Soback

The fact stands. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution guarantees me freedom from slavery. Being forced to pay for you, your whole bill, a portion, a little or a lot, is considered slavery, for only a slave does not get to keep a product of his labors. The fact stands. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution guarantees me the rights to Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness. And as it stands, the person is free to smoke if that makes him happy. The fact stands. Simple math shows that if persons A medical costs are 50 thousand a year and his medical premiums are 1,200 a year, but persons B medical costs are 10,000 a year, but his medical premiums are 1,800 a year. Then person B is paying for person A's higher medical costs. Person A being an obese diabetic, person B being a smoker. Combining all of the facts above. We can conclude that regardless of your likes or disslikes of smokers. Regardless of your opinion of whether people born with inherited conditions should pay for their medical costs. We can conclude that by charging the smokers higher insurance premiums, without increasing those same premiums for other at risk customers, the industry is putting on smokers the burden of other peoples medical costs. Especially on those smokers that haven't developed any adverse conditions due to smoking. The industry is therefore, working on a socialistic model of singling out and taking from one group to pay for the benefits of another. Socialism is slavery. Slavery is UnConstitutional. As such, this WILL be taken to court, and when the evidence comes up that smokers are paying higher fees, while people with other medical conditions that carry higher treatment costs pay less, it will be ruled un-constitutional to have smokers pick up the higher costs of other patients. Just like it is un-constitutional to be forcing me to pay for someone elses wellfare.

Security and other issues aside. US is bleeding money like it was hit in a jagular. First we have a huge trade imbalance. Money is bled by imports. Which in turn bleeds jobs from our own country, which in turn takes a bite out of economy and increases our defecit hour by hour. Then we started outsourcing jobs. Now we are outsourcing ports managment. This only increases the ammount of wealth and money that leaves US. We have become a country supported strictly by credit. We have NOTHING to back up our loans with, and NOTHING to show for all those loans but cheap trinkets from china and customer support from India. Like I have said, outsourcing our ports only increases the ammount of wealth, jobs and money that we are bleeding out each day, and solidifies the eventual collapse of this country. After Bush has squandered my taxes on Katrina aid, most of which went into the corrupt pits of beurocracy, he has zero trustworthines left when he spouts out such trash from his mouth, saying outsourcing our ports is a good idea. Even a half retarded wellfare recepient knows it's a bad idea to let someone else pick up his check for him, when he outsources that, then I will trust Bush. PS. Democrats and liberals are sweet talking socialist slave drivers of this country, the Rupublicans have become the same, only on the more conservative side. They are just as corrupt, just as socialistic, and just as much ready as Clinton was to sell out this countrys future for another year of "prosperity" on credit. It's YOU the people who will be picking up the pieces when it all falls on your heads. Getting all these beurocrats, career politicians, and their groupies out of office is the only way of securing this countrys future and yours.

How about a camera trained on your house windows. Is that fine? You can liken it to a police officer across the street, with binoculars. You think zooming in on your windows and seeing what's going on inside the house is ok? I mean by that argument, a guy standing outside your home, with binoculars is perfectly legal too, he is on public domain, all he is doing is view something that is readily accessible. Want to blame the house owner for having a spot that his blinds happen to leave open? Or how about the cameras in public places that can zoom in on your wallet when you are paying for that cotton candy at the park. Security or violation of privacy? Would that be ok if a police officer was peeking across your shoulder? Let me tell you, IT'S NOT LEGAL for a police officer to even look at your license if you haven't violated the law, and if you have, he has to ASK to see your licence, he can't just take it from you. Are you going to argue that cameras don't zoom in that much. Remember the all important government rule. One step at a time. Or maybe you are going to argue that if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Buying cotton candy is not wrong, HOWEVER, I STILL do not want the government to be able to observe what I have in my wallet, or in my car, or where I go. ESPECIALLY since I am not doing anything wrong. Innocent till proven guilty, ever heard of that? Why should I be presumed guilty, and let the government watch me in public 24/7 if I am not doing anything wrong.

