W_L

Aww, I missed you Please come back full time.

Please even if the Robot Devil tempts you, don't ever go there I like the new Futurama a lot more than I like Family Guy now, but I have always liked Futurama, probably because it satisfies my inner nerd. Futurama has a story and sometimes it might even make you cry a little as you laugh your ass off (Yes, the thing about Fry going FORWARD in time in the new season did get to me) Family guy just gets worse and worse each episode. It's not really the writing quality, but the story lines. The only episodes I used to like watching were Stewie and Brian episodes, which were fun and entertaining as they were the only characters on Family guy that made any sense (A talking liberal dog and a genius gay baby trying to take over the world; it could have been a TV show on its own.) Then the thing about them being stuck inside the bank happen, ugh! I did not want to see that episode; there were so many things about it that seemed wrong and the emotions were tacked on. Now, even that element in Family guy seems to be crap, literally if you know the reference. As for American Dad, it's funny and boring at the same time. Depends on how they make the joke and what it's about. The last one I saw about the Home remodelling was funny; especially the gay couple taking the marriage certificate to show they were the better couple I will admit that won a lot of brownie points with me, but the way they played out the entire episode with rips from sleepless in Seattle was priceless. As for Cleveland Show, I will freely admit to finding it kind of amusing with layers of black humor, which is kind of subtle, but I do agree that the show doesn't have any real staying power for me. I don't really care about Cleveland or his family much, nor do I care about the wild adventures into black history nostalgia. I mean maybe it would be funny if I grew up watching Mr. T, Shaft, and Huggy Bear, but it's 2011, not 1991. The only reason I know the jokes they are making was that I watch TV Land re-runs sometimes when there's nothing good on in regular TV.

Just a quick thought: When looking around the city, I am usuallly confronted by a dozen people asking for money with a strong scent of alcohol in their musk or incoherent descriptions of their plight. There is even a infamous women on the mass transit system, who claims a new story every other week like I've lost my wallet, my friends left me here and I can't get home, and others. The first time I felt bad for her and actually did give money. At that point in 2009, I just graduated from college and was unemployed as well, so I had a sympathy for tough cases. I gave her what I could afford. The next time she asked I grew suspicious and would not give her any money. This has become one of the longest running begging scams in my memory as it has continued to this day and others have emulated it. I personally work with real poor people through volunteering, these people would not take a dime from me even if it meant they had not eaten for an entire day. Sometimes, I would just go out and have to order a large pizza before financial counseling sessions just to get them to take a slice along with other people. I understand the pride they have and their desire to seek self improvement in their dire financial shape. Some face issues on their credit, others are in the midst of foreclosure, and a dozen or so have lost their homes and live out of their friend's homes.

Happy Birthday, to the old scribe :2thumbs: :2thumbs: Wow, Marks' Birthday is on Friday the 13th! :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: Someone take the hockey mask from the old Author :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Tipdin: Sounds like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (old version) I still love the genre for its psychological horrors as well, but not much scares me anymore. I suspect half the people that act normal around me are secretly psychotic cannibal murderers and I am an accountant. I fear most of all is the unknown, the thing that could be there or not, a twist of vision or a real object beyond our sights, and probably the most haunting is silence.

