Obama's House

Obama is right on the estate tax.

This is actually the only thing that I agree with Obama over Mitt Romney. This puts me outside the norm of the republican party today. I don't think I am hurting Romney by saying that I disagree with him on this one issue. I know that most of you agree with him and not me, but for the point of conversation, what do you think, and what would you add to my list?

Obama has called the attempt to remove the estate tax a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses." This is scary. I agree with what he says. I think he is right. We should take more money from the very rich, when they die, but he he is weird in saying taxing millionaries at the same rate as everyone else, is a tax break!

It is kind of complicated. Most republicans want to tax millinaries who die, at the same rate that we tax everyone else. Obama wants to take more money away from millionaries when they die. I agree with him, but I will call it what it is... a money grab. But he lies and tries to say that not taking a higher percentage of their money is a "tax break". He should be smarter than this...

It is stupid of him to call the removal of the estate tax, a tax break. The estate tax is a special tax set up for people with more than 1.5 million dollars, so the government can take away 1/2 of their money when they die. I agree with Obama wanting to let this tax stay on the books, but I disagree with him calling it a tax break, if we are to leave it on the books. We shouldn't lie. I like the estate tax, but I will call it what it is. Getting rid of it would not be a tax break.

Obama is right on the estate tax.

Reasons to agree

1. The estate tax is a great way to ensure that those in the aristocracy, and that end up ruling over us, deserve to rule over us. There is always going to be an aristocracy, but I want it to be those who really are better than us, not those who’s parents were better than our parents.


2. Thomas Paine supported the estate tax.


3. Andrew Carnegie supported the estate tax.


4. Theodore Roosevelt supported the estate tax.


5. Warren Buffett supports the estate tax.


6. The fact that Paris Hilton is a billionaire, proves that our society is unfair.


7. It is not healthy for a country to have a group of people that never have to work a day in their lives.


8. Most people would rather get taxed after they are dead.


9. Even with the estate tax parents can pass billions of dollars onto their children.


10. Even with the estate tax parents can pass the first 1.5 million dollars onto their kids tax free.


11. Parents can still help their children without having to let parents hand billions to their kids tax free.


12. Work is good.


13. If it was bad for welfare-moms to be idle, then it is bad for estate-kids to be idle.


14. Too many Americans live with a sense of entitlement because of their wealth.

Reasons to disagree

1. The estate tax breaks the bonds between generations.


2. It is wrong to tax money twice.


3. The money the government would take when collecting the estate taxed was already taxed when the parents earned the money.


4. Maybe the kids don't deserve the money, but governments don't have the right to just step in and take it.


5. Spreading the money equally between citizens is called socialism.


6. Russia eliminated its inheritance tax in 2005.


7. Sweden, the birthplace of the modern-day welfare state, eliminated its estate tax in 2005.


8. The estate tax tax is unjust.


9. The estate tax is economically counterproductive.


10. Argentina does not have an estate tax.


11. Australia does not have an estate tax.


12. Canada does not have an estate tax.


13. Mexico does not have an estate tax.


14. Switzerland does not have an estate tax.


15. India does not have an estate tax.


16. The US has the largest death tax in the industrialized world.


17. The third policy plank of Marx’s Communist Manifesto is taxation of all inheritance.


18. The more power you give the government, the more power it will take.


19. The estate tax will never generate enough money to make it worth while. There just aren't enough people who are that wealthy. The only reason we have the estate tax, is because we hate the rich, and we want to get back at them for having so much money.

Mitt Romney and the Estate Tax.

• Apr 19, 2007; Policy Briefing: Abolishing The Death Tax

Background

The federal estate-tax rate is 45% on every dollar above a $1.5 million exemption. In many states the combined federal/state tax on dying rises above 50%. This means that the government can take a larger share of the business, home and savings that a citizen builds up over a lifetime than would go to his heirs.

People who don't like the estate tax call it the death tax, because it sounds kind of morbid taking money from a dead guy/girl.

People who like the estate tax, call it the estate tax, because none of us like the rich.

Go here for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)


2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


3. Racism (5%)


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Dislike of aristocracy.


6. The desire for life to be fair: you can live like a billionaire if you make the money yourself, but should only live like a millionaire from your rich parents.

