Remember the USS Cole
|
Posted:Oct 12, 2005 6:00 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5205 Views
|
Today is the 5th year anniversary of the terrorist bomb attack upon the USS Cole. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were wounded in the blast on this day.
Before there was a 9/11, there was a 10/12. On what was supposed to be a short refueling stop in the port of Aden, Yemen, the destroyer USS Cole was rocked by an explosion that tore a gash in her hull which was over 40 feet across. The sailors who were killed on this day should never be forgotten, because they were the first to die in this century of the global war against terror.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Eli
|
Posted:Oct 3, 2005 3:27 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5304 Views
|
Last night, I watched a news segment story about Elián González on CBS' "60 Minutes". It was all to show how this boy, now 11 years old, was faring since having been forcibly repatriated to Cuba in 2000. The troubling part about this segment for me are the principal partners in its production: The Castro regime of Cuba and the producers of "60 Minutes".
It strikes me as no surprise at all that CBS and "60 Minutes" would go to Cuba and allow Fidel Castro to portray Elián González as a willful and deliberate advocate of his. "60 Minutes" has been airing pro-Castro reports for years. I don't recall ever seeing a "60 Minutes" news segment that was overtly critical of Fidel Castro, or for that matter, any other communist dictator, past or present. I do recall a time when they did a rather biased story about Radio Marti, which suggested in a not-so-subtle manner that it was a total waste of American taxpayer money.
The Associated Press, another left-wing slant media organization, reported the following about this "60 Minutes" segment before it aired last week:
"CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco said "60 Minutes" interviewed Gonzalez for 70 minutes three weeks ago at a museum in Cardenas, Cuba, the boy's hometown. He said the boy's father was present, but there were no Cuban monitors or officials and no ground rules."
Yeah right!!! As most of us already know by now...."60 Minutes" was exposed just last year for trying to use FORGED documents to do a hit piece on George W. Bush so that John Kerry would get elected! So how can we believe the part about "no Cuban monitors or officials and no ground rules"?
CBS' own press release had the following about the Elian interview on "60 Minutes":
"Elián’s arrival in Cuba seemed to have been designed for a conquering hero, albeit one who was missing his two front teeth. Little Elián embarked on a two-month tour of Cuba, all recorded by Castro’s personal cameraman Roberto Chile, who helped us on our story too."
How can CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco say that "there were no Cuban monitors or officials," when they were being helped by Castro's personal cameraman, one who is also a well known militant of Cuba's communist party?
In the same Associated Press story as quoted above, there is a little bit of space devoted to how Elian's family in Florida feels, but of course, due to the left-wing bias of the AP, it is rather limited and at very the end of the report:
"The boy's aunt, Angela González, told The Associated Press on Thursday that she isn't sure whether Elián truly believes what he said in the interview. She said family members in the United States have been prevented from having any contact with the boy.
"We love him. He is always on our minds," said Angela González, who had U.S. custody of Elián."
For all I know, the aunt's quote about her being unsure "whether Elián truly believes what he said" was likely the mildest-sounding one. I can only wonder if other family members had used terms such as "brain-washing", "indoctrination", or "re-education camp" when the Associated Press asked them for their comments. In the "60 Minutes" segment, a spokesman for a Cuban exile group did in fact use to the term "brain-washing" when he was asked to comment upon the way Elián González has been handled in the five years since he's been back in Cuba.
Speaking of "re-education", I also find it interesting as to why this "60 Minutes" interview had to be done at a "museum". (What kind of museum was it anyway - one that is devoted to Castro, which Cubans are forced to visit, perhaps?) Why not conduct this "interview" at the house where the boy lives? Or was Castro afraid that Americans would see how it is just as dingy and squalid as other Cuban houses are?
Why wasn't this "interview" done at the special "school" where Elián González has been receiving his pro-Castro indoctrination/re-education/brain-washing over the last five years?
Why has it been so necessary to prevent the family members in the United States from having any contact with Elián González over the past five years? Was Castro afraid that they were going to encourage him to build another raft and start his way back on up to Florida again?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Blame the Media
|
Posted:Oct 1, 2005 5:41 am
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5143 Views
|
It is now turning out that the media itself heavily contributed to the American heartache over the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
How?
It's because the media covering the situation in New Orleans itself reported many terrible things which never happened at that time, or at any time. Wild exaggerations were reported as fact, such as the amount of deaths inside the Super Dome, which turned out to be four, rather than in the hundreds as they were initially reporting.
Thanks, media. We won't need to watch natural disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow" as long as we have you around.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Grim Truths Being Revealed in The Big Easy
|
Posted:Sep 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5332 Views
|
I am sad to say I saw something like this almost from the onset.
It has been over two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, and while it is good to hear about the death toll has been lower than initially projected, there are media stories about how that many of the bodies being recovered from the receding floodwaters down in New Orleans have BULLET WOUNDS to indicate the primary cause of death, not drowning! Whether anybody wants to cast blame upon George Bush or not, the facts will show that rescue efforts in New Orleans were hampered when relief workers came under attack by the city's criminal element, who apparently made looting the stores selling guns and ammunition their FIRST course of action. There were also a few media reports that numerous street gangs in the Big Easy refused to evacuate so as not to leave their precious drugs and weapons caches behind.
Even before Hurricane Katrina, the murder rate in the Big Easy was ten times the national average, largely due to the city's rampant criminal gang problem. A great many of American media outlets downplayed this connection between New Orleans' outsized criminal element and delays in rescue efforts.
The London Times, however, painted a bleak picture of the challenges faced by local police as they tried to restore order.
"One New Orleans police officer wept as he described seeing bodies riddled with bullets, and the top of one man's head shot off. He said some looters were armed with AK-47 rifles, and compared the situation with Somalia, with police outnumbered and outgunned by gangs in trucks. . .
"An effort to remove patients and staff from Charity Hospital, in the city centre, was suspended after it came under sniper fire . . .
"It's a war-zone, and they're not treating it like one," he said, referring to the federal government . . .
"Gunmen continued to fire on troops and rescue helicopters, and police officials said that many officers had stopped reporting for duty, cutting manpower by 20 per cent."
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
The Swinger Lifestyle Explained, Somewhat at Least
|
Posted:Sep 12, 2005 10:10 am
Last Updated:Mar 15, 2006 1:52 pm
5630 Views
|
This site is supposed to be for people in the swinger lifestyle, (Read the tagline banner.) but I will concede that many people on this site would beg to differ with this notion nowadays, and will have their own ideas on this. I will have to insist that this site at least started as one for those in this swinger lifestyle, however, because I can still recall how it was back in its infancy of the late 1990's.
So what is the swinger lifestyle, anyway? I won't go completely into all of its philosophy, but I would like to mention that I was told by every swinger lifestyle person that I ever spoke with, back in the days before this site even existed, that single males cannot expect to have much luck within the swinger lifestyle unless they are well hung and are willing to prove it with pics. This is due to the swinger lifestyle being predominantly couples-oriented, and swinger couples who sought an extra man or men would usually want men who are well hung. Furthermore, the swinger lifestyle is one that is closely meshed with the naturist/nudist lifestyle, in which nobody casts disdain upon any part of the naked body, regardless of gender.
Before this site existed, lifestyle swingers commonly used personal contact ad magazines to find one another. If you were to go out and purchase such a magazine, which were sold usually at adult bookstores back in the day as well as now, you will see plenty of dick pics and male nudes in the personal contact ads for almost all of the single men, and even in some of the ones for the couples, too. This was all for the purpose of showing what you had to offer, much like the way that many people on this site do today. You will also very likely notice that nobody ever complains in their ad about seeing or receiving dick pics or male nudes in these swinger lifestyle contact ad magazines. In fact, most ads seeking men request dick pics or full frontal nudes, in addition to other types of pics perhaps, prior to meeting, for proof of the male endowment's dimensions.
My profile has three face pics and two cock pics. For discretionary reasons, I prefer to not have my face pic as my main profile pic. My face pics can be viewed by those whom are paid members on this site. I also always send a face pic when I contact anybody initially.
This site is overtly and graphically sexual. Just look at a few dozen various profiles if you do not agree with me. Thusly, you will see cock pics, since cocks are sexual; at least they were the last time that I checked.
My cock is something that many women and couples take interest in apparently, because I get multiple profile views every single day from site members all over this country and even the world. I would say that is a great thing.
While I sometimes get unwanted messages, from men who don't read what my profile says apparently, I get plenty of messages from women and couples seeking men, which is exactly what I state that I am seeking on my profile. I guess this is why you will never see me writing about how much this site "sucks", like I have seen some other bitter men doing in the recent past.
