Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

The sane will prevail

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Oct 12, 2015
7:54am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
There are about 20,000 downtown employees at casinos alone. Get rid of the nuts, and it'll lead to more jobs............probably 2000 more jobs.

Boilerman claims getting rid of a couple of dozen part time street performers is going to add 2000 jobs to downtown Vegas. That's an additional payroll of over $40,000,000 at 10 bucks an hour. To justify that, there would have to be at least another $60,000,000 of business brought downtown equating to about 2 million additional visitors. 2 million more people are going to visit Fremont Street because there are no more street performers? And he calls them nuts?

Frankly I'd be surprised if banning the buskers created one more job let alone 2000 and this is more of a case of a few angry old men who think they know best what we should say and how we should dress.

But even if it was 20,000 new jobs it wouldn't be worth one drop of the blood of our brave men and women who have defended the United States Constitution for two centuries. Some people put business above freedom. Not me.

melonhead
melonhead
Oct 12, 2015
12:46pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
There are about 20,000 downtown employees at casinos alone. Get rid of the nuts, and it'll lead to more jobs............probably 2000 more jobs.

Boilerman claims getting rid of a couple of dozen part time street performers is going to add 2000 jobs to downtown Vegas. That's an additional payroll of over $40,000,000 at 10 bucks an hour. To justify that, there would have to be at least another $60,000,000 of business brought downtown equating to about 2 million additional visitors. 2 million more people are going to visit Fremont Street because there are no more street performers? And he calls them nuts?

Frankly I'd be surprised if banning the buskers created one more job let alone 2000 and this is more of a case of a few angry old men who think they know best what we should say and how we should dress.

But even if it was 20,000 new jobs it wouldn't be worth one drop of the blood of our brave men and women who have defended the United States Constitution for two centuries. Some people put business above freedom. Not me.


While I completely agree with alanleroy, I wonder if maybe everybody should just ignore the boil man when he's making up shit and posting it here. You know what they say about feeding the trolls.....



jphelan
jphelan
Oct 13, 2015
12:06am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
Clearly - Freemont Street is not a place for children, but it is a public street and there are many children present. Shouldn't all public streets be child friendly?

I would be in favor of either:

1) Placing performers who are not PG rated in a special area (maybe near Glitter Gulch) with signs to notify parents / people wishing to avoid this area
2) Placing signs on either side of Freemont street saying the Canopy area is NOT suitable for children

Somehow they don't have this issue on Bourbon street in New Orleans - or do they?


We already have obscenity laws.


I think guys in diapers and women in g-strings and pasties might be pushing the limits of these "obscenity" laws.....and in New Orleans, flashing for beads is definitely pushing these limits. Laws that are not enforced are not followed....like immigration, speeding, drug possession, etc.

Heck we have signs on McDonald's coffee cups warning that coffee may be hot for people too stupid to know better. Why not have signs for people visiting Las Vegas with children who may be too naïve to know better?

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Oct 13, 2015
12:40am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
I think guys in diapers and women in c-strings and pasties might be pushing the limits of these "obscenity" laws.....

Ok. Let's get this right. Even though Boilerman constantly refers to 'diaper guy'...in reality it is a man who is not wearing a diaper. He is wearing a loincloth. He is a parody of the god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. He is often portrayed as the son of the love goddess Venus, and is known in Latin also as Amor ("Love"). For crying out loud...this dude is dressed up like CUPID. You know...that's why he carries a plastic bow and arrow.

So instead of saying a guy in a diaper is borderline obscene....tell the truth. You and Boilerman are actually claiming CUPID is obscene. I imagine Boilerman would probably also want CUPID banned from other parts of our lives too...especially those things that impact the children...like fucking valentines....where he is often shown....OMG...Naked!

As to women in c-strings and pasties...it's no more flesh than you can see at any pool in Las Vegas and less than some pools. And women who bare their breasts in New Orleans? Why do we have such a double standard when it comes to men and women's chests? I encourage women to bare their breasts in public as an exercise of free speech that illustrates the deep prejudices of American social mores.

These are absolutely not examples of obscenity.

To your real point...I do agree....and there's nothing preventing the Fremont Street Experience and the Casinos that are part of it from posting warnings that there may just be some adult content out there where thousands of adults are drinking and partying.



Boilerman
Boilerman
Oct 13, 2015
12:47am
Block User
I'm hoping that @alanleroy will post all of the examples of Boiler constantly referring to "Diaper guy". I believe that I've used the term once, but twice on the top end. Please prove me wrong.


Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
I think guys in diapers and women in c-strings and pasties might be pushing the limits of these "obscenity" laws.....

Ok. Let's get this right. Even though Boilerman constantly refers to 'diaper guy'...in reality it is a man who is not wearing a diaper. He is wearing a loincloth. He is a parity of the god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. He is often portrayed as the son of the love goddess Venus, and is known in Latin also as Amor ("Love"). For crying out loud...this dude is dressed up like CUPID. You know...that's why he carries a plastic bow and arrow.

So instead of saying a guy in a diaper is borderline obscene....tell the truth. You and Boilerman are actually claiming CUPID is obscene. I imagine Boilerman would probably also want CUPID banned from other parts of our lives too...especially those things that impact the children...like fucking valentines.

As to women in c-strings and pasties...it's no more flesh than you can see at any pool in Las Vegas and less than some pools.

These are absolutely not examples of obscenity.

To your real point...I do agree....and there's nothing preventing the Fremont Street Experience and the Casinos that are part of it from posting warnings that there may just be some adult content out there where thousands of adults are drinking and partying.


Boilerman
Boilerman
Oct 13, 2015
1:01am
Block User
There will never be a way to mathematically prove that removing the nuts will improve business. There's also no way to disprove this argument. The casino owners are pushing for their removal, and they're on Fremont Street every day.

So, who do you trust to evaluate the affects on Fremont business, those who've invested billions on casino properties and who spend 50 hours a week on Fremont, or Melonhead? These business owners field the complaints, and they listen to stories of folks saying "Never again."

And Melon, your attempt to stifle discussion is so Liberal of you.


Quote
Originally posted by: melonhead
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
There are about 20,000 downtown employees at casinos alone. Get rid of the nuts, and it'll lead to more jobs............probably 2000 more jobs.

Boilerman claims getting rid of a couple of dozen part time street performers is going to add 2000 jobs to downtown Vegas. That's an additional payroll of over $40,000,000 at 10 bucks an hour. To justify that, there would have to be at least another $60,000,000 of business brought downtown equating to about 2 million additional visitors. 2 million more people are going to visit Fremont Street because there are no more street performers? And he calls them nuts?

Frankly I'd be surprised if banning the buskers created one more job let alone 2000 and this is more of a case of a few angry old men who think they know best what we should say and how we should dress.

But even if it was 20,000 new jobs it wouldn't be worth one drop of the blood of our brave men and women who have defended the United States Constitution for two centuries. Some people put business above freedom. Not me.


While I completely agree with alanleroy, I wonder if maybe everybody should just ignore the boil man when he's making up shit and posting it here. You know what they say about feeding the trolls.....


alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Oct 13, 2015
1:02am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I'm hoping that @alanleroy will post all of the examples of Boiler constantly referring to "Diaper guy". I believe that I've used the term once, but twice on the top end. Please prove me wrong.

Ok...here are three sample threads. They contain multiple references. You bring up Cupid on every discussion of the Street Performers...only you actually think he is a guy in a diaper who should be banned not realizing he is really a performer doing parody of a character from classical mythology. Is there anything else you'd like to be proven wrong on?

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=323398&STARTPAGE=2
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=323647
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=326329&STARTPAGE=2

jphelan
jphelan
Oct 13, 2015
1:41am
Block User
Alan - I saw two Diaper Guys on Freemont street when in Vegas during may last trip 10/3 - 10/10. They were in depends with no arrows and in no way resembled cupid. I also saw a woman in a red g string with nothing covering her boobs aside from pasties covering her nipples.

If this "obscene"? Probably not, in a world where hard core porn is readily available on the internet. However, I'm not sure it belongs on a public street where children are present without any warning to unsuspecting tourists.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Oct 13, 2015
1:42am
Block User
I have decided to explore this whole Fremont Street free speech situation for myself on my December Trip. I will apply for my very own 2 hour 6 foot free speech circle. I will perform there in the spirit of Lenny Bruce...pushing the boundaries of Free Speech...dressed in my Giant inflatable Penis Costume. My Fremont Street Character will be known as Richard Head. At least that's the plan.
Boilerman
Boilerman
Oct 13, 2015
1:50am
Block User
@Alanleroy, if Boiler constantly uses the term diaper guy and cupid, it interesting that you had to go back 16 months to find an example. There was no example on your first link....................I assume that it was on page 2 since that's what your link took me to. If it's on a different page, please let me know.

The second link, also from 16 months ago, I mention Cupid once in the entire thread. I didn't bother to go to the third link

Alan, I was really hoping for a better effort. Better yet, an admission that your wrong.




Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I'm hoping that @alanleroy will post all of the examples of Boiler constantly referring to "Diaper guy". I believe that I've used the term once, but twice on the top end. Please prove me wrong.

Ok...here are three sample threads. They contain multiple references. You bring up Cupid on every discussion of the Street Performers...only you actually think he is a guy in a diaper who should be banned not realizing he is really a performer doing parody of a character from classical mythology. Is there anything else you'd like to be proven wrong on?

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=323398&STARTPAGE=2
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=323647
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=326329&STARTPAGE=2


Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now