Comments by jablake (page 5)

"You speak of lost items..........the other night I had a guy who was out of money offer me a pack of smokes for one more dance. This was ridiculous. From the way you guys talk, I don't think you would fall into that catagory......well maybe one of you............." Yes, I'd definitely fall into that category. :) After buying 10 or more dances (usually more), if I have to stop due to an empty wallet it is time to turn on the charm. If I had smokes they'd be on the table. If I had a wedding ring it'd be on the table. I draw the line at my car. I did offer my Driver License as security----dancer laughed and ran a tab for me without the Driver License. She said I was so desperate for dances she wasn't worried if I tried to cheat her. Definitely paid her about a week later and bought a bunch more dances. Sometimes dancers will give me a mercy dance or two. It should be an ego boost that a man bought a bunch of dances and is broke and is hoping to weasel one or two more dances cause you are that fantastic. Should of asked him for his shirt as compensation. :)

"Of course it will...in the areas that your buddy GWB neglected over much of his term...in Afghanistan & Pakistan...where our *real* enemies are, period." Ideally, President Obama would follow in the footsteps of President Reagan and declare victory as the U.S. military runs as fast as they can away from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. And, pay reparations to help circulate the blessing and curse of the fiat U.S. dollar. This would be a substantive victory. President Bush almost grasped the concept when he declared mission accomplished, but then stayed to continue the mission??? Talk about No Child Left Behind . . .

"'Islamofascists' is a completely made up word BTW." Just cause it be a neologism don't mean it is empty-headed. "No, he was part of long line of home-grown, extreme Right-wing terrorists in the USA." The Wall Street Journal had him as part of a whole dangerous network that could be stretch to exceed that of foreign "terrorists."

Fat girls are in demand. Better personalities usually and more sensual. I strongly prefer the spinner.

Supposed conservative Bork had an interesting perspective on liberty. He believed that the freedom to have your democratically elected representatives impose collective will was equal to the freedom of being left alone. For example, the First Amendment is a net zero as far as freedom is concerned according to judge Bork. Most people in his opinion would be happier and feel increased liberty with their democratically elected representive choosing which speech is criminal and which is acceptable. Supposed conservatives who might have a heart attack if they thought others enjoyed pictures of nude 11 year old girls and boys may very well be thrilled with government drawing a line and choosing for the collective what is good and what is bad. This freedom of government censorship may be abundantly more of a liberty interest in Bork's world as well as that of supposed conservatives. The liberal would whimper of course the government should decide---they're your neighbors. Apparently these liberals are a little to dense to remember President Bush got elected. Shoot, I wouldn't care if President Bush and I were life long sexual partners----I still wouldn't want him deciding anything for me. Unfortunately, since supposed conservatives love more government the liberals with their socialistic freedom agenda win in a landslide, imo. The difference between a supposed conservative like Bork and a liberal? The liberal wants a big government that actually tries to promote the general welfare. The supposed conservative is for more government to pass more laws to enrich a corrupt justice system and to promote endless war. Embarrassed that I ever voted Republican.

"Date: June 4, 1999: Money of the Poor - Money of the Jubilee by Prof. Giacinto Auriti PREMISE: Nowadays, all the peoples of the world are poor because they are in debt of all their money and also more. As a consequence of the old and usual habit of always giving an equivalent in order to get money, the central banks induced all the peoples to accept their money, at the issue's act, with the equivalent of a debt (which shouldn't be due), that is to say on loan. Therefore the nominal money caused the biggest fraud of all time, unnoticed because it is too evident." http://www.moneymaker.com/italy/moneyoft.htm

