WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
No. Drama is. He really hates drama guys.
Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.
- Thread starter Himedall All-seeing Waifu
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
newuser131
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
i am not sure about that. it sounds like he doesn't spend money on his kids, but do we know what he spends is money on lavish vacations, expensive hotels, lots of expensive liquor, and other expensive items. unless he racks in a multi million dollar salary, it all adds up. i don't think youtube/locals/rumble pays over 1 million dollars per year. i guess what i am saying is he spends more than he makes.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
They pay to attend a boat load of activities. Dance, multiple instrument per child, debate, all thr driving, a nanny/driver, the 2k USD snack drawer, they use StitchFix for clothes for everyone.
Where is all that coming from? No idea, but unless all the children started all these activities in the last 2 years, he was able to manage.
I do not buy his 'we wuz poor n sheet' hullabaloo he tries to put on.
Rodeo Roadrunner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
I haven't watched Nick's rant yet, but there has been some theological discussion on whether anyone actually goes to hell, or if they do, that they are there for eternity. There are some schools of thought in Orthodoxy for example that teach that hell is temporary and not eternal. The idea revolves around God's eternal Justice, vs eternal Mercy. How can you square meeting out righteous justice on those that need punishment vs the infinite mercy of God?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
So can we talk about the Balldo for a second?
I always kind of assumed that it started out as a well-intentioned sort of thing that just spiraled into public degeneracy. Like, Nick is clearly impotent and you could imagine him perhaps saying "I just want to be able to have some sort of sex with my ruined wife and see to her needs".
But in that review someone linked to a few pages back, we actually find out that the Balldo is too painfully large for women to actually enjoy. He might as well have said "My dick doesn't work so I'll use a Bad Dragon dildo on Our Wife instead". It's entirely stupid coomer nonsense and that should really have been my go-to assumption from the beginning.
I always kind of assumed that it started out as a well-intentioned sort of thing that just spiraled into public degeneracy. Like, Nick is clearly impotent and you could imagine him perhaps saying "I just want to be able to have some sort of sex with my ruined wife and see to her needs".
But in that review someone linked to a few pages back, we actually find out that the Balldo is too painfully large for women to actually enjoy. He might as well have said "My dick doesn't work so I'll use a Bad Dragon dildo on Our Wife instead". It's entirely stupid coomer nonsense and that should really have been my go-to assumption from the beginning.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
And he was ramping up spending exactly when his income started plummeting into the Balldo Pit.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2022
Could have sworn it was recently in this thread that he has exorbitant payments on the mustang and navigator still?
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Or he's just lazy and his arms got tired from working the dildo so the balldo was chosen both because you use your legs and it was perceived as less emasculating than a strap-on. Or maybe his Coom brain taught that if he popped a blue pill he could use both his dick and balldo at the same time.
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I just assume Lady Gollum has a huge stretched out snatch from all the weird sextoys/swinging/kids/getting fisted/whatever. It's the only way I could imagine the balldo not being excruciatingly painful to use.
I mean, othrwise? Putting your nuts in a truss thing to force them to say parallel and then shoving all that into your wife and stimulating her to orgasm - that doesn't sound like fun. A ruptured testicle is what it sounds like.
I mean, othrwise? Putting your nuts in a truss thing to force them to say parallel and then shoving all that into your wife and stimulating her to orgasm - that doesn't sound like fun. A ruptured testicle is what it sounds like.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Rekieta defended Ty a month or so ago by saying Ty feels terrible but was being so kind for being silent and taking all the blame for the Vic case and implied that other people fucked up too, which in my mind could imply multiple groups of people. I 'm interested if he commented any further on last night's show.
But I'm more interested in what Rekieta said in the chat: how did Ty lose money off of the Vic case?
It's possible that the rumors were true and Ty didn't bill anything for the appeals even after the GFM cash ran out. But the appeals failed and the result is that the client is in an even deeper hole than he was before, which was to be expected because the way the affidavit issue shook out basically destroyed the case beyond repair IMO.
Even if that were to be the case, it's also worth noting that the last I heard, Ty may not be involved in the case anymore: there were unverified rumors on Twitter that he was fired, and IIRC he wasn't listed as the attorney of record in recent court documents earlier in the year.
That would mean that either his generosity had its limits or that Vic decided that Ty Beard's services were not worth even $0/hour.
Someone who follows this case more can maybe add something here.
The thought of actually using it is beyond fucking disgusting. Drexel was the one who introduced it to Nick and his community and even he did it just as a joke, a gag gift basically. Nick misread the situation and eagerly shared about how awesome it was to actually use.
Last edited:
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I got curious and figured there must be something I'm missing about the balldo. There are videos of people actually using the thing on porn hub, and it looks even worse than I imagined. 
Unsurprisingly they all appear to be femdom or cock and ball torture weirdos....
Unsurprisingly they all appear to be femdom or cock and ball torture weirdos....
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
I initially assumed it was some sort of joke that people didn't actually use. Then as time went on I was horrified to learn it's probably a recipe for a testicular torsion.
"Balldo - not even once."
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
Ty is apparently out, and has been for some time. Martinez seems to be Vic's remaining attorney for the purposes of wrapping things up.
Basically Martinez seems to have the unenviable task of trying to limit the financial pain Vic will feel from Ty's fuckup. I wish him luck.
Frankly, I'm appalled the fat windbag is still showing his face on Nick's show. Or anywhere, really.
Oh well, I guess Masterson as a guest would be even more insufferable. Ack ack ack. Plus the low superchat figure brought a smile to my face. Utterly shocking nobody wants to hear Ty bloviate anymore.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2023
It's the day after episodes like this Ty beard reappearance that makes me realize that I'm going to miss Cynthia's recaps because no one else is masochistic enough to watch and report back.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
He is just sad immature bisexual who is going through a midlife crisis. Nick just never got the chance to be a degenerate back when he was young, when he could be excused for it. So he's now trying to indulge in sex, drugs and base hedonism.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2019
Do we know if they actually use those toys/do that stuff? Like, has he said that they do somewhere? Because I doubt they have sex of any kind at home anymore.
Potatoherder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2020
He didn't elaborate in last nights chat. He of course had to push a totally legit story of how women were fighting over him but he had no interest. Also he totally only loves Gollum.
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
He has made numerous claims to the effect that he has crazy sex with his wife and uses all kinds of contraptions on her. He even claims to travel with a suitcase full of sextoys/bondage equipment. He's also claimed to have used the balldo on her at least twice, I just saw an Elisa clip to that effect in the last couple-three days.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2022
Much thanks for this revealing clip. Posting for parties interested in theology. Separated into two parts in case you already watched the video.
Nick argues that objective morality is subjectively useless because not everyone ascribes to it, implying that it fails on it's own merits. The people who think objective morality should be followed are objectively and subjectively atrocious monsters because they treat people poorly. Nick then calls himself a monster as well and says that everyone falls short of objective morality, and so people shouldn't speak on moral subjects. Nick claims that what makes him unique is that he thinks the purpose of salvation is that people will fail, while others say that salvation is for moral people who live by morals they have invented which Nick says is dangerous and false.
Chat says that salvation is about trying not to be a moral failure. Nick responds with "Maybe, but where is that, and why, again, does trying not to be a moral failure only seem apply in a very limited category of actions, particularly theft, violence, and sex? Why are those the only places where trying not to be a moral failure seems to matter and carry condemnation?"
Nick has more questions: Where does salvation come with the caveat of trying to be moral? Where does the necessity of sufficiently trying to be moral enter into the equation of salvation? Nick pits the writings of Peter against Paul and argues that Paul saying that in Christ all things are permissible though not profitable. The concept of whether this makes adultery, murder, or theft permissible is interesting to Nick, and Nick wonders how we can reconcile this with other writings in the Bible.
Chat says salvation comes from recognizing one's faults and asking salvation and being sincere in one's attempt to be better. Nick goes back to asking where in the Bible a sincere attempt to be better is required as it applies to salvation/grace and says that he's not sure there's a specific need for that since it's not imposed by a church that requires people to eternally struggle to be better and need guidance in it.
Nick clarifies that he never suggested that objective morality doesn't exist and believes that it does exist (in concept). Nick goes on to say that he thinks people are projecting their own morality onto selective Biblical texts. Nick wonders where grace by faith requires moral effort. He believes that the Bible is a list of reasons why one will fail and that grace is the good news that saves them.
Nick goes into his thoughts on the sermon on the mount where Jesus talks about one even wishing ill on someone else makes them guilty of murder. Nick interprets this as sin not being rooted in the act, but in the desire that may not even be acted upon and that the adulterer is not the person who is having sex outside of the context of marriage, but the person who has one lewd thought about someone else.
Nick thinks that Jesus was saying that the Law isn't for people to condemn others, but to condemn you personally. Not for what one was observed doing, but for what they thought. The Law wasn't supposed to be and enforcement mechanism to oppress people. It was meant to show that one's insufficiencies have been rectified by the grace of God.
Nick addresses the possibility that he is using this mentality to justify ongoing sinful behavior by saying that would be a cynical way to look at it. Nick takes a Jewish perspective, since this came from them, and salvation and condemnation were not afterlife concepts for a very long time. If someone commits murder, the state of their soul is secondary compared to the immediate concern for retaliation from their family or the punishment from civil government. They weren't concerned about the souls so much as a bodily resurrection. Eternal consequences for the soul came much later in the prophetic texts and in Revelation (which Nick says has a lot of problems).
Job is about dealing with present realities of your decisions, that is the wages of sin. Nick agrees that the wages of sin is death, but the wages of sin doesn't seem to be damnation, which is a weird thing since the main focus of not sinning is fear of damnation. Nick has trouble reconciling eternal consequences during a limited time on earth, claiming that it is not an objective timeframe. A God who is forgiving and loving wouldn't do this. Hell exists, but no one goes there because God's grace has covered all sin (this is similar to Nick's concept of Scripture in that it exists to show how bad things are in contrast to God's forgiveness for all) and assuming that this is heretical is dangerous and someone shouldn't be kicked out of the church for it.
The church is a self-serving entity that requires a number of believers in search of guidance to sustain itself. The church therefore cannot abide grace alone being required since it would make dealing with sin a one-shot deal. Nick is suspicious of the model that requires ongoing attendance and devotion in spite of a message that does not have that requirement. Overall, the church's inability to properly reconcile grace with their model of operation concerns Nick.
Chat says that free will is a foundational concept and universalism isn't the way to go. Nick sidesteps the issue by saying "no one said universalism is correct" and it goes nowhere.
Chat asks Nick how the (10) commandments fit into all this and if they are rules to live by, Nick responds with "I don't know, are they rules for you and me?" and says they are good guidelines. Nick also clarifies that there is not commandment that says not to lie, but rather that it means don't lie if it will hurt someone else. This is because people lie all the time and there isn't always negative consequences. Christians in the Bible also lie all the time.
Nick won't talk about this stuff on his main show because he doesn't consider himself an authority (just a guy asking questions). Nick observes that he can ask questions, but only sanitized questions. He has no interest in Buddhism.
Nick says that Jesus was a Pharisee. Pharisees were the itinerant/travelling class of pastor at the time and Jesus came across them all the time because he was not at the Temple (unlike the other priestly classes). 1st century Jews had the Temple, not a bunch of churches. The Pharisees were a group of loosely organized rabbis who went out from the Temple to evangelize and bring people into the Temple. Therefore, because Jesus preached to people outside of the Temple, Jesus was likely in the class of Pharisee.
Biblicism is brought up as an area of interest, particularly as it pertains to how Scripture is interpreted by Jews at the time as it will make it a more interesting read. Esther is brought up as a source of humor in the Bible via bawdy embellishment claiming Haman got killed by the king because he fell face-first into Esther's vagina (in reality, the text reads that he fell on the couch where Esther was). He goes on to say that Xerxes' queen literally cucked the most powerful man in the world which is why he wanted a new wife (in reality, the text reads that Vashti just refused a summons). Ironically, Nick tells people to read Esther.
Chat says that salvation is about trying not to be a moral failure. Nick responds with "Maybe, but where is that, and why, again, does trying not to be a moral failure only seem apply in a very limited category of actions, particularly theft, violence, and sex? Why are those the only places where trying not to be a moral failure seems to matter and carry condemnation?"
Nick has more questions: Where does salvation come with the caveat of trying to be moral? Where does the necessity of sufficiently trying to be moral enter into the equation of salvation? Nick pits the writings of Peter against Paul and argues that Paul saying that in Christ all things are permissible though not profitable. The concept of whether this makes adultery, murder, or theft permissible is interesting to Nick, and Nick wonders how we can reconcile this with other writings in the Bible.
Chat says salvation comes from recognizing one's faults and asking salvation and being sincere in one's attempt to be better. Nick goes back to asking where in the Bible a sincere attempt to be better is required as it applies to salvation/grace and says that he's not sure there's a specific need for that since it's not imposed by a church that requires people to eternally struggle to be better and need guidance in it.
Nick clarifies that he never suggested that objective morality doesn't exist and believes that it does exist (in concept). Nick goes on to say that he thinks people are projecting their own morality onto selective Biblical texts. Nick wonders where grace by faith requires moral effort. He believes that the Bible is a list of reasons why one will fail and that grace is the good news that saves them.
Nick goes into his thoughts on the sermon on the mount where Jesus talks about one even wishing ill on someone else makes them guilty of murder. Nick interprets this as sin not being rooted in the act, but in the desire that may not even be acted upon and that the adulterer is not the person who is having sex outside of the context of marriage, but the person who has one lewd thought about someone else.
Nick thinks that Jesus was saying that the Law isn't for people to condemn others, but to condemn you personally. Not for what one was observed doing, but for what they thought. The Law wasn't supposed to be and enforcement mechanism to oppress people. It was meant to show that one's insufficiencies have been rectified by the grace of God.
Nick addresses the possibility that he is using this mentality to justify ongoing sinful behavior by saying that would be a cynical way to look at it. Nick takes a Jewish perspective, since this came from them, and salvation and condemnation were not afterlife concepts for a very long time. If someone commits murder, the state of their soul is secondary compared to the immediate concern for retaliation from their family or the punishment from civil government. They weren't concerned about the souls so much as a bodily resurrection. Eternal consequences for the soul came much later in the prophetic texts and in Revelation (which Nick says has a lot of problems).
Job is about dealing with present realities of your decisions, that is the wages of sin. Nick agrees that the wages of sin is death, but the wages of sin doesn't seem to be damnation, which is a weird thing since the main focus of not sinning is fear of damnation. Nick has trouble reconciling eternal consequences during a limited time on earth, claiming that it is not an objective timeframe. A God who is forgiving and loving wouldn't do this. Hell exists, but no one goes there because God's grace has covered all sin (this is similar to Nick's concept of Scripture in that it exists to show how bad things are in contrast to God's forgiveness for all) and assuming that this is heretical is dangerous and someone shouldn't be kicked out of the church for it.
The church is a self-serving entity that requires a number of believers in search of guidance to sustain itself. The church therefore cannot abide grace alone being required since it would make dealing with sin a one-shot deal. Nick is suspicious of the model that requires ongoing attendance and devotion in spite of a message that does not have that requirement. Overall, the church's inability to properly reconcile grace with their model of operation concerns Nick.
Chat says that free will is a foundational concept and universalism isn't the way to go. Nick sidesteps the issue by saying "no one said universalism is correct" and it goes nowhere.
Chat asks Nick how the (10) commandments fit into all this and if they are rules to live by, Nick responds with "I don't know, are they rules for you and me?" and says they are good guidelines. Nick also clarifies that there is not commandment that says not to lie, but rather that it means don't lie if it will hurt someone else. This is because people lie all the time and there isn't always negative consequences. Christians in the Bible also lie all the time.
Nick won't talk about this stuff on his main show because he doesn't consider himself an authority (just a guy asking questions). Nick observes that he can ask questions, but only sanitized questions. He has no interest in Buddhism.
Nick says that Jesus was a Pharisee. Pharisees were the itinerant/travelling class of pastor at the time and Jesus came across them all the time because he was not at the Temple (unlike the other priestly classes). 1st century Jews had the Temple, not a bunch of churches. The Pharisees were a group of loosely organized rabbis who went out from the Temple to evangelize and bring people into the Temple. Therefore, because Jesus preached to people outside of the Temple, Jesus was likely in the class of Pharisee.
Biblicism is brought up as an area of interest, particularly as it pertains to how Scripture is interpreted by Jews at the time as it will make it a more interesting read. Esther is brought up as a source of humor in the Bible via bawdy embellishment claiming Haman got killed by the king because he fell face-first into Esther's vagina (in reality, the text reads that he fell on the couch where Esther was). He goes on to say that Xerxes' queen literally cucked the most powerful man in the world which is why he wanted a new wife (in reality, the text reads that Vashti just refused a summons). Ironically, Nick tells people to read Esther.
It sounds like Nick's criticism of objective morality would either be an issue of compliance or enforcement leading to compliance. Nick thinks the consequences of sin are also limited to this existence (between humans) and not the hereafter, which also plays into his views on grace. Nick thinks that the Bible (including the Law) is a text that shows people how bad they are, only to then showcase God's grace which overshadows all that. Essentially it's just a look at what we have been saved from, like an empty threat, and has no bearing on how we should live in terms of salvation. Nick believes Hell exists, but it has been foreclosed because of God's love and grace.
Nick's preoccupation with Jewish culture and history (notably 1st century) seems to figure heavily into his understanding of Scripture. He seems to favor this in lieu of understanding the mechanisms for salvation or attempting to understand why many Jews didn't recognize their own Messiah, let alone understand what He came here to do. For example, many Jews didn't have a proper concept of resurrection (a common point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees) and many Jews were expecting the Messiah to establish an earthly kingdom with the Jews in charge. They were mistaken much in the way that Nick is also mistaken in his emphasis on this earthly existence as it relates to morality.
Nick's thoughts on why people put emphasis on some sins (adultery/murder/theft) over others is strange since Nick doesn't consider lying to be a sin as long as no one gets hurt. Nick himself is sensitive to actions that hurt others and gives a pass to whatever he thinks doesn't, so it is evident that Nick has not seriously considered his own position when questioning others. In terms of morality, Nick has more humanitarian leanings than a God-centered focus on what the Lord wants. This plays into Nick's hedonism as well (hurt = sin).
Though I would like to go into detail on salvation, grace, and works with regard to Nick's questions, I honestly don't know where to begin. His interest in salvation over obedience to God is very telling, and the questions Nick has are as self-serving as what he accuses the church of being. Trying to argue that sin is permissible even if it is not beneficial (by bastardizing a passage where Paul is talking about eating food with unbelievers) is an outworking of his own self-serving view. Nick's understanding and application of the Law is so bad that he doesn't recognize the 10 Commandments as rules God wants us to live by.
Without a proper understanding of the Law and the role of the Temple and the role of the Messiah, Nick cannot hope to answer these "questions" about salvation let alone how the answers apply. Worse yet, Nick appears to be formulating questions based on his poor memory of what he thinks he heard and then making guesses based on what seems reasonable to him. This is incredibly lazy and Nick is already way out of his depth on this subject.
Claiming that Jesus was a Pharisee because He travelled around preaching betrays a misunderstanding between Jewish culture and what has been established by God as well as the role that Pharisees played (they weren't going around evangelizing people to get them to become Jews, that is silly). Also, Nick's retelling of his favorite parts of Esther makes it more likely that he watched a porn parody in lieu of reading the text.
Finally, on the subject of salvation requiring moral effort, I will direct parties interested in the interplay between works and faith toward another key component of salvation: repentance. This is because repentance manifests in one's heart as well as one's actions (and is too often overlooked).
