Nightingale

Congrats!!! Born on my birthday, too!

* Experience? If so, what kind, because a sitting president can run no more than 1/2 the time A president should have enough experience to understand how government works. I don't know that experience with politics is a must, but an understanding of it is. * Intelligence? Intelligent enough to know he doesn't know everything and isn't automatically right about everything because he's president. * Ability to compromise? Unwillingness to compromise? He'd have to be able to compromise to get people of differing opinions to work together, but have an unwillingness to compromise on our constitutional rights. * Personal values (e.g. religion) He'd have to be able to place the constitution above personal values. I don't care where a president stands personally on religion and such, just that he recognizes that as president, his responsibility is first to uphold the constitution. * Ability to engage in politics (or lack thereof). He'd have to have the ability to be a diplomat, or at least hire and listen to some good ones... diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell, convincing them that it was their idea, and to pay for their own ticket. * What else? The president would need to recognize that more government interference and regulation equals less personal freedom, choice and responsibility.

IMO, it's not that the schools are any better or worse. It's that the school structure is different between the US and Europe. In the US, every child is treated as if they're going into academia, and every child is tested. Elsewhere in the world, it's recognized that higher education isn't for everyone, and students are routed into different tracks and schools, and only the students tracked for academia are tested. It would be like the US testing only our honor students.

That was JackieOhs and MissImperfect, I think...

Take them out somewhere and spend some time with them.

When you leave jail on probation or parole, you are agreeing to the terms the court sets for you. This is voluntary. If you don't agree, you are usually welcome to stay in jail for your entire sentence. If someone agrees to a parole where they cannot gamble or buy lottery tickets, then they shouldn't be surprised that that clause is enforced when it is violated. That said, I think the provision against buying lottery tickets was pretty dumb... it doesn't have much to do with bank robbery.

I hope everything works out. ((((HUGS))))

Yeah, when I 'started' the series it was pretty cool for the first few books did you read the last couple books? or just 'started' the series I mean, c'mon - they weren't subtle about it one bit - they directly came out and said Aslan = Jesus I read the whole series, and still didn't pick up on the religious stuff. But then, I was a third grader.

I've never been very religious, even as a third grader, when I started reading the Narnia series. I didn't pick up on any religious tones at all. I didn't see it as a commentary on god or the role of religion. I didn't see Aslan as a religious/Jesus figure. I saw it for what it was to me, and what it still is: a damn good book.

Been there, done that. Spent $8500 and when they told me that all they could do was get maybe a few more months and very little quality of life, I thought that euthanasia was the right choice. If I had it to do over again, I'd do exactly the same thing. I do what's best for my animals. My wallet will heal. I want to make sure that I can give that same care to my other cat. Because I spent all my savings trying to help Anakin, there's not much left over now if Indy gets sick. So, I'm going to insure him for now, and then in a few months when my finances are better, I'm going to start putting money away. When I have enough that I feel that I could cover another emergency, I'll cancel the insurance. I have health insurance on myself in case I get sick. Doing the same for Indy makes financial sense right now.

If my pets are sick, I'd pay anything if it could make them better. I was amazed at how quickly a cat could run up $8500 in bills over about a week.

Depends. Women have a tendency to want to talk through their own thoughts with a friend or SO. It doesn't mean they want help. It means they're trying to get things straight in their own head. When they're doing this, it's generally good to just sympathize. I try to recognize when I'm just venting and say so, and make it clear that I don't want help solving the problem. Generally when I want help fixing something (I've already thought it through or talked it through and have decided on a course of action I want an opinion on, or have decided that I don't know what to do and want help), I'll ask specifically "what would you do?" So, I guess what I'd want a friend or SO to do would depend on the reason I'm talking about the problem.

It's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. Because a valuable employee doesn't really need protection? I don't see working for a particular employer as a right... it's a privilege that an employee must earn, and if the employer decides the employee is no longer the right person for the job, the employer should be able to terminate the employer/employee relationship and find someone better. The employee also has the same freedom.

And that would be great, if my cat had an emergency ten years down the road. If he gets sick next week, that's not going to help me. The pet insurance will. I'm not saying that I don't think a savings account/CD/etc is a good idea. It's a great idea. I used to have savings... I just spent it all on my other cat. A savings account just doesn't help if there is an emergency before you have enough savings to cover the cost. Your savings plan is assuming that nothing will happen. I've written over $15,000 in checks to the vet that say otherwise. Also, the $50 insurance premium covers shots, routine exams, teeth cleaning, and a bunch of other routine care that I'd otherwise be paying out of pocket for.

I work in homeland security grants. I think that the security of the nation is one of the few areas that the federal government should be involved in. I'm not saying it's not completely screwed up. It is. I just don't think there's anyone else other than the federal government that would be appropriate to take on the role of managing national security.

Sorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee.

You can't go wrong with a panasonic Lumix FZ5. It's around $300, and it's got a 12x optical zoom, gyrostabilization so you can actually use that zoom, and a great Leica lens. It's small enough to fit in a coat pocket. I love my camera!

Plenty of relationships have survived cheating. We don't know why Hillary stayed with Bill. It could've been for power. It could've been that her marriage vows actually meant something to her.

In most cases, an "at will" state means you are not required to be a union member to work in certain jobs in that state. The employer/employee relationship is formed, continues, and ends at the choice of either party involved. A "union" state is the other side of the coin. If there is a union, the union can put in it's contracts with the employer that all employees must be union members. When the employer/employee relationship starts, there is also the formation of an employee/union/employer relationship. Usually, depending on the contract, the employer can't terminate the employee after a probationary period for anything but good cause. Like a previous poster said, it depends on who was in power... For example, California is a union state, and probably always will be because of the HUGE lobby from the Hollywood unions.

I think out of all the candidates, Ron Paul comes closest.

I don't like her attitude that the government can do better for Joe Citizen than he can do for himself. I'm anti government health care, anti gun control, and anti minimum wage. I just don't think it's the place of the government to regulate the relationship between patients and doctors, the relationship between employees and employers, or the ability of a person to protect himself when his life is threatened. Hillary apparently thinks that the government can help people better than they can help themselves, and, since I've never really seen the government do anything with any amount of reason, efficiency or effectiveness, I have my doubts.

You did not mention your premiums. Say you took 6 months of premium payments (plus any extra to get a 6-month CD) and put them into a 6-month CD at 4.45% and then kept reinvesting that over the lifetime of the cat. Every 6 months, you'd add in the premium amount. After several years and a healthy cat you'd be ahead. If the worst case happened and your cat had some major injury or illness, how many 'good' years would pay off those bills? Well, Anakin's bill was $8500. If his premium was similar to the quote I got for Indy (they were the same age, so it'd have been close), it'd be $54/month. ASPCA would have paid $5000 on Ani's claim, leaving me to pay the $3500 left. I would be paying 92 months, or 7.7 years of premiums to pay that $5000.

Okay... here's the quote I got from ASPCA: 6 year old cat, Orange County, CA. $100/year deductible. Covers 80% of area standard cost for surgery, vaccines, exams, teeth cleaning, etc. $5000/incident max, $13,000/yearly max. If I'd had VPI for Anakin, They'd have paid out around $2500 for his $8500 incident. With ASPCA, they'd have paid out $5000 for the same incident. VPI has a set benefit schedule and doesn't cover anything that isn't on the schedule. ASPCA has no schedule, and covers pretty much anything except for some stuff that is spelled out on their website (tail-docking and elective surgeries, etc). They research the average costs for the area, and use that as their cap. I go to probably the priciest vet in OC, so their calculated cost for his incident was $6500, and my actual cost was $8500, but they'd still have paid out the entire $500 max. An example for a tooth cleaning: VPI's "reasonable cost" is $65. You have a $50 per incident deductible, and then they pay 90% of what's left... so, you'd get about $13.50 back. ASPCA: Reasonable cost for a tooth cleaning in my area: $230. (confirmed by a $250 quote from my vet). ASPCA has a $100/year deductible, (per year, not per incident like ASPCA), so, they'd pay 90% of the $250 if I've paid my deductible at another point in time, or 90% of 150 if I hadn't paid my deductible. Difference in cost between ASPCA and VPI is about $250 per year. I think I'm going with ASPCA, even though they're more expensive.

ASPCA is more expensive, it seems, but they cover more and pay a percentage, rather than a set benefit amount. They cap out at $5000/incident, though. VPI is a few hundred dollars a year cheaper, but caps out at $4500/incident, and pays a set amount for procedures.

I was wondering if anyone had any information about pet health insurance. I was thinking of getting it for my cat, Indy, because after spending thousands on Anakin, there's not much left over to cover treatment if something happens to Indy. I was wondering if anyone had any experiences with pet health insurance, and if so, was it a good thing, or more trouble than it's worth? I've been looking at the insurance offered through ASPCA and VPI. Any info would be helpful