In a little part of Western New York State, which has traditionally been a Republican Stronghold, an interesting event is unfolding. The polls show a three party race of even odds between Democrat, Republican, and Tea Party candidates. When people tell me that the Tea Party are no threats to conservative, I can now point to New York's 26th Congressional seat election as my call to Arms. Oh yes, Jack Davis is not a conservative based on his record, but the Tea Party Coalition group of Western New York endorses him. I am shocked by this endorsement and I am more shocked at how strong his poll numbers are. Right now, the internal dispute within conservatism, I have been warning about for months is starting to flare into open conflict. NY-26 is the Republican equivalent of "Bleeding Kansas", the prelude for the American Civil War. US Rep. John Boehmer and Sen. Eric Cantor have gone to shore up Republican support in the area, which was predominantly Republican to begin. NRCC, National Republican Congressional Committee, has thrown nearly half a million dollars into this fight to counter the "supposed" candidate Jack Davis. RedState and Freedomworks are denouncing Jack Davis, but local grassroots are helping him. This election will be a real fight. There are three outcomes from this conflict: 1. The Republican party wins the seat again, but it will be a victory soaked in sweat and tears as valuable resources will be redirected into defending a stronghold seat. There would be a long term repercussion for the GOP and a decision to be made whether or not to reform the platform in order to encompass more Tea Party favored ideas, it would be more doctrinal rather than operational shifts. I might not like the infection of Tea Party ideas into conservatism, but this scenario would probably be the least politically "bloody". 2. The Democratic candidate wins, an upset in a Republican Stronghold. Not a good sign for the coming election year. Finger pointing would ensue within the GOP and something much more drastic will have to be done. Simply put, Tea Party members could either reconcile or be eliminated in this scenario. This is a more extreme case of Scenario 1 with much more issues for shifts in conservative politics. 3. The Tea Party candidate, in name, will win. If it happens, then the GOP will have an issue of identity and irrelevance. If half a million dollars cannot win a former stronghold district, then the Tea Party will be truly emboldened into open runs on the House and Senate, heck in this scenario I would imagine Donald Trump picking up the Tea Party Banner in 2012 for Presidential run. If taken to the most extreme, it could mean the death of the GOP to be replaced by the disorganized Tea Party groups, ensuring a centralized Democratic dominance for a few decades. At stake in this election is the heart of American Politics and American conservatism, the results will be shown on May 24th. This is one special election to watch.

How do you make a story scary or spooky? I am trying to figure out the nature of horror and suspense in a story. I know that a lot of modern Science fiction takes notes from horror, which I also enjoy as well, especially H.P Lovecraft's movies and stories. However, I also want to know what "modern" horror readers want to read and what makes you guys scared? (I doubt loss of sanity, beings beyond your comprehension, or strange ritual will scare you guys as much anymore with the advent of so many horror movies.) Also, the traditional creatures of horror like ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and demons no longer have their staying power with readers, who want to be frightened. Basically, What scares you? I will endeavor to incorporate those things into my stories.

Author: W.L Description: It's a homage to gay erotic fictions stories, but it also ask some tough questions about gay erotic fictions and writers in general. To Read my short story: In Touch Notes: I got the idea to write this story over the weekend and thought about the types of stories on Nifty today and ten years ago. I looked around at erotic fiction plot lines and chose one that I think was classic back, when I was growing up about ten years ago versus today. I also questioned the very nature of erotic fiction and the stress of the reader's desires. I know not everyone will like it, some will read it for the jack off material, but you read it in full, you won't feel like jacking off on it again as the story becomes dire.

Half Homage/Half introspection to Erotic gay fiction.

In Touch By W.L (My first experiment with a more intense sexually themed story) I guess there are some things that even absolute of power cannot corrupt. I was just your average teenage boy; yeah, I’m gay, but that is still average for most people in the world, unless you’re in one of those crazy religious families or in a country where you get shot for kissing a guy. I mean there’s really nothing special about me; I am not popular like the flashy gays or metros, straight bait guys, wh

As I said in my prior blog, I was going to write a more erotic story, but I wanted to go against the traditional nifty erotic story format of quick sex. I don't know how many of you guys actually still read Nifty, when I was a teen in the early 2000's, Nifty was the place to read both the sexiest and fun gay stories on the web. I recently re-read some of my old favorites and I looked into the older writers work. The erotic element in their stories were more pronounced and most of them had some kind of meaning behind the gay sex. My story In Touch at first seems like a homage to the older gay stories from nifty, even though it's more extreme, but it is still the same kind of story. Gay kid gets bullied, then gay kid takes revenge and make the bullies pay in kind. Then, you get more modern outtakes for turning straight boys gay in my second act. I know how I wrote it seems less than perfect, but I am going more with an eye to inexperience straight boys trying to be gay. Also, I look at the consequences such actions will bring. Finally, a final realization about what gay erotic fiction has become in my final act. You can jack off it on the first read, but after finishing it and reading further, you will regret it. I wanted to write a story that encompasses a decade of gay erotic fiction with classic plots, but my own twists and turns. One thing I dislike about modern gay erotic fiction is that there is less stress on the consequences of the characters actions and more stress on the sex. We all want to get off more quickly and without thinking about the actions these characters engage in. Question on consequences never answered like: Is it right to turn a straight guy gay by force? Few really cares about that, but as a gay writer, I at least do care about the consequences in such a situation. As a sci-fi writer, I also like to frame my stories within a modest science fiction framework to establish a commentary on the events that led up to it. Well, I will let you guys review my work. http://www.gayauthors.org/forums/story/w-l/intouch

I got some free time and thought about it long and hard, well hard as the idea for this new short story got my loins stirring a bit I know I have never wrote anything sexual or erotic even in my stories with some minor sex, sex scenes usually are either fast and hard or deeply introspective for plot purposes like a passing motion or thought. Thinking it over and reading from other gay writers, who I admire. I am neglecting the sex in gay storytelling, so I want to try it out for my own style. I know what the forum rules are concerning mature stories and I do not want to write a Nifty erotic story, if anything I want to try to write an anti-Nifty Erotic story, where sex isn't passing, inconsequential, or meaningless. I have a plot in my head twisting and turning, but I am not sure if I can make this story to work. The Story will be called: In Touch

Tocqueville made a fundamental mistake writing on the United States as Marxism had taken a revolutionary tone on European lower classes. He was focusing on the American naturalism versus the industrialization of European society. For his part, he had not seen what the next few years would bring to the United States. As long as there was land to spread around in the US and excess potential for wealth based on the old notion of land ownership, then yes, equality and social mobility could be maintained through hard work and determination. However, after the Civil War in the United States, the fact was no longer true. Those who possessed talent were able to rise above the masses through luck, sheer will, and talent like Rockefeller, Edison, Carnegie, Dupont, and Morgan. Wealth was no longer based on merely land; it was based on shares of Wall Street, the productivity of workforce, and the sale of products based on marketing and integration styles. Also, Tocqueville was an anti-individualist in his principles; he was hoping through his analysis to explore the need for group consensus through the gradual end of individualism through shared capitalist ideals. Democracy is an individualist based concept for government, which Tocqueville failed to see was also the most dangerous aspect of American politics. The US Civil War a few years later made his entire analysis moot and firmly established that Republicanism, not Democratic ideals, were the source principles of the United States, if it would survive as a nation. As for what is Republicanism versus Democracy, American Republicanism values the classical conservative and classical liberal thoughts that a nation must be founded on an open society with an understanding of law and reason. A dictatorship within a Republic occurs when Republicanism has lost its underlying principles as charismatic people take greater emphasis. Julius Caesar comes to mind as such a man. A Democracy is by its nature a nation ruled by the people; consensus must be reached before all actions. This form of nation leads inevitably towards Civil War as factions begin to form and entrench their belief systems into cold hatred. Tocqueville did not analyze the issue of Slavery as in-depth as he should have or else he would have realized that the nature of growing American Democracy was leading to its bloodiest issue. What is needed for Republicanism to survive are selfless individuals willing to fight off their own ambitions, pride, and avarice. George Washington was probably the closest to such a character in American history. When he dissolved his Continental Army; people around the world were shocked. Very rarely has a victorious general not sought power in human history. King George of England reportedly said George Washington was "The Greatest Character of the Age" due to his actions. A Republic needs the selfless to survive, but the United States has become too self-absorbed with the few remaining selfless souls fighting against a torrent of "popular" leaders. People don't rejoice in Republican values anymore; they rejoice in the so-called "Democratic" values of America from both the Political Left and Right.

What has happened in the last few days will shape the course of World history for years to come. The last few months have ushered in the so-called "Arab Spring" on one side is inspiring a new democratic movement in the middle east and the death of Osama Bin Laden is a significant blow to terrorist organizations in that region in both symbolic and material sense. There are many things now that are open for the people of the middle east to choose. Yet, it is probably best that the choice be for them to choose on their future and destiny. That stuff kind of got me thinking about the founding of the United States; it's kind of odd that few people on the Right or Left ever mentions George Washington much anymore or his considerations of what the United States should become eventually. Liberals point to Franklin Roosevelt and JFK; Conservatives point to Ronald Reagan with an extent to Abraham Lincoln. Yet, the lessons of the first President of United States are still true today as they were two hundred years ago. George Washington thought the United States should not be involved in active foreign conflicts, but we should defend ourselves against aggression with proper force. This seems like the debate between wars for "nation-building" and "counter terrorism" at its basic level. George Washington from a fiscal standpoint had the right idea, a continuous foreign entanglement would drain the nation of its resources. However, a strategic use of force would keep the nation safe. A serious thought to refocus our troops onto counter terrorist activities and an end to the ambiguous and questionable relationship with Pakistan might be in the United States best interests if lessons from history are to be looked at. As for George Washington on other issues: Back in 1794, George Washington took it upon himself to stop a rebellion of people, who had taken up arms due to what they perceived to be taxation for the federal war debt that were not their own. Among those that were with Washington includes the ancestor of General Robert E. Lee, General Henry Lee. People still debate what the power and rights are for individuals and the federal government. Yet, what George Washington set in motion was a definition for these rights: 1. The People had rights to redress their issues through the political process, not an armed revolt. Jefferson will later use this issue to win the Presidency and allowed the American People open redressing of issues like taxation. 2. The Federal government has the right to use deadly force in order to maintain order within the nation and collect what is owed to the federal government by the law of the land. It's one reason luckily that the Tea Party movement, unlike the early revolt, are acting only through political means for redress versus an active military campaign. It also holds something Tea Party members and many others, liberal and conservative alike, don't want to hear: The Sovereignty of the United States is based on itself through the acts of its original founding principles, not the "collective will of its people". Basically, the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy by any measure or imagination. You got to hand it to George Washington's solution; it has worked for two centuries. George Washington was perhaps the closest this world will ever come to "True Republicanism" in its strongest principles and beliefs on principle-based government.

Odin is more for me, we both love wisdom and tactical thinking, not to mention we both have one eye . Welcome to the board, can we offer you a Faustian bargains?

Happy Bday Comsie Lacey, you bad boy!

Hey don't worry, I only learned about them a year and a half ago after I took my job. NP's are an up and coming idea in medicine; it is not an old idea for personal care, but it's still new to many nations. I should have explained it better, but I keep forgetting that not everything is well known. I guess it's the sad truth of us accounting and finance people in health care, we interact with everything, but forget that not everyone does too.

I noticed this in my thread after we started talking about health care in the Soapbox and I am thankful that you guys support my points, but please don't neg people for their opinions even if they are not well informed on what I am talking about. Quite recently due to my contention against Tea Party movement, I've been removed from the Gay Right forum, because honestly, I don't see their movement as conservative nor Republican as my beliefs and others run counter to their ideas. I challenge each point that a Tea Party member of GA raises and I will continue to do so, because Birther arguments and Trade Wars are not good for the US, nor is continuing support for lower taxes without a more fundamental change on how corporate taxes are calculated. I don't like being cast out, but I will hold onto my belief despite what other might hold and I believe that the reasonable conservatives would agree with me. I implore you guys to not neg people for their opinions. A dialogue is one of challenging other people's ideas and knowledge with what you know and what you believe in. We might disagree with one another, we might get heated, but I want to people to be open and true to their principles.

Actually, we never got to that point. Our relationship is over; we tried to make it work, but it just wouldn't happen. We're still friends, but there was no real spark for either of us anymore. We went from casual dating to boyfriends, then nothing over the span of several months. It's a reality that neither of us were right for the other.

Well, I think people know that tensions and lack of communications have been building for weeks now between me and my boyfriend. It's over now; we're going to remain friends, but we know that we're not meant for each other. It's the most amicable break up, I've ever had at the very least. The reason for the break up: I don't know. Maybe, we're too similar in our political views that we kind of grew tired of each other. Maybe, it was the religious difference that kept nagging at me as he pressed onward about it. Maybe, it was my unrequited love for my friend, who would probably give me migraines and an advil. I don't know the exact reason for why we couldn't work out, but I think both of us knew that neither was the right person him. Well, I am single again back in my old life of video games, movies, drinking with friends, and longing for something called love.

In practice, I should be a Catholic, but my family has mixed religious views: Protestant, Taoist, Buddhist, and even Jewish (odd enough Asians do seem to have a lot of relationships with Jewish people). My family is not devout in any faith; though, we observe the concepts of our faith, we don't force our beliefs on each other, even the Baptist side of the family are only emissary of the faith without the strong message. My boyfriend is much more devout and intense about Jewish beliefs. He has changed synagogues several times trying to find a more stricter faith on observance. We're different and at first it was fun, but now I am not sure where we are going.

Sad update, we're drifting further apart. Neither of us have anything to say to each other anymore, we try to go watch a show and have dinner, but it was an awkward evening. We talk politics well, but other topics seem distant to both us. I'm very into technology and more intrinsic subjects like philosophy, history, and literature, but he's less inclined to those subjects.

This is my musings on a reason for life and the universe if there is a God, beings of such equivalent powers, or some kind of greater effort. I don't know if this is an epiphany for the Easter Holiday, but it seems interesting enough: Out of all the Holy texts, it is never explained fully "why" life was started, whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or many assortment of religions. Yes, we have concept of creation by higher beings and stories from people that were "told" indirectly about the reason. Yet, it still remains a question of "why". I was thinking about this issue a little while ago and it dawned on me that the question perhaps is the answer. Maybe the reason for life is to pose the evolving questions and provide something more than stagnation. If the universe before the Big Bang and everything else that came after was a stagnant era with no interaction and something lived at that point in time, maybe, you would want something new. That got me into thinking, if you wanted something new, it will get old very quickly after a certain time. So why not start off something that is unpredictable, constantly changing, and has no end. It makes thing more interesting and ends the silence. Perhaps, if there is a higher being or force, there is an underlying idea that stagnation cannot survive and the puzzle is highest priority. The puzzle should be unsolvable, but we should not stop trying to solve it.

Interesting and fascinating piece in deconstruction of language and syntax: Our meanings of choice comes to two terms: My own definition on the idea of free will and personal choice means having the ability to personally select. The dictionary definition seems to show options or lack of options. I don't think definition is the issue. The issue comes to be a facilitation of that choice, whether one is the chooser or the choice becomes voluntary. I would hold that most choices are not based on one person's voluntary actions, instead there were actions set in motion earlier that creates the current choices available. It doesn't preclude free will or choice, but it does mean not all original source for choice was created internally. I think it was a famous philosopher, probably Immanuel Kant, who proposed that the source of purpose need not be the source of creation, i.e. if a desires to build a house or buy a house, there were preceding choices leading to the choice that we have today. Economically, it might be cheaper to build, aesthetically, it might have been more pleasing, and contractually there might have been more overhead costs in buying. Now each of those choices can be further broken down into individual choices: Breaking down an economics of buying a house: 1.The average costs of houses through even more choices: location, size, open areas, and attachments 2. The ability to find mortgages based on choices: brokers, insurance options, rates, and years of payment To name a few Aesthetically: 1.You can't find a pleasing house by the design choice: What color, shape, dimensions, balcony views, or others 2. Maybe the materials: Wood, plastic, steel, aluminum, or others Contractual: 1. Available or practical contractors that you can choose from 2. Permits based on choices of dimensions or changes Each choice is made of many other choices. It is why I do not believe in absolute free will, but I still believe in the free will of personal choice. Sometimes, you are stuck with no choice, but it is due to choices culminating into it; it's almost karmic in nature.

If it happens, I'll send you a wedding gift After so many years, why do you still keep the faith alive West Coast for that guy? Just curious, because I also have a similar issue. I love my current boyfriend, but part of me still longs for my old friend. My current boyfriend and I have basically slowed down almost to a standstill as I feel like I don't love him enough to advance this relationship further. He's a sweet guy and a like-minded conservative, who has the same reservations against the Tea Party movement as me. Yet, I don't see myself spending the rest of my life with him,. I thought I was over my love for my old friend long ago; it's an unrequited love on my part, because I don't know if my old friend's gay (he never dates or show signs of attraction to girls), he doesn't seem attracted to me, and we're polar opposites in terms of philosophies. We're still good friends, but there's no sexual component to it, not even gay daydreams on my part anymore. Those feelings of sexual lust from me were gone years ago, but the attraction and feeling of love remains. The reason why is that my old friend complements me with our fights and debates. He's a strong liberal advocate and an arrogant asshole, which makes our fights fun and engaging. We compete over everything and we make each other better due to it. He's not the guy I want in bed with me; he's the guy I want to grow old with.