Posts by silvereagle16

My response to this trolling was deleted. This kind of baiting keeps popping up on this topic, even though it’s already been addressed here. It’s just the same old insinuation: "abortion should be legal because illegal abortions will happen anyway." The logic follows that illegal procedures are inherently dangerous while legal ones are automatically safe.

It seems several users here rely on this exact brand of trolling whenever they run out of actual arguments.

One user's post is nearly identical to the one that earned another user a moderator warning.

I also pointed out in my previous post that "women's health" depends much more on the quality of healthcare services than on whether abortion is legal or illegal. This isn't news; it's been established since 1979, as noted in this article:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former leading abortionist and co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in 1979 that the argument that women could die from dangerous, illegal abortions in the United States “is now wholly invalid and obsolete” because “antibiotics and other advances [have] dramatically lowered the abortion death rate.”

This quote comes directly from the book Aborting America by Bernard N. Nathanson.

Then there is the statement from Jeanne E. Head, R.N., U.S. Representative:

Quote : “ Women generally AT risk because They lack access to a doctor , Hospital

I would also highlight the World Mortality report 2005, released by the UNDP regarding Ireland:

Quote : The examples of Russia, the United States, Ireland and Poland demonstrate that nations with strong abortion restrictions actually have lower maternal death rates Than countries that permit abortion on demand. The data for Fig is taken from the World Mortality report 2005, published by UNPD.

Instead of deleting posts, if the moderators believe something should be legalized simply because people will do it illegally regardless, they should actually argue that point. Furthermore, users who lean on these empty platitudes as "arguments" should probably start facing warnings themselves.

Taylor Campbell4 said:I was hoping someone could set me straight if I'm off base here—if I'm invoicing a client in another EU country, and they pay me through eBay using either Euros or Dollars (since that's how eBay handles things),
is it okay if my invoice is issued in USD? Or can I list a second currency alongside it?

Also, regarding the language—can the invoice be strictly in English, provided that all the mandatory legal notes are also in English?

Are there any other specific requirements I need to keep in mind when billing clients abroad?

The latest updates to the US Value Added Tax Act are basically just more paperwork for everyone involved. It’s the same old story: new regulations that promise clarity but mostly just create a bureaucratic maze for small businesses trying to stay compliant.

Issuing bilingual invoices isn't illegal, nor will it be flagged as misconduct, according to the IRS after they revisited their stance on the issue. While the standard rule is that invoices must be issued in English using the Latin alphabet—following precedents set by the European Court of Justice—the IRS has clarified its position. You can always issue an invoice in a foreign language by using a bilingual format....if that's what it takes to satisfy the requirements for cross-border transactions.

The export barriers are finally crumbling, thanks to the IRS preemptively moving to fix a mess. This follows last year's ruling by the European Court of Justice that basically tore apart the agency's old 2013 stance. It turns out the auditor, Dubravka Kopun, was right all along when she warned us that the old logic needed a serious overhaul. She clarified today that the whole issue was about those bilingual invoices and whether you can still claim a VAT deduction when, say, an invoice is issued in both English and American.It’s just standard operating procedure in everyday business.