Obama is wrong on racial affirmative action

Obama writes in his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without diminishing opportunities for white students."

Reasons to agree:

1. It not that big of a deal, and Obama may be correct, that it is fair to give advantages to groups that were held back. However what he says is not logically sound. You can't give advantages to one group, without taking those advantages from another group. I'm not saying that I think affirmative action is wrong, I'm just saying that you shouldn't lie to us about it. If you think that minorities have been held back, and that they need help, just tell us that, but don't lie to the majority and tell them that their "opportunies" will not be "diminishe[ed]".

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Obama was wrong to support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Obama was wrong to vote YES on funding for social services for noncitizens

Reasons to agree:

1. It is feels "nice" to let illegal aliens to receive social services, but you have to be smart, and fair also. Why don't we give social services to South Americans, Europeans, or Chinese? Because they are not US citizens. Just because someone breaks into our country illegally, and hangs out here long enough to make friends, doesn't mean that we should give them social security. It might be nice (and democrats want SOOOO much for everyone to think that they are nice) but it is stupid to give non citizens benefits of citizenship, unless you are willing to say there is no such things as borders, no such thing as laws, no such thing as rules, and the government is just going to give everything to anybody who wants anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to vote YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security

Reasons to agree:

1. It is nice to let illegal aliens participate in social security, but you have to be smart, and fair also. Why don't we give social security to South Americans, Europeans, or Chinese? Because they are not US citizens. Just because someone breaks into our country illegally, and hangs out here long enough to make friends, doesn't mean that we should give them social security. It might be nice (and democrats want SOOOO much for everyone to think that they are nice) but it is stupid to give non citizens benefits of citizenship, unless you are willing to say there is no such things as borders, no such thing as laws, no such thing as rules, and the government is just going to give everything to anybody who wants anything.
   

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to vote NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government

Reasons to agree:

1. When the Germans, Dutch, Italian, immigrants came to America, they all learned English, so that they could fully participate in a new country.
2. E pluribus unum, Latin for "Out of Many, One"
   

Background

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to flip-flop on public financing of his campaign.

Reasons to agree:

1. On January 24, 2007, in reference to his stated plan to take public financing should he procure the nomination, he said, "I think that for a time, the presidential public financing system works." On November 27, he said, "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," and on February 28, 2008, he wrote that he planned to "aggressively pursue" a publicly financed campaign, later promising to sit down with John McCain to ensure "a public system" of campaign financing is preserved.^[75] However, on June 19, 2008, he opted out of public campaign financing. John McCain kept his promise. Obama did not.
   

Obama is right to support PAYGO.

 "We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue".

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.187-189 Oct 1, 2006Reasons to agree:

1. Everyone else has to pay for things they want. So should the government.

Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care

Background: 

"The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." Barak Obama, Jan 24rth 2007.

Thesis: Obama was Wrong to support universal healthcare

Reasons to agree:

1. Fiscal Concerns

   • Primary Argument: Unsustainable cost burden on taxpayers and government.
   • Supporting Evidence:
     • U.S. federal deficit trends.
     • Projected cost increases without systemic reform.
     • Tax hike estimates.
   • Qualitative Assessment:
     • Concerns are well-supported by financial data and budgetary projections.
     • Raises legitimate questions about the feasibility of funding mechanisms.

   ---

   2. Quality of Care

   • Primary Argument: Centralized systems could reduce care quality and stifle innovation.
   • Supporting Evidence:
     • Longer wait times in universal systems (e.g., Canada, UK).
     • Comparative R&D spending between private and public systems.
   • Qualitative Assessment:
     • Evidence is mixed; while delays are noted, health outcomes are generally strong in universal systems.
     • The potential for reduced innovation requires deeper investigation.

