Faux Debate: anyone watching?

[slimvintage]

It's now 3:45 in the morning here in the weary old world, and surprise, surprise, Faux News is asking its "adversaries" in the great GOP Debate a lot of ho-hum, softball questions, weary old conservative talking points designed to give highly mediocre candidates a chance to trot out their weary old conservative ideas. Who WERE those people who sent in those mind-numbing, irrelevant questions?

I'm going back to bed.

 

[tampa24]

You really didn't expect them to ask any hardball questions on Faux "News", did you? They only ask the tougher questions of liberals or other "enemies". The Republican debates vacillate between making me angry or sleepy. They seem to have no other platform right now other than to be against Obama, against his health care bill, against raising any taxes at all, against the sad state of the economy, against "Big government", (did I mention?) against any tax increases at all, against Medicare and Social Security...yet never for present retirees who vote...only for the younger people who are the ones paying into the system.

When you ask them what they are in FAVOR of (besides getting Obama out of the White House) they are ideologically bankrupt. Yet nobody will say that the emperor has no clothes. You get platitudes and stale talking points about "family values", self reliance, a strong military (Did I mention no tax increases to pay for it?), limited government, looking out for the "job creators" (Alias: The wealthy) and the like. They are for tough immigrations policies. But not at the expense of the cheap labor that the "job creators" need to make a hefty profit. Mix in a little bit of homophobia, xenophobia and stir.

How many people really believe after 8 years of Bush, that they have realistic and pragamatic ideas for solving all the problems they try to rail against? By Republican standards this is the most mediocre slate of candidates since they gave George Dubya the nomination.

Here is a recent article by Paul Krugman about one of the recent Republican debates that I found rather enlightening:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1191963.ece

 

[slimvintage]

You really didn't expect them to ask any hardball questions on Faux "News", did you? They only ask the tougher questions of liberals or other "enemies". The Republican debates vacillate between making me angry or sleepy. They seem to have no other platform right now other than to be against Obama, against his health care bill, against raising any taxes at all, against the sad state of the economy, against "Big government", (did I mention?) against any tax increases at all, against Medicare and Social Security...yet never for present retirees who vote...only for the younger people who are the ones paying into the system.

When you ask them what they are in FAVOR of (besides getting Obama out of the White House) they are ideologically bankrupt. Yet nobody will say that the emperor has no clothes. You get platitudes and stale talking points about "family values", self reliance, a strong military (Did I mention no tax increases to pay for it?), limited government, looking out for the "job creators" (Alias: The wealthy) and the like. They are for tough immigrations policies. But not at the expense of the cheap labor that the "job creators" need to make a hefty profit. Mix in a little bit of homophobia, xenophobia and stir.

How many people really believe after 8 years of Bush, that they have realistic and pragamatic ideas for solving all the problems they try to rail against? By Republican standards this is the most mediocre slate of candidates since they gave George Dubya the nomination.

Here is a recent article by Paul Krugman about one of the recent Republican debates that I found rather enlightening:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1191963.ece

If we ever end up on a cruise with David and Eddie I want to bunk with you in case the bloody thing springs a leak. You've never ever let me down mister. Thanks for your 2 cents worth.

 

[lesit78]

There wasn't a whole lot to see, just more of the Romney and Perry show. Oh, and to great applause, Cain would do away with the EPA...and Bachman was fighting a losing battle for her share of getting some camera time as she had been getting early on.

My guess is there will continue to not be much to see...until after Romney wins New Hampshire (after he loses in Iowa) and see how the evangelicals treat him in the bible belt Southern states.

 

[mikeyank]

There wasn't a whole lot to see, just more of the Romney and Perry show. Oh, and to great applause, Cain would do away with the EPA...and Bachman was fighting a losing battle for her share of getting some camera time as she had been getting early on.

My guess is there will continue to not be much to see...until after Romney wins New Hampshire (after he loses in Iowa) and see how the evangelicals treat him in the bible belt Southern states.

These next thirteen months or so until the presidential election is going to be a fascinating period. I will be watching CNN more than ESPN again.

