Non-BJ : Vegas Adult Club raided by FBI,DEA,IRS and Metro Police
Crazy Horse Too suspected of mob affiliations. And all those agencies get a nice free show at 5 AM!
Las Vegas Sun link below:
Crazy Horse Too suspected of mob affiliations. And all those agencies get a nice free show at 5 AM!
Las Vegas Sun link below:
to the newspaper referring to the ladies as "strippers". They are DANCERS or EXOTIC ENTERTAINERS.
they are working their way through college.
You can't be serious. Defending the honor of the high-minded stripper class. Calling them stripper is euphemistically enough. A whore is a whore; don't sugar-coat it. Too lazy and/or materialistic to get a real job they dance naked for money.
Eighty officers with shotguns?
Who's in charge here? Obviously someone with no regard for public safety.
To send eighty thugs, some with ski masks over their heads, with shotguns and other weapons into a public facility where there may be inebriated patrons, and others who may react badly to such a stupid and heavy-handed show of excessive force boggles the mind.
The idiots behind the planning and execution of this raid are lucky that no one was hurt or killed, either their officers or innocent members of the public.
Those involved in the search included agents from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service, as well as Las Vegas police. No arrests were made.
"Patrons were secured and checked for warrants, then released," Borst said.
Whatever happened to probable cause? Just bust into a business and harass all it's customers?
John Ashcroft would be proud of this sickening display of governmental abuse of power and authority.
I think that calling them whores (and what is the definition of a whore anyway?) might be a little extreme. Some may fit into that category depending on your definition, others may not. America and Americans are pretty hung up on nudity. Frankly, I don't think it is such a big deal. I admit, a lap dance comes pretty close to an overt sexual act. Not that I would know personally.
if i could pick between being a chippendale dancer or a counter,im taking the birthday suit route.lets get real guys-we are also lazy.thats why we count:)
High Maintenance girlfriends
but I make no claim to knowing what percentage are. Just know I few that I've done tax returns for. You would be surprised at how much they make.
Neko
Since you asked... (and what is the definition of a whore anyway?) I thought I would provide the definition as per www.dictionary.com
whore Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does
make you think.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this.
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would
pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the
ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until
one day,
the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only
cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for
free. What about the other six men- the paying customers? How could
they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair
share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should
pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh
paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man
with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was
better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings. "I only got a dollar out of the 20," declared the sixth man, but
he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he
got seven times more than me!".
That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when
I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" Wait a minute," yelled
the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system
exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he
didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late
what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the
bill!
Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how
the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities
anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight- forward logic!
Think about this on April 15, 2003.
The oft-produced example of "ten men sharing a dinner" whereby the wealthiest guy gets to foot the bill for more than half of it is a very simple-minded and false picture of how taxes actually work.
First of all, the story omits the very important fact that the wealthiest guy at the table, the guy that gets our sympathy because he gets to foot more than half the total bill for "his pals", earns more than all "his pals" combined! The story omits the well-known but oft-hidden fact that 1% of the population in the United States owns more than half the wealth.
Then the story simplifies the economy down to a simple dinner. Were it so simple! Taxes act both as a means to channel money to the state in order for it to perform public services and as a wealth re-distribution mechanism. When a tax cut is introduced across the board, there may indeed be instances whereby "the four poorest at the table", those that pay nothing in taxes, get back something of value from the state. (The extremists in the GOP are horrified at this thought!) The poorest might get, for example, increased value in Medicare. Or better buses, or shelters, etc. It's still value. (Spare the responses about state mismanagement and corruption! They do exist. We all know about 'em. But they don't change the picture.) It's quite simply the wealthiest giving some of their wealth back to the poorest/unluckiest/least able/downright incompetent/eminem scum part of society -- choose your terms. Has been that way for centuries.
"And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore."
Owning more than half the wealth and then threatening to "not show up at the table anymore" is adding insult to injury. Forget about the irrelevance of the threat (it is impossible to do nothing with my money, short of parking it under my pillow). Think about the hybris in that threat. We should, indeed, question the wisdom of a system (capitalism, the best system we have invented thus far) that allows such tremendous concentration of wealth. And we should question whether that concentration is good or bad for society as a whole. IMHO, it should be obvious to anyone but the most unthinking adherents of a Sadean, absolutely egotistic philosophy that there is something rotten in the kingdom of capitalism, when such deviations are accepted as the norm (nay, as a necessity, according to the John Sununus in power!)...
We best work to fine tune it some, presto.
Pick a country, any country, where tax rates for the wealthy are low. Go live in it for a couple of years and then come back and tell us how wonderful it was. If you aren't rich, I suspect you won't have very many good things to say about your experience.
'Nuff said about this off-topic discussion. :-)
To me taxation is fundamentally unamerican. After all the whole country was born from a tax rebellion.
story is the same contrived thinking exemplified by the progressionists.
