WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

...
If I thought my positions expressed on Able2Know would hurt the Democrats chances to take over one or both houses of Congress-- I would absolutely refrain from posting until after the election.
...
Advocating any political action right now that would hurt the Democratic message-- even if I would normally support it, is counterproductive.
...

[Democrats want to] Fight terrorism domestically by both police and court actions designed to defend non-combatants from terrorist assaults.

Walter, when you post those HUGE articles out of some newspaper, is there any way to make them smaller so you don't stretch out the page?

Ican,

Your paraphrase of me is completely false. I never came close to saying that and I don't believe it is true.

You claims about what Democrats stand for are also wrong on many points,

You present me quite a dilemma. First, it's self-evident that my paraphrases of what Schumer and you said are logically equivalent to what each of you said. Second, I know that what I alleged the Democratic political platform to be, is at least included in their actual platform. Third, based on your previous post on this subject, I don't know whether or not you know that you are here pseudologizing (i.e., falsifying or lying).

but there are a couple of points I don't disagree with, for example this one.

Quote:

[Democrats want to] Fight terrorism domestically by both police and court actions designed to defend non-combatants from terrorist assaults.

Are Republicans opposed to this???

Republicans generally believe that this kind of domestic defense against terrorism, while required, is inadequate. They know that the police are unable to adequately stop terrorism. Arresting terrorists after they kill non-combatants, is clearly an ineffective way of stopping terrorism, when the terrorists commit suicide in the act of killing non-combatants. So Republicans generally also believe exterminating terrorists where they come from--where they are allowed sanctuary--before they terrorize, is also required to adequately stop terrorism.

Ican, I get the feeling you didn't do very well in math class.

First, it's self-evident that my paraphrases of what Schumer and you said are logically equivalent to what each of you said.

Are people really going to vote, next month, for more tax cuts for the rich, more erosion of the Bill of Rights, more people without health-care insurance, etc.? If not, the Dems will take over this Fall.
...

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are [equally] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
...

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
...
Article I
...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
Article IV
...
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
...
Article VI
...
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
...

The Bill of Rights (1791)
...
Amendment V
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...
Amendments XI-XXVII
To the US Constitution
...
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

...

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.


Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

ebrown_p wrote:

Ican, I get the feeling you didn't do very well in math class.

A more rational (and more believable) response from ebrown_p would have been: ican, you misinterpreted my statements. What I meant was ...


Now you see what I've been putting up with for so long in the Iraq thread.

I mean, stuff like this:

Quote:

First, it's self-evident that my paraphrases of what Schumer and you said are logically equivalent to what each of you said.

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

If I thought my positions expressed on Able2Know would hurt the Democrats chances to take over one or both houses of Congress-- I would absolutely refrain from posting until after the election.
...
Advocating any political action right now that would hurt the Democratic message-- even if I would normally support it, is counterproductive.
...

Chuck Schumer said:

Quote:

Democrats will not describe what they are going to do if elected, because they do not want to give the Republicans a target.

My interpretation of ebrown_p's and Schumer's statements

ican wrote:

My paraphrase of excerpts from ebrown_p:
If it were known to American voters what I think the Democrats should do if elected, American voters might not elect Democrats.

My paraphrase of Schumer:
If it were known to American voters what the Democrats are going to do if elected, American voters would not elect them.

Well, then, Ican, if they are equivalent, why didn't you respond to what Ebrown actually wrote instead of substituting your own phrases? If they are logically equivalent, there is no reason to substitute your own phrases.

To make crystal clear my interpretation of what was said and written.

The truth is, you know that what you wrote is not logically equivalent to what was said, but rather you decided to present it in a fashion more conducive to your argument and worldview.

No, the truth is I don't know that. Please show me what you think is the correct interpretation of those statements.

Cycloptichorn

No, the truth is I don't know that. Please show me what you think is the correct interpretation of those statements.

Quote:

No, the truth is I don't know that. Please show me what you think is the correct interpretation of those statements.

Not what you said, that's for sure. Dems aren't afraid that people won't vote for them if they talk about what they want to do; they just realize that it is a far more effective strategy to keep their mouths shut and let the voters decide whether or not to vote for Republicans.


"Dems aren't afraid that people won't vote for them if they talk about what they want to do; they just realize that it is a far more effective strategy to keep their mouths shut..." and keep from the voters what, they intend to do?

I think the Dems are right. I think that if the voters knew what the Dems are going to do, the voters would not vote for Dems. I think the Dems know that and that's why they are afraid to tell the voters what they are going to do.

