Dave Peterson

Wow, they have gone to far this time. Im sure some of them have good intentions for the program but that's way overkill.

That's quite a story there. I applaud you. Alright, I finally understand the point you're trying to make here; I see what you are trying to say. 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. And the taxes you are paying now aren't being stocked up to pay for other people who are diabetics. Our money goes to other critical things in society (minus that stolen in scandals ) And do you want to know who pays for those people who have genetic problems they inherit- THEY do. Or their family or someone- but not YOU, or the taxpayers. And if there is some fine print somewhere that explains how are money is going towards that, then that is seriously messed up but I'm fairly sure it isnt. 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. 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. The real reason, like I already stated, is because the government is trying to eliminate or reduce the number of smokers. I dont think there is anything wrong to that (but thats just my opinion.) I stick to the fact that people who cannot control their problems should not have to pay extra on anything when they already have to pay for a high medical bill, etc. because of that problem. Those people are no different from us, and its US, the people who arent medically at risk, who are making the decisions like smoking and getting overweight, who are making up 90%majority of the government's medical budget. So pick and choose: if you are correct about us paying for all those people who have problems, would you rather pay a small amount for those who rightfully deserve it, or pay a hell of a lot more for the rest of them by getting rid of the taxes on the people who are causing that money to be spent. And from now on, lets stay on the subject of smoking taxes and not obesity.

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. -People who do make those bad choices pay the consequences for their actions, like extra taxes.....it's so unbeleivably obvious. ----"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)" ...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. ---"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..." -Yes, I know that very well. I never said this had anything to do with what I or you dislikes about anyone else. I apologize if I wrote unclearly. What I meant was that there are some things (smoking obviously) that, no matter what you think of that person's habits, can still effect you or others in a negative way. Think about all the effects smoking has on others. A) Secondhand smoke (smoke from cigarettes inhaled by bystanders near a smoker) kills thousands a year. Thats bad. B)It can damage the smokers body which in turn can cause problems in offspring and many children die because of this. C)Think about when those smokers end up with heart disease and dying. They wouldnt be in their job, so wherever they work at pays part of the price. Hypothetically, if the president smoked and got some killer lung cancer from it and died, things would get bad and affect a lot more people than just him. This may be a bad example but insurance companies also end up having to pay for his medical bill (for the most part), and yes, I know that most insurance companies rarely have problems with losing money. ALl this applies to others who have made bad decisions and gotten in trouble for it. -Anyways, whether or not I agree with another person's veiwpoint on smoking or whatever, they do affect other people in bad ways, no matter how minor, and that is reason enough for taxes on smoking. So sure, you should have your freedom of doing whatever you want to yourself, I mean, it really isnt anyone elses buisiness to say anything against it. But when your personal choices begin to negatively effect those around you, you had better expect to see some bad things coming your way. And I agree its notjust smokers that should get this treatment, but all those others, minus those who cannot be blamed for it becuz of how they were born. Doesnt that sound like a plan to you? Thats what I would think if I were president.

Yeah it is old I guess. But it doesnt seem to lose its humor.

Im sorry if that last line was too harsh. I take it back for all Columbians offended by it.

uhh... i'm a writer so I guess its my own fault for assuming people can read between the lines... I'll restate what I said so you understand. -Everything can have bad results. Obesity, drugs, you name it: all can badly affect your health. In the cases of drugs and all, you didnt mention those earlier and since drugs are illegal, you'll probably be worrying about getting out of jail than about your insurance policy. -Obesity, diabetics, Aids, and other diseases: half the time these are unpreventable (inheritance, etc...). The other times, when they are acquired from bad choices, you should, or probably do have to pay more for insurance. But for the most case, they are not meant to be acquired and people have no choice. 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. And youre right, like I also said earlier, many are from people's own bad choices- and they SHOULD pay the price for it. 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". the point is, those people who get that all from birth or other things they cant control are immune mostly because they would easily win in a court argument. Think about it: do you think insurance companies would get away with that unfair treatment? Of course not. That's what I meant by protected by the constitution. And those people who are get all this from their own bad ways wont be able to defend themselves cuz its their own fault. I can see where you are coming from though. I do agree that this might seem to be the first step in an unlimited government where everything is going to go insane with little "cant do's" or taxes on everything. Trust me, if it ever in a million years goes that far (which it wont), I'll be the first one to stand up to it. I'd suport a full scale revolution in that case. 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. Smoking IS the leading cause of death, not just for smokers, but from people with secondhand smoke (4000 deaths a year from secondhand). 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. Smokers hate this. But the the 250 million of the rest of us dont. Smoking sucks and its bad: everyone should understand it. We want it gone for good, just like drugs, THAT is why this is all happening. THAT is why you now are paying so much tax and insurance. If you dont like that, then go live in Columbia where they smoke all day.

That makes absolutely no sense though to raise insurance for diabetics or people born with diseases, etc. (And for those who acquire AIDs, etc. through sex, Im pretty sure their insurance rates do go up.) But for the most part, obese, alcoholics, drug users, high blood pressure, diabetis, cancerous, HIV/AIDS infected, ect..insert one, people, like you said, have no choice in this. 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. Smoking, on the other hand, may not cause as much money to be spent as those, but smoking is PREVENTABLE, which is the difference. Those other things are genetic or unpreventable. But you're right- someones going to take this to court. Hope it aint any of you. About that though, it is relatively simple: if you smoke, no matter how much or what, you're still smoking and all who do are going to be treated equally by the insurance raise. It makes sense to those who are willing to actually see the truth. And smoking sucks and makes your lungs turn to **** so why even do it at all? ----And by the way, cigar smoking is just as bad if not worse than cigarettes. A lot of people dont know that.

