The KGB Oracle
Posted By: Wolfgang Powerful Paintings... - 10/17/11 04:10 AM
This painting speaks a lot about the direction our nation is going.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 10/17/11 11:31 AM
McNaughton responses to Criticisms of The Forgotten Man

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

Why did I paint this? Like many Americans I feel shock at the direction our country is heading. There is a great polarizing effect taking place in America today. There are many who swoon over Obama's policies of redistribution of wealth. What will the government give me? If you believe this is the proper role of government you will certainly see great CHANGE in your lifetime. I wanted to paint a picture that portrays the plight of the common man. Perhaps the FM is already experiencing this now or will in the future. My hope is that he will "wake up!" now before it is too late.

There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM is not black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream.

It is not a partisan painting. I take no favoritism of Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are guilty.

The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs. The only way to cure the cancer is to root it out and endure the painful healing. Perhaps, with God's help, we will survive.

Is it disrespectful to have in my painting the President of the United States standing on the Constitution? Is the President without reproach? I am simply one American speaking to another American. The painting symbolically suggests the actions of Barack Obama as well as other presidents. Yes, their actions speak louder than words—as do the brushstrokes in my painting.

I have endeavored to keep this information simple and to the point. The information is historical, if it is not familiar to you—Google it.

I picked the trashed papers based on the issues that I believe have been the most damaging to America. These issues have been trampled by politicians of both parties for over a century. When will the American people decide to defend the Forgotten Man? Let us raise our voices together and demand the kind of CHANGE that will truly save our way of life.

Why did I not mention critical information about some Presidents which defined their presidencies? My only purpose is to identify each President and with simplicity express what they have done to either help or hinder the Forgotten Man. I invite all to search deeper into the history of the painting's message and discover if what I paint is true. Can you truly say our house is in order when our debt is stealing away the future of every man woman and child in America?

www.mcnaughtonart.com
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/03/11 06:14 PM
This drivel belongs in politics forum.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/03/11 11:52 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
This drivel belongs in politics forum.



Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom to be taken care of by the Government? If America is so bad why are you here?
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 01:32 AM
This drivel, and your comments belongs in politics forum. I am serious, don't shit on the carpet in other forums.
Posted By: Drakiis Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 04:51 AM
thanks jet
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 06:07 AM
Thanks! I can finally respond.

Non-partisan my ass. That "painting" is one giant political cartoon choke-full loaded of innuendo, and is likely being bankrolled to astroturf bunch of turkeys like you.

Freedom, a noble concept, somehow was turned into overused cliche by conservatives. At one point it actually meant something other than gun ownership and declaring a war on another oil-rich third world country every couple years. Your freedom doesn't include woman rights, doesn't include sexual minorities, doesn't include affordable basic needs like health care, shelter, food. Your "freedom" is to be an indentured worker (loan slave) toiling in a fluorescent tomb for below-livable wage 80h/week so a bunch of C-level executives can buy third jet getting rich of government no-bid contracts.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 06:17 AM
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: sinij
This drivel belongs in politics forum.



Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom to be taken care of by the Government? If America is so bad why are you here?


Lets translate this:

"Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom"

You disagree with conservatives.

"to be taken care of by the Government?"

You believe in social contract and "pursuit of happiness" part of constitution. You believe in helping sick, elderly and disabled. You believe in investing into infrastructure.

"If America is so bad why are you here?"

Knee-jerk.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 04:00 PM

The irony, is it is the left that wants to enslave everyone. Take away peoples right to spend their own money, choose how they plan for medical and retirement expenses and choose how to raise their families.

In any case, the discussion is about far more than right or left. Some people call me right wing, but there is more distance between me and the religious right than there is between you and the Tea Party.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/04/11 09:08 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Thanks! I can finally respond.

Non-partisan my ass. That "painting" is one giant political cartoon choke-full loaded of innuendo, and is likely being bankrolled to astroturf bunch of turkeys like you.

Freedom, a noble concept, somehow was turned into overused cliche by conservatives. At one point it actually meant something other than gun ownership and declaring a war on another oil-rich third world country every couple years. Your freedom doesn't include woman rights, doesn't include sexual minorities, doesn't include affordable basic needs like health care, shelter, food. Your "freedom" is to be an indentured worker (loan slave) toiling in a fluorescent tomb for below-livable wage 80h/week so a bunch of C-level executives can buy third jet getting rich of government no-bid contracts.


I like how you're declaring me a conservative because I don't fall in line with your ideas. It's OK, it's typical for some to think that. I like SOME of the idea's from both sides. Do those Idea's typically lean away from a left socialist agenda? YES!

Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money. Instead of sending us into a Socialist Government, let's try something like changing the tax system since the current one is broken. Let's apply tort reform for healthcare, also make it possible to buy health insurance in other states. Competition would drive down cost ALONE. If I could buy healthcare Insurance in another state cheaper, I would. But I can't so the Insurance companies in this state can charge whatever they want, because I will either pay it, or choose not to have Insurance. Free Market Competition works wonders

To say healthcare is a right, means your saying you have the right to someone else life and property. I'm pretty sure that contradicts basic principles of Liberty.

If you don't want wealthy executives to buy private jets, then why are you supporting them by buying their products?


You know, if you don't like being an "Indentured worker" maybe you should work smarter not harder, get a job that pay's more. You sound like you're entitled to someone else's money. If so why would you think you're entitled to that?
Posted By: JetStar Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/05/11 01:42 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: sinij
This drivel belongs in politics forum.



Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom to be taken care of by the Government? If America is so bad why are you here?


Lets translate this:

"Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom"

You disagree with conservatives.

"to be taken care of by the Government?"

You believe in social contract and "pursuit of happiness" part of constitution. You believe in helping sick, elderly and disabled. You believe in investing into infrastructure.

"If America is so bad why are you here?"

Knee-jerk.


I LOVE YOU SINIJ - YOU ARE MY HERO!

Stick it to um!
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/05/11 02:46 AM
Originally Posted By: JetStar
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: sinij
This drivel belongs in politics forum.



Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom to be taken care of by the Government? If America is so bad why are you here?


Lets translate this:

"Are you one of those people that will give up liberty and freedom"

You disagree with conservatives.

"to be taken care of by the Government?"

You believe in social contract and "pursuit of happiness" part of constitution. You believe in helping sick, elderly and disabled. You believe in investing into infrastructure.

"If America is so bad why are you here?"

Knee-jerk.


I LOVE YOU SINIJ - YOU ARE MY HERO!

Stick it to um!

Yeah... let's all live in a socialist wonderland. It's worked so well everywhere else.
/sarcasm
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 02:31 AM
No lets instead live in corporatist wonderland, where there is no regulations whatsoever, after all who needs clean air, water and non-poisoned food?

You'd think last financial meltdown would be a wake up call for you right-wing nuts. Too big to fail, the CAPITALISTS WAY! Citizen, stand aside in awe and see us in action while we pillage pension funds, speculate with value of your house, gamble with money we borrowed from your savings and ship your jobs down the river to China.

America, fuck yeah!
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 04:01 AM

The problem with most leftists, is they will only argue about straw men. Would be refreshing to see one actually discuss something seriously for once, but I swear almost all I have ever seen are ad hominem attacks, tilting at straw men, or Socratian diversions.