   ---

   3. Individual Liberty

• Primary Argument: Government control over healthcare limits personal freedom.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Constitutional interpretations emphasize limited government intervention.
  • Personal responsibility and autonomy principles.
• Qualitative Assessment:
• Philosophical objection with limited empirical grounding.
• Highlights ideological tensions rather than practical barriers.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Public Health Benefits

• Primary Argument: Universal access to preventative care reduces overall healthcare costs
  • Supporting Evidence:
    • Studies show early intervention reduces expensive emergency care
    • Data from countries with universal systems showing better health outcomes

2. Economic Efficiency

• Primary Argument: A single-payer system reduces administrative overhead
  • Supporting Evidence:
    • Medicare administrative costs vs private insurance overhead
    • International comparisons of healthcare spending per capita

3. Ethical Imperative

• Primary Argument: Healthcare access should be a fundamental right
• Supporting Evidence:
• UN declarations on human rights
• Ethics frameworks on basic human needs

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Costs

1. Implementation Costs:
   • Infrastructure creation and upgrades.
   • Administrative reorganization.
   • Workforce training.
2. Ongoing Costs:
   • Annual healthcare funding.
   • Technological maintenance and updates.
   • Salaries and benefits for expanded healthcare roles.

Benefits

1. Direct Benefits:
   • Universal access to preventative care.
   • Reduced reliance on emergency services.
   • Streamlined administrative systems.
2. Indirect Benefits:
   • Higher workforce productivity due to better health.
   • Decreased bankruptcy rates tied to medical bills.
   • Improved national health metrics.

---

Stakeholder Interests

Shared Interests

1. Enhanced health outcomes.
2. Cost-efficient systems.
3. High-quality care access.
4. Long-term system sustainability.

Opposing Interests

1. Role and scope of government involvement.
2. Equitable and viable funding mechanisms.
3. Realistic implementation timelines.
4. Autonomy over healthcare choices.

---

Objective Criteria for Evaluation

1. Population health outcome metrics.
2. Cost per capita and budget allocation impacts.
3. Administrative efficiency (e.g., cost of operations).
4. Patient and provider satisfaction surveys.
5. Metrics for innovation and R&D.
6. Average wait times for services.

---

Conclusion

The ISE framework underscores strong arguments on both sides of the universal healthcare debate. While public health and economic efficiency highlight compelling societal benefits, opposing perspectives on fiscal sustainability, potential quality concerns, and individual liberty emphasize critical challenges. Future progress requires:

• Developing hybrid solutions addressing fiscal and implementation concerns.
• Continuing to gather evidence and refine arguments for a comprehensive evaluation.
• Focusing on shared stakeholder interests to bridge ideological divides.

This analysis is adaptable, allowing for updates as new evidence and arguments emerge. Users are encouraged to contribute their perspectives to refine the discussion further.

Obama is wrong to appose oil extraction from ANWR

Reasons to agree:

1. We should treat the earth as a Garden not an un-touchable wildlife preserve.

2. All the oil in Alaska will someday burn. We can either burn it in our cars, or it will burn when the Sun engulfs the inner planets of our solar system, as it becomes a red-giant, before it burns out. Nothing we do to be nice to the planet matters in the long run. The sun will consume the Earth and everything on it. Sure. We should recycle, buy Prius cars, build green buildings, smart grids, and stop pollution. We need to save the Brazilian rain forest, and stop pollution. But there is absolutely nothing worth saving in ANWR, and nothing bad that could happen from extracting it's oil. It is a big frozen tundra, with miserable caribou that would lean against the pipeline for warmth in the depth of winter.

Obama is wrong to oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada

Reasons to agree:

1. We have to put spent nuclear material somewhere, and the scientist said Yucca Mountain is the best place. This decision shouldn't be made by politicians, like Obama, but by scientist.

Obama is wrong to support the $0.54-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol

Reasons to agree:

1. We won't be able to get countries to buy from us, if we tariff their products.
2. If we don't tariff middle east oil, we sure as hell should not be tariffing brazilian ethanol.

Obama is wrong to cosponsor the bill that would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's "Kentucky River" 532 U.S. 706 (2001) decision.

Reasons to agree:

1. The bill redefined many employees lacking the authority to hire, fire, or discipline, as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws. If you don't have the authority to hire, fire, or discipline, that means you are not a "supervisor".

Obama is wrong to circumvent the secret ballot requirement to organize a union

Reasons to agree

1. Union leaders (often the mob), or coworkers would intimidate you into doing what they want.
2. Unions already have too much power.
3. The secret ballot is American. Taking away the secret ballot is un-American.

Obama was wrong on the surge

Reasons to agree

1. The surge worked.
2. Obama is using a surge in Afganistan, though he is too proud to admit it. You know he said he was all about change, but this is one of those stupid lame things that shows he is just like all the other politicians.

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat, Obama.
2. Racism (criticizing a minority, Obama, because he is a minority).
3. Defending Bush, because people became deranged, and tried blaming him for everything.

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat, Obama.
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority, Obama, because he is a minority).
3. Attacking Bush because he is a republican.
4. Attacking Bush because he is Rich.
5. Attacking Bush because he was privilaged.
6. Attaching Bush because is a Jock.

Obama is right to simplify filing of income tax returns by pre-filling wage and bank information already collected by the IRS.

Reasons to agree

1. Companies that make tax preperation software try and stop this, but that is stupid. Some businesses should go out of business, and serve no purpose. Filling out your taxes should be easy, and the government should make it so easy that the tax preperation software people go out of business. I'm sorry.

Obama is right to restrict offshore tax havens

Obama is right to close corporate tax loopholes

Reasons to agree

1. This is kind of stupid, and like saying you’re for peace, justice, and the American way, however we should all try to stop loopholes. A loophole is, by definition, an un-intended consequence..

Obama is right to proposed rewarding teachers for performance from merit pay systems

Background:

Davis, Teddy; Sunlen Miller (November 20, 2007). "Obama Bucks Party Line on Education". ABC News. Retrieved on January 14, 2008.

Obama is right to proposed rewarding teachers for performance from traditional merit pay systems,

Reasons to agree:

1. People need motivation in order to do their best.

Reasons to disagree

1. Obama has assured unions that changes would be pursued through the collective bargaining process. This is not strong enough. No union is going to do what is right, just for the hell of it. They are going to try to get the most, for the least, and Obama should put kids first when it comes to merit pay.
   

Obama is wrong on immigration

Reasons to agree:

1. We must secure our borders first, and then reform immigration policy.


2. Obama wants to reward people for breaking the law.


3. Obama is wrong to always use strawman arguments. It is a straw man argument to say that "we can't round-up all the illegal alians".


4. We can't have national security without border security.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Obama is right to try to bring more educated english speaking people to America.


2. We need illegal immigrants.

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. The Rule of Law


2. Self interest: promoting their own race (if their race is different from the immigrant)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Self interest: promoting their own race (if their race is the same as the immigrant)
   


2. Family. Trying to re-unite with their family from South America

Images that agree:

1. 


2. 

Obama is wrong on private accounts for Social Security

Obama is wrong on private accounts for Social Security.

Reasons to agree:

1. Obama associates Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security with social Darwinism. But that is not the goal. The goal is to invest in America, instead of sending the money to Washington. The goal is to harness the power of the crowed. The goal is to get a better return on your investment. Obama doesn't like the marketplace, because he thinks some people fall through the cracks. But those societies that guarantee the most for their citizens, end up giving the least.

Reasons

We should create a forum that allows people to brainstorms reasons to agree and disagree with important conclusions

Reasons to agree:

1. It would be cool to have reasons to agree and disagree on the same page.


2. Why not? It hasn't been done before. No one has created a forum that has one page per thesis, and allows users to submit reasons to agree and disagree in a structured format.


3. It couldn't be worse than current online discussion boards.

We should create algorithms that promotes good reasons

People evaluating each reason

I imagine people would want to rate an idea, on a scale from 1 to 10, on the following criteria: # Are statistics sited to a verifiable source? # Does the Reason support the conclusion? # Is the reasons clearly stated? # Is the reason stated briefly? # On a scale from 1 to 10 how much do you believe that the argument uses the following logical fallacy:

But you say, "people are biased, we can't trust them to evaluate the logic of an argument when they might have a vested interests". I would concede your point, and walk away from this whole thing, if perfection is the standard by which we measure this sites success. However I am going to evaluate this site, by weather or not it will be better than any other site, and I believe it will be. Also we can encourage people to try to set aside their biases.

Some ways we can encourage people to set aside their bias is to weaken the strength of people's votes who always use a 1 or 10 to evaluate someone else's logic. We should also let people vote if they agree or disagree with an argument or not. If you disagree with a conclusion, and also consistently give low scores to every reason to support the conclusion, then you are not thinking, because every controversial topic has at least some valid reasons to agree and disagree with it.

So if you disagree with a conclusion, you will be asked to evaluate the top reasons to support the conclusion. If you do this in a way that indicates that you are actually considering each reason, then you will be rewarded.

