New law in effect for Nude work

A
Thread starter djklmnop
Start date Jun 24, 2005

phfitz

Member

Jun 24, 2005

#26

Hi there,

Nice thread and several very good posts. I think the point to the change is to harass the porn industry into going off-shore or paying more taxes. What the hell, they're having fun AND making money.

WHY does this need for extreme documetation NOT apply to illegal aliens???

As far as the Supreme Court and personal property, just check the history of the 11th amendment, that's what it was for. It was a fraud then and it still insults the world today.

Have a weekend.

Jimi

Member

Jun 25, 2005

#27

Looks like they were quick...
http://www.iafd.com/

argus said:
Looks like they want to set up an IMDb for porn movies and actors

G

benjiboy

Subscriber

Jun 25, 2005

#28

djklmnop said:
Went into effect today:

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64702,00.html

What a hassle.

Dam, I'll have to keep my clothes on!

Louis Nargi

Member

Jun 25, 2005

#29

Jim Chinn said:
I think there was a thread about this back in 2004 if someone wants to search for it.

From what I understand it is currently in effect.
As someone else stated, this is aimed at pornographers who use under age actors. I don't think it will have much effect on on-line porn as most of those sites originate outside the boundries of the US.

I would be much mor concerned about yesterdays Supreme Court ruling that allows governments to sieze private property for what they can determine are economic growth interests. Goes against over 200 years of government use of iminent domain for only public work uses such as highways, schools,
military bases etc.

Now if a developer or corporation can convince a local government that your property would make a good location for a shopping mall or business park it can be condemend and siezed (with just compensation) and you have no say in the matter.

Thank you Ruth Ginsburg. (Liberal Judge)

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Jun 25, 2005

#30

Louis Nargi said:
Thank you Ruth Ginsburg. (Liberal Judge)

Ruth is not the only one to blame, it takes 5 judges and one was conservative and atleast one was moderate to conservative.

Its a bad precedent regardless of political leanings.

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2005

John Koehrer

Subscriber

Jun 25, 2005

#31

RE: eminent domain stuff.
The states can write their own laws regarding this. 11 currently prohibit the transfer of property for economic reasons. Apparently Connecticut is not one of them.

JD Morgan

Member

Jun 25, 2005

#32

A few of us ( maybe 8 million or so) have long been fighting attacks against Amendment #2 for a reason y'know.

The murmurs on the wind grow louder each day.

Tea party anyone?

Got to think of something contemporary and profound to say here.. let's see..

One if by land.. two if by black chopper.

No that ain't right.. how 'bout..

Give me liberty or give me a Second Chance vest!

No, darn it... well, I'll have to dwell on it some.

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Jun 25, 2005

#33

I fear JD that the powers that be (either those now or the next to come) will no longer need direct attacks against our liberties. They simply will sell the infringement as an upgrade, a meaningless side effect of needed law or simply call it exactly what it isn't. As a whole the american public seems to be easily manipulated, have a very short attention span and simply does not want to pay attention or dig deeper. Many here, on both sides, appear to be just the opposite, but the greater populace couldn't be bothered.

JD Morgan

Member

Jun 25, 2005

#34

mrcallow said:
I fear JD that the powers that be (either those now or the next to come) will no longer need direct attacks against our liberties. They simply will sell the infringement as an upgrade, a meaningless side effect of needed law or simply call it exactly what it isn't. As a whole the american public seems to be easily manipulated, have a very short attention span and simply does not want to pay attention or dig deeper. Many here, on both sides, appear to be just the opposite, but the greater populace couldn't be bothered.

They WILL eventually step too far.. history repeats. The final ballot usually has a high lead composition. Many I have spoken with in my rural travels believe we are within 40 years of the 2nd shot heard 'round the world. The middle class are gettin' fightin' mad about many things... religion and puritan principles don't even make the list. The debate among folks now is not IF it will happen, only WHEN. Many just can't decide whether it will be before or after hostilities with China and N. Korea. There will be a catalyst that melts the increasingly tenuous containment bond and releases the hornets... just a matter of time. The next harbor party is more likely to be Chinese containers going off the side of ships rather than tea.

We the people my ass!

It's a government of some people, by some people and for some people. We ain't some people.

"How soon we forget history ... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
~ George Washington (1732-1799)

During George's time, approx. 1/3 were fightin' mad, 1/3 apathy and 1/3 Tory -- methinks the numbers will be about the same again.

If *I* am elected... lobbyists will be neutered and ALL public servants of every stripe will be banned from owning stocks. That's just step one..

Please don't mention immigration.... I'm going to take my medication and get a nice long nap now............

Rlibersky

Subscriber

Jun 25, 2005

#35

Shaggy said:
RE: eminent domain stuff.
The states can write their own laws regarding this. 11 currently prohibit the transfer of property for economic reasons. Apparently Connecticut is not one of them.

