Printable View
http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.co...siness-owners/
1988 :bulb:Quote:
Han noted that the Women’s Business Ownership Act, which eliminated state laws that required women to have a male relative co-sign a business loan, was only passed in 1988 – just over 20 years ago.
One of my girlfriend's previous jobs was working for the exclusive Selfridge's store in London.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Apparently on occasion disgustingly rich Saudi and Emirati royalty used to swing by with ladies on their arms head to toe in burqas. They would head straight to the lingerie department and spend hours and many thousands of pounds on exclusive lingerie.
ARAB TITS! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by termite
Arab fake tits :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Hm. You might be right. :(
I still got excited at the prospect of arab tits though.
Hey, the last law which allowed involuntary sterilization of native americans was abandoned only in the late 70s. All kinds of perverted laws still exist in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Most of the time those laws are so old, no one has followed them in years and only get eliminated when they are called attention upon. There are many bizarre laws that no one actually enforces, just waiting on politicians to get them written off the books officially.
Its still 'officially' legal to shoot a Welshman in Chester. The provisions of Chester's centuries-old by-law are that any Welshman within the city after dark can be shot with a bow and arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
Still, I dare anyone to do it and not be tried for murder.
That particular law was actually enforced until it was dissolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
Well, that's disgusting then.
In how many states and by law or by random companies? Any sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
This guy wants to be Governor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAHs0...layer_embedded
Spoiler:
I recommend having subtitles on!
Leftover from the Eugenics era.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...#United_States
Seems to have been not limited to Native Americans, too.
I was asking about the women law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Anyway, that link reads to me like it was not a law about the Native Americans, but about those with medical problems and criminals.
It also states that these laws were mostly followed pre-war and that there would be hardly any, if any, people alive now affected - which wouldn't be true if it was on-going anywhere near the 70s!Quote:
According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women[21] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). However, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation which found no evidence to support Davis's claims, The Chicago Reader also noted that the rate of sterilizations for all American women (or their partners) was 41% as of 1995,[citation needed] compared to only "at least 25%" of Native American women receiving sterilization as shown by the activist and physician Connie Redbird Uri Pinkerman, whose work prompted the GAO investigation;[citation needed] The Chicago Reader also claimed that overall, "Accounts in the medical journals suggest that surgical sterilization rates for Native Americans rose during this period but were lower than for the general population. (IHS data for 1975 indicates that the tubal ligation rate was about the same as for the non-Native American population, while the hysterectomy rate was much lower)".[22]
Odd that Khen flamed me for bringing up the Swiss past, while he has no problem with bringing up America's. But if he wants to play the blame game, maybe we can talk about Swiss women only getting the full franchise in 1971. :noob:
Actually I was thinking yesterday (while cutting the grass oddly enough), it's odd how you're OK flaming the Swiss for not compensating people for what happened during the war, but you're vehemently opposed to any notion of Israel oweing any compensation or resettlement to 'refugees' from the years after it. :noob:
I think Israel should pay compensation to the people who fled Israel in '48-49. I also think Arab governments (and Iran) should pay Israelis compensation for kicking them out in the '50s and '60s.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You did notice the year dates like 1975 in your very own quote? And maybe even read the rest of the section - because you quoted very selectively. And read very selectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Here's one of the parts you left out in your quote:
Quote:
[...] though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[...]
My dear, flaming does look different. Selective memory at its best. But that's nothing new from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I notice you didn't bother to address the actual criticism.
You don't see any difference, at all, betweenQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
conversation in a "WTF" thread (that means "what the fuck", an exclamation of wonder, bewilderment, shock and often disgust) turning towards the CRAZY, WHACKY eugenics laws here and there
and getting on a soap box, crying NAZIS THIS AND THAT in some random thread about Switzerland
?
No difference at all?
I think they're both equally relevant. He could have just as easily brought up wacky laws from another country. The US hardly has a monopoly on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You do, huhQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But he didn't. Is it proof positive of some horrible anti-US, anti-Low-key bias that means you have to go on some undefined insult-crusade against him, now that you feel justified in doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
To borrow a page from your book, he isn't incorrect in stating the US has bizarre laws that run counter to sensibilities, rhyme or reason. Should we endeavour to list the flaws in everything at once, or mention none at all, to spare feelings?
Note that this is a different question than "should we list the failings of something once it is mentioned, always", as difficult as that distinction might seem
I fail to see why Loki of all people claims to have the moral highground here.
It would be easier to ignore if he hasn't criticized me for doing the same and didn't have a lengthy history of America-bashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Last I checked, I wasn't incorrect about anything I said about Switzerland either.
Oh dear. Well, it was fun while it lasted :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
*pokes with a stick*Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Yeah lets compare your totally off-topic nonsense in a discussion in D&D with posts in the WTF thread in general chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Have you every heard of the concept of context?
Ad hoc (and post hoc) justifications are a specialty here, eh?
Loki, that high horse only means that you'll fall down harder. So spare us your outrage of dubious moral value, will ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Again, where exactly was I "flaming" you in that thread?
edit: Ah, found it. Well, okay, was indeed flaming - but I was not exactly the only one. And you pulled a Godwin.
And you still have to explain to me how being "physically incapable of not flaming someone in a thread" works. Midget behind me with a hammer? Electroshocks from my keyboard? Cats gnawing on my toes? Stoning with perfumed handkerchiefs? Whipping with shoelaces?
I mean, ifweyou continue to drag up things from before the covenant, then I expect you to answer this pressing question as well :)
You are not being serious :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I present you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The court case a tragedy in three parts.
Part one
Judge: Mr.Loki, can you please explain why you appear naked to the court.
Loki: Dear court, Japan did horrible things in WWII...
Judge: Stop it, this is of no relevance! Can you please explain why you appear naked to the court.
Loki: Last time we met you where naked too, you didn't seem to have a problem back them. I smell hypocrisy!
Judge: That was in the Sauna, this is a court, you can't compare the situation.
Loki: Everything I said about Japan in WWII was correct
Judge: This is of no relevance!
Loki: But you appeared st the Sauna naked, seems to be the same thing to me.
Judge: I don't allow naked persons in the courtroom.
Loki: Ad hoc (and post hoc) justifications are a specialty here, eh?
Judge: Guards, get the man off. Bring him back when he wears some clothes and start making some sense in his statements.
To be continued...