Here's the REAL reason for the taxes. If you believe it's to force people to quit, you are deluting yourself. "And while New York lawmakers say such tax hikes are needed to pay for important government programs, they also say they hope higher cigarette prices will encourage people to quit using tobacco ÔÇô especially since smoking in New York state accounts for $3 billion a year in direct health-care costs." Those idiot politicians are contradicting themselfs. While they adming that such tax hikes are needed to pay for their fricking programs, they also want people to quit. Do you know why the quitting line is a lie? Because if it meant that people would quit, they simply would NOT want to tax them to the point of quiting, because then they wouldn't have the money to pay for their programs. What they do want to do, is tax them to the top, if revenue drops off, they will decrease the tax, and keep varrying it such as to collect the highest that they can. Oh, and by the way, those 3 billion in direct costs that smokers cause. You think that is payed out of those same taxes that they collect from smokers? http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/09/15/onssin.htm "Yet, fewer smokers means less cash for state coffers. For example, records from the state Comptroller's Office show that between April of this year, when the $1.50-per-pack tax went into effect, and July, cigarette and tobacco taxes generated $180 million for the state's general fund. But in 1999, when the state's cigarette tax was 56 cents per pack, cigarette and tobacco product taxes during the same period generated $230 million. "This means there's fewer people smoking fewer cigarettes,'' said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, which often lobbies against the tobacco industry. "In terms of public policy, this is a good thing." --- Um, no. What that means is that there's more people buying cigarettes over the internet. To avoid their taxes. " Calvin doesn't buy it. "Anyone who claims there's been a large-scale quitting on the part of smokers is mistaken," he said. "These formulas may be valid in a captive population where all these smokers are forced to pay the higher tax. But New York state doesn't have a captive population. We have a cigarette-tax sieve.'' New York smokers just take their business elsewhere, he said." And another thing. If you try claiming that: Posted by Black Ghost: "Yeah... this has nothing to do with money (except for the tax part of course)- just so you know. Those taxes that smokers pay...they arent there to pay for a future medical bill." --- Here, knowledge first. "Statewide, the first cigarette tax hike came in December 1999, when Gov. George Pataki and the state's legislative leaders agreed to a three-year, $9 billion health-care deal that ÔÇô among other things ÔÇô expanded coverage to uninsured New Yorkers. The cornerstone of the legislation, known as the Health Care Reform Act, was a 55-cents-per-pack cigarette tax increase that lawmakers estimated would generate $400 million annually. Then, when Pataki and the Legislature reconvened for the 2002 legislative session in January, they set their sights on smokers once again. As part of a politically popular $3.5 billion agreement providing multi-year pay raises to hospital workers, lawmakers raised cigarette taxes an additional 39 cents per pack. That hike, which went into effect April 1, is expected to generate $283 million per year." Posted by Black Ghost: "I mean, how much are those people's medical costs anyways- even if we did pay for them, it would be like 2 cents per taxpayer. I dropped twice that much on the ground earlier and I didnt even bother to pick it up. So dont tell me we are paying some great price for them, which I'm sure we arent anyways." ----- I don't care if two cents or half a cent. I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSES LIVING. You seem to have a hard time understanding what freedom is. Posted by Black Ghost: "Do you know the REAL reason they have taxes on smokers and the reason they could tax people with problems due to their own lifestyle? Its not to make up for any cost." ----- If you believe that, then explain to me why a smoker that doesn't have lung cancer has to pay MORE for insurance than a diabetic or an obese guy that is having a corinary. You saying that the later two do not cost the industry more? Of course they do. But if they don't pay more, someone has to. You do know math, right? So, lets do this in a very simple way. Lets say the expense by the insurance industry is 100 bucks a year. And there's 20 people participating. Now 5 out of them have obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other conditions. They require constant hospital visits, check ups and medication. Other 5 are smokers, 2 of which have cancer. And other 10 are healthy. To collect 100 bucks from 20 people, theoretically each one of them would pay 5 a year. Well, that's not how it works. The 10 healthy ones pay 3 bucks. That totals up to 30 with 70 left to collect. The 5 with problems pay 4 bucks, that totals up to 20, plus 30 from the healthy ones, leaves 50 to collect, and the 5 smokers pay 10 each. Who costs the industry more, the smokers, two of which are healthy mind you, or the 5 with problems? Who is picking up the tab for the ones with prblems? AND THE BIG ONE, Since, like you claim, the ones with problems shouldn't pay more because their problems are not their fault. If the smokers quit smoking, WHO IS GOING TO BE PICKING UP THE TAB NEXT? Of course it's going to be YOU, the healthy one. Now, spread out the costs between 15 healthy and 5 sick, and it's not that big, BUT the fact remains, that I would rather use anything extra I have on MY family, rather than be paying for yours. If you are forcing me to pay for someone else, it's called legislative slavery. Research that and you will understand. Taxes started out at 3% and look where they have blown up to now. Then it was special temporary taxes that ended up being anything but temporary. Like the special telecomunications tax that was introduced to pay for the Spanish war, YOU ARE STILL PAYING FOR THAT WAR. It was never recinded. It's ignorants that don't know how the government is raping them, that are the reason the rest of us are losing our freedoms. Then it's fees, like the parks fees. The same parks that are supposed to have been paid for with our taxes, now you go there, and you have to pay more. Kinda like the introduced a dog fee at the lake I go to. I asked them about it, and it ended up being that they just wanted more money and had to come up with SOMETHING to collect fees on. Next it will the fishing pole fee. Couple of years ago it was special taxes on cigarettes, in addition to already existent taxes. That was in New York. Today it's higher insurance premiums, for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS THAT THOSE SPECIAL TAXES WERE COLLECTED FOR. So, if you don't mind paying those two cents for someone else. Then go ahead and pay. But guess what, don't be forcing me to pay, no matter how little or a lot. I live in United States of America. It used to be the land of the free. It's none of your bussiness how I live my life, what I do in my home, or with my body. I pay for my lifestyle. You should heed the same advice, as you don't want me meddling in your life, just like I don't want you meddling in mine. Therefore I shouldn't be paying for others diseases through my higher insurance rates, just because I smoke. How do I know that I am paying for someone else. When you raise the rates on a guy that costs the industry $10,000 a year, just because he smokes, yet you keep the rates the same for a guy that costs $100,000 a year because "his condition is not his fault". Guess what, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that you are forcing the first guy to pick up the tab and pay for the second.

Kinda like that smoking debate thread. You might think that it's a good idea, having smokers pick up bills that aren't theirs. Well, wait and see, the ball of taxation for a cause will roll around to you one day, and you will be picking up the bills that aren't yours. Just like in this case. Our privacy taken away a little at a time. First it was cameras at intersections, then it was cameras on bridges and freeways. Now it's cameras at malls and appartments. In a decade it will be cameras in your home. Like I have said. Wrong is wrong, you give them an inch, and you have already lost.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=6506

Let me give you an example that you might understand. Here's a situation. Lets say we have two obese pepole. One is obese by choice, or more like lack of self control. Bad eating habits, constantly gourges on fast food, doesn't excercise, ect... The second is obese because of a thyroid condition, messed up metabolism, ect... Then there's a myrriad of other people with other problems. Well, the fast food industry recognizes a growing problem and introduces an obesity fee. When an overweight person orders fast food, they have to pay an extra buck for the future costs associated with treating them. This is kinda like when they introduced an extra tax on cigarettes in New York, saying the income from these taxes will offset costs associted with treating smokers. Then, on top of if, one day, the insurance company comes out and says that all obese people who do not have a thyroid condition, and are obese due to bad eating habits and lack of excercise will have to pay double for their rates, that's in addition to that extra buck they had to pay each time with their burger, the same buck that was supposedly going to offset the same costs the insurance companies are complaining about. Does the government drop that special tax and re-fund the money, of course not, don't be silly. Now not only do you pay that special tax, all the while wondering where that money is going, but also the higher insurance premiums. Sounds fair right? I mean those people are obese due to their own choice, their own fault, their own lifestyle. They develop problems because of that life style, and therefore cost more than a regular patient. However, people with an obese condition, that are obese due to genetic dissorder, do not have to pay those higher rates. Why? They cost just as much to treat, have the same if not worse problems, and unlike the obese by choice group that can correct their problem and end up costing less, these people will always cost more. Who do you think is picking up the difference in their premiums? If they both cost the same to treat, but one pays more. Well, the answer is, it's either the obese by choice guy that pays twice as much, or you the tax payer. You see, money doesn't appear out of thin air to make up the difference, someone has to pay. So. Fast forward. Now all the obese by choice people have corrected their problem and don't have to pay the higher premiums anymore. The other ones, the ones with genetic dissorder, however, still have the higher costs associated with treating them. BUT since you seem to think it's unfair to raise the premiums on them because they have the condition due to no fault of their own, WHO do you suggest pays the costs now? The obese by choice people are not there to pick up the difference anymore. Who do you think the insurance companies are eyeing now. It would be politically incorrect to raise the rates on the ones with inherited diseases, YOU however, the one with no major problems, hey, you are good, you are healthy, you can work, so YOU pay for them. After all, it's not their fault. So here you are, stuck in a guilt trap and paying higher premiums to make up the costs difference. You still need that insurance for your yearly check ups and in case of an accident. The thing is, you most likely won't even know and never wonder why you, the one that only sees a hospital once a year during his annual, is paying the same as the guy who is 300 pounds and is there 4 times a year, and eventually a corinary bypass or a heart transplant. It's only fair that you pay for that, right? I mean he was born this way. That's why raising the insurance premiums for tobaco users is ok ONLY if you raise the insurance for others proportionatly to what the chances for their conditions being a problem are and costs associated with their condition. If you force one group, like smokers in this case, carry the burden that is not theirs, a time will come when that burden will be passed on to you. And if you want to spend your money carring for your next door neighbor with diabetes, his kids with astma and an obese wife, that's fine by me, I however, would rather spend my money on my family instead of being forced to spend it on someone whos problems are not my fault nor are my concern. [ 02-20-2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Originally posted by Black Ghost: "I think you and I might be on different pages here. ...I dont know where you're coming from. Paying for other people's problems? That has nothing to do with it. Entitled to get something? What are you saying that is, and when did I ever say that? -People who have no choice on an issue like diabetes per sae, should not have to pay extra for anything becuz thats how they were born. End of discussion concerning them." --- We do seem to be on different pages. If you are born with diabetes, or hypertension. Who do you think picks up the higher medical care costs for your entire live? If they don't pay more, BUT they use more, then someone has to pay. The service and supplies don't just appear out of thin air. Who pays more in that case? It's either YOU through your taxes, OR like in this case, they are trying to raise the costs to one particular problem group (smokers), while keeping the costs down for others. Therefore making them pay not only for the higher costs of their own treatments BUT also for OTHERS. Posted by Black Ghost: "...You lost me there. Uh- when did anyone ever say you (or anyone) ever pays for somebody elses problems? Where did that come from? I thought this was about tax, etc. for smokers? A little explanation would be nice. Plz." --- See the my first answer. Like I have already explained, when you said that those that are born with problems shouldn't have to pay higher costs, it means that SOMEONE ELSE has to pay those costs FOR THEM. Passing those costs on to me or on to a specific group such as smokers, means that someone ELSE is carrying a burden that is NOT THEIRS. And last. You keep on saying how smoking affects others. Well, so does HIV, so does TB, and so does obesity, hypertension, you name it. If you are going to raise the rates on ONE problem group, you raise the rates on ALL problem groups. And since you are raising the rates on people who smoke, BUT haven't even developed any kind of problem, you might as well be ALSO raising the rates on people whos family has a history of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, all based on chance, just like in smokers case, that they will develop whatever disease they are pre-disposed to. You seem to keep thinking that raising insurance for smokers is ok, but raising insurance for "inherited" diseases is not. Who do you think pays for costs associated with "inherited" diseases? What if every single person in US stoped smoking, and the rates for those with inherited diseases stay the same. Who will they be picking on to make up the costs difference? You have a classic case of "If it doesn't affect me, and I don't like what they are doing anyway, I don't mind" Guess what, it's a step at a time with government. Once the extra money collected from smokers to pay for their and OTHERS problems is not enough, they will be coming after you, claming the same thing you are claiming right now. That people who were born or developed a condition because of genetics, shouldn't be paying, they couldn't help it, and therefore it will be YOUR problem to pick up the tab, just like they are trying to make it the smokers problem now. Also keep in mind, that they ALREADY taxed the smokers for just the very reason that they are increasing the rates on them now. Where did that money go you ask? Into the botomless pit of beurocracy. So NO, it's NOT ok to raise the rates on smokers WITHOUT raising the rates on EVERY OTHER PROBLEM CASES TOO.

quote:Originally posted by The Black Ghost: Should those people who get HIV from thier parents have to pay for it? No! What about people born with diabetes? Thats what I meant about things being unpreventable. Should I pay for it? Or should smokers pay for it? How about obese people? Who should pay for it? What you need to understand is, just because you are born, you are NOT entitled to be getting ANYTHING from anyone. Liberals give people the mind set that if they are breathing, they are entitled to health care, food, shelter, and a little bit of cash. It all comes at the expense from someone else. The ONLY things you are guaranteed, is freedom, life, and the persuit of happiness, how you go about it is your choice and your struggle. Don't be putting someone elses burden on my back. quote:Originally posted by The Black Ghost: When I said the constitution protects those people, I didnt mean there was a line that says "Diabetics, obese, and people with diseases are exempt from insurance raise" What I meant was that those people cannot be treated differently than those who dont. The constitution DOES SAY(not in these words) "that people cannot be discriminated or taken advantage of because of how they're born". I have a copy of the constitution on my desk. Let me quote you from it. First, what you are thinking of is probably the Declaration of Independence. --- Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these: 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 - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. What the Constitutions says, and mind you, NOT the original writing, but an Amendment is: (which guarantees me MY rights, to keep me free from paying for your obesity, HIV or any other disease, inherited or otherwise) Amendment XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ---Which means, that I should NOT be picking up the tab for ANYONE and ANY REASON. Forcing me to pay for you is considered INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, and eventually, people will take wellfare to court for this very reason. quote:Originally posted by The Black Ghost: But these smoking laws and taxes and all are for the best. If you smoke you arent going to understand this, but the rest of us dont like smokers. It also wastes lots of money, is disqusting, health detrimental, and is in some ways a disturbance on other people around you. These laws and all are all to get rid of smoking in America. --- I do not smoke. What you need to understand is, it doesn't matter what you like or dislike that other person does. It's NONE of your bussiness, it's THEIRS. What if I don't like the way you eat, or that you don't execrise. And I get 5 million people who dislike fat people. We can apply the same statement there, "taxes on you are for the best, your life style is unhealthy, and the rest of us don't like it" That would be designed to get rid of fat people in America. Or maybe we should even move on to people recreational activities, or maybe even skin color. It all goes one step at a time my friend. You give them an inch, and you have already lost the battle. To sum it up. It doesn't matter what you like, dislike, consider safe, or unsafe. The founding fathers knew that people are different (unlike liberals that want us to believe that we are all the same). That's why we all should pay for OUR life choices, consequences, ect... Inherited or not, I shouldn't pay for a mother with 10 kids out and run away dad. It's sad, but it wasn't my misstake. I have my own life to live. Taxing smokers and not other problem cases is NOT right, no matter if you like or dislike their choice of activity. Not only is it not right, it is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL to have smokers pick up the tab for others medical problems.

Oh yes, I HAVE forgotten that. Very true. Those slimy politicians DID impose extra taxes on tobaco, just for that very reason. It's as if they tax your gasoline for the purpose of fixing, building and maintaining the roads, and then they start taxing the number of miles you drive for the very same purpose of fixing, building and maintaining the roads. Citizens HAVE to wake up to this tripple and quadruple "special" taxation that's going on. When will the time come, when we can throw these scum bags off our backs, and take out all they have done to us on their rotten hides.

Engaged, to a girl I've been with for 4 years. Dodged that bullet, and have never been happier. Great gall, just not for me. The rest is people I know, my friends, and stories I hear. Every time I get the yearning of "Is there more to life than just .... like having a wife, ect.." I tell myself to calm down, and remind that part of the brain what my life would've been if I actually got married to that girl, OR what it could be based on the experiences I hear about. On top of it, the statistics don't look so good either. It just doesn't make sence to go through all the problems, the rewards are definatly not worth the risk. Let me kinda expand on that. It WOULD be worth the risk if two people couldn't have a relationship if they weren't married, BUT since two people can be together, love each other, share in each others lives, even raising a child, while at the same time having the security of their OWN future, it makes no sence to be putting your life (financial, emotional, ect., after the divorce) and retirement in jeopardy just to be legally married. You brought up the benefits of security that marriage offers by law. Yes, to an extent. But keep in mind that those same benefits can be emulated with other legal documents, while at the same time keeping the bomb of *after divorce* out of your life.

Obesity - Preventable, if not controlled, leads to farther damage such as blood pressure, heart attacks, diabetes Alcoholism - Preventable, if not controlles leads to liver damage and other complications Drug use - Preventable, a LOT of problems if not controlled Diabetics - Preventable, if you end up getting it, controllable, not taking care of it leads to farther damage HIV/AIDS - Preventable High blood pressure - Preventable, and controllable, bad eating habits and not excercising can cause high blood pressure to return, causing heart damage, vision damage, and other complications You want to repeat your statement that people with all those conditions or being pre-disposed to these conditions have no choice or is unpreventable. A smoker that might NEVER develop cancer should NOT be picking up the tab for a diabetic or HIV positive patient, NOR for a person that is predisposed to obesity or high blood pressure. If you want to raise rates just because someone is a smoker and might end up costing more, then raise rates because someone is overweight or promiscious because risks are MUCH higher in those cases that the later will have heart, liver or a plethora of other problems. Posted by the Black ghost: "They can't usually be prevented in most cases and insurance wouldn't raise because those people are rightfully protected by the constitution so lets not even talk about them." --- There's NOTHING in constitutions that says you are protected and guaranteed healthcare just because you might have high blood pressure or be obese. Go look it up. On the other hand, constitution guarantees me the freedom from slavery. On the other hand, forcing me to pay for YOUR healthcare through taxes, medicare, medical, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just like it is unethical to be forcing one specific category of people to pick up the tab for the other category that is coming up short. If you let that go, then the next thing you will be facing is a law that states that "All white men, blondish hair, blue eyes *or insert your own category, stats, whatever you want* are responsible for.....ect." When you pass a law or do something, it has to be logical and based on facts. Having higher fees for smokers makes sence, but NOT when you ALSO do not impose higher fees on other high risk customers. Personal feelings of how bad smoking is and how smokers shold pay more while thos that are obese or with diabetes are just unfortunate and shouldn't because they just happen to have it, not only lacks in logic but has no place in legal sence. [ 02-18-2006, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

If you have one car accident. Your insurance premiums go up a little. You can liken it to smoking one cigarette a day. If you have an accident per year. Your insurance is going to be high. You can liken it to smoking a pack a day. If you are have accidents at a rate of one per month. Your might not even be insurable. You can liken it to those with some genetic pre-disposition to some desiases. It's like a time bomb that will go off, and insurance will have to shell out dozens if not hundreds of thousands, you just don't know when. So, this case WILL go to court. The claims will be that if I smoke a cigarette a day, why should I pay the same as the guy that smokes a pack a day, or how about what kind of cigarettes, or what if I smoke only cigars (you don't inhale cigars). Or why should I pay more than a guy with a family history of high blood pressure, or diabetes, or heart attacks, or cancer, or obesity. With me it's a risk, with them it's a certainty the question is the time frame. We are not even touching on the factual side of "If smoking is bad, how bad", "How many smokers are in US vs. how many of them are having problems/industry costs, VS. How many *obese, alcoholics, drug users, high blood pressure, diabetis, cancerous, HIV/AIDS infected, ect..insert one* people are in US vs. how many of those are having problems/industry costs" For all you know, if you gather the data, it might turn out that the smokers that haven't developed cancer (might never) are costing less than some other people with some other unsafe life style, like suntaning (sking cancer), promiscuity, unsafe sex, (AIDS/HIV, that probably costs WAY more), how about certain genetics, or how about eating habits, do you have any idea how much a heart or liver transplant costs, HUNDREDS of thousands, so the smokers might actually be picking up the tab for those other peoples costs. Only because it's convinient and politically correct to single out smokers rather than lets day diabetics, or AIDS patients. Liberals would go NUTS if insurance tried raising premiums for AIDS infected patiens. [ 02-18-2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

LOL, Don't let him. As far as genaralizations go. Of course I throw out generalizations. I talk from my perspective. Nor am I going to post a full page essay on my perspective, yet make sure to include statements that there are exeptions and go on listing them like disclaimers. Calm down. This is the problem these days, people hear a statement in a conversation and take it as 100% irrevocable, iron clad opinion. If we didn't generalize, our conversations would take forever just to say "Hi, how you doing." I say it's the lawyers, political correctness and the warning labels fault that people eyes start twitching at every little paragraph that doesn't include a disclaimer of "These statements are non factual and are of editorial opinion. Might not apply in every case and/or time." Back to you agreeing with the first paragraph. Keep the house and have the guy visit. Why would you take the chance at marrying. Not only are you playing with your future, BUT remember, if you marry, those alimony payments, no matter how little *puff*.

Get a house, a dog, and a girlfriend. Have her visit on weekends, but never let her stay more than a week. LOL, that's when life is peachy. NEVER, EVER, EVER, did I say ever?, get married. Reasons? Not against marriage, or the concept of it. Family is great, BUT the guy ALWAYS takes a huge beating during divorce. The way the laws are set up, he is ruined financially for the rest of his life, no matter what the situation of his wife is, especially in California. So, it's just not worth the risk of one person ruining 20, 30, or even 40 years of your life and retirement because you were married, had children and then ended up divorced, no matter whos fault or reasons. You are better off having a child or children out of wedlock and taking care of them (education, health, upbringing) than marrying and running the chance of your retirement and financial stability going *puff*. Better off financially and emotionally. It boggles my mind when guys say "I do". Take it like a man. Bite it. Do your job (work wise, and children wise), learn your lesson, and NEVER re-marry. [ 02-18-2006, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Flying cars, concept and design has been around for decades, since the 50's at least. It's impractical as it takes LOTS more fuel/mile to propel an object through air (like multiply by at least 7 more) than it does to propel one on the ground. Don't know how the guy figures it will be getting 30 miles a gallon in the air AND on the ground, it's hokey and nothing more than 100% funding hype. Even with todays BEST engine techology, with light aircraft and diesel (yes I said aviation diesel engine) engine, it goes 8 to 10 miles a gallon, carrying 2 people and 100 lbs of bags. And that's with an engine that can't even be re-build (you need to re-build aircraft engines about every 1500 to 2000 hours of operation) but have to return to the factory and get a new one for $40,000.

And if I smoke cigarettes that considerable lower tar intake, are my insurance premiums going to be considerably lower too? Or how about if I smoke one regular cigarette as opposed to two packs a day. I say it's court time. http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/ECL/home.jsp

Yeah, I've Silent Hunter, Silent Hunter 2, and Silent Hunger 3. They also have all kinds of cool mods for it.

LOL, small ammount of money. More like a soldier with a rifle and no bullets will do.

Or, more like we will finally FIX that damn leaning tower, before it finally tips over and kills somebody, sparking gazzillions of lawsuits. ROFL

That is also kinda scary. Just like the book 20 thousand leagues under the sea, was written way before people even knew about submarines, and look now we have subs with people living in them, under water, for months. Lazers were a concept in science fiction movies, became reality. Space flight, missles, sound rays, personal communicators (star treck), ect... all were in realms of science fiction that smart people made real. It's not just the technology that progresses from fiction to reality, it's also the concept those fiction movies and books present that is also making it into reality, such as big brother, rebellious cells (be it Islamic terrorists now, or underground rebel fighters against big brother later), one world government, big brother. Movies such as Brazil, Minority report, AI (remember that Japanese robot that looked human), I-Robot, Six days (w/Arnold, cloning) ect.... are on the realm of possibility. Not so sure if that's such a good thing.

Yeah, guess it was Gore. Gore, Kerry, Kerry, Gore. Kinda like Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush. No difference. All spend our tax money, one wants to spend it all on hand outs and buttering up other countries, the other on hand outs and kicking other countries butts. All put us farther in debt. All need to be gotten rid off.

quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: He's not a democrat Aperson, so of course they'll treat him like a normal person. It'd be a different story if.. say... Kerry was in office and he did this to his friend, you wouldn't even HEAR of it on the media You mean kinda like you don't hear of Kerry's speech in Saudi Arabia this week. The speech where he said that in US, the government is INDISCRIMINATLY rounding up Arabs, abusing them and violating their right... That lying, tracherous scumbag deserves to be shot for this. If he was some moron actor, going overseas and spouting some un-informed, over the top lies, it would be one thing. An ex vice-president is another. I am thankfull every day that he was trampled in elections. It's a wonder that piece of scum is not rejected by democrats, or maybe it's a sign that the democrats agree with his statements, because I sure haven't heard anything from Hillary how the Arabs are being indiscriminantly rounded up in US, but since she is not steping up and calling Kerry out as the lying scum that he is, means she agrees with his statements. The media would much rather talk about an accident which involves our vice president than a prominent traitorous scum that we have as an ex vice president.

Hey, they gotta get the money somehow, right? If not by donations, then by trying to sue. Everyone should tell whoever they can, see Red Crosses donations drop.

The sign is NOT red crosses property. That sign has been used as a medical sign long before red cross was established. All the defendants lawyers have to do is dig up evidence of prior use.