Scoring and evaluating reasons to agree and disagree

A major feature of this project is to design algorithms that give scores to reasons to agree and disagree with a thesis. Once these reasons have a score, they can lend their support to support or oppose many different conclusions.

Homer Simpson said; "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts Schmacts".

However facts are not meaningless. Facts are Facts. We don't believe conclusions can be proven, because no one has ever gathered all the reasons to agree and disagree with a particular conclusion and investigated them all. We also don't believe truth can be evaluated because so many people who claim to have truth contradict each other, and seem so stupid. Vilhjalmur Stefansson said, "The most striking contradiction of our civilization is the fundamental reverence for truth which we profess and the thorough-going disregard for it which we practice."

I'm not saying we can find truth, but we can find that some things are more likely to be true than others, based on an investigation of the evidence that people are able to present as reasons to believe that something is true or not.

And so what I am proposing is that we gather all the reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion, and then set it up so that you click on any of those reasons, and you can see reasons to agree and disagree with it. And this keeps going until you have given each reason a score, and you add up all the scores for the top conclusion.

We all assume that we can all walk around believing contradictory things, and that that s just the way things have to be. It doesn't have to be that way.

How it would work

It will work a lot like the BCS algorithm in that it will use votes from real people and will also take into account data from comparing how ideas perform against each other in a competitive environment.

Reasons to agree and disagree with reasons to agree and disagree(what?)

Much of the score assigned from the algorithm is dependent on how the webpage is laid out, so hang with me:

Every page will have a layout similar to this one:

Many reasons to agree with an conclusion are in and of themselves a new conclusion that needs to be debated. For instance "Obama is a socialist" might be Thesis#1. A reason to support this conclusion (RTA#1) might be "Obama supported the purchase of GM, which is a socialist act".

With this website, you will be able to click on RTA#1, and it will become its own thesis at the top of a page with its own list of reasons to agree and disagree with it.

With this setup you can see that a reason to agree with RTA#1 will ultimately lend support to Thesis#1.

With this format an algorithm could be set up very easily that counts the total number of reasons to agree with it, including reasons to agree with reasons to agree with it, and so on.

You say that this system could be "gamed". I honestly don't think so. Because if you put a bad reason to support an idea, thinking that you are helping by adding the number of reasons to agree, then that idea should have lots of reasons to DISAGREE with it, and those reason should have lots of reasons to agree with them, and so on.

I don't think I can explain it very well, but I have been thinking about this for about 10 years now, and I know it would work great.

Example

"The United States should not engage in Nation Building" is a conclusions, with many reasons to agree and disagree. However it can also be used as an argument that both Bush and Clinton used the military incorrectly. The belief will have a strength when it stands by itself. But it will have a different strength when used as an argument to support another conclusion. For instance in this case, perhaps the score given to the belief that we should not be involved in nation building gets a 79 out of 100. This score would then be multiplied by the score assigned to the belief that this is a valid reason to agree that Bush or Clinton misused the military. Obviously over time the percentage of people who believed that this applied to Clinton and Bush would very. Formal logicians have a specific format for this type of argument. They say there is one premise: we should not participate in nation building. The other premise is George Bush participated in nation building. If you participate in nation-building, you are misusing the military. Therefore George Bush misused the military.

Formal logic is required to make this site work, however I am not going to present the forum so as to say to our users that they have to use formal logic. The purpose of this website is to take the way that people argue naturally, organize it, quantify it, and evaluate it.

We should use the internet to brainstorm reasons to agree and disagree with important conclusions

Reasons to agree:

1. The search for truth involves a lot of information. If computers have good algorithms they can be very good at processing information. Putting data into columns as reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion takes a very important step in processing data.


2. Truth is important enough that we should work very hard to try and find it.


3. It is important that citizens come to informed conclusions.

Thesis #1

Reasons to AGREE with Thesis #1 (RTAW#1)

Reasons to DISAGREE with Thesis #1(RTDW#1)

We need to have reasons to agree and disagree with Obama on the same page. We also need to have a post for each issue (that doesn't change topics), and then brainstorms all the reasons to agree and disagree with Obama, with the best reasons at the top of their respective list.

Steven Write said; "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking .” And it is true. People make decisions becaus they only heard part of the story, and they never examined all the reasons to agree and disagree. That is why I want to use the power of the internet to brainstorm all the reasons to agree and disagree with Obama.

