discussion comment
17 years ago
"The Second Amendment, which the high court is expected in the D.C. case to interpret for the first time since it was ratified in 1791, says, '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.'
The older Pennsylvania provision declares, 'The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_on_el_pr/pennsylvania_primary_guns;_ylt=Aoz4M_CdQywqplVaR_X9p2dh24cA
The first time since it was ratified? That's impressive if true--so much for the supreme law of the land. This is the "We are the government" you were posting about? I hope that I'm wrong, but I think the U.S. Supreme Court is just too sleazy to actually make a decision in this case. I'm thinking of the pledge case where after it went through all the courts the U.S. Supreme Court decided the father didn't have standing where his daughter was concerned. Supposedly only a custodial parent could have standing---I wonder where they learned that or if was just a spur of the moment invention.
Maybe they'll pull the same standing sleaze again or maybe just maybe their egos will push them to make a decision. O yes, We the People. LOL! :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi MIDancer,
You probably wouldn't approve of her tactics, but I did a post about a dancer who makes your rates seem like a fantastic deal. $200 for 15 minutes (for conversation) and he certainly seemed thrilled to see her--she actually got $250 when I was there and spent a lot less time than 15 minutes. Of course, $1,000 per hour for some women's company is most likely an excellent deal for some wealthy men. Maybe you need to be raising your rates. :)
Yes, the King would probably label an fair exchange that was more than he wanted to pay a ROB. Glad, he ain't really the King.
Anyway, hope you are doing very well.
discussion comment
17 years ago
I like the tolerance admonition. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Eight times a day way sounds like a lot of fun even if the quality wasn't the greatest. :)
When I think transexual, I think they generally have a higher sex drive than the normal woman. That big dancer looked like a man and not just the extra equipment. And, yet this big dancer, imo, was definitely more attractive than the other big dancers. Bottom line I'm happy that she didn't give a full show: The other big dancers could, imo, learn from that. The little dancers are doing just fine. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi wondergrl5,
Maybe I haven't seen or recognized the right Mexican women, but dang my stereotype even before other "experts" on this site "confirmed" it was that Mexican women are flat assed.
That is what I see. I'm not an expert and I haven't seen tons and tons of Mexican women. The ones I've seen were a huge disappointment. Who knows perhaps there are plenty of men who love flat asses. That wouldn't surprise me.
From another thread it sounded like you equate a simple observation with racism. That is depressing.
I'll make another observation. I've seen lots and lots of black women and I think they've got the best butts by a landslide. Doesn't mean all black women have beautiful butts, but when I see the exremely rare black woman who has a flat ass it is like what the hell happened? The are white women with fine asses, but percentage wise I just think black women run away with the show in that one area. Also, with nice plump lips it is black women running away with the show. As far as GIANTS it is black women running away with the show. Now, all of my observation could be wrong. Perhaps I need glasses. Perhaps black women in other areas have flat asses, thin lips, and are all tiny or at least average size.
Anyway, these physical stereotypes can then be used to justify all manner of other stereotypes. As I said before, I think racism is a symptom. In medicine I think there is an old saying like treat the problem or don't confuse the symptom with the problem. Well, it was something like that. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Yes, OPEC was the catalyst for those government price controls. Usually the government takes away freedoms based on some real or imaginary threat. The price controls do what price controls usually do: create a much bigger mess. Miracle of miracles the government got some brains and the price control legislation was repealed. At the time I heard plenty of doom and gloom about how without government protection businesses were just going to keep raising prices. I was actually surprised the prices didn't rise substantially first and then fall dramatically. Instead the prices just started dropping.
The two-bit government isn't creating the organ shortage letting people die and suffer for no good reason? Wow. It is my understanding that there are PLENTY of dead bodies suitable for harvesting organs. Religion the problem? Probably part of it. The big criminal in the game is the force and fraud of law, which keeps families of the deceased from getting any type of compensation. I believe even allowing the free market to work to a small extent would result in a huge supply of organs greatly reducing suffering and deaths.
You don't want to build a prison state? As more laws are passed generally more "criminals" are created--it is a business.
We are the government? Really, that is a sadly funny.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Perhaps I'm part of the problem, but it doesn't seem like a very friendly place especially for strippers.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Oh, and if your uncle or any other stranger had to depend on my voluntarily giving up my dead body to save 'em. Then they be dead. Sorry.
You want to build a prison state and that is just fine and dandy, but there are positives and negatives that go with that decision. Sort of a package deal. Of course, the solution is to pass more laws and use more force i.e. prisons or executions.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Who payed before the insurance became mandatory? Sometimes it was the owner of the vehicle if he was at fault and had assets. Sometimes it was the two-bit government. Sometimes it was the victim. Now everyone pays, but they pay a hell of a lot more. Wonderful government in action. And, if I'm severly injured because my access to a gun is restricted due to government BS, then who is going to pay? The two-bit government? Another wonderful government deal.
Yes, some choice--the type of choice given by government or thugs. No, I think the government not only makes bad choices, but it spreads them more widely and more brutally. Could the government make good choices? Sure, remember separate but equal? The "democracy" at the time thought that was a good choice. How about prohibition? Maybe that is a good choice or a bad choice? The government price controls on fuel? You remember those wonderful gas lines that stretched for blocks. Maybe that is a good choice or a bad choice? OK, the Drug War? I've got a winner for you: Outlawing discrimination by private business and citizens. You got to love that one. Who cares about freedom of association or freedom to contract. I'd rather have more diversity and generally allow people to make their own choices. The fewer laws and fewer prisons generally is for the best, imo. You know sort of like that radical idea that a person got a jury trial of his *peers* and that decision had to be agreed to by all----and, NO the government forcing a decision or trying a case again and again doesn't count. :) What was that about releasing 99 guilty to save 1 innocent? Old fashioned or a fraud.
NO, NO, NO!!! The government has to ban all abortions to SAVE COUNTLESS lives. You remember? You want the two-bit government encouraging productive behaviour and discouraging unproductive behaviour. The government knows best belief system.
I originally became an organ donor because I felt it was the right thing to do. I won't need my body so why not help out those that do? Well, if it so wonderful why doesn't government just take people's bodies so as to SAVE COUNTLESS lives? You know government knows best. I'm sure you'd be in favor of taking away people's freedom yet again.
The reason I decided to NOT be an organ donor is because it is the two-bit government that is creating the organ shortage letting people die and suffer for no good reason. The government created the problem then let the blood thirsty government solve it in any manner it so mandates. I sure as hell wont voluntarily help.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Are you done crying yet? :)
The Religion scam involves tax breaks and deductions for one. Gee, it would be nice if the government subsidized my beliefs in the same manner. :)
Here in Florida many years ago insurors had to truly compete for insurance business for autos. At the time full insurance for my car was under $70. Anyway, there was a huge campaign because allegedly if everyone was forced to purchase insurance then the rates would be lowered. LOL! Yeah right. So the government passed a law supported by huge insurors mandating coverage and of course the first year I attempted to renew the price was $125. I said what about the new law? The agent said you didn't believe that nonsense did you? You are getting a break cause your a good customer with a perfect record! No, but many other people did. If you think car insurance is a wonderful idea, then what about $10,000,000 policy NO FAULT with pain and suffering benefits required for each gun owned? How about a mandatory annual insurance for owners of swimming pools? The government should be the decider of course because it knows best!
What a bunch of BS as far as who decides. The government decides for me by financial and physical threats. I've heard that filth before and the example involved rape victims. Surprisingly, it was a liberal lady claiming that a woman volunteers to be raped if given the "choice" between rape and death and she chooses rape. So is that your concept of people deciding? They need to risk financial or physical injury for their decision at the hands of the government or freelance thug? So if the government puts a gun to my head and says that if I vote for anyone but candidate X, I will be penalized $500. Who is really deciding? I say the government. Of course, if you money to throw away then it might actually be a choice for YOU.
You don't have a problem. How wonderful. Maybe you have a problem with government banning abortions to save countless lives? The rest of you will pay for me? Wonderful. Just wonderful. More likely doctors and insurance companies will rake in the $$$. Yes, I guess actually you are right--anyone dies it costs everyone in society. Pass a law criminalizing death and collect from the family of the deceased. Unfortunately, I'm still an organ donor. But, next license renewal that will change. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Yes, special rights. :) Redressing past discrimination by discriminating against those with the wrong skin color. Don't get me wrong. I may actually support more affirmative action. It all depends on the game. The government is a game of fraud. Thus, affirmative action may be a wonderful solution. But, it shouldn't stop there. Oh no, got to have programs for the farmers. Gotta have programs for the elderly. Gotta have programs for women. Gotta have programs for the handicapped. Gotta have special privileges for the religious folks. Gotta have special rights for insurers. And, programs and special privileges ain't nearly enough. No the government has to decide what recreational drugs are good and which are bad. The government decides whether you use a seat belt. The government decides what foods are legal---that damn milk better be cooked to government specs. See government knows best because most people are too stupid to think for themselves.
And as long as this two-bit government is redressing past discrimination, lol, it is time to redress past mass murder and theft. Everyone, but the true Native Americans need to be forced out at the point of a gun if necessary.
Well, I think racism could and would still exist without government laws, but it would be much weaker. And, you missed the main point, which is no surprise. People can be abused for any too bit reason under color of law. The government creates a problem with its idiotic laws. And, what is the solution? More idiotic laws by the government. Just a giant fraud.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi wondergrl5,
One technique anti-racists use is role playing. The student gets to experience various forms of discrimination. The goal is probably to teach that discrimination/racism is wrong. Anyway, even if done poorly I think it is a wonderful exercise.
You probably won't like my suggestion, but you might want to consider role playing different racists. Imagine as much as possible what they may be feeling and thinking. Live the part--- yada, yada, yada. :)
For example, do you remember that disgusting murder in the news a few years back about about a couple of white men who kidnapped and drug a black man to his death behind the back of a pick-up truck? It might be eye opening for you to place yourself in those racist evil-doers shoes. My two-bit opinion is that you probably wouldn't want to put yourself in their shoes and even if you did it would be a half-ass attempt used mainly to vindicate your own superior beliefs.
Bottom line, I very much like role playing as a teaching method even if done poorly. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
"Property Is Theft
When protecting your own property is stealing from others," By Steven E. Landsburg.
http://www.slate.com/id/2041/
A very disappointing article in that it doesn't seem like the author has a clue as to reasoning behind the phrase Property Is Theft or perhaps I'm mistaken. But, the article is interesting in that blame for theft is shifted to (some or all) property owners who use security systems. Of course, I think some economist won a Noble for shifting blame from the polluter to the victim of pollution so Mr. Landsburg keep up the good work?
discussion comment
17 years ago
I wonder if Wikipedia is incorrect?
Here is a link to search his book, "What is Property?: An Inquiry Into the Principle of Right and of Government":
http://books.google.com/books?id=K_8wAAAAMAAJ&dq=PJ+Proudhon&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=P.J.+Proudhon&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=author-navigational
I should have been able to find either "theft" or "theft." or "theft!" Probably more likely the error lies elsewhere. I was interested in the context. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi wondergrl5,
I know the answer? I can play the other side also. The interesting point, imo, was that there are "experts" who believe race doesn't exist. If that is true, then can racism exist? I think--as I said before--that the easy answer is yes.
Minorities all feel the same about racism and discrimination?
discussion comment
17 years ago
Can I Borrow a $20?
Can I Borrow a Twenty?
Can I Borrow a Dove?
Hmmm . . . a Dove sounds so peaceful. :) Perhaps if I were wavering the metaphorical image of a Dove with it connotations of peace would make me more likely to "lend" her the money. Who knows maybe it worked and I didn't even realize it. :)
A better word for "Borrow"?
Amazing that I didn't get any more requests for money from her or other contact. But, that is almost as strange hearing from her after so long.
discussion comment
17 years ago
SWEET. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
BTW, "semantics" is unfortunately very important. IOWs, the label can be far more important than the content.
Affirmative action is a good example. That gets label gets the thumbs up. Racial preference program would probably get the thumbs down. In the abortion debate you have pro-choice versus pro-life. Now, some of these pro-life people are hardly in favor of life at all once the person is born. :) Hey, it is the semantics/label that is important.
It IS DIFFICULT TO POST!!!
discussion comment
17 years ago
I can see you know my lifestory. Yes, white skin can be a heavy burden in the wrong environment. Even in a black club where I feel well treated there is the occasional dancer who hates all whites. It doesn't make that much difference to me because she doesn't have any real power over me.
Now, power changes the whole ballgame. But, in my eyes racism wouldn't be the problem. The problem would be she has power over me. And, then the question would be why does she have power over me? More likely than not I would bet it has something to do with the vile government. Is she wearing a badge? Does she have special rights under the law? Does her money or race give her an unfair advantage in a corrupt court system?
Even without racism people are more than willing to abuse each other under color of law. There was a gentleman The Wall Street Journal was doing a story on and the states supreme court had rule finality was more important than the man's innocence. In the story the claim was made that if the judges had to slam the cell door shut on this innocent man themselves for life that they wouldn't be able to do it. LOL! Some of the judges I've run into are truly scum of the earth and it has nothing to do with racism--HELL, they might even be anti-racists, but they get pleasure out of hurting people. The cattle class is too stupid to do anything other than wave a flag so he is free to continue hurting people because he has the power.
I've just been reading a story about a man (black, btw) who is supposedly innocent and his attorneys have known about it for 21 years-supposedly ethical rules kept them silent until now. Well, I'm not an attorney, however, most of these rules are extremely bendable and if they gave a damn about the man, then I believe there were ways to help him. Maybe racism helped keep this man behind bars for 21 years? Could be, but other people get screwed just as bad and race has nothing to with it. If you eliminated racism, then people would start treating each other better???
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hmmm . . . my post got chopped! :(
Founder, the text was appearing and disappearing as I typed. Probably just my machine.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi wondergirl5,
Playing Devil's Adocate: If race doesn't exist, then derogatory terms that sought denigrate a person's race would be mere galimatias. The gentlemnan using such utterances may be suffer from some delusions or trauma or etc. But, surely not racism if race doesn't exist.
discussion comment
17 years ago
"Does Race Exist?" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html ("There is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term 'race.'" Not, nearly as provoking, imo, as the caption.)
Anyway, if race doesn't exist, can racism exist? I would think the easy answer is yes, but racism has different meanings to different people.
Thinking out loud I wonder if racism is the problem or rather it is a "bright marker" symptom.
discussion comment
17 years ago
To paraphrase a communist saw "Property may be theft."
"Steal This Book! Please!
Why software and media companies should encourage piracy (sometimes)." http://www.slate.com/id/2188528/
discussion comment
17 years ago
And, the plot thickins:
"Doobie" is a marijuana cigarette. Could "Doobie" be a form of diminutive of "Doubloon"? For example, "Droplet" is the diminutive of "Drop." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diminutive A marijuana cigarette is afterall merely a smaller "package" or amount of drugs.
discussion comment
17 years ago
I was thinking another etymology for dove/duve might be related to doubloon. :)
"The word doubloon (from Spanish doblón, meaning double), meaning a double-sided token coin, often refers to a seven-gram (0.225 troy ounce) gold coin minted in Spain, Mexico, Peru, or Nueva Granada. The term was first used to describe the golden excelente, either because of its value of two ducats, or because of the double portrait of Ferdinand and Isabella. Later, it referred to a coin worth two escudos (0.1905 troy ounce gold), first minted in 1566, during the reign of Philip II of Spain."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Doubloon
The above example is why folk etymologies are NOT supposed to be trusted. Just cause it sounds good doesn't mean it is the true account. Of course, if dove is also related back to the illegal drug trade, I can envision where drugs are literally seen as a form of gold coin. Hence, doubloons or dubs for short when speaking about packs of drugs. I have believed correctly or incorrectly that a doubloon was a $20 gold coin and it doesn't seem like much of a stretch morphing into a means of describing $20 worth of drugs or a $20 bill.