discussion comment
16 years ago
Very interesting idea SuperDude. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I thought Essence and I had a good 'repore' but I maybe we don't."
3 months sounds like a long time away to keep rapport ([ra páwr, rə páwr]) going. When you say curvy, all I can think of 300 plus pounders. :(
I love the country accent, btw. :) One bad night seems like awful quick to dump a favorite, imho.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Broward Circuit Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld has approved a final settlement giving $1,000 to anyone strip-searched after arrests on minor crimes like trespassing, public drunkenness and loitering between December 1998 and October 2007. Those charged with felonies or violent crime are not eligible.
At least 14,000 people have been sent letters saying they may have been wrongly subjected to the searches in the Broward County jail, according to court records. Lawyers estimate about 10 percent, or 1,400, will respond before the Sept. 1 deadline, attorney Kevin Kulik said Tuesday.
If that figure holds, the county and its insurance carriers will shell out about $1.4 million, plus an additional $2.5 million for Kulik and attorney Gerald Richman of West Palm Beach. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the county had originally estimated the payout could reach $11 million.
At an April hearing, Streitfeld said the complexity of the case and its length—more than five years —made the attorney fees appropriate.
'It's not unusual in cases like this for the attorneys to make more than all the plaintiffs [combined],' Kulik said. 'It is a lot of money, but this has gone on for years [since 2002] and we've done a lot of work. The lawyers fees are part of the punishment.'"
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbstripped0827sbaug27,0,7977334.story
Well, strip searches is one way of making a safer environment. With new tech officers in the near future might even be able to a strip search people as they walk down the street.
I was surprised this "complex" case took only five years and change. And, the lawyers' fees were "reasonable."
discussion comment
16 years ago
I would deal with it by feeling depressed. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
It is funny as a lawyer President Clinton would probably advise the individual regardless of innocence to NOT cooperate with the police where he or she is a suspect. Yet, when it comes to searches of people's homes suddenly the Welcome Mat is prominently displayed and cooperation with the police is essential for public safety as well as individual safety.
Actually, cooperation with the police might be your best bet for interrogation or search. Yes, I'm sure there are more than a few horror stories of cooperating with police in good faith . . . but, does non-cooperation yield better results?
A stripper at The Trap wanted to cooperate with the police shortly after 911 so when asked for permission to search her purse she complied. Couldn't believe it when the police officer actually arrested her for half a joint. If she hadn't cooperated, then she could have avoided arrest???
Do you have to cooperate with the police as far as identifying yourself? Yes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
If safety from violent crime is the real fear, then getting rid of the 4th Amendment *completely* should be a priority. Yes, generally if the police unlawfully bust into an individual's home and illegally collect evidence of crime the court wont apply the exclusionary rule. But, that doesn't mean the 4th Amendment is innocent of creating environments where crime can fester and spread and jeopardize public safety.
President Clinton, understood how radical (his word) the 4th Amendment was and he proudly and gleefully stood by welfare moms who wanted the government conducting regular searches of people's homes to increase public safety and thus their individual safety. Remember in the liberal's mind the government is your friend so naturally you want to cooperate with its crime fighting. In fact, non-cooperation should be a crime.
Just imagine how much safer the nation would be with regular expanded government sweeps looking for criminals or evidence of crime. Take a bite out of crime!
discussion comment
16 years ago
"A woman later told the police she saw a black man rushing up Vernon Street, 'zipping up his jacket as he went,' according to the Chronicle. Police inspector Gus Coreris told reporters it was definitely a Zebra shooting from the .32 caliber cartridge casings left at the scene.
Shields, described by friends as a charming and kindhearted young man who had a habit of taking in stray dogs, died some 3,000 miles away from home. His father, stung by grief, would go on to establish Handgun Control Inc." http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/zebra_murders/10.html
Interestingly, the story of the Zebra killers starts with a machete attack. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/zebra_murders/index.html
Of course, the first Zebra attack sounds much different than subsequent shooting spree.
discussion comment
16 years ago
One twisted liberalism is that an individual shouldn't cooperate with the police when he or she is under suspicion of having committed a crime. Innocence or guilt are irrelevant because an individual just shouldn't trust the governments' police. However, individuals should be eager to give up their guns because the police/government will protect them. So police/government get the thumbs down for protecting the innocent individual under suspicion of having committed a crime, but then the police/government get the thumbs up when it comes to grabbing guns of ordinary people.
Seems strange that liberals realize the police can't be trusted to protect the accused, but then want those same police to have an effective monopoly on guns.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
I would think those nations, especially "developed" nations, with strict gun control laws have far fewer murders than nations where everyone and his brother has a gun. If gun ownership is all about fear of violent crime, then it seems like giving up the right of self-defense with a gun is a small price to pay for greater "public safety" and along with that comes greater individual safety. It won't happen over night most likely, but think of the children and their wonderful "gun free" future.
The law and order crowd seems like it should be clamoring for a gun ban for ordinary citizens as well as turning the U.S. military into even more of a domestic police force. Yes, at the altar of "public safety" a gun ban for ordinary citizens should be as popular as apple pie. And, perhaps redeploy police lap dance buyers at the local stripclubs into security details with high visibility to discourage violent crime in residential neighborhoods.
discussion comment
16 years ago
One agenda that I wish the gun grabbers would adopt is mandatory insurance for gun owners---start out reasonably and then ratchet it up. You know to make sure they're financially "responsible."
Just think: Mandatory insurance for cars because it is such a deadly threat, but where is the mandatory insurance for gun owners? This nasty country needs to get busy with more laws.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Who wants to lock more people up merely for gun violations??"
In prison state America? Hell, people get locked up for less than that.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Are you willing to trade the right to self-defense via a gun for greater community and individual safety? Unfortunately, I think the pro-government gun grabbers have a very strong point as far as the safety issue goes. True, the murder rates above are NOT limited to murder by guns, however, one argument of gun rights advocates is that murder will take place regardless of whether a person uses a gun or another instrument. Well, I'm not too smitten by that point because guns are very convenient---and killing with them is generally easier than by other methods; convenience and ease should equal more killings. Hopefully, imo, if guns were grabbed a cheap easy effective means of killing would take its place sorta like the government's drug war spurring innovation because the profits are so high. But, *generally* there isn't a profit in killing---yes, life insurance and inheritance and war, etc.
I also note that two countries high on the list for murders can thank the U.S. Government's Drug War; Columbia and Mexico. And, probably a third and fourth; Jamaica and Venezuela.
Also, of interesting note is that the countries high on the list aren't "developed" countries. Heck, the U.K. is down at number 46! And, it is my understanding that the U.K. has some of the strictest NO tolerance gun laws i.e. gun prohibition.
Well, you might think more prisons would solve the problem. You know the old nonsense about locking the "criminals" up: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php If this the idea of "freedom" you were dodging bullets for shadowcat?
Surprisingly, the U.S. suicide rate isn't near the top of the list; that's probably thanks to drug abuse and drug use, imho.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; . . . "
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0790->Section%2006#0790.06
If prohibiting guns from stadium events for most people is a good idea, then perhaps the same thinking should extend to other public areas?
You know the old thinking criminals don't obey laws so why keep law abiding people from protecting themselves at stadium events? I mean even if the risk is only .1% wouldn't it be better to allow the general public to defend themselves?
Those who are more concerned about protecting the "entertainers" should remember NO GUTS, NO GLORY. Anyway, YES to more stripclubs and heavily armed stripclubs. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
One test of how self-defense oriented you are is whether you believe stripclubs should allow customers and others to carry guns. I wouldn't have a problem with a heavily armed club, but my strong feeling is that the club would be less safe.
I was talking with a dancer at Coco's this Sunday afternoon and she said Take One (on NW 79th Avenue) had a shoot-out where people were injured or killed. (Coco's was dead business wise for the dancers with most customers not buying any dances.) I haven't had the opportunity to check out Take One as of late, but the shooting is irrelevant to whether I visit or not.
An even more extreme example where you are on a self-defense scale is allowing gun toting by customers at stadium events such as football or basketball. Yes? No?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Strippers prefer chocolate and fresh fruit. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Crack kills. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I will still be taking flowers next month. They have always paid off for me."
It is superb insight like this that may generate the King's following. And, imo, it takes BIG BALLS. I wouldn't have the guts to show up with flowers over at Angels. Chocolates damn straight. That is a no-brainer, imo. But, I can believe the average stripper would love flowers. Heck, I like 'em.
Another reason to follow the King? How many of you stripclubbers have gotten expensive roses by Next Day Fed Ex? My guess is ONLY the King. (That just gripes me NO END. :) ) The slick moves and the *results* earn him a loyal following eager to hear his pronouncements. The sad fact is without the King they'd probaby just be capable of flag waving type activity. Hmmm . . . maybe strippers would appreciate receiving American flags? Heck, it's good for car selling and whatnot like fighting endless wars.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I guess scat really *does* believe that he has 'followers'...that's borderline insane IMO."
I could see him being a religious type leader with zombie brained followers. The King's messages: Demand 2 for 1! Spray her with everything you got! Make her trust you, that is the key to real affection!
And, it would probably help a fair number of stripclubbers who aren't as intelligent as him. Remember his follower who went bonkers because the King "negligently" shared some tidbits about what can happen and did happen if wifey learns about strippers? What was the tidbit? Well, if you get caught you're in the doghouse. How to avoid the doghouse? Simple, seek advice from the King and actually the King could probably have helped the moron out. Thumbs up King! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
There are a few things that I do love about America. At the top of list would be apparently lax enforcement of immigration laws that allows millions of "illegals" into the country. Based on the illegals that I meet and can communicate with (most can't speak English and I don't speak Spanish) I'd love to see 20 times the number. Another thing that is wonderful by-and-large are the traffic courts. You pay your attorney some piddling sum and your problems are over. At 10 times the current fees traffic attorneys would be bargain.
Gambling dancer got a ticket for some nonsense and ignored it so it was turned over to a private collection agency and the cost of the ticket more than doubled (I believe) to around $300 and her license was suspended. I insisted that she call a traffic ticket lawyer: First traffic ticket attorney that she called told her NOTHING could be done so she refused to call anymore lawyers. She says you ain't NO LAWYER and if a lawyer says nothing can be done, then nothing can be done. I told her the lawyer was full of shit and that the next lawyer she called would most likely GUARANTEE results, but the cost would be more than if she hadn't sat on her ass. She declares: Nope, lawyer says nothing can be done it is end of discussion. I told her you need to learn lawyers don't always agree with each other and the one you spoke with was full of shit. I added that I believe a good traffic attorney would charge $150 to $250 to fix the mess e.g. get rid of the fine and points. On my first call the secretary says yes it can be fixed, but it is going to cost $$$. I'm getting scared thinking $1,000 to 2,500. Nope a measley $120 (plus about $70 in court costs). So, Gambling dancer got her license unsuspended and got rid of the points and the fine and it was done FAST!!! Like within 10 days FAST!!!
She says you ain't NO lawyer how did you know it could be fixed. I said I'm an old man and besides you just need check the Rules of Civil Procedure. Did she really learn anything? Maybe or maybe not. My guess is NO because that just isn't too important to her. She just wanted her license back and was going to pay the $300 plus and keep the points against her license. Mainly she was just upset that the "fine" had increased so drastically without an explanation. The law did provide for the ticket increase so that the private collection agency could get some $$$.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I remember shooting the breeze with my good buddy Jerome at the bookstore and I said that I appreciate it if he could continue the conversation we were enjoying at a later date. He asked why 'cause the store was dead with just me, him, and the young lady employee. I said, my people are coming for a visit in about an hour and I'd like to avoid any trouble if possible. He says he wants to meet my people. The employee blurts out JEROME! you don't want to be meeting Joe's people. They's plain nasty and crazy. Jerome says what!? Your his people and you're very sweet. She says Jerome just cause we looks a like don't mean we are even slightly related---my people are very kind and generous. His people you don't want to meet. Hell, I'm leaving when they come. Now, Jerome says you're leaving? She says I'm planning on keeping Joe company another 45 minutes or so and then I'll be gone till their gone. Suddenly, and actually surprising Jerome decided he wanted to go. It was a surprise because he loved being a pain in the ass and saying he didn't believe me about nothing. So, they both left, Jerome first and later the employee, and that was something positive---I just didn't want any trouble and wished to avoid confrontation. Sure enough, when they showed they was nasty as ever----that ain't all bad-----but, it is best that they stay with they own.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Shekitout, I wish you'd have visited real Southerners here in Miami e.g. Angels and the surrounding areas back in the day. You'd have learnt right quick the value placed on the United States of America. My bet is you'd mind your manners and keep on moving before tempers flared even a smite. And, boy you think our police would be babysitting you assuming you was still breathing? Times was mucho different in the "good" old days. Heck, *supposedly* The Trap was Klan and if true you'd best mind your manners there as well, but yeah that was a far more civilized and upscale club.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Way too heavy"
NO SUCH THING as way too heavy in the black clubs that I visit. Depending on the customers at any given time the more weight, the more money.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Dudester - $300 for HJ? You were ripped!"
I'm a cheapskate by necessity---think $5 hoes. I believe that if I was rich that I'd still prefer $5 hoes AND not to save $$$. Having said that I don't really see how Dudester was ripped just because he paid $300 for a HJ. A $5 hoe might be 98% as good as a $500 hoe in Dudester's opinion and yet Dudester might be thrilled to pay the extra $495 for what he sees as a slight increase in quality. Sometimes just a little better commands a lot more $$$ and it can be worth it!
Again and again some "helpful" person will point out that some slob is almost as good-----sorry, I rather not get any or pay more then get someone who is "almost" as good. You don't mind an extra 20 pounds???---then you buy her services and please don't try and push her on me as being almost as good as the true hottie with the bad manners.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"However, I think people always miss the point about why the job is really so bad."
I don't think people in general give a flying fuck about ethics so there isn't a missed point about why the job is negative. If she became a judge or lawyer, then would anyone care about ethics as long as she was obeying or above the law? Of course, to some if it is legal it is ethical.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I think njscfan experience is more the norm.
However, this may be regional or cultural or perhaps even racial. Of course different dancers regardless of region, culture, or race, may have very different preferences.