Comments by NinaBambina (page 3)

Not sure why people insist on the "democrats support killing babies" trope. Overused, and less people are falling for it these days. Most pro-choice people are against abortion after viability, and "partial birth" abortions are federally illegal anyway, and killing an *actual* baby is infanticide, which is homicide. But the forced-birthers act like women in the US are regularly popping out babies who are then beheaded in front of them. I know a lot of forced-birthers don't like science, but there is a distinction between and fetus and a baby (and also an embryo, and a zygote, etc). Anyway, Ohio voters passed Issue 1 by about 57%. Ohio is not a blue state whatsoever. Democrats don't make up 57% of voters - LMAO! This was something that not only democrats, but independents and republicans voted in favor of, too. I think Ohioans, and the majority of Americans, just feel like the government shouldn't have full control over their or their children's reproductive health. That doesn't sound too crazy to me.

Colorado has legalized Shrooms now.

Well, I voted yes on both and so did the majority of Ohioans. I've never had an abortion and if I found out I was pregnant today, I wouldn't even consider it - but another woman's decision is not mine to make. Plus, I don't know every abortion seeker's reasoning for getting one; convenience? Rape? Fetus is not viable? Ectopic pregnancy? It is not my job to make myself privy to that info. That's where the "right to privacy" comes in. The alternative was a "heartbeat bill" that left no exceptions for rape, incest, or age. My thinking is that even some of the people with NO signs on their yards probably went and silently voted yes because even THEY don't want their daughters forced to birth a rapist's child. At the of the day, Ohioans voted for freedom on both issues, both were passed quite handedly, and I'm glad to have been able to be a part of that history.

Well alcohol could also lead to people being injured on the job, but it's legal - and regulated - like marijuana now will be. Buying pussy wasn't on the ballot. If you want it to be, bust your ass and get it on a ballot like the marijuana folks did.

I love Friends and have seen every episode, but I don't think I'll be able to watch it for a while now. I'm pretty gutted about this news and I love Chandler. Matthew Perry was known to be the kindest to the audience during tapings, too, even while struggling with his substance abuse. (For those who haven't watched Friends much, Perry's weight fluctuates quite noticeably throughout the series, and it's because of his substance abuse).

Clubs in the 80s, 90s, and I'd say even 2000s before the recession, absolutely had higher standards for their dancers. This is generally speaking, of course - there are still some top tier clubs with high standards. But back in the day, the dancers really had to look like showgirls, have few or no visible tattoos, always have their hair and nails done, be fit, etc. There are many factors, but I do think the recession had a huge and negative impact in dancer quality. Clubs were struggling because the economy was struggling, girls became more desperate (extras became more rampant), and more "average" looking girls turned to stripping to make money. Are the clubs going to be super picky at that point, when girls are literally paying THEM to work there? The payment issues (house fee / tipout) are another thing that lowered the standards. In the 80s and 90s, the clubs paid an hourly wage to the dancers (at my mom's main club she got $17/hr plus whatever tips she took home... another older dancer I worked with worked at a smaller club back in the day and told me she got $14/hr). So, if the club is employing you and putting you on a payroll, naturally they are going to be more selective. Now that it's the opposite, where girls pay the clubs, talent has dropped. Those are just some reasons, but there are plenty more. Also, Americans just keep getting fatter in general. So basically today, any "average" girl can be a stripper at a decent club, whereas a few decades ago, you basically had to look like you could be in Playboy.

^^^ Redheads are close to blondes, but there are less. Blondes make up 2% of the world's population, whereas redheads are slightly less than 2%, but closer to 2 than 1%. Obviously blondes (and redheads) are so uncommon because the majority of the world's most populous countries are in places where nearly everyone naturally has black or brown hair (India, China, Nigeria, Mexico, Pakistan, etc). Some exceptions would be the US and some of the more populous countries in Europe. But when you think of all the countries in Asia and Africa alone, almost everyone has dark hair with the exception of countries like South Africa, where there are more whites. Even the middle eastern countries in West Asia and Northern Africa are pretty homogenous with dark hair, and southern Europeans tend to have dark hair as well. So do most South Americans, with exceptions for countries with decent Caucasian populations like Brazil.

