Comments by BobbyI (page 3)

Here's where MisterGay can brag about his wicked short bus riding skills.

Aren't they worried about spreading HIV?

***> "What is your outlook on dancers all together?" Pretty bleak overall. In general, I think they come from weak families and are lacking in ethics, outlook, values, and education to begin with. Then they end up in a culture which re-enforces and promotes the worst of their pre-existing problems, so they usually end up getting worse. I also believe that a very large percentage are literally crazy and are either taking medication, seeing therapists about it or should be. There are exceptions to this broad outlook. Some are very close to being normal women. The few who are good stand out all the more because they have not succumbed to the culture around them. ***> What is your tipping style? Always tip the waitress at least $1/drink, sometimes more if she really deserves it. Sometimes tip girls on stage. Never tip for dances. ***> What do you expect out of a lapdance and VIP rooms? Nothing is really expected. I'm cool with whatever comfort level a girl has regarding contact. If she is just going to air dance that is ok, she has to do what she's ok with. OTOH, I'm certainly not obligated to get more than a single dance from her, and won't unless I get the feeling that she is going to at least get me off, or that we are on track for OTC. ***> Do you pay for talking time and/or do you offer to buy drinks or will you buy the dancer a drink if she asks? Or do you refuse under all circumstances to buy a dancer a drink? Never pay for talking time or buy them drinks. ***> Are you the type of customer that likes to approach dancers your self or vice-versa? If you only like certain dancers and one you don't like approaches you, how do you react to her? I have no problem approaching them. ***> What kind of club attracts you and do you ask dancers for extras? If you ask for extras, what is usually the percentage that agree to extras? I ask for extras. I'd said around 85% will do at least HJ. Most, if you play it right, will do OTC, especially the hot ones for whatever reason. Almost every time when I met a stripper I just had to fuck she was up for it.

TUSCL scandal of the year!

Dude, you must not know strippers too well if this is a surprise to you. Nearly all of them have strange whacked out "spritual"/occult beliefs. Although especially bad amongst strippers, women, in general, are really into this non-sense. Even otherwise intelligent ones.

Best dances (in descending order) are from: 1) single girls 2) girls unhappy with their boyfriends 3) married girls 4) girls happy with their boyfriends

MisterGay: talks very tough. Rides a very short bus.

Return of MisterGay. Been busy demonstrating your great respect for whores lately? Or are you cramming for your special ed finals? Hoping to get a brand new hockey helmet for Christmas? Delusions of grandeur. What a joke. You, parody, and njcsfan are just trolls on a strip club message board. That's it. Not even very good trolls at that. Crushing the three of you was quite literally a cake walk. Not enough of a challenge as I've complained many times before. Delusions of grandeur would involve something significant, don't you think? But you do love your exaggerations don't you? Back to special ed and spreading whore respect for you, loser!

Elliot wave theory? That's right up there with astrology and reading tea leaves. You are right that inflation is on the way next year. Only way to kill off these debts. Then interest rate hikes to deal with that. If you get a loan these days make damn sure it's fixed rate. As for the 8 trillion they are "giving away". Not exactly. Much of it is loan sharking. They will make money off most of bailouts so far. AIG, FRE, FNM, C. (OTOH, the big 3 would be a money losing "bailout" which is why they are much more reluctant). The government will turn a profit on each of these "give aways". Probably the same for the future loans they have in mind: the taxpayers will make money off of them. The infrastructure rebuilding program will be a money loser short term, but it needs to be done and will be a winner longer term although it will be difficult to quantify. The tax cuts, obviously, will be a money loser for the government, but it's necessary to get consumers spending again.

Aw, does the mindless little faggot parody not have any fun here anymore after we published the algorithm on how to destroy all his troll tactics? Sorry, parody: "All your flames are belong to us". You now the saying though: better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. But since your a fucking retard with no brain, I guess that's not possible for you, huh? Why don't you just run along and go fuck yourself.

fast and furious please

how: clubber has absolutely no insights. All he "knows" is what he has read on right wing whacko blogs. He drops the names "ACORN" and CRA and thinks it's a convincing argument. Truly, those were relatively minor factor. clubber doesn't really have a mind of his own, and, in fact, is the one poster on this board who has the dubious distinction of being the only poster so dumb he couldn't even out debate MisterGay. As for the "good intentions" I say the intentions were neither good nor bad, but just to make money. They thought they had found a way to do it, but their model was flawed.

SuperDude: Well naturally. No money = no strippers and no strippers = no pussy for us. (some sarcasm here for the humor impaired)

I think you're on the right track, BG. They lenders thought they had found a way to squeeze the biggest source of value that most Americas will have: equity in their homes. One little problem though: They thought the value of homes would continue to rise indefinitely and never ran the numbers for what happen if real estate prices stayed flat or dropped. It's been a religiously held belief in the financial world that real estate is on the order of bonds and close to cash in terms of "safety". If one were in the mood, it might be a good idea to see other flawed finanical "truths" that one could exploit here. Just writing this, I get the feeling that the safety of "bonds" would be an interesting thing to examine.

I agree that just giving the banks hundreds of billions NSA was a terrible move. When the news came out what happened the S&P hit its low at 750 and this is one of the two times in the crisis when I think we were within a week or so of complete economic collapse. Fortunately, the Fed seems to have gotten smarter about how it does things since then: witness the Citi bailout (more like only minorly predatory loan here) and calm in the markets lately. Where would I have my money in the 70's? I'm not even going try and play that game? Deflation is the bigger worry right now, not hyperinflation. I'll think about what the best course of action is given probable deflation (i.e. make damn sure your job is secure, save money, pay off all your debt, keep cash on hand, delay major purchases to get a better deal later, if you must play the market: buy puts, short sell companies likely to bomb, etc.) If it looks like it will swing to hyperinflation I'll think about it then.

It wasn't a few days. It was a couple of weeks. And yes, if banks can't transfer money betwen each other with confidence that the other won't be able to cover it brings down the whole system. There have been two times in this crisis in which we probably came within a week of having the entire economy collapse. As you said the great depression would have looked like a small correction.

The borrower is much more than 1% responsible. My credit score was untarnished and I would have easily qualified to buy a home at this time. But I could see the market prices were over inflated, and I knew that it was not a good investment so I held off. Now I am glad that I did. The situation was even worse than I imagine. Next year might be a good time to go house shopping. I'll let it get a bit worse first.

Of course they were scared to lend to each other. Did ever you try transferring money between banks at this time, electronically? Especially away from one of the "bad" banks? Normally this just happens instantly because good bank gives bad bank credit. But this time around it took forever because the bad bank wasn't trusted to cover the transfer. Also, I did not say AIG was highly deregulated over all. I said that the trading of default insurance was highly deregulated. It blew up, and was probably the biggest factor in the bust. clubber: Actually I did READ what you wrote. I re-read it now just to see what you are so cranky about. My comments remain the same. Sorry if you can't accept that free markets can and have failed and that makes you all cranky. Sorry but just dropping the name "ACORN" is not enough to prove otherwise, your right wing whacko blog commentators notwithstanding. Like I say go and read the details here "The Panic of 2007" if you want to find out what really happen. Prepare to have your faith in the free market shaken, however.

jablake: The "default insurance" industry in the US was not highly regulated, in fact it was highly deregulated. It was a new kid on the block and its boom coincedes very nicely with the subprime mortgage bubble. Many of the entities which counted on implicit government backing got pennies on the dollar when default insurance was payed out. Many subprime MBSs based CDOs got screwed over before the bailouts, and even now I bet none are expecting full government bailouts. (Look at Citi's deal with the government for an example.) And if you want to know how well these private businessmen did for their companies implicitly counting on government bailouts just have a look at how AIG, WAMU, Citi's and other financial stocks have faired. And look how close they came to getting wipped out completely. Finally it seems that logically as long as there is any government involvement in the economy then no matter what happens in that economy you can always blame the government. I agree that that is logically possible. However, what you really need to do is drop the ideology and look into the details of the default insurance, and read that paper "The Panic of 2007" and then let your intuition tell you if it was free market problem or not. Let's see the one area of insurance which was easily the most deregulated is default insurance, it blows up, takes trillions out the markets, and nearly flattens. It's clearly a market failure. Is there anything that could happen in the US economy that you would recognize as a legitimate free market failure, or is your ideology so strong that you would always blame the government. This one, once you look at the details, is a no brainer. Even Greenspan admitted as much.

Agree with the others. It will blow over. Always get the numbers of strippers you would like to fuck early on just in case of things like this. Most will give out their numbers the first time you meet them.

Peter Schiff on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Clubber: ACORN was a very minor factor in the bubble and subsequent burst. Some banks like JPM and BAC were on the hook with toxic assets much less than others like C and WAMU. If it was ACORN why such a disparity in subsequent fortunes? The main problems were miscalculation of the cost of loan insurance, non-sense bond ratings, inability of loan insurers to cover potential claims, and lack of transparency in the underlying CDOs, such that banks got scared to lend to lend to each other due to inability to collect knowledge about each other's exposure to subprime MBSs. Read Gary Gorton's paper "The Panic of 2007".

Nope, the examples I cited were strippers I knew who very knowledgable on the subject. I think the risk adds to the experience of them. But just like the drugs, they need higher and higher doses of risk to get the same charge. I know the drug communities of which you speak: bluelight, erowid, etc. Some very knowledge users are indeed responsible, but some do dangerous things even though they know how dangerous: e.g. DUI or mixing combos which are known to be very dangerous. In some cases I think they "want" to come as close to the brink as they can.

jablake: It wasn't just Fannie and Freddie buying up the bad loans. CDOs were also be sold to non-government investors domestically and overseas. Private firms (the good business men/ profit maximizers) were also got toxic loans on their books, because, even though they were non-government, they were still "too stupid" to see that insurance was worthless (just like Fannie and Freddie, isn't that interesting, hmmm?) Why do you think WAMU went down and Citi came withing a few days of going down? AIG was non-governmental, selling the loan default insurance, and was ready to go down for the count before they got bailed out (MisterGay's claims that they had $1 trillion of liquidity not withstanding). Nope, the deregulated free market self-destructed just fine on its own here.

SuperDude: America will get hit by this less hard than other countries for a couple of reasons: 1) we have a huge trade deficit. So if our economy deflates other countries will lose a huge market to sell their goods to. 2) most of the world's debt is owed in US dollar, which will prop up our currency even though it ought to decline due to all the bailouts. Kinda funny we are the main originators of the mess but will probably suffer the least. jablake: I was as surprised as anyone to learn it was primarily deregulation responsible for the mess. How do you think the banks were able to pass along their crappy loans to Fannie and Freddie or dump the CDOs overseas? It's because the loans were insured. One little problem though. There was no regulation of the insuring of loans (CDSs). This meant much of the insurance were backed in opaque elaborate chains, often ending in those who could not cover once people started defaulting in droves.

ozy: Are you kidding me? I've know ones who have "sophisticated knowledge" of drugs as you put it, but still do crazy shit like mix alcohol and heroin or alcohol and GHB. Then there's their driving habits. Ask around about how many have DUIs. Some even drive when on hallucinogenics. Completely beyond irresponsible.