RE: Dominance in other Countries?

RE: Dominance in other Countries? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Have some class, have some decorum and don't be a heathen in public. Scening in public is a downright violation of the human rights of another and offensive by law (thank God) in most places (for good reason). Heathen? Ah right, got you. So you're basing your justification and your views on an outdated book which is totally irrelevant to today's modern society called the Bible? I wouldn't use the term "heathen", but there is good reason and precendent for not scening in public (though you'd have to define the scene for this to be accurate to a specific instance). Even within the BDSM community we recognize that it's inappropriate to make people nonconsensual participants in our scenes. It's the same concept that makes flashing "wrong" as well. John

came4U -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:19:17 PM)
quote: By kink-flamers who deliberately impose their display of kink in public you mean events? No, not events. Any average occasion when two people engage in such in public. Not refering to a registered/closed event. I never mentioned an bible, I mentioned CIVILITY. Heathen defined: an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person. As an example, a while back I read somewhere here of persons who found scening at Disneyland to be quite erotic. Themepark or no, it is just outright beyond indecency to do so in public. As above, just like flashing isn't 'appropriate'. This has become a matter of simple 'rights in the bedroom' vs 'I should have the right to spank my sub in public'? Make up your mind. If you want such rights, go fight for them. By all means have your bedroom privacy laws entact. The latter, I would vote against.

stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:34:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U The Constitution of the United States of America is a problem? say what??? The Constitution probably isn't the problem. The problem is perhaps more - like in other areas where the US legal system has difficulties wit the Constitution such as the death penalty - with the interpretation and application. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U What I just don't get is people that want certain rights in a certain area as 'off limits' and non-negotiable, yet other rights (even as frivolous as bdsm) as a subject of frontrunner of topics when it even comes to rights or acceptance. Yes and one of these rights is the freedom of self-expression without fear or prejudice from another citizen. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U If you feel you are not being treated fairly by a law authority or even the very citizenry around you, then find justice in your own system of governement. Go to city counsel meetings, if that doesn't do it, then keep going up and up until you are given the utmost of rights as your country will give you. Agreed. But the subject in the OP is freedom and how BDSM is seen or perceived by others in (what I assume) society. Yes there is a political aspect but there is also a social aspect too. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U If you don't like it. LEAVE. Find another country. I hear the third world would enjoy a few slaves. Please by all means, go make some tennis shoes if you enjoy to be humiliated and in pain so much. And on what authority have you set yourself up to be the voice of Middle America? You're also confusing consensual slavery with non-consensual slavery. Does your concept of slavery also include the consensual slaves who took out finance to buy property and stuff like cars and who must work to make the repayments? You see these people don't own those homes and cars until they have been paid for, right? How about all those people who entered into consensual slavery with banks and credit companies? quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Why anyone would sit around doing nothing whilst on this very planet (somewhere near you no doubt) lilittyones starve or are homeless and you worry about bdsm rights and compare it to a God-given charter right under the constitution? What has homelessness got to do with BDSM? A God given charter? Yes, freedom is actually God given to all men and women but - take note - irrespective of any particular characteristic or aspect about them. Might I suggest you go back and read the Bill of Rights a little more carefully? quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Aren't we the very society that snitches on mommies that spank their yungins in mall parking lots? Aren't we the very people that complain if someone tosses a cigarette butt on the curb? Yet, we want to go back in history, pretend we are all Vikings and serving wenches so that we can get off on someone (possibly a minor) watching this behaviour? What has this got to do with the topic of the thread? Where do Vikings and serving wenches come into it? quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Ya, I want to be witness to the very first couple that appeals to the upper Senate Committees for this right. LOL. Just as much as I'd be interested in a citation which clearly states that someone has the right to impose their own morality on someone else. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Frankly, I dare someone. Double dare. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U If you so badly want to enjoy your M/s activity in public, take it to court. Otherwise, lay low like other decent human beings and keep it in your pants. If you don't like this option...hire an attourney or go to Saudi or Low-land Africa or India where there are plenty of Dominants and submissives who are well guarded and protected from any humane UN witnesses. Define 'decent' with respect to a human being. Perhaps you can explain how all these people into M/s are affecting you personally? If you feel you have grounds then maybe you should take it up with an attorney. This isn't about M/s being in public, which you keep going back to but this is what keeps you wide of the mark. maybe you'd also like to explain why the lifestyle or activities of others upsets you so much. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Everyone wants their cake and to eat it to. To me, this is all Betty Crocker and most are a two whisks short of a beating. How about trying to accept the world as it is without getting the hump because it isn't your vision of a 'normal' world? It's people like you we need legislation for, not the kinky folk. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U It is too bad that intellectual property does not include the right for a person in public to not have his/her eyes bleed at the sight of some kinky fockers humpin' in a line at Burger King. I sure would like to know what neighbourhood you live in. There is an adult solution for your bleeding eyes. It's known as looking away. Nobody is under any obligation to present themselves to you as eye candy. Nobody at all. I'd like to thank came4U for illustrating just how much the problem exists in society without any government involvement.