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


2. Democratic party groupism (40%)


3. Liberal guilt.


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Money (from the billionaires who die)

Harnessing Idea Futures: A Dialog on the Power of Prediction Markets

Robin Hanson, the innovator behind Idea Futures, and I recently engaged in a stimulating exchange of ideas. I've been fascinated by the potential of Idea Futures for quite some time and the opportunity to discuss my thoughts with Hanson was indeed a privilege. Here's the crux of our conversation, where I argue for the application of Idea Futures beyond just scientific advancement to general dispute resolution and politics.

Our conversation began with me expressing my interest in becoming involved in Idea Futures. As a believer in the power of structured, informed debate, I proposed two columns for each statement: Reasons to agree, and Reasons to disagree. Organizing these reasons according to how many people agree with them, I argued, would ensure a more balanced and informed discourse. This concept is something I've been experimenting with on my own projects, which can be explored on my GitHub and the Group Intel website.

In addition to these columns, I proposed weighing an idea based on factors such as the number of reasons to agree or disagree with it, the bettor's certainty of the validity of their reason, and the popularity of the idea. I strongly believe this can help in promoting better quality information and reducing the clutter of irrelevant or unverified information.

Hanson raised a valid concern about how to encourage people to fill in these structured forms with their reasons for their claims. He argued that most people are more inclined towards formats that directly mimic familiar forms of ordinary conversation. I agreed, but also highlighted the potential of betting markets, as people are motivated by the prospect of monetary gain.

Drawing from the stock market analogy, I proposed a system where people can bet on whether ideas will rise or fall in popularity. Much like investing in a company, bettors would be investing in the popularity of an idea. This, I believe, has the potential to create a more engaged and informed public discourse. For instance, imagine being able to buy stock in the idea that Abraham Lincoln was the best president!

Hanson, however, was skeptical about this idea, arguing that there might be too many ideas out there for this to work. He also highlighted the potential for manipulation in a system that rewards popularity over accuracy. But I believe the market would self-correct over time. Just as the stock market is susceptible to manipulation, so too would an idea market. But in the long run, only those who truly understand people and what they will bet on would be rewarded.

In summary, I believe that an Idea Futures market, if structured correctly, can be a powerful tool for promoting informed public discourse. It would allow people to directly invest in ideas they believe in, fostering a greater focus on ideas and their merits. While there are potential issues with this approach, I believe they can be mitigated with careful design and regulation.

Hanson and I may not see eye to eye on every aspect of Idea Futures, but it's clear that we share a belief in the potential of such a system to revolutionize public discourse. If you're interested in this project and want to contribute to its development, feel free to check out the ongoing work on GitHub and the Group Intel website. Your insights and expertise could help shape the future of public discourse.

Revolutionizing Online Debates: A Proposal for a More Organized and Informed Future

The current state of online discussions often results in a cacophony of voices with little to no structure or organization. In this digital era, we need a space where debates are not just noise, but substantive conversations that lead to deeper understanding and informed decisions. Here, we propose a revolutionary online debate format that could transform the way we engage with and understand various perspectives on any given issue.

Reducing Chaos in Online Discussions

Current online forums often descend into chaos due to their unstructured nature. Our proposed system would counter this by enabling users to categorize their comments as either reasons to agree or disagree with a particular issue, making discussions more orderly and less confusing.

Organizing Discussions for Deeper Understanding

Think of our proposed format as a structured debate, where every perspective is clearly articulated and organized. This structure allows for more meaningful conversations, enabling users to delve deeper into the nuances of the debate, fostering a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Quantifying Perspectives for Objectivity

Our system allows for arguments to be quantified, providing a more objective view of the debate. By counting the number of reasons for and against an issue, users can easily compare different perspectives, thereby forming more informed opinions.

Evaluating Quality for Compelling Arguments

We also propose ways to evaluate the quality of each argument, such as user feedback or upvotes. This ensures that compelling arguments rise to the top, making them more visible to participants, and promoting more informed discussions.

Integrating Statistical Analysis for Confidence

By integrating statistical analysis techniques, confidence intervals can be assigned based on the number and quality of reasons posted. This gives users a sense of the general consensus on the issue, further promoting informed decision-making.

