HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LostOne4Ever » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Confused
Hometown: Somewhere in Texas
Home country: USA
Current location: What part of lost do you not understand?
Member since: Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:29 AM
Number of posts: 7,901

About Me

Hi I am Lost. In fact, I am pretty sure I made a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Anyone know the way to Cucamonga?

Journal Archives

I experience the same exact thing

It has many terms for it but I prefer to call it "CrossDreaming." It has also been called "female/male embodiment fantasies" by the author and transactivist Dr. Julia Serano.

It is usually called "autogynephilia" by the pyschological community, but I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO USE this term as it is a part of a transphobic theory.

Cross-dreaming can be considered a type of transgenderism under the most inclusive definition of the term transgender. Crossdreamers can be any sexual orientation and it is not uncommon for a MTF crossdreamer to be attracted to women. A REALLY GOOD SITE for more information about what you and I go through can be found here:


It also has a forum there in which I post under the name of Lost247365 called Crossdream life if you would like to check it out. It is pretty new and small but a good place to meet other crossdreamers like us:


Everything I stated is a verifiable fact and nothing was misrepresented and I will prove it.

What I said was this:

My most passionate issues is LGBTQ rights

Yet I voted for someone for president who stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and woman. A person who lambasted a form for being inclusive of LGBTQ people out of fear of what Fox news might think. A Person who only supported SSM after it reached over 50% popularity.

There are three claims here. The first that said candidate stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Again this is a verifiable fact and here is the proof, a video of her doing just that:



My second claim was that she got upset about an LGBTQ inclusive form because of Fox News. Again, this is a fact:


These are her exact words from the article:

Hillary Clinton“I’m not defending that decision, which I disagree w and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress. I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father. We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by Palin et al.”

Again a verifiable fact and exactly as I said it was. Finally, I acknowledged that she did EVENTUALLY come around to supporting SSM, BUT ONLY AFTER it was polling above 50% support. Again, this is easily verifiable:


She officially came out in support in March of 2013, but support for SSM reached above 50% back in 2012:


So again, what I said was a pure fact, and there was no misrepresentation at all. However, YOU misrepresented what I said. You posted her campaign position during the 2016 election, which I never even mentioned:

mercurybluesHere is her platform on LBGTQ rights

As president, Hillary will:
Fight for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Hillary will work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts underway in the courts to protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in every aspect of public life.
Support LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Hillary will end so-called “conversion therapy” for minors, combat youth homelessness by ensuring adequate funding for safe and welcoming shelters, and take on bullying and harassment in schools. She’ll end discriminatory treatment of LGBT families in adoptions, and protect LGBT elders against discrimination.
Honor the military service of LGBT people. Hillary applauds the Pentagon’s decision to allow transgender personnel to serve openly, and as Commander-in-Chief, she will upgrade service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation.


Your exact words. I never mentioned any of that. Then you posted her voting history:

mercurybluesher voting record

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees


I didn't mention her voting record at all. Or her HRC rating (which is still lower than Bernies rating.)

But despite not addressing one thing that I actually said (and quoted above as proof), you then claim I misrepresented facts (Which I have proven I did not) and then you said what I said was disproven when you did no such thing:

mercurybluesYou misrepresented the facts to suit your bias. When your 1st paragraph was easily disproven, I consider the rest of what you wrote also subject to your bias.

Again, you didn't disprove a word I said because you didn't address a word I said. Further, I have proven that everything that I did say was 100% true and factual.

The person who is using alternative facts to suit their bias is not me, but you. Maybe before accusing someone of misrepresenting things and being biased you should take a long look in the mirror.

That said, debating Hillary Clinton's less than pristine record on the issue of SSM was not and is not my intention. In fact, I was trying to avoid using her or Bernie Sanders names entirely because I didn't this discussion to become about them. My point was voting for someone who is in favor of curtailing some of your rights for the greater good.

Which is why I am glad you brought up her voting history because that only further proves the point I am making. The video of her calling marriage a union of one man and one woman is from where she was actually arguing against making a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

You see she was doing the very thing I advocated for: Compromising on part of an issue for the greater good. She was denouncing ever legalizing gay marriage but arguing that if states want to do so they should be allowed to legalize it (ie for states rights). She threw marriage equality under the bus in order to protect states rights.

She and Bill did a similar thing on Don't Ask Don't tell. They campaigned on allowing homosexuals to be allowed into the military, but support for that was nil. In fact, many people in legislature were working on a bill to specifically discriminate against homosexuals in the military. What did she and Bill do?

They passed Don't Ask Don't Tell as a compromise legislation:


She did exactly what advocated in my post, checking your ego at the desk and taking a compromise position for the greater good.

My most passionate issues is LGBTQ rights

Yet I voted for someone for president who stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and woman. A person who lambasted a form for being inclusive of LGBTQ people out of fear of what Fox news might think. A Person who only supported SSM after it reached over 50% popularity.

I passionately support privacy rights, but again I gave this woman my vote despite knowing she voted to gut those rights via the patriot act.

