georgerussia

Accepted :) A bottle of good liquor? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You just need to look around you to see that. If THIS is the best your god can make, I am not impressed at all. And "free will" contradicts with god being omniscient - an omniscient god should know exactly how you or me would behave in any specific time in future (otherwise it is not omniscient), and if the god sees that most his creatures are not doing good things, but didn't change anything - it's his fault. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I still wonder how a grown-up adult can be confused between lack of faith and faith, but anyway. A lot of Christians believe in completely contradicting stuff anyway. I don't care about your free speech in your home or in your church. However your Christian "free speech" indeed would not be welcome in my home, which is indicated by a large "Jesus-free home" sign on my front door. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Unfortunately only a few parts are available, but even from those (page4) it describes a marriage when a man is not interested in sex. Could you quote a piece which is related to 45%? I'm especially interested to see the age ranges, as in my opinion the results would differ dramatically if you're comparing 20-35 vs 45-60 ages. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A motivation alone is quite useless criteria. Could we call Bin Laden motivated? Likely. But is he going to reach his goals? Nope. There are safeguards in place not to lose millions. I'm pretty sure Tiger is not going to lose half of his net worth either. One of guys I know didn't lose any money, even though he didn't have prenup. For those willing to fight hard and play mean, there are a lot of options. So are you talking about love, or are you talking about sex drive? Those are different things. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A machine is different because it's passive and does not have personality. It gonna be meaningless effort to fix a machine which does not want to be fixed, and as soon as you put another screw in position immediately unscrews it. Even with regular machines not everything makes sense to be fixed. And it is not a sign of weakness either - acknowledging that you made a mistake which you cannot fix it, and move on does show one has balls. There are 3 billion women around, and there is only one you. Why spend your life with someone who doesn't want to be with you? I don't get it. You're talking about it like it's a widespread problem with women sex drive. My experience does not support it at all, nor the experience from my close friends, or it may be local issue. So far my guess was that such cases are extremely rare. And the solution is simple - if you cannot live with a control freak, don't marry one. It is possible to fight it, but it indeed takes balls. Give yourself, or better your closest friend, an oath that for one month you will stop approaching and asking her for sex, and if she approaches you, gently refuse it (you're tired, you feel sick, you got a migraine and so on). Do-it-yourself couple of times a day to make sure you would think using your upper head. I bet you'd see changes after the first week, and if you hold it for all three weeks, the changes might as well become permanent. Nothing worries a control freak more than possibility of losing this control, and this is a good way to control them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I still wonder why he didn't just dump her as he understood it? This is quite obvious (now) that they should never got married at the first time, but even when they did, it is not that difficult to quit it if it's obvious it doesn't work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You have unrealistic expectations. It would indeed make sense to discuss the subject with the author, but it it nonsense to discuss it with a copypaster, as this is not your own opinion you can explain or even stand behind. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what would YOU consider the "right thing" to do then? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"The Trumps signed a divorce pact after Ivana unsuccessfully challenged a prenuptial agreement that limited any divorce settlement to $25 million" Link. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I understand why it doesn't sound good for someone, who previously admitted to "taking it all from their now ex-husband, as her only way to hurt him was financially". And yes, the purpose is exactly like that. "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" is my motto, and if he has someone who would try to take more than her fair share from him, he would have means to leave her even with less than her fair share is. Not fair? Play fair, and you get it fair. I also teach my daughter to have self-respect, and never take more than her fair share is. Even if it might not be "equitable distribution". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, you now have to choose one of those: 1. Either person's belief and faith in God is a basis for you to know that you can trust this person. Then this would mean you would have to trust all those clergy pedophiles as well, which in turn would mean that there is something wrong with your choice of basis. 2. Either person's belief and faith in God is irrelevant to whether you can trust this person. Then it doesn't really matter. You started with 1) but now it seems you switched to 2). Is it correct? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Pretty much the same way as most of us do - looking on person's behavior, i.e. what person does, not what person says. One can express a belief and faith in God, and then have sex with underage boys - this has been happening in past, so as you see just expressing beliefs in God means nothing. People have committed perjury after taking an oath on bible as well. Also if you ever been in Scandinavian countries, they are very non-religious (less than 10% of the population is religious), and apparently they do not have any trust issues. Unfortunately the difference between various Christians is so large that most Catholics would likely prefer to build a relationship with atheist than with a Jehowa Witness - and vice versa. So this has pretty little use as a relationship starting point. And skydivers have a much better starting point for any relationship - after all, there are much less skydivers than Christians. The main problem, as I said above, is that some Christians still want everyone to follow their rules, no matter whether we believe in Christ or not. Why would otherwise Mormon church sponsor the Prop 8 in California? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If we're into speculation mode, there is a lot of reasons why wouldn't they want to. For example, as I said from my own example, while my insurance premium went up significantly during last four years, the amount insurance pays to the doctor for office visit didn't go up at all. It might go to hospitals to pay for uninsured patients care, or it might go to pay 4M salaries to various insurance executives. And being pretty much a monopoly (note the anti-trust exemption), they do not really care about competition. The only way to have your healthcare not rationed is to pay cash for everything. If you use ANY kind of insurance, the insurance provider WILL ration your healthcare to save the costs (and pass some of the savings to you). I bet your existing insurance policy has already a long list of what is covered and what is not, that there are things which only are covered if authorized by the insurer, and there are things which are covered with some limitation (for example, up to ten massage sessions in a year). So what you're saying is that you prefer your current insurer to ration your healthcare than your government. Which is fine, as the bill provides you with such option. You know, "everyone" typically means "nobody specific". What I personally expect is that it would slow down the growing healthcare costs - which add to deficit as more and more people turn to "go to ER and do not pay" service model. So far no country I know was efficient in reducing their healthcare costs; containing the costs is challenging enough. However I expect this reduced grows to be less than double in ten years, as provided by private industry. How can then UPS (which is controlled/"regulated" by government) compete with USPS, which in theory can deliver everything everywhere for free using taxpayer money? Why USPS does not deliver everything for free? Just a month ago I renewed registration for one of my cars. Had to call DMV to correct some details. Spent 10 minutes total. Comparing this to my insurance company, there were times when I had to wait more than ten minutes just to speak with a live person, then forwarded to another person, this is excellent service. And my last encounter with HP - pretty much at the same time - fixing my laptop was so badly that I wrote a bunch of complains to BBB and a bunch of state boards - I spent over five hours on the phone total, most of it indeed just being on hold. Having seen more than one government in action I'd say U.S. government provides very quality service for the costs it's being paid for it. Last year I used both USPS and UPS, and have a first-hand experience to compare. When I went last time to USPS office, the lady told me that if I repack my shipment into priority flat rate box, I gonna save $4 on shipping. So I did - and while I might have done it right on the counter, I decided to do it on a separate shelf, so it would leave the counter ready for someone who'd get some service. Once I was back in line - with a repacked box and written label - she called me, saying that I do not have to stay in line now, and shipped my box seamlessly. Regarding priority mail envelopes - why not? Some time ago I went to usps.com and ordered USPS priority mail envelopes - they are free(!) - and had them at my home in a week. I also always try to print labels online before I go to post office, as not only it is easier, it is also cheaper. To discuss a potential action, we need to go through reality check first. Why would the government do that? Why didn't it ban UPS/FedEx, as it would obviously increase USPS profits? Why doesn't it ban private universities, as it would bring more tuition for public ones? I think it's common sense to say that you will never know if the thing will work until you try it, and the only person who doesn't make mistakes is the one who doesn't do anything. But anyway, what is your suggestion? Invent a time machine, jump back in time and stop this intervention before it passes? Or do not pass any measure, because any of them may fail, no matter how much safeguards you put in? No. This is more likely "they tried things a lot of people told them would fuck up, but they still tried it and it fucked up. So they're not really in position to tell us that we should not try this thing just because they think it would fuck up". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, I did not discuss this subject with women from ALL other countries, but in those three I lived in, they would not do that. The reason is that even if they tried, they wouldn't get a lot, if anything at all. American/British family court system seems to be quite unique in this matter, but it's possible to escape it as well, and I personally know a few examples (and even gave advice to one of them). My opinion is that you ladies are getting it here just because men do not fight it hard enough. For those of us who had experience of fighting much more restrictive government/court systems (for example where you can get into jail by just appealing the court verdict), and ready to fight it to the end, it would likely to be different. Well, according to USCIS report, "marriages arranged through these services (foreign dating agencies) would appear to have a lower divorce rate than the nation as a whole, fully 80 percent of these marriages having lasted over the years for which reports are available.", so it's not just women looking for a free ticket to USA. Indeed a lot of them just have much lower expectations than locals would do, and therefore would be happy to live with someone a local wouldn't. As a result, they would live together till death in a happy marriage, while a local would go through the third marriage trying to find someone who would "fit" her. The way I'm usually saying it is that if you're an American man and you go outside USA - almost everywhere, except maybe UK - as long as you do not have unrealistic expectations (like being 60 and expecting to find a 18yo who'd fall in love with you), your chance to meet and marry a woman who is good-looking, and has a nice personality are increased dramatically comparing to what one would get in USA. And if you're an American woman and you go outside USA, your chance to meet and marry such a man are decreased dramatically. I do know some women from USA who married foreign men, but ALL of them are pretty much exceptional in all aspects - looks, personality, vibe, everything. This is one of the reasons my son will be learning Russian and Chinese, as well as foreign cultures, and will keep extra two citizenships. Those stories, including your post, hopefully would help him to make the right choice, and if he ever screwed up, extra citizenships would help him to get away from it relatively cheap. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Seems like at lot of people do not agree with your definition, just look on divorce rates. And not everyone takes any vows during marriage ceremony. Not everyone even had this ceremony (as to me it's waste of time and money). Every time I hear such a "holier-than-thou" approach, I remember Larry Craig and bunch of other politicians who tell us how sanctuary is the marriage, while having affairs or sucking cocks in public toilets themselves. Even "matter of integrity" means different things for different people; I know some people who considered themselves high-integrity, but still cheat on exams or on taxes. So far I have never meet a single person in my life who would honestly say that he never lied, cheated or broken any promise. I would bet my last dollar you're not this kind of person either. This is really a moral issue, and as it often happens with moral issues, there is a large distance between what people say, and what people do, which translates to infamous "do what I say, not what I do". And I personally know a bunch of people to whom adultery (i.e. having sex with others while staying married) is something they're completely ok with. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In my opinion nobody with even a half of brain would seriously consider what right wing says on this matter. They already defend the stuff which has been failed already (where are those WMDs?), so their attack on something which just _may_ fail looks like a fat chick joke. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's up to you, but I prefer dealing with the people who do right things because that's the way they grew up, not because they are scared of something (and modern examples have proved that belief in a Higher Power is definitely not enough to stop the person of doing bad things). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's another good reason to never marry American women. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Again, in your opinion. What about your opinion? Would you consider it reasonable catastrophic coverage? Would you get one yourself instead of getting a HSA plan which costs $7 more, and why? And please define what YOU consider "catastrophic coverage"? Sure, but if it currently covers zero people, this would mean that nobody is affected. That's why it is important to understand how many people are covered. Even if there are some, switching to HSA plan for $7 more looks like a much better option, as potential savings from HSA will far exceed extra $82 a year. Versus your opinion. Fair game then. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

At this time you probably didn't pay $450 for drugs. Unfortunately glorious private industry raised the drug costs so high that a plan without drug coverage is pretty much meaningless now. It may exist as a deprecated plan from old times, or as a requirement from some local authorities. The important question is, if the bill passes and this plan gets removed, how many people would it affect? Personally I would not consider "catastrophic coverage" a plan which does not provide ANY drug coverage even after a large deductible is met. Drugs are expensive, and for some diseases drug costs may easily exceed treatment costs. And unlike emergency room healthcare, a pharmacy will not provide you drugs for free. Anyway, I wonder how many people really got this one? I'm serious, each insurance company has a bunch of plans no one is using, which stay there just to increase the portfolio, or follow some regulations. For example, there is a bunch of plans, and for $7 more ($143 versus $136) one can get a HSA plan which covers everything after the deductible is met. Or for $3 less one can get a PPO plan with larger deductible which covers generics. Yet another "ghost plan". If we remove this plan from this list, it would hardly affect anyone. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sure, good enough. "This plan is not available in California" And apparently it seems to be available only in Texas. Looking through the plan brochure it sounds like extremely shitty plan, and I wonder how many people actually getting it. Do you have one? Do you know anyone who has one? So far it looks exactly like a "ghost plan". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This was exactly the words I heard from alien abduction victims, and from those who practice drinking urine to cure any disease. They all say the same mantra - "you do not wish to see, are incapable of seeing and, don't believe seeing is possible". I'd speculate your message is quite redundant, as those who are looking for Jesus Christ as an answer already know where to find it. I do not see how saying things like "there is an invisible HubbaMubba in the sky which will make you happy once you accept him as your lord and savior" would consider encouragement. It depends on person. What I would NOT offer is outright lies about some invisible creatures in the sky I personally never seen and have no proof of existence. This doesn't sound encouraging at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You cannot estimate your own sanity :) Like one shrink patient said, its everyone else around him who are blind and insane - don't they see he is Napoleon Bonapart ready to bring a New World Order? Same with inmates, who mostly believe they're innocent. Same as alien abduction "victims" who are pretty much sure that they're the only sane people there, and if you cannot believe their true stories about how aliens kidnapped them and forced to have sex with other aliens, this is because you are blind and not yet ready to accept the truth. And you're not really different from them - pretty much the same "truth", which only becomes true for those who "accept" it - pretty ill statement from any logical point of view. Well, this would be outright lie. Even between Christians there are strong disagreements regarding what some verses in the Bible really mean, and therefore what is allowed, what should be done and what should not. A "guide" which everyone can interpret in a different way is not really a guide at all, so nobody sees the bible as a guide. They see their interpretation of the bible as a guide. I don't care about your or other Christians emotional fire if it's done in a proper place, like this forum or your church. However I'm not going to your house to tell you the God does not exist, and I'm not asking the politicians to make prayers illegal everywhere and for everyone. And this is where Christians' "emotional fire" backfires. There are still remedies, of course - the courts often struck down those stupid small-town laws, and having a large "Jesus-free home" sign on my front door seems to work well to distract everyone who feels the emotional need to tell me more about their lord and savior. But it takes extra time and effort, just because Christians cannot contain themselves. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So are you going to show us a link for such a plan, provided by a reputable insurance company? So many of you talking about those ghost plans, but nobody so far provided a link. Which likely means that such plans do not exist. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *