Autonomous

What you are referring to as Public Debt is actually called Consumer Debt. As of August 2006 it was at 2.17 trillion*-high, but nowhere near the Public Debt, which the page my last post contained explained. Radagast is referring to the Public Debt correctly. Perhaps you should do some research before insulting other posters' intelligence. *source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14251360/site/newsweek/

No it isn't. Here's the information page: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resourc...t.htm#DebtOwner

The IRS already has something called the Earned Income Credit. Basically, people who don't make very much get not only whatever they paid in back, but an additional sum on top of that. The hard part of welfare reform is the kids of people who choose not to work. We can't starve them, and I'm not really anxious to start taking them away. We have a real problem with irresponsibility in this country. The poor often get great tax returns, then blow it all in a week. Every month when the government refills the food stamp cards, you see people loading up shopping carts with crap, but by the end of the month they're eating ramen noodles. Yet we can't just starve them. Argh!

That would be great if it were true. Unfortunately, the government itself... http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ...shows the debt growing from 8,680,224,380,086.18 to 8,886,560,061,162.27 in that time. Sorry.

A near-60 year old using LMAO? Now I've seen everything.

In this post... http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=59887 ...you stated that "VietNam vets would be too old."-while quoting me saying that I'm nowhere near old enough to have gone to Vietnam. You're hardly a shining example of the American education system.

They're useless but amusingly easy to poke with the stick of reason. I actually thought of something-another possibility is that 2dim simply apes Patriot. That would explain away most of the 'evidence' for them being the same person.

I don't support national healthcare, but right now our government spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada-which has it. I do believe we need to change the way we distribute aid to the poor so that people can afford to get back on their feet.

Me too. Then show some. How about a reasonable immigration policy? You oppose a caricature of Democratic principles, in other words. You realize I haven't supported any of those things, right? In fact, right now there is a thread in which I explicitly detail my opposition to national healthcare.

I've tried to start discussions on other topics, but it seems that religion is what people here are interested in.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with what I said-my point was that people are capable of making a difference if they take matters into their own hands.

One more thing to add-what impact, if any, do you think Michael Moore's movie Sicko will have on the debate? He's a very polarizing figure-people who don't question the left accept everything he says, while people who don't question the right reject everything he says. I think it will move us a bit away from socialized healthcare. People on the left already want it, but this may make healthcare reform a "far-left issue," which will bolster the right's flagging opposition.

One thing you can say with certainty about the Middle East-it can ALWAYS get worse. However, I don't blame this one on Bush. The PKK was active in the years between our invasions, and Turkey has every right to defend itself. I just wonder what it will mean for the future of Iraq if they invade.

I wouldn't go that far. BushBacker is a neocon bulldog. His posts defend or promote Republicans and/or denigrate Democrats. I have no problem with that-our main point of contention is that I don't like Giuliani. He has a more sophisticated syntax than the other two, indicating a probably greater intelligence. Other than his belief that anyone who disagrees with the current administration is part of the "Loony Left," (I'm center-right actually) he hasn't really had a moment of lunacy like Patriot's "Vietnam vets couldn't possibly have served in Iraq!" or 2dim's "30% of Democrats think Bush was behind 9/11!" "VietNam" is apparently not an actual mistake, but it is an incredible coincidence to find these two using the same very uncommon spelling. It certainly isn't conclusive. However, the two are trolls, and sock-puppets are a staple of troll behaviour. They don't ever really contribute anything intelligent to a discussion-in fact, I don't know of a single post by either of them that doesn't insult someone. In addition, they use very similar simple syntax, attacking one well invite a spirited defense by the other, it is rare to see them both respond to a particular post, and they seem to take turns-one day will see a lot of posts by one and not many by the other, the next will reverse the order. However, the way they attack is very different. 2dim is the more juvenile of the two-he tends towards "Kool-aid" comments, insinuations of homosexuality, simplistic insults of his opponent's intelligence, and diminutives of user names. Patriot certainly does the same things, but he is more vicious. He tends to attack someone's character more. Because of this I think that they probably know each other. They may very well be brothers. They might be the same person, but I'm more inclined to think they are just close.

So you can tell me exactly where my analysis went wrong?

Why not you? I'm not being snarky here-it really isn't that difficult to run for a local office. Many times local politicians stay in office simply because no one runs against them.

It doesn't matter. On at least three occasions you have accused your fellow posters of lying about their service records. To 'support' this accusation you declared that it was impossible for a Vietnam vet to still be enlisted today. The first problem is a flaw in your logic. I defeated your theory in seconds with a simple Google search. There are plenty of people serving in Iraq who served in 'Nam. Now, this isn't really a character flaw. I would hope one would test a theory before accusing others of such heinous dishonesty, but it could be just an oversight. The second problem is only a problem in my specific case. I never claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. Now you might have been lying-but you might have been mistaken. Unlike you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way the choices are dishonesty or egregious oversight (again). The result, however, is what is most telling. You have never apologized to either of us for accusing us of lying. For that matter, you haven't even admitted that you were wrong. So it doesn't matter what your service record is. It doesn't matter whether or not you and 2Dim are the same person. It doesn't even matter whether or not you were man enough for the Marines. The one unquestionable fact is that you are NOT man enough to take responsibility for your own actions here.

True. I think there is still enough popular opinion against it (for now) to keep it from happening. Amusingly enough, Michael Moore's new movie will unite the right against it. I wonder if the obese are in the same boat? It takes as many years off your life as smoking. I agree-we haven't seen any decreases in spending yet. I'm fine with cutting some bloat from military spending, however. Thanks. I'm interested in discussing this further with you, so I started a new thread. You certainly won't see me defending Carter's foreign policy. True.

In another thread I said: Bryan responded with: So I decided to make a new thread. Healthcare is a subject in the news lately. Between the release of Sicko and the upcoming election, it is likely to be there for some time to come. There are both pros and cons to consider. Aside from those above, I'd like to present another. One thing often overlooked is that the poor already often receive care which is never paid for by going to the emergency room for services and then simply never paying for the care received. What effect do you think this has on the system?

Interesting story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_...key_iraq_border One must wonder what the US or the Iraqis will do if the Turks send a sizeable force across the border to punish the Kurds. Turkey is probably our most valued ally in the area, so I doubt we'll fight them. As part of NATO, they can invoke the treaty. They have been attacked, and have every right to fight back. Problem is-during the first Gulf War we encouraged the Kurds to fight Saddam. After we pulled out, they were massacred. Now there is a possibility of more massacres-and we can't do a thing about it for political reasons. I wonder how many Iraqi Kurds will be attacking us in the future?

My wife and I were visiting her grandparents over the holiday and the subject came up. They were amused-they're old enough to remember the "black people will outbreed whites!" scare last century, and see this nonsense as what it is.

Seriously, how hard is it to Google "Vietnam Veterans in Iraq" to avoid this? Here's the first result of A LOT: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...tnam-vets_x.htm Guess they're lying.

I have seen arguments for and against both sides. However, the medical and insurance lobbies are among the most powerful in Washington. Not gonna happen until we take care of that issue. Which is effectively the same as not gonna happen.

Damn it. Very well, I apologize for accusing him of misspelling.

Because misspelling a word is exactly the same as accusing someone of being a phony and using flawed logic to 'prove' your case. You call me a dummy, yet I disproved your theory in seconds using a simple Google search.