Just an FYI also Sinij, it was the left that caused the meltdown just as much as the right. And it was ll statists, which is the real evil here. Go look up Barney Frank sometime, go look up the reasons why financial institutions at the ground level felt compelled to loan to people who couldnt pay it back. What the impetus was for trying to securitize and offload the crappy mortages in the first place. Yeah, you guessed it - because of Govt meddling.

Also, noone likes the crony capitalists either, not sure why you insist on trying to make like that is the case.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 05:03 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid

The problem with most leftists, is they will only argue about straw men.


Yes, I think instead we should talk about Abortion and President's birth certificate! Forget shrinking middle class and shrinking net worth of bottom 95%, forget bank shenanigans and bailouts, forget skyrocketing and unsustainable costs for education, health care.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 07:25 AM

That type of response is exactly what I am talking about.

Spot on, bravo for helping make my point in such a clear and concise manner.

Now, I must be off to the other threads where I am talking about birth certificates and abortion... oh wait...
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 10:12 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

The problem with most leftists, is they will only argue about straw men.


Yes, I think instead we should talk about Abortion and President's birth certificate! Forget shrinking middle class and shrinking net worth of bottom 95%, forget bank shenanigans and bailouts, forget skyrocketing and unsustainable costs for education, health care.


Talking about knee-jerk, Instead of having REAL healthcare and education reform let's just jump into socialism, and bypass that reform thing.


Oh if you want to sling blame around on the education issue. You might want to start with the teachers unions.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:03 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

That type of response is exactly what I am talking about.

Spot on, bravo for helping make my point in such a clear and concise manner.



Your point? Don't make me laugh. You have been doing nothing but spewing conservative sound bites for a while, to the point that KGB had to create separate message board to contain it. We love you bro, but really don't care to read continuous replay of Fox News in your posts. You are conservative, we get it, but stop with FUD already, you can hardly go anywhere on Oracle without stepping into your droppings.

"Government is the problem" and variations of 'red scare' is as cliche as it gets. I know I can't convince you not to charge the windmills with 'government' but at least read up on McCarthy before you start spreading read scare again.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:10 PM
I think you're targeting the wrong person Sinj. Derid is not nearly as vocal as many of the rest of us, and the charge that "you can hardly go anywhere on Oracle without stepping into your droppings" may apply to me or to Wolfgang but definitely not to Derid. I think you need to cool your jets for a minute and refocus your misplaced anger into something more constructive. Please note that not once has Derid attacked you personally. Getting angry at some one simply for disagreeing with you is the sign of a small mind and one unwilling to adjust to change...
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:15 PM
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
[quote=sinij][quote=Derid] Instead of having REAL healthcare and education reform let's just jump into socialism, and bypass that reform thing.


This just boggles my mind. REAL healthcare reform, a single player, didn't happen because conservatives dug up McCarthy's carcass and paraded it around capital hill.

Market-driven health care could not function well by definition. Any functional market-driven system depends on consumer having real choice to walk away and not consume, and that is never the case with healthcare. Costs will continue spiral out of control, with more and more people getting priced out of the market for as long as for-profit health insurance exists.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:23 PM
Originally Posted By: Sinj
Market-driven health care could not function well by definition. Any functional market-driven system depends on consumer having real choice to walk away and not consume, and that is never the case with healthcare.


False. If the government would get out of the way and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines then the consumer could indeed shop around. The argument has never been about the affordability of the actual health care. It has always been about being able to obtain health INSURANCE.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:29 PM
Consumer shopping around would never address fundamental issue - when it comes to your own health, or health of your loved ones, no price is too high. No procedure is too expensive, no treatment is too low on cost vs. benefit.

This will always put upward pressure on costs as industry races to come up with more and more expensive procedures and treatment, way past diminishing returns point, because they are always consumed.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:37 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
I think you're targeting the wrong person Sinj. Derid is not nearly as vocal as many of the rest of us.


You are absolutely right, my response was meant for a large group of people, 'you' should read 'usual suspects', but ended sounding like it was directed only at Derid. I apologize if I unjustly singled out Derid when it meant to be addressed at multiple people.

You must excuse me, it is difficult to talk to the conservative swarm when multiple issues (recent example - health care) getting dragged into conversation and when multiple people respond with interchangeable opinions. I usually respond to the last person in the chain. This time it happened to be Derid.

Side note, I have nothing but respect for Derid, while I violently disagree with him, he tend to be well-informed and articulated in his opinions. I'd love to debate any one specific issue with him without having discussion topic derailed by others.

Quote:
Please note that not once has Derid attacked you personally. Getting angry at some one simply for disagreeing with you is the sign of a small mind and one unwilling to adjust to change...


Please don't confuse me getting angry with my words angering you. It is easy to project emotions, especially when you don't have face to face communication.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 03:52 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Consumer shopping around would never address fundamental issue - when it comes to your own health, or health of your loved ones, no price is too high. No procedure is too expensive, no treatment is too low on cost vs. benefit.


This is the fundamental root of the problem. There is not now nor has there ever been a system where everyone can get every treatment they want. Also, keep in mind that all of those treatments people are clamouring for were developed because some private firm spent millions of dollars.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 04:03 PM
Originally Posted By: Sinj


Please don't confuse me getting angry with my words angering you. It is easy to project emotions, especially when you don't have face to face communication.
You've not angered me. Several times I've been frustrated with both you and Jet, but Tas is the only one who sends me into fits of hysterical rage and only then because he argues against himself like a MPD patient on cocaine, and leaves me out.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 04:10 PM
We agree that you cannot possible have a health care system that satisfies any and all demands. Question becomes of how to distribute what resources we have. Conservatives tend to suggest for-profit model where middle man (insurance) and personal wealth determine distribution of such global resource. Progressives tend to suggest centralized system with equal access.

Considering that I see health care as a product/benefit of society, and not individuals or corporations, I strongly favor centralized redistribution system.

Quote:
Also, keep in mind that all of those treatments people are clamouring for were developed because some private firm spent millions of dollars.


Most of the time this is not the case, NIHresponsible for bulk of research and progress. The only exception is some limited pharma research to file patents on specific compounds, and that research is still heavily based on public domain knowledge.

Typically research is done in academia, where government grants make it possible, and if something major discovered generic process is published then researchers jump into "industry", file "manufacturing technique or efficiency gains" patents and start making money. This is fine, since it leads to progress, but none of it would be possible without initial public research grants.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 04:47 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

That type of response is exactly what I am talking about.

Spot on, bravo for helping make my point in such a clear and concise manner.



Your point? Don't make me laugh. You have been doing nothing but spewing conservative sound bites for a while, to the point that KGB had to create separate message board to contain it. We love you bro, but really don't care to read continuous replay of Fox News in your posts. You are conservative, we get it, but stop with FUD already, you can hardly go anywhere on Oracle without stepping into your droppings.

"Government is the problem" and variations of 'red scare' is as cliche as it gets. I know I can't convince you not to charge the windmills with 'government' but at least read up on McCarthy before you start spreading read scare again.


*edited due to later clarification*

Also, your analysis regarding health care is fatally flawed because the free market has proven time and again over the past couple centuries that innovation will occur and cheaper alternatives will become available as long as the market demands them.

The reason health care costs are inflating is the same reason college education costs are inflating - because the govt is pumping a lot of money into the industry, which sets the baseline regarding what they can charge people. Also, govt REGULATIONS that favor the insurance industry also play a factor, such as prohibiting you from buying insurance out of state.

In a free market system, competition drives prices down. What we have now, due to govt involvement is not a free market system, hence the cost issues. The govt adds quite a bit of entropy into the health care system, and it drags the whole system down with it.

You accuse people of spouting "talking points", but your whole rationale does in fact seem Marxist. You seem to be trying to apply Marx's "Iron Law of Wages" to health care costs - except the so-called " Iron Law of Wages" has been thoroughly and utterly debunked.

At the end of the day, its not about whether people have a choice regarding health care ( they actually do, many people choose to go without) but rather about if there is an opportunity for someone else to make money by providing a better service at less cost. People have tried to make a case in the past that this will not happen in regards to other industries, but it always has, every time, as long as the govt was not preventing it.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 05:24 PM
Quote:
The reason health care costs are inflating is the same reason college education costs are inflating - because the govt is pumping a lot of money into the industry, which sets the baseline regarding what they can charge people.


You are confusing two separate issues here, plus you brought in another topic into this discussion. We are now talking about Constitution, Healthcare, Free Market AND now Education. Can we narrow it down a bit? I am more than willing to discuss any of these topics, but not at once.

Education issue is that for-profit Universities have access to government loans, solution is to end for-profit part, not government subsidies. Another issues is that corporations offloaded all training on a public sector without corresponding increase in wages, it is now expected that you know how to do your job prior to getting hired. Yet another issue is that a degree is now expected for almost any position that traditionally didn't require one, like a secretary with a bachelors in related field is the norm.

Still, even with all these undue pressures getting education is a choice. Your life does not literally depend on it.

As to your suggestion that not getting health care is a choice - please don't insult readers with such ridiculous suggestion. This is no more choice than homeless choosing to live under the bridge or starving people choosing not to eat.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 06:12 PM

Well, there are many angles to the discussion. none of this happens in a vacuum, and there are myriad pressures from all directions. Also, do not mistake me pointing out that govt infusion of money into the education system is all bad. As a system in of itself, it certainly needs to be looked at on its own merits. But nonetheless - the fact remains that govt pumping money into the system via grants and (mostly) loans has had a direct impact on the rising cost of tuition.

Also, I have known plenty of people who have chosen to spend less on healthcare than they could have. Whether it was wise on their part or not is debatable. But humans are individual, sovereign creatures.. and they always have a choice. You can argue that they may only have one "good" choice, but it is just a point of view and not objective reality.

Your life literally depends on healthcare in only a fairly small amount of cases, when talking about most people - especially the non-elderly.

You need to look at the system as a whole, and the flow of money from start to finish. Wherever govt (or any body) injects lots of free capital into a system, the system will find ways to soak up all the money on the table. That is what has happened here. The principles don't change, only the expression of those principles.

Capital is completely agnostic. It does not matter if the market is govt funded, or privately funded. If there is an opportunity for someone to make money off it, many people and industries will work at doing just that whether the resulting outcome is healthy or not for the rest of us, thats just human nature.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 11:31 PM
"solution is to end for-profit part, not government subsidies."

This is where you steer away from most of us. Advocating that non-profit is wrong.

also a lot of the research that takes place is privately funded.

You like to go into to the past, look up the guy that cured Polio he did it on private funds.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/07/11 11:42 PM
We are now mostly discussing health care, should we focus on this topic or would you like to go back to constitution?

Original painting/story introduces following arguments:

Quote:
Obama's policies are redistribution of wealth.


Quote:
The principles of the Constitution make no allowance for any of the entitlement programs.


Both are unsubstantiated claims and are false.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 02:28 AM
Sinij, you studied the Constitution of the United States in what school? I am curious, because apparently you slept in that class, especially with respect as to what the Constitution was designed to do and not do.

I have no commented much in this, and have enjoyed the discourse, but there is a clear indication of a very socialist or mmarxist mentality behind your arguements, as well as slanted facts which do not have a basis in research or empirical data. Anyone can grab obscur numbers and statistics and get someone somewhere to support their arguement. That does not make it sound or even remotely realistic.

Posted By: JetStar Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 05:30 AM
popcorn
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 07:43 AM
Vuldan, how about instead of empty demagoguery you respond to my post?

Show me where in the constitution it says "shall make no entitlement programs" and name all Obama's wealth redistribution policies.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 07:36 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Vuldan, how about instead of empty demagoguery you respond to my post?

Show me where in the constitution it says "shall make no entitlement programs" and name all Obama's wealth redistribution policies.


Show me where in the Constitution it says there should be entitlement programs. The Government was not created, nor designed to ensure people have a free ride life. It was designed to provide governence to a country in which people could work hard and achieve more than was possible anywhere on the face of the planet at the time. It was also written in the 18th Century and causes problems for most people today in some of it's language use, but there has yet to be a better or more freeing document written that people would sign and live with. Hell, it took something like 13 years or more before all the leaders of that time would agree.

The pre-amble does not have any force of law behind it, however, it clearly guides the intent of where our leaders wanted this to go, to improve upon previous government, to protect the citizens of the country, and that the government would be a benefit to the people. This is where many people get the misguided idea that the government is supposed to take care of them. Wrong. Being a benefit to the people means being a fair and just government that provides for the defense and gives people a country to work freely in.

Article 1 establishes the government, including the first of the 3 branches, the legislature and in various sections determines how the government should be staffed and run. While Artcile 1 deals with many things the government can and can not do, no where does it provide for the raising of entitlement funds.

Article 2 establishes the Executive branch and the important role and functions of the President. Nothing there about raising entitlemment funds tho..

Article 3, the Judiciary branch is established, establishes rules for the Supreme Court and set's out firmly what constitutes Treason. Again, nothing about entitlement dollars.

Article 4 deals with the states, and what can and cant happen there..again, nothing about entitlement dollars.

Article 5...hmm...amending, or changing, the Constitution. Nope..no fund BS here

Article 6 "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Thought that might have something for you, but no, nothing there at all.

Article 7...details the method for ratification, or acceptance, of the Constitution: of the original 13 states in the United States, nine had to accept the Constitution before it would officially go into effect. Again..nothing...perhaps in the Amendments? Lets see....


The first ten amendments to the Constitution were all adopted at the same time and are collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The 1st Amendment protects the people's right to practice religion, to speak freely, to assemble (meet), to address (petition) the government, and of the press to publish.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own guns. There is debate whether this is a right that protects the state, or a right that protects individuals.

The 3rd Amendment guarantees that the army cannot force homeowners to give them room and board.

The 4th Amendment protects the people from the government improperly taking property, papers, or people, without a valid warrant based on probable cause (good reason).

The 5th Amendment protects people from being held for committing a crime unless they are properly indicted, that they may not be tried twice for the same crime, that you need not be forced to testify against yourself, and from property being taken without just compensation. It also contains due process guarantees.

The 6th Amendment guarantees a speedy trial, an impartial jury, that the accused can confront witnesses against them, and that the accused must be allowed to have a lawyer.

The 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial in federal civil court cases. This type of case is normally no longer heard in federal court.

The 8th Amendment guarantees that punishments will be fair, and not cruel, and that extraordinarily large fines will not be set.

The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.

The 10th Amendment is the subject of some debate, but essentially it states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people.

The 11th Amendment more clearly defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court concerning a suit brought against a state by a citizen of another state.

The 12th Amendment redefines how the President and Vice-President are chosen by the Electoral College, making the two positions cooperative, rather than first and second highest vote-getters. It also ensures that anyone who becomes Vice-President must be eligible to become President.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the entire United States.

The 14th Amendment ensured that all citizens of all states enjoyed not only rights on the federal level, but on the state level, too. It removed the three-fifths counting of slaves in the census. It ensured that the United States would not pay the debts of rebellious states. It also had several measures designed to ensure the loyalty of legislators who participated on the Confederate side of the Civil War.

The 15th Amendment ensures that race cannot be used as a criteria for voting.

The 16th Amendment authorizes the United States to collect income tax without regard to the population of the states.

The 17th Amendment shifted the choosing of Senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states.

The 18th Amendment abolished the sale or manufacture of alcohol in the United States. This amendment was later repealed (erased).

The 19th Amendment ensures that gender cannot be used as a criteria for voting.

The 20th Amendment set new start dates for the terms of the Congress and the President, and clarifies how the deaths of Presidents before swearing-in would be handled.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

The 22nd Amendment set a limit on the number of times a President could be elected - two four-year terms. It has one exception for a Vice-President who assumes the Presidency after the death or removal of the President, establishing the maximum term of any President to 10 years.

The 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) the right to three electors in Presidential elections.

The 24th Amendment ensured that no tax could be charged to vote for any federal office.

The 25th Amendment clarifies even further the line of succession to the Presidency, and establishes rules for a President who becomes unable to perform his duties while in office.

The 26th Amendment ensures that any person 18 or over may vote.

The 27th Amendment requires that any law that increased the pay of legislators may not take effect until after an election.



Nope..not one damn thing in all the Constitution to say that entitlement funds, programs or any other such horse shit was the "right" or privelege of the people. Many things there that Obama has over looked however...

What else Sin? Anything of substantive use, beyond liberal rhetoric aimed at conservatives, of which I am neither.

Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 07:55 PM
You lose.

Exact quote from original post explaining the video:

Originally Posted By: Kaotic


The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs.



Own up to it or concede that you have no point.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 08:02 PM
You (plural) are saying that entitlement programs are fundamentally unconstitutional and that Obama is redistributing wealth.

These are partisan smears, misinformation and FUD.

When I start question it you (plural) ether spew Fox News sound bites or change argument and try to discuss something else. If you want to talk about something else, that is fine but decide what exactly you want to talk about.

What you should be saying is something along the lines "I believe entitlement programs should be reduced because it will benefit the country". Then we can have a discussion about what entitlement programs, how reducing them will benefit and who, and who is likely to support such notions. When you start spewing recycled bullshit in form of "freedom, Constitution and death to communists!" you are not discussing, you spewing propaganda. Trying to frame your opponents as unpatriotic and/or unconstitutional is laughable, you might not realize this but we on the left also read and unlike you understood constitution.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 08:09 PM
Were those last 2 directed at me or someone else? They make very little sense and have no basis in political or rational perspectives. What is your point?

I do not watch Fox News, as I find them as biased as CNN and MSNBC...

What is your thesis statement? The Consitution is not propoganda, but statements like yours in which you state that it is, will earn you nothing in terms of rationale discourse beyond my asking for your address.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 08:13 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij

Show me where in the constitution it says "shall make no entitlement programs" and name all Obama's wealth redistribution policies.


I am more than happy to repeat myself.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 08:16 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: sinij

Show me where in the constitution it says "shall make no entitlement programs" and name all Obama's wealth redistribution policies.


I am more than happy to repeat myself.


Again, the answer is obvious. There is NOTHING in the Constitution granting this authority. Entitlement programs, regardless of source, are socialist instruments, and no government can sustain them. Your point would be what? That because there is no exact language in the Constitution forbidding their creation that they are ok?
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 08:27 PM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan


There is NOTHING in the Constitution granting this authority.


This is logical fallacy.

Let me help you understand with following hypothetical example - There is nothing in the Constitution allowing people to fly planes. This statement does not translates into "flying planes is unconstitutional".

Originally Posted By: Vuldan

Entitlement programs, regardless of source, are socialist instruments, and no government can sustain them.


Again, you are channeling Fox News. How about Sweden, Netherlands, Canada just to name few?


Quote:
Your point would be what? That because there is no exact language in the Constitution forbidding their creation that they are ok?


My point is that creation of any and all entitlement programs is perfectly constitutional and you cannot frame argument based on this.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 09:00 PM
Interesting, you criminalize my statements as something from Fox news and spew the same rhetorical BS from the otherside of the fence. To point specifically, the countries of Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands either have been forced to the brink of economic disaster by those policies, or have forgone other functions in the hope that countries such as the United States will step in when some ideological idiot attempts to hurt them.

The states you mention have the programs they do, as well as different from the United States, in terms of the share of income taxed to pay for social programs. Not military spending or roads or postal service, but such social spending as welfare, unemployment benefits, public pensions, public health care, and public schools. This explains why countries like Sweden tax and spend over half of gross domestic product (GDP), while countries like the United States tax and spend less than forty percent. In other words, big government means the welfare state.

A welfare state, alias a big-government democracy, is one in which government spending on those safety nets and human investments takes more than a fifth of GDP. The leading examples are the Nordic countries, Austria, and the Netherlands. By contrast, less than fifteen percent of GDP is devoted to government safety nets and human investments in the low-tax and low-spending countries, especially the United States, Japan, and Switzerland.

Your arguements are baseless Sin, and designed to incite both anger (yes, your arguement is designed to do this, based on repeated counter arguements that are as hypocritcal and biased as the ones you state I and others are using.)

They are also coming from what source? Simply your own perspectives makes them as baseless as anyone elses. You have neither evidence, nor contrary data which suggest your perspective is anything beyond liberal rhetoric itself.

Since the only body of the government who can enact laws, and by extention, enforce them, is the Legislative branch, your argument is mute, since the President does not have the power or authority to create or enforce any such nonsense.

Now, please return to whatever country you sprang from and enjoy life there, outside of these nasty debates in which your socialist agenda is so rightly ignored. Since your only point was to prove that the Constitution gave President Obama the power to enact entitlement programs, you actually have lost, as you put it, since we have shown he does not have the power to do this.

Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 10:49 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
You lose.

Exact quote from original post explaining the video:

Originally Posted By: Kaotic


The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs.



Own up to it or concede that you have no point.

I thought I did a pretty good job of pointing out that those are not my words, rather they are words from the author's website.

Having said that, I don't disagree with those words. I also don't know to what your comments are supposed to refer.

Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Vuldan


There is NOTHING in the Constitution granting this authority.


This is logical fallacy.

Let me help you understand with following hypothetical example - There is nothing in the Constitution allowing people to fly planes. This statement does not translates into "flying planes is unconstitutional".
Unlike President Obama, most of us here know that the Constitution is NOT "a charter of negative liberties." The Constitution very specifically is the ultimate charter of positive liberties since ALL rights not specifically attributed to the federal government belong to the people. Here's what that means. Any power not specifically enumerated to the government belongs to US.
Originally Posted By: sinij
My point is that creation of any and all entitlement programs is perfectly constitutional and you cannot frame argument based on this.
The reason that this is flat out wrong is that it violates my rights for the government to take money from me and give to someone else. My money represents my time and my hard work. Taking my time and the fruits of my labor by force and giving it to someone else is tantamount to enslaving me for their benefit.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/08/11 11:07 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
You (plural) are saying that entitlement programs are fundamentally unconstitutional and that Obama is redistributing wealth.

These are partisan smears, misinformation and FUD.

When I start question it you (plural) ether spew Fox News sound bites or change argument and try to discuss something else. If you want to talk about something else, that is fine but decide what exactly you want to talk about.

What you should be saying is something along the lines "I believe entitlement programs should be reduced because it will benefit the country". Then we can have a discussion about what entitlement programs, how reducing them will benefit and who, and who is likely to support such notions. When you start spewing recycled bullshit in form of "freedom, Constitution and death to communists!" you are not discussing, you spewing propaganda. Trying to frame your opponents as unpatriotic and/or unconstitutional is laughable, you might not realize this but we on the left also read and unlike you understood constitution.


10th Amendment " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Since the Constitution does not expressly grant the authority, that means it is illegal for the Federal govt to do. It would be legal on a state or local level.

Also, unless the amount doled out by a Federal entitlement program to each person is equal to or less than or equal to the money paid in - it is wealth redistribution. Q.E.D.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:16 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
The reason that this is flat out wrong is that it violates my rights for the government to take money from me.


So following your argument, you oppose any kind of tax since it "take money from me". Do I understand you correctly? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from YOU? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from you to spend on things YOU don't approve of? Like abortion clinics or welfare programs?

Yes, government have every right to take away money from you in form of taxes. It is called Commerce clause and suggesting otherwise proves beyond any reasonable doubt your unfamiliarity with constitution.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:16 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Vuldan



[quote=Vuldan]
Entitlement programs, regardless of source, are socialist instruments, and no government can sustain them.


Again, you are channeling Fox News. How about Sweden, Netherlands, Canada just to name few?


let's take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own. Oh wait, we don't even need to do that. Canada is $1trillion in debt- Population 35 million. Sweden is $850 billion in debt- 9.5 million population, The Netherlands $350 billion in debt - 16 million population. We are almost $15 TRILLION in debt, to begin to start up MORE social programs, or add more money to them is absolutely DUMB.

More bailouts and big spending ventures WON'T work and have been proven with the last TWO that they do not. I still have yet to find this well oiled Socialist machine that can stand on it's own without any aid from other countries.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:19 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
The reason that this is flat out wrong is that it violates my rights for the government to take money from me.


So following your argument, you oppose any kind of tax since it "take money from me". Do I understand you correctly? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from YOU? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from you to spend on things YOU don't approve of? Like abortion clinics or welfare programs?

Yes, government have every right to take away money from you in form of taxes. It is called Commerce clause and suggesting otherwise proves beyond any reasonable doubt your unfamiliarity with constitution.
Except for your reference to the commerce clause, you're right, they can tax me to pay for the common defense and operation of the government NOT to give to other citizens. Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't understand the reference to the commerce clause instead of the 16th amendment though.
Posted By: Drakiis Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:23 AM
I don't like to have my corn mix with my mashed potatoes.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:34 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid


10th Amendment " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


You are about a century and a half late, this issue was settled shortly after civil war. Government can and does regulate it under commerce clause.

"Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Quote:
Also, unless the amount doled out by a Federal entitlement program to each person is equal to or less than or equal to the money paid in - it is wealth redistribution.


How do you expect to account for your share of road use, your share of policing, your share of research, your share of clean air, your share of military, and your share of complete lack of rioting and looting due to starvation? I have an idea - lets collect a share of everybody income so we can pool money together, we will call this collection a tax, and then you as a member of society benefit from all these 'general welfare' goodies without having to individually pay for them.

Lets drop pretenses and call things by their proper names, you simply don't like paying taxes. Following your illogic any tax on YOU is wealth redistribution, because they take YOUR MONEY away from YOU and YOU don't like it! You know who else doesn't like to pay taxes? Greeks. We know how that story goes.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:46 AM
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang


let's take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own. Oh wait, we don't even need to do that. Canada is $1trillion in debt- Population 35 million. Sweden is $850 billion in debt- 9.5 million population, The Netherlands $350 billion in debt - 16 million population. We are almost $15 TRILLION in debt, to begin to start up MORE social programs, or add more money to them is absolutely DUMB.



More FUD, and yet another attempt to change the topic. We are now ALSO discussing foreign debt of multiple countries.

Lets look at Canada:

Canadian foregin debt

If you change scale to 10 years you will see it consistently going down even in absolute numbers.

Canadian GDP

If you adjust it to GDP, it going down even more rapidly.

Plus, nether of these countries receive US foreign aid


Are you tired of being wrong, because I am tired of correcting you.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:53 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
"Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
If this was an income tax then why did we need the 16th amendment? The "general welfare of the united states" clearly refers to the country/government upkeep not its citizens. It is clear from the documents that our founders wrote, what they were reading and discussing at the time and their correspondence with each other then and for years afterwards, that they NEVER intended for the government to provide anything other than the security for its citizens to live free and take care of themselves.

Originally Posted By: Sinj
How do you expect to account for your share of road use, your share of policing, your share of research, your share of clean air, your share of military, and your share of complete lack of rioting and looting due to starvation? I have an idea - lets collect a share of everybody income so we can pool money together, we will call this collection a tax, and then you as a member of society benefit from all these 'general welfare' goodies without having to individually pay for them.

Lets drop pretenses and call things by their proper names, you simply don't like paying taxes. Following your illogic any tax on YOU is wealth redistribution, because they take YOUR MONEY away from YOU and YOU don't like it! You know who else doesn't like to pay taxes? Greeks. We know how that story goes.
I have no problem paying taxes to pay for infrastructure and defense. Someone in D.C., who is supposed to be working for me, takes my time and hard word to give to someone else so that he can continue to get elected, THAT I have a problem with.

But while we're on the "your share" kick. Does this mean that since I'm part of the 51% that pay income tax I get to kick the free loading 49% off of the road and tell them they can't use my roads and breath my air? What a ridiculous argument!

While we may not be suffering from rioting for starvation we are certainly suffering the ill effects, all over the country, of rioting because your ilk want what they haven't earned and isn't theirs and they want Uncle Sam to go take it for them and give it to them.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:53 AM
Alright, here is my offer - you (all of you conservatives) keep your FUD out of general forums, this includes removing all political sigs, and I will stop making you look ignorant in front of your peers.

Do we have a deal?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:57 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Alright, here is my offer - you (all of you conservatives) keep your FUD out of general forums, this includes removing all political sigs, and I will stop making you look ignorant in front of your peers.

Do we have a deal?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA You should take that show on the road hoss. You're funny. You've not successfully rebutted a single argument. Sweet dreams there in your fantasy land.

*edit I'm changing my sig right now.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 01:08 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
The reason that this is flat out wrong is that it violates my rights for the government to take money from me.


So following your argument, you oppose any kind of tax since it "take money from me". Do I understand you correctly? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from YOU? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from you to spend on things YOU don't approve of? Like abortion clinics or welfare programs?

Yes, government have every right to take away money from you in form of taxes. It is called Commerce clause and suggesting otherwise proves beyond any reasonable doubt your unfamiliarity with constitution.


First, and for the unmitigated record, you are an idiot. Pure and simple. The worst part if, you seem to really believe your perspective, so let me help you out scholar of the United States Constitution that you are...

The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the right "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". It has nothing to do with "taxes" beyond establishing tarrifs for commerce.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the congressional power of interstate commerce regulation repeatedly. In a decision from 1918- Hammer v Dagenhart- The court took the position that when goods, services or commerce was used to produce "evil" between states- ie.. rotten food, prostitutes, liquor.. The congress could regulate. The court said in each instance that the weight of the permissible regulation was based on the weight of the issue.

In Katzenbach v. McClung- 1964, the Court found that Congress can have regulatory right over local business if that business effects interstate trade. Again..dealing with interstate commerce and trade.

The Commerce Clause conitnues to be a major issue with the country and the Supreme Court, which has changed rulings on it about 25 times and I expect there will be more. It is terrible the way congress attempts to slide things under the Commerce Clause, much the same way your trying to, and then expect people to consume it like tripe.

And for the record, I am neither a conservative or a liberal.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 02:49 AM
If it was just simple as raising taxes to cure all the problems most wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is taxing more and spending more is not helping.
Look at the education system. Private schools can spend 2k per kid to get the same results as a public school that spends 8k per kid.

Like Jet likes to say 2+2=4.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:06 AM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan

First, and for the unmitigated record, you are an idiot.


Nice to see you finally conceding, would be nice if you could do it with more class, but I am not picky.

Quote:

And for the record, I am neither a conservative or a liberal.


You are ultra-conservative. Wear it with pride or keep up with denial, ether way it doesn't affect me.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:15 AM
lets be honest Sinij you are poking a bear in the eye on purpose.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:15 AM
LOL..typical responses fromm the un-informed and uneducated button pusher. Can you do me a favor, if you are in-deed in my country, can you please exit, north or south.

I knew there would be no decent responses, since you have yet to be able to adequately explain any of your points. Basically, I suggest you just enjoy pushing buttons, and you have zero clue about anything worthwhile.

My estimation of your intelligence stands I'm afraid.

HAHA...Helemoto, we came to the same conclusion around the same moment..to funny. LOL
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:21 AM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
If it was just simple as raising taxes to cure all the problems most wouldn't have a problem with it.


You do realize that constitutionality (or lack of thereof) of entitlement programs has nothing to do with taxes? One is question 'can we'/'should we', another is 'how would we'.

This not so fine distinction that baffles our raging friends is that they could not wrap their heads around legality/constitutionality of entitlement programs. They hate this normal and expected aspect of the government function so much that they would rather try to claim illegality than debate the issue. So much loaded language, so much rage. Delicious.

When you say "all our problems" I assume you refer to deficit, and yes raising taxes from historic lows should be part of the solution. Other part should be cutting spending, and yes entitlement programs, defense spending and many other 'sacred cows' should be reduced (but never eliminated!). Until you doing both - cutting spending and increasing taxes you are only dealing with half-measures and/or unevenly distribute burden of cuts.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:37 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
I have no problem paying taxes to pay for ...


You don't get to pick and choose. You pay your taxes and then elect people to direct priorities. If they spend all your tax money on hookers and blow, well you should have voted better, but you still got to pay.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 09:39 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid


10th Amendment " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


You are about a century and a half late, this issue was settled shortly after civil war. Government can and does regulate it under commerce clause.

"Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Quote:
Also, unless the amount doled out by a Federal entitlement program to each person is equal to or less than or equal to the money paid in - it is wealth redistribution.


How do you expect to account for your share of road use, your share of policing, your share of research, your share of clean air, your share of military, and your share of complete lack of rioting and looting due to starvation? I have an idea - lets collect a share of everybody income so we can pool money together, we will call this collection a tax, and then you as a member of society benefit from all these 'general welfare' goodies without having to individually pay for them.

Lets drop pretenses and call things by their proper names, you simply don't like paying taxes. Following your illogic any tax on YOU is wealth redistribution, because they take YOUR MONEY away from YOU and YOU don't like it! You know who else doesn't like to pay taxes? Greeks. We know how that story goes.



Obamacare tried to tell people what they have to do, and that they have to provide money to a private company. That is what makes it blatantly unconstitutional. Also the way the Commerce Clause got interpreted, went against the intent of the Founders and was quite a tragedy.

In any case, I will admit I am surprised. I would never have thought even the most rabid Marxist would have advocated for validation of any scheme that legalized congress forcing people to pay money to any crony industry.

Also, under the shoddy implementation we currently have of the commerce clause - making a universal health care system in the same mold as Social Security would have been technically legal. Dont get upset at me that your leaders chose to use an invalid method that screws us all over.

You are also incorrect about my logic regard wealth redistribution, first of all because in the greater sense - infrastructure improvement, if sound in of themselves, do help everyone. Also, most of those infrastructure improvements can also be classified under military use - such is the reason the highways were first built in the 50's for example. certain things, like the Military , are things the govt has a right and obligation to provide.

But even irrespective of that, the cost per capita of infrastructure improvements is so small that it is easy to conclude that most if not all people get a greater benefit than they paid. Also, infrastructure improvements help create wealth.

This becomes un-true when it comes to entitlement programs and other programs that directly take from one person and hand to another. Not only do these programs not create wealth, but there is a clear chain of financial custody that can be followed to identify exactly who paid what and received what.

Trying to twist logic to make a comparison between infrastructure that anyone can use and that creates wealth - and direct taxation and redistribution is disingenuous at best. Blatantly insulting at worst.

Of course knowing you, you will come out swinging at the straw man again saying " Oh so your saying there should be no social safety net, yadda yadda blah blah" and arguing how social safety nets provide a greater societal benefit, and totally ignore the fact that I have never argued against the presence of some forms of social safety nets. The difference you do not seem to grasp, is that the scope and reach of such are what makes the difference here.

There is a big difference between providing a basic social safety net, and the types of sweeping cradle-to-grave micromanagement of society and the economy you are advocating.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 10:22 AM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang


let's take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own. Oh wait, we don't even need to do that. Canada is $1trillion in debt- Population 35 million. Sweden is $850 billion in debt- 9.5 million population, The Netherlands $350 billion in debt - 16 million population. We are almost $15 TRILLION in debt, to begin to start up MORE social programs, or add more money to them is absolutely DUMB.



More FUD, and yet another attempt to change the topic. We are now ALSO discussing foreign debt of multiple countries.

Lets look at Canada:

Canadian foregin debt

If you change scale to 10 years you will see it consistently going down even in absolute numbers.

Canadian GDP

If you adjust it to GDP, it going down even more rapidly.

Plus, nether of these countries receive US foreign aid


Are you tired of being wrong, because I am tired of correcting you.

Wikipedia? Really? No other sources were available? smirk
I think someone (Sinj) Has been drinking to much of the Kool-Aid!
Posted By: Mithus Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 10:57 AM
repeat with me guys

Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:31 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
I have no problem paying taxes to pay for ...


You don't get to pick and choose. You pay your taxes and then elect people to direct priorities. If they spend all your tax money on hookers and blow, well you should have voted better, but you still got to pay.
Actually I do get to pick and choose. I get to do that with my vote, and since I wasn't here to vote for the formation of most of things I don't like, I'm using every avenue available to me to persuade my fellow citizens to take action now to change them. You'll note that not once have I advocated revolution or not paying taxes. I'm doing things the way our founders intended. I educate myself and form my opinions and then I attempt to do the same thing for others and effect change through the established political process (even though I believe it to be corrupt nearly beyond repair).

