Seriously, are Clinton's chances of winning less now?

[senseandsensibility]

Is she going to lose points in the next poll? Is she less likely to win Iowa? How meaningful was last night's debate in a practical context? I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, regardless of which candidate they support.

[IndianaJones]

1. no. she will remain the same....or gain. nt.

[Perry Logan]

2. You've obviously been pigging out on Halloween candy.

[senseandsensibility]

14. Gee

You really got me with that one.:shrug:

[madinmaryland]

3. It will make no difference.

[josh_edwards07]

4. Absolutely

She got caught backpedaling and ducking questions all night. Voters and candidates are clearly in awe with her stance in NY allowing illegals to get licenses. I think you'll see her lose some points in the next poll.

In my estimation:
Big Winners: Edwards, Dodd, Obama (to a degree)
Big Losers: Clinton, Kucinich (next time don't admit to seeing a UFO, that will only hurt your poll #'s more (or what's left))

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

5. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[ddeclue]

6. Yes - she's toast...

She got caught weasel wording and fell flat on her face. It will be used against her in Iowa.. you can count on it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Yes, somewhat. She probably went from 90% chance to 86%

[rinsd]

16. You crack me up....

[MNDemNY]

8. Not a bit. Only Gore could change the outcome.

[Cameron27]

9. I doubt it. We'll find out soon enough with the next poll though.

[Skip Intro]

10. No, her chances are the same if not better

and the personal attacks Richardson spoke of will backfire


She did fine last night, imho.

[cuke]

11. I doubt it

If she handles the aftermath the way Obama handled his, she'd be dead, but she's a lot smarter than Obama. She will clarify and this will be forgotten most probably

[incapsulated]

12. Doubt it

One lackluster primary debate performance doesn't destroy a candidate or make another jump 10 points overnight.

Obama has been given "wins" in other debates and it hasn't changed her momentum.

She didn't do well but she didn't make some huge gaff that will be on all the pundits lips for a week, either. She just lost that debate.

If she performs badly in 3 in a row or something then it will be a story that will have impact.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. I don't believe it will have any impact at all.

She was quintessentially Clinton there--focused, on target, and at the same time triangulating difficult issues. Nothing new was revealed.

[rinsd]

15. I think that will depend both on the resonance of the attacks and the followup.

If people respond to these attacks and they become a theme you could see some movement.

But I don't see the impact being large enough for one of these guys to overtake her or even draw within 15 pts in national polls (which would still be a drop of about 10 to 15 pts).

[Ninga]

17. A lot more has to happen.

There will be more debates. So the front runner played prevent defense and it appears as though she may have taken a bit of a hit for last night's performance.

Surely you don't believe in invincibility, do you?

I can't tell from your question, but it appears as though you are surprised.

Last night will only be meaningful, if in the next debate she falters again.

[senseandsensibility]

33. No I do not believe in invincibility

nor am I a Clinton fan, as a search of my posts here on DU would reveal. I am very cynical, however. I think her performance in the debate was neither spectacularly good nor bad, but will be manipulated by the corporate media for their own purposes. I suppose it's just a question of when the media decides to stick the knife in. Personally, I don't think it (the media) is ready yet.

[Adelante]

18. I don't see any polling change from this one debate

There are a couple of ways to look at Iowa. If voters start seeing her opponents as negative campaigners, it could strengthen Hillary. On the other hand, she could be tripped up on transparency matters, but it's more about how she handles that than what the other candidates do. Iowans seem to value directness; they also value positive campaigning. But neither of these indicators will show in polls this week.

[Forkboy]

19. Marginally...very, very marginally.

[AdamAbeles]

20. Clinton really does not stand for much of anything,

Her wishy washy politics is an embarrassment in my opinion. Give me Gravel, Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Even Biden or Dodd. Her healthcare plan is absolutely horrible. The government should have NO authority at all to tell you that you must buy a product from the government themselves or a third party. Furthermore, her health plan does nothing more than advance profits for the Health Industry. I used to work for UNITEDHEALTHCARE as a Claims Adjuster (Claims Denier) and know firsthand the ins and outs.

