Obama is wrong on guns.

Obama is wrong on guns

Reasons to agree Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 candidate questionnaire). So Obama thinks that only criminals should have hand guns, because laws are not going to stop them. Obama voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home (Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics CBS News). So you should get in trouple if you protect yourself with a gun, in your own house? So I guess we should all buy base-ball bates, if you live in a bad neighborhood and want to protect yourself. People would bring guns to my school all the time. I lived in Idaho. It was no big deal. People left their gun in their gun rack in their pick-up-truck, and went shooting for pheasants after school. An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein Reasons to disagree: There is little a president could do about guns. We lived through Bill Clinton, we could live through Obama. Having a black president that went to Harvard might inspire enough criminals to go away from a life of crime, it might make up for the loss of safety due to his gun policy. Interest of those who agree: Hunting as recreation Hunting as food Preservation of perceived "manhood". Preservation of a way of life. They went hunting with their fathers. Self defense Interest of those who disagree: Reduction of gun violence.

Obama is right on NASA

President Obama is right on NASA.

Reasons to agree

1. Obama wants to cut spending on NASA. Specifically he would like to delay the Constellation program for five years. His willingness to make such arguments is good news. We went to the Moon and got nothing but bragging rights. If we want bragging rights over other countries, we should stop getting our asses kicked in Math and Science. At one time it was inspirational to go to the moon for some reason. Those days are passed. We need to be smarter with our money.

Probable interest of those who agree:

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 (for NASA. AKA: pork)

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)


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


3. Racism (5%)


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. The desire to prioritize, and put for things that we need now.


6. The desire to live within our means. It is crazy to go to the moon when you are in debt. That is like buying a BMW when you don't have a home.

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.