Comments by Book Guy (page 3)

I'm interested in how the politics might influence strip clubbing. With more Rs or Ds in charge, will prices go up or down, will there be fewer or more Cubans, which States are better or worse for strip-clubbing.

I don't dislike the eye-candy element of beach volleyball, of course, but I do really think of it as a bullshit sport. Right up there with canoeing and "Le Break" (break-dancing) -- I consider it stuff that's admittedly hard to do, but has been inserted into the Olympics as obvious gestures to one or another niche-market of equipment manufacturers for certain age-group demographics. Next will be Nintendo. Or cooking.

For me the worry is zealotry. Many of these screwballs genuinely have convinced themselves that what they're doing is somehow "the Right and Necessary thing to do" with moral zeal. Sometimes even without capability, zealotry can still get done what capability would usually be necessary for. And I think Trump is very capable of appointing zealous people. People who are self-appointed as "their own crusade" (so to speak).

@Puddy Also ignored / missed where I stated clearly that my fantasy would allow ideological balance to be maintained. Never mind. If you're going to go off on tangents without reading the things you're responding to, it's not really possible to discuss. Silly me, here I am trying to throw in laurel-leafs, giving the other side its fair due, consistently getting slammed back in my face.

So that's a Mass. answer. What about nationally? Con-Crim-Pro caselaw does limit searches. But I think some US Fed Circuits would be OK with police searching everyone in a place, on strength of a reliable tip that says the whole place is a drugs market. If f.e. the 5th heard the case as first impression they'd uphold that general search, I think. Or maybe it's already been heard? Not familiar.

cash drugs cash for drugs

Carlin my hero. I have a "shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits" ring tone on my phone. :) BTW I'm generally a left-wing voter but I totally agree with the sentiment of this video clip. Labels do divide. The current manifestation of the mostly-left-wing political options in the USA is to maximize labeling opportunities. I hate the woke-ists who have taken over the Democratic party as much as Carlin.

... please let me know so I can correct myself. In the future, I'd suggest, stating someone's opinion is X when the person hasn't said X, is simply troll-baiting. (Sorry for the double-post, something went wrong with my browser.)

If this is a reference to my call-outs of white Christian nationalist violence then it's a misrepresentation of anything I said. "Progressives are such vile scum it is astonishing. They justify the murder of a 12 year old girl by two men who are here illegally because of the policies they vote for, by saying that since there is white Christian violence then the illegal status of the two who will one day be electrocuted in Texas doesn't matter. Really? Since we have locals who commit crime, its ok for illegals to do it. No difference? Since we have crime and violence its ok to commit more? God what a hateful concept. Time for Progressives to truly understand why our forefathers gave us the first and second amendments: progressives." @skibum609 I'm the only one on this thread to have mentioned Christian nationalism so I think the comment is referring to me. If you can find any truth at all in the mis-quotation, the utter total mis-representation, pleas

That's not classic, that's 2011. Here's a comp of older ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-tZef9gmug

Missed my point to quibble with non-germane generalizations. In the psych literature that's call "deflecting." I support court-packing. We should have about 23 justices. For the outset I'd also be happy with each major party picking their bunch such that the existing ideological balance isn't changed by the addition of new justices. There's nothing requiring exactly 9. I'd really really REALLY support term limits, on all of 'em, the SC Justices, Senators, and Members of the House, Cabinet members and major Secretaries, etc. etc.. Twelve years max.

you a stupid ho https://i.imgur.com/DoE1E.jpeg

This was what I was wondering -- "Searching people who are lawfully present, because someone might be committing a crime isn't constitutional." -- @skibum. Can I get a bit more on that? Because it seems to me, to the contrary, that, if the police have a reliable tip, which they believe in, a tip which says that illegal drugs are regularly sold to customers at Prancing Pinkie, they could then enter Prancing Pinkie with a warrant and search every customer inside the club, on reasonable suspicion that they expect to find illegal drugs. But you're saying, no they can't? Furthermore, it seems to me, that, if the police have a tip that prostitution is going on in there, why can't they search every person to see who has a dick? :P

In response to your first question (why post shit like this) the reason I post it is that George Floyd is the subject of some of the foregoing discussion. Because persons A, B, and C mentioned George Floyd and some various information or opinion about him, I became person D mentioning George Floyd and some other information or opinion about him. It's really not a difficult concept. In response to your second question (what am I talking about) I was talking about the content of my sentence. People were mentioning that there exists some complaining about violence perpetrated by illegal immigrants. I was contrasting that to other potential complaints about violence perpetrated by white Christian nationalists. The way you know what I'm talking about, is to read the sentence. So, when my sentence includes the phrase, as you quoted, "stats about white Christian nationalist violence", you can probably understand, that what I am talking about, is, obviously, stats about white Christian nationalist violence. It's also really not a difficult concept.

But the thing is, the definition of "generous tip" depends very much on context. At Penthouse in New Orleans' French Quarter, where the well drinks are $15, you could tip $20 on top of a half-hour $500 lap dance fee and be viewed as a cheap-skate. Whereas, at Visions in New Orleans East, a half hour (or less?) series of lappers totaling $100 merits $20 tip or less. Also at Visions, a single lapper in the standard room booth is supposed to be $30, but if you give the girl two x $20 bills she will (100% of the girls, 100% of the time) hold on to the $10 difference unless you explicitly demand it back. Now who's the cheapskate? I honestly think tipping is a bit weird in strip clubs anyway. Mostly it isn't by percent of total cost. It's more like, "I have a hold of this particular piece of paper so I'm going to hand it to you" (or stick it in your garter) and less like, "I reckon you deserve this amount of surplussage."