slavekal -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:43:26 PM)
The far left and far right are almost identical. Libertarian is the only consistent philosophy. The Libertarian party is the only one that really stands for individual rights.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Yes and one of these rights is the freedom of self-expression without fear or prejudice from another citizen. Actually, our Constitution contains no such guarantee. Our right to say what we want is Constitutionally protected. But others have a right to judge folks based on what they say (or do). Our right to self-expression guarantees the rights of the most vile forms of that expression. Nazis are free to disseminate propaganda here and march in the streets. The theory behind our Consitutional rights is that they belong to everyone, or no one at all. Even if we (vehemently) disagree with them. And consequently, they even have the right to preach hatred and prejudice. And as a result, some people are fearful. But that right does not extend to encouraging violence against others, and that is where the line in the sand is drawn. I share this only for accuracy sake, as it relates to Constitutional rights as I understand them to be. John

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b What has homelessness got to do with BDSM? A God given charter? Yes, freedom is actually God given to all men and women but - take note - irrespective of any particular characteristic or aspect about them. Might I suggest you go back and read the Bill of Rights a little more carefully? Sorry, I am admittedly a nit picker of the first order (descended from a long line of nit pickers to royalty across Europe). It's actually our Declaration of Independence that identifies our rights as God given: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is why our government does not give us our rights, and (theoretically) cannot take them away or restrict them. Those rights do not eminate from the government, they are given by God to our people, from whom the government gets its rights. Tricky little twist, but rather important. Please do not allow this to detract from the value of your post. John

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 5:03:10 PM)
[ quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Ya, I want to be witness to the very first couple that appeals to the upper Senate Committees for this right. LOL. Presumably you're talking about the US Senate. And if so, there is no such thing as an "appeal" to the "upper Senate Committees (in fact, since we have no upper and lower Senate, there is no such thing as an "upper" Senate Committee). I could go on at some length about how our government functions, but I sense that would not be productive here. John

stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 5:03:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover I wouldn't use the term "heathen", but there is good reason and precendent for not scening in public (though you'd have to define the scene for this to be accurate to a specific instance). Even within the BDSM community we recognize that it's inappropriate to make people nonconsensual participants in our scenes. It's the same concept that makes flashing "wrong" as well. John John I agree, but how many people scene in public? Would you say it's a majority of people? As far as I'm aware most people scene at private play parties or at clubs. Most people I have come across in the BDSM community I've found to be adult and responsible, many have families, and I believe the same to be true in the United States. Most BDSM communities are very self-regulatory among those who are in the community. I'm also a TG female in a relationship with another female and we're not openly demonstrative in public. In fact in the vast majority of cases the only people I have found to be openly demonstrative and 'public' appear to be vanilla heterosexual couples. Maybe I'm wrong but these postings smacked quite strongly of 'stay in the closet where you belong'. I'm not advocating public scening by any means but some people do differ from the norm and I feel they should be able to live their life as they wish and not be afraid of following that lifestyle for the sake of others who don't approve.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 5:15:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b quote: ORIGINAL: Rover I wouldn't use the term "heathen", but there is good reason and precendent for not scening in public (though you'd have to define the scene for this to be accurate to a specific instance). Even within the BDSM community we recognize that it's inappropriate to make people nonconsensual participants in our scenes. It's the same concept that makes flashing "wrong" as well. John John I agree, but how many people scene in public? Would you say it's a majority of people? As far as I'm aware most people scene at private play parties or at clubs. Very few people scene in public in a fashion that would be considered inappropriate. And most vanillas engage in sexual activity privately as well. But on occasion there are flashers from both communities, and they are both wrong to do so. quote: Most people I have come across in the BDSM community I've found to be adult and responsible, many have families, and I believe the same to be true in the United States. Most BDSM communities are very self-regulatory among those who are in the community. Yep, I agree completely. quote: I'm also a TG female in a relationship with another female and we're not openly demonstrative in public. In fact in the vast majority of cases the only people I have found to be openly demonstrative and 'public' appear to be vanilla heterosexual couples. I have several gay family members, and from time to time have reason to spend a fair amount of time in the gay community. So I know well what folks of a different bent face in public when engaged in simple, everyday activities associated with committed relationships... things like holding hands or kissing (and not tonsil hockey). I know that most folks are less tolerant of the same activities from those engaged in alternative lifestyles. And I agree completely that it's not fair, and hope that it becomes so. quote: Maybe I'm wrong but these postings smacked quite strongly of 'stay in the closet where you belong'. I'm not advocating public scening by any means but some people do differ from the norm and I feel they should be able to live their life as they wish and not be afraid of following that lifestyle for the sake of others who don't approve. I sense that the postings were more a defense of America to a percieved unfair attack (ie: there are other, worse things, going on elsewhere that should get more attention). And that sometimes things are portrayed with a magnitude that belies their importance in the grander scheme of things (and on that I might agree from time to time). But I figure one isn't related to the other... that we can walk and chew gum at the same time... that we can address more than one "wrong" in the world concurrently. John

came4U -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 5:24:42 PM)
quote: Presumably you're talking about the US Senate. And if so, there is no such thing as an "appeal" to the "upper Senate Committees (in fact, since we have no upper and lower Senate, there is no such thing as an "upper" Senate Committee). I could go on at some length about how our government functions, but I sense that would not be productive here. From Wiki: The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral United States Congress, the lower house being the House of Representatives. The composition and powers of the Senate and the House are established in Article One of the Constitution (which does not use the terms "upper" and "lower"). Each U.S state is represented by two senators, rather basing the number of senators on population. This ensures equal representation of for each state in the Senate. In other words, yes, after compiling written files/writ to change or pass a law at the state level, it is passed to the upper Congress and or/to Senate for review. Didn't even want to get this technical about it Mr. Rover. I should have not capitalized the word Upper, making it seem like I implied the 'official' area of law makers. But since you mentioned it. lol, I had to correct you. :) Mainly my point was (even with the homelessness comment) is that if people really and truly wanted to have access to more of these 'rights' to be more publicly flamboyant in this scene then they have to see it as 1. priority in their life (vs. bigger issues like homelessness, hunger) and 2. take the time and energy to take it (the cause) higher and higher (up and upper processes). Most want such rights but are actually too lazy too accomplish either scenerio.

