ColinDavies wrote: Lets say you have 5 million $US today. You will be taking a intergalactic journey for 7 years where you can't make contact with earth in that time. Where or how would you invest that cash? Leave the 4 million in a suitcase and place it on your apartment floor. Use the other million to insure the suitcase for 10 million. Don't forget to unlock your door before you go. ;P

peterchen wrote: So I am happy I survived my last business trip! Watch out, you are already black listed by CIA, oops, I meant ICA, International Criminals Association. ;P

Roger Wright wrote: Rumsfeld is an idiot, I'll admit, and I'm a staunch Republican You are the only republican here whose posts I like read, especially when you say "Rumsfeld is an idiot". ;P Roger Wright wrote: But statistically he's right. Walking the streets of America is far more dangerous than taking a stroll in Baghdad. If you walk on the highway, yes, you may get killed by a car in seconds. I see a lot of people walking on the D.C. streets where the crime rate is one of highest in the country. One or two (sometimes a few more) murders per day, that's about it. If we are allowed to cut off hands of criminals the crime rate will drop even lower. ;P Roger Wright wrote: We don't have much of a problem with that here in Arizona, since we're allowed to carry arms and shoot back, but the rest of the country is in dire straights. Crime pays, here, sadly... I am sure Iraqis and Americans in Iraq are also allowed to carry and use their guns. They also have laser guided missiles, it should be the safest place on earth. Guns don't kill people, RPG and TNT kill people.

It is a great article, but may be unrealistic for complicated projects in large corporations.

The hidden assumption in my statement that "a person with no income cannot afford to pay more for medical coverage than a person with a job" may be inccorect in some rare cases, but it is true most of the times. The COBRA thing is a joke except you have already made enough money or are going to make a lot of money.

Looks like that you misread my post, I never stated that "you couldn't get coverage if you didn't have a job": "Suppose you are out of work, there is no way for you to get medical coverage even if you pay the same amount of money as those who do have a job."

Thanks for the link! I have never been umemployed myself but have close friends who have. "For the majority of healthy workers who just want to be protected from unforeseen medical expense until they land another job, short term medical coverage is the best answer. ... The cost of this coverage is less than 1/2 of the price of COBRA plans. The two downsides are that this coverage does not cover pre-existing conditions and you must re-enroll after 6 months." Even 1/2 of the price of COBRA is too expensive for a guy with no income. If I am healthy with no family, I will take the chance of not having any coverage.

brianwelsch wrote: You are wrong as has been stated already The wrong statement about me being wrong has itself been stated wrong (by me). :-D brianwelsch wrote: twist a subject which has nothing to with the US into a sentiment against the US "Those pretzels are making me thirsty"! See, I just twisted a subject which has nothing to do with carbonhydrate into an anti-carb sentiment. ;P

Jeff Martin wrote: have you never heard of COBRA? Yes, I have. Have you ever been unemployed? If you have, you will know that COBRA requires you to pay much more than when you are employed. Insurance coverage may not have anything to do with being employed, but the amount of money out of your pocket certainly does. For example, I am paying at most $2400/year for coverage of my whole family. If I lost my job, I will have to pay $2400 plus another $5000-7000 (because my company is not going to pay its portion for me any more). If anyone can afford such coverage without a job, why work at all? Even this (COBRA) is only for 6 months. I personally know people who have jobs but the job does not offer medical coverage, they pay much more than I do if they want to buy medical insurance (higher premium, less coverage, etc.), most of them just don't buy it. Now, prove me wrong, Mr. Non-Anonymous.

DRHuff wrote: People keep saying Cuba has a good medical system with coverage for all. If Fidel dies at 100, his doctors will still be 71% right! Not to defending Cuba but the medical coverage in the US is terrible for a super power. Suppose you are out of work, there is no way for you to get medical coverage even if you pay the same amount of money as those who do have a job.

Mark Merrens wrote: Have the courage to say who you are in this kind of debate - we all have. That's because you live in UK. If you live in one of the middle-east countries then I will admit you do have a lot of courage, if you still dare to say what you said here. I live in USA, in theory nobody is going to do anything to me because of my political views, but I could be fired for other trivial things such as posting this while in office. I am not related to middle-east in any way and don't really like a lot of things on both sides of the conflicts, but it is not worth it to show people like you how much courage I have. I could make up a phony name like many of you do, but why bother?

Suzanne Boyle wrote: see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. Yeah, the order of events could very important here: 1. Whatever the US had done in Afghanistan could be justified after the Twin Towers was hit. 2. Whatever the Palestinians had done could be justified after their land were taken away. 3. Whatever the Iraqis had done could be justified after their country was invaded. 4. As I remember, the head-cutters claimed they did it after the prisoners abuse to get even.

brianwelsch wrote: Are there leaders in Iraq who are gathering the people and working on building things up? No, the one just killed was imported.

Chris Maunder wrote: Break up the content, add an index page, don't use a black background, keep the fonts simple and easy to read, and please - never, ever provide sound clips in .ram format. It proves that you have never been to hell before. That's their standard, failure to comply will result in being thrown into boiling oil without underwear. ;P

Stan Shannon wrote: Well, obviously, if the government tried to just buy all the slaves at once that would certainly have driven up the price. But that was not necessarily what I was suggesting. ... It's just an issue I've always been curious about historically, because it is obvious that the opportunity existed to avoid war. Thanks for the explanation but I am still not convinced that it would have any remote chance of working. The human nature is, the more you want to take something away from a person, the more likely he/she wants to hold on to it. By the way, you didn't say that the government should outlaw any new slave trade, so we could have grown a government subsidized slave economy here. Speaking of avoiding war, why not buy all illegal drugs, illegal machine-guns, or even WMDs from the bad guys? That would pump enough cash into the poor owners of such property.

Stan Shannon wrote: Which always begs the question : Why didn't the US consider just offering to buy slaves and set them free. Have you forgot the dot com bubble already? If the owners knew the government was going to buy and free all slaves, the price of slave would sky-rocket quickly. In the end the slave owners would be rich enough to buy anything including the whole country. Yeah, let the capitalism do its work. No offence, but what a dumb idea.

hspc wrote: we just wish that western countries that used to use our governors for its own benefit stop this That will never happen, please be realistic. :-D

Chris Losinger wrote: the guy who's been playing the US government for nearly a decade? It is not a matter of who is playing who. The Chalabis and the US government use each other for their own interests, just like the Saddams and the US goverment did in the 80s.

Chris Losinger wrote: isn't it odd that the President's chief bootlick just conflated abortion with Islamist terrorism ? It is even odder that abortion is illegal in some backward or terrorist supporting countries. Does that get interpreted as those countries value life more than the USA?

Jason Henderson wrote: If the need were great and I was drafted, I would go willingly. What your argument need is Logic, Logic, and more Logic: If you are drafted to go, then you are not doing so willingly.