Mavica

🙃

Ad hominem attacks are an indication that the individual(s) making them have lost an argument / discussion. A clear sign of weakness, inferiority. Thls discussion thread has veered from the topic. Personal attacks only diminish the validity of whatever the makers of those attacks have said throughout. Entirely. I understand why "the other" web forum ceased to allow political discussions. This one appears to have been hijacked by some, not all, who are addicts. Individuals addicted to Donald J. Trump. It's as if Trump wouldn't let them suck him off, and 'Hell hath no fury ...'. Humorous? Yes. My suggestion? Start a different, serious discussion, one that's relevant.

LOL! There's enough waste of bandwith in this forum. The website owner here provides emojis so not all of us have to write a book with each reply. I express my agreement, disagreement or other sentiments frequently by use of an emoji. When I feel the urge to say more I do so. Thank you for asking.

Former officeholders, including US Presidents, are most often publicly addressed using their former title. We see / hear that on a daily basis no matter the media outlet. Presidents, Congressmen, Mayors, Cabinet secretaries, Generals. CNN chose a lightweight to moderate, which was a mistake. He may have been given moderator approval. Trump ran over her, repeatedly. It was a GOP townhall but whomever organized the attendees out-foxed (no pun intended) CNN by the imbalance and seeming absence of independents. Trump was obviously speaking to his base. I don't think he won-over anyone who didn't vote for him in 2020. Yes, he's the Devil incarnate.

I was watching Finding Your Roots on PBS last night and, afterwards, the new edition of the 90 minute Frontline show started and I watched it. The research and presentation of their lives was illuminating. It helps to understand how and why they got to this point in their lives. Troubling, as well.

Now that you've asked, I'm supposing I've experienced a senior moment in my report, and that my memory of the incidents are not accurate. Thank you for asking.

Very true (what you've said). The (supposed) thrill of meeting someone you are unlikely to meet otherwise and having sex in public place with some danger added ... is a lure for many gay men. When I lived in Mexico City it wasn't uncommon, before the introduction of social media, cruising apps, etc., to walk into one of the men's rooms of the many Sanborn's chain of restaurants and encounter, in the open, guys engaged in blowjobs. A friend of mine in Chicago, a church pastor, would cruise public park bushes in the middle of the night and suck off and get fucked by guys looking for money to buy drugs. Myself? When I worked in Mexico City I had a regular consulting appointment at 8 a.m. several days a week and on the way to work I would stop in one of the Sanborn's men's room near to where the appointment was ... and, frequently, a student in an expensive nearby high school would blow me and sometimes I'd fuck him. He in his school blazer and slacks and me in a suit and tie. Back to Chicago: before the social / dating apps I would cruise the 'bushes' in Lincoln Park on the lakefront 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. if I hadn't gone to the baths. Scores of guys were there when the bars closed and the sex was good. We were all grunting like pigs. Every once and a while several police cars would show-up with lights flashing, bullhorns in hand, telling guys to get out - and some guys jumped in the water or let the police lead them out. Me, I knew the police were not going to get into the bushes so I stayed put. At the time I held a very good job and I could have lost it all if arrested for being caught like that. When we're young many of us throw caution to the wind. As I've gotten older, much older, I don't often take risks like that. But, never say "never."

So, why do you persist ... if your care provider advises against it?

I think your slip is showing. A GOP admirer, Democratic critic ... maybe even a MAGA supporter. Otherwise, you're very confused. 🤢

Ok, I'll put it nicely: It's naive ... and lacks an understanding of the existing political process and the impacts of individual actions. it's not a game. The stakes are high. Manchin is selfish ... represents very special interests ... and has a distinguished career to this point. His selfishness doesn't equate to what's in the best interest of the nation. If there's a third party candidate - Manchin- he'd draw votes from Biden and if Trump is the GOP nominee he'd win the general election. Once again ... it's not a game, it's real life.

That's a sick reason. Really sick, and ignorant of the possible negative consequences. I'm going to assume you do not live in the United States.

