Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (106076)	5/5/2007 2:11:55 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362293

The last thing a highly attractive, healthy woman would want to do is be a hooker. It's dangerous on many levels and exposes you to diseases, some of which are fatal. An attractive woman who is healthy can at least find a steady boyfriend to help her.........................the last thing anyone wants to do is to have to jump into bed naked with some one, anyone for the purpose of pleasuring them. How would you like to be paid for sex with an 80 year old woman who looked like hell? If you can make money any other way you would do that instead ( I think ) It's hard to explain and I have never been a hooker but I was a single Mom with two kids and I was attractive and healthy and wouldn't have prostituted myself unless I had been absolutely desperate to feed my kids. Probably I would have robbed a store first or gone to a friend for help...........anything but find some guy that would pay me directly for sex. Some women find a guy, have sex, then tell him how desperate she is and he gives her money...........but that involves choosing the partner. That situation happens all the time. I was always pretty independent and I never cried on anyone's shoulder..........maybe another woman would know more about prostitution than I..............it's a situation that is foreign to me cause I was always smart enough to be able to take care of myself.

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (106076)	5/5/2007 2:35:47 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362293

Saved by the Bomb: Senator McCain has Hit Upon a Solution to All the Republican Party’s Woes: A Nuclear War with Iran by Terry Jones(Monty Python) Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”, to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn’t shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what’s coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don’t miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism. The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year’s US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance. The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush’s little invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as “an illegal foreign occupation”; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn’t been returning calls for weeks. More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III called a “poisonous” environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans. So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job properly and go nuclear. Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs. But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for “some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to kickstart their dream of a world run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years. Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn’t be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what’s left of the world’s oil reserves. In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a “stark and dreadful and inescapable” choice: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Senator McCain wasn’t bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent re-election. Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. Terry-jones.net © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by the Guardian/UK