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
MFM's and Language Barriers
|
Posted:Sep 12, 2005 10:08 am
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5167 Views
|
Recently, I have started talking to the husband of a couple whom I have not heard from in over a year. We met through this site. Our regular albeit few meetings were great in the past, but since the wife cannot speak much of any the languages of which I am fluent in, the husband acts not only as a voyeur when we get together, but also as an interpreter, too. We are all planning on meeting again sometime. I must admit...I am somehow getting more excited by this prospective sex than I may otherwise be.
I would like to get some comments from those whom have had sex with somebody when there was a language barrier. If so, was the sex just once, or on a regular basis? (If you are a sailor of the seven seas or sex tourist reading this, please spare me your stories of visiting brothels in foreign lands! I have already read plenty of stories like that.)
Was the language barrier much of an issue which affected the sex for either you or the other person?
Conversely, was body language, nonverbal communication, and the "universal language of love/lust" enough to suffice?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Male profile names and their inherently suspicious irony
|
Posted:Aug 27, 2005 11:10 am
Last Updated:Sep 19, 2006 6:44 am
5409 Views
|
At the risk of sounding like the cantankerous Andy Rooney, who often began his weekly commentary segments with, "Did you ever notice...” - I am going to start this blog entry as such:
Did you ever notice when you are in a chat room on this site, that sometimes, or perhaps even frequently, you see some male in there with a profile name that implies either directly or indirectly just how well-endowed he is?
Such profile names are those with terminology like "huge", "big", "hung", or "monster" thrown into them somewhere. Or, perhaps the names are ones with numeric values like "8", "9", or "10", so as to imply a measurement of inches, or perhaps centimeters for those of you in places which use the metric system.
So...why is it then that profiles with names such as this almost NEVER show photos of the actual impressively-sized manhood the profile name implies that the male owner possesses? (Worse still, many such profiles have no photos whatsoever, which I feel is yet another problem altogether.)
Meanwhile, the male profiles which have seemingly genuine photos of their well-endowed owners rarely ever seem to have such suggestive names.
This phenomenon is all so rather telling, isn't it? Perhaps one could even ascribe the motivations behind all of this as simply being Freudian, actually, and the profile naming perhaps as Orwellian! LOL
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
Could Michael Jackson have AIDS?
|
Posted:Aug 18, 2005 5:28 pm
Last Updated:Jan 9, 2007 2:51 pm
5270 Views
|
I never expected my blog here to take on the role of investigative/yellow journalism, but something occurred to me the other day that I have yet to see in print anywhere else.
So read on, and you'll see where I may have perhaps begun quite a sensational story.
As the sexual molestation trial (Some of the same jurors who voted to acquit him have now said that they regret doing so.) of Michael Jackson provided us a plethora of lurid testimony in which boys were witnessed in various sex acts with the entertainer, I thought back to an earlier time in his career - the 1980's. This was a time when few dared to consider that Michael Jackson's interest in was anything more than innocent.
Back in the 1980's, Michael Jackson distinguished himself by being very charitable with his recording career fortune towards with serious and terminal illnesses. One such was Ryan White.
Ryan White was a young hemophiliac who contracted AIDS from contaminated blood products during surgery on his lung on 17 December, 1984, at the age of 13. His school district in Kokomo, Indiana banned him from attending school, and he was only allowed to return after extensive legal battles. He became an AIDS activist over time, gave testimony before then-President Reagan's Commission on AIDS, and was befriended by celebrities like Michael Jackson and Elton John. Ryan White died on 8 April, 1990.
In December of 1989, Ryan White spent time at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara, California. Ryan got a new Ford Mustang as a parting gift from Michael.
Given the propensity for Michael Jackson to bestow lavish gifts upon those whom he molested, this leads me to question what sort of sexual relations may have occurred between Michael Jackson and Ryan White.
Although this blog entry has been all so merely speculative, the question of what may have occurred during Ryan's visit to Neverland and the issues of possible HIV transmission remain unanswered.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Girls who say that they never masturbate
|
Posted:Aug 2, 2005 9:11 am
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5843 Views
|
Over the past several years, I have met two different girls offline who both claimed that they never masturbated. Both despised all types of pornography, too. Each one seemed reluctant to ever say anything considered vulgar by polite society, words like "pussy" and "cock", or phrases like, "let's fuck tonight". It may also be worth noting that each of these two girls considered herself to be a feminist.
