Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

You make absolutely no sense at all, and if anything at all you exemplify the importance of the second amendment of our Constitution.

Your claim that "mane [sic] rich people have gotten their money by fucking others," is unfounded, and in reality based on my working experience, many people you likely are referring to as those who have been or are being 'fucked' are often receiving much more than they are worth on the backs of those they work along side.

 

I have never eaten their pizza so I have no problem boycotting the place.

 

....No, I'm pretty sure I do make sense.

Are you saying that the government should be overthrown because you're pissy about taxes/welfare? (your second amendment statement)

Your entire second parapraph is unfounded, and uses a false method of determining worth.

You need to examine ownership, and WHY you consider it to be so important a concept. So far as I can recall all the constitution says about it (your holy grail, the amendments of which should be repealed, recall) is that the people are to be free from unreasonable seizure..... but it's quite reasonable to sieze effects so great that one may not benefit from them, to save the lives and liberties of others, so long as no harm is done to the previous owner of the things or money, or, for that matter, their way of life.

 

Well, accept my condolences.

Do you see a mention of overthrowing the government? I believe it was quite obvious that the subject you, or others like minded, who so openly expose themselves as a direct threat to the personal safety of members of society who they disagree with.

What is the 'true' method of determining worth?

And yes, I do recall suggesting the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed, but where in the Constitution do you find the Federal government given the authority to take from individuals to give to other individuals? Things like the military, interstate highways, bridges, transcontinental railways, are beneficial to everyone more or less equally in protecting or allowing the movement of produce to everyone both rich and poor.

What you would like government to be is not at all how it was founded, and likely each State would be a totally independent sovereign nation had it even been suggested. The Constitution does however allow for changes such as you promote, with the consent of the people and the States, through the amendment process, but not simply by electing a majority of politicians with an agenda to fundamentally change how our government works.

You seem to equate your needs/wants relative to the property of others as justification of a raid, rape, and pillage mentality being a legitimate means of acquiring them.

 

I still fail to see the difference in programs that are beneficial to all and healthcare, which..would be beneficial to all.

I suppose if Individual found out he had cancer he would just suffer silently and die painfully without ever seeking treatment?

Even if you have insurance with the current system it's very unlikely it will cover all costs and procedures with any kind of major medical problem.

Almost everyone will need healthcare at some point. I'm really failing to see how a universal program wouldsomehow not benefit the majority.

 

Health care is beneficial to those in need of it, which is not the same as saying that it is beneficial to society.

If I found that I had cancer, or any other illness for that matter, I would consult with a physician in order to determine the treatment options available that were within my means of obtaining. Death is something we all have to contend with eventually.

And government is no better equipped, and likely even less so, to cover all costs and procedures with any kind of major medical problem for all of society.


Yes, it would be nice if government could solve all of everyones problems, but recognize as fact that someone has to pay the costs, and government has quite substantially proven that it can do little more than put off paying for all the things you want today onto the backs of our children and their children.

 

Indie

You must be the most dishonest debater I’ve ever met or you are getting paid to promote these wealth serving ideas.

I mean you know full well the ideas you are repeating here have many outstanding criticism already levelled at them that you have not addressed.

If you were getting paid I could understand that you can’t address the criticisms because you probably don’t actually believe in the ideas you are promoting (and may even know they can’t stand up to scrutiny), you are just basically a lobbyist for wealth’s ideas. It would just be about restating stuff in one thread after another (as you do) without ever addressing the criticisms raised in the last (as an honest person would).

Again I ask why you are promoting ideas that you clearly cannot defend from criticism. Why are you restating stuff that you have been unable to defend in numerous previous threads?

 

Example (just one but i could give many) -

Indie said above

But I’ve posted this or similar many many many many time…

“As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.

Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness (all can be argued to involve aspects of extortion and aggression).

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=20

 

shitty pizza makers should stay out of politics especially when they are stupid to begin with

 

Not one thing in your post (^) to do with the topic of the thread -- not a single word.

 

Indie

VERY low wages

You have said your father was on $75 a week during the mid thirties (post 15) here
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=413208&page=2

As I pointed out at the time –

I believe the average wages in 1935 was about $1,600 a year which is around $30 a week so again your father on $75 - over double the average - would seem to be getting a very good wage, what did he do?

(oh and you never did tell me what he did)

(and some put it lower at $1,400 making your father even richer and of course there were a lot of people working for wages below the average wage, of less than 30 dollars a week)

 

Bal,

Are you stalking are trolling?

And yes, I did state that "Governments primary responsibility is to protect us collectively NOT to provide for us individually."

And of course, with a little effort, you can reinterpret our Constitution to mean something that it did not mean when it was written, but the correct interpretation should be easy enough to determine by looking at how government operated from the beginning, and the reinterpretations, most of which have taken place since the 20th century began were not a result of the consent of the governed, both people and States, but simply an imposition by elected politicians, educators, media sources, and those who are already rich and/or famous. While I agree totally that we need to stop wealth from buying our politicians, at the same time we need to put an end to politicians buying voters with our tax dollars.

 

Maybe government should mandate that all businesses visually indicate the political leaning as Left or Right allowing consumers to do business which they agree with politically? I would then gladly boycott those I disagree with, and it wouldn't require posting on threads such as this one to instigate a boycott. Actually, I would probably still shop as I do today, with regard only to the product quality and price, as I don't really care what the politics is of the business, nor do I care how wealthy the owners or investors are.

 

You're not making much sense, are you drunk-posting? Maybe you're just leaving out words, to make it harder to effectively quote you, after all you DID just say that I should be murdered for my free speech.

It SEEMS to be that you're saying you'd like to shoot me, for being a direct threat to society by wanting taxes for people who can afford it and help for those without enough to tax. Of course I got that the first time around, but I'm not talking about vigalente taxation, so unless you're saying that you'd like to assasinate me BEFORE I get involved in taxing you, that you're saying you'd like to assasinate me and people like me who ARE involved in taxing you..... I mean either way, you're basically advocating politically motovated killing, and killing not of those who hurt others, but who tax rich people.

There is obviously no "true" method of determing a person's worth, but considering someone who makes 500 times what you or I do to be worth 500 times what you or I is, is absolutely fucking stupid. You do not simply automatically make more or less money because you are worth that amount.

The constitution does say that due process is necessary to take your shit. It does not say what due process is. The constitution says congress can do what it needs to to provide for people -- and people who are not eating or being treated for medical issues DO need care -- and that's where the due process to take shit from those with means beyond their own needs comes in. Yeah, the constitution does say it can be done, amended or otherwise -- but the amendments make it pretty much plain as day.

No, I do not see my needs or wants as justifying any raiding, raping, or pillaging. I do see unmet needs of any citizen as warranting the collective seizure from those with a surplus beyond their ability to use it, to fulfill those needs. YOU are the one who said that those who would tax you should be assasinated/murdered -- and presumably that those who would simply speak in favor of welfare should be assasinated/murdered, when you said that I personally should be assasinated/murdered.

 

Buwahahahaha!!!

 

As for your implication that I should be killed for my statements:

You said that the second amendment existed so that me, and people like me, could be dealt with -- for openly exposing ourselves as a direct threat to society. (roor's note: no, just to rediculous concetrations of wealth)

If you think that I'm a threat, and you think that the second amendment should be used on me, and the second amendment refers to weapons, specifically, firearms (which are inherently lethal, you do not restrain people with the second amendment, you kill them), and further, you say that it's because me and people of like minds SO openly expose ourselves, you are quite literally saying that because of how I exercise my first amendment right, I should be killed. Plain n' simple.


As for the value, because the CEO or whoever is not doing 500 times more work. In fact, the chef is cooking the food for those 500 people, and no matter what the CEO did, he is the hand by which it is done -- should not he recieve all that money? Or maybe, the CEO should get the same salary? Or hell, because he employs all the chefs, maybe he should have 20, or 50 times that salary. Or, okay, maybe 10,000 times that salary.... and maybe a 22-car garage with a limo turntable, like papa john does. BUT, he should be taxed at an increasing rate (and I think a fair stopping point would be 50%.... perhaps 50%, from say, 100x the average wage, JUST to throw out some example numbers. It does not discourage his greed, he simply must earn even more... by the logic of some, it SHOULD be 50% BETTER for the economy than having no taxes on the rich)

 

21 to 24% of american kids are obese, while 1 in 6 kids in america go to sleep hungry at night. So if you want to talk about redistribution of necessities then start with the real necessities.
and if healthcare is in fact a necessity then why hasnt it ever been forced on us before...and a better question is how have we all survived up until obamacare?

 

Of coures, I agree -- While individual thinks that food stamps and the like are unfair to rich people and should be abolished.

Obamacare is because obama's a bitch -- it needed to be single-payer, as it is it's a giant wet dream for insurance companies. Nobody should be punished in any way for not having insurance to protect themselves, but on the other hand, health insurance should not be an issue, in a properly civilized country if you needed medical care, you'd just go to the hospital, there'd be no worry about having to pay to survive.