TampaYankee

Both Geitner and Summers were Obama's biggest fails. I agree with the thrust of the above. These guys were clearly looking out for the banks rather than Main St. I'm sympathetic that we cannot kill the banks. They are essential to the mechanism of a modern economy. But they should have been broken up and Glass-Steagle reimposed. Not treated with a band-aid and allowed to grow even bigger. These guys also screwed up the housing and morgage market recovery by funneling money to the banks without imposing write-downs and selling off of troubled mortgage assets. Dodd also gets a full share of blame too. They were all 'on the take' in one way or another, contemporaneously or for future consideration. Barney Frank deserves some blame too but less as I believe he saw more clearly the real problems and tried to get as much done as he could , swimming up-stream as he was. He should have blown the whistle. I won't even go into the GOP intransigence, insisting that nothing was wrong but TARP itself, in any form. Obama was really out of his depth in that crisis and sold a bill of goods that these guys were the fixers. Well, they were but the fix was in on us. And not a single criminal prosecution of big wigs for what is blatant theft of hundreds of millions of dollars. I suspect Geitner and Summers mutter under their breath "there but for the grace of God go I". They could have been sitting at those CEO desks just as easily in another moment.

No one can forget how stupid she is unless they are brain dead. Of course many brain-dead do exist as the crowds and polls in 2008 documented, even some I admired at one time. Or maybe they just turned out to be jaded opportunists looking to prevail at any cost. That would make them idiots engaged in wholesale fraud.

We actually need an explicit amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing our privacy. However, that will never happen since the Government and Monied Interests are against it. You can take that to the bank.

I have no problem with people coming here to talk about the situation over there. They get closed down without warning and the site is locked down completely. Some are curious why, others are upset -- so let them talk it out amongst themselves as long as their are no knife fights. I have said all I have to say about daddy's close-down and have no personal interest. Not sure why nonparticipants of that site would care either. I do see why participants over there would care. I don't intend to shut them out of an opportunity here to express their understanding or frustrations, whichever applies. Maybe they will find other topics here that interest them or start some.

... and a Princely scepter he possesses, rightfully for true Royalty.

He was a hunk in his day.

I've heard just the opposite in the last day or so. The old right-wing bible-thumpin fart that heads it went on record saying he is proud of his conservative (read anti-gay) company stance. Maybe he and the PR department are not on the same wavelength? I think I'll take his statement as the 'operative' one. That is old Nixon/Watergate talk for you youngsters.

It seems that he is dealing with the modern day equivalent of ulcers and is taking time off to deal with that, at the least. That time frame might be consistent with moving to a new host but that is rank conjecture as a possibility. It might explain the mailboxes.

Now that you mention that episode, yes i do. Reggie came back as Woodlawn with on even haughtier perch looking down even further on the masses. Near Woodie's end, he called me names too when I tripped him up, catching him explicitly in his Woodie/Pickwick sham, and also catching him in a lie, both by his own words. That was his covering exit when he was embarrassed by exposure. For the record, Reggie/Woodie had two earlier incarnations, neither handle I recall right now. The first was leaving as I was coming onto the boards, and the second was my first engagement with him. I only knew they were the same when HB exposed it in a moment of pique or exasperation. I believe the total number of identities credited to him numbered 22, many active at the same time. That was from an authoritative source. However, there were some very stimulating exchanges that some of us had with him without the name calling. Both Reg/Woodie and Doug would roll out names either quickly to insult the newbies or casual posters too send them on their way and then gloat or as pointed out by yourself when they had been bested to embarrassment. But once you engaged them and drew serious blood they dropped that tact because it challenged them to stand their ground on an intellectual basis which they seemed to relish until bested. Both were always out to show their superiority. Besting them was not easy to do, they were terribly resilient and slippery in their tactics when cornered, not to mention smart. The escort, not Ethan, originally came from SFO, drove East to set up shop in RI before having a scrape with the law while living out of his car I believe. The trip was chronicled on the boards. I believe he shortly after retired and went home to Texas. I do recall big-dick Ethan, now that you mention him. He was feisty and proud of his pump handle too. Not shy about entering into sharp debate. Thanks for refreshing my memories, Charlie.

Cityline1, daresay no one knows Doug 69 and Woodlawn, who was Regulation before that and had alteregos like Pickwick to name one, better than me. Anyone who was around HooBoy's in those days knows that. I engaged each in several very tough, sharp exchanges during those years. Those exchanges were exciting in a way that a knife fight is exciting. However, we did not tend to wallow in name calling, we engaged sharp back and forth of views based on fact and opinion that sought to discredit the opponent's argument and its intellectual underpinning. There was little quarter given. Not that I was the only one, there were several others, as well, that contributed to the mix, including an escort in that time who was as intellectually and argumentatively challenging as anyone I recall participating on the boards -- I fail to recall his name now. And yes there were a number of very sharp escorts who participated on the boards from time to time. Not many but a few who were particularly resilient in their egos, attitudes, and feeling of security. Most would not submit themselves to the controversy, and often abuse, because they felt it affected their livelihood. We do not ban such discussion as long as it remains in forum policy bounds. We ban agendas and stalkers and never-ending gratuitous cheap shots. Some may find that interesting but usually not the targets and usually not me. I got over playground taunts a while back. So bring on the intellectual exchanges with sharp edges if you can find someone with the passion to join the fray but please don't stir up passions with cheap name calling that goes nowhere else. I'm not singling you out as an example, only using you as a rhetorical device to make my point.

We appreciate your comments as always. You have given us a banquet for thought. We are mulling over your feedback. We take it to heart. As you know site participation has been limited to a smaller but very high quality group of steadfast individuals. We appreciate the loyalty and select nature of that group. As you also know we have tried earnestly to generate more interest and increased traffic for the site. When I say 'we' I include many of you who have participated over and above the usual effort and sought new blood as well. We thank you for that. Those efforts have been up and down but in the end never really achieved lasting success. So, if we haven't been able to attract more traffic with the present scheme it seemed the alternative was to broaden the site appeal in the hope of attracting a larger audience. The issue with that is how do we retain the flavor of the site while broadening it to include additional flavors that gay men would find attractive. Part of that has to do with first impressions and part with content. Thus we are looking for a name that would have broader interest appeal followed by additional content to augment the forums and escort information. Think of a cinema going from one screen to maybe two or three. The same genre of movies are still run on the original screen while maybe another screen is dedicated to a second genre and maybe a third etc. They all share a common lobby, in this case the forums. How to accomplish this without affecting the first screen requires choosing the other genres with careful planning. You have given us your feedback and we take it seriously. I don't quite know how this will end up yet but it is important to get your feedback along the way. If it was obvious then we would have done it long ago. So, please bear with us for now and continue the feedback as we continue this effort.

Ummm... I think I called that one a few posts above. Damn, I threw my shoulder out patting myself on the back. Is there a chiropractor in the house?

14 people killed by gunman at midnight screening in Aurora CO. As many as 50 others injured. Read all about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/aurora-shooting-movie-theater-batman_n_1688547.html

Totally appropriate response on her part.

We now have Oz on record that not only does he allow women in his skivvies, he allows strange women in them too.

I boycott groups/companies I have a BIG gripe with. In the 80's or early 90's a subsidiary of Toshiba knowing or carelessly sold classified machining technology licensed from the USA to the Russians. It permitted them to make super quiet submarine propellers we used on our subs. Until then we had clear superiority on underwater stealth. To this day, and until the day I die, I will not buy a Toshiba product. So you know I'd boycott Chik-Fil-A no matter how it tasted, if I had any in my area. I get pissed when others sacrifice their principles for such an unprincipled reason. Makes me think their principles are principles-of-convenience, which are no principles at all. I'd be happy if they were closed seven days a week. I refuse to funnel money to hate organizations or those that support them. Just my genetic nature.

Does anyone really think he will stand up against his party to fight for right, whatever he might believe that to be on any given day? Haven't seen it so far... and his sights will be on reelection from day one. This guy is the ultimate remotely piloted politician. He will be guided from the congressional wings, think-thank neocons, and boardrooms in multinational corps. I really do not know why he wants to be President other than ego or personal enrichment. He seems to have no enduring principles that he is willing to go to the wall for. His interest seems to begin and end, after achieveing office, in greasing the way for the one percenters and Wall-Streeters.

Probably concerned about having porn found on his computer or maybe he is internet illiterate. Chalk this up to thinking with the wrong head for whatever reason.

I agree, neither looks exactly 'black' or 'white'. But both are great looking guys.

I'm unsure how much of this is homophobia and how much is practical reality as they see it. Clearly, there much homophobia present in the organization for the same reason it is impractical at this point for the BSA to broaden its horizons. The fact is, BSA is underwritten by the churches of America in that many, probably most meeting facilities are provided in churches. It is also likely that many local organizers and adult participants are church members too. Like it or not, churches are not friendly to gays. Thus, if the BSA openly admitted gays they would likely lose most of the national base that now supports their local meeting places and personnel. That doesn't make their policy right but it does present them with a major practical problem of how it can move its dependence on churches to other local organizations that would have the necessary facilities and supporting personnel to keep the organization viable on a nationwide basis. Not such an easy obstacle to overcome, even if there was a desire to do it. It would be a massive chaotic effort that the organization might not withstand, at least nowhere near its present level of participation. Just food for thought.

The TSA officer was right to be concerned because clearly it could be used as a dangerous weapon. I suspect he was also excited to do his due diligence in protecting the flying community from a serious potential risk. The only important question remaining unanswered in this story is whether the TSA guy was weezing with labored breathing or sporting a big sh8t eating grin during the pat-down.

Axiom reminds me of a very thirsty man determined to drain the oceans. He has much lust in his heart which I can empathize with -- I have my share too.

Otherwise known as Taxiscorts -- the further you go the more it costs. Something I first heard from HooBoy.

Stripes tend to carry the eye in the direction they run. I think it is the horizontal stripes you want to avoid. They carry the eye from side to side as opposed to up and down. Just remember to avoid 30s vintage prison uniforms or anything resembling them. As an alternative, basic black, with or without pearls, is always correct.

There are those fully committed ideologues on both sides that will follow their party to hell no matter what they support or how they act, for sure. ( The South is an example.) But there are many many people who know that when you sign on the dotted line under penalty of perjury then you are responsible for what you say over your signature. These people sign income tax forms, mortgage applications, etc. When someone tries to tell them that it doesn't mean anything they know better. Whether that alone will overcome, in the end, other concerns is unclear but they don't toss off, so lightly, perjury or public lies.