12-30-2005, 07:55 PM
and again, you're intentioanlly limiting yourself to the word stripper to attempt to minimize the situation.
it;s you who will not acknowledge that it's not the strippers who are being investigated or chraged.
it's the club owner. it doesn't matter what the club is or whether it's even a club. that point couldn't be more irrelevent. you know that but you still focus on it.
why? i assuming it's because you do not want to acknowledge my point. it's easier to make stripper jokes. as i said before, it could be a misuse of the patriot act. i'm sayign if it is - i think anything seized should be inadmissible in court.
but i don't think trashing the whole thing is the answer.
you do. yet, you also won't entertain the idea that it might possibly have something to do with the owner potentially funneling money to a terrorist sponcering organization.
now, who's being close minded?
it;s you who will not acknowledge that it's not the strippers who are being investigated or chraged.
it's the club owner. it doesn't matter what the club is or whether it's even a club. that point couldn't be more irrelevent. you know that but you still focus on it.
why? i assuming it's because you do not want to acknowledge my point. it's easier to make stripper jokes. as i said before, it could be a misuse of the patriot act. i'm sayign if it is - i think anything seized should be inadmissible in court.
but i don't think trashing the whole thing is the answer.
you do. yet, you also won't entertain the idea that it might possibly have something to do with the owner potentially funneling money to a terrorist sponcering organization.
now, who's being close minded?