skinnydud

A missed opportunity and blocking

44 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, johnnydog said:

J

Former Mayor of Cincinnati Jerry Springer paid for his playtime with a check (and his job). Anyone here take someone's check? I think we are ALL smarter than that, on both sides of the aisle.

True, he resigned from the City Council in 1974 when his check "for services rendered" was discovered by police at a massage parlor. But he then turned the controversy in his favor by admitting to paying for the services of a prostitute, and thus was elected back to his seat in 1975. He was later chosen by the City Council to serve as mayor in 1977. And later still, he became a successful (and very wealthy) TV show host.

Maybe it was he who was smarter than ALL of us. Pull out your checkbooks, boys!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walk away. What’s in your head has no basis in reality. Textbook foolishness. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously do you actually expect any of us to believe that the legalization of anything has lead to Anonymity???? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life...A comment like that would only come from someone who has positioned themselves in the market to profit off of government regulation, not anyone who would ever be a legitimate provider or client here...There has never been a situation where government regulation has ever led to more Anonymity in anyway shape or form....Between this post and that of the established provider setting someone up, it seems alike the propaganda scare tactics of those who have a stake in profiting from government regulation, not those who are currently legitimate providers and clients.... It certainly seems there is a real push on with the propaganda right now from those who are seeking to profit by obtaining the support of those of us here...Watch out everyone this is starting to seem like the same type of propaganda push that was being fed to the Germans in the 1930s and we all have read how well that turned out for them...We have all been around the block enough times to know that government regulation of anything does not make it better, instead it makes for a higher cost to the consumers in the end and that has been historically shown to be true in all vices, including the recent ones....

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Hunter VanDyke said:

If the system was set up that way, yes. But that's just me, and it would only be after i thoroughly screened the gentleman myself, and felt comfortable sharing that information with him. Currently, the way TOB is set up, The Member/Clients have all the benefit of knowing the lady they are reaching out to has been verified as a legit real person, real photos, of age, not being trafficked (hopefully) there are always to skirt around any issue like that. Yet, you the client provide nothing but references and hobby name and hobby number, hobby email, some not even that. They will only PM. Its how the system is set up. I'm just saying that might not always be the case.  You might not find it that easy for yourselves in the future to find a quality lady to spend time with, with minimal risks. 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your reply, but your "yes" sounds like a disguised "no". So hypothetically, TOB requires the same RWI from everyone.Yes,  you will then provide your RWI to any client who requests it, providing they pass screening, possibly give you their RWI first, and you are ok with that information. That's not really a yes and not too different than the way things are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Barbi said:

Seriously do you actually expect any of us to believe that the legalization of anything has lead to Anonymity???? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life...A comment like that would only come from someone who has positioned themselves in the market to profit off of government regulation, not anyone who would ever be a legitimate provider or client here...There has never been a situation where government regulation has ever led to more Anonymity in anyway shape or form....Between this post and that of the established provider setting someone up, it seems alike the propaganda scare tactics of those who have a stake in profiting from government regulation, not those who are currently legitimate providers and clients.... It certainly seems there is a real push on with the propaganda right now from those who are seeking to profit by obtaining the support of those of us here...Watch out everyone this is starting to seem like the same type of propaganda push that was being fed to the Germans in the 1930s and we all have read how well that turned out for them...We have all been around the block enough times to know that government regulation of anything does not make it better, instead it makes for a higher cost to the consumers in the end and that has been historically shown to be true in all vices, including the recent ones....

OK...after this post, I may be officially in love with you! There are MANY aspects of out society and media coverage that exactly mirror the German Propaganda push of the 30's. Legalization is one of those things that SOUNDS good on the surface but likely would play out MUCH differently. Anonymity would indeed go out the window, and regulation would pour in. Although you ladies tend to be quite health conscious, frequent health testing at your expense would be required by law. Your health insurance rates would skyrocket based on your career. Likely you would also be required to have a form of liability insurance. Competition from new ladies would explode. The stigma however, would remain, and then families\spouses would be on "extra alert". It is highly likely the increase in providers would outstrip so to speak, the increase in clients. The insertion, again so to speak, of Government bureaucracy, the Medical industry, the Insurance industry, Corporate competitors, many private competitors, would almost certainly raise rates dramatically, while ladies would take home less and see fewer clients.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

It is highly likely the increase in providers would outstrip so to speak, the increase in clients. The insertion, again so to speak, of Government bureaucracy, the Medical industry, the Insurance industry, Corporate competitors, many private competitors, would almost certainly raise rates dramatically, while ladies would take home less and see fewer clients.

I think you mean see more clients, not less dear...And yes the rest if pretty much correct and those who are looking to convince us that is such a good thing, are nothing more than corporate middlemen who are looking to get rich as glorified pimps with some fancy government title for what they do....

Testing is essential for any professional and that is not limited by industry, it is just part of being a professional...

While carrying liability insurance would be great, there is not any offered at this time and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest about what it is they are doing....