I don't drink a lot of regular hot coffee. Just isn't my thing except for a nice little espresso. That said, I do like iced coffee, and Dunkin has some really good ones.

Go write about it in your diary.

1. If I *had* to choose a woman, Salma Hayek circa From Dusk Till Dawn. If I had to choose a man, Captain Jason Chambers. None of you will know who he is, but he's Captain of a yacht on one of Bravo's Below Deck franchises. He's 50 years old and super hot. If I had to go younger, maybe Luka Doncic. 2. Potatoes.

Today actually, I was walking into the grocery store and saw a car with a small bumper sticker that said, "if you're looking for a sign to stay alive, this is it."

"^^^Dang thats pretty good. Last 1 was ninabambina 🤣🤣" When did this take place? I've never been a universally liked "Princess" on this board. In fact, the only reason I ever came to this website was because a girl from SW gave me a heads up that people were talking shit about me here even though they did not know me, so I made an account and joined in. I had haters before I even joined this site. Lol. I don't mind being polarizing though. 😎

"^anyone wondering why she failed at her "legal career" has had their questions answered." Everything I said was true, to the extent that you didn't even refute anything I said and instead had no choice other than a measly ad hominem attack on my "legal career" which you know nothing about AND was in no way a "failure." I'd tell you more about my actual career if you weren't so oddly infatuated with me. But I'll let you know my non-legal career has paid off so much that I would bet my LIFE that my house is nicer than yours. Oh and it's sitting on over nine acres. The attached garage is only a three car, but since I also have a tractor with a backhoe, a UTV, and a zero turn lawn mower (you know, for all my acreage), along with my cars, it's being converted into a six car garage that the inground pool I just had installed will be connected to, once the architectural work making my pool an indoor with temp control and a sauna is completed. Yeah, I think I ended up with the right career, you massive geriatric ballsack.

Ehhh. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with public opinion. We're free to analyze the evidence that has been given, review dockets, and make our own observations and conclusions either way. I think a lot of people think "innocent until proven guilty," or the presumption of innocence, means we can't look at someone under criminal scrutiny and form an educated opinion on whether or not we believe they're guilty or not guilty. For example, Charles Manson plead Not Guilty. Did people generally think at that time, that because he plead "not guilty," that he was an innocent man? Fuck no. The presumption of innocence (or, "innocent until proven guilty"), only means that the burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION and not the defendant; the prosecutor(s) have to convince the entire jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant is guilty. Trump has to prove very little. The burden of proof belongs to the prosecution, not him. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. I think things are looking very bad for him; I see many convictions coming his way. Whether he will ever take a plea deal is beyond me. He's so deluded AND so used to being surrounded by YesMen that even if his lawyer said, "you need to take this five year plea or you will get a 40 year sentence," he'd probably say, "no, I can do whatever I want," and *actually believe that* even after the sentence is handed down.

I once worked at a non-extras club that still did VIP rooms by the hour. An Indian man with a thick accent came in, bought an hour VIP, and asked me if I could just lay down on the VIP couch with him. He kind of just wanted to lay behind me (like, spooning) and put his arms around me. Weird, but not the most outrageous request I'd ever had. So I obliged him. That is all we did - we laid down. He did not kiss me or grope me inappropriately or try to align his penis with the entry of my vagina. Nothing like that. I think he might have even started dozing off near the end. When I told him the hour was almost done, he thanked me and said his wife (arranged marriage) doesn't let him cuddle with her and he just wanted to lay down with someone. I felt bad for him. He tipped me well, too.

"I always think of him as Alberto from Scarface." Which is funny because his right hand man in Breaking Bad, "Don Eladio" is played by Steven Bauer, who played Manny in Scarface.