One cannot repent if they do not recognize the evil in their own heart (and actions by extension). This is related to Jesus' calls for people to repent and also Paul's letter to the Romans (chapter 3 and 4) or even Isaiah 5:20 where we are warned not to confuse what is bad with what is good. No one should sin and then say "it's okay because God loves me and died for me". However the Lord feels about them, it does not make what they did okay, and calling what is bad good will cripple one's ability to truly repent as they will no longer be able to recognize what is evil. Indeed, it calls one's capacity for repentance into question and this bodes ill for any hope for salvation.
More to be said, but not now. Thank you for your time.
Nick's preoccupation with Jewish culture and history (notably 1st century) seems to figure heavily into his understanding of Scripture. He seems to favor this in lieu of understanding the mechanisms for salvation or attempting to understand why many Jews didn't recognize their own Messiah, let alone understand what He came here to do. For example, many Jews didn't have a proper concept of resurrection (a common point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees) and many Jews were expecting the Messiah to establish an earthly kingdom with the Jews in charge. They were mistaken much in the way that Nick is also mistaken in his emphasis on this earthly existence as it relates to morality.
Nick's thoughts on why people put emphasis on some sins (adultery/murder/theft) over others is strange since Nick doesn't consider lying to be a sin as long as no one gets hurt. Nick himself is sensitive to actions that hurt others and gives a pass to whatever he thinks doesn't, so it is evident that Nick has not seriously considered his own position when questioning others. In terms of morality, Nick has more humanitarian leanings than a God-centered focus on what the Lord wants. This plays into Nick's hedonism as well (hurt = sin).
Though I would like to go into detail on salvation, grace, and works with regard to Nick's questions, I honestly don't know where to begin. His interest in salvation over obedience to God is very telling, and the questions Nick has are as self-serving as what he accuses the church of being. Trying to argue that sin is permissible even if it is not beneficial (by bastardizing a passage where Paul is talking about eating food with unbelievers) is an outworking of his own self-serving view. Nick's understanding and application of the Law is so bad that he doesn't recognize the 10 Commandments as rules God wants us to live by.
Without a proper understanding of the Law and the role of the Temple and the role of the Messiah, Nick cannot hope to answer these "questions" about salvation let alone how the answers apply. Worse yet, Nick appears to be formulating questions based on his poor memory of what he thinks he heard and then making guesses based on what seems reasonable to him. This is incredibly lazy and Nick is already way out of his depth on this subject.
Claiming that Jesus was a Pharisee because He travelled around preaching betrays a misunderstanding between Jewish culture and what has been established by God as well as the role that Pharisees played (they weren't going around evangelizing people to get them to become Jews, that is silly). Also, Nick's retelling of his favorite parts of Esther makes it more likely that he watched a porn parody in lieu of reading the text.
Finally, on the subject of salvation requiring moral effort, I will direct parties interested in the interplay between works and faith toward another key component of salvation: repentance. This is because repentance manifests in one's heart as well as one's actions (and is too often overlooked).
One cannot repent if they do not recognize the evil in their own heart (and actions by extension). This is related to Jesus' calls for people to repent and also Paul's letter to the Romans (chapter 3 and 4) or even Isaiah 5:20 where we are warned not to confuse what is bad with what is good. No one should sin and then say "it's okay because God loves me and died for me". However the Lord feels about them, it does not make what they did okay, and calling what is bad good will cripple one's ability to truly repent as they will no longer be able to recognize what is evil. Indeed, it calls one's capacity for repentance into question and this bodes ill for any hope for salvation.
More to be said, but not now. Thank you for your time.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2021
The Doctor story is hilarious to me because of how autistic it is, if it’s not just a lie. Get a fucking note, literally get a fucking note to say the doctor was an hour late.
The doctor will fucking lie for you most times with those. No one gives a shit when they fill out the reason unless you were chronically late from doctors appointments.
The doctor will fucking lie for you most times with those. No one gives a shit when they fill out the reason unless you were chronically late from doctors appointments.