Despite all of this, both of these girls also said that they considered themselves very sexual and good in bed.
Later, as things progressed with each separate relationship, we began having sex. In each case, I felt that both of these very same girls really were not all that good in bed. Neither one would talk dirty during sex with me, perform oral sex on me, despite me performing oral sex on them, or allow me to unload my cum on any part of their bodies.
It is because of these two past experiences that I now feel that I cannot seriously consider any girl's claims of sexual prowess if she also claims to never masturbate.
Does anybody reading this feel that I am being too rash with my assessment?
|
|
|
14
Comments
|
|
Britain fights back
|
Posted:Jul 29, 2005 5:40 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5276 Views
|
Today in the UK, the police raided another terrorist house in London. It was all to arrest the last of the five suspects who tried to place bombs in London last week, all of which failed to detonate.
A swift response such as this is what the world needs more of.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
NYC Homeland Security
|
Posted:Jul 22, 2005 7:16 am
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5072 Views
|
There are 468 subway stations in all of NYC, and the NYC police will be randomly setting up baggage checkpoints to randomly search people's bags there, so as to deter any bomb plots. Anyone refusing a search will be turned away from boarding the train.
I saw some things last weekend for the very first time in NYC. This was even before the new random search policy went into effect.
At Penn Station, as soon as I walked upstairs from the train platform, I saw two NY National Guard soldiers in position with NYC police nearby. I used to only see soldiers like these two OUTSIDE the entrances. Now they are inside too. Last Sunday, I saw a New York State trooper standing guard outside one of the entrances to Madison Square Garden, and that was the first time I ever saw a New York State trooper actually within New York City. Then, inside Penn Station again, I saw two other NY National Guard soldiers standing near two NYC police officers. These two National Guard soldiers also had their M-16 rifles with them too, holding them in a manner so that they could fire these weapons in a split second if needed. That was another first for me, since all of the other soldiers on guard duty that I've seen in New York previously were armed with pistols, just like most police officers are every day.
My only issue with these soldiers having rifles inside the train station is that in the event they were to shoot somebody, a bomb-wielding terrorist preferably, their rifle's high-velocity bullets which hit that terrorist are likely to PASS THROUGH him or her and perhaps also hit an innocent person much further away. Stray bullets and ones that ricochet are also another lethal possibility. M-16 rifles are weapons which are capable of hitting targets that are far away. Within a crowded subway terminal, I would say they are a bit much, even overkill, perhaps.
The only other feasible purpose for which soldiers in this setting being armed like this would be just to appear intimidating. These soldiers certainly did look like they meant business, and perhaps that might intimidate somebody who was plotting to bomb the NYC subways, in a manner like what has been going on over in London recently. If not, let's at least hope that the bombs will be too poorly crafted to properly detonate, as evidenced by the second London bomb wave.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Mary Jo Kopechne
|
Posted:Jul 19, 2005 7:30 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2006 9:27 pm
5204 Views
|
Today is the 36th anniversary of the morning after the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
Don't expect to hear of this anniversary on that many TV news shows or in that many newspapers. This is despite the fact that her death was the direct result of a powerful and privileged man's cowardly conduct. Of course, this same man is still quite powerful and privileged today.
Does anybody reading this know what I am referring to?
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Single parents on this site and their
|
Posted:Jul 18, 2005 10:05 pm
Last Updated:May 27, 2021 7:37 pm
5076 Views
|
I do not have any myself. On this site, it seems to me to be quite common to find myself chatting to women with at least one from a past marriage, boyfriend, or whatever.
While I do not have any problem with that, I still do not feel all that comfortable with going to a single mother's house for play purposes while she has her adolescent at home. I would hate to think that later on, after I leave, some is going to say, "Mom, who was that guy leaving the house this morning?"
I did not have to grow up with divorced parents or a single mother, but I know that is the reality for many other these days. I will also concede to the notion that single parents also like to date, and that they have their "needs" too.
So, all of you single mothers out there - is it too much to ask that you send your to stay with somebody else if you expect to invite a guy like me over to your house?
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (vengeur) use [blog vengeur] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
61
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
