Posts made by grevmo

@ilikeolder5:

mmm older men

Sometimes i would like them to have b & w as well as colour so you can choose which you want to look at

If you color it, you can stare at it while you add the color, and then you'll have both.

@bob5678:

Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.

Uh, no.

I'm sticking to my guns on what I was saying throughout September and October of 2016: No matter whether Clinton or Trump wins, the American people will lose. And while I can't provide evidence that we would have lost under Hillary, I can certainly point to evidence that with Trump, We The People are losing.

Even with the Syrian action: I approve that Trump listened to the American people and took action (he stated a few days ago that he had no intention of responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons; it's an internal matter and their problem - but the American people cried out and he changed his mind, and bombed an air field), but I strongly disapprove that he called a Syrian government ally to affirm his action before he took it, and that his so-called attack was as impotent as a 110-year-old man who's never heard of Viagra. The airport was up and running the next day, so all we did was waste 59 rather expensive missiles, and reinforced Daesh's view of American incompetence.

@Frederick:

How did I do for my first political post?   :crazy2:

As a moderate conservative, debate judge, and former debate coach, my answer to this question is: if this is the way you present your arguments, you would never pick up one of my ballots. Your facts need evidence. You call opinions facts. And you speak with such a heavy bias that even your facts are so far bent as to be unusable as arguments. I would even go so far as to say, with an argument like this, you'd never make it past prelims. Allow me to elucidate…

If anybody is a liberal.. I will either convert them to being at least moderate and perhaps republican or conservative…
or their heads will explode from the pressure of me stirring up all the shit that is in their liberal skulls.

Well, first, you need to establish a valid argument. And in order to do that, you should not be coming in with your guns blazing. You should be coming in to have a conversation, but this statement, along with your opening salvo that you want to "expose how awful and vile the liberals are" immediately weakens your argument. You need to separate yourself from the argument, and make it just a series of statements, not a slanderously biased rant.

I will dig up my comments from months ago.. and have new ones.   In fact, I rarely offer my OPINIONS, I stick to facts, which drives people NUTS.

I've seen conservatives get just as angry when they are argued against. But no, you did not stick to facts.

I would also like to set up the definition of fact, against which I will be analyzing your case. A fact is "a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article." As such, it may be true (the more common definition of fact being "a thing that is indisputably the case"), or false. In short, a fact is a piece of data. Believe me when I say, this definition is more generous to you, because I won't be requiring your data to be true, in order to accept that it is a fact. But I will point out when it is not.

I don't yet know where I should begin… The most recent travesty affected me personally.

Calling something a travesty makes it an opinion. And while opinions are necessary to persuasive argument, you can't say you leave opinions out, and then begin with a statement like that, and expect people to belive you throughout. You're setting yourself up for failure.

I commented on Democratic Representative Adam Shiff's Facebook page.

Because this is testimonial, it must be accepted as fact.

I chastised him for attacking Trump constantly.

That you chastized him is a testimonial fact.
That you believe he "constantly" attacks Trump is an opinion.

I reminded him that during a CAMPAIGN it is fair to attack a CANDIDATE.

This is a fact, though it borders on opinion because it is hard to concretely define what is "fair."

but after an election, it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.

This is a fact, but it is false. The sedition act, which made it illegal to criticize the president during war time, was passed in 1918 and repealed in 1921. And while the Supreme Court at the time upheld the act, it is very likely that today's justices would not rule in its favor, based on more recent decisions.

After the election, politics need to end, so that the process of actual governing can begin.

While I agree wholeheartedly, this is an opinion.

In other countries, attacking the leader would get one put in prison, or even shot.

This is a fact, but it does not work in your favor. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is where it is, because the founding fathers believed it protected our most sacred rights: freedom of religion, speech, and peacable assembly, or to petition the government for redress of grievances. Other than the articles themselves, which establish the government, no other law is higher than the first amendment. No presidential order, no congressional legislation, no court decision, not even the other amendments, may supercede the First. It is our most sacred law. The founding fathers placed it so because they had seen too many of their countrymen fined, arrested, beaten, and even killed because they spoke out against King George, Parliament, the colonial governors, or even the Lord Mayors or military leaders of the British Empire. We in the US preserve and protect the right to speak out against the government. In fact, it is not just a right, but it is our duty as members of a republic to not only share what we believe with regards to the government, but to inform the representatives themselves what we believe of their work, whether they should continue to do as they have, or change their behavior. And it is the duty of the media to report what the government is doing, especially in times of scandal, so that the people are rightfully informed and can develop intelligent opinions. It is what makes a republic work! To silence the media or the people is to cripple the republic, and to take the power out of the hands of the people where it rightfully belongs. As Albert Einstein said, "the state is for the people, not the people for the state."

Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and  to some degree the other Royals).  To do so is a crime.

This fact, again, works against your thesis. Not only does the US protect speech as a sacred right, but the founding fathers so firmly believed in the right to speak out against the government that it is a large part of why it is unconstitutional for any US Citizen to hold a title of nobility (article 1 section 9). Any American who has been benighted by the Queen only holds an honorary title. The founding fathers firmly believed that no human being was above reproach, and therefore none should be so far above the law that they could not be reproached.

It is ironic that decades ago, there were fairly credible news programs.

This is an opinion.

In fact, believe it or not, CNN used to be the most credible news outlet in the world!

Without evidence, this is an opinion. The evidence needed: when was it so. According to what source was CNN demonstrated to be so credible?

Now it is fake news, the Clinton News Network of liberal propaganda, and frankly equivalent to a terrorist organization.

This is an opinion, and a strongly biased one at that.

Instead of REPORTING the news, they do little more than fan the flames of anarchy and anti-US sentiments.

This is also a strongly biased opinion.

Again, decades ago, there were credible news programs,

This needs evidence to be a fact.

and then came along programs that parodied the real news such as John Stewart's "Daily Show".

This is acceptably a fact. "The Daily Show" was intended to be comedy, and yes, it did at once point begin to exist.

That show began as being a funny comedy.

Fact.

but then people started preferring to watch the parodies of news (fake news) to real news.

I would say this needs evidence, but the use of what has become a propaganda term, "fake news", makes it opinion.

Most mainstream news media are now a group of ignorant, nihilistic talking heads.

This is an opinion.

I went on to point out that Adam Schiff and his liberal cronies don't care about the welfare of the USA.

This is neither fact nor opinion; it is speculation.

but instead care about covering their own asses, and pandering to the liberal populaces

Speculation.

to keep their worthless asses

Opinion.

in power sitting on a soft leather chair in the halls of Congress.

Speculation.

So much for the first paragraph. Onward! ====================================================================

Does my comment sound reasonable?

Not really, no.

It didn't to Adam Schiff and Facebook.

Speculation. Yes, your account was closed; but you do not know that it was Schiff who did it. It could have been based on a complaint by any user who was offended by your words, or just wanted to silence you. (Which, by the way, appears to be what you hope to do to Schiff. Hence, why I think your statement does not sound reasonable; you seem to be asking to do exactly what you are complaining they did to you.)

The very next day after posting that, my facebook account that I  had for 10 years was not just suspended, but permanently disabled with no warning, no explanation, and no opportunity to refute or appeal the punishment.

As a testimonial, I cannot refute this as fact.

I can't even access my OWN comments from that account, to retrieve 10 years of comments and posts and my friends list.

Testimonial fact.

Talk about censorship!

Opinion, unless you have a court ruling declaring it as such.

The way Facebook works now is.. if you dare to say anything that means anything.. you are risking having your account permanently terminated!

Opinion. While there is truth beneath this statement, it is hyperbolically exaggerated.

All facebook wants is all your email addresses, phone numbers, real names, family members names, photos, addresses, cell phone numbers, work history, hobbies..

Speculative, but it's more likely to be false than true. Facebook's primary duty is to the owners of it's more than 20 million shares of stock. It's goal is to make money for them. But facebook does not make money through it's account holders; you are actually its product! Facebook sells you, the user, to its real money makers: advertisers! That's right, you and I and our accounts are the things sitting on the shelves in the Facebook store, to be picked up and sold to its customers, the people placing suggested posts and memetic virii on your wall, and yes, even harvesting general use data from your account. The advertisers are Facebook's end users. We are merely the resource which it uses to make that money. And so, just like in the produce section at the grocery, if the customer finds something which they believe to be rotten, Facebook will dutifully expel it from the sales floor. And that means, if a customer finds your posts to be too politically charged, or too offensive, then yes, they will use the influence of their banking accounts to have Facebook shut you down.

and they DO even sometimes ask for social security numbers as a form of identification

Is this anecdotal? Has this happened to you, or is it hearsay?

(which is a felony).

This is a fact, but it is generally false. Federal Law only says that certain agencies may not require your SSN in order to do business. State agencies must disclose whether it is required or not, and why it is required. Private agencies are not so restricted, at the federal level. Of course, you are required to disclose your SSN when startiong a financial action or making some other action to be reported to the IRS, such as begining a new employment. Some states make it illegal to request your SSN, but not all.

They are like the NSA which collects data on people.

Opinion.

Facebook they directly or indirectly supplies this information to anybody who will pay for it, including telemarketers, advertisers, government, information services that sell your information for big $$$, etc.

As I said above, those are Facebook's end users. You are the product they are selling. It is up to you to decide whether you want to continue to be said product, or to close your account. No one is forcing you to be a Facebook account holder.

This is not my opinion, it is a fact, because I get phone calls and snail mail in my post box addressed to names that I only use on Facebook.

Yes, but it does not support your case.

By the way, name one other social networking site OTHER than Facebook which requires one to provide real names, phone numbers, etc.

Google Plus, unless they've changed their initial opinion. There was quite the stink about it, in their early years. (And by the way, I am not using my real name on Facebook, and there is no penalty being meted against me. Facebook does not have my phone number. And my attached email uses yet another alias.)

There isn't one.

I just disproved this fact.

That is absurd for many reasons.

Opinion.

one reason is if you have a common name such as "John Smith"  or "Jose Menendez" there is little chance that anybody could ever find you on Facebook.

This is a fact.

Also, if you had a name such as "Englebert Kleppers" then you have no anonymity at all.

This is also a fact.

In the past, I used to tell people that they were crazy to ever give out their real names, real phone numbers, real addresses, where they work, and pictures of their families.

As a testimonial, this is a fact. And again, I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion you used to share, but it remains an opinion.

That opens the door to all sorts of disasters such as past relationships coming back to haunt the person..

This is a fact.

people in the workplace interfering with one's family life,

Or losing jobs; I actually lost a job because of social media - and not Facebook.

children being put in jeopardy from enemies of their parents, blackmail, impersonation, identity theft, etc.

This is a fact.

And thus ends your second paragraph. ====================================================================

So there you have it, why I, as a debate judge, would not vote in favor of your case, torn down to the micro level. And again, remember that I am a conservative, so I actually lean towards your opinion of liberals. However, I find myself pushing more and more to the center as I see that conservatives are really much the same.

So let me close with this: was there a point to your statement, other than to decry liberals as infectuous pustules, begging to be lanced and sanitzied? Because if that's all it was, then there really is no value to your thesis in the first place. All you're doing is essentially sticking out your tongue at liberals and saying, "Nyah, nyah, poo on you!" There's nothing you're really persuading towards, no point which you wish anyone to believe which isn't already widely held ("Censorship is bad!"), to which you can actually persuade anyone. There simply is no such thing as widespread persuasion to convince someone that their political beliefs are bad and must be abandoned, short of persecution and criminalization, such as has been done by the worst dictators in history, and that is more a persuasion of action, not a persuasion of belief. If anything, it drives those opponents further into their beliefs as they now see the opposition to which they are to be driven as evil and oppressive.

@vanyel875:

The tear of my fallen enemies.

My hat's off to you, sir!

(Me, I wash my white socks along with other white clothes and any color of towels in cold water with a healthy portion of bleach. My black socks go in with the colored fabrics and get hot water to help sterilize, since I can't use bleach in there.)

Sex is an act of incredibly intimate communication. I like to talk, moan, grunt, and even laugh. If you can't laugh while you're having sex, you're putting too much psychological pressure on the act. So I like vocal sex, but not in the sense of grunting and screaming, as much as communicating with my partner. I enjoy mild dirty talk (I don't go in for slave/master conversation), and I've found that a noisy orgasm is usually more pleasurable, just knowing that you're free to make noise. But I also don't believe that shaking the walls is a good idea. Same as above, I don't want to be a jerk to my neighbors. Or my unscrupulous roommate who loves to have super noisy sex with his girlfriend. All. The. Damn. Time!  But if no one is around to hear it, yes, I do like sex when it makes noise.

