discussion comment
17 years ago
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/houston080706.html
discussion comment
17 years ago
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa545.pdf
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi Fondl,
Even those who say they believe in less government seem to want more of it for their special interest. An excellent example is George Wills--smaller government until his family needs help i.e. his daughter's handicap.
Well, part of the cost of a favorite project is that other less favorite projects will also probably get funding. Want more money for roads? Unless it is paid for by a dedicated and reasonably linked tax, then more likely than not more money for roads comes with more money for housing, sidewalks, sewers, environmental protection, etc.
Given the supposed conservatives that I know, the government should grow by leaps and bounds. More money for building prisons, more money for the military, more money to stop "illegal" immigration (Guilliano, claimed it was NOT a crime to enter the country without proper documentation ???), more money for the drug war, more money for law enforcement, etc.
discussion comment
17 years ago
http://www.dea.gov/programs/marijuana.htm
discussion comment
17 years ago
Oh, I asked the doctor about what the nurse had to say. He didn't say anything. Didn't say that's absurd. Didn't say yes, those asshole DEA are on top of him. Almost like he was afraid to say anthing. Gee he couldn't be afraid of the DEA and its anti-drug nitwits could he?
If the nurse was full of it, then I would have expected a better explanation from the doctor. You could see the poor man was in agony.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi AbbieNormal,
Here's a link for you:
http://www.aapsonline.org/painman/paindocs2/libbystatement.pdf
Doesn't make sense why the doctor wouldn't want to prescribe the necessary pain medication unless the filthy government and its drug wars were involved. Anyway, it was the nurse that claimed that the DEA were a bunch of assholes creating grief for the doctors. Easy to believe.
I'm in definite extreme pain. You think there would be any problem with me legally getting pain medication if it weren't for the governments' drug wars.
Believe whatever you want. That is just too absurd to argue. Especially with me living in Miami and having to produce photo identification and slew of other information just for cough medicine. So the government is going off the deep end for some cough medicine and yet patients that need pain killers will not be affected by the governments' drug war . . . yeah, whatever . . .
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi JC2003,
I don't think so, but I think I was experiencing extreme back pain. Anyway, it was supposed to be a fantasy story in the mold of Philip K. Dick--not that I remember his books. Don't think I was impressed with him except that he had a following.
It is criminal that people in pain can't get legally get pain medication. Watched a buddy die in agony. The nurse told me the DEA is a little bit fanatical when in comes to keeping their thumb on doctors. The doctor's original excuse was that he was afraid of giving him an overdose. I asked and how much longer do you think a man over 90 years old with major physical problems is really go to last? He was deaf, pleading for pain killers and then he lost his eyesight, which was excellent, completely. He died about 4 weeks later and it was brutal. :(
discussion comment
17 years ago
How could I have forgotten. Inappropriate books need to be BANNED because they represent and extreme health risk to the "innocents." I'm thinking The Turner Diaries and McVeigh. And, then there was the infamous Hit Man book that a person used as guide to wipe an entire family? or, maybe it was just a nasty wifey or hubby . . .
discussion comment
17 years ago
BTW, if air quality is really the issue older cars should be banned along with most buses. And, get rid of most airplanes. BBQ? Ban it. I think California in some places the charcoal BBQ has been banned. :) And, that should save some endangered cows. Cars represent a risk that is just too much for pedestrians and other innocents--BAN 'EM. :) This could really be fun. Guns, of course have to be BANNED. :) Pools are horrible offenders as far as killing small children. BAN 'EM. Dogs sure as hell are a health menace to some people. BAN 'EM. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi Book Guy,
It is about controlling other people's pleasure. Let's say I'm a heavy smoker and a heavy eater; I believe a good meal must accompanied by smoking. Ideally cigarette, cigar, pipe, and more. Perhaps get a hose from the jalopy outback and bring in its fumes. A lot of my friends and family feel the same way. An idea pops up! Open a little restaurant that caters to those that love smoking and eating. Problem is the government has taken that choice from me in the form of its NO smoking laws. :( The pleasure of having a commercial smoking hangout is taken away under government knows best and one size fits all and etc. :(
I think the shoe may have been on the foot years ago where if you wanted a smoke free business, then the government wouldn't allow that.