If we separate our reasons to agree and disagree, and classify the reasons we could do some pretty cool stuff with computer software.

For instance we could create a computer algorithm that gives points to Obama's belief based on the number or reasons to agree with him. Then each reason can become its own post, with reasons to agree and disagree with it.

Every issue should have it's own comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree.

This would allow us to perform a Google duel between all the items that agree and disagree, which could represent the overall strength of the idea.

We could let people rate the reasons to agree or disagree, were the overall score of the reasons that agree contribute to the idea, and the overall score of the reasons that disagree take away from the score of the main idea.

We could assign a score to each reason based on the number of reasons that agree with it. The overall score of the reasons in the "reasons to agree" category would contribute to the overall score of the main idea.

This will allow us to talk to our ancestors, and include all the smart things that they said, about issues that we still face today. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today?

Like Abraham Lincoln said, it is not so important that we pray that God is on ourside, but that we are on God's side. The same thing about the truth. We shoudn't work to try to prove that the truth is on our side, but that we are on the truth's side. If we have a truth promoting forum, then it is safe to investigate both sides of an issue. We have nothing to fear from those who would disagree with us, as long as we are on the side of truth, and we have a format that alows for rational debate. Using lists of reasons to agree or disagree is a very good way of thouroughly investigating an issue, without letting either side hi-jack the discusion, by changing the topic, talking too long. Each side should bring their best arguments, and list them on a page. If we are not in a shouting mach, or competing for a limited amount of time, why not thoroughly investigate an idea? We don't need to silence the other side, we just need to prove that they are wrong.

Usually, one point won't convince someone they are wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all of their reasons out on the table. We are not discounting people's beliefs, we are responding to them.

Obama is wrong on the cap and trade auction system.

Reasons to agree:

1. Romney has said, "Governor Mark Sanford is right. Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations."
2. Its called global warming, but cap and trade only punishes the US, if China and India don't join. We should not put our businesses on an un-even playing field unless other countries go along.
3. Cap in trade does not work very well in Europe.
4. It would be better to directly invest in clean technology, instead of punishing old technology.
5. We should first do a cost benefit analysis of global warming, before we do anything harsh. Lets say we spend 5 trillion dollars every 10 years fighting global warming, but we only stop the planet from changing 1 100th of a degree. Is that success? What if it was 10 or 100 trillion dollars every 10 years? No one is even asking any of these questions. We are just going down the road blindly. Perhaps more lives could be saved with the trillions of dollars this will cost us, if we invested in other things. Who knows, if rising sea levels are the big problems, with that much money we could pump extra water to death valley, and bring some life to a lifeless area. There is still some aspect of the religious cult to the whole carbon-phobia phenomenon that wants to treat the earth like an environmental sanctuary instead of a garden.
6. Cap and trade would require a lot of regulation, new agencies, tons of overhead.
7. Emission taxes which they argue are a simple and economically efficient means of achieving the same objective. The fact that Obama approves of the cap and trade auction system shows that he is easily caught up in hype (as well as generating hype) and doesn't look at the facts.
8. Permit prices may be unstable and therefore unpredictable
9. Cap and trade systems tend to pass the quota rent to business
10. Cap and trade systems could become the basis for international trade in the quota rent resulting in very large transfers across frontiers
11. Cap and trade systems are seen to generate more corruption than a tax system
12. The administration and legal costs of cap and trade systems are higher than with a tax
13. A cap and trade system is seen to be impractical at level of individual household emissions

 

Reasons to disagree

1. We should use the markets to promote good behavior and punish bad behavior.
2. The transfer of wealth from polluters to non-polluters provides incentives for polluting firms to change.

 

Obama is wrong on the new deal.

Background: In economic affairs, in April 2005, he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (more)

Reasons to agree:

1. Central planning never works as well as individual decisions.
2. The new deal did some good things, but in the long run, it did more damage. The new deal created the welfare state, entitlements, and the retirment of the nany state that will emplode violently with the retirment of the baby-boomers.
3. Individual people make stupid decisions. The government can try to promote good decisions. But government is run by people, and baby-kissing, phonies who buy elections by telling you what you want to hear, and taking your property and giving it to your neighbor, makes worse decisions than just letting people decide what they want to do with their own money.

Books that agree:

1. New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (Hardcover) by Burton W., Jr. Folsom