It's different for every person. Some people just aren't wired to be able to bottom. I have enjoyed doing so in the past, but then follow up with nasty prolapsed hemorrhoids (a quarter sized, super tender lump hanging out of my hole, making it hard to do normal bathroom functions or to clean up after such), making it not worth it to me. I'll have issues if I even use a narrow toy, so I just avoid it. And deal with the people who say "everyone's verse; there's no such thing as all top or all bottom," with a polite explanation, and watch their face twist in horror. It's quite amusing.

But lest I scare you away, for other people, they eventually get used to it and find it extremely enjoyable. And then there are others who never feel the pain in the first place. (Lucky guys, those.) There are some guys who can take a real dick but not a toy, too. And of course, there are the kinky guys who get off on the pain itself. Your mileage is going to vary.

The attached image says it all.

I hope I have this in the right forum…

I have been wondering for a while whether there are any good videos that are heavy on the nipple play - not torture, just good massage, light pinching, licking, nibbling, as it's one of my favorite activities. I just uploaded a video with some decent play (and also some good pit licking, too), but if you view it you can see that even there, it's pretty sparse. But I love nipple play of all sorts, and would love to see a couple guys really getting into it as one of the main features of their foreplay, and not merely something for transitions as the guy moves his head around.

Any recommendations?

Forgive the thread necromancy, please. I got a pair of the Mr. S. Leather tit suckers, and have used them a few times already. I gotta say, I love the sensation! Not only do I stay hard the entire time I've got them on, no matter what else I'm doing (I'll do some "nipple therapy" and just apply them, then sit back and read a book or some other relaxing activity), but I'm more sensitive and my nips stay hard for hours afterwards. It's truly a wonderful experience, and I've played with a couple friends with whom the nipple play was a lot more fun after using them, too! Definitely a worthwhile investment, even if the change doesn't turn out to be permanent, I can use them again and again, so it's all good.

I think that photographer one is the hottest story yet, even though I'm not into watersports at all.

Anyway, near my last apartment, there was a huge wilderness preserve/hiking park set aside. I'd heard that it was a cruising area, but never had the guts to check it out until I had moved to within walking distance. Then, I'd pretty much spend my afternoons there from spring until fall, whenever I had it off. I wouldn't always hook up, sometimes I just liked to walk or enjoy the sunshine, or swim at the confluence where the warm, slow-moving creek poured into the fast, cold river. But I digress.

There are two scenarios I was in that felt the most like a porn event.

In the first, there's a spot in the cruising area with a tree that has bent over on its side. Most guys use it as a bench, but it's actually quite comfortable to just lay on, as the bark has been warn smooth. One day, I took my shirt off and stretched out, and waited. As guys came by, I'd either blow them, or jack them off and invite them to cum on my chest. I was hoping to gather multiple guys at once and turn it into a bukkake scene, but there is too much paranoia that such a gathering would attract unwanted attention from local law enforcement (they almost never patrol, but one must always be watching). In the span of about ninety minutes, I did manage to get five different guys to spray my chest, though. It was super hot.

The other one happened in fall, when the leaves are falling and the park empties out of not just cruisers, but also those going to enjoy the beach, sunshine, and water, too. It's a great time to just go for a walk, and when there aren't lots of people around, there's plenty of wild animals to observe, too; mammals, birds, reptiles, and lots and lots of dragonflies! But this day, I wasn't really interested in all of that, I wanted to meet someone.

After patrolling for a while, and dodging out of site of a couple guys who didn't strike my fancy (hey, if I'm cruising, I reserve the right to be shapeist/ageist - you have to strike my fancy enough to get me hard!), this attractive guy, maybe late twenties, came by. He was dressed pretty warm, but he was also walking three small dogs. Animals usually mean "don't mess with me, I just like the trail." So I continued past him, and greeted him politely. I watched as he went past, and he looked over his shoulder at me about five times in the next twenty feet. How could I resist that?! So I switched directions and began to follow him, staying a good fifty feet back, so I didn't look like a stalker.

He continued to look over his shoulder at me, smiling each time. But he was also still moving. Finally, he got to where he was going, a spot where, even with leaves down, the shrubbery was thick enough that it was hard to see through them. Made sense to me. I saw him duck down the trail to the right into said spot, and I went around the trail to the left, which went down to the creek, then came up from the bank to where he had just ducked in. Sure enough, he grinned broadly as I came up. He'd tied the dogs' leashes to a stump and was already jacking off. Just like in the pornos, I just walked up, took his dick in my own hand, and we began to make out. He was an incredible kisser, and found all of my best spots right away. We made out for a good while, not caring that one of the ugly guys I had ignored earlier was watching from nearby, hovering back and forth, hoping to get sloppy seconds.

