discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction:
In order to reduce the workload caused by these handful or so lawsuits the two-bit government could just scale back on its stripclub raids. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"goddamn NRA is going to flood the courts with lawsuits"
LOL! :) Like one lawsuit or so per unconstitutional law is such a strain on America's prison state.
In order to reduce the workload caused by these handful or lawsuits the two-bit government could just scale back on its stripclub raids. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi deogol,
The conservatives that I knew growing up were small government live and let live convservatives. Although these conservative were generally prudes and went to church every Sunday they didn't have any problem with stripclubs or generally with other vices as long as children weren't involved.
Liberals were the ones that wanted more laws to close stripclubs and basically command people to do this or that or face incarceration, fines, and branding as a criminal. Liberals just loved the power of government thinking its purpose was to control your neighbors thoughts and actions.
Unfortunately, it seems like in government liberals are generally significantly more intelligent than conversatives; thus, the conservatives learned to love more government as much or more than liberals. Heck, conservatives even got it into their pea brains that closing down stripclubs and other moralizing was the job of government.
So, yes I would love to agree with you that liberalism not only causes crime (by passing a mountain of laws) and also labels that which shouldn't be a crime a crime (self-defense as well as gun ownership), the conversatives have, imo, become just as bad or worse than liberals. Their a tag-team with relatively little difference it seems as far as wanting more government and more laws.
Heck, one of the many things liberals and conservatives can probably agree on is closing stripclubs! :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
Actually, I think it was about 18 months ago The Herald had a front page story on how the federal district court in Miami was EMPTY. The article had these poor pathetic federal judges wimpering that they had NO work.
discussion comment
16 years ago
About a year before the crackhead, I had some crooks stealing from my yard so I go and confront them; of course with appropriate firepower. Fortunately, they didn't want any trouble; and appeared terrified. And, I told then just leave peacefully and keep your hands in front of you and there won't be any need to shoot.
Unfortunately, the little neighbor boy witnessed all this and it upset him greatly. :( His mom was upset as well. His dad did the alpha male routine explaining to his family that I should have been shooting first and asking questions later.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Not sure if I posted about it, but a few years back I was watching NFL night game on TV. There was a knock at the door (doorbell hasn't worked it years), which I ignored. Well, the knock soon turned into pounding and the door isn't too secure; should have been replaced 20 years ago. Fortunately, I had a modest weapon handy and was able to properly greet my uninvited guest. He is like don't shoot, shoot. Couldn't see either of his hands clearly; porch light has been out for more than 20 years. I say to him something like: Sorry, but you real close to get filled holes it ain't even funny. One sudden move is all its gonna take! He starts yapping about an emergency and I snap FREEZE!!! He froze. I say that I'd hate to shoot, but this is a bad situation. He says he is a neighbor and his wife is stranded in Homestead and he just needs some gas money. I say what neighbor? Unfortunately, he knew a nurse lived in that house so there was a slim chance he might be telling the truth. Regardless, I just wanted him gone preferrably in not too bad a mood. Don't make sense to make enemies unnecessarily. I grab some small bills from my pocket (perhaps $7) and throw it out the door telling him not to move until I've shut the door. Go back to watching the football game and hoped that he was satisfied with the small payoff. (I later learned the nurse knew nothing about him.) After the game, I decided to check to see if he'd done any damage. Big mistake. I go outside and am soon in extreme sharp pain!!! Damn, the asshole broke a crack pipe and I stepped on it barefoot. Serves me right being so negligent. :) But, I wasn't walking for a few weeks after that; without crutches. :(
The whole time I was focused on the man's hands and also keeping an eye for his potential buddies. He never had both of his hands where I could clearly see 'em . . . not a good sign. And, yes once false move by him and I would have started shooting----I just don't know what if anything he had in his hand.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Great idea. Especially Anchorage, AK. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'd be surprised if *addiction* was even as high as 10%. Now, *abuse*----governments' definition e.g. a single joint or pill---might be higher than 99%. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Just watching CNN and one of the legal experts---I think he was a law professor---says the recent 2nd Amendment decision only applies to "federal citizens." :) Therefore, the NRA is not going to have a "cake-walk" with its recently filed lawsuits in San Franciscio and Chicago.
The term "federal citizens" very much caught my ear. I think the law professor is *truly reaching* if he actually believes that the 2nd Amendment will apply to "federal citizens" and not individuals residing in States. However, this is such a corrupt country that that might truly be the fraud. Make the masses believe they have real 2nd Amendment rights while the protecting it only for "federal citizens." LOL! :) The other law professor believed the Supreme Court will apply the 2nd Amendment broadly and that is *unlikely* to be applied to just DC residents.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Giving rights to the detainees 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,' Justice Antonin Scalia said in a scathing dissent he read from the bench.
No one threw that line back at Scalia in the guns case. But Justice John Paul Stevens, also summarizing his dissent in court, said of Scalia's majority opinion on gun rights that 'adherence to a policy of judicial restraint by this court is far wiser than the bold decision it announced today.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_unrestrained_finish
Scalia is an amusing judge, imo-----and yet I keep hearing that he is brilliant. Too bad that none of the other judges threw Scalia's words back at him. He needs some good intellectual slaps to the head. If the judicial standard is that rights can be taken away if doing so would in theory or in fact save American lives, then completely gutting the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments would be laudatory. IMO, he is just another judicial moron. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction: I researched around a 1,000 cases involving petitions for certiorari, involving the driver license law, before the appellate division of the circuit court. Only 8 or 9 of these cases said anything but DENIED.
discussion comment
16 years ago
If the Second Amendment read "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed," then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the court decision was still a 5-4 opinion. Judges are overwhelmingly, imo, more than willing to ignore the law or rewrite the law and or the facts. So perhaps their years of indoctrination in law schools is a humongous waste that results in both in less freedom and less justice.
Probably most people would be shocked to learn that supposedly conservative judges are even proud that they have the scholarly discipline to ignore the plain language of a law in favor of court precedents. This is something to be proud of?! Well, after years of being indoctrinated it shouldn't be surprising that silly and stupid ideas are parroted by lawyers and judges as if they were absolute truths.
I was watching a professor of Constitutional law, I think it was a segment on CNN, and he was explaing how the published opinions on the 4th Amendment didn't match the reality that attorneys faced in court. He claimed to have researched 1,500 competently prepared motions to suppress and found that only 7 of those motions were granted. In effect the 4th Amendment was viewed as a total *private* joke by the government's judges. Or, maybe the professor of law is way off base?
I researched around a 1,000 cases involving petitions for certiorari, involving the driver license law, before the appellate division of the circuit court. Only 7 of these cases said anything but DENIED. One attorney whose petition was DENIED begged the court for some reasoning because his client had spent so much money. The court lowered itself to giving a case. The case wasn't even on point. :( The only well done and well researched court opinion that gave true justice made it seem like the court was this great intellectual defender of Constitutional freedoms when in fact the court was extremely lazy and corrupt----some freedoms. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
Gambling dancer's male relatives are generally violent. Given the way she is raising her little boy, I'm afraid he will also end up a violent man. It is a shame because he is a wonderful little boy. At Discount Auto, I very much appreciated the employee speaking up in defense of the little boy. (I've bitten my tongue more than a few times because I thought coming from me it would make matters worse for a number of reasons.) Gambling dancer was in the empolyee's face instantly--he didn't back down, but I wish he had been more forceful.
Against this backdrop of her violent male relatives Gambling dancer wanted to know what I would do if one showed to cause trouble. I explained that if need be and if I got the opportunity, then there are guns and other weapons in my home and I would be forced to use them. She was shocked that I had or would use a gun and even said that I wouldn't shoot. I told her that she kept forgetting that I was born and raised in the South----her whole attitude changed to a more somber note.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I confess: I was going for the alliteration.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm 100% pro-guns, but I'm not sure the slim majority was correct. The concern I have is the words "well regulated" and if this text has any limiting effect. "Militia" would simply, imo, mean all able bodied competent males generally between the ages of 18 and 60.
The Ninth Amendment might have been a good supporting amendment to cite. The enumeration of some rights can unfortunately be used as deny the existance of others. And, a cramped reading of an amendment can accomplish the same distortion. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a limitation on the power of government and not a celebration of it----something that big government types who claim to support the Constitution should try and remember.
"I have to agree with TUSCL_brother. It saddens me that 4 of the judges voted against what should have been a simple ruling in favor of 2A rights."
What is much more saddening, imo, is it seems like ALL 9 of 'em don't understand the words: "shall not be infringed." They'd much rather play legislator than be bound by law. :(
Those who yap about all the supposed freedom need to understand how arbitrary application of "law" can be and as such freedom is very weak. Sort of amusing is that in a country with supposedly so many freedoms just enjoying a simple activity like stripclubbing at small family type clubs is so restricted and attacked by government. Worse, to most if there is a single club that somehow proves that stripclubbing isn't restricted and attacked by government----- what's the big deal that the other 10 stripclubs along W. Dixie Hwy were closed by the governments filth of law? :( Well, what's the big deal if government so attacked and restricted alcoholic beverages that instead of having thousands of different types or brands of beer available there were only five? Freedom of the most valuable kind: Bill of Rights type freedom i.e. freedom from government.
discussion comment
16 years ago
On attractive women, I hate tattoos. On other women doesn't seem like much loss.
discussion comment
16 years ago
***Not trying to pick a fight but has anyone else noticed that FONDL relates everything to his ATF who isn't even a dancer?***
Yes, but in his blog I think there were a bunch of others.
***In his eyes if something was her experience than it MUST be true of all strippers.***
That is like the scrape of finger nails on a chalkboard. It is like he can only see one side of an issue and therefore it MUST be true.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Now I am sure jablake will post one of his surreal, stream of conscious defenses of David, that lead off into a completely different subject. The funny part is that jablake always rises to David's defense, but David keeps calling him 'jarblake.'"
It is just a term of endearment. :) Oops, there I go again rising to David's defense. LOL! The reality of course is that sometimes to accurately understand the message one must overlook logical or factual inconsistency and further consider the context, probable motives, diversionary tactics, etc. etc. etc. When considering the Apache culture as a whole as it existed some 300 years ago, it must be obvious that their social mores were shaped by their primitive technology as well as competing tribes to name but two major influences. How does this apply to David, one might ask? Simple look at the "advanced" technology that David employs. Letters on a screen with countless possible meanings; pitiful just pitiful. Competing tribes? Think, DEA, FBI, LEO, CIA, etc. and even TUSCL. Even an extreme Alpha man might feel a tinge of fear surrounded by such tribes; especially an Alpha man with a lot to lose such a license to practice law or access to the hottest most fertile women money can rent. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Sounds like you're not going to the stripclubs enough. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'm totally PISSED!!! These reviews are gold and founder just arbitrarily rejects them because this is his site??? Who does he think he is?
Excellent post, chandler. :) LOL!
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi David9999,
I really don't know what to say. I don't care for the focus on reviews because it seemed like the same people pushing for reviews are same people who would throw a hissey fit because I believe in rating $5 clubs with 10 star ratings. Perhaps, I'm wrong about that.
I'm more than familar with the new and "improved" Tootsies and I think it was much nicer when it was a cheap hole in the wall. Now, if a clubber has money then perhaps the more expensive clubs would be more appealing to me, but that is far from a given. For my tastes RolLexx, Angels, or Cocos has more attractive dancers than Tootsies. Now, when The Trap was a white club--years ago--it seemed like the dancers they had were generally off the wall HOT so I don't think it is just a question of maybe my preferring black dancers generally. Tootsies just doesn't seem to have what I consider to be HOT dancers now that they're new and "improved."
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi TUSCL_Brother,
Perhaps because the other 4 justices strongly believe in life over individual rights? Supposedly, gun free societies are a panacea. One interesting comparison is the gun deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S. compared to England. It is a trade-off.
Some people would like to get rid of the automobile to save lives. Others would like to ban red meats. Bottom line is the government knows best in their opinion and we should have the ruling elite make a mountain of laws to control and intimidate.
The other 5 justices probably don't understand our fundamental right to engage in adult activities with other consenting adults. Crimes and rights and laws are mere opinions, but when government is unbound they become lethal weapons to life and liberty as well as mere opinions.
Is there a fundamental right to assemble in a stripclub and enjoy the company of like minded individuals? Some say YES and others say NO. Usually, those who say NO yap about crime or drugs or violence. Always a good excuse to curtail freedom in the name of more government power.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi David9999,
You probably don't recall, but I was critized for my lack of reviews, numerical ratings, and posting what could be thought of as reviews in the Discussion Board. Universal specks of light:
1. Seems like the majority wants those reviews! :)
2. The numerical ratings can cause undue strife.
3. Posting club experiences (reviews) can also cause undue strife.
How did I respond? Definitely not in alpha man fashion. :( I gave reasons and when those reasons were rejected I gave more reasons. It became circle and evermore reasonable and the end result NO panting strippers.
A simple FUCK OFF,,, couldn't have garnered fewer panting strippers and it is laconic and lancet-like. ;)
discussion comment
16 years ago
A nervous breakdown? Or, an alpha male marking his territory and establishing his dominance? ;)
It ain't only hot fertile females who feel the brunt of the alpha male's aggressive nature. "Rude behavior" may make rivals cower while at the same time act as an aphrodisiac to the fairer sex and most certainly on ecdysiasts. If that don't work with the ladies, then brandish $5,000 worth century notes or smaller denominations, but NO pennies.
If they are two or more alpha males competing for the same dancers, then sell 'em guns and bullets; utilize profits for stripper babes.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Thanks arbeeguy,
Penumbras was used in a famous U.S. Supreme Court decision------supposedly a "hallmark" of judicial activism.
"The rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution or the implied powers of a rule.
The original and literal meaning of penumbra is "a space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow … on all sides and the full light" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996). The term was created and introduced by astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604 to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. However, in legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.
The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas.
In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the "gray area where logic and principle falter." In later decisions, Justice Holmes developed the penumbra doctrine as representing the "outer bounds of authority emanating from a law." Justice Holmes usually used the word in an attempt to describe the need to draw Arbitrary lines when forming legislation. For instance, in the decision of Danforth v. Groton Water Co., Holmes referred to constitutional rules as lacking mathematical exactness, stating that they, "[l]ike those of the Common Law, end in a penumbra where the Legislature has a certain freedom in fixing the line, as has been recognized with regard to the police power" (178 Mass. 472, 476–77, 59 N.E. 1033, 1034 [1901]).
Judge Hand expanded the meaning of the word in opinions written between 1915 and 1950 by using it to indicate the vague borders of words or concepts. He used it to emphasize the difficulty in defining and interpreting statutes, contracts, Trademarks, or ideas.
Justice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.
Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional
because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.
Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/penumbras