Posts made by cteavin

@raphjd:

We saw a similar thing with the 10 demands BLM has for "the white devils".    GIVE ALL YOUR STUFF TO POCs, YOU EVIL FUCKING CUNTS WHO SHOULD DIE!!!!, CUZ RACIAL EQUALITY.

I remember back when I was active in the Gay Rights Movement (not the LGBT movement). Groups like ActUp went on Kiss Ins, going into churches and other public spaces and making out. The Gay Right's Movement was seen by most people as one and the same as Act Up. Today people who are in the LGBT movement and those that support the alphabet soup it's become are also seen as one and the same.

BLM is no different.

There are groups all over the planet who started their own chapters and what BLM means is different from group to group. (A few years ago a few students tried to start one at my school – in Japan! -- but I calmly explained why that would be a bad idea and they let it go.) Like all things, the most extreme versions get put on the news.

To be clear, I think BLM started with good intentions (I'm not saying they were correct) but quickly turned into The Blob.

@Frederick:

That is the hypocrisy of Youtube!     There has been for many years, and still is.. a REAL video on Youtube of 3 teenagers in the woods watching a small road.  They spot a man riding a bicycle on the road, and for no reason, attack him, and bash his brains in with a hammer.  They continue this on video, and you can see the man's crushed skull with a pool of blood and bubbles.. his heart is still beating.  I repeat this is a real video.  The 3 guys were convicted, and as I recall, they each got something like 8 years because they were minors.  Please don't ask for more specific details because I do NOT want to look that horrible video up again.  My point is, it is outrageous that Youtube hosts that video.

You're talking about Three Guys, One Hammer. That video has never been allowed on YouTube. People put it up, it gets taken down. It is (or was, I'm not checking) available through thebestgore.com and liveleaks.

If you ever get angry and think, I'm going to kill you, watch that video. It'll change your mind by showing you what murder actually looks like.

@raphjd:

@rapjjd, what kind of wiretaps are you talking about with Obama? He had authority via The Patriot Act, which the American people allowed to pass unless you're talking about something else.

YES, those.   As well as the other bits included in the Patriot Act and done by executive order.

Obama campaigned to end all that shit, if elected President.   Obama expanded those program far beyond anything GWB had.

Obama campaigned against No Bid contracts, except in dire emergency.  I totally agreed with him.     Turns out that was a fucking lie.  He used them for things like routine and scheduled mothballing of ships.    GWB used them for oil fires in Iraq, despite Schlumberger being the best company to do oil fires, giving the contracts to Halliburton.

The people from what I remember were against most parts of the Patriot Act, as were Obama and Clinton.

I was angry about that (the Patriot Act), too. I also turned against Obama when he had to square his religion with allowing same-sex marriage but you're missing a few things: 1) the campaign trail is different from governing; 2) the information he had during (the beginning of) his campaign about how useful tools like the P.A. was different before and after he took office; 3) he had zero experience in international politics so what he thought was doable (peace in Israel, for example) wasn't and he changed gears.

Simply put, the campaign is the war and governing is maintaining the peace.

You can't insist he was lying if he didn't know the extent of what he could do or if he had to walk a longer road to fulfil certain promises, same-sex marriage is a good example.

Obama wasn't Trumpian. Had Obama gone in on day one and pushed same-sex marriage he would have lost a lot of support because the majority of American's hadn't been sold on the idea. Look to California, a very liberal state, for a clear example. I didn't like that he pushed it aside and made a public pronouncement on how far he'd come on the issue, but in the end, he delivered. That's politics.

A lot of the language you and Fred use imply that Obama wanted to wreck the US and the world. No. He took hold of an ideology that destroys the world believing that this way was the better way. Obama and the left believe in Globalization and feel that if people are exposed to our brand of democracy through globalization that they'll come running towards it. He was and is wrong.

@raphjd:

SJWs changed the definition of various words like "racism" to include things like "power" and other things to claim that only whites can be racist, that only men can be sexist, yada, yada, yada.

BLM can block highways and refuse to let ambulances through, killing at least 1 child that we know about.   The chant about killing cops.   Their entire mantra is based in blatant lies.   This gets them invited with honors to the White House by Obama.

