like that you were super gay.

For me it was when I went by a gay bar and saw this guy, probably middle aged, in the parking lot in this ridiculous outfit with leather chaps with his ass hanging out, just some cod piece thing covering his dick, and a leather vest. Was like the sort of outfit you'd imagine someone putting on for some comedy movie with the most stereotypically gay leather outfit. And main thing I could think of when I saw this guy was that I wanted to get fucked silly by this guy as he called me his bitch.

Previous to that I usually felt like I was a pretty straight acting gay guy that wouldn't want to get into anything all that weird, feeling like while I may sleep with some guys that it was basically just wanting to be like hitting up a bro and having some fun, after that night I pretty much wanted to be fucked long and hard by older and/or black men that could make me feel like the only the only thing I was good for was being fucked.

If it became possible to switch orientation then I imagine becoming gay would be possible too. And given how fucked up some gender politics can be I wouldn't be surprised if some guys decided to switch to gay, because I know while I probably would have wanted to go straight when I was younger, that I've come to appreciate how fucking sweet it is being gay.

Why try sucking someone off if you don't want to swallow it?

Seems as goofy as when someone says they like to bottom even if they don't find it sexually satisfying. I mean seriously when I go down on a guy I feel like it's only right swallow that load.

I feel like it's kinda hot since it feels a bit like being trash talked which is sorta a turn on for me when a guy is fucking me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/27/alt-right-commentator-gets-schooled-historian-diversity-roman/

There was a semi-recent incident that occurred online where a guy argues, seemingly earnestly, that Mediterraneans (who I was suppose look a bit swarthy?) existing in the Roman empire refutes the criticism of the BBCs recent educational cartoon that portrays blacks being in noticeable numbers in ancient Roman Britain.

It's kinda obvious that the guy doing the 'schooling' here was essentially ignoring the elephant in the room due to wanting do engage in fallacious fact checking, since he never actually touched on how sub Saharan Africans would be existing in Roman Britain in significant numbers. But that's pretty weird in its own right to try going into some weird diatribe to declare someone wrong while never bothering to ask the simple question of "why do you think that?" which could kinda help with trying to understand that person's point of view.

McCain has been acting brain damaged for years, now he at least has an excuse.

The only real reasons McCain would have to vote no are that he hated Trump's agenda or he didn't even know what the bill was.

Hating Trump is of course the case, but I doubt that's the reason here. Since McCain had also been trying to have the bill go into conference along with a couple other senators. In other words, they wanted to debate what would be in the bill some more which of course was promised to them as the bill was going to have to go back to the House anyway. Thing is this happened over the course of a couple days and given McCain's mental state due to his tumor, he may not have remembered that he was guaranteed the bill would be going to conference as he asked.

If he couldn't remember that some questions had already been asked during a congressional hearing within an hour of his asking those questions again, then how likely is it he'd remember the deal he made about the skinny repeal bill?

The only reference to data, however vague it is, in the Psychologytoday link is:

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction.  In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children.  For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Which is just odd to treat as meaningful. Kids never have a firm grasp of what is going on in politics because they don't have the experience to understand what is at work. So who cares what the political beliefs of children are?

As far as the amygdala argument, you could say that liberals having an underdeveloped amygdala leads to them not having a proper response to threats to their environment. For instance you could argue liberals while wanting to be nice and let in refugees are ignoring a potential threat since 'refugees' have been frequently found to be sympathetic to terrorist causes in Europe. Essentially meaning they're overly naive.

When it comes to the livescience.com story suggesting that conservatives are prejudiced, I'm not actually seeing any link on the page to the study in question. Trying to search for what study this article is based on just turns up more links to the specific article so I can't see what they're actually doing, but I strongly suspect it's a tad bullshit like many 'studies' which amount to nothing more than surveys with leading questions.

I think you are likely reading more into clickbait 'news' articles than you really ought to. It's pretty easy for some writers to come up with some flamboyant headlines to grab clicks based on the most bullshit information.

Like this article from Livescience recently: Has the Large Hadron Collider Disproved the Existence of Ghosts?
http://www.livescience.com/57973-has-large-hadron-collider-disproved-existence-of-ghosts.html

How the fuck can something like that be an article? Why are you taking a site like this seriously?

Or this Psychologytoday site, which has such profound articles as "The science of clean" and "Nine signs you're really an introvert". This is about as bullshit a site as Buzzfeed for fuck's sake. These are not sites you should be using to judge people's political beliefs. These sites thrive on feeding you comforting bullshit that makes you feel better about yourself or just pisses you off, they are not aimed at making you more knowledgeable about anything.

The OP pretends that liberalism is a mental disorder, based on the opinion of a right-wing conservative pundit.

That is like asking a Nazi for their opinion of Jews, or a member of the KKK their opinion of blacks, or a right-wing conservative pundit their opinion of gays.

I don't think you're going to find many critiques of a group from the group itself. Would you expect to watch Fox News and find arguments in favor of Democrats' policies? Would you go to Salon.com to find arguments in favor of Trump? Would you go The New York Times to find non-fake news?

@tempbo:

Bowling Green. Sweden. So many victims.

OMFG it's so fun to live in the US these days…..

The thing with bowling green seemed to be referring to this: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/louisville/press-releases/2013/former-iraqi-terrorists-living-in-kentucky-sentenced-for-terrorist-activities

Two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, Kentucky who admitted using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and who attempted to send weapons and money to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) for the purpose of killing U.S. soldiers were sentenced today to serve federal prison terms by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Fox News had done a piece the day prior on the problems Sweden is dealing with in regards to immigration.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/833435244451753984

I'm not sure there's even evidence Trump said anything about an attack, that seems to have just been made up by some news outlets based on his something had been happening there.

I think this is the piece that was being referred to possibly: https://youtu.be/OSzjfAMk-RI

Also Sweden has not been doing fantastically well since they started bringing in so many 'refugees'.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22916048.ab

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-500-fick-jobb

The job situation for those immigrating to Sweden has been pretty shitty, which even has had some of those immigrating there complaining that Sweden shouldn't be accepting so many people if they don't even have jobs available.

@insex:

Now history continues, US with Trump still talking about "occupation" and sanctions, but we simply don't care, all this sanctions, only closed doors for foreign business, but open doors for our business. Our farmers pray: "do not cancel sanctions, business started to grow". About Crimea it's better to the whole world simply forget, it will be only with Russia. We like Trump only for one reason  :hug:, he doesn't want a WAR with us, cause as you saw in this 29 year-old video with ships, nothing has changed, we will fight in any case, if there will be real danger from US or other country.

I think Trump's White House's comments regarding Crimea are being exaggerated a bit regarding how meaningful they are.

He's seemed against the notion of doing more sanctions for just zero reason, with it also being a bit difficult to just immediately lift sanctions because you have mega anti-Russians like Senator McCain and much of the Democrats (since it's involved in their current narrative) that would flip their shit if Trump moved quickly on easing relations in the first couple weeks. There's also been the matter that there's a ton of employees in places like the state department that were eagerly anti-Trump and anti-Russia that seemed interested in working against him which need to be ousted first. There's been a massive amount of layoffs at the state department once Rex Tillerson got in which should probably help a bit. Some of those getting laid off even commented to reporters that this was terrible because it meant no one would be around to subvert the oval office as though that was something they were meant to be doing.

I feel like we'd be seeing more being done about improving relations if we didn't have so many lifetime bureaucrats that needed to be fired first which could only happen once the appropriate cabinet positions get confirmed.