IL 4 Mitt Romney

People are more likely to answer something truthfully before being told their Miranda rights. People are more likely to say something in their own self interest after being read their Mirand rights. Truth is more important than someone's narrow self interest.
It is wrong to let someone out of jail based on technicalities. Human beings should be allowed to make judgments that don't fit the one size fits all, assembly line process of justice. All one size fits all rules are stupid. Miranda rights are one size fits all rules that say now matter how good the evidence is that you are guilty, if you are not read your rights, that information you give is somehow wrong.
The facts about what someone said to you before you say something has nothing to do with what you said being true or not.
Miranda rights are a way for lawyers to get around justice.
Why should cops remind potential criminals to remember to lie? Don't we want people to speak from their gut? Don't we want to hear their honest story?
The Miranda decision was decided 5 to 4. It was not unanimous, however we treat Miranda rights as though they were sent down from God himself on a golden tablet.
The "right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning" does not serve justice but ensures more work for attorney's. It was a self serving decisions by judges, who are lawyers, that ensures more work for other lawyers. The police were doing just fine. If they record a witness saying something, before they are told they have a right to a lawyer, that should not make what they said any less admissible in court.
Miranda rights were designed by stupid people to solve the problems of coercive interrogation tactics, but they caused another problem. Miranda rights create the problem of more lying criminals being reminded to talk to a lawyer before they speak to help them lie better. Telling potential criminals to remember to talk to a lawyer before they divulge too much information does not stop cops from using coercive tactics.
When cops first start talking to you, you are often shocked into answering questions that are given to you. However when someone starts telling you your Miranda rights, you stop thinking about what is being asked you, and you start thinking about your own self interest.
Any set of laws that does not put punish those who are guilty is flawed of breaking those laws if flawed. You could prove that many people were guilty who got away because they were not read their Miranda rights. No one should get out of jail, whom you can prove they are guilty. If you can prove someone is guilty, without a shadow of a doubt, they are guilty.
Miranda rights are a glaring sign that our society is insane.
Many guilty people have avoided application of their lawful punishment because of Miranda rights.
There are many times that any sane rational person with common sense could tell that a confession was not coerced (was purely voluntary). If the stated purpose of Miranda rights is to avoid coercion, but you can prove that their was no coercion, then Miranda rights do not serve a purpose in that incident.
Supreme court Justice Justice Harlan wrote "nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities."
Supreme court Justice Robert H. Jackson said: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."
Supreme court Justice Byron White said the Supreme court did not have the right to grant super constitutional
Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no 'factual and textual bases' in the constitution or previous opinions of the court for the rule announced in the opinion, he stated 'self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment' nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law. White further warned the dire consequences of the majority opinion; "I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity."
Laws don't have to be black and white. You can make a Miranda law that lets evidence obtained without reading the Miranda rights, carry less weight. You can tell the Jury, that we are going to admit this evidence, but pay less attention to it.

Reasons to disagree

Being read your Miranda rights is good because an innocent person will be reminded to get their facts straight before they start talking.

John McCain: “It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented.”

2012-01-08T12:57:00.001-08:00

I have started a new website (not a blog). It's address is: https://sites.google.com/site/yeahneh. The name is sort of stupid, but it comes from "Yeah" and "Neh" as in when you do a voice vote…

So if anyone wants to contribute to it, all I need is your google e-mail address, and you can edit away!

Anyways I want to do a really good job of outlining the major arguments about immigration, as I think it is one of the major issues facing our country. So what I want to do is sort of a wikipedia style group effort of outlining the issues… with that said, I'll just jump in.

John McCain said: "It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented." He said this in a May 13, 2005 press release titled "Members of Congress Introduce Comprehensive Border Security & Immigration Reform Bill [S 2611].

In the future, I would like to outline all the issues here, but for now we can have a Normal conversation.

Here are some of the reasons that I have heard to disagree with McCain:

1. No one is proposing that we "round illegal aliens up".

2, Illegal Aliens came to America on their own; they don't need someone to drive them away

3. You wouldn't have to get all 11 million illegal aliens to go back, just 1/2 of them in 10 years would be a good start.

4. According to Wikipedia their are 77 million students in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States). Lets be conservative and say that only 1 in 7 of our elementary and secondary students ride a school bus each morning. This means that our local communities all transport 10 million students each morning. Their are buss drivers that are not driving buses each and every summer, and kids that are not going to school. Local communities could run a program that would only last each summer. Whenever illegal immigrants are found, during the operation of normal police work, they could be incarcerated until their is a buss load of them, a buss driver, and a couple of policemen all get to take a field trip to Mexico. If they have legitimate reasons to be in America, they can file the necessary paperwork from their home country.