He's emphasizing more than the economic was that's existed for decades. Listening to him, we should build underground bunkers.

Thanks for the NYC information. From Tampa, the fare for near-term travel is $775 ... which tempted me to book a flight to Rio. For other reasons, I'm heading to Mexico City the latter half of May.

Tipping the towel guys was and is good advice. Good manners and doing so is appreciated. As for some of Tri's other advice, it wasn't appropriate / necessary for me. I wish him well, though ... after the hardships I understand he's experienced.

Lol! Whomever would believe the above would be uninformed, naive, or worse. 🫢

Third party bookings do present risks. However, though I haven't used Booking.com for BKK bookings I have use it for other trips .. and I've been 100% satisfied.

Yes, a wonderful actor.

Just over 50% of Florida voters participated in the state's 2022 Gubernatorial election - as I read the reports. Gov. DeSantis received 59% of the approx. 50%+ participants. Hardly an indication of popularity. Democrats nominated an unelectable candidate to challenge Gov. DeSantis in 2022, and, before the race began, Democrats effectively conceded to his eventual victory. Elections are typically decided by the quality of candidates offered for consideration. Yes, there are exceptions. Democrats have mistakenly given up on Florida. Let's remember in Gov. DeSantis' first race for Governor he narrowly beat a gay, drug using Black candidate (his drug using / escort patronizing opposition wasn't fully revealed at the time). Gov. DeSantis isn't pragmatic, he's an extremist / authoritarian and vindictive liar. Nothing pragmatic about Gov. DeSantis' behavior. Political pragmatism is generally thought to mean someone who is driven largely by regard for good consequences. Gov. DeSantis' actions are the opposite; they've ndangered the state's senior's and others by distorting COVID statistics and risks. Concentrating on evoking GOP "wokeness" on the myriad of social issues such as: LBGTQ+, abortion, black history studies, book banning, removal of popularly elected law enforcement officials, Mickey Mouse has been Gov. DeSantis' hallmark. Gov. DeSantis isn't as popular as uninformed pundits suggest. Re: "Hurricanes"? That's the most ignorant remark I've read in a long time. There are times when we don't know what we're talking about, and we should sit down and shut up. I'll continue to stand. 😀

I'm a Floridian, and I don't think so.

I sense you're projecting your goals rather than understanding what Dominion's civil lawsuit goals were vs. FOX. Dominion got what it sought. Period. Dominion and others claiming defamation and harm to their financial interests have filed civil actions against other "news" organizations and individusls. FOX faces at least one similar lawsuit. Nobody can convince me that an "Independent" voter watches FOX. FOX viewers are hard-core partisans; extremist in their anti-America beliefs. Dominion won. The pre-trial discovery documents prove the lack of honesty and integrity of the entire FOX organization. I get the feeling you're attempting to snatch failure from the jaws of victory. Let it go. Move on to the next issue bothering you.

This was civil litigation - not criminal - and Dominion won what it sought. Dominion's responsibility is to its stakeholders and it successfully defended the company's integrity and reputation. Nothing is going to change the minds of FOX viewers, or Mr. Trump's supporters.

Sex tourism is alive and well in Mexico, all parts of Mexico ... small villages and big cities, and frequently at times and in places where you would least expect it. It can be impulsive on the part of the local, and 'time is of the essence'. Let the opportunity pass you by and it's your loss! But, yes, our opportunities for sexual recreation is unequaled, in Rio. I don't often see online GPs in Mexico City I'm attracted to. I prefer cruising the 'street scene' more than I do perusing the professionals. I'm about to turn 74, my cancerous prostate was removed ... and my sex drive and abilities are different today than they were 40 or 50 years ago when I had all my parts. I'm resigned to my 'facts of life' and I have solace that during the first 60 years of my life my sex life was ... outstanding. BKK, Rio, Moscow, Marrakech, London, Dublin, Tokyo, Paris, Cannes, Bejing, Hong Kong, etc., I fucked and sucked my way around the world. I'm blessed to still maintain friendships with individuals going back 65 years, or less ... and there's no sex that'll satisfy me more.