BTW, I HATE smoking. It is a nasty habit, but I don't really care if other people smoke. I don't even want to order them not to smoke around me although I prefer that they don't. I do want businesses to be free to have smoking or non-smoking. In this day and age, I think for many businesses (not stripclubs) where there is real competition non-smoking would be the norm.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hmmm . . . I prefer the newbie in a landslide. One week or less on the job where she is still tripping over her own feet. Normally, you will get more of the real her.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
Well if the legislatures weren't "contolled to a large degree by lawyers" I doubt it would make any difference *at this point.* Perhaps an exception would be if minorities took control of the legislative and executive branches, but even then I could see the judicial branch "vetoing" anything they didn't care for.
Besides as most people would agree there are already too many lawyers so why add more? Or, worse than that why reduce the "quality"? :)
And, if this is really the land of the free wouldn't make much sense to go messing with the foundation of that freedom. OTOH, as Bork says as long as you have democracy by definition you have freedom. Good to see one former judge stand up for the rights and freedoms of slave owners. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Well, it may be someones pleasure to play a boom box. If businesses didn't feel they could ban boom boxes, then may be the government needs to come and ban boom boxes and other personal noise spewing devices.
I still remember the arrogance of the smoker who claimed it was his "right" to smoke in a restaurant. How dare the restaurant to try and limit his "freedom." The sad thing is the smoker may have been correct under the law. Thus, a new law is needed that goes overboard in the other direction.
discussion comment
17 years ago
HELLO???
A dancer may rightfully believe that it is her ethical duty to turn in a dancer who is breaking club rules or the law. The dancer breaking the club rules may very well be putting not only the club at risk of government attack, but innocent dancers and innocent customers as well.
Besides if the government says X, Y, or Z is a "crime," then it is a crime, right? And, if it is a crime then there may be an "ethical" duty by patriotic citizens to turn in "criminals" either to the government or to the club. The "criminals" can then be "rehabilitated" or terminated e.g. banned from club premises or turned over to law enforcement.
discussion comment
17 years ago
It seems like some posters don't or can't get it. If a reviewer went to Angels on its best night, stunningly hot young black women. Stunningly hot meaning good skin, good teeth, no blubber, not too tall, perky natural tits--SML, bubble butts, angel faces, etc. And, could get almost anything for $5 per dance---GFE, FS, BJ, etc. That reviewer could fairly rate Angels as a 1 or a 10. It is that subjective and it makes sense. If the reviewer thinks black women are disgusting, then the reviewer is going to be one unhappy camper most likely when visiting Angels which has better than 99% black dancers. If the reviewer is crazy about black women, but *needs* fancy furniture, then the reviewer may fairly rip Angels as being a nasty dump because they're aren't high priced furnishings.
Apparently many posters just find it difficult to read or don't like to read. My guess is the top 40 would have NO value to me because they're either the bigger clubs with GC prices or "dives" that charge GC prices. The real value, imo, is the $5 high contact clubs. I don't give a rat's ass about "quality" furnishings. I don't give much of a rat's ass about dancer skin color. I do care big time if the price of the dance is over $5. :) So just on those 3 points I'm probably in the minority.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
Yes, believing in group differences is irrational. :) But, if I had a choice between having all white male judges or having all black female judges here in Miami-Dade County, then the black females would win hands down in a landslide. The educational requirement to be a judge definitely wouldn't be a degree from an accredited law school. A basic high school diploma or equivalency exam along with passing a simple test as to basic legal principles would set the bar. Heck, for the really simple cases, like my condo case, that might be too much education. :)
BTW, I believe businesses and people in a "free" society should generally be free to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc.
discussion comment
17 years ago
SW had some interesting insights on this including the supposed fear that "good" dancers would be arrested in any police sweep along with the "bad" dancers. This happened at Angels. "Good" and "bad" dancers got arrested. Do you think the "good" dancers will get any type of fair and impartial meaningful due process by the court system? LOL!
I wonder if you believe in the governments' drug war. If so, then would it be ok for the dancers or customers to "rat" on drug users and or sellers? How about tax "cheats" is it ok to "rat" on them? This is a society that hopefully everyone will start being a "rat" so that the governments can start filling some of their suplus prison space. I wouldn't negatively label them "rats," however. More like government informers, concerned citizens, educators, health care professionals, officers of the court, parents, etc.
