I know I am going to get slammed by all you for being so vague and "search the reviews" type of replies.
Unfortuneately, I just can't get out there as much anymore, and trying to gleam accurate info from SDX and Eros these days is like getting the truth from John Kerry.
My "quest" is for a "Shay" type of provider, with a clue and a sense of reliability. For those of you who have met Shay you will understand what I mean by physical appearance; young, slender, pretty.
In a perfect world if you could combine Shay's appearance with Hope Taylor's (remember that goddess!)professionalism then we would all have smiles on our face at the end of the day.
In conclusion, if any of you have met any young ladies that might fit this criterion feel free to chime in. Much appreciated, have a good weekend!

i agree. never been lucky enough for the shay quest. my favorite was emerald.. if i ever find her again ill let you know and then help bring shay my way!

In other words, it's nearly impossible right now for you to get what your looking for.

BTW, if you want the truth from John Kerry, all you need to do is ask him.  He'll tell you.  For example, he has told me that he'll raise my taxes because the nation needs it (I earn well over $200K per year).  I respect the man for that, as well as for his personal courage.  Meanwhile, Bush merely spends our nation into sustained economic decline through fiscal irresponsibility, and gets hundreds of brave young Americans killed on a misguided Iraqi adventure, that he justified with lies about an imminent nuclear threat, so his oil buddies can pillage the resources of that nation.

Your baseless, ad hominum (sp?) attacks are getting old.

You had your threads about the elections, take this garbage to the national board.

You hate the current administration, ENOUGH ALREADY......sheesh.....I think we get your point.

My bad for including the political pun, but as jbird mentioned, get off of the political high horse nonsense. Please, respond to the subject of my post, otherwise be ignored.

as well as an excellent analogy of Udogu's statement.

Hey UDOG-- you and I have always got along well but I'm sure you (and Jbird) should realize that you can't throw out a rag on one side and then be surprized when someone responds in kind.  Especially since Bush really does suck.  But  I personally can't imagine what Bush or Kerry has in common with what you are looking for-- but once you find it send me a PM!!

Confused comment of UDOGU deserved a  response, and SDSTUD did his civic duty to enlighten a confused citizen.  

About you ... you are obviously hopeless ...  If you were sitting on a $4M turst fund, I would have understood your sentiments ...

and on top of that he got IMPEACHED by the house of Representatives. So much for intelligent thinkers. I'd rather have some one in charge who gets the job done, rather than someone who gets jobbed by interns for his own self gratification on our hard earned tax paying dollars!!

I'm actually a middle of the road guy (in sdstud's tax bracket); I vote for the candidate rather than the party.  While my strongest belief is in minimum government, I have no problem taking on more of the tax burden since I can afford it.

The one thing I can't figure out about you hard-line right wingers:  How can you possibly support an attorney like John Ashcroft while participating in the hobby?

Iagree. The thought of Kerry telling the truth when asked a question is funny.

Isn't that an "oxymoron"? I assume it is otherwise you would have found one by now.

-- Modified on 3/14/2004 1:05:07 PM

There is simply NO OBJECTIVE WAY anyone can claim that Clinton was one of the worst Presidents in U.S. History.  He presided over tremendous economic expansion, which was the most prolonged and successful period of prosperity in American history.  So he got a BJ from an intern, Big Deal.  Under CLINTON's foreign policy, Al Queda was never able to pull off a major attack on U.S. soil, only in remote, arab or arab-sympathetic regimes.  And the next job Bush creates will be the first (compared to 17 million new jobs under Clinton).  In every way, Clinton was a more successful president than either of the George Bushes.

and I will continue to do so, with a comparable one on Bush.  And, in the process, I actually DID answer UDOGU's escorting question, as my dig on Dumbya was also a statement about how the specific type of escort he was seeking would be virtually impossible to find in San Diego, just as getting an intelligent thought out of Dumbya was virtually (but not 100% completely) impossible.

I had no intention of starting a political discussion on the S.D. board, and in fact, I did not start this one.  I simply replied to another post which included a political point that I disagreed with.  You are more than welcome to ignore my posts if they make you uncomfortable.

-- Modified on 3/15/2004 11:25:59 AM

During the Clinton presidency, I recall unemployment being at around what it is now. But for some reason, all of the papers and news station called it a mild unemployment rate. However, now when Bush is in office, The same percentage of unemployment is regarded as a massive failure of the present administration. The same numbers with different interpretations.Why is that?

Now wait a darn-gone minute! I resemble that remark greatly! BUt I did not have "sex" with that lady. Of course, it all depends on what you consider to be "sex."

I've never understood how consevatives make claims. I would like to know to really believe that  unemployment rate during Clinton was the same as it is now (national unemp not only yours)?

If you ask me, George W. needs to get himself into a nice sexual scandal to keep all those morons out there who actually vote from focusing on the real core isssues, like Halibutron, a Supreme Court Jurist who doesn't know what the shit "conflict of interest" means even though they teach it at law school, gutting of the enviormental laws and raping of the land in the public trust, a stupid war that is only killing our nation's best and bravest, alleged service in the National Guard even thought no one ever saw him there and...Oh, wait a minute,... that's right,..I had forgotten,...George W., can't get it up!

"I have no problem taking on more of the tax burden since I can afford it. "  If you want to throw your money away on more social welfare programs, which is the goal of every socialist, er, democrat in Washington, go ahead, but, bottom line, I've never heard a more idiotic statement.

Unemployment was 7.8% when Clinton took office in 1992 and 3.9% when he left in 2000. In 1995 unemployment hit 5.6%, down from  7.8% three years earlier.  Under Bush unempleyment is up to 5.6% from 3.9% when he took office.  Do you see the difference now? (this information is taken from the bureau of labor statistics rather than the WSJ opinion page).

Under Bush, Unemployment has typically been between 5-6%, or, in other words over 50% greater unemployment on average under Dumbya.  In addition, the REAL difference is actually WORSE than is suggested by those numbers, because anyone involved with those statistics will tell you that there is something known as the Natural, or Structural rate of unemployment, which basically means, in an ideal world, there will still be 2.5% to 3% unemployment as people transition their lives, and INTENTIONALLY take themselves out of the workforce for short periods while re-locating, or getting married, or leaving to go to re-training school, etc.  So, in reality, if Unemployment was at 3% under Clinton, that is about as good as it could ever get, while now, at 5.6% under Bush, that is a substantial number of Americans who can't get a job, but actually want to.

Also, it's gotten so bad for Dumbya that they are trying to modify the basic statistics, so that "Domestic" employment is lumped into other categories that formerly included much higher paying jobs.  This would serve to blur the data in order to hide how bad the situation is under Bush, so that an $8K annual part-time work at home job under Bush would be lumped into a group that formerly only included full-time jobs with median incomes that had been over $25K.  In other words, obscuring the fact that someone who lost a $25-30K job now scrapes to make $8K trading junk on ebay from their (soon to be foreclosed) home.  If Bush's trumped-up stats, that would not show a net loss of employment, while historically, that has always been considered a lost full-time job.

-- Modified on 3/16/2004 10:39:48 AM

Over 1200 families lost their homes in San Diego 5 months ago because our budget was too strapped to have the Helicopter that all the agencies knew we needed, as well as the communications infrastructure link so that the civilian services could coordinate with the military who HAD available resources that could have been used.

The 2 main reasons for this were: 1) that FEDERAL cutbacks had forced the state to spend most of it's emergency funds on basic services, and 2) that Bush's major energy benefactors (i.e. Enron) pillaged California's treasury to the tune of over $200 million in jacked up energy costs a couple of years ago.

The fact that some of us WOULD be willing to pay more taxes to make our lives better is a personal value judgement, not an idiotic statement.  And that is NOT all for wasteful social programs, but rather, adequate BASIC services like fire protection, which is underfunded at the state level, simply because of the wasteful war games and patronage to energy and Pharmaceutical industries tthat Bush has been responsible for at the Federal level.  The fact is, BUSH is the one who is spending like a druken sailor in a whorehouse.  Kerry is just trying to PAY those bills, to put the budget back on a sound fiscal basis.

Reoes that include paying for Police and Fire Services?

Actually, the estimated figure looted by the "energy companies" from California during the artificially-created energy crisis during 2000 is probably closer to $10 billion. We're currently paying off this extortion through our inflated monthly SDG&E bills, as well as the California energy bonds that were sold during 2000.

As the Cedar/Paradise Fire of 2003 raged out of control and was invading the Clairemont Mesa, KUSI had a crew that televised the fire threatening to cross Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Occasionally, a fire crew would stop by for a minute or two, but then had to leave. I was thinking that someone should hand a hose to that KUSI crew so at least someone could do something.

As I see praise for PETCO park (funded with taxpayer dollars) on this board and hear more about the pension crisis which threatens to ruin San Diego City's bond ratings, it is worthwhile to remember that our local firefighters are still underfunded.

...and defense is a small part of it. Check out this link to the Cato Institute, a respected conservative think tank.

If she's legit, she might fit the bill