If non whites are getting death threats by supposed "alt-right" supporter(s), the "real news" jumps on the story immediately to demonize all whites, but especially all white men.   Once it's proven that it's a false flag by a black guy, "real news" drops the story like it never existed.

A black church being hate graffitied is immediately reported by "real news" who then go on screeching about how evil all whites, but especially all white men are.   Once it's proven that a black guy is the asshole doing the false flag, "real news" pretends like the story never existed.

Feminists, while screeching about gender equality, love to brag how perfect women are.   They love to show that not a single women in India has ever commit any form of domestic violence.   What they will refuse to tell you is that under India's laws, women CAN NOT commit any form of domestic violence.

Similar things with sex crimes, especially rape.   In the UK for example, to commit the most serious types of sex crimes, you must have a penis, even if the penis isn't used in the act.     Shove a broom handle up someone's ass against their will, it's only rape if you are male.  It's sexual assault for you are female.   The same with most other types of sex crimes.   In India, women CAN NOT commit any form of sex crime.   Israel and several other countries are similar.

Males are toxic.  Everything about being male is evil.     Nothing about being female is deemed toxic.  Everything "toxic" a female might do is solely due to toxic males.    Women are the main killers of their kids, blame men.   Mary Kay Letourneau fucked a 10yo boy and only spent 3 months in jail.  Blame males, even though it was a female judge.   MKL got out of jail and continued fucking the child.   She went back to jail for another 3 years.  AGAIN, blame penis.     MKL, by virtue of having a gash, makes her the victim not the criminal.

In Portland, during a "protest" to stop people getting to work, a woman punched a man in the face.  He punched back and suddenly she's  a protected class because she has a vag.    She and her cucks demand that the man who hit her back be arrested because she has a vag and you never hit a woman.    The kick in the cunt, in all this, is the bitch does feminism videos talking about how women are equal to men.

If the leftist on this site do respond, we will get to see some of the total fucking insanity of the left to justify this crap.

I'm not a leftist but I'll respond.

Half of what you wrote here comes from another thread. To understand why you hate Obama I did some reading, including Article IX and the "Dear Colleague" letter(s) that seems to be the precursor to what we now call the SJW movement. Also, The Atlantic has a (dense) three-part series on the negative effects of the Obama era policies.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

What sits on either side of this fault is how much power a federal government can use to make people at the state, local, and individual levels comply. These are questions like, 'Can the EU force a local English village to take in refugees?' and 'Should the US Federal Government set up policies about campus rape?'.

What you're doing here, and in that other thread, is taking outlier cases and propping them us as if they're the norm. I totally get what you're trying to say and the broad strokes I agree (redefining racism to exclude white people) but the devil is in the details and what you see depends on who's drawing the picture for you.

I think most of what you wrote isn't about SJW's but a media that has a clear agenda. Since the rise of the 24/7 news cycle, news companies have been turning journalism more and more into (fictional) narrative. To that, the rise of WWW, social media, and cell phones with cameras so that each and every one of us can be – and sometimes try to be -- reporters, each of us with our own agenda.

Trump calls it fake news, I call it bias.

Take the media out of it for now. Is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to issue guidance on how to deal with sexual violence on campus? How about issuing guidance on how to handle harassment on campus? Integrate minorities?

It seems to me that after Obama's administration (he didn't write the guidance) got involved at the local level schools overcorrected and the minority students felt (over) empowered and went out for revenge. The schools should have remained impartial but the teachers had their own agenda that were in line with how they interpreted the guidance.

I, personally, think there's a time and place for everything and it's college, so I have no problem with minority groups staging demonstrations but it has always been the responsibility of the schools to make sure the students don't overstep and because universities have become politicized, they're not doing this.

BTW, I never did find any information on rape being a male to woman only thing. Everything I could find (in the US) says that the Obama regulations actually redefined rape so that it wasn't just penis and vagina. Coincidentally, since then there has been a rise in the number of women being convicted of molestation. The penalties might not be as strict but there's still a social bias that 1) the boys were lucky and/or 2) that it's not as bad. That's thinking that is (slowly) changing. So I'd like to see what you're quoting from.