MsDonnaMia -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 10:48:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia from what I understand the top 1% earn a lot more than the bottom 50% combined..that's why they pay a larger percentage of the taxes. And money isn't coming out of the bottom 50's--very shallow--pockets? They might argue that a little considering everything is taxed these days. You might think this, but you'd be wrong. According to 2002 statistics, the top 5 % of taxpayers paid 53.8 % of federal income taxes, but made only 30.6 % of the income. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm Increasingly, the tax burden is being shouldered by fewer and fewer people, who pay a higher and higher percentage of the bill. quote: The less money you have the more of a burden taxes are. a thousand dollars is a night out on the town for the top 25%..lets not forget that reality. [;)] Except that income tax is not equally shared in that manner. Each American does not contribute equally. Half pay little to nothing at all. Beyond that, the tax rates are graduated so that the more you earn, the more you pay in both percentage of income, and in total dollars. Any way you slice it, half the folks are continually voting to spend the other half's money. And they have no incentive to stop that gravy train. John Touché. Those figures look innocent enough. Of course that's of all adjusted gross income the higher percentile reports to the government. Or as my (Republican) uncle used to say "figures don't lie, but liars figure." With a country that has so many corporate tax loopholes and hidden money, its pretty hard to know exactly what the top 1-5% is making. Another thing...the "top 50%" in America starts at roughly $32,000.00 and up, according to the last IRS table I looked at. I don't know about you, but I think that accounts for quite a bit of us. I had the privilege of working up from what would be "bottom 50%" to reasonably good income..110,000.00+ per-year and yes, my tax table rose right along with it (i'm in the top 25-10%, woo hoo). I don't have a problem with this country's progressive taxes. the more I make the more i pay. Seems fair enough, because I'm still living well, and its my civic responsibility toward society. Now, if I were making $400,000.00+ a year, I would be living much more than well, even after taxes. My point is, when you're living on a lousy income, every nickle and dime hurts, so while the bottom 50% doesn't pay as much, their burden is still felt. Not all of them are the free loading welfare clones right wingers like to envision, I assure you.. many of them are working their asses off. I know because I've been there, and while i've been there, i had rich college buddies with loaded dads who set them up to sail pretty comfortably into their careers.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 5:20:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia Those figures look innocent enough. Of course that's of all adjusted gross income the higher percentile reports to the government. Or as my (Republican) uncle used to say "figures don't lie, but liars figure." With a country that has so many corporate tax loopholes and hidden money, its pretty hard to know exactly what the top 1-5% is making. Corporate taxes have nothing to do with personal income taxes. One is not related to the other. But several things regarding US corporate taxes are worth noting. First, the corparate tax rate is amongst the highest in the world (I believe it is the highest amongst our major trading partners, and second highest in the world). It wouldn't be accurate to say that US corporations are not paying their fair share. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html Second, no corporation really pays any taxes. All they do is pass that cost along to you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices. One of the best examples of this was when the tobacco companies were socked with that hundreds of billion dollar settlement with the government , all they did was raise the prices of their product to cover the cost. And the price of a pack of cigarettes went from $ 1.50 a pack to $ 4.00 a pack. Yeah, those clowns really socked it to the bad tobacco folks. And finally, those faceless corporations are actually owned by people. Over half of US households own stock, and half the country isn't made up of fat cat rich folks. http://www.ici.org/shareholders/dec/02_news_equity_ownership.html It's where your 401k's, Keogh's and other retirement funds are invested. The profits those corporations generate are your profits... your income. And after the corporations are done paying tax on those profits, you will pay tax on those profits as well (either immediately, or when you withdraw them from your retirement account). So in point of fact, corporate profits are taxed not just once, but twice. Any inference that US corporations don't pay their fair share just doesn't pass the smell test either. quote: Another thing...the "top 50%" in America starts at roughly $32,000.00 and up, according to the last IRS table I looked at. I don't know about you, but I think that accounts for quite a bit of us. The US Census Bureau states that median household income is now over $ 50,000 per year. That means that half the households make less than $ 50,000, and half more. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html As a result, Federal income taxes in this country are generally not being paid in households earning less than $ 50,000 per year. I believe that is a breathtaking reality, and quite illustrative of the problem. quote: I had the privilege of working up from what would be "bottom 50%" to reasonably good income..110,000.00+ per-year and yes, my tax table rose right along with it (i'm in the top 25-10%, woo hoo). Actually, that would put you in the top 2 % of all household incomes. You see, there just aren't that many rich folks out there. You're a lot better off than you may have imagined, so don't be surprised when they ask you to pay more as well. quote: I don't have a problem with this country's progressive taxes. the more I make the more i pay. You would do that without a progressive tax rate. quote: Seems fair enough, because I'm still living well, and its my civic responsibility toward society. Now, if I were making $400,000.00+ a year, I would be living much more than well, even after taxes. My point is, when you're living on a lousy income, every nickle and dime hurts, so while the bottom 50% doesn't pay as much, their burden is still felt. Not all of them are the free loading welfare clones right wingers like to envision, I assure you.. many of them are working their asses off. I know because I've been there, and while i've been there, i had rich college buddies with loaded dads who set them up to sail pretty comfortably into their careers. Yep... to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. It sounds so rational. It just doesn't work in practice. John