"As the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates, laws and admonitions against interest are ineffective if its structural necessity is still present in the nature of the currency. A structural solution is needed, such as the system proposed by Silvio Gesell in The Natural Economic Order. Gesell's 'free-money' (as he called it) bears a form of negative interest called demurrage. Periodically, a stamp costing a tiny fraction of the currency's denomination must be affixed to it, in effect a "user fee' or a 'maintenance cost'; another way to look at it is that the currency 'goes bad'—depreciates in value—as it ages.[3] If this sounds like a radical proposal that could never work, it may surprise you to learn that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes praised the theoretical soundness of Gesell's ideas. What's more, the system has actually been tried out with great success. Although demurrage was applied as long ago as Ancient Egypt in the form of a storage cost for commodity-backed currency,[4] the best-known example was instituted in the town of Worgl, Austria, in 1932 by its famous mayor Uttenguggenberger. To remain valid, each piece of this locally-issued currency required a monthly stamp costing 1% of its face value. Instead of generating interest and growing, accumulation of wealth became a burden—much like possessions are a burden to the nomadic hunter-gatherer. People therefore spent their income quickly, generating intense economic activity in the town. The unemployment rate plummeted even as the rest of the country slipped into a deepening depression; public works were completed, and prosperity continued until the Worgl currency was outlawed in 1933 at the behest of a threatened central bank." http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter7-2.php

OK, the precise to the point comment is that rape isn't about sex. It is about theft. It is about not being able to afford summer camp. It is about global warming. About sex? That is a MYTH you misogynist simpleton.

Yes, indeed the bigger picture liberty is what the leftists may see. Also, I think, and could be wrong, the brilliant econonmist Milton Friedman, champion of liberty, railed against antitust law and restrictions on monopolies. Countering their menace is hardly a blank check. In fact, the "terrorists" could be anyone. As I said if that idiotic war on "terror" is justified, then the federal government can start thowing away real trillions on all manner of welfare programs for the poor. Dang, I wish this nit wit government declared war on "terror" when McVeigh blew up what was it 300 people? Yep, the nit wit government could be blowing up "right wing militia" all over this stinking country. Blow up women and children and other innocents? Why not it is all about "terrorism." Besides this vile government could of started its idiocy after the first attack on the world trade center---with any luck this endless war on "terror" will bankrupt the country if it is continues. ANY small band of people could cause massive destruction-----as did little old country boy McVeigh----he was a war hero for the U.S. government wasn't he? Anyway, the fact that a tiny group can inflict substantial harm doesn't make it a "war." It should be a police action against those actually responsible and not this massive overkill which only helps the "terrorists." The typical Muslim peon has pretty much zero interest in this country until the U.S. government engaged in wholesale terrorism---not the penny ante BS of McVeigh or Bin Laden-----NO, I'm talking about the terrorism only a government has the resources to inflict.

"All leftists are enemies of liberty." Such a sweeping generalization. I'm not a fan of the New Deal, BUT there isn't much in the way of liberty when your belly is empty and you can't even afford the taxes for a plot of land. Once the government starts creating money---basically out of thin air---then that money to promote the general welfare needs to be distributed far and wide. It could go to the rich or to the poor, but it needs to circulate. Also, once the government starts granting licenses, patents, etc. then that interference with the market again calls for redistribution. Why should the government protect Bill Gates's software? To encourage innovation and productivity? HMMMM . . . there was that famous case of PC clones. A judge basically ripped the protections from IBM-----getting rid of the government protection for "intellectual property" actually spurred innovation and wealth on a massive scale (I still remember IBM want $400 for a floppy drive and the competitor wanted $12 for a *better* drive). Government wasn't needed except to distort the market in favor of the elite----do that and yes a huge welfare state is needed to help fix the inequity government created. Some leftists see all this evil of governments' market distortion and recognize if government is going to be a menace, then at least have government be a menace in a good direction too. Endless war? Fine let the boys play, but now that small government has been defenestrated it is time for government to do something positive like jailing pelfers and putting supposed conservative to work picking cotton in the blazing sun. :)

How could I forget. Over at Club Ice/VIP they've been killing the owner/manager. Supposedly, a local gang is demanding a cut of the action in exchange for peace. (They use to be signs everywhere in that club telling the dancers not to show pink and the DJ use to holler 'bout that. Police must of been making arrests over pink.)

Over at Secrets a dancer blew her brains out on stage.

At Coco's the shootings were almost routine. Found this via google: http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?t=5320 ----this link is the wimpy shooting; there was a real blood bath over a stripper being told she was too old with multiple fatalities. Unfortunately, the club got shut down for awhile some years back; apparently it had reached it death toll or shooting limit. RolLexx is supposed to be even more dangerous. Angels had the bouncer, White Boy, gunned down; left behind a young wife and child. Tootsies recently had a deadly shooting fairly recent. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=66056 Doesn't influence my decision to visit.

