discussion comment
16 years ago
I had always believed that the guns in my house might someday be used to end my life (definitely not a large loss, imho). Either the depression or constant pain would just become too much. I did seek help for the pain from a doctor who is supposed to be a "pill pusher" i.e. he believes in treating pain with medicine according to my pharmacist buddy. She was shocked he wouldn't prescribe me painkillers because I'm in real pain---and she knows who is very liberal about writing prescriptions. Believe it or not just getting Drixoral is a problem. Only ***ONE*** stupid box allowed--with government ID and forms to fill out--and that store isn't allowed to sell anymore until 2009. CVS was the same BS with government ID, and forms and only ONE stupid box. Another old man wanted his Drixoral and the pharmacist gave him the same bad news---no more restocking of Drixoral until 2009.
Well, the stripclubs do provide some relief, but popping a Drixoral every 12 hours is cheaper and much more effective! Yes, I've tried the Drixoral "clones" and it turns out a tiny number of patients including me have problems with those. The other old man only wanted Drixoral too, so I wonder how tiny that number truly is.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
"And I always kinda enjoyed Kyle1111's posts, I thought they were funny."
Uh, oh. Trapped by the old funny posts giveaway. :) Well, I would like TUSCLers to think jarblake's posts are funny as well.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent."
Actually, I don't trust the 2% number even a tad. Here in Miami-Dade County, The Herald gave precinct by precinct voting results many years ago in a close race county wide by two heavy weights. It was something like 1502 votes for candidate A and 6 votes for candidate B in *one* precinct. Those numbers were just too EXTREME as is the 2% number cited for ***"legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent."***
Decades and decades ago a former sheriffs deputy was telling me about a situtation of ongoing mass murder that caused him to resign from his job. It was racial and the victims weren't from his area. Because it was impossible to solve the crimes and more importantly they didn't want to solve them the murders were labelled suicides. I have NO idea of what he meant by mass murders, but it sounded like in the hundreds at the very least and was enough to make him flee for his *own safety*. He wasn't worried about being killed--the police were on good terms with the local residents, blacks and whites, according to him. He was concerned about an investigation into all the phoney suicides of which he played a significant unwilling part in the "conspiracy." He thought telling the truth would have been understandable because there was NO way for a tiny police force to investigate all the murders. Hatred for the federal government was the alleged reason for the cover-up. The official yearly police numbers showed suicides as being responsible for 99% or some such ridiculously high number for deaths in that county. He always thought that absurd number would catch someone's notice.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
"Well, where is he. Does it normally take him that long to respond to a negative post or is he still trying to find a wiggle to get out of this one? I got him and he knows it.
Jabelake: do you want to tell everbody why you changed your name from Kyle1111 or do you want me to do it?"
You have me? I'd love to hear your reasoning. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi david120,
Some of those "gang bangers" belong in the morgue--at least if you believe in protecting "innocents." I was prevented from killing a large powerful thug who preyed on the less powerful. Got a pair of government bracelets temporarily for my attempted good deed---the police were all upset because I used a "deadly weapon" i.e. a pool cue: BOO HOO. YES, it would definitely have been a good deed. So, 15 years or so later surprise surprise surprise I come across the adult version of this thug. He was happy to see me of all things--strange. In those 15 years how much damage did he do to "innocents"? My guess is quite a bit. And, NO----I definitely don't believe in the filth of large government or its prison state which does significantly more damage than terrorists or individual thugs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi david120,
ClifBar. I think Shadowcat accused me of being him as well. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Shootings at Angels, Coco's, and RolLexx means that the law should ban guns at these locations? And, if that hasn't worked then the clubs should be closed?
Well, both would generally be supported by liberals and conservatives, imo. Funny, that in a supposedly free country that more freedom wouldn't be seen as the answer. That people don't remember the days when self-defense was allowed and guns were very common.
"...'self-defense' has never been outlawed in this country." Much worse it was highly discouraged by a corrupt court system where you literally had to prove that fleeing from danger wasn't an option. After enough of this filth by the corrupt courts the Florida legislature finally changed the law so that one could stand their ground without some attorneys second guessing them while minting "reasonable attorneys' fees" for their disservice to the individual and larger community.
I personally believe in retreating generally----now, that doesn't apply to my own home because that is my area of refuge. As to whether it should apply to other areas really should be up to the individual because letting some thugs with or without weapons bully you or others would imo decrease safety for everyone. When I spoke about a belief in retreating generally my thinking was along the lines of letting tempers cool with a safe smart retreat. That thinking shouldn't be applied to bullies and thugs; and NO the police or more police aren't the answer. The solution is for ordinary joes who I believe vastly out number the "bad" guys to stand their ground as in the old days.
Bottom line in the current environment stripclubs would be much safer under the old rules where guns are freely carried and used when necessary.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I heard that parodyman--> is RomanticLover, davids, Kyle, and jarblake all rolled into one!"
Someone is being forgotten. He got banned by founder because he kept posting how old and pathetic TUSCLERS were and nothing else.
Of course, I'm 100% opposed to banning members.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844
discussion comment
16 years ago
Talk about unbelieveable there is a "homeless" man in Hialeah who has different mental problems and uses different drugs. He is connected to some wealthy friends of mine. I didn't understand the connection because this bum seems like a absolute nothing. He works for peanuts and what little he earns goes to drugs.
The supposed inside scoop, which I happen to believe (shame on me, btw), is that the bum is related to extreme wealth in Iran----100s and 100s of millions. Makes NO sense, imo, that the family isn't taking better care of this bum if they're worth 100s and 100s of millions. I sort of feel like an idiot believing the story, btw. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"And frankly who cares what's true and what isn't, if it's entertaining that's all I care about."
:)
One thing I very much appreciate about the real world is being surprised when a very apparent tall tale is shown to be true. With the internet message boards tall tales merely remain tall tales; hopefully interesting tall tales.
Also, perhaps I know the wrong people or I misunderstand . . . but, the logic even among the logical seems missing more often than not. I had a very good guy call me and tell me that he wanted to do X, Y, and Z to help me out. It didn't make any sense because although he is a very good guy being generous just isn't who he is and you shouldn't expect that from him. Besides, in the past he has always made it very clear to me and others that he will NOT help under any circumstances as far as money. Frankly, people shouldn't expect help from him unless they're a son or daughter or other close relation.
So why did he call and offer help out of the blue? I doubt that I'll ever find out, but sure don't seem a bit logical. Also, normally any offer of help even that not accepted is very much appreciated as a sign of caring. When the good guy offered all this help it made me feel very uneasy and worried. It just seems too strange given his love of money. I was thinking he might be losing his mind or he got real bad medical news. :(
Funny when offers of help from a good man bring dread instead of joy. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
Thinking of game, I can't help but think of Gambling dancer. A man could love her and treat her like a princess and meet all her physical requirements as far as good looks and I strongly believe the true end result would be ZERO assuming the man was looking for love.
For her it is all about game and because of her business as well as her natural talents she plays fairly hard ball. I wouldn't trust her. :) I wouldn't want "free" sexual favors from her. :) I wouldn't expect appreciation or fair play from her. :) Having said all of that I very much appreciate her----especially if she is willing to treat me like other customers i.e. focus on making the dollar.
Can a man be "successful" with Gambling dancer? If success is defined down to mean "love" as some limited point in time, then, imo, the answer is YES. Money isn't going to open the gates of love nor is good manners nor are a host of other "good" traits. She says and imo believes she wants an educated man interested in being successful. The key, imo, is to look at her male relatives and behave like them. That is what I believe will capture heart at least temporarily. How difficult is it to act like her male relatives? Well, if you hang out with them it shouldn't be that difficult to follow along if you don't mind spilling blood and acting like a brute. :)
Bottom line and I could be wrong is that the key to being successful with many women is having game. I don't know if it was what she learned or her genes, but I think Gambling dancer is much more interested in the game then in the money when it comes to many aspects of her life especially when it comes to love.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi njscfan,
"So I take David seriously in that I think he is a menace for fools on this site who cherish their fantasies. I do not take him seriously in the sense that I think he is not giving an even vaguely accurate description of his real life. I think he is as phony as a $3 bill, and posts his warped fictitious life to gain the approval he pathetically craves from his fellow tuscl members."
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I didn't see that TUSCLers were using him as some type of guru. Of course, looking at some of the stranger cults it seems like almost anyone can become a guru.
"(It won't. Your sex life has very little to do with your 'game'. )"
I will always remember this short fat slob with a beautiful smile and his ability it seemed to make almost anyone else smile. It was amazing how successful he was with hot women and women period. His car was a clunker and he was on a tight budget, but when it came to women he was a winner. If he had charged a $100 per hour to desperate guys to hang out with him and observe, then I think it would have been a bargain for many of them.
Did the short fat happy slob turn me into a lady's man? :) Not by a long shot, but it did help me understand that you don't need looks or money to be successful with women. Don't get me wrong, looks help big time. I knew a real slow poke who did well with women and again and again I heard how attractive he was--yes, I could see it, but that was all he had. Oops, NO he also had sexual skill. Money, imo, is also a definite winner from what I've witnessed.
***The short fat slob was RARE. But, if he could be a winner with women then it seems like almost any man has that potential.*** Can it be taught? His style consisted to a high degree of very quick wit and that award winning smile. Still, a few points here and there should be available for the average joe. For me the high point was that being short, fat, and poor weren't deal breakers. That was one hell of a revelation. If I hadn't seen this guy first hand, then I probably wouldn't either believe or appreciate that lesson.
Proof is in the pudding-----I would think that some guys could be taught how to improve their sex life dramatically. It would, imo, take not only a fair amount of work, but it would take an unusual personal trainer. I mean how common are fat, short, poor, men that are winners with hot women? :) That man was a rare talent and it was a true pleasure watching him in *high speed action*.
For myself, some friends are in complete disbelief that any hottie would be interested in me----it is a tradeoff on many fronts. One huge difference is that for me, I have NO interest in wasting any time or effort on a woman that I don't consider to be super hot. I'm not even a little intimidated by youth or beauty. And, many/most young hotties are totally turned off by me.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Who ever said I was an attorney? Not me. And I can't have a 30 year plus career -- I'm not in my 50s (yet)."
My bad. I either misinterpreted or misremembered. Sorry, about that.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I personally met chandler at my favorite club about 3 months ago. I can say that his post is total satire. He freaked out when a dancer using the stage name chandler went on stage."
That and $5 will buy me a dance at Angels. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi njscfan,
IMHO, it seems like you take David9999 seriously. :) By that I mean you seem to have typed an awful lot to discredit him. If he was a mere 15 year old boy as you've written, then is there a real point blowing his bubble? If he was financially starved and a total loser with females of all species, then again is there a real point in deflating him?
I happen to enjoy his seed spreading posts as well as his other insights----correct or incorrect. Perhaps that just reflects badly on me. :(
You've written about exposing lies in a 30 plus year legal career. IME, too often people, especially logically grounded attorneys, equate crazy with untrue; I'm guilty of this. If I hear a nutty or improbable story, then my kneejerk reaction is that the person is confused, deceived, misinformed, puffing, lying, mentally ill, etc. etc. etc.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"when women today speak of "chemistry" being a requisite to sustain a relationship with a man, they are actually talking about "falling in love" and that all-critical component I believe is in the nature of a a bio-chemically induced non-volitional involuntary feeling - and all of that relates to earlier times"
I believe "the point always missed," in David9999's opinion is that 'chemistry' and 'falling in love' for women are critically related to much earlier human evolution. Back in the caveman days a woman would seek certain traits from a man and those traits were likely to be passed on to later generations. Wonderful, except that the modern world doesn't "need" or "want" these traits they are consciously perceived as negative. Dragging a woman around by her hair is unlikely to elicit many cheers, but due to genes that may be exactly what a woman craves; subconsciously. :)
Easy proof: Go to the local bar and start dragging women and see 'em fall madly in love. ;) Anyway, I believe David9999 has an excellent point as far as genes regulating what many women want as far as manly behaviors.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Hi shadowcat,
And, you have also asserted that I was RL or Romantic Lover. I guess by implication that means I'm also David9999. As njscfan pointed out I'm always jumping to his defense even those he keeps referring to me a jarblake. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Law of the land? It was a 5-4 opinion, which may only apply to special "federal citizens." Yes, seems like a hell of a reach by
the legal expert featured on CNN. Also, you still have to get lower courts to comply, which ain't always easy believe it or not.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Conspiracy theories? Seemed like Shadowcat was just making assertions sans any theories.
discussion comment
16 years ago
At to the correctness of certain official reports and news information: Recently the FDA warned consumers about an outbreak of salmonella in raw tomatoes. My kneejerk reaction was to trust the FDA because there isn't an obvious reason to create fear among tomato consumers; thus, I believed the tomatoes were the source of the salmonella. And, also I had believed the science for recognizing such tainted tomatoes was fairly straightforward: not an area for controversy.
Anyway, I was watching CNN and it was very interesting. A reporter who supposedly questioned the health experts originally about whether tomatoes were the source says at the time she was repeatedly assured it was the tomatoes. Now, it is being reported it may not be the tomatoes at all. The poor farmers and merchants and consumers who were injured by the original official government report blaming tomatoes may have been innocent victims of who knows what incompetence, arrogance, etc.
I don't know the science. *I had assumed* that it should be fairly easy to determine whether tomatoes are tainted with salmonella to a dangerous degree.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"jablake, you of all people should never to trust Wikipedia."
It's not a question of trust. For a long time courts were using bogus research in family law cases---not just citing---a research report that was latter admitted to be faked by the "respected" author who had a political agenda. I didn't see anything wrong with the courts citing the research--it was a resource; assuming it was true and correct, I thought was brain-dead. Finally, after many many years that resource was discredited. Unfortunately, mere citing can be seen as supporting.
BTW, even if the information cited is correct that the text was of the 2nd Amendment was *supposed* to be inserted between other clear individual rights doesn't, imo, mean it was regarded as an individual right. Perhaps the reason it wasn't inserted with the other individual rights is precisely because there was controversy over whether it *properly* was an individual right amongst the drafters. Or, it may *if true* have some other significance.
I've read repeatedly, *doesn't make it true*, that one or more of the original drafts of the 1st Amendment specifically referred to State(s) as well as Congress shall pass NO law . . . and, there was debate about whether States should be handcuffed in the same manner as Congress, if true, that is very significant, imo.
I quoted what I thought was interesting, if true. Too often the debate isn't about what the text actually means it is about what one would like it to mean. I'm very biased in favor of a certain reading of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm aware of that bias. The Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion doesn't make me more sure about its true meaning because my trust of the institution is ZERO.
Unfortunately, I've read, again *doesn't make it true*, that there is a high correlation between having stripclubs and "anti-social" behaviour that that harms "innocents." Thus, if "innocents" is *your* benchmark then raiding stripclubs may be something you should be supporting 100%! :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibitions on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.[31] Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment.[32]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
motorheadFat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Yep, he was right about (1) dancers being belted by the economy, (2) Alpha Male Seed Spreading, and (3) gun control being violative of the 2nd Amendment. No wonder David9999 rakes in, in excess of $500,000 per year. :)