http://www.videosift.com/video/Amazing-Freestyle-Slalom-On-Rollerblades

http://www.videosift.com/video/Pac-Man-3D

Thanks for the heads up.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
sorry, mate, it's a dupe - http://www.videosift.com/video/Rocket-Bunny

*kill

>> ^fford:
Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time.

Well, I was just using your words. But let's be honest. All taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. So, if you're going to call one instance of taxation and spending "robbing and paying off," then you're calling all instances of it that. So, unless you have some Constitutional law to back up the claim that Congress is not allowed to levy taxes and appropriate those revenues as it sees fit, then just concede the point. Ranting about it just makes you look silly.


>> ^quantumushroom:
There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You talk about the Founders' intent as though they were some sort of hive mind of uniform thought. They disagreed heavily about what the role of the federal government was. If, when they came to a concensus, they had intended to strictly limit Congress' authority to spend revenues, they would have done so. Instead they did just the opposite by including the "common defense and general welfare" clause.

The general welfare clause is analagous to the 9th Amendment. Where the 9th Amendment notes that the previous 8 do not delineate all of the rights held by the people, the general welfare clause provides Congress with broad appropriation authority over and above those specifically listed. Realizing that it would be foolhardy to try to delineate all possible reasons for the Congress to appropriate funds, several very important ones are specifically noted, and then a clause is included to make sure that Congress was not limited to just those listed.


>> ^quantumushroom:
It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power grab.

I don't believe any such thing. Of course all institutions will hold onto and try to expand their authority. But the logical conclusion of your point is anarchy. We create institutions and grant them power realizing that they will tend to grow and need to be limited. I agree with you that the federal government oversteps its bounds all the time. The Commerce clause is more abused than a foster child. But the reality of institutional power cannot by itself be a reason not to create an institution. Every agency of every government has this problem, especially those dealing with law enforcement. But we're not going to abolish them for that reason. We implement oversight, accountability, and reform when necessary.


>> ^quantumushroom:
The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

Government sponsored insurance is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would entail all health care providers being government employees and hospitals being owned and operated by government agencies. Government sponsored health insurance is just what it says it is. Insurance. This already exists in nearly every other insurance domain - auto insurance, flood insurance, home owner's insurance in hurricane zones, etc. None of those insurance programs have displaced private insurers. (Flood insurance is solely available from the National Flood Insurance Program only because no private insurer will underwrite flood policies - you can't make money doing that.)


>> ^quantumushroom:
The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.
Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.


Your arguments would carry much more weight if you didn't act like a child by using phrases like "Obamessiah," "federal mafia," "wait for the Muslims to take over," etc. Seriously, stuff like that just makes you sound like an ultra-right-wing nutjob. There are cogent arguments to be made against government sponsored health insurance, but when you embed them in language like that, they tend to be laughed at, as do you.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Battle-of-the-Album-Covers

http://www.videosift.com/video/Funny-Health-Insurance-Ad-You-know-what-he-did

I just realized you can use the seearch page for this.

There are about 70 videos in this situation.

Will it make me a sandwich when I'm finished?

audio disabled

just one for me: http://www.videosift.com/video/Balancing-Groceries

*beg

http://www.videosift.com/video/New-Weight-Loss-Method-for-the-Ladies

http://www.videosift.com/video/Synth-coke-When-you-dont-care-enough-to-snort-the-best

>> ^quantumushroom:
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.

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States.

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.