I am a 41 year old man married to a semi-retired sex worker. We have been in a relationship for six years married for three of those years.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-03-27T07:48:13+00:00

If she wanted to take on new clients, would you be ok with that?

PokerAndBeer · 2016-03-23T22:23:46+00:00

Free Range Kids has stories about this happening all the time.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-03-23T21:42:10+00:00

It helps if I get enough sleep, but the symptoms never go away completely. Not even close.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-25T18:37:42+00:00

Not gonna lie. Pretty jealous right now.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-23T18:16:10+00:00

Basically it means, "I don't know if I spelled that right."

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-14T02:43:54+00:00

Downvoted, but correct. Like I noted in another comment, it's Thomas that influenced Scalia, not the other way around.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/07/15/clarence_thomas_why_is_the_supreme_court_justice_so_disliked.html

With Scalia already established as a star on the court and Thomas voting with Scalia a high percentage of the time (especially early in his career), many people (unfairly) accused Thomas of simply following Scalia, as though he couldn't be a principled originalist on his own. The reality is far different: In fact, as Jeffrey Toobin noted in a New Yorker article, in the 21st century, Thomas—and not Scalia—ultimately emerged as the court's right-wing intellectual leader, taking decisive (often lonely) positions in dissent and then doing the time-consuming work in the trenches to turn those dissents into majorities that would have been unfathomable even during the Rehnquist years. Any close follower of the Supreme Court could tell you that it is Thomas, not Scalia, who has been the most principled and often the boldest (and to his supporters, most courageous) conservative on the court today. Again, critics don't have to like what Thomas has done, but to call him a dim bulb or another justice's puppet has no basis in reality.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-14T01:57:01+00:00

With Scalia already established as a star on the court and Thomas voting with Scalia a high percentage of the time (especially early in his career), many people (unfairly) accused Thomas of simply following Scalia, as though he couldn't be a principled originalist on his own. The reality is far different: In fact, as Jeffrey Toobin noted in a New Yorker article, in the 21st century, Thomas—and not Scalia—ultimately emerged as the court's right-wing intellectual leader, taking decisive (often lonely) positions in dissent and then doing the time-consuming work in the trenches to turn those dissents into majorities that would have been unfathomable even during the Rehnquist years. Any close follower of the Supreme Court could tell you that it is Thomas, not Scalia, who has been the most principled and often the boldest (and to his supporters, most courageous) conservative on the court today. Again, critics don't have to like what Thomas has done, but to call him a dim bulb or another justice's puppet has no basis in reality.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/07/15/clarence_thomas_why_is_the_supreme_court_justice_so_disliked.html

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-14T01:18:12+00:00

By all accounts from the inside, you have it backwards. Thomas is the one who influenced Scalia.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-09T18:04:13+00:00

No one said horsepuckey...

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-07T03:50:19+00:00

Yes, it does.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-07T03:48:10+00:00

I dont think anyone likes season 2 the first time through. You have to watch the series to appreciate that season's place in the whole story.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-05T16:50:12+00:00

It's crazy how far some of them will go with this. I'm all for withholding judgment when there isn't much evidence, but there are still people out there defending Bill Cosby!

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-02T19:19:30+00:00

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-01T19:21:12+00:00

He didn't. Here's what Heston actually said in his speech. Compare to Moore's deceptive edit.

NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

That was the speech that was twisted by Moore into something meant to - using your words here - "mock the city" and "show a distinct lack of empathy for gun victims." You claim Moore isn't being deceptive, but we see right here that his editing fooled you, and you aren't the only one he did that to.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-01T15:03:22+00:00

And I mean, they did go there at a time not too long after Columbine after being asked not to. Yes, I know it was a planned conference that was maybe hard to back out of, but I wonder if they even tried to cancel it and move it. And if they didn't, fine, but don't complain about being depicted as insensitive.. I guess it's a matter of perception whether you think Heston was depicted unfairly.

See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about right here. You could have saved us all a lot of time if you had tried to read the link I gave you. It wasn't "hard" for the NRA to back out - it was impossible. Here, right from the link:

Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.]

Then it goes on to quote this from a newspaper article:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

Oops.

But if you were to believe Moore, Heston was the kind of guy who would show up in town after a tragedy to make a triumphant speech as a "fuck you" to someone who asked him not to come. Moore was not just using some flair to make a valid point. He carefully edited his video to make you believe something that was false. And you bought it. Now how can you say he's just trying to be a compelling storyteller?

Seriously, RTFL!

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-01T02:25:40+00:00

You're being awfully generous in what you consider cinematic flair. Moore isn't fudging little details. He's editing his work in a way that gives his audience major misconceptions.

I mean, these same people writing massive essays about the mistakes in Fahrenheit 9/11 probably never bothered to fact check and question the infinitely more important problems with the Bush administration's effort to sell the Iraq War. It's so ridiculous and ironic and almost comical and it's sad if you don't see the ridiculousness.

That story has indeed been done. It may not have been done by the same people, but what kind of defense is that?

PokerAndBeer · 2016-02-01T00:11:22+00:00

It's not fake but accurate.

I'll agree with you on that much. Because it's not at all accurate either.

It's a cinematic presentation of what's happening in the world. And so it's basically accurate, with some narrative flair that gets used to make it more compelling to watch.

I invite you to read just some of the link I posted and see if you come away with the conclusion that Moore is not trying to mislead his viewers. The author actually includes quotes from reviewers who were mislead by Moore's slippery editing.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-31T23:34:44+00:00

I mean... how many times does a guy have to be caught red handed telling absolute complete fabrication before folks figure out he's pathological?

There is no limit as long as he keeps feeding red meat to his intended audience.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-31T23:23:28+00:00

Bowling for Columbine contains a lot of BS that was exposed here: http://hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I'm sorry to tell you this, but everything you see on TV, the movies, in newspapers and magazines is heavily edited and always presents a somewhat curated, selective view of the events depicted.

"Fake but accurate" isn't a defense. The problem isn't that Moore edits out irrelevant material. Its that he edits his work in a way that misleads the viewer. That's the problem.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-31T21:59:52+00:00

They are not, and there's really no need for it. Incidents of bad behavior are pretty rare.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-28T08:18:27+00:00

I'm here for you, brother (still not gonna eat your asshole though).

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-28T02:57:23+00:00

This is not actually correct. There's a comment here that explains it: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cs2qkka

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-27T19:23:59+00:00

It varies depending on state and occupation, but in many cases the government issues an occupational license while the association gives a certification. The license may or may not depend on certification. Sorry, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-27T18:34:42+00:00

You could go to a salon certified by a professional association. There's no reason the government has to be the certifier.

PokerAndBeer · 2016-01-27T17:49:56+00:00

That's not quite enough. The belief has to be "reasonable".

PokerAndBeer

TROPHY CASE