Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get over yourself. You get a vote, not a veto on what the tax rates are and what those taxes are spent for, well indirectly at least. I don't want my money spent on Iraq war either, but if the country wanted to elect idiots who thought it was a good idea, that's what we got. Just like you may not want universal health care, but if the country votes for candidates who support it in the next election, those candidates will have a mandate from the people to implement it, whether you like it or not.

The majority does not have the right to impose on the minority. That's what the bill of rights is all about. It's why we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Show me where it says in the Bill of Rights that majority cannot pass universal health care.
And I'll show where in the Constitution it says Congress has the right to raise taxes to provide for the general welfare.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The universal health care will come in handy when you shoot yourself with one of your self defense weapons defending yourself from phantoms.

I've had a gun within a couple feet of me for nearly 30 years, and I've never shot myself, nor had an accidental discharge.

To those who think guns cause death and destruction, let me pose a question: Would you rather be locked, for one hour, in a room with 10 loaded, fully automatic AK47 assault rifles, or in a room with 10 convicted felons?

So are guns the problem, or is it really criminals?

The true nightmare scenario would be to be locked in a room with 10 convicted felons with 10 loaded AK47's, which is why you sleep with your gun.

If and when you find the courage and wisdom to look beyond your own heavily armed 24/7 nightmare, let us know, and we'll try to wean you from the insecurities of your deadly, dangerous addiction.

I lead a perfectly normal life. I go to trendy restaurants, go to the theater, hang out at the local wine bar, have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. It's a minor inconvenience to carry a firearm, one that has paid off tremendously several times in my life. Why would I NOT ensure the safety of myself and those around me?

And in your 10 armed felon scenario, I tend to think that MAD would prevail.

Not to derail, but you have a boyfriend and a girlfriend? :music:

Yeah, it's kind of complicated. I've been with him for about 4 years now, and her for almost 3. It started off that he and I were in love, and she was just kind of someone to play with, but we've come to love her to, and we all live together, and it works. I never would have thought that it would. *shrug*

Well, at least I understand why you wouldn't like gun control.

Gun control serves to disarm the masses, but keep the elite and the government armed and in power. Every dictator or fascist in history has used gun control to disarm the people before he started oppressing them.

It's also what keeps guys monogamous.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The universal health care will come in handy when you shoot yourself with one of your self defense weapons defending yourself from phantoms.

I've had a gun within a couple feet of me for nearly 30 years, and I've never shot myself, nor had an accidental discharge.

To those who think guns cause death and destruction, let me pose a question: Would you rather be locked, for one hour, in a room with 10 loaded, fully automatic AK47 assault rifles, or in a room with 10 convicted felons?

So are guns the problem, or is it really criminals?

The true nightmare scenario would be to be locked in a room with 10 convicted felons with 10 loaded AK47's, which is why you sleep with your gun.

If and when you find the courage and wisdom to look beyond your own heavily armed 24/7 nightmare, let us know, and we'll try to wean you from the insecurities of your deadly, dangerous addiction.

I lead a perfectly normal life. I go to trendy restaurants, go to the theater, hang out at the local wine bar, have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. It's a minor inconvenience to carry a firearm, one that has paid off tremendously several times in my life. Why would I NOT ensure the safety of myself and those around me?

And in your 10 armed felon scenario, I tend to think that MAD would prevail.

Not to derail, but you have a boyfriend and a girlfriend? :music:

Yeah, it's kind of complicated. I've been with him for about 4 years now, and her for almost 3. It started off that he and I were in love, and she was just kind of someone to play with, but we've come to love her to, and we all live together, and it works. I never would have thought that it would. *shrug*

That's very interesting

Ah well, I'm not a favor of much in the way of government gun control myself. I find particularly ridiculous the occasional focus on so-called 'assault weapons', which are used in so few crimes that they're nearly irrelevant in a true law-enforcement standpoint, yet apparently are used as an excuse to arm our police as if they were fighting the SS in the Ardennes.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The universal health care will come in handy when you shoot yourself with one of your self defense weapons defending yourself from phantoms.

I've had a gun within a couple feet of me for nearly 30 years, and I've never shot myself, nor had an accidental discharge.

To those who think guns cause death and destruction, let me pose a question: Would you rather be locked, for one hour, in a room with 10 loaded, fully automatic AK47 assault rifles, or in a room with 10 convicted felons?

So are guns the problem, or is it really criminals?

The true nightmare scenario would be to be locked in a room with 10 convicted felons with 10 loaded AK47's, which is why you sleep with your gun.

If and when you find the courage and wisdom to look beyond your own heavily armed 24/7 nightmare, let us know, and we'll try to wean you from the insecurities of your deadly, dangerous addiction.

I lead a perfectly normal life. I go to trendy restaurants, go to the theater, hang out at the local wine bar, have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. It's a minor inconvenience to carry a firearm, one that has paid off tremendously several times in my life. Why would I NOT ensure the safety of myself and those around me?

And in your 10 armed felon scenario, I tend to think that MAD would prevail.

Not to derail, but you have a boyfriend and a girlfriend? :music:

Yeah, it's kind of complicated. I've been with him for about 4 years now, and her for almost 3. It started off that he and I were in love, and she was just kind of someone to play with, but we've come to love her to, and we all live together, and it works. I never would have thought that it would. *shrug*

Well, at least I understand why you wouldn't like gun control.

Gun control serves to disarm the masses, but keep the elite and the government armed and in power. Every dictator or fascist in history has used gun control to disarm the people before he started oppressing them.

It's also what keeps guys monogamous.

lol

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The universal health care will come in handy when you shoot yourself with one of your self defense weapons defending yourself from phantoms.

I've had a gun within a couple feet of me for nearly 30 years, and I've never shot myself, nor had an accidental discharge.

To those who think guns cause death and destruction, let me pose a question: Would you rather be locked, for one hour, in a room with 10 loaded, fully automatic AK47 assault rifles, or in a room with 10 convicted felons?

So are guns the problem, or is it really criminals?

The true nightmare scenario would be to be locked in a room with 10 convicted felons with 10 loaded AK47's, which is why you sleep with your gun.

If and when you find the courage and wisdom to look beyond your own heavily armed 24/7 nightmare, let us know, and we'll try to wean you from the insecurities of your deadly, dangerous addiction.

I lead a perfectly normal life. I go to trendy restaurants, go to the theater, hang out at the local wine bar, have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. It's a minor inconvenience to carry a firearm, one that has paid off tremendously several times in my life. Why would I NOT ensure the safety of myself and those around me?

And in your 10 armed felon scenario, I tend to think that MAD would prevail.

Not to derail, but you have a boyfriend and a girlfriend? :music:

Yeah, it's kind of complicated. I've been with him for about 4 years now, and her for almost 3. It started off that he and I were in love, and she was just kind of someone to play with, but we've come to love her to, and we all live together, and it works. I never would have thought that it would. *shrug*

Well, at least I understand why you wouldn't like gun control.

Gun control serves to disarm the masses, but keep the elite and the government armed and in power. Every dictator or fascist in history has used gun control to disarm the people before he started oppressing them.

It's also what keeps guys monogamous.

Gun control keeps guys monogamous? I'd think that gun control would make men less afraid of their gilted wives killing them. Could you explain?

 

[Vic]

Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

It's called specialization. It's one of the hallmarks of advanced societies, that we don't need to be DOING everything ourselves. I am an electrical engineer, not a solder, road builder or social worker.
I create the most value by doing my job, not fighting wars, building roads or counseling. That's why we pay taxes and as a group hire solders, road builders and social workers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

I would need to hear that from somebody who knew how to save the world. I see very little difference is folk who would save the world and folk who would save the world from those who would save the world.

In the mean time, I think I will go with my own opinions.

Of course there was this king who wanted to end poverty in his nation by killing all the poor. We could just let the sick die if they can't pay for care. Naturally UHC won't save the world, but it might extend some help to those who are now helpless or using expensive emergency care. We could make this about concrete issues rather than clouds.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

It's called specialization. It's one of the hallmarks of advanced societies, that we don't need to be DOING everything ourselves. I am an electrical engineer, not a solder, road builder or social worker.
I create the most value by doing my job, not fighting wars, building roads or counseling. That's why we pay taxes and as a group hire solders, road builders and social workers.