Have I forgot anything? Can we say something better? Instead of just producing quality, I want to go back and say things as best as they can be said. If you agree with McCain, why?

A technique taught in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, is to focus on interest not positions. In addition to having a place for listing pros and cons, I would like to have a place for the listing of interest. If we are going to make progress sometimes we have to stop listening to the stupid things people are saying, and try to figure out what their motivation is, and what makes them want to say those stupid things. It will often turn out that the real reason someone supports something has nothing to do with the arguments that they try to use to advance their ideas.

With that said, here are some of the interest of those who agree and disagree with McCain:

Interest of those who agree:

1. The desire to see America grow in size to compete with China.

2. The desire to make America look more like them, if they are Hispanic.

3. The desire for America to be more diverse, if they have liberal guilt.

4. The desire to see America more Catholic.

5. Financial interest if your company would have to move overseas if not for cheap illegal labor.

6. Financial interest if you just don't like paying your workers very much.

Interest of those who disagree: %

1. Rule of law (if some people have to come in the legal way, and wait in line, everyone should have to come in the legal way, and wait their turn in line).

2. The desire to not see America become more Catholic.

3. The desire to keep American culture less diverse, or with positive spin more "unified".

Well, I got things started, please HELP ME OUT! I think that we can basically set all the arguments about 10 million aside, and until you can convince people that the rule of law is more important than whatever their underlying interest are, we are going to have a tough row to hoe. So that is my next post: The rule of law is more important than compassion for illegal immigrants.

"America has nothing to fear from today’s immigrants." Barack Obama speech at National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Jun 28, 2008

2012-01-08T12:56:00.000-08:00

Cons:

Perhaps some people have too much fear from illegal immigration, but saying their is nothing to fear is a vast oversimplification, and is actually a demonization of people with very real and legitimate fear. People who live in gated communities, that send their children to private schools, and are not concerned about the price of healthcare might not have any concerns about illegal immigration, but for low and middle class Americans it is a very real concern. Our public school teachers are overwhelmed with kids that don't speak English, and don't know our customers, they have to leave in communities with disaffected youth, and go to hospitals that are overwhelmed with people that don't pay their bills.

Allowing millions of people to come to our nation without doing any paperworks poses a very real security issue.

Illegal immigrants are no better or worse than any other group of people on the planet. However if they do not speak English, and have a high school education they will have difficulty integrating into our society.

America is going to have hard enough time taking care of our own high school drop outs without importing 70 million of them from our neighboring countries.

Illegal immigrants have a hard time integrating into our society.

Their are many Latin gangs in America including, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sureños, 38th Street gang, Clanton 14, Culver City Boys 13, Fresno Bulldogs, Jheri Curls, Maras (gangs), Nuestra Familia, Varrio Nuevo Estrada, Venice 13.

Hispanics have a 20% drop-out rate. (From the Institute of Education Sciences, IES, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education).

____________________________

Interest of those who agree:

The desire to see America grow in size to compete with China.
The desire to make America look more like them, if they are Hispanic.
The desire for America to be more diverse, if they have liberal guilt.
The desire to see America more Catholic.
Financial interest if your company would have to move overseas if not for cheap illegal labor.
Financial interest if you just don't like paying your workers very much.

Interest of those who disagree: %

Rule of law (if some people have to come in the legal way, and wait in line, everyone should have to come in the legal way, and wait their turn in line).
The desire to not see America become more Catholic.
The desire to keep American culture less diverse, or with positive spin more "unified".

Values that agree:

Multiculturalism
Ethnic pride

Values that disagree:

Rule of Law

Ethnic pride

It is nerdy to analyze issues with this much detail.

The current price to buy stock in this belief is $0.95 per share

The Idea Stock Exchange score for this idea is: +3-1=2

The percent that agree is: 92%

R2D(-): 0 R2AD(-): 0 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: 1

Join the debate! Just leave a comment, and I'll add it to the correct location. Once I get some programmers to help me, this will be automatic.

Jihadist are most likely to use a nuclear weapon

2012-01-02T15:20:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

Jihadist are not trying to lift their country up, they are just trying to bring down America.
Jihadist are willing to commit suicide in order to advance their cause.
Jihadist have no return address for us to bomb.
Jihadist don't think that we can retaliate. They do not know that we would destroy the middle east if a bomb was detonated in America, Europe, or Asia. They may miss calculate their strength, or think God will help them, making them most likely to use a nuclear weapon. They don't have an organized command structure, and so their are thousands of Jihadist trying to get nuclear weapons. If any of them miscalculate our willingness to destroy the middle east, they could make a fatal mistake.

Jihadist know that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the whole world would destroy them.
We can tell where a bomb would come from. Anyone who allowed the bomg to go off would be killed.
Jihadist have lots of return addresses. If someone smuggles a nuclear bomb into the United States and detonates it we will bomb the middle east out of existence. Fire and sand make glass, and when we're done with the middle east it will look like Superman's dad's apartment on Krypton.

Score:

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +4

Reasons to disagree: -3

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism

2012-01-02T12:45:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

Alcohol causes 85,000 deaths in America each year. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.

You can fight terrorism, you can't fight stupid people.
We tried abolition, abolition didn't work.

Score:

Reasons to agree: +9

Reasons to disagree: -2

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Jihadism is this century’s nightmare

2012-01-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

Jihadist are the only people who would use a nuclear weapon against a democratic country. +1
Jihadist threaten the future of the middle east.
A nuclear weapon would destroy men, women, children.
Jihadist are the only people currently advocating genocide.
A modern nuclear weapon would make land un-usable for thousands of years.
Some of the people who die from Alcohol, are just killing themselves. Those who would be killed from a nuclear bomb, would be mostly innocent.
There can be more than one nightmare. China could go bad, but Jihadism is more likely to.
Jihadist could start a war with Pakistan.
Jihadist are killing and displacing thousands in Africa.
Jihadist have exploded transportation in the United States, Spain, and England.
Jihadist are trying to take over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They are a significant force in Syria.
Many Jihadist deny the Holocaust.
Many Jihadist want to destroy Israel.
There is no force on the planet, not communism or anything else, that unifies people with so much hatred as Jihadism.
Ana says; "Everyone should educate themselves on Islam, its history and on the radical element. One will find that whenever Muslims gain political power all non-Muslims are second class citizens unless they convert. Often Jews and Christians are killed as part of gaining power. Sharia law is every Judeo-Christian's, and other non-Mulsims nightmare. In fact, what is occuring is the demise of the American experiment, with its reliance on the Natural Law and Judeo-Christian, Greek Roman heritage by the influx of too, many immigrants too fast, multi-culturalism and secularism. May God have mercy on those of us who forget this great gift to the human race and who do nothing to defend it."

Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism. +7
The collapse of the American family is a bigger problem than terrorism

Score:

Reasons to agree: +15

Reasons to disagree: -2

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +1, -7

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

We must constantly challenge bureaucratic group think +2

2012-01-02T12:19:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.
Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats. ~Howard Aiken
Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups

"None of Us is as Good as All of Us". Ray Kroc. This kind of thinking says that the bureaucracy can out perform individuals. Some times this is true. But not in novels, or paintings. Good movies are based on books writen by people, not groups. And most screen plays are not written by groups of people. However, movies are made by committee... sort of... some one has to be in charge, but group think kind of happens... America has group think...

Score:

Reasons to agree: +3

Reasons to disagree: -1

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 2

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Every organization needs clear leadership, lines of authority and responsibility

2012-01-02T11:57:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

If you don't have clear leadership, an organization can be like a car with two steering wheals: more likely to go in the right overall direction, but less likely to stay on the road. If you had 2 steering wheels, and whoever turned the hardest would get their way, you might be going in the right direction more often. In the same way, some people say that 2 heads is better than one. This is true to a degree, but every organization needs to heave clear responsibility so that someone can take responsibility, conflict is reduced, etc

Score:

Reasons to agree: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

The way the government structures its foreign affairs assets is bad +5

2012-01-02T11:45:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

There is no unity among our international nonmilitary resources (state department, etc).
There is no clear leadership and no clear line of authority in our international nonmilitary resources (state department, etc).
The armed forces removed barriers to unify efforts across the services. This included establishing 'joint commands' with individual commanders fully responsible for their geographic region. We should do the same thing with the state department, and other nonmilitary assets that the government has.
Every organization needs clear leadership, lines of authority and responsibility.

Score:

Reasons to agree: +4

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +1

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

American foreign affairs are plagued by bureaucratic inaction

2012-01-02T11:02:00.001-08:00

Reasons to agree:

The way the government structures its foreign affairs assets is bad.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The Clinton Administration tried to dismantle our intelligence community

2012-01-02T10:50:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

During the Clinton Administration, our intelligence community was critically weakened. The CIA workforce was slashed by almost 20% and recruitment was reduced dramatically, undermining effective human intelligence.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Books that agree?

2012-01-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

We should allow users to suggest books as reasons to agree or disagree with an idea.

If these books were used as data points and were associated as reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion, we could use an algorithm to lend strength to an idea based on the books strength. Data is readily available from Amazon or E-bay or the New York Times best selling list of how well a book has sold.

So there would be three fields. One place where you submit the item that agrees or disagrees with the original idea. The second field would let you classify the object. Is it a book, a website, or simply alogical argument. The third field would be a place where the user explains why he thinks the book supports the conclusion that he/she has come to. Of course, people would be allowed to vote weather or not the book actually does support the side that the original user said that it would.

This is where the algorithm could get very sophisticated. Would you want to give more credibility to those who said they had actually read the book? Would you want to give even more credibility to those who had bought the book, as more proof that they actually read the book. Or how about people that used the website mediachest and could prove that they have the book, by the fact that they have let others use the book. What about people who wrote an essay on the book on the website. If Google was doing this, they could provide a place for users to write essays on books, similar to howAmazon lets users write essays. Perhaps they could not let people copy and paste essays into the form. It would only allow people to type their essays directly, to prevent stealing of essays. Perhaps people could vote on weather the book-essays were good or not similar to how Amazon lets users rate reviews, as to weather the review was "helpful" or not.

So, as an example, you could submit a best selling book as a reason to agree with an idea, and then right a thoroughly convincing explanation of why this book agrees with the idea, and an essay that proves that you understand the main points of the book.

If Google really wants to organize the worlds information, they must do this. We have plenty of books, we have plenty of content on the internet. We need ways of organizing this information into what it all means, and how all this information should affect us. The only good way information can affect us, is for it to help us make better decisions. In order for us to make better decisions, we must know all of the reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. In order to do this, we should not start at ground zero, with only our own thoughts in our head. We should bring together all of thegreat thinkers from the ages from every corner of the planet, and organize all of their great thoughts, so that we can make the right decisions.

As you can see, this algorithm could be very simple, but it could also offer programmers hundreds of years of challenges to make it more sophisticated. I believe this is a strength of the idea, because it allows for continual improvement.

The Clinton Administration tried to dismantle the military

2012-01-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

Reasons to agree:

Clinton decreased military personnel by 500,000.
Clinton decreased military spending by about $50 billion a year.
Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost four active divisions.
Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost two reserve divisions.
Under Clinton the U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships.
Under Clinton the U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent.
Under Clinton the Marines' personnel dropped by 22,000.
We need more troops than we have in order to win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about the size of Military that we should have. Weather Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2 were right or wrong in their actions in Iraq, we need to have the capacity to win the war that Bush 2 tried to fight. It was wrong for the Clinton administration to dismantle the military.

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:
Making it look like Bill Clinton was a bad president, so that independents won't vote for democrats in the future.
Probable interest of those who disagree:
Making it look like Bill Clinton was good president, so that independents will vote for democrats in the future.

Books That agree

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security, By Robert Patterson
Reckless Disregard: By Robert Patterson
Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years; By Richard Lowry
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton; By Ann Coulter
Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash; By Edward Timperlake, William C. Triplett, William Triplett, II

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 8

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0
Books that agree: 5

Total Idea Score: 13

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should decouple health insurance from employment

2011-11-15T18:04:00.001-08:00

You shouldn't loose your health insurance just because you loose your job.
There is no logical reason to provide health insurance through your employer. It was just done as a loophole to get around rules during WWII that stooped increases in salary.
Healthcare as an employment benefit keeps you from comparing apples to apples when you compare jobs. Some companies don't make you pay very much for health insurance. Other make you pay a lot.
Health insurance as an employment benefit keeps people from going into different jobs because they are afraid of loosing insurance.
When healthcare is connected to employment, employers only want to employ young healthy employees, because they end up footing the bill of the health insurance. If you had insurance as an individual, and tax incentives were restructured so it was just as cheap to get it as an individual, you would already have your insurance, and their would be one less reason to not hire an older individual.
It encourages employers to push their married employees onto their spouse's heal insurance.
Workers in low paying jobs have no health insurance. Workers in high paying jobs of super expensive health insurance. So most of the pre-tax benefit goes to the wealthy. This could be restructured in a way so that instead of benefiting people proportionally to how expensive the insurance is, and tying it to your income, the insurance benefit could come to individuals separate from their employer.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2005/12/11.html