All the fancy legal forms of the past, didnt cut it and what is happening now is just trying to cover up the real situation as they try to convince us that its a good thing....I do not see the government meddling into anyones life as being a good thing....Look at what happened with the markets in 2007, all because of greed and the corruption within the government and it seems that it is setting up to do that same again but this time because of the farming bills being passed at this time...Just saying anyone who has doubts about what is being set up right now just hold off making a choices about legalization of anything else in this country . until we see what happens with the government insured loan programs, especially in the farming communities as that seems to be the next area that is currently being set up that will send this country into yet another recession due to more government corruption and corporate greed.....

Edited by Barbi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barbi said:

 

I think you mean see more clients, not less dear...And yes the rest if pretty much correct and those who are looking to convince us that is such a good thing, are nothing more than the middlemen who are looking to be nothing more than just glorified pimps with a fancy government title.....

Testing is essential for any professional and that is not limited by industry, it is just part of being a professional...

While carrying liability insurance would be great, there is not any offered at this time and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest about what it is they are doing....

All the fancy legal forms of the past, didnt cut it and what is happening now is just trying to cover up the real situation as they try to convince us that its a good thing....I do not see the government meddling into anyones life as being a good thing....Look at what happened with the markets in 2007, all because of greed and the corruption within the government and it seems that it is setting up to do that same again but this time because of the farming bills being passed at this time...Just saying anyone who has doubts about what is being set up right now just hold off making a choices about legalization of anything else in this country . until we see what happens with the government insured loan programs, especially in the farming communities as that seems to be the next area that is currently being set up that will send this country into yet another recession due to more government corruption and corporate greed.....

More or less might vary regionally. With increased expenses lowering profits, certainly ladies would NEED to see more clients. However, if the increase in providers was greater than the increase in clients, they would see less as the clients would be more widely distributed. I have spoken with several ladies plus read posts from others who gave Las Vegas a try. Most were none too thrilled. Even the volume of business in Las Vegas provides a mis-read. Of COURSE there will be lots of clients in a small pocket of legalization that also is a resort catering to various "vices". Much different on Main Street in Anytown.  Actually, we can glimpse that possible future, by looking into the past. Brothels and saloon girls were once quite common out here in the Wild West in particular, and it was totally legal. In the big picture...how did that work out for those ladies? A tiny fortunate, industrious fraction worked it into a life that was good and did not suck, so to speak...the rest, not so much.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing that speaks highly for government regulation in the industry.....For anyone who does not remember what happened with "The Mustang Ranch" after it was seized by the federal government, I suggest you research that before you consider legalization of anything else....The federal government failed to operate "The Mustang Ranch" at a profit and that was one of the biggest lies told to the American people of that decade....Honestly that is all that needs to be said about that.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Barbi said:

....I do not see the government meddling into anyones life as being a good thing....Look at what happened with the markets in 2007, all because of greed and the corruption within the government ...

Government said banks had to loan to poor credit risk individuals. Being greedy, the banks went along, but hedged their bets by combining loans into securities and by creating default insurance products, which they traded among themselves spinning a profit on each trade.  But then it became evident why banks had refused loans to poor credit risks before the government forced their hands - folks started defaulting on their loans, which triggered insurance policies, and before you know it the whole mess collapsed.  It didn’t help that the government also removed regulations separating investment banks from commercial banks at the behest of greedy bankers, perhaps as compensation for accepting bad loan customers.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Government said banks had to loan to poor credit risk individuals. Being greedy, the banks went along, but hedged their bets by combining loans into securities and by creating default insurance products, which they traded among themselves spinning a profit on each trade.  But then it became evident why banks had refused loans to poor credit risks before the government forced their hands - folks started defaulting on their loans, which triggered insurance policies, and before you know it the whole mess collapsed.  It didn’t help that the government also removed regulations separating investment banks from commercial banks at the behest of greedy bankers, perhaps as compensation for accepting bad loan customers.

Crony "capitalism" is not free-market capitalism and, like socialism, it must be abolished.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barbi said:

And another thing that speaks highly for government regulation in the industry.....For anyone who does not remember what happened with "The Mustang Ranch" after it was seized by the federal government, I suggest you research that before you consider legalization of anything else....The federal government failed to operate "The Mustang Ranch" at a profit and that was one of the biggest lies told to the American people of that decade....Honestly that is all that needs to be said about that.....

It was actually operated by the bankruptcy trustee appointed by the US bankruptcy courts on behalf of the US government. That’s mouthful but not the government. At that point though they’re not necessarily trying to operate it at a profit but instead recoup whatever they think they can in quickest way possible. They sold anything and everything they could. Tax fraud and evasion don’t really help the case either. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading whole thread even after it flew off tracks, I can't believe she was checking references AFTER setting appointment and AFTER telling you location and you were there.  Makes no sense what-so-ever. Unless a call was finally returned and the "reference" was not good.  :cool: I am a big fan of simplest explanation is usually the truth - which is either what I just said or second choice is she has no clue how to screen and schedule.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course Mr. Gr8wl, you have hit that right on the head.....Sorry took this off track but seemed to be appropriate after a few of the other posts here....Good time for me to call it a night and wish everyone here well this evening....Have a wonderful evening everyone...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Barbi said:

And of course Mr. Gr8wl, you have hit that right on the head.....Sorry took this off track but seemed to be appropriate after a few of the other posts here....Good time for me to call it a night and wish everyone here well this evening....Have a wonderful evening everyone...

No need to be sorry. when an otherwise good thread goes off topic we simply close it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.