Aside from what we would prefer, in an ideal world, I have a question about SCotUS's handling of the Affordable Care Act and more recent changes. When the ACA decision came down, I read the whole thing, and in it I discerned a TONE, a STYLE of language. Roberts (Chief Justice, who was writing the decision) really sounded like what he was doing, was re-claiming the Court as "his own." He was basically saying, with a lot of the structural choices, "you will not push me around" to Alito and Scalia. He prefaced some things, which were not legally necessary; he told a few early anecdotes, which could have been chosen quite differently. The whole thing sounded like he was casting himself as Steward of the Court for future generations. The decision upholds, by finding slim pretext to uphold. (I frankly think it's a very unconvincing decision. According to it, the ACA is actually a "tax" ... riiiiight ... and therefore within Congress's Constitutional mandates. Taxing Power clause. I like the ACA very much, it saves me about $10,000 a year and puts healthcare onto the front burner for about 40% of Americans who would be more negligent about it, I think. But I find the decision to uphold it rather ... umm ... suspect, anyway.) So, the ACA decision sounded to me like, "Hey, I'm your Chief and we're going to be balanced and decent here. We're going to let Congress be Congress and we're not going to be activist." You have to admit, Roberts (a staunchly conservative "Old Republican" of the Goldwater variety) upholding Obama-Care is pretty much the definition of cross-aisle and cooperative. Anyway. So, that was the TONE of the Obamacare decision. Fast forward to Dobbs. The SOUND of the thing is cantankerous, aggressive. It's like, Roberts (who didn't write Dobbs, BTW) has just given up on handling this thing. He's getting his conservative decisions, he's probably not unhappy with the votes and the balance. But he's not getting the RESPECT he used to have. The WHOLE country, Right and Left, thinks of the Court as too political. That's funny to me. In fact, it was probably MORE "political" in the sense of, it was more willing to broker deals rather than stand on principles, back when it decided Obamacare than when it decided Dobbs. Dobbs is a loud-mouthed, arrogant, but highly principled and legally conservative decision. So by the time the general public has begun to think of the Supreme Court as "too political" it has done the opposite, ironically, and has started to become less political and simply much more principled in conservatism. (Oh and I'm not defending Dobbs because I like it. I hate it, for its ultimate outcome, I'm very much pro-choice on the abortion question. But I can read legalese and understand the premises and therefore I respect how Dobbs was reasoned. The privacy right is, in fact, nowhere in the Constitution's grants to Federal Congress. It's a State's right, I can see that clear as day. Too bad for me, but fact.) Just observations about the flavor of things.

I did spend, more than most, on one woman but I also really got along with her. Don't care if she was just playing me or if we actually had a real rapport. Wish she was still dancing.

They holler a lot about immigrant criminals but don't sound so loud when the stats about white Christian nationalist violence are cited. Anyway. George Floyd supposedly did porn. This is supposedly him. I don't know. https://mypornmate.com/videos/george-floyd-porn-video-sex-tape-with-kimberly-brinks/

I think you're dealing with smarter dancers, JamesSD, than I am. You report that they're able to get two different customers to patronize them in succession. I am not 100% sure that dancers here will figure out how to go with the higher-paying whale or, even, that dancers in my neck of the woods will bother to dance at all. I've had a few occasions when I was disappointed to learn, that I couldn't encourage a dancer into engaging with me for her profit, and it was usually because she wasn't really into working on that occasion. I've complained about it in various guises. So, it's not always the case. The OP points out that he has successfully "whaled" a girl away from other customers; and I've done the same; but there are occasions when the girl can't be coaxed INTO working at all. Evidently the cell phone distraction is more appealing than the dancing-for-profit thing.

Single payer works in almost every developed nation in the world. Healthcare costs in USA are quadruple what they need to be. I don't know if privatization or total socialization will work to solve the problem, but right now our healthcare payment system and costs are the laughing stock of Europe and most of developed Asia.

I don't believe any of that shit about Obama. He was an average middle class kid with a great deal of charm which he worked in Law School to get insider status. I am not sure if he is actually African American or not, he's so mainstream. Railing against the idiots on one side doesn't make the other side less full of idiots. At least the morons who think Obama is a Light Saber are just wanking it at the movies instead of shooting strangers.

rofl @ "show me on the doll" I value "progressive" government policies and call myself "progressive" economically but this board doesn't use the word the way I mean it, so I guess I shouldn't call myself that. I don't value government ownership of the means of production or planned economies (this idiotic theory simply doesn't ever work, in the real world) but I do value taxation for the purposes of social-service programs, including (but not limited to) minimum standards of education, health care, housing, food; taxation also for infrastructure (esp. means of distribution, roads bridges rail air centers etc.). All developed nations do this, the only question is how much, or to what degree.

I'll say it again, the MILF Yoga Instructor type is the ideal dancer in terms of service skills. She can probably ring your chimes on the topic of "causing interpersonal feelings too" if you aren't so cynical that you see through her charms.

Honestly, I didn't know anybody thought he had been convicted of rape or claimed that. I guess I probably pay closer attention to the legal specifics since I have training in the field. I thought he had said "you can grab them in the pussy" and had plural divorces and had been ordered to pay a lot due to sexual harassment claims by a columnist from actions taken years ago. Who thought it was rape?

Define Socialism for these purposes.