You seem to think that we're advocating going outside the law to achieve our ends. None of us are suggesting that. All of us are suggesting that we use the process in place, unlike your friends at Occupy Everything.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 12:49 PM
What I mean by "everything" is everything. The common cold, smog, burnt toast, low mileage cars, being late to work, dirty towels, poverty, cat shitting on the floor, lag, crappy mmo's, election fraud, dull knives, ugly vaginas you know everything I could get behind everything if my taxes had to be higher.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 03:43 PM
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang


let's take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own. Oh wait, we don't even need to do that. Canada is $1trillion in debt- Population 35 million. Sweden is $850 billion in debt- 9.5 million population, The Netherlands $350 billion in debt - 16 million population. We are almost $15 TRILLION in debt, to begin to start up MORE social programs, or add more money to them is absolutely DUMB.



More FUD, and yet another attempt to change the topic. We are now ALSO discussing foreign debt of multiple countries.

Lets look at Canada:

Canadian foregin debt

If you change scale to 10 years you will see it consistently going down even in absolute numbers.

Canadian GDP

If you adjust it to GDP, it going down even more rapidly.

Plus, nether of these countries receive US foreign aid


Are you tired of being wrong, because I am tired of correcting you.

Wikipedia? Really? No other sources were available? smirk
I think someone (Sinj) Has been drinking to much of the Kool-Aid!


Here is how to proper attribute numbers in your own post:

Wolfgang, "Random Collection of Numbers for Intrawebs Asshatery", wolfgang's ass vol 73 , Wolfgang Ass Press

You don't get to criticize my references unless you a) cite your own numbers b) provide higher level of references. Still, you got your basic facts so wrong that I don't need to touch on your conclusions.

Erroneously claiming countries receiving foreign aid, when they don't, invalidates any arguments you build on premises of "take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own". They ARE standing on their own and they ARE doing much better than US.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 04:17 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Obamacare tried to tell people what they have to do, and that they have to provide money to a private company.


How is that different from purchasing your car's insurance? You have to purchase road coverage and you have to pay it to a private company. No mandatory insurance clause, no highway funds for the states so it is not a states vs fed issue, at least not anymore.

Plus, how would you make an insurance scheme that must not turn anyone down, regardless how sick they are, work if not with mandatory buy-in for everyone?

Quote:
In any case, I will admit I am surprised. I would never have thought even the most rabid Marxist would have advocated for validation of any scheme that legalized congress forcing people to pay money to any crony industry.


I am as unhappy with the end result as your rabid Tinfoilers crowd. Real reform should have lead to a single player, where "crony industry" part is simply removed from the equation. Instead we got media hysteria where every pundit and Palin bombarded us with soundbites while doing their best to revive Red Scare all over again.

But let look at the facts - Canadian model for example only spends 9% of GDP on health care, to US 15%+, with better overall results. Less child mortality, longer life expectancy and no health insurance job slavery. How is that missing 6% is not an extra-governmental "tax" on everybody?

Canadian healthcare costs. or $3899 per person

US healthcare costs or $7291 per person

Infant Mortality and life expectancy.

You like to talk about inflation effects on personal wealth, how about we talk about ever-increasing health premiums and punitive individual insurance costs stifling small business creation and extracting ever-increasing toll on every household in US?


Quote:
There is a big difference between providing a basic social safety net, and the types of sweeping cradle-to-grave micromanagement of society and the economy you are advocating.


What cradle-to-grave policies? You think providing affordable and accessible health coverage for the masses so even minimum wager working in WallMart could have coverage is overbearing? Affording to go to see a doctor so people could get better and continue being productive members of society?

Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 04:34 PM
So totally ridiculous. You are part of the problem Sinij, and people with your mentality. I shake my head and simply am continually surprised to see such moronic ideology.


We do not have a health care crisis in this country, we have a health cost issue in this country, the solution of which is not mandatory government controlled insurance requirements. The only people who benefit from that are the insurance companies. It is not the solution.

You truly need to seek more concrete resources to back up your arguements. It is fine to find statistics that meet your arguement, but be aware there are just as many to refute it. Take Canada and its bullshit health program for example. Works great for the average joe smo on the street. But if you become sick with a major problem, as a member of KGB's family did, with say Cancer, you can find yourself dieing while trying to navigate an over burdened system incapable of rendering timely life saving care.

You continue to lose, why don't you take your own advice, go in the corner and have a huge cup of STFU.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 04:44 PM
Vuldan, way I read you recent posts you crossed the line of voicing your opinion well into "go after sinij" territory, name calling and personal attacks included.

Is that the message you want to communicate to me?
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 04:54 PM
LOL..it is neither. I call them as I see them, you are a button pushing drama queen. Your input is less than reliable and in some cases questionable simply based on your choice of supporting data.

Additionally, you ability to rationally debate is nullfiied by your unwillingness to accept any opposing, proven and sensible input. It has been proven repeatedly. Many of the poster's have even agreed with this or that point of yours, in concept at least, but you have failed to agree, or even accept grudgingly, verifiable, proven counters to your arguements. You simply ignore what you do not want to face.

Call it whatever it is, I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power, since I don't, I will continue to interject where I see fit, and point out your arguement flaws. Live with it.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:03 PM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
You simply ignore what you do not want to face.


Bravo, I don't believe I ever read more concise definition of conservatism.
Posted By: Mithus Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:13 PM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power, since I don't, I will continue to interject where I see fit


lol Vuldan, you could be a good dictator on a "comunist" country or a nazi officer in ww2 germany, man you were born in the wrong country.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:19 PM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power.


I know you would rather go back to shouting in the echo chamber but at this point I cannot allow this happen.

Here is why:

1. You (as in you, conservatives) fail to contain your shouting, it spills to other forums, shout box, gaming and is very visible to outsiders looking in.

2. Partisan efforts by you (as in you, conservatives) has unintended consequence of making KGB, the gaming guild, appear to be a political conservative-leaning organization. By forming such vocal and visible group you are alienating fellow KGB members who do not explicitly agree with you. As this thread showed, you stop at nothing, including character assassinations.

You went too far and this has to stop. I will stop you.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:41 PM
Originally Posted By: Mithus
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power, since I don't, I will continue to interject where I see fit


lol Vuldan, you could be a good dictator on a "comunist" country or a nazi officer in ww2 germany, man you were born in the wrong country.



LOL..jack boots and all bro. No, I am not sure that is accurate. I am sure that there are an entire stream of conscious mentalities however that would do well with a nice kick upside the head and some common sense interjected for good cause.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:42 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
I would boot you from the entire area if I had the power.


I know you would rather go back to shouting in the echo chamber but at this point I cannot allow this happen.

Here is why:

1. You (as in you, conservatives) fail to contain your shouting, it spills to other forums, shout box, gaming and is very visible to outsiders looking in.

2. Partisan efforts by you (as in you, conservatives) has unintended consequence of making KGB, the gaming guild, appear to be a political conservative-leaning organization. By forming such vocal and visible group you are alienating fellow KGB members who do not explicitly agree with you. As this thread showed, you stop at nothing, including character assassinations.

You went too far and this has to stop. I will stop you.


Whatever you need to believe bro. At the end of the day your wasting your breath and time, as the only thing you apparently have the ability to stop is rationale thought between your own ears.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 05:44 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
You simply ignore what you do not want to face.


Bravo, I don't believe I ever read more concise definition of conservatism.


And as is typical with the small minded, you need to twist something to make your point. You believe what you need to about my poltical beliefs, thats alright with me. But you would do well to look up the terms libertarian and jeffersonian. Might be a good read for you if you choose some reputable site, beyond wikipedia, which seems to be your main resource.
Posted By: Derid Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 07:56 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

Obamacare tried to tell people what they have to do, and that they have to provide money to a private company.


How is that different from purchasing your car's insurance? You have to purchase road coverage and you have to pay it to a private company. No mandatory insurance clause, no highway funds for the states so it is not a states vs fed issue, at least not anymore.

Plus, how would you make an insurance scheme that must not turn anyone down, regardless how sick they are, work if not with mandatory buy-in for everyone?

Quote:
In any case, I will admit I am surprised. I would never have thought even the most rabid Marxist would have advocated for validation of any scheme that legalized congress forcing people to pay money to any crony industry.


I am as unhappy with the end result as your rabid Tinfoilers crowd. Real reform should have lead to a single player, where "crony industry" part is simply removed from the equation. Instead we got media hysteria where every pundit and Palin bombarded us with soundbites while doing their best to revive Red Scare all over again.

But let look at the facts - Canadian model for example only spends 9% of GDP on health care, to US 15%+, with better overall results. Less child mortality, longer life expectancy and no health insurance job slavery. How is that missing 6% is not an extra-governmental "tax" on everybody?

Canadian healthcare costs. or $3899 per person

US healthcare costs or $7291 per person

Infant Mortality and life expectancy.

You like to talk about inflation effects on personal wealth, how about we talk about ever-increasing health premiums and punitive individual insurance costs stifling small business creation and extracting ever-increasing toll on every household in US?


Quote:
There is a big difference between providing a basic social safety net, and the types of sweeping cradle-to-grave micromanagement of society and the economy you are advocating.


What cradle-to-grave policies? You think providing affordable and accessible health coverage for the masses so even minimum wager working in WallMart could have coverage is overbearing? Affording to go to see a doctor so people could get better and continue being productive members of society?



FYI - you dont have to drive. In fact I have gone through large periods of my life where I did not have car insurance because I did not own or need a car. I lived close to work, I walked a lot, rode a bike.. didnt pay car insurance.

And yes, unlimited health care is not a right. A cradle to grave system that requires everyone to pay is extremely overbearing, and extremely EVIL. It will lead to the micromanagement of society, if this stands expect in the near future the govt telling you what to eat, what to do or not to do with your own body even MORE than it does now and Big Brother monitoring you at all times for compliance.

Expect health and food and other related industries that are good at lobbying to begin lobbying and bribing officials to make sure everyone HAS to use their product. Expect health witch-hunts, expect different companies and industries to start waging lawfare against each other with tons of bogus claims about how healthy or not-healthy their competition is.

You really havent thought this concept through to the end have you? This is the corporate elites wet dream as well connected Crony Capitalists get the inside word on what the govt will do next, or even lobbying and bribing to shut certain competing companies down.

There is a reason Wall Street still funnels huge dollars to Democrats - where govt treads, opportunity abounds for the corrupt.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 08:32 PM
Yes, I have no delusions about new system working well. It will be only marginal improvement over current world of pre-existing conditions, denying individual coverage to anyone but perfectly healthy and epidemic of uninsured clogging emergency rooms. The real solution, single player health care system, was shouted down by conservatives parading Red Scare ghosts.

Still, whatever your or my personal opinion of this system might be, it is legal exercise of government power. You absolutely cannot frame the argument about health care (or any other social program) in terms of unconstitutionality.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 10:03 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Yes, I have no delusions about new system working well. It will be only marginal improvement over current world of pre-existing conditions, denying individual coverage to anyone but perfectly healthy and epidemic of uninsured clogging emergency rooms. The real solution, single player health care system, was shouted down by conservatives parading Red Scare ghosts.

Still, whatever your or my personal opinion of this system might be, it is legal exercise of government power. You absolutely cannot frame the argument about health care (or any other social program) in terms of unconstitutionality.


Again, a completely baseless point. Of course you can frame the arguement as an unconstitutional act, and it is ABSOLUTELY NOT a LEGAL power of the government. WHY oh why is this so hard for you to understand? I just don't get how any rational person beyond the age of 12 can not comprehend that in a FREE society, governed by the rule of law, backed by a constitutional authority, can even argue that this is a legal action of the government.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/09/11 10:08 PM
The plan as stated makes people buy health insurance or makes you pay a penalty.
Those you say that cant afford it now how the fuck are they going to pay for it if they are force to??
Its not free health care.

How about all the people who get exemptions like unions. Why are the politicians who made the law exempt??
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 03:40 AM
Originally Posted By: Vuldan


Of course you can frame the arguement as an unconstitutional act, and it is ABSOLUTELY NOT a LEGAL power of the government. WHY oh why is this so hard for you to understand?


Entire legal framework of this country disagrees with you. Your only solution is to go back in time and change it, until then your repetitive lamenting does not change the facts.


Quote:
I just don't get how any rational person...


You are not exactly paragon of rationality, but I suppose if we irrationally apply your irrational standards everyone would look irrational.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 03:43 AM
Interesting. It is obvious that you are the typical child behind the keyboard, looking for buttons to push without substance or expecting no retaliation.

The fallacy in your perspective is you believe yourself inviolate, your points of view valid and correct. You are very seriously mistaken on ALL counts.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 04:03 AM
Less insult more substance.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 12:09 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Entire legal framework of this country disagrees with you. Your only solution is to go back in time and change it, until then your repetitive lamenting does not change the facts.

So, by your logic, once something is done then there is nothing you can do about it (especially if a judge said it, GASP) and talking about to to attempt to effect change is pointless? Come on man, you can't be that short sighted. Our entire system is built around the ability to change something if/when we realize its wrong or not working.
Posted By: Vuldan Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 02:20 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Originally Posted By: sinij
Entire legal framework of this country disagrees with you. Your only solution is to go back in time and change it, until then your repetitive lamenting does not change the facts.

So, by your logic, once something is done then there is nothing you can do about it (especially if a judge said it, GASP) and talking about to to attempt to effect change is pointless? Come on man, you can't be that short sighted. Our entire system is built around the ability to change something if/when we realize its wrong or not working.



I am done argueing with him. His near sighted view point is singularly selfish and worse than Michael Moore's. It is pointless to debate with someone who can not be reasoned with and whose value system is so misguided they can not see the inherent flaws in their own ideology.
Posted By: Sini Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 04:33 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Originally Posted By: sinij
Entire legal framework of this country disagrees with you. Your only solution is to go back in time and change it, until then your repetitive lamenting does not change the facts.

So, by your logic, once something is done then there is nothing you can do about it (especially if a judge said it, GASP) and talking about to to attempt to effect change is pointless? Come on man, you can't be that short sighted. Our entire system is built around the ability to change something if/when we realize its wrong or not working.



Good luck amending constitution, but until you pass Kaotic amendment entitlement programs are perfectly legal and no amount of shouting and temper tantrums from the right will change this.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Powerful Paintings... - 11/10/11 08:20 PM
Originally Posted By: sinij
Good luck amending constitution
Thank you. I intend to do everything in my power to make that happen.
© The KGB Oracle