Consider reading my "Military History of France" topic in the laughter catagory. I think its kindof funny.

You might find this somewhat amusing. I dont know how else to attach the document so Ill just copy it here. - Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. - Hundred Years' War: Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." - Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. - - Wars of religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots - Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her. - War of Devolution: Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux. - The Dutch War: Tied War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power. - War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since. - American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting." - French Revolution: Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French. - The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer. - The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunken Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night. - World War I: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline. - World War II: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song. - War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu - Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux. - War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's. Let's face it. When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache. They've been beaten so many times there's no fight left in them. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?" BUT NEVER FEAR - The French are always there when they need us!

QUOTE]Where does it end? Who determines what's detrimental to ones health? The health care sector has waffled on so many things. Take for example eggs. First it was eggs are bad for you but now they are condidered good for you again. Suppose for the years that eggs were determined bad for you the company that you worked for upped your insurance payment based on that information because it was a well known fact you loved to have eggs every morning for breakfast but of course they didn't lower your payment with the newer findings. [/QB]

Darn. I should stop hoping now.

...Or we'll actually be FLYING the ships in all these space sim games instead of sitting in front of a computer screen.

Hey thats a good one!

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: Can we get france to nuke Iran, I think it'll solve some problems and save us money Yeah, if France had the capability to do ANYTHING we'd all be screwed. They'd probably misfire and hit New York or maybe Berlin to get back for old vengeance in WWII. ...Or they'd just hit themselves and save us the small amount of money it would cost to invade them in the future.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: I think anyone who engages in activity or behavior that is detrimental to their own personal health they should then have to pay more for their coverage. -Makes sense to me. Even though we all know the insurance companies are just looking for extra cash. As far as Im concerned, they have a perfect right to do this though because smoking icreases your risk of death and over fifteen other medical problems by like 30%. And to insurance companies, the more they pay to cover you the more profit they are losing and thats bad in any business and definately to be expected of an insurance company. Taxes work in the same way. The general idea is to make America a smoke free nation sometime int the future because it spreads a bad gene pool and its a dirty habit. This is likely to happen to heavy alcohol users as well in the future although I dont know what to say about obesity, which is partly genetic (even though its not in most cases) so they cant really do anything about that. Heres a helpful hint you probably dont want to hear: quit smoking. It aint easy as I know but...yeah.

Not to mention we've got invisibility cloaks that will (undoubtably) end up being used by the military in the future (that would be freaky: as scary as camoflauged snipers on halo ) This touch-screen thing looks pretty cool though. The future seems to be catching up with us pretty damned fast. Next it'll be flying cars... (Which comes with 5-year drivers-ed classes) The future is coming too fast. Nothing left to dream for.

Some people said February this year. They were wrong. Some people said this summer. They're going to be wrong. I hear 2007, and I DONT LIKE WAITING!! Anyways, if anyone knows more about the release date id like to know. besides that though, what are your expectations and hopes for the game? What have you heard about it?

They could toss spoiled cheese at them. The Iranians would probably start a riot fighting for it. (France knows all about starting riots)

(from previous post) While we're at it we could fix the leaning tower. In fact, we take the French we captured earlier, put them in the tower and see how many it takes for it to fall over. To add a twist we can even place bets.

Yeah, that'll be the day when democrats logically agree with a republican viewpoint and these days that's more like once in a blue moon. We'd like to hope though.

Comical viewpoint: The reason we're in debt to so many other countries is because everyone (all Americans ) know we are going to end up ruling all of them a few hundred years in the future anyways. Mexico will become Amexico: the 51st state; France will be renamed Cheesetown USA and the Ieffal Tower will be reconstructed to build a big metal American Flag: the 52nd state....

Travlyte: I wouldn't go so far as to say they're all liars. There are a lot of truthful people in the government. Id say Bush is one of them, even if you dont like everything he's done. But I cant agree more about a united government. I hate the whole thing between different parties and such. The whole idea should be eliminated. It causes only one more kind of discrimination in society. We need a stronger government that heads actions in a straight line instead of being bashed back and forth between parties and groups. Most of Americas problems, oddly enough, come from the people. If you were to add everything up, the government's spending budget is probably less than that of everything spent on accidents, damage, and a bunch of stuff I dont feel like listing. And we have more stuff going on than just debt and monetary problems... Hopefully things will get better.

What a sad world where such an honest accident can turn into a national crisis for the media... ...And this was only one incident. We all remember what they did to the president for those little things. Hell, people still make fun of him for having a Texan accent. Like that even has anything to do with whether he is a good president. What will it be next? "Secretary of Defense caught in the act of swatting flies during national meeting". I can almost see the headlines. You figure it out.

Oh yeh, I found that the movie is going to be made in New Zealand at some of the same locations as the Lord of the Rings. Just if you wanted to know.

Not bad writing... I must say. Keep it up.