The constant criticism you hear from Republicans is 'Dems don't have plans of their own, or ideas,' and that's plain lying. What they do have is plans and ideas that Republicans don't agree with, such as leaving Iraq and raising taxes on the rich. But what do you think is better, being on the defensive, or the offensive? The dems think being on the offensive is better when it comes to this election, and there is every indication that the plan is working.

I think the Dems think being offensive--being slanderous and libelous about Republicans--will enable them to win. For that reason alone, I wouldn't trust the Dems as far as I can throw the state capital building in the city of Austin Texas.

Cycloptichorn

Ican, the constitution doesn't mention a uniform income tax.

Nor does it mention a non-uniform income tax. But it does mention: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I think that means under the laws of our country, the legal privileges and the legal immunities of each citizen are equal. So if I'm privileged to not pay more only 15% of my income on income taxes and am immune from paying more than 15%, then every other citizen should be equally privileged and immune.

The IT has always been based on ability to pay -- that is what graduated rates do.

No it hasn't always been based on the ability to pay. It has always been based on what will net politicians the most votes at a given time. Initially, the income tax only taxed a tiny minority of citizens. That enabled politicians to persuade most voters that they were all going to remain immune to the income tax. Once sucked in, the majority of the voters started paying income tax to finance wealth transfers from those who had the fewest votes to those who had the most votes.

Moreover, the rich have wildly disparate income and wealth, and should be soaked.

Why should the rich be soaked? They provide the economic opportunities to support ourselves that the rest of us depend on. Furthermore, it's the rich who finance the developments of that which makes all our lives easier than they would otherwise be. Soak the rich and we soak ourselves. Also, most of the rich started out poor. So while getting rich they enabled many others to do likewise.

Perhaps you would prefer that the USA be more like Brazil and Mexico, where a small number of families control everything, and vast majority of people are essentially serfs. BTW, we already have a plutocracy, which is getting much worse under Bush.

In Mexico, the rich continue to stifle others from improving their economic status by preventing others from competing with them. They do this by controlling who invests what, when and where. We don't do that in the USA. That's one of the reasons why we have grown faster than the other nations of the world whose governments control who invests what, when and where. Communist nations control investment like that and as a result are among the poorest nations. Only their elites prosper.

Bush's tax-cut dollars went overwhelmingly to the rich. Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz are very appreciative.

In total dollars, of course they did, since they paid way more dollars than the rest of us. But Less than 30% of tax payers currently pay 95% of the income taxes. Less than 5% currently pay 50% of the income taxes. If everyone paid the same %, say 10%, of their gross income to income taxes, those whose annual gross income was $1 billion, $1 million, or $1 thousand would pay annually, respectively, $100 million, $100 thousand, or $100. What's unfair about that?

For any supporter of the current crop of republicans to castigate Dems for spending is ludicrous. Just plain ludicrous.

We agree. It is ludicrous.

You need to realize that the problems Republicans are facing right now aren't from the Democrats and they aren't from slanders.

They're from Iraq.
They are from the Department of Justice.
They are from the Fiscal Conservatives of America.
They are from the Social Conservatives of America.

We agree with one exception. The Democrats, because of their continual chant that we cannot win in Iraq, give "comfort" to our enemies in Iraq. That leads our enemies to believe that we Americans will eventually quit and let them win. That comfort the Democrat's give our enemies in Iraq makes winning in Iraq even more difficult than it might otherwise be.

Have you seen press conferences being called by Liberals and Democrats these days? Round after round of attacks denouncing the Republicans, lying about them, slandering them? No, sir, you have not. What you have seen is Republicans get in trouble with the law (abramoff, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Curt Wheldon, Burns, WH officials, Norquist, Reed, Governors, Libby; how many have to be named?

Too much Republican behavior is inexcusable. Even more Democrat behavior is inexcusable (e.g., their repeated slandering and libeling of all Republicans for what some have done, while ignoring all of what some Democrats have done or not done).

By the way, Abramoff bought both Republicans and Democrats. Libby did not out Plame as trumped up by the Dems. Nor did anyone else out Plame, since she hadn't been a covert agent for more than 5 years when it was publicised she was a CIA employee. What other WH official are you accusing of what?

You believe that Liberals run the US justice dept?

Irrelevant!

You don't think that this has any impact on votes at all, this level of corruption - and not even alledged corruption, in many cases, but convicted corruption?

Of course, true, alleged and falsely alleged corruption has impact on votes--negative impact. Of course, failure to disclose what will be done if elected has negative impact on votes. Of course, repeated slanders and libels have negative impacts on votes. More than anything else, however, the Democrats are acting like psychotics in competition with the Republicans acting like neurotics. We shall soon learn which appear more dangerous to the voter.

Cycloptichorn