As we kissed, he opened my pants and put his hand inside, pulling out my hard meat, and making impressed noises. Mind you, he was a bit bigger, but I guess he was tired of the smaller guys around the area, and was glad to find someone close to his proportions. It only took him a few seconds before he tasted me. Now, when I'm really turned on, I won't last very long at all in someone's mouth, so before I came, I pulled him up for more kissing, then switched. He proved to have much better endurance. When I stood up to give my knees a break, we both peeled off our shirts, hanging them in the branches. It was cold, but we were keeping each other plenty warm. He admired my hairy chest, sliding his fingers through it, and I ran my hands all over his smooth, toned body as we kissed more.

Eventually my hunger for his cock surpassed my sore knees, and I went down again. His pre was flowing and I savored its taste as much as the light musk he had developed by mid day. Thus turned on, I didn't notice that one of the dogs, the dachsund, had come over and was sniffing at me, until I felt it licking at the pre dripping from my own dick. I started to laugh, and didn't really care, but my new friend was mortified and pushed the dog away with his foot, apologizing profusely.

Before long we were making out again - he really was an excellent kisser, and he seemed to think the same of me, because the kissing was passionate and long - and then I found myself jacking furiously and sprayed the forest floor, along with my shoes, with the fruit of our mutual labor. The dogs began to lick it up, and I was going to finish him off when his phone rang. He answered, and it turned out that he had to go. We both dressed hurriedly, and I waved him off, sorry that I didn't get to return the favor, but not surprised, as few guys who cruise there stick around after the first cum shot. At least this time, he had a real reason to go. We shook hands, and he headed his dogs out, while I deliberately walked in the direction away from our audience, leaving him no hope for seconds.

That's about the hottest scene I've ever had down there.

When I was a kid, I'd just pull up the band of my underwear and wipe it down, until my dad commented once in front of people that he'd seen the stains that made.

These days, I have three ratty old shirts that have become holey and are no good for wearing, that I keep close at hand (ha!) for the purpose.

@jazzmale29:

greymo, I see someone mentioned using a shower head that is on a hose, but that can not be inserted into the anal cavity. Nowhere have I seen any mention of a "shower shot" persay

Yes. I was saying that now that you've mentioned it, it's been mentioned. I was trying to pull your leg a bit. Someone always has to be the first, in this case, you, and we are still on the first page, after all.

That's funny. 'Cause when I arrived to read this thread, I found that one person has mentioned the Shower Shot… 

"SEAGULLS! (Stop it Now)"

Youtube Video

Oops, noob mistake. Uploaded the pics wrong.

Gotta add to my list. I just learned from elsewhere on this forum about Nixon. Oh, fuck, if I could zap myself into his scenes! I'm a strict top, but I'd let him have his way with me!

As hot as he is? I honestly don't care. Just want to see him in action!

ED: He receives from Manny in this one: https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=7428ffb455621cb0c8ee220048d8909fd56c9d3867f3221a

Ed2: Looks like he'll receive, but not give. I bet it's a personal choice. Also, thanks for turning me on to this hottie!

A question… some of the pictures of guys using Mr S. Leather's tit suckers have massive aureolas, too (see attached). Does the aureola increase with attention to the nipple, too, or are those just lucky guys?

As for shopping, for others looking for them, you can find them here, along with a demo video:
Small version:
https://www.mr-s-leather.com/TT207/screwz-small.html
Large version:
https://www.mr-s-leather.com/TT209/screwz-large.html

Yummy! I gotta invest in a pair of these.

@2222:

@grevmo:

Would someone kindly help a noob out? How does one embed thumbnail pictures below the post? :blink:

When you post a new topic, you'll find "+Additional Options…" in the right corner below the white box. Click it and you'll find the option to upload your picture.

Thanks for the tip! Let me see if I get this right…

@humandoormat:

jonathan miranda

will braun

Like the glasses, do ya?  :cool2:

Would someone kindly help a noob out? How does one embed thumbnail pictures below the post? :blink: