but over the years there has been vocal minority, mainly made up of providers, who warn about what the landscape in the hooker world would look like if prostitution were to become legal in the United States. Most of us have pooh poohed them as alarmists and have rightly pointed out how well legalized prostitution works in other countries, BUT  

this is actually a real question because I've never reviewed anyone but a hooker on line. Isn't it possible to review anonymously? Personally, I would never attach my real name to ANY review, even for a non-hooker, simply as a matter of privacy.

As you know, I have NEVER written a review of a hooker, and like you I have also never written a review of a non-hooker either. I "believe" that you are correct, but just like all but the highest volume hookers can usually figure out who reviewed them, even under an alias, I would suppose that Yelp reviews that are very specific are just as easy to figure out, especially one where the dog died.

out of my 200+ reviews, I only have two indies (both Asian, of course - Lol).  In reviewing Kgirls, I wait two weeks to put up the review.  By then she has already seen 70 other guys, so my session is just a blur by then, confirming your assessment that its okay to review high-volume girls.  Sometimes I get burned and end up eating a review because she leaves before I get it up and so I have no ad link, but that's a small aggravation in the big picture.  I started out on another review site with indies I was seeing, but as you both point out, that can get crazy and threatening if they don't like what you said, so after about 30, I changed my handle and started over with Asians.  450+ reviews there as CDL, and 200+, and counting, here.  As Herb says, Life is Good.  

Now all we need is IMP and LTM&L to agree with us too. Well at least IMP. I don't think LTM even likes pussy. I can't remember the last time he even talked about it. I will give IMP credit though, he even admitted that he "might" even rent a room at a Trump hotel in order to get laid. That had to be a hard admission for him to make, even if it did come with a few caveats. Would you REALLY expect otherwise from him? lol

Now, if we agreed on a P&R subject that would mean total capitulation on your part.
Soon. LOL!

Gay marriage, abortion rights, Second amendment, I bet I could find a dozen different subjects we can agree on.  

If you agree on gay marriage and abortion rights, why did you vote for and still slavishly support someone who opposes both and does nothing but appoint judges who will rule against them? As for the Second Amendment, you are also WRONG. Just because I am a licensed gun owner you should NOT assume I don't want tougher gun laws. If we got some sanity in this country I would gladly turn in my pistol.
Until then, of course, tell gunny not to darken my door unless he wants some .45 caliber ventilation. lol

Not so different.  I think Jake has the potential to be a little more conservative, but it will take some shock therapy, like if Bernie becomes president and puts the tax rate for people like us at 90%, like it was about 70 years ago.  However, back then, there were so many deductions you could take, that nobody really paid anything close to 90%, but it sounded good to the Socialists who thought the rich were getting soaked.  If Bernie becomes President, there are likely to be NO deductions, but still a tax rate that is astronomic.  That's when we get capitulation from Jake and he becomes a solid conservative.  Until then, we will just have to make do with finding our agreements wherever there is the scent of pussy.   All for one, one for all.  

-- Modified on 7/22/2019 2:06:17 PM

Under Eisenhower, the highest MARGINAL tax rate was 91%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate on the richest taxpayers was around 40-42%. In interviews, Trump said that the Eisenhower years and the Teddy Roosevelt years are what he (Trump) felt were when America was "great" and what he (Trump) means by MAGA.  
.
Given that, every candidates' tax plans are about progressive tax rates and marginal income or wealth taxes on the richest Americans, e.g., a 1% wealth tax on wealth in excess of $50 million. (Everybody's specific numbers are different.)

I know in your little world, conservative views mean nothing, but not everyone in this country is obsessed with "soaking the rich" the fact that Trump was elected POTUS and is VERY likely to be reelected should be proof enough of that viewpoint.