"By Tuesday, more than 130 heavyweights in the movie industry had taken up Polanski's cause. An online petition has been signed by directors such as Marin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Pedro Almodovar, as well as actors. Studio chief Harvey Weinstein told CNN in a statement: 'We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation.'" http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/09/29/hollywood.embraces.polanski/index.html?section=cnn_latest I'm very proud of these big stars and other "heavyweights" that have the balls to come forward and say enough already. Especially with all the hysteria about "sexual predators" and "child porn." In some U.S. states 13 and perhaps even lower was legal marrying age and "child" porn could be freely purchased. Pass some laws and do some media scare stories and the cattle class will believe and do anything. As I related earlier this wild old man, a total rebel, had 2 very young girls---13 and 14 or thereabout---and it wasn't even seen as crime. In fact, most people would be shocked that there was any issue as long as the girls were happy and the parents weren't objecting. I guess sex wasn't seen as so evil back in the good old days? Or, maybe it was because there were such close ties in the community. I didn't personally know the wild old man with the young girls, but I felt close to him just by watching the way his conducted himself. True, he did go overboard and imo rightly did jail time for real crimes that he was guilty of. Thank god he didn't suffer any government BS sex crimes. So if some people wanted to crazy over an age difference between a girl who has reached puberty and an older man, well knock yourselfs out. :) Now, if there was real rape that is a different story. His plea deal wasn't about real rape, but rather the government's creation of sexual misconduct that is based on ageism and a view of sex as dirty or taboo. The government and its fraudulent prosecutor (prosecutor admits to lying about trying to influence the judge) are the ones who need to be held "accountable."

"Don't mention it, Shadowcat. Serves me right for trying to be cute at 1:30 AM. BTW, ahem, all the girls really do luv me, right?" No, chandler, that is highly unlikely that girls can even stand to be within 100 yards of you. Shadowcat may be a 100% fake, but he nailed your hiney on that point. ;) Please take the foregoing as bad humor on my part chandler.

"I've often thought Kyle1111 and jablake the same. Nice to know I'm not the only one." And, you say you are into conspiracies Clubber? According to shadowcat I was a few other posters as well.

Shadowcat, If I visited your club (I'm not) and if I rated it (I'm not), and the music volume is still outragously loud as you yourself have complained, then it would receive the lowest possible rating from me. You think that is unfair? Could be the "newbies" just didn't have a fun time or had much better luck at other clubs or had priorities which don't match yours. Hard to believe people don't read the reviews instead of just looking at the rating. A fantastic club could receive a horrible rating merely because the customer couldn't afford $25 dances---his poverty leads to a negative review.

Besides, I wouldn't call him out because like most victims of fraud I'd be ashamed to admit it. He probably knows that in spades.

Shadowcat if you did make up phony shit about chandler, then you need to remember just as you are seen as sweet guy by many it means jack shit. Gridget could also be a sweet lady and boom she makes up phony shit about you and you're hearbroken and wimpering. Anyone, the odds imo are in your favor that she wont screw you. Now you? You may be basically a good guy---but, if made up phony shit about chandler, then it basically means your a fake and no one should trust you. You a fake shadowcat? I dealt with many in my life and some appeared to morally upstanding citizens beyond reproach. In fact, it was only a week ago that I got take by a very good fake who has an excellent reputation----surprised he'd risk it for $250, but it probably wasn't about the money. Besides, I would call him out because like most victims of fraud I'd be ashamed to admit it. He probably knows that in spades.

"Shadowcat, it's odd that you make up this shit about me now, apparently in support of the board's resident troll, no less. Back when we met, you posted how you you enjoyed meeting me." He enjoyed meeting you? Really? Yes, I think shadowcat did post that he enjoyed meeting you. I also remember shadowcat post a bunch of shit about you that sounded very true based on your board persona. There is a lesson here for you, chandler, and for shadowcat as well. The lesson is that even if a person seems like a good person don't trust 'em. People who have met shadowcat in person rave about him---I don't recal a single----oops, yes there was that poster who claimed to be a dancer and she posted all manner of shit including his real identity information. Maybe you didn't rave, either. Shadowcat, did you just make up phony shit about chandler because you got your panties in a bunch. Not very nice, if that is the case.