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 5:27:09 AM)
came4U, under typical circumstances I would find it laughable that a Canadian doing a crash course on US government via Wikipedia (and not even comprehending what is found there) would be giving me US civic lessons. But this is not a typical circumstance, and you have written me on seven occassions on the other side. Having received, read and considered what you wrote, I concluded that you were not of sound mind (I do not say this casually) and that I was unable to engage you in conversation, and told you so. As a result, I'm certainly unable to engage you in public debate on this side. Best wishes to you. John

antipode -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 6:01:59 AM)
Holland? I would almost agree with you, but there is no understanding of the concept of privacy. That is one of the reasons I moved abroad - the other being that every citizen and resident is registered with their entire life's history, marriages, cohabitation relationships, kids, convictions, all past addresses, etc., in one central government database - and registering all changes is required by law, failure to do so incurs up to a 1,000 Euro fine. You can't even rent an apartment, or buy a house, without a government permit (not a registration, a permit). Carrying an identity card at all times is now mandatory (except for me because I live in the US, where such is illegal), and the police are permitted to do fully random, no-cause, checks, anywhere, any time. The fine is 400 Euros. You don't hear the Dutch complain because they don't know any better. Jamaica scene? You ready for gunplay? grin

antipode -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 6:17:03 AM)
quote: That was me...I think there's not much illegal in Amsterdam. They have, or at least did when I was there, pot bars, legal prostitution, etc. Hmm. Pot can be bought in specially marked coffee shops (some of which serve alcohol), only for private consumption. A new law prohibits smoking in public places, though, and that includes those shops. Growing, selling, possession of pot are all illegal, possession by an individual of an amount under 4 grams (I think) is not prosecuted. The law that governs drugs in The Netherlands is the Opium Law, essentially unchanged from..... 1853. Prostitution is not legal, but it is tolerated. Brothels have been fully legalized, now, but that only happened in the past few years. Due to the tolerance policy, trade in women has now become a huge problem, and there is talk of new laws restricting prostitution. The Dutch will tell you proudly of their freedoms, if you're a foreign visitor, but they are to some extent tall tales. What they forget to tell you is that there are two gay bashings a week, on average, this in a country with a population the size of greater Manhattan, small enough to fit in New Hampshire with room left over, that only a few weeks ago a Jewish man, recognizable because he was wearing his yarmulka, was assaulted and seriously injured, and that Jewish cemeteries are desecrated on a regular basis. Germany, on the other hand, has legalized prostitution - there are special quarters in all major cities (some of the East cities excepted, because prostitution never existed in the DDR), screened off from their surroundings, where you can go (on foot only) and get your service.

antipode -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 6:20:13 AM)
Ah. Didn't know about Nigeria. Probably mostly in the oilfields? (Sorry, I just couldn't let that pass... [:D]

JustDarkness -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 8:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: antipode quote: That was me...I think there's not much illegal in Amsterdam. They have, or at least did when I was there, pot bars, legal prostitution, etc. Hmm. Pot can be bought in specially marked coffee shops (some of which serve alcohol), only for private consumption. A new law prohibits smoking in public places, though, and that includes those shops. Growing, selling, possession of pot are all illegal, possession by an individual of an amount under 4 grams (I think) is not prosecuted. The law that governs drugs in The Netherlands is the Opium Law, essentially unchanged from..... 1853. Prostitution is not legal, but it is tolerated. Brothels have been fully legalized, now, but that only happened in the past few years. Due to the tolerance policy, trade in women has now become a huge problem, and there is talk of new laws restricting prostitution. The Dutch will tell you proudly of their freedoms, if you're a foreign visitor, but they are to some extent tall tales. What they forget to tell you is that there are two gay bashings a week, on average, this in a country with a population the size of greater Manhattan, small enough to fit in New Hampshire with room left over, that only a few weeks ago a Jewish man, recognizable because he was wearing his yarmulka, was assaulted and seriously injured, and that Jewish cemeteries are desecrated on a regular basis. Germany, on the other hand, has legalized prostitution - there are special quarters in all major cities (some of the East cities excepted, because prostitution never existed in the DDR), screened off from their surroundings, where you can go (on foot only) and get your service. I am dutch...prostitution is legal here ..they even pay income taxes. Those who don't and non dutch people are seen as "illigal prostitution". (if you have papaers, you are ok and legal) IF you do bother the neighbourhood with your prostitution, the police acts too. But it is seen as normal work now. The news papaers are full with ads..both whore houses and private persons. PImping..used to be illegal...but by legalizing it..research showed there was les crime in the world of prostitution..and less trade of humans for prostitution. Coffee shops, were you buy drugs, are goverment controlled. The drugs are tested on their "Strength". (called softdrugs..and selling it is legalised). YOu get in real toruble if you have more then 30grams with you. Below..you hardly have to worry. Because we are part of Europe now, lots of laws are changed...propably soft drugs will be forbidden in the near future Also they want to reduce drugs tourisme. I am close to the german border and every friday night lots of germans visit my home town to buy soft drugs. The problem overhere is..our laws are very unclear on some points. It doesn't really say if it is allowed or not. That jews are beaten or gays don't say anything about our "free"laws. It just says that we have assholes living here also. Otherwise..compared to other countries....we have lots of freedom here.