Keep using the term "rat" you might end up in court ordered "rehabilitation" where the first step is to admit the heinousness of your crimes. God forbid a man who likes pussy; especially stripper pussy. Hmmm . . . maybe a gay marriage could be ordered.
discussion comment
17 years ago
One very interesting point is the argument that affirmative action reduces the number of black attorneys because a lesser law school would be a better fit. Hopefully, I didn't misunderstand. Let's try again:
A fancy elite law school is admitting "hardship" blacks under affirmative action. These blacks then do poorly as far as passing the bar. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is these blacks should have gone to lesser law schools, which would have given them a better opportunity to pass the bar??? Ergo, affirmative action at elite law schools are reducing the number of black lawyers.
Offhand, sounds stupid. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Just sounds stupid. I assume that the theory is that the lesser law schools provide more "remedial" or "basic" law school training. That might be true.
I've got an even better theory? Eliminate all the pretentious BS and make a law degree a simple 3 month course. Now, that should improve the end product for the consumer a little bit. :) Yes, you need more reforms than that. But, the product is such sh*t as things stand I wouldn't lose a wink o sleep over any supposed reduction in the "quality" of lawyers practicing and actually believe "quality" may go up.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Some time back the child came to me because he was trying to help raise funds for the school. (He had become a very good student and wanted to help the school.) He was stunned when I said NO!!! Screw, the f**king school! Don't bring me no garbage about schools needing my money or any money! They ought to close the damn school down!!!
The child says you believe in education! I said, boy you need to do some more thinking. A hell of a lot more thinking. You should have known damn well that I ain't got no interest in that school or its teacher and think the damn thing ought to be CLOSED!!! Bingo! The child says because it's a government school? I say that's a damn good start. Now, git before I really get angry. It is just difficult for him to understand my feelings on that subject. At least he tries. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
>>>"The other perverse side of this whole issue is that many (perhaps most) of those poor kids who are subsidized to go to the most expensive and prestigious colleges never graduate. I remember once years ago one of DC's fancy hotels had a doorman who, with his top hat, was about 8 feet tall. Very impressive. Someone later told me that he had been a center at Georgetown. Do we really need to spend taxpayer money (or money taken from a middle-class family) to train hotel doormen?"<<<
Hi FONDL,
If the school was more than just fluff (prestige), then the answer may be YES. One hotel doormen, I think you will agree doesn't tell the whole story. For each hotel doormen there may have been a success story or two success stories, etc.
I will also say although I believe in genes, there is environment (teaching and home) as well as a "tipping point." One of the neighbor children that I helped years ago really opened my eyes. I'm an extremely negative person---imo, both by design (genes) and by conditioning. The child wanted my help with his home work. Of course, my reaction is negative for a million reasons and besides I'm supposed to be nasty. So I tell the child, No, your mommy wouldn't like that. She thinks that I'm dangerous and crazy, which is how she felt about me. So the child is like you're going to be helping me. Not my mom! I said, I really can't go against your parents can I? The child says YES. :) I say, let's make a deal. I talk with your mom and if she says NO, then you don't bother me anymore? He didn't like that deal, but finally agreed to it. To my great surprise the mom didn't have any problem. She thought the kid was just too dumb to teach and besides it would keep the child out of her hair. The child was DUMB, btw. I *had* thought mainly it was just genes were the reason he was so DUMB with the school and home not helping the situation.
I spent 100s of hours trying to get the child to think; more than learn. And, even simple thinking was very difficult for him and worse still he was aware that these weren't difficult problems--just difficult for him. So after a long time he starts in with the he is dumb and asks if I think he is dumb. I say YES. He says why are you wasting your time then? I said I'm not wasting my time. He says you said I was dumb. I then told him different stories that he seemed to really like and understand and also explained why I didn't feel the game was over and that he could be a lot brighter.
No break through at this point. I'm still spending hours and hours and hours with the child and there isn't any improvement at all. I keep thinking patience, patience, patience. Who knows the child may not do anything positive, but I'll just keep calm and inventive. BOOM!!! :) Suddenly the child starts thinking. It is mind blowing. From nowhere he starts understanding. And, his progress was extremely rapid. Like night and day. I continued to work with the child, but less and less. The child said he only wanted to come over when he really needed my help. Months go by without the child asking for any help. I spoke with the mom and she was like the child is a different person and getting very high marks. Anyway, years passed and the child according to his mom is doing great and she doesn't consider him dumb anymore. In fact, she says he is a little too smart for her liking.
