MsGuy

One of our local restaurateurs called Senator Eastland (an old buddy of his) shortly after passage of the Public Accommodations Law and asked what he could do. Big Jim advised he had three options: 1) Close his restaurant; 2) Integrate his restaurant; 3) Go to jail. LOL police departments, schools, retailers, all the die hard segs I knew back then, not one of them chose to go to jail. Well, one did beat the ever loving hell out of a Yankee kid who accompanied 2 black guys asking for service in his restaurant (it being his opinion that the Civil Rights Act didn't cover uppity white boys), but that's another story.

Yikes indeed! I just want to say that both you and tomcal are stating the best approach I know to the business of hiring rent boys (not only garatos). Not so soft headed as to get burned by all the paid for displays of affection and not so bitter/cynical as to miss out on the genuine fun and satisfaction one can have when one allows friendly relationships to develope. Think of it as much like any other business relationship. You're delusional if you think your lawyer or accountant is inclined to handle your business w/o getting paid his going rate. But then sometimes your butcher might cut your steak off the good end if if he likes you. Human beings are complex critters. Making friends with someone you're making money off of is well within our inborn repertoire. For the life of me, I don't know why so many posters here insist otherwise.

Wonder if Chief Justice Moore will go stand in the courthouse door? I'm pretty sure there's an Alabama precedent for that. "Segregation Now. Segregation Tomorrow. Segregation Forever!"

FBI storms AdamSmith's residence. US attorney vows swift justice. Notorious porn master Oz currently believed to be resisting records subpoena barricaded behind a wall of ferociously loyal call boys.

Which just about wraps the whole Ukrainian mess up in a blunt German nutshell. Anything short of a couple of American and German armored divisions parking their asses outside Kharkov (Kharkiv in Ukrainian) just invites Putin to escalate the situation. The Ukraine is a hot mess politically and economically. The army is shambolic. Putin can always shift a few thousand more 'volunteers' across the border and trump any aid we can give Ukraine. Not to mention those Russian army divisions that move up to the border on 'exercises' every time the Kiev government gets too puffed up on itself.

Well, sometimes folks spend so much time reading between the lines, they start seeing things that aren't there. Not saying the Supremes haven't been known to piss on someone's shoes when they felt dis-respected. And not saying Moore hasn't gone off the reservation in his efforts to pander to the good Christians of Alabama. But the vote was 7/2 against a stay, not 5/4, and, as the article notes, also tracts the latest actions of the Court in not issuing stays in marriage equality cases. So maybe it's only that Mr. Feldman got pissing drunk last weekend, woke up shortly before his deadline at Bloomberg and filled some column inches with raw speculation. I'd say that's as likely an explanation as any.

Alternatively, maybe they just took $5 million off the table with the suspension? Kinda like the contract A-Rod had with the Yankees.

Well finally. I guess with that 50 million on the table, they had to make sure they had the goods on him before making their move.

One vaccination too many

Lookin, this type of administrative/procedural decision requires no opinion and normally there would be none. Even for a final judgement on a fully argued case the only opinion required is that of the majority. If I remember right the decision last year not to hear an appeal of several marriage cases carried no opinion. SCOTUS just announced they wouldn't hear them (meaning there was not 4 justices who voted in favor of hearing them). You have to remember that the vast majority of Federal Appeals Courts decisions are allowed to stand as is w/o the Supremes weighing in one way or the other. That's why appointments to the Circuit Courts of Appeal are so hotly contested in the Senate. On the other hand, any justice can attach a written explanation to damn near any action that requires his vote. In this case, attaching an opinion was not so uncommon as to be weird but it was uncommon enough to be a surprise. In any case what gave the good justice umbrage was not on its face the issue of marriage rights. He opined that, as the Court already had what amounts to a controlling case before it, (1) not issuing a stay pending the Court's decision on the Ohio case amounted to pissing in the face of the great state of Alabama and (2) not granting a stay would be read by the great unwashed as tipping the court's hand on the Ohio case, something the Court traditionally dislikes to do. So basically he's grumbling about the majority not showing much respect for our federal system of government and not wanting to give the appearance of having pre-decided a pending case. A case can be made for both his points. PS I agree with Oz. The marriage equality cases present some tricky legal questions and the Court, in its call for briefs, focused precisely on the diciest issues (for our side). So as Oz says, don't reserve the wedding hall just yet unless you can get a full refund on your deposit.

So are you getting any pressure yet to settle down and marry some nice Baptist boy?

+1 for both RA1 & AS. Lookin rules.

OK, the name of the site I found is GoodRx.com. Apparently the site has some kind of referral/kickback arrangement with pharmacies and that's how they make their money. The small print does say that the prices are not guaranteed, lol. However it does list one online source, HealthWarehouse, @ $67.50/ 90 tablets.

I found some site that searches all the pharmacies in your area code & surrounding area codes. Kinda like one of those hotel/airline booking sites. I didn't bother to write down the name of the site as I had all the info I needed and I don't even remember the magic google terms I used to get to it. Sorry, my brain ain't what it used to be and they don't seem to make a pill for that. If I find it again I'll post the addy here on this thread.

I googled up a price search for 'sildenafil 20 mg.' from my local pharmacies. The sweet spot appeared to be 90 tablets. Results: Walmart $57.34, Walgreens $143.50, CVS $263.32 & Rite-Aide $766.03. Seeing as the folks at Walmart are not much inclined to run their shops at a loss, one can only conclude that the wholesale price per pill and thus the manufacturing cost is likely even lower than Sucrates's tongue in cheek estimate of 25 cents. Sucky, you have my gratitude and my thanks for starting this thread. I never would have thought to do this w/o your nudging (I didn't even know the generic name of Viagra nor did I know it was off patent). For now on I can go hog wild on my boners with nary a thought of the consequences to my pocketbook. As partial recompense for the good turn you have done me (& probably many other posters here) I hereby pledge to deep six my next three snarky remarks to your posts. It won't be easy but1 you've earned it today. 1 Snarky remark #1 crossed out free of charge; still three to go. PS I just thought of another one and this one was kind of funny too. Damn, this is going to be harder than I thought. Oh well, still free of charge and three to go.

Beg to disagree... A good boner is priceless. Get your priorities straight.

Bangkok is only number 5? Oz, the boys need to up their game.

CBS reports that the only interview Dylan granted at the gala was to AARP's house magazine. Talking about making me feel old.

Even if he has a thick, juicy 9" pecker, Grandma? With a cute mushroom head? No exceptions?

Now that's funny.

Begging won't do the least bit of good. Now if someone were to cough up a cash retainer the size of Mr. AdamSmith's hemorrhoids against a $250/hour fee, well then I might be persuaded to go nose around and find out what's what. Expenses extra.

To me, it's a red flag when someone begins restricting old friends from visiting an elderly person, especially when it appears that that individual has access to the elder's assets. Not saying that's there's anything wrong, just that the situation warrants a look see by a responsible party.

Does anybody else here have a friend who insists on taking the simplest things and making them complicated?

"I relied entirely on intelligence as delivered by various US resources." "That my underlings bludgeoned the analysts into delivering the assessment we wanted is entirely besides the point."