 

[gardenboy]

I fear Rick Perry more than any other candidate. Who else has executed 264 people on his watch with some say as many as 6 who were inocent or at least had questionable sentence delivered to them. In all six cases, human rights to fair and impartial justice were trampled on in order to get a verdict and in most of these cases, the jury consisted of only 6 people. Bush trampled a lot of our rights and I think Perry would simply accelerate the process. Romney would probably have a hard time getting elected as his Mormon stance would be an issue
gardenboy

 

[cumrag27]

Voting for any Republican would be like...

At this point the country has only one problem, according to the GOP hopefuls, getting rid of Obama. Sad to say that in the field of candidates, none care enough to be looking for actual solutions like restoring the middle class, making sure we have an effective intrastructure, being humane by working towards a workable health care system that eliminates most of the middle men(non-medical services) and promoting a single payer insurance program like the military has(no one suggests capitalism has been abandoned providing universal health care for our military).

Solutions exist right under our noses but these guys have their noses suck so high into the stratosphere, they wouldn't know it if the solutions gave them the proverbial "facial"! None of them challenge our country to return to our former glory days. Rather, they would settle for 3rd World Status in all issues rather than have the super rich be taxed more in accordance with their ability to pay. Should any of these morons become President ala BW Bush, then we can return to their favorite mantra..."Ignorance is bliss", I guess and world leadership be dammed. None of these "con artists" have any notion of how to work cooperatively on both sides of the aisles arriving at real solutions for the nation.

Perhaps we can clone FDR or Trumann in order to meet America's pressing challenges! Why are we so afraid on a national level to reinvest in the nation's future like we did during the Depression or after WWII? The money is out there if someone could only come up with timely "fireside chats to reaffirm America's belief in itself once again"! FDR hit the nail on the head with his famous quote..."We have nothing to fear but fear itself"!

Certainly, Obama could deliver these as effectively as FDR did during the Depression! We all have to decide if the grass is really greener for the party that says "NO ALL THE TIME " vs. "the party that believes we do indeed have a future worth our investing in it". And, finally, for those who insist government must pattern itself after the "Christian values of our founding fathers" and the "fundamentalist right agenda", I say "GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR NATIONAL POLITICS"! HAVEN'T THEY LEARNED ANYTHING BY NOW - IF WE STAND FOR ANYTHING AS A COUNTRY, WE STAND FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FREE OF RELIGIONS DIRECT INTERVENTION IN POLITICS. I SAY "NEVER MIX, NEVER WORRY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Sincerely,


Stimpy

 

[another1]

all i hear is platitudes and no real solutions.
for ten years we tried the gop solution.
been there, done that!
the idea of turning over the wheel to someone who drove the car off the road is unthinkable.

 

[tampa24]

I mentioned earlier that there is homophobia in the GOP. I know that there are many members here who are more conservative than I am. However just to add some proof to back up my claim just listen to that @#?&# Rick Santorum (and the response of the audience) to a question he took in a debate last night.

He said that sex has no place in the military. Excuse me? Does that mean that guys in the barracks talking about the broads they banged last night should be against military regulations? If a gay porn magazine was illegal before, does that mean that girlie mags should be illegal too in Santorum's twisted world? I think that would come as a surprise to those who sell them in military commissaries all over the world. Santorum's arguments in favor of DADT would not stand up to any decent debater at a community college, let alone on the campaign trail for the presidency of the United States.

I know the GOP contenders in the debates want to shamelessly pander to their base and the lunatic fringe...but this was really over the top. The initial response of a few in the audience and the rousing applause that Santorum's remarks brought at the end, do not well represent a party that is asking for all the keys to the kingdom. God help us all if they get the White House and the House and Senate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKtzOjAWGIE

 

[another1]

the phobia party hopes to use homophobia and xenophobia to regain control of the government.
i believe it was h. g. wells who said, 'human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe'
we have to work to help education to win. there is no option!

 

[navelluver]

the phobia party hopes to use homophobia and xenophobia to regain control of the government.
i believe it was h. g. wells who said, 'human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe'
we have to work to help education to win. there is no option!

Unfortunately, many gays and lesbians fuel the homophobia by themselves perpetuating many of the stereotypes and crazy notions about what it means to be "gay." So, a good bit of "patient, heal thyself" is in order, methinks.

