discussion comment
10 years ago
I'll start:
I met (in their club) two dancers in Texas who were roommates. One of them made a date with me and had me pick her up at their apartment. While there, I got along better with the roommate than the one I was going out with. Months later, we established an actual friendship that never involved money nor sob-stories. She had her stuff together, relatively speaking. Once and only once after that time did I go to her club while she happened to be there. She told me she "felt naked" because I had seen her there, so I never went there again. She's actually a fine person, and a good example that dancers can be people, too.
discussion comment
10 years ago
I described our encounter that preceded this text message as "PSE" because she spoke Greek. She did a position with me I had never seen or heard of. But she was still the slightly-goofy-gal that text message suggests, even while being a bold sexual adventurer.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Great one, Clubber.
discussion comment
11 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
"Mofo" by U2 -- ferocious and relentless; the driving push of this one sets a good rhythm for thrusting
"Perfect Drug" by Trent Reznor / NIN -- almost spastic in its intensity, but sets gals afire
"Crazy" by Seal -- if you like it more sensual
"Crush" by Dave Matthews Band -- 8 minutes of mellow intimacy
"Discotheque" by U2 -- not as pump-worthy as "Mofo," but still a solid tune for a lapper
"After the Rain Has Fallen" by Sting -- if you're really "in LUV" with that stripper, this song has your back... she'll fall for you, too (romantic, in that "take me and make me your love toy" kind of way)
discussion comment
11 years ago
Thanks for your reply, zipman68.
How to understand the need for some laws, but not all laws? How to explain the principles of limited government to one who might see any curtailment of government authority as "anarchy?" Difficult challenge you've posed.
I suggest the necessary and just laws are those that protect personal security and property rights. So laws against assault and murder are just and to be enforced by a government without any fear of trampling liberty; however, laws against gun ownership would not protect personal security nor property rights (opposite on both, in fact).
The reason for my "logic question" was not to suggest anarchy, of course. The reason was to illustrate that all the gun restrictions the government might impose would never have the effect of preventing gun violence. Laws against murder, enforced with severe penalty, do have some such effect, though obviously limited.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Dude had more dollars than sense.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Logic question for those who want to restrict gun ownership rights:
Assuming the desired result is improved public and personal safety...
Why would a person who is willing to violate the laws against assault and murder be UNwilling to violate any laws against gun ownership/possession/use?
It would seem the only way to achieve the desired result of a world without gun violence would be to un-invent the gun. But that cannot happen.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Rachelmmm's question was what do we EXPECT in VIP. My general rule is to begin with no expectations, even if I have high hopes. Then, I only expect what she says I should expect.
Now, I have no interest in being teased, so if she does not tell me we will do everything, my inclination is to politely decline the offer to accompany her to VIP.
As for the price, $500 is more than double the maximum I would be willing to pay, even for doing everything in VIP.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Don't know enough about escorts to be a competent judge between the two; however, I think SC adventures are likely better. Since fantasy is a key factor in such encounters, one can imagine in the SC that he is "seducing" the dancer into agreeing to FS, thus allowing himself to experience more "intimacy."
discussion comment
11 years ago
Smaller areolas, pokey.
discussion comment
11 years ago
The FBI investigated to see if they could find ANY evidence that GZ is racist. 61 interviews later, they could not find any such evidence.
The PRESUMPTION that GZ must be racist because the guy who attacked him and whom he therefore shot fatally happened to be black -- that presumption is as vile and hateful towards GZ as any claimed "oppression" by the current crop of grievance-mongers.
discussion comment
11 years ago
How about Chuck Berris?
He is quite a character, and surely infiltrated TV with some subversive stuff. How he got away with it was clever.
Also, was he a spook/wetworker? Watch George Clooney's movie "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" for a humorous take from Berris' autobiography.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Morton Downey, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr
Howard Stern
Springer
discussion comment
11 years ago
Not even in El Paso. At some clubs there, FS is an every-visit possibility.
discussion comment
11 years ago
The source is unreliable.
discussion comment
11 years ago
I credit TUSCL for really gaining understanding of the extras scene, but there was a memorable early encounter in a club where no extras were common:
I got some dances from a hot latina, and she kissed me with fervor. I said, "You're making me want you." She replied, "Oh, we can do that." She unzipped my pants, pulled me free, moved her panties aside, and rode me as if I were a rented mule.
I knew I wanted more experiences like that, and TUSCL helped find them.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Great story!
discussion comment
11 years ago
No, zipman, I would not find that threatening. Because it would not be threatening.
However, if I were inclined to feel threatened by someone following me through their neighborhood as I wandered through, my response would not be to start a fight with them, punch them, take them to the ground, and pummel them. Two reasons: First, feeling threatened would lead me to avoid them rather than attack them, being unarmed as I was, and not knowing if they were armed. Second, starting such a fight would make me the bad-guy, and the follower I was pummeling would be justified in shooting me; I would not want that.
discussion comment
11 years ago
This thread is likely just a different way to fish for usable information about which clubs may be violating Vegas ordinances, to make targeting easier for LEO.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Zipman, I answer as I choose, do not take personal offense that I ignored your query. I think your scenarios are based on false assumptions and present bogus choices. Trayvon was the attacker.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Cannot back up the claim that GZ was "stalking [TM] for being black and wearing a hood."
GZ was captain of his neighborhood watch. That neighborhood had been burglarized repeatedly in the time leading up to this incident. Any unknown person wandering that neighborhood at night could reasonably be cause for enough suspicion to observe their movements.
This did not get violent until TM punched GZ. GZ did not use force until TM had pounded him while pinning him to the ground. That the jury considered the self-defense claim enough for reasonable doubt of Murder Two or Manslaughter should surprise no one.
Regarding "scaring Trayvon": there was no evidence presented that credibly demonstrated Trayvon was scared of GZ. The prosecution continually speculated about it, but TM's actions were not consistent with such speculation, and the jury was correct to discount such speculation.
discussion comment
11 years ago
In previous post, first sentence should read: "16 year old black boy named Daryl was shot dead recently in Chicago."
Sorry for the error.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Today a 16 year old black boy named Daryl was shot dead recently in Chicago. Reason? He refused to join a gang.
Have we heard "Justice for Daryl" chanting?
No. Reason? The "alleged" shooter was not of a different race, so the race-baiters could not make it about that.
When will we get past all the nonsense about race mattering? It does not matter, except to those who choose to make it matter. What those agitators (like Jackson, Sharpton) do is racism. Let us all just be people, not defined by intrinsic attributes and placed in categories thus.
discussion comment
11 years ago
This started as a tragedy and became a shame. The prosecutors knew they had no murder case. But professional racists stirred things up so feverishly (aided by Eric Holder's DoJ using our tax dollars to organize protests) that a murded charge had to be levied in appeasement. So wrong.
discussion comment
11 years ago
SlickSpic asked, "Since when was dumbass Trayvon the attacker? He was being followed and he was attacked."
Trayvon was the attacker since ... Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman never attacked Trayvon. That was kind of the central, key point of the case, and even the prosecution witnesses verified that it was Trayvon who initiated the contentious encounter, and Trayvon who punched Zimmerman, and Trayvon who took Zimmerman to the ground, pinning him and pounding him "MMA style."
You might be aware that the defense against the charge was that Zimmerman acted in self-defense? No one ever disputed the obvious fact that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and Trayvon died as a result. The whole reason that was not a criminal act was that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
Missing those basic facts of this tragedy might tend to make one draw conclusions that have everything to do with emotion and nothing to do with reality. Such conclusions are worse than worthless.