"was Hector the bad old cartel drug dude?" Yes, the one in the wheelchair.

"No - I think you missed the crux of my argument. I never suggested drug use should be a crime. You stated that drug use only harms the person using the drugs - no one else. I just pointed out that’s false. Drugs, alcohol, smoking all do harm to the greater good of society - but I never suggested they be made illegal" Then you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Drug use itself only directly harms the user - of course people's actions have consequences that affect others. I was taken from the custody of my mother (twice) as a child because of her alcohol/drug addictions, and was placed into an emotionally and eventually physically abusive household; I have a heroin junkie for a twin sister; I know how much drug use can ruin the lives of the people around a person. Please do not presume to tell me my views on the legalities of drug use are "short-sighted." Furthermore, the consequences drug use has on innocent people is on par with gun use as well, but we don't ban all guns. Drug use itself directly harms no one but the user. The drug user should be given autonomy over their body in their choice to do drugs. It should not be the government's business to punish these people unless they do something indirect because of their drug use, like rob someone for their next fix, or drive drunk. Those things should have legal ramifications and they do - but drug use alone should not. As you know, because you read this, I was responding to the person who said, "We have freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm another person." If I decide to be an idiot and shoot heroin into my veins, that is directly harming myself and no one else. It is not the government's place to tell me what I can and cannot ingest. If you don't disagree with that, why are we going back and forth about it?

Um, no...? First of all, LGBTQ+ are a loud bunch. When they said, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" they meant that shit. There is no shutting them up. Sorry - the acronym could never be appropriated by the right to mean more than what it already does. Second, wouldn't most people have at least enough commom sense to realize that saying that sounds actually gay? Shouting some, "LGBTQ, WOOHOO!" will never NOT sound gay as fuck. Anything to own the libs these days, I guess.

"nina, you do realize the OP wasn't referring to actual zoo animals but rather blacks who have been sold the perpetual victim narrative by the race merchants." Yes, and I chose to reject that narrative.

"The severe drug laws can be traced back to Joe Biden when he was a Senator." They actually can be traced back to decades before then, and before he was even born. The pioneer for severe drug laws was a man named Harry J Anslinger, and if you want to be educated on that subject, you should look him up.

"That is a very narrow-minded, short-sighted view. The economic impact of illicit drug use is in the hundreds of billions of dollars - primarily from loss of productivity, over-burdening the health care system and even environmental impact." No, it's an "aware" view. The negative impacts are because it's illegal and unregulated, creating a black market. Much like how prostitution being illegal and unregulted here in [almost all of] the US creates a black market that makes it more dangerous to everyone it impacts; are you suggesting that both drugs AND prostitution stay criminalized?

White women are helped more by Affirmative Action than blacks or any other minority group, so I don't give a shit that it's gone. I highly doubt zoo animals are going to become unhinged, as Affirmative Action has literally zero to do with animals, it was created for humans, and if you didn't know that prior to your comments then you have no reason to utter another sentence about Affirmative Action because you have no knowledge on what it is or who it was implemented for.

"1. We have freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm another person." No, we do not. Look at all the people incarcerated for simple possession - not selling, but *using* drugs - that aren't harming anyone but themselves. There is no reason to criminalize people for personal drug use itself, beyond the fact that we have a "war on drugs" that was created to mass incarcerate blacks, Latinos, and poor whites and take more money from communities to line government pockets with. That is fascism, that's not something a "free country" does, and it does way more harm than good. That is just one example of the complete bullshit that comes out of people's mouths when they try to say America is some free country. It's not, it's a police state. Cops will go out of their way to find drugs on your person, vehicle, (etc) and promptly jail you for it.

You posted this in the wrong place. Crazy Horse Bedford Heights is in a suburb outside of Cleveland. The shooting did not happen there. The Crazy Horse downtown is now a black club called "Power," and Power is at that address, so the shooting occurred at Power in downtown Cleveland, not Crazy Horse in Bedford Heights. Crazy Horse Bedford Heights is relatively safe, btw.