Her plan is garbage.

HR. 676 is the ONLY REAL PLAN. MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!

[senseandsensibility]

21. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[AdamAbeles]

22. Thank you my friend.

Thank you my friend.

I am a Gravelian. Gravel>Clinton

[Basileus Basileon]

23. So, then, do you disagree with mandatory auto insurance? nt

[AdamAbeles]

25. that is WHY I DO NOT PAY IT!

I do and that is WHY I DO NOT PAY IT!

Also, there are currently 2 states that DO NOT REQUIRE AUTO INSURANCE. Some states also use an "honor" system when it comes to Auto Insurance. The really unconstitutional laws require Auto Insurance. These are not really enforceable if openly challenged in a court of law, but the sheeple just go on with it.

With TRUE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, HR 676, MEDICARE FOR ALL, auto insurance becomes useless as Medical is covered for all in any accident.

You also still have the right to sue for damages to your vehicle.

Why would you want to be a Sheep and continue to promote unconstitionality?

[Basileus Basileon]

28. Okay. And who has found these laws unconstitutional? nt

[AdamAbeles]

29. Do you want me to cite individual cases or case law?

Do you want me to cite individual cases or case law? Give me your email also and I can send you out a total list of rulings on this matter.


Its about time you educated yourself on true Liberty and Freedom.

[Basileus Basileon]

31. Sure.

Give me your single best cite for mandatory automobile insurance being found unconstitutional, preferably with a law being overturned, and preferably by a Supreme Court, either federal or state (If I find out the decision has been overturned, game over, so check that first). Just one, please, I'd like to avoid the old game where someone posts fifty cases--mostly overturned--that have to do with cars and insurance and individual people gaining exemptions and such and pretend that all adds up to something it don't. Either the concept of mandatory insurance has been found unconstitutional or it hasn't.

Note also that gaining exemptions for self-coverage through bonds does not count.

[AdamAbeles]

34. :)

The State of Massachusetts recently became the first State to require its residents to be covered by health insurance. Under this law, all uninsured adults will be compelled to purchase some kind of health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face legal penalties. This buy insurance or else legislation is patterned after the State's auto insurance law that requires all operators of a motor vehicle to be covered by insurance.

Beginning in 2008, residents will be required to provide a detailed overview of their health insurance coverage on their state income tax return. Any one who does not have insurance would lose their personal state tax exemption and be hit with a penalty equal to half of the cheapest policy available in the State. Preliminary estimates put that amount at approximately $1,200.00 per year.

While this legislation is the ultimate wet dream for health insurance companies and big government liberals, it has a major flaw that, in the author's opinion, renders the "buy insurance or else" component of the legislation unconstitutional.

The preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution states:

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights."

Notice the use of the word "natural," as opposed to "constitutional," to describe the rights of the people. The phrase is repeated again in the text of the Constitution:

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

The words "natural, essential and unalienable" are basically interchangeable and refer to the God-given (endowed by their creator) rights of the people. These rights exist independent of government or any written constitution. Thomas Jefferson expressed this principle in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Among the natural rights of the American people is the unlimited right of contract. This means you can choose to enter or not enter into a contract. In order for a contract to be valid, it must be voluntary. In the normal course of life, you cannot be compelled under threat or coercion to enter into a contract with anyone, including government.

This takes us to the Massachusetts health insurance legislation. When you take out an insurance policy you are entering into a contract with the insurance company. The new Massachusetts law, irrespective of how it is couched, is an enter into a contract or else program.

Patterning this legislation after the State's auto insurance law is, in the author's opinion, simply an attempt to deceive the people of Massachusetts concerning their obligations under the law. There is an important distinction between auto and health insurance. Unfortunately, most Americans have not been taught to recognize the difference.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, (and I do not want to get into a discussion over the right to travel vs. a license in this article) the people of Massachusetts are required to be licensed. A license, in pure legal terms, is simply permission from government to do something that would otherwise be illegal. When you ask permission from government to engage in a licensed activity, you must comply with all the conditions imposed by government. Auto insurance is one of those conditions. There is no compelled contract because the individual voluntarily agreed to the insurance requirement as a condition of securing the license.

Massachusetts cannot use the State's auto insurance law as the model for mandatory health insurance because living and breathing in the State is not a government created privilege that requires a license. The right to exist comes from God, not government.

This Massachusetts health insurance law is an assault on the natural rights of the people and an attempt to circumvent the requirement that a contract, absent a license or some privilege granted by government, must be a voluntary act on the part of the parties. Thus, any attempt to compel the people to secure health insurance under threat of fine or penalty is an unconstitutional act on the part of the State of Massachusetts.

[AdamAbeles]

35. If you live in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia or Wisconsin, you aren't required by law (yet

If you live in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia or Wisconsin, you aren't required by law (yet) to have liability coverage.

[Basileus Basileon]

37. That says nothing of the unconstitutionality of those laws,

just that certain states have not enacted them. You said you had case law. Put up or shut up.

[Basileus Basileon]

36. Fail.

First, that isn't a citation, that's a copy-paste. You gotta tell us which court, which case, which year, etc. That might be a judicial opinion, but is probably just an editorial, since it says "the author's opinion" and not "the court's opinion." Second, that has nothing to do with the unconstitutionality of mandatory auto insurance. In fact, it recognizes the Constitutionality of mandatory auto insurance both explicitly and implicitly.

[MNDemNY]

41. Look at post 38...adam is one of those.

Waste no more time.

[AdamAbeles]

52. Not very nice of you. Why so rude?

WASTE NO TIME because I have a different opinion than you do in regards to taxes?

I think a National Sales Tax is the absolute best idea. We are only taxed on what we buy so we then become a nation of saving instead of brash consuming. This also allows the chance at wealth to be accumulated.

[Basileus Basileon]

54. More because you strongly hold a legal opinion

which is at direct odds with the repeated and explicit findings of numerous courts. Thinking that we should replace the income tax with a sales tax is in my mind misguided, but is not worthy of ridicule. Claiming that the income tax is somehow unconstitutional is another matter.

[AdamAbeles]

58. All it takes is one ruling.

All it takes is one ruling. If the people were not such sheeple we could get that ONE ruling.

Laws are not static things my friend. They are meant to be ammended and changed as the people see fit.

Going along blindly is the WORST thing you can do. You said "it does not matter if I like Insurance".

That is downright scary. You would just rather surrender than think about other possibilites?

[Basileus Basileon]

63. That's true for most things.

I think beards are unattractive on men. It would only take one ruling to find the wearing of beards by Congressmen unconstitutional. That does not mean that I would argue that congressional beards are unconstitutional.

Laws are changeable, but there is a world of difference between "I want to change a law," and "I disobey a law because it is unconstitutional." BTW, Cheek v. United States has held that failure to pay taxes due to a belief that they are unconstitutional qualifies as tax avoidance, due to the frivolous and deliberate nature of the avoidance in that case--this isn't an undecided thing.

[AdamAbeles]

66. I believe dissent is the HIGHEST form of Patriotism.

:)

[Basileus Basileon]

68. The courts have found it is not dissent.

It is tax avoidance, and it is criminal. Justify it how you like, but if the IRS were to go after you for it, your day in court would last all of fifteen minutes.

[AdamAbeles]

77. I guess you fear and obey the government even when you know it is in the wrong....

I take it you think the Founding fathers were criminals according to your principle of, "since it is criminal it is not dissent".

LOLOLOL

[Basileus Basileon]

80. I obey the government, yes.

It is not in the wrong here. And when I find the government is in the wrong, I act to change it while still obeying it. The reason the founding fathers engaged in criminal rebellion was that the system was unchangeable--it did not respond to popular demand. Our system does. If you think taxes are wrong, then lobby for a new amendment to strike the 16th. Not paying taxes is not dissent, it's just greed.

[AdamAbeles]

89. Changeable system?

Yah. The Democratically elected Congress is really doing us all good right now and obeying the people`s will....I guess they don`t give a damn about popular demand either.

[Basileus Basileon]

92. So if you think the Congress is too big-government,

work to get more crazy libertarian-Republicans like Ron Paul in office. We have things called "elections." The fact that you don't like their result doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to ignore the law.

[AdamAbeles]

123. I like Congress when it works well and obeys the will of the people

I like Congress when it works well and obeys the will of the people.

This hasn`t happend in years though.

[MNDemNY]

55. Sales tax is the least progressive tax method. Bad idea...

And you implied that you are an "income tax refuser" tin foil hat stuff there.

[AdamAbeles]

60. Prove it

I don`t pay any taxes other than the sales tax here. Please prove to me that a national sales tax is the least progressive. That is, if you can.

[MNDemNY]

64. .

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[AdamAbeles]

67. Not possible to prove. heh

Exactly. You can`t.

[MNDemNY]

70. It's simple....Sales tax hits the poor at a much higher level than others. the end.

[AdamAbeles]

78. How so? If one is poor they simply save.

How would it affect a family bent on saving and buying used goods?

[rinsd]

83. So its the poor's fault your tax system is regressive?

[AdamAbeles]

91. Nope.

I think the poor should have the right to keep their entire paycheck with no taxes taken out. Then they can decide for themselves what to buy.

With our national sales tax, we can still have welfare programs as well!

[Basileus Basileon]

93. Uh...huh.

So it's progressive, because the poor can choose to starve to death or not have houses.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[rinsd]

96. The poor can "choose" to buy used goods as opposed to new ones.

:eyes:

[Basileus Basileon]

98. Ah, right, that's the problem with the poor.

We'd solve our poverty problem tomorrow if only they knew that they could go to the Goodwill, and pick up some used food, used apartments, and buy some used heating oil.

[AdamAbeles]

103. Again, WE INCREASE WELFARE Programs

Again, we still offer Section 8 housing as well as increased Welfare.

The poor are not getting enough tax dollars as it is right now.

With the National sales tax, the majority should be allocated to the poor and NOT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

[Basileus Basileon]

105. Allocation of tax dollars has nothing to do with who has the tax burden.

Increasing welfare is not part of a national sales tax. One can easily exist without the other. The first helps the poor, and the second hurts them. Those are completely different issues.

[AdamAbeles]

100. You are not understanding.

We still offer Welfare,in fact we increase it!

The poor need the money more than the military does. Surely you agree with that!

[Basileus Basileon]

104. Welfare has nothing to do with taxation.

Don't even try to change the subject here.

[rinsd]

No, let him.

He was beating his chest about independence from the government by not being forced to pay taxes only to say he will counter the increased tax burden on the poor by making the poor even more reliant on the social safety nets.

[AdamAbeles]

115. Income taxes are not good. Sales taxes are.

Again. I don`t agree with income taxes. I only agree with a National Sales Tax.

That way, you have total control on paying taxes if you want by choosing what to buy.

Income taxes are not good. Sales taxes are. That is true independence as well as helping the poor moreso than they are being helped now.

Let us not forget that you have only one life to live. Why should anyone suffer? There is no afterlife, you only get one shot. Nobody should spend it in misery or poverty.

[Basileus Basileon]

118. Dense as iron, you are.

It's already been demonstrated that sales taxes hurt the poor the most--and that damage is only avoidable by increasing welfare, thus making them even less independent. And this doesn't begin to cover the fact that with the Internet, any with money will buy their high-priced luxuries from Canada and have them shipped in, circumventing the tax altogether and forcing even more of the burden on the poor.

It amounts to a huge welfare scheme, in which most of government's spending has to go towards undoing the damage its tax structure causes to the poor, and most of the money for this has to come from the poor. That's not independence. That's insanity.

[MNDemNY]

125. He's gone.....Tombstone.

[rinsd]

110. So you would increase the burden on the poor while making them more dependent on the gov't?

See what happens when you stray from your pamphlet, your circular argument about increasing "independence" goes all to shit.

The social safety net is a separate issue from the regressive or progressive nature of our tax system.

[Basileus Basileon]

73. This isn't hard.

Poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income than richer people do. Therefore, poorer people would pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than richer people would. Was that so hard?

[AdamAbeles]

82. That makes no sense.

If a family is saving their earnings and buying used goods, how is your statement accurate? With clever saving, anyone will be able to move up the socio-economic ladder.

[Basileus Basileon]

85. Oh, you're a laugh.

Here's the solution to poverty--penalize them, so they won't want to be poor any more! Great thinking! It doesn't matter that a sales tax is regressive--the poor just aren't choosing to save (never mind that this is a lie) so they deserve it!

[AdamAbeles]

97. You are off your rocker!

How is offering the poor a chance at a total paycheck, 0 tax on used goods, and welfare programs penalizing the poor.

Please tell me. This is more help than they have ever gotten in the past! They Need it and we should do everything in our power to help them.

[Basileus Basileon]

101. lol, it's only an untaxed paycheck

if they don't spend it. The poor have to spend their entire paychecks to survive--that's what "living paycheck-to-paycheck" means, you dolt. And the vast majority of that spending isn't on solid goods--it's on rent, gas, car payments, utilities, and food. Very little is on the things you'll find down at the Goodwill.

Welfare programs have nothing to do with this. While I'm sure you're very proud you wouldn't gut welfare, that doesn't change the tax burden.

[AdamAbeles]

106. Again....

Increased Welfare Spending and Programs easily solve these problems.

[Basileus Basileon]

108. So, then, your plan is for

an incredibly regressive tax structure, in which the super-rich pay almost nothing (as they'll just buy their most expensive goods abroad over the internet and have them shipped in), the middle class is hit hardest, and the poor increase their tax burden immeasurably.

But you'll increase welfare, so it'll sorta even out for some people--but makes them totally dependent on the government for everything. Your plan has just shot itself in the foot.

File this one under "stupid."

[AdamAbeles]

119. Makes no sense.

That makes no sense. Imports are taxed.

[Basileus Basileon]

121. Rrrright.

I'm sure the wealthy are always very honest with that, too. Unless you want to raise tariffs on all imported goods. Boy, that'll start a huge trade war.

Seriously, it's obvious you haven't thought this through at all. Once you strayed from your pamphlet, it all fell apart. Just walk away now.

[rinsd]

86. So what does socioeconomic mobility have to do with the regressive or progressive nature of taxes?

Nothing on the Larouche pamphlet for that one I suppose :eyes:

[AdamAbeles]

94. The Larouche Pamphlet

Regressive and Progressive are just fancy terms used by the likes of Hillary Clinton and her inability to change the Bush Tax Plan. :)

Politics as usual is what you want.

[Basileus Basileon]

95. Your failure to understand terminology does not change your incorrectness. nt

[AdamAbeles]

99. Your inability to......

Your inability to take a snide comment proves that you share the same stick as Hillary. Think about it. LOL

[Basileus Basileon]

102. I don't even know what that means.

[AdamAbeles]

122. I wish that was an Olive Branch instead

I wish that was an Olive Branch instead. Peace. It works. Perhaps you should tell Hillary this. :)

[rinsd]

74. How is sale tax progressive at all? Everyone is charged the same rate.

The impact is greater on my overall finances by paying the same percentage as someone making 10% more than myself buying the same items. When sales tax has completely replaced income tax you now have a regressive tax system where the burden is shifted more to the middle class and working poor vs the rich who can afford tax increases without it impacting their overall lifestyle.

