discussion comment
12 years ago
That is the problem, the police decide suitability. Gee, how do you think the police will rule the vast majority of the time?
Likewise with deciding if a person used "minimum force" in defending himself in his residence. If someone in government makes that threshold decision, too late to close the barn door.
discussion comment
12 years ago
@londonguy, in the last few years the United States Supreme Court has considered two lawsuits that implicate the exact wording of the Second Amendment regarding statutes that purport to limit private ownership of firearms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court essentially held that similar to the First and Fourth amendments, the Second Amendment applies to the national government and state governments. Similar to First Amendment jurisprudence that limits "fighting words" and defamation, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that allows warrantless searches in limited circumstances, such as incident to a lawful arrest and in exigent circumstances, the Supreme Court signaled narrowly tailored restrictions would probably be constututional. But the Second Amendment - " A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - was held to guarantee an individual American the right to possess a firearm.
The United States Constitution established specific procedures on enacting amendments. Perhaps it is a surprise, but President Obama cannot just wave a magic wand and negate the Second Amendment. Nor can Americans vote in a popular referendum to abolish part of the Constitution.
discussion comment
12 years ago
@londonguy, who decides if a person meets the required criteria? What exactly are the required criteria? Who decides if the firearm purchaser is of appropriate mental stability? What are the standards for appropriate mental stability? These are critical questions.
Regarding freedom of the press, if a year long inquiry occurred, and some Lord dude thinks that a backstop should be put in place, then freedom of the press is in peril.
Regarding defending one's residence, who decides what is "minimum force" that may be used against intruders? The fact that such an issue is considered shows the huge difference between UK jurisprudence and the law of self-defense in the United States. I could probably run a quick Google search on my smartphone and find numerous articles about UK prosecutions of private citizens for resisting invasions of their homes.
Suffice it to say that here in the United States, we have many more freedoms than most of the world. Thank God for the Bill of Rights! I will die to defend it. Indeed, as an attorney, I have taken an oath in several jurisdictions to defend the United States Constitution.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Consistent with the quote that OP supplied from the 18th century dude, I try to talk with a woman to gain some insight into her personality. Then one can compliment her on her intelligence, or on her sense of humor, or on her smile, or on her eyes. Most women appreciate an individualized compliment, rather than just the ubiquitous "You are a hot babe, let's fuck!"
discussion comment
12 years ago
The United Kingdom restricts many other freedoms, in additions to severely restricting the ability of private citizens to own firearms. In the UK, the press has much less freedom of speech. The United Kingdom does not have any doctrine even vaguely resembling the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. The UK taxes much more of one's income. Private citizens have been prosecuted for defending themselves in their own residences with bats, clubs, and other weapons that are not firearms against shitheads who invade their homes.
In short, if the United States is so dangerous because a 22 year old fucktard can steal a semiautomatic rifle and shoot people, thereby breaking numerous laws, then put your tail between your legs and slink off like a little lamb to the UK. Me, I would rather have some freedom here in the United States, including the right to own a Model 1911 .45 caliber ACP, an AR-15, a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, and a .357 revolver, while I read the National Enquirer in my apartment and check out the latest pictorials on buck1690.com or read the latest crazy threads on tuscl.net
To quote a great American, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Fuckin' a!
discussion comment
12 years ago
I am jealous of Gatorfan and the constant stream of trenchant one liners. Consistently funny!
discussion comment
12 years ago
Perhaps straying from the topic, but the United States at the national government level has a schizophrenic perspective on marijuana compared to tobacco. Smoke from both marijuana and tobacco contains many compounds and substances that are carcinogenic, especially the substance referred to as tar. Some chemicals in marijuana, including CBD and THC, have positive effects for cancer patients. But on the whole, smoking either marijuana or tobacco is definitely a net harmful activity.
As long as the topic is smoking, here is a thought: what effect will "Obamacare" have on use of tobacco? Given the many adverse effects of smoking - COPD, hypertension, cardiac disease, cancer - one would think that smoking tobacco should be prohibited, because of the increased health care costs that it causes. One of the more cynical features of government is taxing an addictive, harmful substance. Just my two cents worth.
However, the libertarian in me says that government should not pay for health care. Where in the United States Constitution is the national government allowed to collect taxes and spend that revenue on health care? Along the same lines, according to the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, privacy rights should prohibit the government from regulating what substances we ingest, as long as we do not drive or harm others. Hopefully in the near future I will be allowed to share a bowl with my ATF, either in or out of the club. Again, just my two cents worth.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Matter of perspective. The pink site is of, by, and for dancers. This site is for everyone - dancers, customers, and management, although I do not recall ever seeing any posts by bouncers, managers, or owner. Therefore, this site is much more free-wheeling than stripperweb.com
discussion comment
12 years ago
This is the type of scumball who gives mongers a bad name. He now has karma stink all over him, should be careful about even blinking.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Or else report his no good ass to police. Some piece of trash asshole who is forcing a woman to strip or suck should be prosecuted. Hacing been an assistant prosecuting attorney, many police officers are lazy cowboys who do not want to work up complicted cases. In that case, someone should bust a cap in the pimp, and also send a message to the cowboy police officers/detectives.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Florida and Illinois are definitely not square states. Neither are Texas and Michigan. Live and let live.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Stiletto is 100% correct. People can go to and work at clubs, and if they treat others as they would want to be treated, then they are way better than priests and ministers who abuse children and scam people.
discussion comment
12 years ago
anonymous9,
Excellent questions and post!