@Frederick:

Often on Chaturbate…

Really Fred, quiet the expert, eh?  ::)

The ass isn't a deal breaker. Hair on the back, shoulders, upper arms, to me, that is what makes me do a double take. Ear hair? They better groom. Protruding nose hair? Nasty. Hairy fingers? Time for Nair.

Normally I'd post a blog post on this but I've been terribly lazy with it so I'll rave her for a bit.

This afternoon I took out a bag of sorghum in my pantry. The package had a recipe for popped sorghum, so I gave it a shot. OMG, it was delicious and didn't stick between my teeth like popcorn.

I immediately took out several other bags of grain and repeated the process. Everything worked.

The process is simple.

Take a pot with a lid (You'll only need a lid for sorghum and buckwheat in my experience) and put it over a high heat for about two minutes. Add 1/4 - 1/2 cup (depending on the size of your pot) of a grain and swirl the pot over the flame. It'll start to crackle within a couple of minutes. When the crackling slows down, pour it into a bowl.

I was surprised how tasty these turned out. I popped a bunch to use as breakfast cereal tomorrow, a great oil-free version of granola. Only the sorghum and buckwheat popped in such a way that they resembled popcorn but everything else popped to create a crunchy treat.

What I popped were

Sorghum,
Brown rice,
Amarrthy,
Buckwheat,
Wheat berries,
Quinoa.

I'm going to try rye and whole oats tomorrow.

Pop away!

Piano Concerto No. 23 – Mozart
O0

Clearing my feet?  :afr: Must be a Chinese thing. If you mean clean my feet or cut my toenails, that kind of thing, nope. I'm always well manicured.  ;D

You should buy some Hue Lighting (or some other kind of mood lighting).

http://www2.meethue.com/en-us

Euro, you can go to more places.

Tokyo or Paris?

Nope. I don't own a watch. I only use my iPhone.

TPBM likes classical music.

@warpaint:

Guys… I never thought I would create such a stupid topic. But how do you feel about sizes.

So if I loose an arm during a war or just a finger or have acne, then he would leave me because of my appearance? How many of you focus on the dick? Cause I take in an account actually everything BUT it.

It's not a dumb topic.

A little prolog, gay men when I was coming out were obsessed with sex and had too few places for release. There was comparatively little pornography to todays supersaturation and nowhere near the knowledge of what you could do sexually.

When I came out my first bf was way too big for me and since we didn't know what we were doing, sex was awful but when I gossipped with my friends they were all envious: a man with a big dick was what you wanted, so that idea got wedged into my mind.

Sometime later I dated a guy with, no joke, about 1.5 - 2-inch penis. It freaked me out. We had sex but I ghosted him later.

Now that I'm older and understand where sex fits into a relationship and know what I'm doing in bed, penis size isn't so important.

I guess what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is that for many men there's a learning curve where you think you know what you want, you think you know what sex means, then you grow up and put things into perspective. Of course, there are people who never mature past a certain point and others who need a longer penis to be able to reach inside. For me, not such a big deal.

@flozen:

@cteavin:

Personally, I'd chose a beautiful man over a qualified woman if I had the choice in hiring. And I prefer doing school counselings with our handsome students more than the, um, average ones. It doesn't mean I'm unfair to other people.

Love ya, dude, but choosing to hire a handsome man over a (you're inferring, "more") qualified woman is a textbook example of unfairness to the latter.

Separately, I've seen a level of integrity in your collected posts to believe that while you may enjoy counseling better-looking students more, you also take care of those Plain Janes.  You're one relentlessly candid SOB!   :pleasant:

"Candid SOB", I like it. I might have one of my kids make a mug with that on it for me.  ;D

Textbook case, is it? No. Everyone has attributes, skills, qualifications. While in my hypothetical company I might choose the better-looking employee (think Chris Hemsworth in Ghostbusters) if I didn't have staff on hand able to run my business and a good product, my decisions would lead me to fail. If so, that would be my punishment for my choices.

Let me say that a different way, Chris Hemsworth could add more value as an employee by nature of being extremely good looking and charismatic than a veteran manager. The choice is mine to make and the success or failure is mine to bear.

Your concept of fairness means my choices have to follow your principles. As an aesthete, I firmly hold to my own. 