As I've indicated a couple of times here, this site is so much more than some gay fantasy. It is, if the basic premise is true, a vehicle by which heterosexual minds can be "educated" about homosexuality. A mind that is closed and which people just accept and defend remaining closed simply to preserve someone's personal beliefs about being straight doesn't do anything to promote that education.

 

[slimvintage]

Unfortunately, many gays and lesbians fuel the homophobia by themselves perpetuating many of the stereotypes and crazy notions about what it means to be "gay." So, a good bit of "patient, heal thyself" is in order, methinks.

As I've indicated a couple of times here, this site is so much more than some gay fantasy. It is, if the basic premise is true, a vehicle by which heterosexual minds can be "educated" about homosexuality. A mind that is closed and which people just accept and defend remaining closed simply to preserve someone's personal beliefs about being straight doesn't do anything to promote that education.

Terrific take on the premise of the site. A sort of Pavlovian experiment in preference-shift. I've always couched the premise in terms of, from the viewpoint of, the consumer rather than the protagonists in the episodes: as in "...this site is where you watch ostensibly heterosexual but temporarily penniless youth being obliged to do a bunch of repugnant fag stuff with another guy for bread...". But the way you see it, Mark is Mr. Bachmann in reverse. Cool.

 

[slimvintage]

In that debate you could google in your questions, goggling into your webcam. I did one but they didn't use it. It was "Many Republican pundits are unhappy with the present field of candidates, meaning all of you. If, hypothetically, something happened to the campaigns of all the candidates on the stage that would preclude each and every one of you from continuing to seek the nomination, who would you like to see get into the race, and who would you throw your support behind?"

 

[tampa24]

"Many Republican pundits are unhappy with the present field of candidates, meaning all of you. If, hypothetically, something happened to the campaigns of all the candidates on the stage that would preclude each and every one of you from continuing to seek the nomination, who would you like to see get into the race, and who would you throw your support behind?"

I can't imagine why they would not have asked that. haha

Of courser none of them would have been honest enough to say which other Republican out there they admire more than anyone else on the stage. Since they all think the best candidate is themselves.

 

[tampa24]

Seriously though what did some of you think of Santorum's statements and the reaction of the audience. I know that there are many gay Republicans out there who espouse many of the ideological tenets of conservatism. And I know there are some gays who will say that the Republican party is not especially homophobic. I offer my penultimate post as proof to the contrary.

It's not that I have a problem with many conservative viewpoints. I agree with some of them myself. It's just that the Republicans through 8 years of Bush up to present day have hijacked and bastardized those core principles to a state where they are contradictory and incomprehensible. Conservative Libertarians for instance have every right to be aghast at what the GOP has done over the last 10+ years.

Yet unfortunately these policies and talking points are still helping them win elections. So they are not going to stop. The fact that so many conservatives will not call them out on all of these contradictions does not bode well for our democracy. Even the teabagger radicals aren't happy. But they are so far out there that they would rather see the country default and have a downgrade to its credit rating just to make the ideological point that deficits are a bad thing and need to stop. With "patriots" like those.....

But my overall point is that there has been so much dumbing down of political debate that people who are educated, intelligent and should know better can't help themselves but play the game.

Robert F. Kennedy once said this in reference to the GNP (Gross National Product), the measure of all goods and services produced by an economy in a single year. He issued this caveat to those who saw our country in the simplistic view of its material wealth. Even though in 1968 when he said this the country was the wealthiest country on the planet. I think many of you would agree that the words still ring as true today as they did in 1968 as the war in Vietnam raged on.



"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that - that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman rifles and Speck's knives and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything in short except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

 

[navelluver]

Terrific take on the premise of the site. A sort of Pavlovian experiment in preference-shift. I've always couched the premise in terms of, from the viewpoint of, the consumer rather than the protagonists in the episodes: as in "...this site is where you watch ostensibly heterosexual but temporarily penniless youth being obliged to do a bunch of repugnant fag stuff with another guy for bread...". But the way you see it, Mark is Mr. Bachmann in reverse. Cool.

Hi Slim. Thanks for the comment. I'm glad you appreciate the point, though it's not so much about changing preferences as it is about changing preconceptions and proclivities to pass judgment on others for their way of life. I'd like to think that the majority of the straight guys who come through here end up having their views of homosexuality softened a bit, because they can start to appreciate that perhaps a guy CAN find another guy attractive in a sexual way and not be a "pervert," once they themselves start experiencing pleasurable feelings from engaging in sex with another guy. I'm assuming they don't convert to homosexuality (at least not in large numbers), but they are at least far more tolerant of homosexuals than they were going in. That's a HUGE thing in my view. I'd like to see more of that kind of development. It's one of the reasons I love Colin so much--he is open to change, and people can't argue that he isn't straight. He just seems to be far more sexually liberated than most.

 

[navelluver]

Hey tampa. You bring up some interesting points. Politics is a very strange beast, and I try to stay out of it as much as possible because I think it can rot one's brain and soul. I think people are too willing to compromise the core values when in the political sphere. For example, I've never understood the Log Cabin Republicans. I don't get how one can compartmentalize their beliefs to such a degree that they can remain affiliated with a group (the GOP) which HATES their very being.

Like you, I don't disagree with all conservative viewpoints, but certainly the vast majority of them. Fiscal responsibility is just good sense. However, the new breed of republican mistakes fiscal responsibility for hoarding money in the upper class. They make all these claims about helping people keep more of what they earn, but the end result is that the elite make even more and just amass wealth at the expense of everyone else. I don't get how people buy into this nonsense. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, said before his death that he did not even recognize conservatism anymore. It had so strayed away from the core principles he had put forth that he renounced conservatives.

I consider myself a liberal-leaning libertarian. However, I am of the strong opinion that libertarianism will NEVER work, and I have never voted for a Libertarian candidate. The reason is that you need to have a population with an extremely highly developed sense of personal responsibility for the libertarian view of "less government involvement in the lives of individuals" to lead to anything other than complete anarchy. I believe the average person CAN NOT be trusted to do the right thing, People tend to do the expedient thing, or the thing which gives them the most benefit, but these are not necessarily in accordance with creating a stable society, which I believe is the ultimate job of any government. I also believe that this is exactly what JFK was talking about in the section of that speech which you highlighted in blue. Liberals tend to understand these "soft issues" much better than conservatives--all of the things Kennedy mentioned there are critical for producing a stable society, one in which all people have at least an equal opportunity to succeed. Modern conservatives tend to see the world through a lens which reveals only black or white. There is no gradation with them. And this is exactly what gets them into trouble. They adopt extremist views because they see only the extremes of a situation. Often, they can't even reconcile their views with their own lives, because they paint themselves into a moral box! If they didn't have so much control over people, it would honestly be funny. But I can only cringe every time I hear one of them make comments such as those by Rick "Sanitarium" Santorum, because I know that there are probably millions of people who think as he does.

 

[angelone]

I served 9 1/2 years in the USAF and we had sex every free moment we had. The only official sexual position authorized is the missionary position. That's alright, a hole is a hole.

 

[slimvintage]

Hi Slim. Thanks for the comment. I'm glad you appreciate the point, though it's not so much about changing preferences as it is about changing preconceptions and proclivities to pass judgment on others for their way of life. I'd like to think that the majority of the straight guys who come through here end up having their views of homosexuality softened a bit, because they can start to appreciate that perhaps a guy CAN find another guy attractive in a sexual way and not be a "pervert," once they themselves start experiencing pleasurable feelings from engaging in sex with another guy. I'm assuming they don't convert to homosexuality (at least not in large numbers), but they are at least far more tolerant of homosexuals than they were going in. That's a HUGE thing in my view. I'd like to see more of that kind of development. It's one of the reasons I love Colin so much--he is open to change, and people can't argue that he isn't straight. He just seems to be far more sexually liberated than most.

Actually I think the majority of straight guys who come through here have had whatever negativity toward the idea of physical intimacy with another dude already moderated considerably before we ever see them in an episode. They wouldn't be hired in the first place if they couldn't do the work, and their debut with another boy will already have been photographed during rehearsal before Clay turns on his videocam. Of course I mean the real people, not the BSBs who have cloaked themselves in their performer personas. The BSBs in the new version of the site are all pretty much "straight guys" regardless of how steamy their guy on guy dreams might be in real life. I said not too long ago that there are too many easier ways to make more money than what they get paid by Blu for them not to have some kind of bisexual curiosity going down before they even apply for a modelship.

In post after post from David Adamson over the years we were finally brought to the realization that at the very least, at the very Least, the average dude who turns up on the couch has at some time wanted to find out what another guy's dick felt like: in his hand, mouth or butt.

As far as converting to homosexuality, we know that a fair percentage of them are at least bi before they apply for the job, and a lot of these get to like it enough during their work to start having girl friends instead of girlfriends.

For years on the forum we've been saying that we like to see "progression" in the boys' attitudes and performances. We said it enough, even to the point that it was bandied about in the pre-fuck banter in the episodes, that it became a mantra. The downside was that the individual performers couldn't carve out "gay" identities for themselves, straighties who bottomed better than they topped, or sucked a mean dick, or had an awesome pelvic thrust. Once we hit on the concept of "progression" we felt they all had to be run through the routine. Since according to the script they were all straight, and found the whole thing essentially repugnant anyway (so what the hell) it seemed reasonable to put them through the course from beginning to end (so to speak), the end being a colleague's stiffy in their backsides. It was like basic training rather than Freshmen year. During basic training you all have to do the same exercises; during Freshmen year to are urged to try stuff out and see what you like.

I don't have time to re-read this and do the Oscar Wilde comma thing on it, but I have the feeling it doesn't say much. I'll just affirm before I go that there are so many reasons to love Colin that it would be difficult to define what the most important one is. Lots of it has to do with his just being so "Colin", those flashes of mental, emotional or physical attractiveness that escape description. Maybe in another post...

 

[cumrag27]

So very beautifully stated!

Actually I think the majority of straight guys who come through here have had whatever negativity toward the idea of physical intimacy with another dude already moderated considerably before we ever see them in an episode. They wouldn't be hired in the first place if they couldn't do the work, and their debut with another boy will already have been photographed during rehearsal before Clay turns on his videocam. Of course I mean the real people, not the BSBs who have cloaked themselves in their performer personas. The BSBs in the new version of the site are all pretty much "straight guys" regardless of how steamy their guy on guy dreams might be in real life. I said not too long ago that there are too many easier ways to make more money than what they get paid by Blu for them not to have some kind of bisexual curiosity going down before they even apply for a modelship.

In post after post from David Adamson over the years we were finally brought to the realization that at the very least, at the very Least, the average dude who turns up on the couch has at some time wanted to find out what another guy's dick felt like: in his hand, mouth or butt.

As far as converting to homosexuality, we know that a fair percentage of them are at least bi before they apply for the job, and a lot of these get to like it enough during their work to start having girl friends instead of girlfriends.

For years on the forum we've been saying that we like to see "progression" in the boys' attitudes and performances. We said it enough, even to the point that it was bandied about in the pre-fuck banter in the episodes, that it became a mantra. The downside was that the individual performers couldn't carve out "gay" identities for themselves, straighties who bottomed better than they topped, or sucked a mean dick, or had an awesome pelvic thrust. Once we hit on the concept of "progression" we felt they all had to be run through the routine. Since according to the script they were all straight, and found the whole thing essentially repugnant anyway (so what the hell) it seemed reasonable to put them through the course from beginning to end (so to speak), the end being a colleague's stiffy in their backsides. It was like basic training rather than freshman year. During basic training you all have to do the same exercises; during freshman year to are urged to try stuff out and see what you like.

I don't have time to re-read this and do the Oscar Wilde comma thing on it, but I have the feeling it doesn't say much. I'll just affirm before I go that there are so many reasons to love Colin that it would be difficult to define what the most important one is. Lots of it has to do with his just being so "Colin", those flashes of mental, emotional or physical attractiveness that escape description. Maybe in another post...

Dear Slim,

It has been a while since we last talked but, after reading your last comment above, I simply could not hold back from expressing my complete agreement with your concluding statement on our beautiful boy, Colin. In fact I wish I could state you stole the very words right out of my mouth. But, that would be untrue. It is so sublimely eloquent as a statement that I am speechless, just like Colin's beauty both in mind and body is sublimely eloquent, too! I will just leave your wording as is, simply incapable of improving!


Sincerely,


Stimpy