I don't see how you addressed Vic's post at all.

 

[Vic]

The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

No, those "services" aren't guaranteed, by me, or by the government, or anyone else. It's charity for a reason: it's not compulsory. You're trying to FORCE others to do what you want done. I'm not. I'm simply doing what I want done myself.

If Hillary gets elected and UHC gets passed, I'll start witholding taxes accordingly. I'll make a thread about it, and state how much I withheld. If they want that money bad enough to come kill me over it, then they can do it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

There is no reason to disarm the populace when the armed populace has as its religion and patriotism the maintenance of the position of the Elite.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

It's called specialization. It's one of the hallmarks of advanced societies, that we don't need to be DOING everything ourselves. I am an electrical engineer, not a solder, road builder or social worker.
I create the most value by doing my job, not fighting wars, building roads or counseling. That's why we pay taxes and as a group hire solders, road builders and social workers.

Way to straw man. Economic specialization is not you whining like a spoiled brat because the world isn't the way you would have it.
Plus, I find your post more than a bit sad. You've basically developed a convenient excuse for washing your hands of the fate of less fortunate while pretending that you're generous to them at the same time. Kind of a "I already gave at the office" type of BS. Do you blow off panhandlers on the street by telling them that you pay taxes?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

There is no reason to disarm the populace when the armed populace has as its religion and patriotism the maintenance of the position of the Elite.

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

There is no reason to disarm the populace when the armed populace has as its religion and patriotism the maintenance of the position of the Elite.

:roll:

That's much to complex an argument for me.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

No, those "services" aren't guaranteed, by me, or by the government, or anyone else. It's charity for a reason: it's not compulsory. You're trying to FORCE others to do what you want done. I'm not. I'm simply doing what I want done myself.

If Hillary gets elected and UHC gets passed, I'll start witholding taxes accordingly. I'll make a thread about it, and state how much I withheld. If they want that money bad enough to come kill me over it, then they can do it.

They are guaranteed because we elected people who voted to guarantee them. You can continue living in the utopia in your head. In the real world, the governing document of THIS country says:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

Now, just because Republicans don't want to lay or collect taxes and stopped paying our country's debts, and are against providing for the general welfare, doesn't change the fact that the Congress has that Constitutional power. I suggest you take a government class instead of getting your interpretation of the Constitution in between erection pill ads on AM radio.
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get over yourself. You get a vote, not a veto on what the tax rates are and what those taxes are spent for, well indirectly at least. I don't want my money spent on Iraq war either, but if the country wanted to elect idiots who thought it was a good idea, that's what we got. Just like you may not want universal health care, but if the country votes for candidates who support it in the next election, those candidates will have a mandate from the people to implement it, whether you like it or not.

The majority does not have the right to impose on the minority. That's what the bill of rights is all about. It's why we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Show me where it says in the Bill of Rights that majority cannot pass universal health care.
And I'll show where in the Constitution it says Congress has the right to raise taxes to provide for the general welfare.

Sorry I missed this post. The Constitution and Bill of Rights lay out what the government is ALLOWED TO DO. Not spell out everything that it can't do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

There is no reason to disarm the populace when the armed populace has as its religion and patriotism the maintenance of the position of the Elite.

:roll:

That's much to complex an argument for me.

Well... I interpreted your comment as either:
1. Two wrongs make a right, a fallacious argument which I cannot accept, because in this case it would equate 2 opposites as having the same result, or
2. Disarming the populace is okay because it is your political enemies who are more likely to be armed than your political allies, which IMO would be a morally bankrupt agenda.


edited for typo

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

All I'm saying is that when you say "government" you mean "someone other than myself." If you want those services provided, do your part to help, instead of trying to compel others to help, even if they don't want to.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get over yourself. You get a vote, not a veto on what the tax rates are and what those taxes are spent for, well indirectly at least. I don't want my money spent on Iraq war either, but if the country wanted to elect idiots who thought it was a good idea, that's what we got. Just like you may not want universal health care, but if the country votes for candidates who support it in the next election, those candidates will have a mandate from the people to implement it, whether you like it or not.

The majority does not have the right to impose on the minority. That's what the bill of rights is all about. It's why we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Show me where it says in the Bill of Rights that majority cannot pass universal health care.
And I'll show where in the Constitution it says Congress has the right to raise taxes to provide for the general welfare.

Sorry I missed this post. The Constitution and Bill of Rights lay out what the government is ALLOWED TO DO. Not spell out everything that it can't do.

It actually does both. The general gist was that only those things enumerated would be permissible by the fed govt, which was actually an argument made against the bill of rights. Why should we bother with a list of things the gov't can't do when it's understood we just wrote a Constitution listing only the things it can do? Apparently some people feared an expansion of gov't power based on interpretations of various constitutional clauses. Smart people those.
exs:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Can't Do)
- Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, etc (Can do)

And the gov't shouldn't be anyone's hired thug, exactly, but enforcing contracts is one of its main duties. You filch on a deal, the govt will be petitioned (hired) to, uh, collect (break you legs?) So the question is when should and when should not the govt be a hired thug.

I'm sure Michael Schiavo would have an opinion on that.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get over yourself. You get a vote, not a veto on what the tax rates are and what those taxes are spent for, well indirectly at least. I don't want my money spent on Iraq war either, but if the country wanted to elect idiots who thought it was a good idea, that's what we got. Just like you may not want universal health care, but if the country votes for candidates who support it in the next election, those candidates will have a mandate from the people to implement it, whether you like it or not.

The majority does not have the right to impose on the minority. That's what the bill of rights is all about. It's why we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Show me where it says in the Bill of Rights that majority cannot pass universal health care.
And I'll show where in the Constitution it says Congress has the right to raise taxes to provide for the general welfare.

Sorry I missed this post. The Constitution and Bill of Rights lay out what the government is ALLOWED TO DO. Not spell out everything that it can't do.

It actually does both. The general gist was that only those things enumerated would be permissible by the fed govt, which was actually an argument made against the bill of rights. Why should we bother with a list of things the gov't can't do when it's understood we just wrote a Constitution listing only the things it can do? Apparently some people feared an expansion of gov't power based on interpretations of various constitutional clauses. Smart people those.
exs:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Can't Do)
- Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, etc (Can do)

And the gov't shouldn't be anyone's hired thug, exactly, but enforcing contracts is one of its main duties. You filch on a deal, the govt will be petitioned (hired) to, uh, collect (break you legs?) So the question is when should and when should not the govt be a hired thug.

I'm sure Michael Schiavo would have an opinion on that.

That is an exceptionally good argument. :thumbsup:

Though I think we can (you and I, not everyone )agree that those who founded our nation never concieved of a massive bureacracy like we see today, upon which so many people are dependent for their livelihoods (through welfare programs,) and which spends trillions of dollars on things like pre-emptive wars and UHC.

 

[ayabe]

Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

No, those "services" aren't guaranteed, by me, or by the government, or anyone else. It's charity for a reason: it's not compulsory. You're trying to FORCE others to do what you want done. I'm not. I'm simply doing what I want done myself.

If Hillary gets elected and UHC gets passed, I'll start witholding taxes accordingly. I'll make a thread about it, and state how much I withheld. If they want that money bad enough to come kill me over it, then they can do it.

They are guaranteed because we elected people who voted to guarantee them. You can continue living in the utopia in your head. In the real world, the governing document of THIS country says:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

Now, just because Republicans don't want to lay or collect taxes and stopped paying our country's debts, and are against providing for the general welfare, doesn't change the fact that the Congress has that Constitutional power. I suggest you take a government class instead of getting your interpretation of the Constitution in between erection pill ads on AM radio.
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

Ah yes, the general welfare clause. Nothing like a blank check, eh comrade? Do you feel there is any limit to the federal government or are you one of those who believes general welfare and interstate commerce mean the feds can do anything they want?