go find it we can get it to 500 by the end of the month

if chase bumped his every time people raved about bismuth, well... moot point.

Like everything else I've done in KDice, all my 100 post threads are legit.

you want to have this argument again?

What are we arguing about?

what 100 posts threads aren't legit?

unless it's someone needlessly bumping their own thread, all threads have merit.

and by needless bumps I mean just saying things like bump etc...

also read the last few posts by me in your 44 days in thread to see what I mean

i miss something here?

>To make deten's post more readable

Thank you Skrum for your usually pedantics. It improved the readability a bit, but still the form and certainly the substance were still a bit unreadable. Feel free to paraphrase his arguments, it might help.

>usually when i have something legit to say i dont go post it on the kdice forums though.

That's been my observation.

>I was talking strictly about nonintervention in the economy

Again I am free to apply your logic to other areas until you provide a logical reason why I can't. I'm simply extending your logic to the absurb (Reductio ad absurdum).

>Non intervention in the economy is different from bad security

I agree it is, but until you provide a logical reason of why your logic doesn't apply to the scenario I provided this is irrelevant.

>The policies like bank holidays where what made up the ;new deal ;.

That's factually wrong. The new deal included much more, including farming subsidies, infrastructure spending, court packing, etc.

>You argued that the government intervention programs of the new deal where effective

No I didn't. Quote me!

> I also never admitted that you where correct about anything except for the bank holiday of 1933 being effective.

Which is all I mentioned. But I'll add another I had in mind - FDIC.

>). You extended an anology to subjects that it was never intended to apply to.

As I've stated numerous times, until you can provide some logical reason why it doesn't apply, I can do so.

>As I have already stated, in this post and previous posts, govt. non intervention in the economy does not mean neglecting public safety programs such as police

Which is irrelevant. Your opinion is not a reason I not apply your retarded logic to other situations.

> I shouldn t need to defend why the government should provide police, national deffence etc.

Yes you should. And if you shouldn't, then I shouldn't need to defend why the government should provide health insurance.

>This btw is an opinion and I don t care if you disagree with it im not going to back it any more most likely(4).

This has been the basis so far of everything you've said. If you agree, then we can stop debating now. I can not debate against your opinion.

>This is exactly what the senate proposal does

It's also what the Republican party proposed last election.

>Also the extra money that we pay is not in the premiums to private insurance companies. It comes out of our taxes(7).

LIES! It's both. When someone does not pay their medical bill the doctor and hospital is stuck with the bill. How do they recover? They charge higher prices. Who payes those? Insurance. Who pays insurance? I do (not sure you do...you seem to young).

>This means that it lumped all the individual citizens into 1 body.

No it doesn't. You're conclusion is an assumption. Your logic is circular. Becuase something is not mentioned, therefore it must be the way you think. HHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Because I don't know how the universe was created God must exits. Same stupid logic.

>According to the labor reports unemployment and underemployment are both still increasing under the Obama administration.

Too bad for you I referred to job losses.

ryansucks im not going to debate you any longer. Uou are devoid of logic, and i thin that about 90% of the people that read this thread will agree that i am a much better debater and have much more sound logic.
you base all of our arguments on your opinion and feelings. Also as far as extending the analogy goes. You are extending an analogy to topic it was never meant for and then claiming that since it doesnt work in those topics, it is illogical in its original context. This notion is utterly retarded. You can take the most sound logic and apply its principals to a situation that is out of context. Just because it doesnt work in this new context does not mean it was wrong in it's original context.

In short I am claiming victory in this debate, pointing out that further discussion with you is a waste of time because you have faulty reasoning skills, and suggesting that you never ever join a debate team. Your team would get its ass kicked every time you say something.