I was never the one who had to draw all the time, and although I do go through phases of drawing more, I'd have to say no. I think I prefer the theory to the actual practice!

As for people painting the Sistine Chapel on phones, well some people manage to get good results even from Microsoft Paint, or the humble Etch-a-sketch... that would be people with far too much time on their hands if you ask me!

I did see a video of someone doing a really cool piece on an ipad, and now I wish I'd kept the link to sift (although it might be here already).In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Digital finger painting is strangely both more liberating and more restrictive. I'm still messing about with about 5 different apps trying to find one I could call 'user friendly'. On my home computer I have a lovely Cintiq -- you can see the image and draw on it with a stylus. I quite dig that. On my phone and my Ipad I can draw with my finger or a stylus. The finger painting is more awkward in some ways but to get the ipad/pod to pick up the motions of the stylus you have to press really hard! It's a bit weird. There's no real touch-sensitivity like on the Cintiq -- various apps try to simulate the look of it with tapering and speed = line width contols. So far not so good for me. But OTHER people are painting the freaking Sistine Chapel on their phones.. so the problem is probably not the tools but the user, ahem - me!
Still, I persevere! I swear, had I never seen the beautiful artwork people make on their phones, I never would have considered it possible. But I am intrigued.. and it IS fast! I can then upload those sketches to polish in a proper graphic program or just enjoy their speed-painting loosensess.
Are you a doodler?

Since you commented, your total pwnage.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government.

I respect these guys. Unlike the jackass party, they don't hide who they are.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Sorry, what were you blathering about?>> ^quantumushroom:
The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).
There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

Sorry, what were you blathering about?>> ^quantumushroom:

The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).
There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).

There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

This was very simple text-to-vector based software. Like etch-a-sketch...

>> ^quantumushroom:
Criticism from a state-run media lackey, whose masters think the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch and use a gross distortion of the phrase "promote the general welfare" as an excuse and blank check to spend on whatever they like, e.g. soviet-style health care.


yeah very interesting and all but was that in the constitution or not?

ps. go back to the moon landing sound stage and start planning how best to help the jews do another 9/11, you insane conspiracy nut. "state-run" my ass.

Criticism from a state-run media lackey, whose masters think the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch and use a gross distortion of the phrase "promote the general welfare" as an excuse and blank check to spend on whatever they like, e.g. soviet-style health care.

ObamaCare and many other schemes like it are unconstitutional. So are Medicare, Social Security and government schools. Whether social programs are worth their salt is debatable, but they are unconstitutional. The joke on those who say otherwise is none of it will be perpetually solvent or affordable in the next 20 years. There never has been, or will be, a free lunch.

The Constitution is a negative document that LIMITS government power. Communist Obama thinks it means the opposite, one of many reasons why he's dangerous.

If the "welfare clause" meant what liberals claim it does, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have bothered to carefully enumerate the few but important legitimate powers of government.

The paradox of the Constitution is the very fools that constantly make government bigger, more intrusive and more dangerous to liberty are the ones entrusted to willfully limit government power. Any semblance of balance between the federal leviathan and the States died with States' Rights.

Liberals and now a great many fakeservatives believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch...a few shakes and twists of the knobs and any popular entitlement the mob wants is now a 'right'.

"A Democracy (aka mob rule) cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy." --source unknown

That was a lot of etch-a-sketching. My knobs are tired.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

A vote for McCain with all the trouble he brings indicates Obama would do an even worse job. Part of the reason the American economy is on hold is knowing if Obamarx makes it in, people stand to lose even more to taxation.

The best either candidate could do is leave things alone. While the liberal history books claim Hoover did nothing, he in fact tried tampering with the economy and hastened the plunge into Depression. Then socialist FDR's "New Deal" prolonged the Depression and set the stage for the glorious welfare state/federal leviathan we have today.

Regulation should be like a glove on the steering wheel of a car going 200mph, a very light but necessary touch. Unfortunately, it will take a revolution (with guns) to shake away the complicated nightmare scribbled on the Etch-A-Sketch of modern government.

He built this Etch-A-Sketch (http://angelayuan.com/build.htm) to draw out the time and then erase itself every minute. It was built on the Arduino platform and references several projects/sites including Ferguson's CNC Etch-A-Sketch and Jones on Steppers

Tags for this video have been changed from 'etch a sketch, clock, automatic, NO SOUND' to 'etch a sketch, clock, automatic, NO SOUND, time, geek' - edited by silvercord

Tags for this video have been changed from 'etch a sketch, clock, automatic' to 'etch a sketch, clock, automatic, NO SOUND' - edited by therealblankman

I agree with Paul, but the majority of Americans simply don't. Our "independence" died with the rise of the New Deal.

Right or wrong, FDR got his "emergency powers" and the Constitution was suddenly written on an Etch-A-sketch.

After FDR was long gone, the socialism remained.

You can't run free markets without some regulation, but eventually it always gets out of hand.