And yes, I love all my babies equally. Actually, my school is has a 75/25 female/male split. This year I was just a little disappointed that my homeroom was all girls.  ::)

@Frederick:

I don't think Obama was any "anti-christ", but I think OBAMA believed he was the anti-christ.  Obama seemed to do everything possible to bring the USA down and help the muslim nations out.   Obama gutted the military, pretty much shut NASA down, tried to bankrupt the country with healthcare that was impossible to fund,  doubled the national debt, tried to shut down the coal, oil, and nuclear industries, tried to bankrupt the country and make retirees money worthless by raising the minimum wage to $15/hour,  destroyed all the good relationships we had with other countries, etc.

I have to do some reading before I can have an opinion on what raphjd wrote.

But a few of the things you added to the list are unfair.

Obama had no choice but to raise the national debt because he inherited the post-Lehman economy. And unless you're a professional economist we can set this aside because there's no use arguing about it.

"Tried to bankrupt the country" is false rhetoric.

And his goal with the Muslims was to find peace in Israel. Had he held to his original word, I don't know what would have happened. I'm assuming he found out global politics is more difficult than he imagined. Some of the resulting policies that came out of those initial ideas in his first year, like increasing immigration and refugee numbers from Muslim majority countries, I strongly disagree with though I understand he was trying to help and he was approaching the problem from a globalist mindset.

@Frederick:

I have another story about Japan and marijuana.  Roughly 30 years ago, singer Morten Harket of norwegian group a-ha was having a birthday party in Los Angeles (Morten was married at the time with a boy.. but he is bi and spent almost no time with his wife).  Anyway, Morten's boyfriend got nabbed in the airport in Japan with marijuana, resulting in Morten flying to Japan to bail him out for roughly $35,000 USD.  That was a bit embarrassing for Morten.  Years later, Morten got caught again, this time with the lead singer of Aqua named "Lene".  They got in a motorcycle accident in which Lene was riding on back.. exposing their affair.  That resulted in a very expensive divorce for Morten, and also being dumped by Lene who said Morten was too old for her.

That doesn't read true.

If you're caught with a drug in Japan it's automatic jail. There is no bail for that. To double check what I've heard, I went online and read through a few people's stories with drugs and they all read the same: Forced confession, jail time, deportation. And if you were dealing, a thousand times worse.

Don't know where you got such info about the A-ha guy, but didn't see anything about it online.

IMO the drug laws here are still too lenient. I like the Indonesian/Malay execution as punishment. IMO, that gets it right.

If you wanna discuss the death penalty, set up a thread on it.

@Frederick:

@cteavin:

Thoughts?

Youtube Video

That you know that song endears you to me.  :hug2:

But to topic, change the wording to what I wrote just a bit and we get:

1. S/He was underage drinking in a country where alcohol is forbidden.

2. He touched a woman/man on the hip – who decided to bring the police into the situation isn't stated.

3. He's already been condemned by the people.

@Frederick:

I'm no expert.. but my understanding is that Japan is a pretty good place now.. although their police are a bit harsh (just ask Paul McCartney).
China  is a land of hypocrisy.  China is fine to the OUTSIDE world.. but it's no fun being a citizen of China..   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_JSBVsL_s

There is no redemption culture here. You make a mistake, you're done, especially when you're a celebrity as you have an influence on people.

McCartney was bused on marijuana possession. Good on Japan for keeping him out. Once you start making exceptions then everyone becomes an exception.

There's a famous duo named Chage and Asuka here. One was caught with some kind of stimulant drug. He lost everything. He will never make a comeback and he'll most certainly be spending more time in prison.

The most famous comedic duo in Japan, one member was caught sneaking into a high school to steal a girls uniform and was caught. It was discovered he'd been doing this successfully for years. He lost everything as well and I'm pretty sure is still in prison.

Celebrities have a responsibility as young people mirror them.

As to China's death penalty, America executes far too few. We have rookie numbers and should get them up to where China's are. There's too much garbage in jails and prisons that needs to be cleared up, so China's looking pretty good to me by way of your example.

Oddly, someone pulled up a comment I made last year on Facebook about being sexually harassed in The Sports Connection (a gay gym in WeHo) and said I was against it because I must not have gotten any attention.

Quite the opposite.

I have such mixed feelings on this issue… I can't be the only one, so let's have a conversation about it.

By today's standards as to what constitutes rape (which I do not agree with) I have been raped multiple times. I said no. They persisted. I said no again lather, rinse, repeat -- and he's in my ass. (On an aside, this happens a lot in Asian culture, especially here in Japan.) With each one of my (ahem) rapes, I could have easily fought them off. Had I turned violent, no doubt in my mind it would have ended. To call what happened rape is an insult to people who are held down and beaten into submission they can't easily get away from.

At the same time, the meaning of being sexually accosted takes its impact from how people around us feel about it. When I was fresh meat in WeHo clubs, being touched was normal, something you laughed about later with your friends like, "did you see that troll grabbing my ass – like if ever...".

I refuse to be told I'm a victim because someone acted inappropriately towards me. I will not do it. I think this attitude has disempowered people. When someone does something you don't like, just tell them. Twice or three times if need be. That was the learning curve when I came out in the late 80's early 90's.

On the other hand, I do understand the fuss. I don't want people jerking off to me (or near me) in the sauna. I don't care if it's in the gay part of town and you're aroused, put it away and take it to the showers – or home.

Yeah, honestly I haven't firmly sorted out how I feel about this, so discussion is appreciated.

Here's the article Flozen posted elsewhere that got me thinking about it.

https://www.gmfa.org.uk/fs162-consent-and-the-gay-community

@Icc:

Why not?

You want to quaranteen Trump and his supporters.

Or call people names like nazi because its the same thing.

Actually, he has a point. Your wording deliberately puts POTUS and Price (two Prices?) under the moniker Nazi and that is a volatile comparison to make. If you have a point you should be able to make it without name calling.

I'm not interested in the article, I'm just saying you could do better

@Frederick:

I thought that in Japan, when something goes wrong, the person in charge is expected to commit hari kari, resign, or at least take full responsibility for it.

Up until the WWII, and a bit after as the mentality took a while to die, for example, when a newly built ship was being launched the manager of that project stood by with a ceremonial knife in tow. If the ship were to sink, he would commit ritual suicide.

It's important to understand how romanticised suicide was in those days to understand the why.

In the modern era, when something goes wrong no one looks for a person to blame. People come together to fix the problem. Later, they look at the whole. It's never a question of X did it. It is the case that X was part of a team and A, B, C for some reason didn't catch said mistake and D, E, and F managers missed something, so how can we repair this. This is why Japanese quality is said to be high. (The person who directly causes a mistake will absolutely apologize, publically and often individually. In Japanese one never gives an excuse or explains why the mistake happened. That is seen as diffusing responsibility.)

On the state level, when a politician is caught in a scandal they step down. They accept responsibility for their actions and understand that they wear the face of the party. This is why there have been so many Prime Ministers in Japan over the past few decades. The opposition party recently tried to embroil Abe in a scandal and, in a rare case, Abe stood up and fought it, keeping his position in order to push his policies forward.

@aadam101:

But Trump has said more than that.

He went on Stern and talked about walking in on underage girls as they were getting dressed and bragging that he was allowed to do it because he owned the pageant.

I saw a video the other day from about 10 years ago where he bragged about hiring a woman with no qualifications simply because she was beautiful.  It wasn't just a throw away comment.  It was quite a long story.

Then there is my personal favorite and the one I really felt should have made him lose the election where he sexxualizes his one year old daughter Tiffany.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-comments-1-year-old-daughter-breasts-article-1.2591961

This ties into that other comment I made elsewhere: The intent and culture way back in 1994 were different from today. You can't apply the social mores of today to judge a person for what they said almost 25 years ago.

He didn't sexualize his daughter. He was making a joke, a joke that was appropriate for his persona and reflected the time. You might not like it, especially today, but people pulled this out of the files to make a political point against Trump. That is unfair. Again, if you don't like a person anything they do will piss you off: "look at the bitch over there, eating crackers like he owns the place"; "look at that asshole over there, sexualizing women like he owns the pageant".

The other comments are similar, they are his brand.

Personally, I'd chose a beautiful man over a qualified woman if I had the choice in hiring. And I prefer doing school counselings with our handsome students more than the, um, average ones. It doesn't mean I'm unfair to other people. Most human beings enjoy attractive people. To deny that is to pushing an agenda.