Since you posted this as a reply to CDL, what the fuck does any of this have to do with his post that you replied to???

in the forest.   What does Trump suing business people in the past have to do with the OP, which was about FOSTA/SESTA and hookers?

not only are you lost in the forest, you also fell down and cracked your head open on a rock, causing parts of your brain to spill out onto the ground.  My question WAS . . . . . .  what does Trump have to do with FOSTA/SESTA and hookers?  I didn't ask you if Trump sues people, which is the UNASKED question you decided to answer.   The fact that he has sued someone in the past still doesn't connect the dots.  I have sued people, too, but I don't see how that connects me to the OP's statements on this thread.  Its apparent you are missing a large number of little gray cells.  

1) HE SIGNED FOSTA/SESTA INTO LAW!!!!!
2) Stormy Daniels was not only a porn star, she was a HOOKER. And do you really think she was the only hooker he boned over the years? If so, you are the most naive person on this planet.

Some things never change.

Can you not follow along? Do you just look at the names w/o reading the posts?
.
* CDL wrote: "the tax rate for people like us at 90%, like it was about 70 years ago."  
.
** I replied to CDL: "Under Eisenhower, the highest MARGINAL tax rate was 91%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate on the richest taxpayers was around 40-42%."
.
*** GaG challenged me with: "By "every candidate" I assume you mean every DEM candidate"
.
**** I replied to GaG: "every candidate. Even Trump's tax plans are built upon a graduated or progressive tax basis."
.
where the *, **, ... indicate the indentation / reply level.
.
***** And NOW GaG asks:

the Congressional vote was so overwhelmingly in support of it, his veto would have easily been overridden by Congress.  I can just see Laffy's headline the next day . . . . . "Congress bitch-slaps Trump."   The fake news would be howling how out-of-step Trump is with the American people and should be impeached.  He had NO CHOICE but to sign it given the vote in Congress.  

McConnell said Trump supported the bill, which was written by Senate Republicans. There was NEVER any issue over the veto-proof majority. You are fake news.
Re the second point, you were silly enough to claim Trump had nothing to do with hookers.
So a LOSS on all counts. As usual.

Just argumentative like Jake, or stupid like fg.

what they used to call tax "loopholes."  Granted, these were mostly exploited by the wealthy because they usually required a significant investment.  Back in the  70's when I was just started my career, I liked to take some of my year-end bonus and invest in speculative tax shelters.  They typically went something like this:  

This was before the days of "tax preference" items, the AMT and during the years of non-recourse debt that you describe, often with twice the "leverage" that you spoke of. I remember one deal in the early 80s that allowed an investor to put up $100,000 in cash, leverage it into a $1,000.000 position in the deal by signing a non-recourse note for $900,000, generating an $850,000 tax write of that even at a tax rate of 50% would save him $425,000 off his tax bill. These deals were all over the place back then.  

Please read your own fucking link. ROFLMFAO

Its origins had nothing to do with Trump and, although he signed it, does anyone think HRC wouldn't have done exactly the same? The fact is that it's a monstrosity with support among the nanny-staters and morality police on both sides of the aisle. Does anyone think the law will be repealed if Dems regain the Presidency and both chambers of Congress? The real problem, and any solution to it, lies much deeper than partisan politics. So, if you want to bash Trump, at least find a legitimate basis like his choice of hair style. About that there can be no serious dispute.

But you did. You are an utter pinhead. Thanks so much for reminding us. AGAIN.
It's true cdl needs all the help he can get here but not from you.

ALL of your posts with "I'm confused" because we only need to read a few words and we know that's EXACTLY what you are.  

FOSTA-SESTA came into existence during Obama's tenure. Did he fail to "do the right thing" by allowing it to progress unchecked? Hillary Clinton has spoken out about many things but, to my knowledge, she has not come out in opposition to FOSTA-SESTA. Any intellectually honest assessment of whether she, had she become President, would have signed it into law would have to conclude she almost certainly would have.  So where does that put her when it comes to doing the right thing? Finally, neither right-wing morality police nor left-wing nanny-staters seem terribly concerned about the right thing. So, since the law appears to have a strong and bipartisan base of support, your obsession with criticizing Trump on this particular issue says much more about you than it does about him.

The reason he doesn't is exactly the same as the reason Hillary wouldn't. Neither of them agree with the minority position that FOSTA-SESTA is a bad law. In fact, outside of those in the SW community (providers, clients, and website owners), and some Libertarians, there's precious little support for repeal. Your premise is flawed in that you seem to think Trump believes the law is bad but failed to act out of political expediency. There is no factual basis for that premise. Then you follow up the initial flaw by criticizing him for acting in a political manner when he claimed to be above or beyond that sort of thing. But a far simpler explanation, and one more likely to be correct, is that he agrees with the stated purpose of the law, just as Hillary does, and signed it for that reason. Maybe both are wrong but there's no evidence to support a charge of hypocrisy. Once again, your choice of THIS issue to criticize Trump is indicative of nothing more than knee-jerk reflexivity on your part.

who cut funds for trafficking.  They would not approve his package for border security which included the wall, and gave him much less, so EVERYTHING in his budget took a haircut, including money for trafficking.  If Congress would have approved the full amount he asked for, all parts of the Homeland Security budget would have been FULLY funded, including money to fight trafficking.

but there are a couple of posters, LTM&L included, that believe that EVERYTHING is Trumps fault, and no conversation is so unrelated to our President that they can't find a way to work in a slam against Trump. A simple discussion of the weather will lead to them bashing him over Global Warming, talk about pussy and they bring up FOSTA/SESTA and wrongly blame Trump for it, talk about taking a trip and they will start talking about how the world hates us, BECAUSE OF TRUMP.

Wow, a man with a degree of money/power/influence/notoriety who actually leverages those things to get pussy . . . whodathunkit?! Sounds kinda (Bill) Clintonesque to me. But that's actually irrelevant to your argument because one of the points discussed ad nauseam in this forum is that prostitution is NOT synonymous with trafficking. Therefore, even (for the sake of argument) accepting your point about Trump + hookers, that doesn't support your conclusion of hypocrisy for his signing a (purported) anti-trafficking law. And, while we're on the topic of the Clintons, I'd love to hear your take on whether you think Bill Clinton would have put the kibosh on FOSTA-SESTA (spoiler alert - NOT). On the topic of getting government out of our lives, even your anti-Trump goggles have got to see that as a classic "straw man" argument. Even the most limited government advocates don't want every law enforcement function abolished and anti-trafficking absolutely falls into the category that most on both the left and right want to see enforced. See any pattern here? You keep projecting your own definitions and assumptions onto others and then trying to build your argument on that flawed foundation.

Not really needed as I've been posting on various boards since the early days of SFRedbook and I'm well acquainted with trolldom. And, while I have no illusions about ever changing the mind of a troll, there is a certain satisfaction in exposing the fraudulent nature and complete vacuousness of their thought processes and pseudo-arguments. For me there's also entertainment value in being able to visualize the spittle forming at the corners of their mouths as they post in a frantic downward spiral to rescue their hopeless positions. So, since there's not much else going on in the TER forums these days, this is my way of indulging in a bit of fun.

I guess it's like gold miners in a boom town who have a fist full of money, but no pussy to spend it on. Even the homeliest woman starts looking doable.  

So, you've moved on from your "Blame Trump for FOSTA-SESTA" harangue and are now raising one of the most compelling issues of our time (wait for it) . . . the status of the White House HVAC system! Nicely done. I had no idea the utter collapse of your argument would be so quick and complete.

Your mantra "I talk ABOUT Laffy, not TO him" can't cover up the fact that you ALWAYS talk about him to the point of utter obsession. It makes your mantra simply side-splitting.

seldom think things through first.   She got what she deserved.  

Some fucking cunt accepts $130,000 AFTER having sex to agree to keep her big fucking mouth shut and the lefties here treat her like some kind of fucking hero, or just as bad as a "victim"  

Stormy was originally shopping the story around for $200k three weeks before the election but because the media was so sure Hillary was going to win by a landslide, they thought $200k was way too much for a footnote to history.

$200k that CPL could have stolen.