I deeply believe in autonomy rights, but I voted for this someone who said they were willing to compromise on Abortion rights, and chose a VP who supported the Hyde amendment.

I did this because she was the democratic candidate for president and I know that while she had thrown my issues and rights I care about under the bus time after time, that her party in the end had my back on those issues and overall it would protect them.

The Person I did want to be president (lets call him candidate X) lost the primary. His critics said he was a purist who would never compromise; but, he also understood the need to put one's own ego aside for the greater good. He told his supporters that we had to be realisitic and that we should vote for her. So much for him being a purist. Anyway, I voted for her. But many of my fellow supporter didn't want to...and they were all shamed for it.

Now he is telling us to vote for another flawed candidate; because, overall this person would help the party out and all the issues I cared about. But now he and his supporters are being shamed for not demanding Purity. Apparently, party unity only matters around here when its one's favored candidate running.

I have held my nose and supported people who were willing to sacrifice my rights time and time again, because it was for the greater good. Because that is how progress is made. By pushing for your rights and your issues as hard as you can when it is feasible, and then biting your lip and making compromises when the time calls for it. It sucks but so long as you are moving forward you grin and bear it. Two steps forward and one step back is still a net gain of a step forward.

Why? Because if you don't you might not lose just one right but two or three. Or even all of them. When you put purity over the overall greater good you are not protecting that right, but rather putting your ego ahead of everything.

Just look at the situation we are in now. Trump got about the same number of votes as Romney did. Had the same people showed up in 2016 as did in 2012 we would have won. But those people didn't show. And now all the issues and rights Obama fought for are now in jeopardy. Instead of having a person in charge who is willing to sacrifice or endanger just one of our rights, we this overgrown umpaloompa threatening all of them.

Does this mean I think we shouldn't fight to keep these rights relevant to the party? Absolutely not. I will always fight so that the party puts civil rights and liberties first and foremost. But I know that there will be times I have to vote for someone who doesn't agree with me 100%.

When that times comes I will do what I always do: I will check my ego at the desk and vote for the overall greater good.

Pope Francis Claims Schools Are Conspiring to Teach Kids to Be Transgender

Pope Francis Claims Schools Are Conspiring to Teach Kids to Be Transgender
By J. Bryan Lowder


The Pope also said he had discussed the subject with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who told his successor: “Your Holiness, we are living in an age of sin against God the Creator.”

Pope Francis said this sin was often given financial backing by “very influential countries”: a form of “ideological colonization,” the Pope said, which is “terrible.”

The Pope said that one example—“I’ll say it clearly with its first and last name—is gender.”

Francis told the Polish bishops: “Today, children are taught this at school: that everyone can choose their own sex. And why do they teach this? Because the books come from those people and institutions who give money,” he said.

More at link...

Just a Reminder

Whoever wins in November the very FIRST thing they are going to do is fill a supreme court spot (one Obama should have gotten to fill), and will probably get 2 to 3 more picks after that. Who you vote for in November WILL determine the court's ideological for years if not DECADES to come.

The last repuglican president gave us Alito. Obama gave us Kagan and Sotomayor.

Donald trump has promised to fill the vacancy with someone who is the ideological twin of Scalia, and has on his list a man who would make gay sex illegal if he had his way. The last Clinton gave us one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices of all time the Notorious RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

In fact, just as a quick reminder, here are Supreme Court Picks of the Last five Presidents:

Obama: Sotomayor and Kagan

George W Bush: Roberts and Alito

Clinton: Ginsburg and Breyer

George H W Bush: Thomas and Souter

Ronald Reagan: Rehnquist, O'Conner, Kennedy, and Scalia

So, if any of you lurkers out there are questioning if you should or shouldn't vote for Clinton, please keep in mind all the recent supreme court decisions that affects this country in the last 50 years: Citizens united, Obergefell, Whole Women's Health, Gore v Bush, and many many more.

Remember which judge voted which way. Remember who nominated those judges.

Remember the platforms of both parties and what they stand for. And remember, that if you care for Social Justice; for the rights of LGBTQ people, women, racial minorities and more; for civil rights; for keeping and expanding the PPACA/Obamacare; and for making sure there is never another Scalia on the Bench...

Vote Democratic Party.

Thank you.

I believe in Bernie Sanders

During this Primary, I supported Bernie Sanders. His views on nearly every issue mirrored my own. He stood for the same liberal values I had both economically and socially. His record, to me, was flawless.

Not only that, he was a man not afraid to stand up and fight for what he believes in. When most others threw issues I cared about under the bus, he stood firm. He voted against DOMA. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Iraq war. He fought for the $15 an hour minimum wage, universal healthcare, and publically funded collage. At every oppurtunity he could, he fought for the 99%!

What is more, he has repeatedly beaten the odds. He should have been a long shot who never should have one a single state. And time and time again he beat the odds. State by state he proved his critics wrong. And he did so without taking money from corporations and funding his campaign with the support of the people.

Over and over and over again, he has proven himself a person of great honor, and sound judgement. He fought the good fight; and, sadly, it just wasn't enough this time. However, the revolution is not over, it has just begun. And by sticking together we can pull this party and this country to the left where it belongs!