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

People that agree:

Robert B. Reich

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Each state should be responsible for caring for their own uninsured

2011-11-14T18:33:00.001-08:00

Citizens of Ohio and Florida shouldn't have to pay health insurance for people from Texas.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

South Carolina Republican Debate

2011-11-12T17:05:00.001-08:00

Perry: 2nd joke of the night about the oops moment.
Huntsman: Says we won't be able to take China to WTO, but does not explain why.
Romney: Will use trade to help guide China. China has to play by the rules. Declare them currency manipulators. Go to the WTO. We are in a trade war.
Perry: Believes communist Chinese will end up on ash-heap of history. Keeps mentioning Mitt's name in his response.
Newt: Civil defense is within the rule of law. Does not apply to enemy combatants.
Romney: It is absolutely justifiable for us to have killed. Our foreign policy would be guided by the value where America leads the free world, and the free world leads the entire world. Will use every means within the the law to advance.
Huntsman: Has 2 boys in Navy.
Paul: Water boarding is torture. Un-American.
Bachmann: We are allows ACLU run the CIA.
Cain: Torture. Water boarding is an enhanced interrogation technique.
Perry: Has dealt with Generals, apparently in the Texas Military?
Santorum: Will only hire people who agree with him.
Newt: Refuses to stand by his accusation that Mitt Romney is a good manager. Says it is OK to criticize him behind his back on a national radio show, but chicken out when Romney is standing there.
Santorum: Disagrees with Newt and Perry. Says Pakistan must be our friend. Most don't back
Newt: Agrees with Perry. Shouldn't just give money because they gave money last year. Conserned that Arab Spring is becoming an Anti-Christian Spring. Aid gives military hardware, which helps America
Bachmann: Would not disagree with giving money to Pakistan. Pakistan needs foreign aid to prevent bad guys there from getting access to their Nuclear Weapons. Obama stands with Occupy Wall Street, but doesn't stand with Israel.
Perry: Why is Pakistan playing a double game. Foreign Aid? When asked a different question. Says foreign aid starts at zero dollars. Thinks that foreign aid is the most important aspect of middle east. Never answered why they are playing a double game. He doesn't trust Pakistan.
Cain: We don't know if Pakistan is a friend or foe. Ask Pakistan to make Pakistan make a commitment. Need a regional strategy.
Newt: Pakistan is a sanctuary.
Romney: Take out 30 to 40 by end of next year. Should not bring them home in the middle of the fighting season. December of next year. December 2014.
Huntsman: Bring most of our troops home. Not 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Santorum: Thinks he should get more time. Says Bush should have given money
Perry: Can answer both questions at the same time. Should not give our enemies a time table.
Paul: Go through congress to declare war.
Newt: Deniable cover operations
Romney: Obama's greatest failure. Should have stood with rebels. Crippling sanctions. Would take military action.
Cain: Assist rebels in Iran (not militarily). Become energy independent. Sanctions.

The federal government should not spend money to fix housing

2011-11-12T07:47:00.001-08:00

Government should not try to fix prices. Government should not try and say people's houses are not expensive enough. Government should let those who want to buy a house determine how much a house should be worth. Government can try spur innovation as far as smart grown, but it can't buy all the foreclosed homes.
Government created a housing bubble when they made laws that forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford them.
Some efforts by states my be justifiable in promoting affordable housing, but the Federal States are best at trying to promote affordable housing.
Government should try to promote affordable housing, not try to raise.
State Governments can do precise actions to offset infrastructure and education expenses, but should not do clumsy nationwide expensive approaches.
State Government should free up unused public property at times to free up housing property, to support affordable housing, but Government shouldn't try to make homes more expensive just to keep people from loosing money, because after Government burns the money, the home will eventually reach market value, no matter how much money we burn.
If sprawl causes government to spend more money per person, Government can use the estimated money they would by stopping sprawl, to promote smart growth.
State governments could use money they use for the homeless to try and create long term housing solutions. Some local governments put homeless people in hotels. If state governments want to be nice, they should also be smart. Perhaps government could build a home for the same price they spend putting homeless people in hotels.
One of the few things state governments should do to promote affordable housing, is make it easier to build houses in places that have no affordable housing.
States that have no affordable housing, can try to promote mixed income housing, so poor people don't have to drive hours and hours just to get to rich places where jobs are.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Republicans in 2012 should propose modifications to the Tax Code that help the middle class

2011-11-11T05:34:00.001-08:00

Cain is defining himself with 999. This is a tax code plan not an economic plan. Taxes affect the economy, but you need more than just a tax code to help our economy. Republicans can't be defined in 2012 as doing things that only help the Rich. 999 and other flat codes raise taxes on low and middle income individuals, and lower taxes on the Rich. Some republicans feel this is the right thing to do, but that doesn't matter. Defining ourselves with something that helps the rich is a sure way to loose in 2012.
Romney said: "With regards to our tax code, what I want to do is to take our precious dollars as a nation and focus them on the people in this country that have been hurt the most, and that's the middle class.The Obama economy has really crushed middle-income Americans. This president has failed us so badly. We have 26 million people out of work or in part-time jobs, that need full-time work or have stopped looking for work altogether.Median incomes have dropped 10 percent in the last three years. At the same time, gasoline prices are up, food prices are up, health care costs are up. And so what I want to do is help the people who've been hurt the most. And that's the middle class. And so what I do is focus a substantial tax break on middle-income Americans.Ultimately, I'd love to see if -- see us come up with a plan that simplifies the code and lowers rates for everybody. But right now, let's get the job done first that has to be done immediately. Let's lower the tax rates on middle-income Americans."

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should allow "Italy to fail" if not letting them fail means giving them bail outs

2011-11-10T19:51:00.001-08:00

The concept of Italy failing is ridiculous. This isn't a game with winners and looser. Italy may be less successful, or more successful but it probably be more successful than 1/2 of this planet's countries. They are more successful than most countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If we are supposed to rescue Italy, we should probably rescue the rest of the world first.
Italy isn't helping us in Afghanistan, why should we help them?

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

Greece isn't helping us much in Afghanistan. Why should we help them?

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

They have the capacity to deal with that themselves.
We shouldn't try to do impossible things. It is impossible for the United States Government to make another large economy successful.

Italy is a very large economy.
We should bail out California before we bail out Italy. And there is no reason for farmers in North Dakota to pay for healthcare benefits of people living in San Fransico, let alone a country that looks down on us from the otherside of the planet.

Europe is able to take care of their own problems.

Those who would be hurt most if Italy fails, should give the most.
Europe is able to help Europe.
We would help if we could, but we got our own problems.

If we stay on the course we're on, with the level of borrowing this administration is carrying out, if we don't get serious about cutting and capping our spending and balancing our budget, you're going to find America in the same position Italy is in four or five years from now, and that is unacceptable. We got to fix our deficit here.

We with WWI, and WWII. They will have to do this alone.
Some Europeans resented our help in the past.
We should avoid foreign entanglements.

Those who say we shouldn't let them fail, are implying that we should bail out their banks or government.
Efficient capitalism requires fair competition. When people are competing with money, those who fail should not be given more money. If those who don't deserve to be given money, keep getting more money, then those those who should be trusted with money will have less. If no one can fail: bad behavior is rewarded until more people fail.

It feels good to give people things! Maybe they will like us! :) :)
It's not like we don't have money?!
Government is the perfect way to feel good about giving people stuff! You get all the self righteousness of saying we should be nice, and don't ever have to realize that you have to pay for it in taxes. And if your one of the lucky 55% of people in this country, you might never have to pay taxes! So why not give money to Italy! You won't have to pay for it! As long as you make slightly less than average, you won't have to pay a penny!

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 8

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

2011-11-08T19:14:00.000-08:00

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

We are broke

2011-11-07T19:59:00.000-08:00

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should enact far stiffer penalties for those who steal from taxpayers

2011-11-07T18:40:00.000-08:00

Cutting improper payments in half could save more than $60 billion a year.
We are broke.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+2) We should Attack rampant fraud in government programs

2011-11-07T18:38:00.000-08:00

Another big category is overcharging state Medicaid programs. That accounts for the most settlements, 43 percent of all violations. Most of these violations took the form of companies publishing inflated benchmark prices that set the base for Medicaid drug payments. "In some cases, state Medicaid programs were paying providers as much as 12 times the actual cost of a drug," the new report says.
We are broke.

Website that agree

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 2

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 2

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should repeal the Davis-Bacon Act

2011-11-06T20:22:00.000-08:00

Website that agree

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/repealing-the-davis-bacon-act-would-save-taxpayers-$10-9-billion

We are broke.
Suspending the DBA means hiring five workers at market rates instead of hiring four workers at a 22 percent premium.
If we have a limited amount of money, it is better to employ more construction workers than to pay a lot to the few that kiss up to their union bosses. We do have a limited amount of money. We can no longer pretend that we have an unlimited amount of money. We may want to give really high wages to give to everyone, but we shouldn't make rules that require the federal government to overpay their workers.
If Congress is not willing to reduce construction spending, suspending the DBA would make each public construction dollar go 9.9 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ 155,000 more construction workers.
The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates.
The Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. Under the DBA, contractors on all federally funded construction projects must pay their workers at least prevailing market wages. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. The Inspector General has criticized the DOL for:

Using a self-selected sample instead of a scientific random sample to estimate DBA rates;
Allowing 100 percent error rates in audited samples of returned DBA surveys; and
Permitting long delays in updating DBA surveys.[3]

We are broke.
The Davis-Bacon Act was a union giveaway.
The Davis Bacon Act artificially raises costs for government projects.
Removing the Davis-Bacon act would save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year in the process
The Davis-Bacon Act was a Jim Crow law.
The Davis-Bacon Act was passed to prevent African Americans from working on government projects.

Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he supported the Davis–Bacon Act because he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors' employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).
Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).

The free market can not work, when the market is not free.
The Davis-Bacon Act was a big government solution that harms the tax payer, by forcing government projects to cost more. We could have never built the rail roads without cheap labor. If they could unions would run every productive activity out of the country, as long as they could be paid 6 figures to do nothing. If American citizens want to work for less on Government projects, then that is good for the tax payer. All jobs can't be high paying. Unfortunately low skilled jobs are going to have to be low skilled. When government steps in and tries to force low skilled jobs to pay well, then they remove the insensitive to gain skills. It is better to live under the strong arm of efficiency, than be stabbed in the back by professional do-gooders that turn the world upside down.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The federal government should align compensation with the private sector

2011-11-06T19:26:00.000-08:00

We are broke.
Federal jobs have typically had better benefits, but they did not make as much as private sector jobs.
Even people who work for the government should acknowledge that our country is going to have a bad future, if our best and brightest work for the government.
With projections of huge federal deficits for years to come, policymakers should scour the budget looking for places to cut spending
The OWS protest should look to government with anger at their compensation more so than looking at CEOs.
During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose much faster than compensation of private-sector employees.
The average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector.
A recent job-to-job comparison found that federal workers earned higher wages than did private-sector workers in four-fifths of the occupations examined.
It is unfair to ask taxpayers to foot an ever-increasing bill for federal workers, especially when private-sector compensation has not kept pace. We pay for their jobs. They should not be making more money than us. They don't produce anything. Government should be small. It should protect us and that is about it.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Images

2011-11-06T18:04:00.000-08:00

A picture says a thousand words. Why would we keep them out of a debate? Why not have the top 10 pictures that support AND oppose the same issue.

Of course images are returned to Google based on an algorithm, images that have higher scores will contribute more power to the idea.

(+6) We should reduce the federal workforce through attrition

2011-11-06T09:55:00.000-08:00

The federal government is too big.
Federal spending should not exceed 20% of GDP (+5).

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(10) The federal government should block grant Medicaid to the states

2011-11-06T09:05:00.000-08:00

(+6) We should return federal programs to the states.
Each state should be responsible for caring for their own uninsured.
The way medicaid is ran now, it is a right. It is an entitlement. People are gauronteed medicaid, no matter what. People get medicaid, even if the cost doubles every year. With block grants, medical inflation can be limited, but putting a limit that each state gets from the federal program.
We can make it so each state that wants to increase the Medicaid benefit by $1, has to spend an extra dollar.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 6

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 10

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+5) We should return federal programs to the states

2011-11-06T08:15:00.000-08:00

The states are better at innovation than the federal government.
The states are better at cost management than the federal government. When each state has their own program efficiency is improved because people don't see it as free money from other states that they compete with. Each dollar is valued more.
The states are better at reduction of fraud than the federal government. When each state has their own program fraud is reduced because the people running the program don't see it as free money from other states that they compete with. Each dollar is valued more.
The 10th amendment doesn't give the federal government the right to have social programs. The founding fathers did not like a very strong centralized power. They tried to prevent the type of government that we have become.
When each state has their own program efficiency is improved because those giving out the benefits are closer to those who receive it.
Sure, if the federal government had pure motivations, was innovative, efficient, rewarded good behavior, and punished bad behavior
People in different parts of the country have different preferences about the generosity of entitlement programs

When each state has their own program efficiency is lost, because each state has to duplicate overhead.
Some states have more oil, more coastal sea land, better environments, better temperatures... its not really fair to make the states compete with each other... we want each state to be strong, and so it is better to even them out by having centraly ran social programs.
When using block grants, a state may decides to spend an extra dollar on Medicaid, it only costs state taxpayers about 43 cents at the margin, so there are incentives to overspend.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 7

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 4

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+7) We should end foreign aid to countries that oppose America's interests

2011-11-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

We should eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford.
The USA has valid interest.
We are broke.
We should no longer lend our strength to that which wants to destroy us.
International politics isn't like a family, and we are the parents. We don't have to prove to the rest of the world that our love is unconditional. We compete against other nations for resources, for hearts, and minds. We compete against authoritarian regimes that are opposed to human rights. We have valid interest. We are suckers, we are chumps, we harm ourselves, we harm our ideals, we harm the world when we give money to nations that don't share our valid interest. We reward bad behavior, and punish good behavior when we pretend there is no such thing as bad behavior, or good behavior.
North Korea clearly opposes our interest. They sell nuclear technology to our enemies. When we give them money it might make our professional do-gooders feel better about themselves, but it harms our planet, prevents their reform, and harms their people and our own.
Typically foreign aid takes money from poor people in rich countries, and gives it to rich people in poor countries.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 7

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+1) We should eliminate Title X family planning programs benefiting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood

2011-11-06T05:17:00.000-08:00

We should eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford.
It is wrong to take money from someone and give it to a cause that they feel is murder.
We can't make arguments about how much some program may save us money in the future, we need to balance our budget now. Arguments about how such-and-such program might actually save the government money are always theoretical. Not spending the money in the 1st place will save 100% of the money that you don't spend.

Mothers that don't really want their children, will raise children more likely to commit crime.
In the long run government money spend on family planning will result in less government money spent on jails, schools, food stamps, etc.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+5) We should eliminate subsidies for the Amtrak

2011-11-06T04:50:00.000-08:00

It doesn't matter that more money is spent on roads, and air travel than amtrak, because more people travel these methods. The simple fact is that more is spent per mile traveled per person, with each dollar given to amtrak, vs. other methods of Government spending.
According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized. ("Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved June 13, 2009.)
We shouldn't give money to amtrack just because we also give other forms of transportation. The question should be: can we live without funding Amtrak? If so, because we are so much in debt, we should get rid of it. The question of not spending any more money on the Federal Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Administration, many airports, among many aspects of passenger aviation, is a separate question.
We should reward success and punish failure.
Amtrack is unprofitable
We spend 1.6 billion a year on Amtrack.
Amtrak has proven incapable of operating as a business.
Amtrak does not provide valuable transportation services meriting public support.
Amtrak is a "mobile money-burning machine.
The federal government shouldn't spend money on planes, trains, and automobiles. We should pick one, if we want to fund infrastructural.
Americans should support cars. They allow freedom. Giving money to train companies is sort of a socialist activity... We have to rely on someone else to get you there...

The U.S. Department of Energy considers Amtrak among the most energy-efficient forms of transportation.
If we are going to end subsidies to Amtrak we should also end subsidies to maintain roads, or support airline traffic.
Drunk drivers are less likely to kill you on a train.
As a matter of fairness Amtrak should only be expected to be as self-sufficient as the federal highway system.
As of 2008:

$10 billion per year was transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund.
$2.7 billion is granted to the FAA
$8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships

Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 11

# of reasons to disagree: -6

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+5) Federal spending should not exceed 20% of GDP

2011-11-05T18:41:00.000-07:00

Because we are in debt we must examine all expenses and ask "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?"
20% of GDP is near the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy.
In 2010 federal spending accounted for 24.3% of federal spending.
The federal government should not spend more on social programs than the states.
We can cut 1/2 of a trillion dollars from the 2016 federal budget.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+1) Because we are in debt we must examine all expenses and ask "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?"

2011-11-05T18:23:00.000-07:00