Promoting Transparency for Better Understanding

Our system promotes transparency by using a list format for arguments. This makes the complexity of an issue visible and discourages glossing over important points, encouraging users to critically evaluate all aspects of the issue.

Providing a Unified Information Source

Our proposed system provides a single platform for all perspectives on an issue, making it easier for users to find and compare different viewpoints. This unified source of information results in more informed discussions and decisions.

Harnessing Technology for Substance

The focus of our system is on promoting meaningful discussions and informed decision-making, rather than merely disseminating information. It represents an effective use of technology where the emphasis is on substance, not volume.

Managing Content Efficiently

Organizing data by topic makes it easier to manage and navigate, reducing redundancy and repetition. This makes the information more accessible and user-friendly, enhancing the overall user experience.

Revolutionizing Online Debates

We believe this proposed system can revolutionize the way we debate and discuss issues online. By providing a structured, organized platform for discussions, we can pave the way for more meaningful, informed debates that lead to a better understanding and more informed decision-making.

In this digital era, it's high time we leverage technology to improve the way we discuss, debate, and make decisions. Our proposed system promises to bring about a revolution in online debates, ensuring they are not just noise, but platforms for informed understanding and decision-making. Join us in this revolution for a more organized and informed future.

The Power of Organized Debate: Why We Should Separate Reasons to Agree and Disagree

Today, I want to talk about an idea that I firmly believe in - organizing reasons to agree and disagree with concepts into two separate columns. This simple change could revolutionize the way we approach debates and discussions. Here's why:

1. Streamlining the Decision-Making Process

By separating reasons to agree and disagree, we can create a computer algorithm that assigns points to the main idea based on the number of reasons in each column. This would streamline our decision-making process and allow us to reach more balanced conclusions.

2. Creating a Clear Overview of Every Issue

Imagine if every issue had its own website with a comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree. It would make understanding complex topics much easier and encourage more informed discussions.

3. Prioritizing the Best Arguments

Separating reasons to agree and disagree also allows us to highlight the most compelling arguments. By placing the best reasons at the top of each column, we ensure that the strongest points get the attention they deserve.

4. Performing a 'Google Duel'

This format could even allow for a "Google duel" between all the items that agree and disagree. This duel could represent the overall strength of the idea, adding an interesting and dynamic element to our debates.

5. Allowing for User Ratings

We could also introduce a rating system where people rate the reasons to agree or disagree. The overall score of the reasons would contribute or detract from the main idea's score, providing an aggregate view of the debate.

6. Giving Voice to Our Ancestors

This format also allows us to incorporate wisdom from the past. As Abraham Lincoln said, it's important that we are on God's side, or in this context, on the side of truth. A truth-promoting forum like this is safe to investigate both sides of an issue, which is why we should not fear disagreement.

7. Thoroughly Investigating an Idea

One point usually won't convince someone they're wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all their reasons out on the table. We're not discounting people's beliefs; we're responding to them. We don't need to silence the other side; we just need to prove that they are wrong.

In conclusion, organizing reasons to agree and disagree into separate columns has the potential to transform our approach to debates and discussions. It encourages thorough investigation, prioritizes strong arguments, and promotes a balanced view of each issue.

Ready to dive into more details or interested in contributing? Explore our platform at Group Intel or check out our project on GitHub. Let's revolutionize the way we debate and discover the power of organized discussion together.

Building the Future of Ideas: An Internet Stock Market for Beliefs

Hey there! I'd love to share something my folks taught me when I was just a kid. Whenever I faced a decision, they encouraged me to make a list of reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. Looking back, it seems like this simple method laid the foundation for an exciting idea: what if we could collect all such lists ever made on the Internet and organize them on a single platform?

This concept became clearer as I delved into the world of stock market investing. The beauty of investing lies not just in the act of buying or selling shares but in the conviction behind these actions. When you put your money on a stock, you're essentially betting on an idea, a belief in the company's future success. This parallel between investing and belief system is fascinating, don't you think?

Imagine if we could create a 'stock market of ideas,' where people could invest in concepts and beliefs as they do in companies. This wouldn't just be a game-changer for scientific advancement, dispute resolution, or politics. It would motivate us to believe in "smarter" things, to question why we hold certain beliefs and whether they're worth "investing" in.

And just like in the stock market, where companies are evaluated and ranked, we could develop algorithms to assign a weighted rank to ideas. These rankings could be based on several factors, like the number of reasons to agree or disagree, and the certainty of the evaluator about the validity of their reasons.

Of course, there's always the risk of such a system being manipulated, just like any financial market. But if we design the platform to encourage not just the exchange of ideas but also in-depth research and discussion, we can mitigate these risks. We can make it a place where data supporting or discounting a position is readily available and easily accessible.

In the past, I've tried to put these ideas into action. I created a website where I outlined categories for people to submit their ideas. The site is no longer active, but thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can check out its architecture and an example of online debate that I proposed.

Now, I'm working on a new and improved platform at Group Intel and you can check out our project on GitHub. I'm excited about the potential of this idea and I'd love to hear your thoughts. Let's revolutionize the way we debate and invest in the power of our beliefs together.

Year 1

A Different Christmas Poem

A Different Christmas Poem   The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,  I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.   My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,  My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.  Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,  Transforming the yard to a winter delight.  The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,  Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.   My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,  Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.  In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,  So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.  The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,  But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.   Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the  sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.  My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,  And I crept to the door just to see who was near.  Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,  A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.   A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,  Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.  Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,  Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.  "What are you doing?" I asked without fear,  "Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!   Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,  You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"  For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,  Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..  To the window that danced with a warm fire's light  Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,   I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."  "It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,  That separates you from the darkest of times.  No one had to ask or beg or implore me,  I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.   My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"  Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."  My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',  And now it is my turn and so, here I am.  I've not seen my own son in more than a while,  But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.   Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,  The red, white, and blue... an American flag.  I can live through the cold and the being alone,  Away from my family, my house and my home.  I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,  I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.   I can carry the weight of killing another,  Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..  Who stand at the front against any and all,  To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."  "  So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,  Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."  "But isn't there something I can do, at the least,  "Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?  It seems all too little for all that you've done,   For being away from your wife and your son."  Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,  "Just tell us you love us, and never forget.   To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,  To stand your own watch, no matter how long.  For when we come home, either standing or dead,  To know you remember we fought and we bled.  Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,   That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."  PLEASE, would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as many   people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our  U.S service men and women for our being able to celebrate these  festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people   stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.    LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN  30th Naval Construction Regiment  OIC, Logistics Cell One  Al Taqqadum, Iraq

A Landslide

Can supporters of same-sex marriage and those protesting the Mormon Church's involvement help me with something?

President-elect Barack Obama won the election by 6.5 percent nationwide. This is being described as a "landslide" and a "mandate" by the media, Obama supporters and other prominent democrats.

Conversely, the legality of same-sex marriage was on the ballot in three states, two of these states won by President-elect Obama. Of the nearly 20 million votes cast in these three states on the same-sex marriage issue, legal same-sex marriage was defeated by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent. An 8 percent margin of defeat, larger than Obama's margin of victory.

Should logic not command that this result be defined as a mandate against same-sex marriage? If not, why not?

And instead of blaming "confused" Black voters and the Mormon Church, why are supporters of same-sex marriage avoiding the real culprit? Barack Obama!

Yes, the head of your ticket, leader of your party, savior and generally recognized genius and messiah is an ardent and enthusiastic opponent of same-sex marriage. Always has been! And so are Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the majority of elected Democrats nationwide.

You can't convince Barack Obama and Joe Biden to support same-sex marriage and you blame the Mormon Church for your electoral failures? No disrespect, but that's pathetic.

As long as President-elect Obama and other prominent Democrats continue their adamant and enthusiatic opposition to same-sex marriage, the Mormon Church and "confused Black voters" are the least of your problems. - John Watson,Phoenix

JUST "SIN TAXES"

Whatever you tax, you punish. Why would you punish people for working
and making money?
Remember that I am not saying that the government should collect any
more money. Just that we should eliminate the income tax. In order to
replace the revenue loss each city, and state will have to decide
which usage fees, and "sin taxes" they will use to replace the income
tax.
Republicans have good principles, but they rarely follow them. One of
the good principals that republicans talk about, but never seem to
follow threw is the principle of rewarding good behavior and punishing
bad behavior. We should lose taxes that tax good behavior, like income
tax and increase sin vastly increase sin taxes.