[AdamAbeles]

79. The percentages can be adjusted according to the economy. Very simple!

The percentages can be adjusted according to the economy. Very simple!

[rinsd]

81. According to the economy?

:shrug:

[AdamAbeles]

84. Yes. According to the GLOBAL market as well.

Indeed.

22 percent on all goods.

0 percent on all used goods would do the trick nicely for now.

[rinsd]

90. All goods makes it even more regressive.

Sales tax now makes allowances for food and clothing and other deemed essential items so the impact on the poor is lessened.

Why should the poor be limited to buying used goods to avoid paying sales tax on essential items?

[AdamAbeles]

43. Give me time my friend.

Give me time my friend. Do you like Insurance?

[Basileus Basileon]

47. Whether I like insurance is beside the point.

What I like is not necessarily what the law is. I dislike olives on my pizza, but I wouldn't say that an olive pizza is an unconstitutional infringement on my rights.

[AdamAbeles]

53. Do you like the government telling you have to BUY Certain products?

Do you like the government telling you have to BUY Certain products?

Don`t you think Auto Insurance would be rendered totally useless if given TRUE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?

The right to sue for auto damages is still available. What would insurance serve?

[Basileus Basileon]

59. Again, what I like is not what I find constitutional.

1. I strongly dislike that the government forces me to register for the draft. I do not believe that a draft is unconstitutional.

2. Auto insurance has nothing to do with healthcare, unless you think a doctor is going to repair my car.

3. While I can sue for damages to my car, there are two problems with this. First, that clogs up the courts, and I'd likely have to wait months if not years to get a payment--and what do I do without a car in the meantime? Secondly, if the other guy doesn't have insurance, it's probably because he can't afford it. If he can't afford it, he won't be able to afford to pay damages, and I'll be stuck with no cash, no car, and no options.

[AdamAbeles]

65. Again....

1. Anything can be deemed unconstitutional. Never underestimate implied legislative powers.

2. Auto Insurance is intertwined with as the two correlate in serious accidents.

3. Please provide proof that it would clog a court. I am also saying that you should HAVE THE OPTION of having Insurance if you like. Just not be required. If you don`t want to have Insurance and ruin your car, than that is a risk you should be willing to take. We should all be afforded that option of no coverage and coverage if we like. Not by law.

[Basileus Basileon]

71. ...

1. The possibility of future unconstitutionality is not a valid argument, as it could be used to imply any law ought be ignored. Moreover, income taxes have been repeatedly held to be constitutional, and all arguments raised against them have been repeatedly held to be frivolous. No court will hear any of them at any level.

2. Plenty of things correlate. For instance, when a child falls off a bicycle, he may tear a hole in his pants and skin his elbow. I would venture to guess that clothing damages and minor injuries are highly correlated in children. However--and this is what you're missing--caring for the child's skinned elbow does not fix his pants. He needs to either have his pants repaired, or he needs new pants. Saying "Well, his injuries are intertwined with his clothing damage" does not change the fact that they are still both issues that require dealing with.

Health insurance would cover the injuries. It would not cover damage to property. That's what auto insurance is for.

3. Oh, Jesus, are you seriously suggesting that removing all options for recovering damages in an accident you were not at fault for but to go to court would not clog the courts? Here, let's reason this out. There are currently two options: you can have the insurance companies handle it, or you can go to court. Most people do the first. If you remove the first, everyone has to do the second. The courts are already badly backlogged.

Waitwaitwait--you don't understand what the problem is here. Suppose you're out driving. You have insurance. You're in a state where the at-fault party is responsible for covering damages. Some crazy driver with no insurance runs a red light and smashes into your car. You're not at fault. He is. So he has to pay. He has no money, and no insurance. Now what?

[AdamAbeles]

113. Insurance

The Insurance that YOU bought will cover it. Your monthly payment is the same. Nothing changes. They fit the bill. That is why YOU bought Insurance.

[Basileus Basileon]

114. You don't understand how insurance works, do you?

In many states, the at-fault party must pay--that way, their rates go up, and their company has to be responsible. In some others, even if your insurance company covers it, they only do so once they recoup their losses by filing a mini-tort against the the at-fault party, or that party's insurance. If they don't have insurance, you've got to go to court to sue them directly--and if they don't have any money, you're just fucked. That's why insurance is mandatory.

[AdamAbeles]

116. Auto Insurance should be structred like Flood Insurance.

Auto Insurance should be structred like Flood Insurance.

[Basileus Basileon]

120. So at-fault drivers shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

Seriously. So I can strap myself in my car, and rear-end someone--and he should have to pay the deductible for the damage to his car, because it's somehow his fault I hit him? Here I would think that since it's my fault, I should pay. But the only way to ensure I am held responsible for my actions is to mandate I have car insurance--otherwise, when he sues me (and we wait three months for our day in court, during which time he has no car) I can say I have no money, and then he's shit out of luck.

See why mandate insurance now?

[MNDemNY]

57. My troll alarm is going off...How about yours?

:hi:

[AdamAbeles]

61. Troll Alarm?

Your troll alarm is going off because I support MIKE GRAVEL?

Last time I checked he is more liberal than your Hillary. What gives?

[Basileus Basileon]

76. Heh, mine just reads "half-baked libertarian."

:hi:

[MNDemNY]

88. You give him too much credit...Half?

[AdamAbeles]

109. You are more Republican than I am. LOL

Mike Gravel is as Liberal as one can get my friend.

[AdamAbeles]

107. My radar says you are centrist leaning republican

You are nothing more than a centrist leaning republican. It is obvious.

[Basileus Basileon]

112. Yes, because I propose progressive taxes,

I'm a Republican. :eyes:

[AdamAbeles]

117. No

No, because you don`t realize that a National Sales tax with a focus on Welfare would help the poor more than Hillary "politics as usual" Clinton approach.

[Basileus Basileon]

124. Yeah, because it wouldn't.

A sales tax hurts the poor. Welfare helps the poor. They're different things.

[MNDemNY]

32. Any that have been upheld???? I thought not.

As long as the law allows you to post a bond to "self insure" no-fault laws have been upheld consistently through out the US. Are you one of those who think income tax is voluntary?

[AdamAbeles]

38. I do not pay that one either.

Income tax is a farce as well. I do not pay that one either. A national Sales tax is the only Constitutional method.

You can make the tax as progressive as you want and this in turn shapes up into a saving nation rather than a consuming nation.

Mike Gravel has it correct.

[MNDemNY]

39. Credibility for adam......ZERO...

[AdamAbeles]

44. ?

?

Did I miss something?

[MNDemNY]

45. Income tax unconstitutional??

:tinfoilhat:

[Basileus Basileon]

40. The income tax has been repeatedly found Constitutional.

In fact, it's even in the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment states: 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 or enumeration.

I think that's pretty damn clear. The courts have repeatedly agreed.

[AdamAbeles]

46. Precisely. It requires a Congressional vote.

Precisely. It requires a Congressional vote. Interesting how this gets brushed under the rug.

[Basileus Basileon]

49. United States v. Buckner:

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered “objectively reasonable” in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.

[opihimoimoi]

24. Coming through that debate, where she was a Target, SHE DID MAGNIFICENT

That she was not killed off...she is now STRONGER than ever....

[senseandsensibility]

26. I agree that she was a target

and I think she did as well as can be expected considering the situation. But my question was not about the reality of the situation, or the fairness of it. I just wondered if the perception of her performance will hurt her. We all know that any debates or spectacles covered by the corporate media are not reality based events.:)

[opihimoimoi]

75. Please keep in mind there are Forces out there and here SwiftBoating anything Blue

THEIR mission is to denigrate the Democratic Party and all members.

Its part of a grand plan to make winners out of the PUB Losers...having noting pos to say...they delve into nasty tricks like Swiftboating...repeat a lie often enough...and it will be absorbed....more so by the already brainwashed...