Minnesota doesn't have any laws against this either. I believe all the cities have big smile today. They have been taking property for less then market value to give to rich fat cats for awile. No one said anything, usually taking it from one company to give to another. Now the shackles are off. Homeowners beware, some rich person wants your house. Thank the left on the court. I believe this is truely a "right" that is in the constitution being lost.

Can't wait to see how this gets blamed on President Bush. Since every other problem was created by him.

jjstafford

Member

Jun 26, 2005

#36

Rlibersky said:
[...] I believe this is truely a "right" that is in the constitution being lost.

I don't wish to quibble, but which right would that be? This is one issue that ticks off both the Left and Right!
--
jjs who also lives in Minnesota and is acutely aware, and frightend by the abuse of Eminent Domain. "Fair Market Value" does not apply; the missing element is "motivated seller". ED is theft, and that's all there is to it except in extraordinary circumstances of which I can think of only a couple.

Donald Qualls

Subscriber

Jun 27, 2005

#37

JD Morgan said:
The final ballot usually has a high lead composition.

Times (and technology) have changed. Depleted uranium is preferred for many things now, and the primary reason behind gun control is to undo what the Founding Fathers saw as the primary reason for the Second Amendment: to preserve the ability of the people to successfully overthrow their own government if and when it should become necessary.

I recently moved to North Carolina -- it's a good bit harder to get a carry permit here, and the number of places I see posted with "no weapons, concealed or openly carried" is staggering. The populace here is only armed when they're out hunting, apparently -- and I'd bet there's a law on the books somewhere that will nullify that, if read correctly.

Thank heaven plastic pipe is still not regulated...

blansky

Member

Jun 27, 2005

#38

The whole concept of ripping people off for their land reminds me of what happened by Calgary Alberta, way back when, as the government moved the "indians" of their land and stuck them on some shitty reservation.

They languished there for maybe 75 years, on land the whites didn't want. Then in around the 1960s it was discovered to have a great deal of oil under it and the "indians" had all the mineral rights.

Poetic justice, I guess.

Michael

noseoil

Member

Jun 27, 2005

#39

The original intent of the constitution was to limit the power of GOVERNMENT. Somwhere along the line things went wrong.

Robert Bork was looked upon as a throw-back to the times of the dinosaur because of his penchant for interpretation of "original intent" with respect to the constitution. At this point, it doesn't look too bad to me. tim

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Jun 27, 2005

#40

noseoil said:
The original intent of the constitution was to limit the power of GOVERNMENT. Somwhere along the line things went wrong.

Robert Bork was looked upon as a throw-back to the times of the dinosaur because of his penchant for interpretation of "original intent" with respect to the constitution. At this point, it doesn't look too bad to me. tim

Unfortunately, both sides want to recognize the limits that benefit their agenda and ignore the bits that don't. Whilst the republicans 'own' the 'less government' image the reality is they are the reason for most of the gov't growth in the last 30 years with the biggest contributors being every Republicans favorites RR and W.

Almost invariably the bigger, more successful the Pol the bigger the whore.

noseoil

Member

Jun 27, 2005

#41

I think this is the second time I must agree with mrcallow. I doubt very seriously if the framers of the constitution would even recognize their form of government in today's society and court system. tim

phfitz

Member

Jun 27, 2005

#42

Hi there,

jjstafford; "I don't wish to quibble, but which right would that be? "

that would be the 9th & 10th amendments.

JD Morgan; "During George's time, approx. 1/3 were fightin' mad, 1/3 apathy and 1/3 Tory -- methinks the numbers will be about the same again."

did you ever read the 11th amendment and it's history? align the dates with the 'John Jay treaty' and you will see that the 11th is purposly made to steal the personal property of the Tory that were run-off after the Revolution.

the govt. has been doing this since day one, this time it made the news.

Donald Q;

point of info: approx 6 mo. ago the Army arrested a soldier at Ft. Lewis, Wa for 'dealing with Al Quida', the investigation cleared the kid and charges were dropped. the interesting point is that they had tracked down his ENTIRE INTERNET HISTORY since the first day he had ever logged on, all accounts, all usernames, all passwords, to be used as a character reference. Yes, Big Brother IS watching.

Smile.

Donald Qualls

Subscriber

Jun 29, 2005

#43

Sure, they're watching. 1984 was late and over budget, but it's just about done.

Doesn't change the fact that until they outlaw getting off the couch (and can enforce such silliness), people can't be completely disarmed. And we, as free people, still have both the right and responsibility to overthrow even our own governments if and when their opression becomes intolerable -- regardless what documents that government might produce in attempts to prohibit such action.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email