The Republican Party is typically seen as your father's party. The
democrats are like your mom. They care about your feelings, but the
republicans have tough love, and tell you to stop feeling sorry for
yourself, and get to work. Parents tend to learn, that if you do stuff
for their kids all the time, the kid will never learn to act by
themselves. Sure, the government can help people who need help, but do
you really deserve help from the government if you skipped class,
didn't do your homework, and never graduated from high school? Our
compassionate side says yes, but our republican side says that to some
point help is a reward for bad behavior.

It should be self evident, and even democrats should realize that if
you reward bad behavior, you are going to get more of it. But what are
some practical ways that we can reward good behavior and punish bad
behavior? Can we really raise the cost of cigarettes and booze any
higher?

I think there are lots of "sins" that we could tax. But I don't want
people like me choosing those sins. I think economist should, or just
the city clerk should determine the true cost of government services.
This might not be a practical idea, but it is something we deal with
every day and serves as a good example : what if the garbage man
charged you buy how many bags of garbage you left? What if someone
walked around and charged every home $20 that didn't have a compost
pile? What if we replaced the income tax with increased energy taxes?
That would put steroids on any motivation there was to insulate your
home.

POSSIBLE "GREEN" SIN TAXES

No compost pile.
Too much pavement.
Too much garbage.
Not enough trees.
No solar panels.
No wind turbine.

POSSIBLE HEALTH SIN TAXES:

Smoking (charged per pack)
Drinking (charged per can)
Marijuana (charged per lb.)
Prostitution (you know how it is collected)
Being over weight

POSSIBLE EDUCATIONAL SIN TAXES

Not knowing geography
Not knowing math
Not knowing specifics about those running for office.
Not knowing a 2nd language
Not having a college degree

POSSIBLE FAMILY SIN TAXES

Not visiting your kids
Not paying child support
Your kids doing poorly in school

Obama is wrong to say that we should "slow development of Future Combat Systems."

Reasons to agree

1. We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera... these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society... those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education... these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons. 
2. Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America. 
3. Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice. 
4. Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons. 
5. Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.

Movies that disagree

1. Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was. 
2. Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer. 

Obama is wrong to say that we should "slow development of Future Combat Systems."

Reasons to agree

1. We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera... these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society... those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education... these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons. 



2. Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America. 


3. Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice. 


4. Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons. 


5. Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.

Movies that disagree

1. Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was. 



2. Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer. 

A great article from Michele Obama

This is a great article by Michele Obama.

It is unfortunate that we have a double standard. If a republican woman was to say something like that, they would be looked down upon. People would call them Stepford Wives. But it is great for Michele to say it.

Exit question: What would you say to someone that Michele Obama (a democrate) is a more devoted mom than Sarah Palin? Does it matter how much time Mr. Palin spends with the kids?

A great article from Michele Obama

This is a great article by Michele Obama.

It is unfortunate that we have a double standard. If a republican woman was to say something like that, they would be looked down upon. People would call them Stepford Wives. But it is great for Michele to say it.

Exit question: What would you say to someone that Michele Obama (a democrate) is a more devoted mom than Sarah Palin? Does it matter how much time Mr. Palin spends with the kids?

Sarah Palin is wrong to pit one part of the country against the other.

Reasons to agree We don't choose where we are born, so it is kind of silly to be proud of it. People aren't all that different, in different states.  Their are liberals in Alaska, and conservatives in New York. Sarah Palin accuses those who live in New York of being "elite", and then when asked what she means by "elite" she says people who think they are better than others. Sarah Palin seems to think she is better than New Yorkers because she is from Alaska.

A great read

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29105

Obama: "a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"?

"Finally, a gaffe that is far more worrisome than the others: According to Obama, the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set." He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Whoa there, compadre! (That's a little Spanish there for the man who wants us all to learn it.) Will this "national security force" also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama's campaign realized that wouldn't fly—the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube."

"Obama's civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"

"Finally, a gaffe that is far more worrisome than the others: According to Obama, the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set." He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Whoa there, compadre! (That's a little Spanish there for the man who wants us all to learn it.) Will this "national security force" also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama's campaign realized that wouldn't fly—the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube."

A. Lincoln

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!