[Carrieyazel]

128. I have to disagree. The sound-bites from last night are killing her.

She cannot answer the questions. She will not. She refuses to. She looks like a dodging, pandering, waffling politician. I thought the attacks on her were right on and she could not respond effectively.

[CyberPieHole]

42. FYI...Ron Paul is a republican and he's a disgusting nut-case...

I know he is against the Iraqi war, but then so was Saddam Hussein. The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily MY friend.

As a newbie, I welcome you to DU.:hi:

[Basileus Basileon]

51. Well, seeing as he believes income taxes are unconstitutional,

I'm thinking he's a lot closer to Mr. Paul than to Mr. Kucinich.

[AdamAbeles]

69. 1. Mike Gravel. 2 Dennis Kucinich. 3. Ron Paul

1. Mike Gravel
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Ron Paul


The rest are either dim-witted fear-mongering bible thumpers on the right. We have a thinly disguised republican masquerading as a democrat. And a few other yahoos that are nothing but hedge fund collectors who will do nothing to change our status. It will be politics as usual.

[AdamAbeles]

72. Saddam should have been left in power.

Saddam knew the threat of terrorism as well as rival threats. Saddam actually was an agent of stability in regards to putting down terrorism in and around his regime. He feared Al-Quaeda and would not tolerate any faction other than his own.

Saddam was nothing more than a leashed dog. Bush decided to build a kennel with an open fence and as a result, rabid dogs come and go as they please.

Saddam was the best thing Iraq had going.

[youthere]

27. NO.

[Alamom]

30. No. Probably better. She's the frontrunner and will now be seen as

the underdog (too) after being attacked. :shrug: I don't get some people, but it is what it is.




edit grammer

[Zavulon]

48. Unfortunately, no.

After listening to her on illegals, I actually listened to about a half hour of Limbaugh today to see if he'd talk about it. Naturally, I wasn't disappointed. I listened to all I could stomach, and what made me sick to mine was that Hillary's performance on that question was so bad that Limbaugh almost sounded sane describing it.

Vice President Gore, PLEASE run.

[rufus dog]

50. slightly less

She emphasized a point that her detractors have been trying to communicate. Her actions, not words from others, showed her attempts to triangulate issues.

Is is major enough to bring her down. Not even close, for the primaries.

[Renew Deal]

56. Yes, her position on drivers licenses makes her unelectable.

I do not support any candidate yet.

[CyberPieHole]

62. No. She survived attacks that were a bit desperate and over the top.

I think that voters won't take kindly to men kicking a woman around. She held her own quite well, given the circumstances. I don't think she won the debate, but she didn't lose it either.

[bullwinkle428]

87. Thom Hartmann had said the driver's license thing was

a clear mistake on her part, and she'll "get eaten alive" if she doesn't come out against it over the next few days...Hartmann's usually a pretty astute guy, so I tend to pay attention to his predictions.

[BootinUp]

111. doesn't look that way to me.

Only if the charges made against her get lots of legs, like a million, and start running all over the place.

[Bo]

126. Hillary has those RUNAWAY BRIDE EYES....LOL

.....

[Carrieyazel]

127. YES. The debate itself was watched by very few. But the sound bites from it are killing her.

[senseandsensibility]

129. Are these soundbites from CNN, etc.

or from limpballs?

[Exultant Democracy]

130. She already fell behind Rudy in the most recent polls, and they were taken before the debate

[senseandsensibility]

131. Interesting

but I was thinking more of her standing among Dems.

[Exultant Democracy]

132. I think her standing against Rudy is going to have a direct impact on her

numbers with the other Dems. There are a lot of pragmatist that are looking at the bottom line and it is electability.

[rinsd]

133. So Dems are going to rely on the Q poll which shows Rudy beating Edwards and trailing Obama by 1?

Your electability argument falls flat when the whole story is told.

I wonder why the whole story was not told.....well not really.

Facts would derail your argument, therefore they must be omitted.