Today he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

I still believe in Bernie Sanders, I believe in the revolution, and most importantly I believe in and trust his judgement. Keep on believing in Bernie!

Believe in the Bern!

Pokémon Go Users Are Trolling Westboro Baptist Church

Pokémon Go Users Are Trolling Westboro Baptist ChurchWhat a time to be alive.
07/11/2016 01:37 pm ET

JamesMichael Nichols
Queer Voices Deputy Editor, The Huffington Post

Over the past week, people all over the world seem to have taken up an unexpected hobby: playing Pokémon Go.

The augmented reality video game allows players to use their handheld devices to “catch” Pokémon out in the real world, leading players to different locations based on their ability to use pokéballs to add different virtual monsters to their collection.

Part of the game involves different locations becoming “gyms” in the augmented reality Poké-World, with different teams battling for control of these spaces.

It just so happens that the Westboro Baptist Church is a gym in Topeka, Kansas ― and users are battling for control of the location in order to troll the anti-LGBT church with the names of their Pokémon, like “LOVEISLOVE” and “STOP HATE!”

more at link...

I love this story! Using Pokemon to fight the bigots is awesome!

Japan Declares Anti-Gay Discrimination Is A Form Of Sexual Harassment

Japan Declares Anti-Gay Discrimination Is A Form Of Sexual HarassmentA new set of workplace guidelines are expected to go into effect in January 2017.
by Adam Salandra 7/2/2016

Discrimination against sexual minorities will now be considered a form of sexual harassment in Japan, according to the Labor ministry’s updated guidelines for employers.

Until now, sexual harassment rules in Japan neglected to protect LGBT people, but will now include sexual orientation and gender identity when they go into effect in January 2017.

The change follows a recent announcement from 30 Japanese companies, including Sony, Panasonic and IBM Japan, that declared plans to boost LGBT diversity and inclusivity at work, including recognition of same-sex partnerships and updated bathroom policies for transgender employees...

More at link...

Nice to see LGBTQ rights improving in other parts of the world

I believe the sign says,


"My happiness is not for you to decide."

Cross posted in Asian group
Posted by LostOne4Ever | Tue Jul 5, 2016, 04:53 PM (2 replies)

How to add some color to your posts and annoy a bunch of other DUers at the same time!

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Welcome Noobies!

I am Lost, and today I am going to teach all of you how to add some color to your posts and annoy some other DUers at the same time!

In General what you need to do is put these tags in front of the parts of your post you want to color[/font]

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][b]YOUR MESSAGE HERE [/b][/font]

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The font-family part tells your computer what font family to use. In my case Georgia. If the computer reading your script does not support that script it will display [font face='Brush Script MT' size=5 color=black]Brush Script MT [/font]in teal, and if not that the oh so hated [font face='comic sans MS' size=4 color=black]comic sans MS [/font] font. If none of those work it will then use whatever fantasy font family your computer does support.

The size tells it what size to use and color what color to make the font. You can change [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]fonts[/font]multiple times within each other.

If you want to be lazy you could use [font size=5 color=scarlet face='Brush Script MT']this[/font] instead but the font might not be supported by their computer and will default back to the normal script

I highly suggest if you use a font with spaces in it like [font color=scarlet size=4 face=comic sans ms] Comic Sans MS [/font] you put apostrophes before and after like this [font size=4 color=scarlet face='comic sans ms']'Comic Sans MS'[/font]

I also suggest reading these links for more information:[/font]


[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] If done right this should give a little color to your posts and annoy some other DUers at the same time! I hope this [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting MT','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]helped!!![/font] [/font]

Edit:[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Yes, I know I used two of the most hated fonts on the internet. But I like them!!![/font]

PS: [font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] For anyone interested in trying this; just copying my post below the quote and pasting it into a reply and previewing it to see how it looks on your screen[/font]

[/b][font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=7 color=crimson]
See you on the boards![/b][/font]

The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed

The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed

Written by Thomas Baekdal on March 7, 2016

When discussing the future of newspapers, we have a tendency to focus only on the publishing side. We talk about the changes in formats, the new reader behaviors, the platforms, the devices, and the strange new world of distributed digital distribution, which are not just forcing us to do things in new ways, but also atomizes the very core of the newspaper.

But while the publishing side of things is undergoing tremendous changes, so is the journalistic and editorial side. The old concept of creating a package of news was designed for a public that we assumed was uninformed by default, but this is no longer the case.

The public is no longer uninformed. They are misinformed, and that requires an entirely different editorial focus. When writing for the uninformed, your focus is to report the news, which is what every newspaper is doing today. But when focusing on the misinformed, just reporting the news doesn't actually solve the public's needs. Now your focus must be on explaining the news instead.

So, in this article, we will talk about the rise of the misinformed using some really interesting data, as well as the threat to freedom of the press. And we will talk about how these two things are directly impacting your ability to succeed as a news company.

More at Link...
Posted by LostOne4Ever | Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:41 PM (7 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »