ECCIE mentioned in HuffPo article

Column about the Craigslist crackdown on "adult services" ads. ECCIE gets a mention in that website traffic here is up 2%:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mariss..._b_808314.html

Okay, wait. If you drive over to the girl's hotel room, are YOU sex trafficking or is she? I mean, she's not even leaving the room. You're driving all over the damn city in the middle of the night. Or is she trafficking by giving you "teh sexytime"? Or is the ad itself trafficking? Is this a movement of inches or miles? Is it slow and sweet or at the speed of light?

I think they just like using that scary word.

The way I understand it 'trafficking' has to be the transportation of an object. Write me a ticket for Trafficking a Penis of Mass Destruction with Intent to Distribute! LOL Guilty!

Lets face it; neither side of the political spectrum likes people paying for their pleasure. The right because it is immoral (their idea) and the left because they want to control what you do. After all the left should embrace the whole idea of freedom if they were sincere but we know it is really all about control. Of course us constitutionalists tell you to go out and have a blast as long as you don't make anyone do something against their will.

Oddly, Do What You Will, But Harm None also the heart of Wicca.

So............

Constitutionalists = Witches

All I know is that it wouldn't still be for sale after thousands of years unless there was great demand for it. (but demanding won't ever work to get it so I guess I don't have a point)

Oddly, Do What You Will, But Harm None also the heart of Wicca.

So............

Constitutionalists = Witches Originally Posted by SillyGirl

Hahaha... not only is that contradictory depending on if you are willing to be harmed... but this country has a long history of harming others. I guess the founding fathers didn't take their wiccan roots seriously... or at least anyone reading the constitiution didn't.

you always pay for it the legal words are girlfriend, wife or ex

Lets face it; neither side of the political spectrum likes people paying for their pleasure. The right because it is immoral (their idea) and the left because they want to control what you do. After all the left should embrace the whole idea of freedom if they were sincere but we know it is really all about control. Of course us constitutionalists tell you to go out and have a blast as long as you don't make anyone do something against their will. Originally Posted by john_galt

The left doesn't give a shit what you do. They just don't want you to harm others, or make everyone have to pay for you dumb choices. For example: I don't care if you smoke cigarettes and give yourself cancer. That's your choice. But, if you want to enjoy that freedom at the cost of others getting cancer, getting sick, or even just smelling the smoke...no way. My freedom to breathe clean air trumps your freedom to pollute the air. Get your coat and go smoke outside in the wind and snow. I don't want to pay higher insurance costs so my money can find it's way to paying your hospital bills, either. (The rest of the left are cigarette or (the site still has a zero tolerance policy for mentioning illegal substances - LaCrew) and want to control you even less.)

I suppose that I can label myself as a Constitutionalist if you can. It's a dumb term. I mean, isn't the Constitution the supreme law? And don't laws tell people what they can and cannot do? Gee, that sounds like a way to control people. Of course you have to enforce the law by making people do what they don't want to do. JG, maybe you're just a part-time Constitutionalist. You love the Constitution when you can use it as a tool to force people to do what you want them to do, and you propose amendments to that "perfect" document when it suits your needs.

Can same gender people get married to each other? Of course. John Galt says they have that freedom and it is not prohibited by the Constitution. John Galt would never support an amendment to the Constitution because he thinks it's perfect "as is". John Galt thinks that homos should go out and have a blast getting married to each other as long as nobody is forced to do it against their will.