For me, several attributes are very important. First, a dancer should always be friendly. Even a new dancer, who may be unsure of herself, scores major points if she seems enthusiastic and wants to improve. Recently I was at a club where a dancer asked me if she could rest her ankles on my shoulders while she "danced" on stage. I of course agreed, and complimented her for her interaction.
Second, that dancer while on stage was very proactive in taking my hands and moving them along her body where she allowed touching. Granted, the area where I club is rather high contact. But she adapted to that reality in a very appealing manner. In an area with less contact, the dancer could still captivate the customer by smiling at him and paying attention to him. As several posters have noted earlier in this thread, the club setting is essentially a fantasy. The msot successful dancers realize this dynamic and unobtrusively fulfill the fantasy.
Third, after she finished on stage, she stopped at my table and talked with me for some time. Most importantly, she seemed interested in me as a person and not as a "custy" or a "wallet". Therefore, even though she was not an 8, 9, or 10, and I was there to see another dancer, I wound up having a couple drinks with her and buying a couple dances from her. In fact, based on the connection we seemed to make, I may just return to that club during her shifts and get more dance from her.
To sum up, be authentic and care about the club patron as a person. Odds are decent that the customer will then care about you as a person. Very skilled dancers will seem to connect with customers so that the customers do not seem to realize they are being played, but rather become regulars of that dancer and the dancer makes more money in the long run.
discussion comment
12 years ago
My first thought was a flip, "Damn, I am jealous of that lucky little kid!"
However, after reading the story, this is am more complicated situation. The cheerleader is another female teacher winding up facing criminal charges for having sex with a student.
Our society allows females less than 18 years old to have abortions without parental consent, ostensibly because of privacy and control over one's body. But in contrast, because teachers are in a position of authority, when a teacher becomes involved in a relationship with a student, that student is presumed to be unable to consent. Those two positions are somewhat inconsistent.
The kicker to this story is that the former student has graduated and is now 18. He left the courtroom with the former teacher and cheerleader after she pled guilty to reduced criminal charges. So how efffective were the criminal charges? Oh well, another notch in the prosecutor's belt.
discussion comment
12 years ago
Forget Chicago. Even in VIP, basically air dances, zero mileage.
discussion comment
12 years ago
In Illinois, the tax goes into effect January 1, 2013. Will be interesting to see what SCs do during the day, when many clubs have not collected a cover charge until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.
discussion comment
12 years ago
No problem with a dancer who has some meat on her bones, "more cushion for the pushin'", especially if she has a big rack. An ATF a few years ago was a big woman, but not sloppy fat. She was big, which is different than fat. Out in northern California a few years ago, I had some hot dances from an attractive woman who was large, but again well-proportioned. Conversely, at my favorite club until recently, a dancer with a butter face had a gut that was way too large, considering the overall package. A cute face goes a long way in making up for a couple extra pounds.
discussion comment
12 years ago
She should file a lawsuit in the tort civil court system against the club. Because she was an independent contractor, no employer-employee relationship existed and worker comp is not available as a remedy. But according to law in almost every state, she could sue the club for failing to provide a safe workplace and for negligence. She could wind up owning the club. South Carolina is not a state in which I am licensed to practice law, and it does not offer reciprocal admission to attorneys licensed in other states, or I would file a lawsuit for this dancer.
discussion comment
12 years ago
One of the comments in the yardbarker.com gallery of beautiful javelin throwers pointed out an egregious omission. Google "Brittany Borman". She is a gorgeous blonde Amazon from the Midwest. Unfortunately she is getting married later this summer.
discussion comment
12 years ago
May I add to my list?
Bittany Borman is on the United States track and field team, throwing the javelin. She is a recent college graduate, built like a brick shit house, would love to have some fun with her.
discussion comment
12 years ago
1. Eva Mendes
2. Jennifer Love Hewitt
3. Lynda Carter, circa 1980
discussion comment
12 years ago
All transactions between a buyer and seller with a Federal Firearms License require an instant background check of the buyer. But unless a person has been convicted of a crime or a court has formally adjudicated that person as posing a reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury to himself or to others, that person will pass the background check and may purchase a firearm. Buying ammunition does not require a background check.
On a gut level, this method of imposing the death penalty and others such as drawing and quartering seem just. But the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment proscribe such practices that are close to, if not actually, torture. IMO, placing this demented POS in the general population will achieve a just result that passes constitutional muster.
discussion comment
12 years ago
All transactions between a buyer and seller with a Federal Firearms License require an instant background check of the buyer. But unless a person has been convicted of a crime or a court has formally adjudicated that person as posing a reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury to himself or to others, that person will pass the background check and may purchase a firearm. Buying ammunition does not require a background check.
On a gut level, this method of imposing the death penalty and others such as drawing and quartering seem just. But the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment proscribe such practices that are close to, if not actually, torture. IMO, placing this demented POS in the general population will achieve a just result that passes constitutional muster.
discussion comment
12 years ago
I agree with Alucard, the vast majority of dancers are 180 degrees from my definition of "bitch".
However, having gone to college in the 1980s, I will recommend 2 classic songs from that era.
1) Girls, Girls, Girls by Motley Crue. No explanation should be necessary.
2) Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard.