<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iraq And Our Fallen Heros &#8211; Updated</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706</link>
	<description>High Flying Political Debate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:18:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray_in_Aus</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358761</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray_in_Aus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:46:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358761</guid>
		<description>crosspatch wrote:

&lt;b&gt;&quot;What we really need to do in the US is get rid of this linkage of health insurance with oneâ€™s employer. I should be able to have the same health insurance over 30 years and 4 or 5 employers without my premium going haywire every time I change jobs. Health insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer.&lt;/b&gt;

Yes, it sounds like people are dependent on employers. Ultimately they&#039;re  paying it themselves anyway, so why not just pay for insurance directly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>crosspatch wrote:</p>
<p><b>&#8220;What we really need to do in the US is get rid of this linkage of health insurance with oneâ€™s employer. I should be able to have the same health insurance over 30 years and 4 or 5 employers without my premium going haywire every time I change jobs. Health insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer.</b></p>
<p>Yes, it sounds like people are dependent on employers. Ultimately they&#8217;re  paying it themselves anyway, so why not just pay for insurance directly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray_in_Aus</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358760</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray_in_Aus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358760</guid>
		<description>crosspatch wrote:

&lt;b&gt; [Ray]: â€œIt works wonderfully in Australia and other places.â€

Uhm, no. Australiaâ€™s system is MUCH different from Canada and the UK. Australia has a two-tier system where they offer subsidies for private insurance. &lt;/b&gt;

Yes, the subsidy for having private health cover was introduced several years ago. It got a more people to get private insurance. It didn&#039;t seem to have much impact otherwise. What I mean is people haven&#039;t been talking about it much at all in the circles I move in.

If you can afford private cover you pay it - otherwise you don&#039;t.
A lot of people aren&#039;t bothering with Private Hospitals like they used to, because Public Hospitals in some areas have become so good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>crosspatch wrote:</p>
<p><b> [Ray]: â€œIt works wonderfully in Australia and other places.â€</p>
<p>Uhm, no. Australiaâ€™s system is MUCH different from Canada and the UK. Australia has a two-tier system where they offer subsidies for private insurance. </b></p>
<p>Yes, the subsidy for having private health cover was introduced several years ago. It got a more people to get private insurance. It didn&#8217;t seem to have much impact otherwise. What I mean is people haven&#8217;t been talking about it much at all in the circles I move in.</p>
<p>If you can afford private cover you pay it &#8211; otherwise you don&#8217;t.<br />
A lot of people aren&#8217;t bothering with Private Hospitals like they used to, because Public Hospitals in some areas have become so good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lurker9876</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358759</link>
		<dc:creator>lurker9876</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358759</guid>
		<description>crosspatch, agreed!  Private Group Health Insurance!

AJ, Terrye, crosspatch, merlinos, and all

Gallup has Obama 9 point lead after his world trip.

How long do you think this bounce will last?

Then he goes on vacation for one week.

Karl Rove thinks Obama will announce his VP selection once he comes back from vacation...just before the DNC.

Karl said McCain should not announce his selection until after Obama has.

Will Obama get another bounce after his VP announcement and after the DNC?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>crosspatch, agreed!  Private Group Health Insurance!</p>
<p>AJ, Terrye, crosspatch, merlinos, and all</p>
<p>Gallup has Obama 9 point lead after his world trip.</p>
<p>How long do you think this bounce will last?</p>
<p>Then he goes on vacation for one week.</p>
<p>Karl Rove thinks Obama will announce his VP selection once he comes back from vacation&#8230;just before the DNC.</p>
<p>Karl said McCain should not announce his selection until after Obama has.</p>
<p>Will Obama get another bounce after his VP announcement and after the DNC?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaleinAtlanta</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358755</link>
		<dc:creator>DaleinAtlanta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358755</guid>
		<description>Surrender, Socialism, Taxes:  Vote Obama &#039;08</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surrender, Socialism, Taxes:  Vote Obama &#8217;08</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358754</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358754</guid>
		<description>What we really need to do in the US is get rid of this linkage of health insurance with one&#039;s employer.  I should be able to have the same health insurance over 30 years and 4 or 5 employers without my premium going haywire every time I change jobs.  Health insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What we really need to do in the US is get rid of this linkage of health insurance with one&#8217;s employer.  I should be able to have the same health insurance over 30 years and 4 or 5 employers without my premium going haywire every time I change jobs.  Health insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358753</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358753</guid>
		<description>&quot;It works wonderfully in Australia and other places.&quot;

Uhm, no.  Australia&#039;s system is MUCH different from Canada and the UK.  Australia has a two-tier system where they offer subsidies for private insurance.  The HillaryCare plan put forward in the Clinton administration would make the US like Canada and the UK where private healthcare would be outlawed.  It would be against the law for a doctor to provide services outside of the government service and private insurance would be abolished.

Australia provides a system where people still choose their own provider.  It is not government health care so much as it is government assisted health insurance, there is a HUGE difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It works wonderfully in Australia and other places.&#8221;</p>
<p>Uhm, no.  Australia&#8217;s system is MUCH different from Canada and the UK.  Australia has a two-tier system where they offer subsidies for private insurance.  The HillaryCare plan put forward in the Clinton administration would make the US like Canada and the UK where private healthcare would be outlawed.  It would be against the law for a doctor to provide services outside of the government service and private insurance would be abolished.</p>
<p>Australia provides a system where people still choose their own provider.  It is not government health care so much as it is government assisted health insurance, there is a HUGE difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray_in_Aus</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358498</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray_in_Aus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358498</guid>
		<description>ordi wrote:
[.....]

The Chinese boarded that EP-3 surveillance plane. I think it is safe to say they gave that plane a REAL good going over. In other words, they were spying!
.

Under Chinese law it wouldn&#039;t have been spying, nor would it been classified as spying under international law.
.

&lt;b&gt;Do you recall this?

US missile in Kosovo campaign mistakenly hits China embassy in Belgrade.

It happened in May of 1999. It was the bullet right above your quote if
â€˜January 2001: George W Bush becomes
US President. Pledges tough line with
China on arms salesâ€™

Note the date was PRIOR to President Bush taking office. &lt;/b&gt;
.

Let me see, you somehow equate a very obvious accident with aggression? 

Ray</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ordi wrote:<br />
[.....]</p>
<p>The Chinese boarded that EP-3 surveillance plane. I think it is safe to say they gave that plane a REAL good going over. In other words, they were spying!<br />
.</p>
<p>Under Chinese law it wouldn&#8217;t have been spying, nor would it been classified as spying under international law.<br />
.</p>
<p><b>Do you recall this?</p>
<p>US missile in Kosovo campaign mistakenly hits China embassy in Belgrade.</p>
<p>It happened in May of 1999. It was the bullet right above your quote if<br />
â€˜January 2001: George W Bush becomes<br />
US President. Pledges tough line with<br />
China on arms salesâ€™</p>
<p>Note the date was PRIOR to President Bush taking office. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>Let me see, you somehow equate a very obvious accident with aggression? </p>
<p>Ray</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray_in_Aus</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358495</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray_in_Aus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358495</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt; crosspatch wrote:

â€œbeing the â€œleader of the free worldâ€ is still more important than spending money on social services - like other free countries have been doing for decades.â€

And are quickly learning is a gigantic waste of money. Canada is now admitting that socialized medicine was a great mistake. The British hate their healthcare system, Japanâ€™s system is nearly bankrupt. &lt;/b&gt;
.

It works wonderfully in Australia and other places.
.

&lt;b&gt;It is not the role of government to â€œtake careâ€ of the people. It is the role of government to create an environment whereby people can take care of themselves or not as they choose. &lt;/b&gt;
.

It is the role of government to take care of the people who need help most, and the voters in most countries (the people who are paying for it) have ensured that it stays that way.
.

&lt;b&gt; Spending on â€œsocial servicesâ€ is generally a waste of money and gets abused. It is basically corruption â€¦ bribing people with services for their votes. &lt;/b&gt; 
.

I see - &quot;bribing people&quot; with their own money which they contribute as a percentage of wages.  Is that some sort of smoke &amp; mirrors thing?
.

&lt;b&gt;Government is not a charity. Opening the government coffers to charitable causes always results in bankrupting the government because the politicians can not resist the temptation to offer more and more money in exchange for votes. &lt;/b&gt;
.

You seem to think it&#039;s &quot;government money&quot; but in reality it&#039;s the citizens money, and they, in places where they have an adequate say in the matter, control what the government hands out.
.

&lt;b&gt;Our own social security act was really a sham designed to pay for the New Deal. We offered a â€œpensionâ€ that only kicked in at the age of average life expectancy. The average â€œpensionerâ€ in 1938 drew social security for 24 months before they died. &lt;/b&gt;
.

It was the same in other places too, but you know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics, and you also know about the other pensions that were not associated with age at all.
.

&lt;b&gt;Social Security was designed to take in a lot of money, pay out a little, and lend the rest to Congress. They never anticipated a baby boom that was going to be on social security for 20 years after retirement. That charity is going to bankrupt America in about 10 years time. &lt;/b&gt;
.

They&#039;ve had half a century to think about it.
.

&lt;b&gt;Social Security would need to set a retirement age of 78 years old to be equal to what it was originally envisioned. Global life expectancy in the early 20th century, by the way, was only 10 years longer than it was during the Roman Empire. &lt;/b&gt;
.

It doesn&#039;t matter what the retirement age is in countries that have their act together, because people of ANY age who are genuinely in need of assistance, get it. In this country for example (Australia) there is no such thing as a desperately poor person. Some people do of of course waste the money or benefits they receive, but at least they get it.
.

Every citizen here who genuinely needs assistance for the essential things like housing, medical, medicines, hospital, dental, legal, funeral or basic living costs is entitled to it.

Ray</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b> crosspatch wrote:</p>
<p>â€œbeing the â€œleader of the free worldâ€ is still more important than spending money on social services &#8211; like other free countries have been doing for decades.â€</p>
<p>And are quickly learning is a gigantic waste of money. Canada is now admitting that socialized medicine was a great mistake. The British hate their healthcare system, Japanâ€™s system is nearly bankrupt. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>It works wonderfully in Australia and other places.<br />
.</p>
<p><b>It is not the role of government to â€œtake careâ€ of the people. It is the role of government to create an environment whereby people can take care of themselves or not as they choose. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>It is the role of government to take care of the people who need help most, and the voters in most countries (the people who are paying for it) have ensured that it stays that way.<br />
.</p>
<p><b> Spending on â€œsocial servicesâ€ is generally a waste of money and gets abused. It is basically corruption â€¦ bribing people with services for their votes. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>I see &#8211; &#8220;bribing people&#8221; with their own money which they contribute as a percentage of wages.  Is that some sort of smoke &amp; mirrors thing?<br />
.</p>
<p><b>Government is not a charity. Opening the government coffers to charitable causes always results in bankrupting the government because the politicians can not resist the temptation to offer more and more money in exchange for votes. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>You seem to think it&#8217;s &#8220;government money&#8221; but in reality it&#8217;s the citizens money, and they, in places where they have an adequate say in the matter, control what the government hands out.<br />
.</p>
<p><b>Our own social security act was really a sham designed to pay for the New Deal. We offered a â€œpensionâ€ that only kicked in at the age of average life expectancy. The average â€œpensionerâ€ in 1938 drew social security for 24 months before they died. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>It was the same in other places too, but you know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics, and you also know about the other pensions that were not associated with age at all.<br />
.</p>
<p><b>Social Security was designed to take in a lot of money, pay out a little, and lend the rest to Congress. They never anticipated a baby boom that was going to be on social security for 20 years after retirement. That charity is going to bankrupt America in about 10 years time. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>They&#8217;ve had half a century to think about it.<br />
.</p>
<p><b>Social Security would need to set a retirement age of 78 years old to be equal to what it was originally envisioned. Global life expectancy in the early 20th century, by the way, was only 10 years longer than it was during the Roman Empire. </b><br />
.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter what the retirement age is in countries that have their act together, because people of ANY age who are genuinely in need of assistance, get it. In this country for example (Australia) there is no such thing as a desperately poor person. Some people do of of course waste the money or benefits they receive, but at least they get it.<br />
.</p>
<p>Every citizen here who genuinely needs assistance for the essential things like housing, medical, medicines, hospital, dental, legal, funeral or basic living costs is entitled to it.</p>
<p>Ray</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ordi</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358493</link>
		<dc:creator>ordi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:19:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358493</guid>
		<description>Ray

You wrote: &lt;i&gt;Links? The link you provided had this to say:

&#039;January 2001: George W Bush becomes
US President. Pledges tough line with
China on arms sales&#039;
That was just the start.
Then there was the regular overhead spying, plus the ramming of a Chinese intercepting jet.&lt;/i&gt;


YO DA!!  The link was to an article about the collusion of the US EP-3 and the Chinese fighter jet.  That was what I pointed you too.  

YO DA The US has been spying on China for decades and they spy on us!

The Chinese boarded that EP-3 surveillance plane.  I think it is safe to say they gave that plane a REAL good going over.  In other words, they were spying!

Do you recall this? 

&lt;b&gt;US missile in Kosovo campaign mistakenly hits China embassy in Belgrade.&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;b&gt;It happened in May of 1999.&lt;/b&gt;  It was the bullet right above your quote if   
&lt;i&gt;&#039;January 2001: George W Bush becomes
US President. Pledges tough line with
China on arms sales&#039;&lt;/i&gt;

Note the date was PRIOR to President Bush taking office.

Do you suppose there was a valid reason for Bush to make such a pledge?  What was Clinton&#039;s policy on this issue?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray</p>
<p>You wrote: <i>Links? The link you provided had this to say:</p>
<p>&#8216;January 2001: George W Bush becomes<br />
US President. Pledges tough line with<br />
China on arms sales&#8217;<br />
That was just the start.<br />
Then there was the regular overhead spying, plus the ramming of a Chinese intercepting jet.</i></p>
<p>YO DA!!  The link was to an article about the collusion of the US EP-3 and the Chinese fighter jet.  That was what I pointed you too.  </p>
<p>YO DA The US has been spying on China for decades and they spy on us!</p>
<p>The Chinese boarded that EP-3 surveillance plane.  I think it is safe to say they gave that plane a REAL good going over.  In other words, they were spying!</p>
<p>Do you recall this? </p>
<p><b>US missile in Kosovo campaign mistakenly hits China embassy in Belgrade.</b></p>
<p><b>It happened in May of 1999.</b>  It was the bullet right above your quote if<br />
<i>&#8216;January 2001: George W Bush becomes<br />
US President. Pledges tough line with<br />
China on arms sales&#8217;</i></p>
<p>Note the date was PRIOR to President Bush taking office.</p>
<p>Do you suppose there was a valid reason for Bush to make such a pledge?  What was Clinton&#8217;s policy on this issue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaleinAtlanta</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358199</link>
		<dc:creator>DaleinAtlanta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358199</guid>
		<description>Speaking of your new Messiah: Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW):

Here&#039;s an interesting story from today&#039;s UK Telegraph, where in the very first sentence, it says the Obama&#039;s do not give &quot;Christmas&quot; nor &quot;Birthday&quot; presents to their children?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2460299/Barack-Obama-does-not-give-birthday-presents-to-children.html

Interesting, isn&#039;t it?

What kind of &quot;Christians&quot; ban Christmas presents to their children?

I know, I know, Jehovah Witnesses, correct?  Do you have evidence that Obama and family, suddenly converted to The Watch Tower group?

Huh?

Obviously, Jews don&#039;t celebrate Christmas, but I doubt that&#039;s the Obama&#039;s excuse, especially since they&#039;ve belonged to a patentedly Anti-Semitic &quot;Church&quot; for 20+ years!

There is one other &quot;group&quot; in America however, that neither celebrates Christmas nor Birthdays, but which has approved the giving of &quot;Seasonal Gifts&quot;; which is what the Obama&#039;s now do; read about it here:

http://www.masnet.org/askimam_runsess.asp?id=247

Interesting, isn&#039;t it?

Can you say:  &quot;Taqiyah&quot;??  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of your new Messiah: Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW):</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an interesting story from today&#8217;s UK Telegraph, where in the very first sentence, it says the Obama&#8217;s do not give &#8220;Christmas&#8221; nor &#8220;Birthday&#8221; presents to their children?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2460299/Barack-Obama-does-not-give-birthday-presents-to-children.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2460299/Barack-Obama-does-not-give-birthday-presents-to-children.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>What kind of &#8220;Christians&#8221; ban Christmas presents to their children?</p>
<p>I know, I know, Jehovah Witnesses, correct?  Do you have evidence that Obama and family, suddenly converted to The Watch Tower group?</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Obviously, Jews don&#8217;t celebrate Christmas, but I doubt that&#8217;s the Obama&#8217;s excuse, especially since they&#8217;ve belonged to a patentedly Anti-Semitic &#8220;Church&#8221; for 20+ years!</p>
<p>There is one other &#8220;group&#8221; in America however, that neither celebrates Christmas nor Birthdays, but which has approved the giving of &#8220;Seasonal Gifts&#8221;; which is what the Obama&#8217;s now do; read about it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.masnet.org/askimam_runsess.asp?id=247" rel="nofollow">http://www.masnet.org/askimam_runsess.asp?id=247</a></p>
<p>Interesting, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>Can you say:  &#8220;Taqiyah&#8221;??  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358195</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358195</guid>
		<description>Yeah, terrye, I posted about that but the spam trap ate it, I think I had two links in there and it doesn&#039;t like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, terrye, I posted about that but the spam trap ate it, I think I had two links in there and it doesn&#8217;t like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terrye</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358194</link>
		<dc:creator>Terrye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358194</guid>
		<description>Allah has a post up at Hot Air about Obama&#039;s latest flip flop. He will keep about 50,000 troops in Iraq, and their withdrawal will be condition based. The nerve of the guy. McCain says that 16 months would not be a bad idea if conditions were right for withdrawal and Obama and his supporters {which is most of the press} say this is a flip flop and now he is talking about keeping troops on the ground in Iraq until conditions warrant a withdrawal. what a hypocrite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allah has a post up at Hot Air about Obama&#8217;s latest flip flop. He will keep about 50,000 troops in Iraq, and their withdrawal will be condition based. The nerve of the guy. McCain says that 16 months would not be a bad idea if conditions were right for withdrawal and Obama and his supporters {which is most of the press} say this is a flip flop and now he is talking about keeping troops on the ground in Iraq until conditions warrant a withdrawal. what a hypocrite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358193</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358193</guid>
		<description>dang spam trap!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dang spam trap!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358158</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358158</guid>
		<description>In 2000 it was estimated that the illegal drug economy was over $160 billion dollars a year.  I would venture that the majority of that money came from government programs as the people who spend the most on drugs can&#039;t hold good regular jobs.  So I would say that a sizable portion of US social spending is really a subsidy for the drug cartels. And when you look at cocaine and heroin, most of that money leads back to communists in Latin America and the tribes in the border region of Pakistan.  So we spend our money on one front fighting them, and on another front, we are supplying them with the cash they need.

If government social programs were ended and families and neighborhoods looked after their own, there might be a lot less money flowing into narco-terrorism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 2000 it was estimated that the illegal drug economy was over $160 billion dollars a year.  I would venture that the majority of that money came from government programs as the people who spend the most on drugs can&#8217;t hold good regular jobs.  So I would say that a sizable portion of US social spending is really a subsidy for the drug cartels. And when you look at cocaine and heroin, most of that money leads back to communists in Latin America and the tribes in the border region of Pakistan.  So we spend our money on one front fighting them, and on another front, we are supplying them with the cash they need.</p>
<p>If government social programs were ended and families and neighborhoods looked after their own, there might be a lot less money flowing into narco-terrorism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5706/comment-page-2#comment-358123</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=5706#comment-358123</guid>
		<description>And if I were a billionaire under Obama&#039;s tax plan, I would simply cash in all my chips, place all of my money into cash or hard assets that generate no income and sit on it.  I would still be rich, but I would pay no income tax because I would have no income.  My net worth would be static.

Taxing the rich is stupid anyway.  The income of the poor derives from the investment of the rich.  Every dollar you take away from the rich is about four dollars taken out of the economy and away from lower income people.  That is a dollar that can not be invested to create economic expansion, can&#039;t be paid directly to an employee, can&#039;t be banked and lent for a mortgage, etc.

Tax spending, not income.  Exempt retail groceries and medicine.  Then all the hookers, drug dealers and under the table employees pay their fair share of tax too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And if I were a billionaire under Obama&#8217;s tax plan, I would simply cash in all my chips, place all of my money into cash or hard assets that generate no income and sit on it.  I would still be rich, but I would pay no income tax because I would have no income.  My net worth would be static.</p>
<p>Taxing the rich is stupid anyway.  The income of the poor derives from the investment of the rich.  Every dollar you take away from the rich is about four dollars taken out of the economy and away from lower income people.  That is a dollar that can not be invested to create economic expansion, can&#8217;t be paid directly to an employee, can&#8217;t be banked and lent for a mortgage, etc.</p>
<p>Tax spending, not income.  Exempt retail groceries and medicine.  Then all the hookers, drug dealers and under the table employees pay their fair share of tax too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