I wouldn't have believed it. I *had* believed that the genes would rule for the most part and that teaching could only go so far. Also, I didn't think the progress would be all at once. I was hoping for a little improvement each week. Anyway, made me feel really good. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi FONDL,
Very interesting point you made. I wonder if you follow your own logic further and see nothing wrong with OPEN containers of beer, wine, etc. in automobiles. I was with a large group of professionals of above average intelligence. Everyone, but me thought it was a NO brainer to make it a crime to have open alcohol containers. I may be wrong, you may agree with the majority--it was 100% excluding me and they weren't dummies, imo. And, it wouldn't surprise me if you were among that 100%. Just curious how far you'd go with you're line of thinking (BTW, supposedly cellphone use is as dangerous as drunk driving. I think that is probably true because "drunk driving" doesn't necessarily mean "drunk driving.")
Who knows, agree with with me about open containers and maybe I can persuade that it is time for a friendly dictatorship! ;)
It seems brain dead, but anti-smoking laws could actually increase business. I remember once before all this smoking ban shit a potential customer was claiming the right to smoke on private property where not prohibited by law and the owner of the business supposedly had no protection. Given how sick and twisted the law can be, it wouldn't surprise me if the smoker was right! That stupidity that someone has the right to smoke in your business establishment unless prohibited by law may have led to the backlash. The owner of the restaurant caved-in and most of the other diners had wished he'd held his ground. My 2 cents is that it should be a business' decision in most cases. Don't like smoking, then go somewhere that business agrees with you. I believe that smoke free would be a popular choice--even in bars maybe! :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
I almost forgot. It gets even better. The one well written well thought out opinion? The judges didn't write it. The attorney wrote the opinion before the case was decided and imo, it was excellent.
I had the privelege of seeing that happen real time once. Attorney (a former circuit judge) prepared a well written opinion (actually his client who was a law school graduate prepared it)--not just an order, and it was very well done with case law and findings of fact, etc. Judge waited maybe a month before signing it unchanged. The other side was supposedly never aware of the situation. Anyway, that is just the way things are. :) Perhaps justly the judge was reversed on appeal *without opinion*. However, the attorney claimed to honestly believe in his client's position. So who was right? I think the trial judge was right, but then I'm not an attorney. Of course, some of these cases are fairly simple and shouldn't take a whole lot of time if you had an honest court system.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Correction: Only 1 or 2 out of the 1,000 cases got relief relief. One of the cases was even published and the decision made it appear the courts are truly top notch making sure people's rights are protected. One well written well thought out opinion out of about a 1,000 cases. Doesn't impress me even a little.
993 just got the word DENIED.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi snowtime,
Well, I think it started that strippers are over valued for what they do. The same could be said of lawyers. And, then there is the issue of free market value and what does that really tell you if anything. Somebody raised the point that a $400 per hour attorney looks pretty damn reasonable if it is multi-million dollar case. I agree, if the attorney wins.
In short, stripper or attorney value is difficult to determine because generally there isn't a free market here in the U.S. Who is worth more? I guess the attorney, but even if you spend $400 per hour the courts are of such poor quality, imo, that the quality of the attorney doesn't make as much difference as people might think. Also, imo, the law doesn't make much difference in how the case is decided. For example, supposedly I was entitled to a jury trial----problem is the judge can easily use the scam device of summary judgment and claim there are no material issues of law or fact and order a summary judgment. Now, if you believe in the U.S. court system then you might believe you have a bunch of rights. I don't believe that. I believe generally the court system is garbage. :(
Why did the judge fraudulently use a summary judgment against me? I think it is pretty standard practice. For example, I did research on a certain type of Driver License case. Something like 1,000 files I shifted thru. Almost all the cases were handled by attorneys and the quality of their work went from making a detailed petition to fill in the forms. Something insane like 993 of the case were handled with one word DENIED. The court is a fraud, imo. All 993 cases truly had so little merit that all the attorney got for his trouble besides $$$ was the word DENIED? The poor clients probably spent their hard earned money to get relief, which they and their attorneys felt should be available. Now, if you knew the judge involved---now deceased---you would know he is a crook! Sorry, but he promulgated orders to HIMSELF with phony dates and then claimed that was law. What a lowlife. :(
Only 1 or 2 out of the 993 got relief relief. One of the cases was even published and the decision made it appear the courts are truly top notch making sure people's rights are protected. One well written well thought out opinion out of about a 1,000 cases. Doesn't impress me even a little.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Opinions as to reasonable hours for both sides total would be interesting. 5 hrs? 50 hrs? 500 hrs?