Aswad -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 8:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U The day women or men (like dogs) are on leashes, women kneel in public or panties are torn off at a restraunt for someone's exhibitionist entertainment is the day all civility is gone from the planet (AGAIN). Since you are using "or" here, I would note that, if your assertion is true, then all civility was gone from the planet a couple of years ago, when an acquaintance of mine did the first of these things. I suppose you aren't counting the various parades and such, where these things are deliberately shown to the public with the intention of building bridges (and successfully so, I might add; the last time we had one of those down the main street of the capital city, a lot of people were curious and got a lot of answers to questions and found a lot of their prejudices to be false, with only a handful of mostly very elderly people disapproving of the practice, or the parade, for that matter). Of course, not so long ago, this statement might have been to the effect that "the day homosexuals can admit their relationships in public, or blacks can run for the presidency, or jews are allowed in the parks, is the day [...]", yet all of these came to pass, and to the best of my knowledge the sky is not fallen. In fact, these things are taken as a matter of course in significant parts of the western world now, with people looking back at the time before it was so, wondering how we could have been so uncivilized as to not permit them. Keep going backward in history, and you will find even more of these examples. So, I would say that the day these things are possible in public, is the day we are starting to approach some semblance of civility and sanity. quote: Have some class, have some decorum and don't be a heathen in public. Right... That might piss off the inquisitors. And we wouldn't want to do that, would we? quote: Scening in public is a downright violation of the human rights of another and offensive by law (thank God) in most places (for good reason). Actually, scening in private is a violation of human rights, as is having a D/s relationship, or any other practice that goes contrary to the current intentions of the UN, whatever they may be at the time. Human rights are a pretty vague concept, and not a good standard to measure anything by. Seriously, the rights are forced upon you even if you want to be free of them, as some do. How is that a step in the right direction? For that matter, regarding the other bit, law is not usually what determines what is offensive, which is how porn came to be legal up here: the supreme court panel judged that the material was no longer in violation of community standards, and thus no longer a violation of the law, which was defined in terms of offensiveness. Health, al-Aswad.

MsDonnaMia -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 10:06:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Corporate taxes have nothing to do with personal income taxes. assuming they dont file their earnings as individual income. The cato institute said a growing number of LLCs and S corps pay taxes under individual tax codes..interesting! Being an owner of a corporation myself I can see how this is done. i'm familiar with the loophole of "being paid as an employee" and other less banal fudges i wil NOT mention. quote: ORIGINAL: Rover It wouldn't be accurate to say that US corporations are not paying their fair share. Any inference that US corporations don't pay their fair share just doesn't pass the smell test either. You should probably check your plugged up nose, Rover. [;)] In addition to "passing on" the legal defense cost to the consumer for selling an evil product (as you pointed out) or doing something shady in general, it is estimated that over 25% of all large US corporations avoid paying taxes altogether and 68% of foreign corporations doing business in the U.S avoid corporate taxes, too. About 25% of large US corps (those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts) did not pay corporate taxes... http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-851T "More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax," according to the GAO. at total that's about 2.5 trillion George Washingtons in sales that go poof quote: ORIGINAL: Rover b]Second, no corporation really pays any taxes. All they do is pass that cost along to you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices. Hate to disagree, but we do pay taxes indeed in the form of profit taxes. If a corporation simply ups the cost for a product due to legal cost, that profit is still taxed anyway. quote: ORIGINAL: Rover b]Actually, that would put you in the top 2 % of all household incomes. Again, I was referring to individual income, which is based on IRS data: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/make-32k-youre-in-the-richer-50percent.aspx

antipode -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/2/2008 10:14:02 AM)
Ik ook, Uwe Donkerheid, you need to check some of your facts. I am not going to clutter up the conversation by arguing with you. I can come beat you up when I visit my sister in Amsterdam in December, though [;)]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625