Here's the link to the, imo, initially innocent criminal defense attorney whose failure to remain silent got him arrested: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1998-06-18/news/every-lawyer-s-nightmare/ A stripper, who I believe was innocent, also got herself arrested by failing to remain silent; she just needed to follow the advice given by not only lawyers, but police officers to save herself a bunch of needless grief. The problem in her case is caused by court decisions. The officers under judge made reasoning are free to take what a person says out of context and free to ignore exculpatory evidence. The typical cattle class person would in no way be capable of understanding this. They got typical cattle mentality and that is that. ***However, even a cattle class person should be able to understand when a police officer opines that even the innocent person should remain silent aka take the Fifth. I mean normally the police officer is the good guy, imo, and when he says an innocent person should remain silent even typical cattle class people should be able to smell the coffee and wake up a little. Now, if you know police officers who don't share that view then well since they're normally the good guys listen to them! :)

Hi chandler, You're an interesting guy and write like a pro. However, you have an unreasonable expection that threads will stay on topic. And, no we aren't buddies. :)

BTW, the Blake case a criminal defense attorney who really really really should know better talked to the police instead of following the the standard legal advice of remaining silent. Without his big mouth talking the criminal defense attorney most likely wouldn't have been arrested. End result? I believe it was a 7 year probation for the criminal defense attorney plus he wasn't allowed to practice law during that time frame----who knows maybe that later got modified for good behaviour. The legal fees for the criminal defense attorney? It is my understanding they astonomical. Oh was the attorney guilty? I believe he was innocent on the *initial* charge(s). The real problem occurred later and on those charges, yes, I believe he was guilty. If he didn't talk, the real problems would never have gotten started. He was, imo, an innocent man who later due to his own bad character and worse actions became a guilty man. Very interesting even as reported by the Miami New Times.

"'Lawyers say don't cooperate with the police---then no gray area.' I would not have a reason to not cooperate with a police officer." Innocent people have done years behind bars for believing there was no reason to not cooperate with a police officer. The officer could be a great guy interested in the truth and an innocent person's truthful statement could put them behind bars for many years. The case as I recall it went something like this. An eyewitness called 911 to report an argument which quickly turned to murder. The eyewitness caller is hysterical at this point, but the police arrived promptly to find the dead body. An innocent man quickly approached the police and told everything that happened because he was *right there* next to both victim and murder---a good samaritan. Here's the problem. The eyewitness said there were only 2 men arguing and there was no else around. Gets worse for the good samaritan. The description of eyewitness caller not only identified the clothing (which happened to match what the good samaritan matched), but that there were only 2 people and no one else. Oops, eyewitness was mistaken---the good samaritan was there also. The police matching 1) the clothing of the suspect with the good samaritan and 2) the eyewitness statement there were only 2 people quickly puts 2 and 2 together. Good samaritan gets arrested---he was wearing the wrong clothing and according to the eyewitness caller there definitely only 2 men---victim and murder---no one else. Enough for a conviction! Anyway you could be right Clubber and the lawyers could be wrong. I'd go with the experts and believe it or not that includes police officers. In fact, and it would be interesting if there was a survey of police officers, but I'd bet good money most of these officers would admit to telling their loved ones to take the Fifth and do not cooperate with the police even if they are completely innocent. Of course, I could be wrong and only a minority of officers would advise innocent people to take the Fifth----it would be an interesting survey. The officers that I've spoken with sometimes have a lower opinion of the justice system then I do. And, I'll never forget the officer telling me that he thought 15% of the people in prison were innocent----and he thought that was a good percentage! I had thought it was 5% innocent and that was unacceptable. BTW, if there are any lawyers or police officers on this board who believe an innocent person shouldn't take the Fifth, then please provide your insight; it were be good to get a different perspective. ***I personally think that sometimes not taking the Fifth is the best course for the guilty person or the innocent person----since I'm not a lawyer or a police officer please ignore that thought!*** :)

"I could stop looking but it would still exist." Actually that is an excellent point. :(