No, I don't think so.

I'd intended / wanted to be in Rio during that same period. I finally located an airfare (to Rio) that was palatable. Visiting Rio would result in pleasurable sex, more than I expect to encounter in Mexico City or here in Tampa Bay, FL. However, the determining factor for the choice of Mexico City is deep (non-sexual) friendships there. I have a 54-year long affinity with Mexico, including having lived in Mexico City previously. Friendships trump (no pun intended!) sexual escapades. So, I'll sacrifice the sex for the opportunity to maintain and enhance friendships. I'll try to get to Rio later this year.

I view the security issue differently, or think I understand the concerns ... as a USA born / resident but someone who has lived in several countries and traveled to many others. "exaggerate fears and paranoia" and "blind to the ridiculously violent culture they are immersed in" might themselves be exaggerations. In the cities we come from in our own countries - each of us - we know a lot more than we know about places we haven't been to before. We know, at home (most of us), where troubled spots are, where to stay away from, etc. For many years I lived in Chicago, but the areas I lived in were not insecure. Although the crime rate in Chicago is less than many other USA cities, there are neighborhoods / sections of the city where rates of crime and violence and deaths are dangerously high - and we know to stay from them. I would read of reports of tourists turning off highways into the "bad" neighborhoods looking for a gas station, a grocery store, or someplace to eat. Some were badly victimized. The challenge when we travel away from familiar areas is we don't know what we don't know. The personal safety / security concerns regarding Rio de Janeiro are well documented ... and reinforced by local residents cautioning tourists, hotel staff cautioning tourists, travel blogs and forums reporting on incidents of crime and harm and local residents cautioning visitors walking in sections of Rio ... to be careful. Some years ago travel forums for Rio saw many reports, first-hand witness reports, of individuals waiting for the tram up to Santa Teresa being mugged, robbed and badly injured by gangs. Real, not imagined. I rode the tram up to Corcovado, and the tram was protected by an armed security guard because gangs had been hopping aboard along the way and robbing tourists / passengers. My first trip to Rio, with an elderly friend of mine, we were waiting for a bus on Av. Nossa Sra. de Copacabana at Rua Siqueria Campos, not far from Hotel Atlantico Copacabana, when three or four young men approached, as the bus approached, and proceeded to beat-up a man waiting for the same bus, standing 10 ft. away from us. Real, not imagined. On another visit, I was on a chair under an umbrella at the Impanema beach when a gang from a favela tore through that area hitting people sitting nearby with clubs robbing them of valuables. Yet another visit, a local resident approached me when I was walking in Centro and in pretty good English cautioned me against street violence and asked me why I was walking there. Real, not imagined. My concerns have not been exaggerated and though I attempt to be as cautious as I can ... I continue to wander about with an intuition I think I've developed ... I hope I've developed! I lived in Mexico for 6 years, and when there I've been the victim of multiple crimes: drugged in a bar and all of my valuables robbed from my apartment, my apartment(s) robbed at other times, mugged on the street multiple times. I thought / think I know the city and "dangerous" areas ...but I was victimized nonetheless. After having moved back to the USA, I still return to Mexico City once or twice yearly. I don't know how long you've lived in the USA, but the comment "I feel like a White guy feels in the US, while many Americans here experience what people of color feel in US streets: targeted." lacks context. To the best of my knowledge and observation, crimes against persons of color are perpetrated by persons of color. White people aren't killing Blacks on the South Side of Chicago, Blacks are killing Blacks. On the West Side of Chicago, Latinos are killing Latinos ... not "White" non-Latinos. Drug cartels / gangs and the obscene availability of firearms are principal culprits responsible for the violence and carnage. None of us should NOT be concerned for our safety when traveling to unfamiliar places. Gay men oftentimes place ourselves in harms way more than some other individuals. Thank you for listening / reading.