<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180</id><updated>2011-08-16T06:28:37.489-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Winning Argument</title><subtitle type='html'>You know you're right - now prove it</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default?start-index=101&amp;max-results=100'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>110</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110765831584968389</id><published>2005-02-05T21:50:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-05T21:51:55.850-05:00</updated><title type='text'>A Winner: ThinkProgress.org</title><summary type='text'>The new site has launched! ThinkProgress.orgCheck it out.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110765831584968389'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110765831584968389'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2005/02/winner-thinkprogressorg.html' title='A Winner: ThinkProgress.org'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110195330350839084</id><published>2004-12-01T20:57:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-01T21:08:23.510-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Closing Argument</title><summary type='text'>Why I’m shutting down this blog:I am in the process of developing a new blog for the Center for American Progress and have a responsibility to devote my full efforts to that project. I plan to apply some of the concepts I’ve developed here to the CAP blog. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to read and comment on this blog.I’ll post the URL to the new blog in this space early </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110195330350839084'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110195330350839084'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/12/closing-argument.html' title='Closing Argument'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110124111739689867</id><published>2004-11-23T15:17:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-23T15:18:37.396-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s restrictive student visa policy is misguided.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Since 9/11, foreign student visas to the United States are at record lows.  2003-2004 international student enrollments at U.S. colleges and universities fell for the first time in more than three decades, driven by increasingly intrusive and cumbersome application procedures. Graduate applications from China dropped 45% and from India, 28%. As of 2003, applicants must now </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110124111739689867'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110124111739689867'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-administrations-restrictive.html' title='The Bush Administration’s restrictive student visa policy is misguided.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110108859000596310</id><published>2004-11-21T20:43:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-21T21:09:19.946-05:00</updated><title type='text'>House Republicans are taking partisanship to absurd new lows.</title><summary type='text'>Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wouldn't allow a vote on an intelligence reform bill he (and President Bush) supported, even though it would have easily passed. Hastert simply couldn't stomach the idea of Democrats and Republicans collaborating to pass a bill. From today's Washington Post:"In a Capitol basement room, Hastert tried in vain to find enough votes to pass the bill without </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110108859000596310'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110108859000596310'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/house-republicans-are-taking.html' title='House Republicans are taking partisanship to absurd new lows.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110071722331187967</id><published>2004-11-17T13:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-17T13:48:51.136-05:00</updated><title type='text'>In his second term, Bush does not plan on tolerating dissent.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Dissenting views will not be heard now that Colin Powell is gone. Talk about Rice’s appointment as Secretary of State has not been about her diplomatic abilities, but about her closeness to the President. His policies are her policies, and her appointment confirms that President Bush is intent on stifling dissent (even when the dissent turns out to be correct). Rice and Bush </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110071722331187967'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110071722331187967'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/in-his-second-term-bush-does-not-plan.html' title='In his second term, Bush does not plan on tolerating dissent.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110053478251242331</id><published>2004-11-15T11:04:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-15T11:35:27.953-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Porter Goss is making a bad situation worse at the CIA.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Goss is dividing, not uniting, the CIA staff. Bush has continually promised to unite the nation, but his August appointment of Goss to the top spot at the CIA has divided the CIA. Goss put three of his Republican staffers to top CIA positions. These men are viewed as inexperienced and contemptuous of the career employees in the CIA, causing intra-agency turmoil and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110053478251242331'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110053478251242331'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/porter-goss-is-making-bad-situation.html' title='Porter Goss is making a bad situation worse at the CIA.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110020558262317716</id><published>2004-11-11T15:38:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-12T11:22:49.443-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Alberto Gonzales is a horrendous choice for Attorney General.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Gonzales believes the President can ignore laws prohibiting torture. Gonzales approved a memo, delivered to President Bush in August 2002, which concluded laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Further, the memo said that an interrogation tactic only constituted torture if it resulted in injury "such as </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110020558262317716'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110020558262317716'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/alberto-gonzales-is-horrendous-choice.html' title='Alberto Gonzales is a horrendous choice for Attorney General.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110002528594499179</id><published>2004-11-09T13:33:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-09T13:34:45.943-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Elections are not the final step in democracy. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Post-election Afghanistan still has a long way to go. Bush declared, "Freedom is beautiful" regarding the elections in Afghanistan, before even waiting to see whether or not the transition of power would be peaceful. While the Administration sees the elections as an end in themselves, Afghanistan still has many other obstacles to overcome in order to be a full democracy. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110002528594499179'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110002528594499179'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/elections-are-not-final-step-in.html' title='Elections are not the final step in democracy. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109994428466697901</id><published>2004-11-08T15:02:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-08T15:04:44.666-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Most Americans support rights for gay couples.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:     1. 60 percent of Americans support either civil unions or legal marriage for gay couples. 35 percent support civil unions and 25 percent support legal marriage. (Human Rights Campaign)     2. A clear majority of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. 58 percent of Americans believe it is an issue left up to the states. (ABC News)         Why </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109994428466697901'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109994428466697901'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/most-americans-support-rights-for-gay.html' title='Most Americans support rights for gay couples.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109958915296832880</id><published>2004-11-04T13:24:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-04T12:25:52.970-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush still does not have a broad mandate for change. </title><summary type='text'> Why you're right:1. 51% of the vote is not a broad mandate. While the margin of “victory” was greater in this election than in 2000, 51% is still not a large majority of the country and was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. The states Bush captured in this election were really not very different from what he captured in 2000, showing that he has not </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109958915296832880'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109958915296832880'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-still-does-not-have-broad-mandate.html' title='Bush still does not have a broad mandate for change. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109950185156519207</id><published>2004-11-03T13:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-03T12:19:04.396-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Remember 1964.</title><summary type='text'>In 1964, the Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater by 23 points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn't give up. They didn't spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon crushed Humphrey in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109950185156519207'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109950185156519207'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/remember-1964.html' title='Remember 1964.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109934910621181157</id><published>2004-11-01T17:41:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-01T17:45:06.210-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration is endangering, not supporting, our troops. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right: 1. The Bush Administration sent our troops into battle without the proper protection. The Pentagon and the administration did not anticipate a long war in Iraq, therefore they did not properly equip the soldiers. Today, only one-fifth of the Humvees in Iraq have adequate armor protection and the military is facing a shortage of 1.5 billion rounds of small-caliber bullets. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109934910621181157'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109934910621181157'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-administration-is-endangering-not.html' title='The Bush Administration is endangering, not supporting, our troops. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109926535417480759</id><published>2004-10-31T18:26:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-10-31T18:29:14.176-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Rudy Giuliani is giving hypocrisy a bad name.</title><summary type='text'>Today on Meet the Press:    Giuliani: “I think Americans have to unite and this [the Bin Laden tape] should not be a partisan political issue.  I think President Bush reacted to it exactly the right way… then John Kerry turned right around and tried to politicize it.”     Giuliani’s next sentence: “[Osama Bin Laden] certainly wants George Bush out of the White House.”     (Meet The Press, 10/31/</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109926535417480759'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109926535417480759'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/rudy-giuliani-is-giving-hypocrisy-bad.html' title='Rudy Giuliani is giving hypocrisy a bad name.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109900717205402109</id><published>2004-10-28T19:45:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-28T19:46:12.053-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The explosives at al-Qaqaa were not moved before the invasion.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. A Minnesota news crew has photographs of the al-Qaqaa explosives 9 days after Saddam’s fall. Embedded members of the KSTP news team traveled with the 101st Airborne to the area of al-Qaqaa 9 days after the invasion and took pictures of boxes labeled “explosives” and “al-Qaqaa.” The news crew reports that once they opened the doors to the bunker, they were never secured. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109900717205402109'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109900717205402109'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/explosives-at-al-qaqaa-were-not-moved.html' title='The explosives at al-Qaqaa were not moved before the invasion.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109888848137535493</id><published>2004-10-27T10:43:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-27T10:48:01.376-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Rumsfeld is not taking the 380 tons of missing explosives seriously. </title><summary type='text'>In an interview on an Ohio radio station, he compared the looting of powerful explosives to what he believes were exaggerated reports about the looting of the Iraqi national museum. From today's Australian:US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested the controversy over missing Iraqi explosives will probably amount to no more than a tempest in a teapot and compared it to other oversold </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109888848137535493'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109888848137535493'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/rumsfeld-is-not-taking-380-tons-of.html' title='Rumsfeld is not taking the 380 tons of missing explosives seriously. '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109880308055942147</id><published>2004-10-26T11:00:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-26T12:09:52.786-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is irresponsible.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1.Undersecretary of State John Bolton sees little difference between 2 and 7 nuclear weapons. During the Bush Administration’s total focus on Iraq, North Korea was able to restart work on plutonium and went from 2 to 7 plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Bolton replied, “This is quibbling, to say they had two plutonium-based nuclear weapons and now they have seven. The uranium </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109880308055942147'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109880308055942147'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administrations-nuclear.html' title='The Bush Administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is irresponsible.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109873619926557990</id><published>2004-10-25T16:23:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-25T16:29:59.266-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The White House line on the missing explosives is misleading.</title><summary type='text'>There are 380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq – enough to blow up 380,000 aircraft. White House press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly tried to minimize the importance of the missing explosives saying, "more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom...That puts this all -- that puts this all in context." McClellan is mixing apples and oranges. He is </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873619926557990'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873619926557990'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/white-house-line-on-missing-explosives.html' title='The White House line on the missing explosives is misleading.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109873100498443559</id><published>2004-10-25T14:58:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-25T15:13:53.536-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration didn't secure 350 tons of explosives because it was a higher priority to secure oil fields. </title><summary type='text'>Today's White House press gaggle:Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn't the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873100498443559'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873100498443559'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administration-didnt-secure-350.html' title='The Bush administration didn&apos;t secure 350 tons of explosives because it was a higher priority to secure oil fields. '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109854661924276074</id><published>2004-10-23T11:48:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-23T11:50:19.243-04:00</updated><title type='text'>On October 18, President Bush irresponsibly cut funding for first responders.</title><summary type='text'>      Why you’re right:      - The 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, signed by the President on October 18, cut overall funding for first responders by $500 million. (International Association of Fire Fighters)     - A major program providing assistance to firefighters (the FIRE Act) was cut by $100 million. (International Association of Fire Fighters)     - Homeland security block </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109854661924276074'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109854661924276074'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/on-october-18-president-bush.html' title='On October 18, President Bush irresponsibly cut funding for first responders.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109847327767342529</id><published>2004-10-22T15:27:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-22T15:28:40.113-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Condoleezza Rice should not be touring swing states. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Rice is misusing taxpayer money. With less than two weeks before the election, Rice is using government money to go around the country and speak on national security. She claims that she isn’t campaigning, but she has given nine speeches in the last two months, all in swing states. In her term as National Security Adviser, Rice has given 68 speeches – mostly in Washington, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109847327767342529'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109847327767342529'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/condoleezza-rice-should-not-be-touring.html' title='Condoleezza Rice should not be touring swing states. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109846503773866592</id><published>2004-10-22T13:07:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-22T13:11:47.440-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush supporters are wildly misinformed.</title><summary type='text'>  –  75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.   –  74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.   –  72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.   –  72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.   –  69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.   –  61% believe if Bush knew there were no </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109846503773866592'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109846503773866592'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-supporters-are-wildly-misinformed.html' title='Bush supporters are wildly misinformed.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109837913070309095</id><published>2004-10-21T13:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-21T13:21:05.700-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s intelligence strategy is deeply flawed.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The Bush Administration lacks long-term vision. The Bush Administration is focused on how to prevent/respond to another 9/11, but is not giving enough attention to the possibility that the attack might be different from 9/11. By ignoring actors who may become terrorists, the Bush Administration is not doing all it can to protect the country. "The current focus on terrorism </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109837913070309095'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109837913070309095'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administrations-intelligence.html' title='The Bush Administration’s intelligence strategy is deeply flawed.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109829164707374485</id><published>2004-10-20T13:59:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-20T13:01:31.943-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: The government is doing everything it can to protect our country</title><summary type='text'>      Losing Argument:         "Our government is doing everything we can to stop another attack…We’re doing everything we can to protect our country.” – President Bush, 1/29/02     Why it's a loser:     Here is one reason: "The homeland security agency tasked with hunting down terrorists inside U.S. borders and shutting down human smuggling and nacro-trafficking is so strapped for cash that it’s</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109829164707374485'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109829164707374485'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/losing-argument-government-is-doing.html' title='Losing Argument: The government is doing everything it can to protect our country'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109785856054392456</id><published>2004-10-15T13:41:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-15T13:34:05.450-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration is partly responsible for the flu vaccine shortage.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The Bush administration knew about the shortage and didn't do anything about it. The administration found out about the shortage – caused by contamination at a factory owned by Chiron in northwest England – in mid-September. Britain found out at the same time and responded to the warning by quickly securing alternative supplies. (Washington Post)2. The Bush administration </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109785856054392456'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109785856054392456'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administration-is-partly.html' title='The Bush Administration is partly responsible for the flu vaccine shortage.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109768479489018347</id><published>2004-10-13T13:25:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-13T12:26:34.890-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The international coalition in Iraq is not strong. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. 7 countries have withdrawn from the coalition. Nicaragua (February 2004); Spain (late April 2004); Dominican Republic (early May 2004); Honduras (late May 2004); Philippines (July 16, 2004); Thailand (late August 2004); and New Zealand (late September 2004). Poland plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq by late 2005. (Global Security, CBC News, Associated Press)2. 4 </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109768479489018347'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109768479489018347'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/international-coalition-in_109768479489018347.html' title='The international coalition in Iraq is not strong. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109744978290121544</id><published>2004-10-10T19:07:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-10T19:11:26.290-04:00</updated><title type='text'>George W. Bush is not committed to civil rights.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1. Bush nominated judges to the federal bench who are hostile to civil rights. For example, Bush nominated Charles Pickering Sr. for a U.S. Appeals Court post. Pickering once contacted a friend at the Department of Justice to try to get a reduced sentence for a man who was convicted of cross burning, which Pickering referred to as “youthful prank.” When Pickering’s nomination </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109744978290121544'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109744978290121544'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/george-w-bush-is-not-committed-to.html' title='George W. Bush is not committed to civil rights.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109717197106226507</id><published>2004-10-07T13:57:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-07T14:37:37.060-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The U.S. needs to give Iraqis greater responsibility for more than just security.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Training Iraqi troops has been the focus of the U.S. transfer of power to the Iraqis. Most of the focus by both the administration and the media has been on the security situation in Iraq. Most recently, NATO admitted that its program to help train the Iraqi army will probably not begin until next year. Less coverage has looked at the situation of jobs and reconstruction. (</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109717197106226507'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109717197106226507'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/us-needs-to-give-iraqis-greater.html' title='The U.S. needs to give Iraqis greater responsibility for more than just security.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109708945045942720</id><published>2004-10-06T15:02:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-06T15:04:10.460-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: You can't win a war you don't believe in fighting</title><summary type='text'>Losing Argument:"You can't win a war you don't believe in fighting" – George W. Bush, 10/6/04Why it's a loser:It conflates two points. First point: knowing what we know now – no WMD, no collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda – it was the wrong decision to go to war. Second point: now that we are there, we have to win. In other words, it is possible to believe that starting something is a </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109708945045942720'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109708945045942720'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/losing-argument-you-cant-win-war-you.html' title='Losing Argument: You can&apos;t win a war you don&apos;t believe in fighting'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109708820366233673</id><published>2004-10-06T14:39:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-06T14:45:23.196-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration is not taking seriously the greatest threat to the nation. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. A nuclear attack by terrorists is the greatest threat facing the U.S. In last night’s vice presidential debate, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon . . . into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans." William Perry, the former secretary of</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109708820366233673'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109708820366233673'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administration-is-not-taking.html' title='The Bush Administration is not taking seriously the greatest threat to the nation. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109700128860297332</id><published>2004-10-05T14:33:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-06T13:25:39.413-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Republicans are trying to suppress the black vote.</title><summary type='text'>      Why you're right:     1. Republicans are trying to suppress the black vote in Orlando. Officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement – which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush – have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an "investigation" that has frightened many voters. Many of the elderly black voters who were question by state police </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109700128860297332'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109700128860297332'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/republicans-are-trying-to-suppress.html' title='Republicans are trying to suppress the black vote.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109656988746697590</id><published>2004-09-30T14:43:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-30T14:44:47.466-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Americans still don’t know the real George W. Bush.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. 84% of Bush supporters believe Bush supports labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. Wrong. Bush does not want any labor and environmental standards to stand in the way of free trade agreements and rejects requiring them and enforcing. (PIPA, White House)2. 72% of Bush supporters believe Bush supports a treaty banning land mines. Wrong. 150 countries have </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109656988746697590'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109656988746697590'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/americans-still-dont-know-real-george.html' title='Americans still don’t know the real George W. Bush.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109655094713874360</id><published>2004-09-30T09:28:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-30T09:29:07.140-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Don't trust Gallup polls.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. They poll too many Republicans. The most recent Gallup poll of about 1000 voters contained 40% Republicans and 31% democrats. According to a study by the Pew foundation, Democrats outnumber Republicans by about five percentage points in the actual electorate, just as they have done for the last decade. (Left Coaster, Pew)2. Their likely voter model is flawed. Gallup's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109655094713874360'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109655094713874360'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/dont-trust-gallup-polls.html' title='Don&apos;t trust Gallup polls.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109638312635180040</id><published>2004-09-28T10:51:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-28T10:52:06.356-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: Limited elections are a-okay.</title><summary type='text'>Losing Argument:"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet." –Donald Rumsfeld, 9/23/04Why it's a loser:Partial </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109638312635180040'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109638312635180040'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-limited-elections-are.html' title='Losing Argument: Limited elections are a-okay.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109631599527149135</id><published>2004-09-27T16:12:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-27T16:13:15.270-04:00</updated><title type='text'>An independent commission should be created to investigate the abuse of prisoners in US custody.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Existing investigations were impeded by conflicts-of-interest. Several investigations (Jones, Taguba, Jacoby, Church) were conducted by active military personnel. These investigations are limited because the lead investigators place in the chain of command, which limits their ability to investigate those who outrank them. The Schlesinger panel operated outside of the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109631599527149135'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109631599527149135'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/independent-commission-should-be.html' title='An independent commission should be created to investigate the abuse of prisoners in US custody.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109605356944272570</id><published>2004-09-24T15:14:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-24T15:20:32.860-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The tax bill that cleared Congress yesterday was not a "middle class tax cut." </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The bill mostly benefits the rich. Two-thirds of the benefits in the bill went to the top 1/5 of all earners. (CPBB)2. The bill gives away billions to corporations. The bill included $12 billion in corporate tax breaks – including provisions benefiting Caribbean distillers. (LA Times, USA Today)3. The middle class could end up worse off. Middle class families receive an </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109605356944272570'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109605356944272570'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/tax-bill-that-cleared-congress.html' title='The tax bill that cleared Congress yesterday was not a &quot;middle class tax cut.&quot; '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109588648473954937</id><published>2004-09-22T16:54:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-22T17:01:06.863-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The world is marching toward democracy. </title><summary type='text'>Losing Argument:“The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere.” – President Bush, Address to the UN General Assembly, 9/22/04Why it's a loser:Bush’s policy of expanding global democracy focuses on turning autocratic countries into democracies, but does not work on ensuring that fragile semi-democracies become stronger. His speech on the National Endowment of</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109588648473954937'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109588648473954937'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/world-is-marching-toward-democracy.html' title='The world is marching toward democracy. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109582303099377706</id><published>2004-09-21T23:05:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-21T23:21:27.530-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument:  Nothing like 9/11 has ever happened before; its uniqueness justifies increasing security at the expense of civil liberties</title><summary type='text'>"[On September 11th] night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack." - President George W. Bush, Address to Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001"This has changed the world forever." - John Ashcroft, upon hearing of the 9/11 attacks, according to Deputy Chief of Staff David Israelite (Atlantic Monthly, April 2004).This argument comes in two parts, and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109582303099377706'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109582303099377706'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-nothing-like-911-has.html' title='Losing Argument:  Nothing like 9/11 has ever happened before; its uniqueness justifies increasing security at the expense of civil liberties'/><author><name>Nathan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/13678398608811784034</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109571332575303071</id><published>2004-09-20T16:37:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-21T07:33:04.026-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing argument: Criticism of the administration's Iraq policy is motivated by partisanship.</title><summary type='text'>Losing argument: "At a moment when America and Americans stand strong behind our troops on the battlefield, John Kerry is attacking President Bush and the military and seeking to divide along party lines. If there was ever a time to refrain from partisan politics, this is it; but all we see from the Kerry campaign and from John Kerry is political exploitation for political gain." – Bush/Cheney </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109571332575303071'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109571332575303071'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-criticism-of.html' title='Losing argument: Criticism of the administration&apos;s Iraq policy is motivated by partisanship.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109543533726024726</id><published>2004-09-17T11:33:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-17T11:35:37.260-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Airports are not prepared to deal with future attacks. </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Common sense is not so common. A running joke among security screeners at Dulles International Airport is “Guns, bombs and common sense are prohibited by the TSA in the airport.” Security screeners confiscate from children toy guns because they replicate firearms, judicial gavels for looking like hammers, and fingernail clippers, but not foot-long knitting needles or bottles</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109543533726024726'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109543533726024726'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/airports-are-not-prepared-to-deal-with.html' title='Airports are not prepared to deal with future attacks. '/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109530633002976882</id><published>2004-09-15T23:42:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-15T23:45:30.030-04:00</updated><title type='text'>When Bush says "freedom," what does he mean?</title><summary type='text'>Hello everyone!  My name is Nathan Truitt, and I had the distinct pleasure of knowing Judd Legum, the brains behind this blog, back in college.  We were on a debate team together, and, as I’m sure you can imagine, he always had an uncanny ability to come up with great arguments – and the facts to back them up.  My role on the team was simply to rant at great length when the opportunity presented </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109530633002976882'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109530633002976882'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/when-bush-says-freedom-what-does-he.html' title='When Bush says &quot;freedom,&quot; what does he mean?'/><author><name>Nathan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/13678398608811784034</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109528362454790058</id><published>2004-09-15T17:09:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-15T17:27:04.546-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: We’re fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them on the streets of America.</title><summary type='text'>Losing argument:“[W]e are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy – confronting them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home.” – White House, 9/11/04Why it's a loser:1. Fighting overseas isn’t enough. We must make sure we are fighting the right enemy overseas and protect against terrorism at home. The Bush Administration went to war in Iraq, even though the 9/</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109528362454790058'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109528362454790058'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-were-fighting.html' title='Losing Argument: We’re fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them on the streets of America.'/><author><name>Amanda</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109519687448781846</id><published>2004-09-14T17:16:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-14T17:21:14.486-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: Medical malpractice lawsuits significantly increase healthcare costs. </title><summary type='text'>Losing argument:"In order to make sure health care is available and affordable, we've got to do something about the frivolous lawsuits that are...running up your health care costs." – President Bush, 9/9/04Why it's a loser:Bush's statement is contradicted by a study Bush himself says is authoritative. Yesterday on the campaign trail, "Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney used a new report by</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109519687448781846'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109519687448781846'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-medical-malpractice.html' title='Losing Argument: Medical malpractice lawsuits significantly increase healthcare costs. '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109510961188230306</id><published>2004-09-13T17:05:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-13T17:06:51.883-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration has mishandled the situation in Fallujah</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. They ordered the Marines in too soon. According to senior U.S. officials in Iraq, The White House pressured Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to order Lt. Gen. James T. Conway to storm Fallujah in April. Conway said he argued that the military should "let the situation settle" in Fallujah before attacking so that it didn't seem like U.S. forces were acting as revenge for contractors </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109510961188230306'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109510961188230306'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/bush-administration-has-mishandled.html' title='The Bush administration has mishandled the situation in Fallujah'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109503233273102920</id><published>2004-09-12T19:37:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-12T19:38:52.730-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: Kim Jong Il supports John Kerry for President</title><summary type='text'>Losing argument:WOLF BLITZER: Before we move on, are you suggesting [Kim Jong Il] would like to see President Bush defeated? SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): Well, I think that's probably the case.- CNN Late Edition, 9/12/04Why it’s a loser:It's baseless speculation. Since 2002, North Korea has “has reopened its program, separated up to five or six bombs' worth of plutonium, and produced fresh </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109503233273102920'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109503233273102920'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-kim-jong-il-supports.html' title='Losing Argument: Kim Jong Il supports John Kerry for President'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109483931093955520</id><published>2004-09-10T13:59:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-10T14:01:50.940-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: Bush fulfilled his duties to the National Guard because he was honorably discharged.</title><summary type='text'>Losing Argument:If the President had not fulfilled his commitment he would not have been honorably discharged. – Scott McClellan, 9/8/04Why it's a loser:There is no dispute as to whether Bush received an honorable discharge. The issue is whether he earned it. To prove that, Bush has to demonstrate that he fulfilled his obligations. McClellan's line, made repeatedly by the White House, skips</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109483931093955520'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109483931093955520'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-bush-fulfilled-his.html' title='Losing Argument: Bush fulfilled his duties to the National Guard because he was honorably discharged.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109476266350655356</id><published>2004-09-09T16:43:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-10T14:08:35.660-04:00</updated><title type='text'>There is no lawsuit crisis</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The number of cases filed is going down. The number of tort filing in state courts (where the vast majority of such cases are filed) declined 5% between 1993 and 2002. (National Center for State Courts)2. The average awards to successful plaintiff's are plummeting. The average award for a successful plaintiff in state court has fallen from $65,000 in 1992 to $37,000 in </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109476266350655356'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109476266350655356'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/there-is-no-lawsuit-crisis.html' title='There is no lawsuit crisis'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109459096193574709</id><published>2004-09-07T17:01:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-07T17:02:41.936-04:00</updated><title type='text'>A flat tax is a bad idea.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. It forces a choice between higher deficits or an increased burden for the middle class. Under the current progressive system, the rich pay a larger share of their income. To make up that difference the government must either: 1) shift a significant portion of the tax burden to the middle class or 2) borrow money to make up the difference. (EPI)Why they're wrong:1. There </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109459096193574709'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109459096193574709'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/flat-tax-is-bad-idea.html' title='A flat tax is a bad idea.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109447824106152438</id><published>2004-09-06T09:39:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-06T11:46:30.173-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: Invading Iraq was part of the war on terrorism because there were terrorists in Iraq</title><summary type='text'>(In a new occasional feature of Winning Argument, we’ll expose losing arguments being advanced by people who claim to know what they are talking about.)Losing argument:“The fact is that Abu Nidal was a terrorist who was in Baghdad. The fact is Ansar al-Islam, which is a terrorist organization, was in Iraq. This is part of the war on terror.” – Newt Gingrich, Meet the Press, 9/5/04Why it’s a</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109447824106152438'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109447824106152438'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/losing-argument-invading-iraq-was-part.html' title='Losing Argument: Invading Iraq was part of the war on terrorism because there were terrorists in Iraq'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109434793670997829</id><published>2004-09-04T21:21:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-05T19:32:19.260-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Feel free to insult me</title><summary type='text'>  Another prominent liberal blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has shut down commenting on his site. Matt’s rationale: his comment section “become totally overwhelmed by trolls who come to write in the spirit of deliberate insult and misreading rather than fairminded debate.”  I don’t think this explanation makes any sense. What is the impact of random, usually anonymous, internet users writing insults?</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109434793670997829'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109434793670997829'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/feel-free-to-insult-me.html' title='Feel free to insult me'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109423367766296466</id><published>2004-09-03T13:45:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-03T13:57:59.313-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Health Savings Accounts are a bad idea.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. It will make health insurance more expensive. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allow workers to save money in a tax free account to pay for deductibles, co-payments, and uncovered medical costs. But there is a catch. Currently, yearly deductibles average around $300 for individuals and $600 dollars for families. Health Saving Accounts must be accompanied by an insurance policy</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109423367766296466'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109423367766296466'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/health-savings-accounts-are-bad-idea.html' title='Health Savings Accounts are a bad idea.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109407541477817868</id><published>2004-09-01T17:47:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-09-01T17:50:14.776-04:00</updated><title type='text'>President Bush's tax cuts should not be made permanent </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:   1. They've blown a hole in the federal budget. The president's own budget analysis proves that tax cuts are the primary reason why, in less than four years, the federal government has gone from running record surpluses to running record deficits. Extending tax cuts would add an additional $1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years. (Government Executive, New</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109407541477817868'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109407541477817868'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/09/president-bushs-tax-cuts-should-not-be.html' title='President Bush&apos;s tax cuts should not be made permanent '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109398621456859208</id><published>2004-08-31T16:42:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-31T17:04:43.010-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Send a Winning Email</title><summary type='text'>You may have noticed the little envelope that now appears at the bottom right-hand corner of each post. This is a new feature that allows you to email posts to your friends. I encourage everyone to do so. Because it's always a good time to start an argument. You might want to start by sending a couple to President Bush. He's eager for a serious debate on policy issues. That's why he subjects </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109398621456859208'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109398621456859208'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/send-winning-email.html' title='Send a Winning Email'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109396989530142766</id><published>2004-08-31T12:28:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-31T12:31:35.300-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States should not privatize social security.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Some seniors would be much worse off. It’s true, the “average” stock market return is higher than money received by the Social Security trust fund. But seniors don’t receive the “average” return. They would only receive their own, individual return which in many cases would be below the average. The stock market is risky and its returns are not guaranteed; what is guaranteed</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109396989530142766'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109396989530142766'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/united-states-should-not-privatize_31.html' title='The United States should not privatize social security.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109388979679836354</id><published>2004-08-30T14:13:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-30T14:16:36.796-04:00</updated><title type='text'>California should not have a part-time legislature.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Full-time legislatures are more independent. If being a state senator or representative is a part-time job, elected officials are forced to find other employment to make ends meet. This inevitably creates conflicts between the interests of their employers – on whom they are financially dependent – and the interests of their constituents.2. California is a big state. Each </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109388979679836354'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109388979679836354'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/california-should-not-have-part-time.html' title='California should not have a part-time legislature.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109362240039649296</id><published>2004-08-27T11:57:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-27T12:10:48.503-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush should stop using the Olympics in political advertisements.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The ads violate the law. By federal law, the words "Olympic" and "Olympiad" cannot be exploited for political purposes. Bush uses the word Olympic in his campaign advertisements. (36 USC 2205 §§ 220506, 220507). 2. The ads damaging our status in the international community. They have drawn complaints from the International Olympic Committee because they feel the ads are "</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109362240039649296'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109362240039649296'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/bush-should-stop-using-olympics-in.html' title='Bush should stop using the Olympics in political advertisements.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109337124084902461</id><published>2004-08-24T14:09:00.001-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-24T14:38:09.923-04:00</updated><title type='text'>527 organizations should not be eliminated.</title><summary type='text'>Why you are right:1. They are not shadowy. The IRS now requires 527s to disclose "the names and addresses (and occupation and employer if an individual) of all persons who contribute $200 or more...and of all persons receiving expenditures of $500 or more." This information is searchable and publicly available. You can find it here. (IRS website)2. If 527s were eliminated it would empower </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109337124084902461'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109337124084902461'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/527-organizations-should-not-be_24.html' title='527 organizations should not be eliminated.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109329088845154641</id><published>2004-08-23T15:52:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-23T16:00:06.160-04:00</updated><title type='text'>George W. Bush was involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The SBVfT ads features a member of the Bush/Cheney veterans steering committee. Kenneth Cordier appears prominently in the advertisement. Until late last week, he served on the national veterans steering committee for the Bush/Cheney campaign. The campaign only dumped him when his position was exposed last weekend. (Washington Post)2. The SBVfT ads were funded by a </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109329088845154641'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109329088845154641'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/george-w-bush-was-involved-with-swift.html' title='George W. Bush was involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109294279460058967</id><published>2004-08-19T15:09:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-19T15:13:14.600-04:00</updated><title type='text'>President Bush does not adequately support our troops</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Bush proposed cutting funding for military housing and medical facilities. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the President Bush proposed spending nearly $1.5 billion less on these critical facilities than the previous year. (House Appropriation Committees)2. Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay. Soldiers on the front lines recieve a small monthly </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109294279460058967'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109294279460058967'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/president-bush-does-not-adequately.html' title='President Bush does not adequately support our troops'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109284436958569288</id><published>2004-08-18T11:51:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-18T13:29:43.190-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Ex-felons should be allowed to vote.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The laws are a relic of a time when states sought to prevent blacks from voting. Because blacks are convicted of crimes at disproportionate rates, they are still achieving that effect. In Florida and Virginia, for example, 16% of the black adult population is ineligible to vote. (Washington Post)2. It diminishes the right to vote. Granting the right to vote only if someone</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109284436958569288'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109284436958569288'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/ex-felons-should-be-allowed-to-vote.html' title='Ex-felons should be allowed to vote.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109277146417692478</id><published>2004-08-17T15:31:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-18T11:56:54.573-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Elections come and go but arguments are forever.  </title><summary type='text'>Please consider nominating Winning Argument (http://winningargument.blogspot.com) in the Washingtonpost.com's best political blog competition as the blog "Most Likely To Last Beyond Election Day." </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109277146417692478'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109277146417692478'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/elections-come-and-go-but-arguments.html' title='Elections come and go but arguments are forever.  '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109276691282674105</id><published>2004-08-17T14:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-17T14:31:19.000-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States Should Not Recall Troops From Germany and South Korea</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Recalling troops puts them farther away from where they are most needed. For the foreseeable future, it is far more likely that troops will be needed in the Middle East than in Canada. As long as that remains the case, it doesn't make sense to shift U.S. troops from Germany to Kansas. (Washington Post)2. It will cost a lot of money. Taxpayers will need to finance the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109276691282674105'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109276691282674105'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/united-states-should-not-recall-troops.html' title='The United States Should Not Recall Troops From Germany and South Korea'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109267371709990521</id><published>2004-08-16T12:28:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-16T12:28:37.100-04:00</updated><title type='text'>America should be sensitive to other cultures when using military force.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Insensitivity breeds more terrorists. When American forces attack without regard to cultural sensitivities it can make enemies of individuals who would otherwise support America's effort. This is the reason why American forces are showing restraint in combating forces loyal to Moqtada Sadr in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf. Attacking the city full bore risks damaging holy </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109267371709990521'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109267371709990521'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/america-should-be-sensitive-to-other.html' title='America should be sensitive to other cultures when using military force.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109234556485312761</id><published>2004-08-12T17:18:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-12T17:19:24.853-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The costs of research and development do not justify the costs of prescription drugs.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  A larger portion of pharmaceutical industry revenues go to profits than to R&amp;D.  In 2002, 17% of revenues for all Fortune 500 drug companies were channeled into profit, while only 14.1% of revenues were committed to R&amp;D.  7 out of the 9 profitable drug companies in the Fortune 500 allocated more revenue to profit than to R&amp;D.    (Public Citizen)2.  Taxpayers subsidize R&amp;D</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109234556485312761'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109234556485312761'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/costs-of-research-and-development-do.html' title='The costs of research and development do not justify the costs of prescription drugs.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109225073548692416</id><published>2004-08-11T14:56:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-11T15:03:42.970-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush was AWOL.</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Bush did not complete the required 48 drill units in fiscal year 1973, as required by law. (At the time, the fiscal year lasted from July 1 to June 30 of the next year.) Payroll records released by the White House show Bush only completed 36 drill units during fiscal year 1973. According to Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109225073548692416'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109225073548692416'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/bush-was-awol.html' title='Bush was AWOL.'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109217276015614081</id><published>2004-08-10T17:18:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-10T17:19:20.156-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Porter Goss is too partisan to serve as CIA director.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  Goss attacked John Kerry on the House floor.  Holding up a sign with a quote by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Goss accused Kerry and his Democratic colleagues of weakening the American intelligence infrastructure and causing its problems.  He said, “That [the quote featured on the sign] was in May of 1997 from the record. I got books full of that stuff. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109217276015614081'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109217276015614081'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/porter-goss-is-too-partisan-to-serve.html' title='Porter Goss is too partisan to serve as CIA director.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109207751235749352</id><published>2004-08-09T14:50:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-09T17:20:18.036-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush’s tax “cuts” hurt lower- and middle-class Americans.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:Four-fifths of Americans will pay more for the tax cuts than they receive. The tax cuts must be financed somehow, either through a reduction in government services or the addition of other taxes. Regardless of how this financing occurs, on average, households that earn less then about $76,400 will wind up receiving a cut smaller than the reduction in services that they accept. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109207751235749352'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109207751235749352'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/bushs-tax-cuts-hurt-lower-and-middle.html' title='Bush’s tax “cuts” hurt lower- and middle-class Americans.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109181922753380633</id><published>2004-08-06T15:04:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-07T10:21:25.166-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Fair Labor Standards Act should not be amended to allow "comp time."</title><summary type='text'>Compensatory time – or comp time – allows employers to offer extra time off to employees for overtime work instead of paying them time-and-a-half.&lt;/&gt;Why you're right:1. Flexibility exists in the current system. Any employer can allow an employee to work 50 hours in one week and 30 hours in the next week. There are simply required to pay workers time-and-a-half for the 10 excess hours in the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109181922753380633'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109181922753380633'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/fair-labor-standards-act-should-not-be.html' title='The Fair Labor Standards Act should not be amended to allow &quot;comp time.&quot;'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109173464036688949</id><published>2004-08-05T15:36:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-05T15:37:20.366-04:00</updated><title type='text'>American women lack access to positions of political power.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  The United States lags behind other nations in female elected officials.  Out of 119 countries recently surveyed, the U.S. ranked 57th in proportion of women in the lower house of Parliament.  Although we advocated provisions in the Iraqi and Afghani constitutions that aim for women in 25% of seats, women make up only 22% of state legislators and an appalling 14% in </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109173464036688949'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109173464036688949'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/american-women-lack-access-to.html' title='American women lack access to positions of political power.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109165072961402689</id><published>2004-08-04T16:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-04T16:18:49.613-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Kerry's vote against the $87 billion is nothing to be ashamed of </title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. John Kerry was backing the troops 100%. John Kerry voted against the funding package because Bush didn't provide a way to pay for it. His concerns have been proven well founded. This year the nation's deficit is expected be $455 billion. The bill Kerry preferred would have simply passed the funding but offset it by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109165072961402689'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109165072961402689'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerrys-vote-against-87-billion-is.html' title='Kerry&apos;s vote against the $87 billion is nothing to be ashamed of '/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109155559075617571</id><published>2004-08-03T13:52:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-03T13:53:10.756-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Failing to provide health insurance for every American impedes economic growth.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  The government already pays for health care for the uninsured.  Annually, the government spends approximately $30 billion on health services for the uninsured.  This number includes Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, state and local appropriations to public hospitals, and federal grants to community health centers, among other programs.  (Kaiser Family </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109155559075617571'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109155559075617571'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/failing-to-provide-health-insurance.html' title='Failing to provide health insurance for every American impedes economic growth.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109147495175368701</id><published>2004-08-02T15:27:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-08-02T15:37:03.853-04:00</updated><title type='text'>All electronic voting machines should be subject to an independent security review</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The machines likely have major security vulnerabilities. The four manufacturers of voting machine software keep their source code "strictly secret by contract with the local jurisdiction and states using the machines." But Diebold’s AccuVote-TS DRE voting system was leaked and posted on the internet. A subsequent study by John's Hopkins University found Diebold's "voting </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109147495175368701'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109147495175368701'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/08/all-electronic-voting-machines-should.html' title='All electronic voting machines should be subject to an independent security review'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109121502214891448</id><published>2004-07-30T15:16:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-30T15:17:02.146-04:00</updated><title type='text'>McCain-Feingold has failed to reduce the influence of money in politics.</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  It paved the way for unlimited “independent” expenditures by the parties.  A 2003 Supreme Court ruling stated that, though McCain-Feingold limits party spending to $16.2 million on activities coordinated with the candidates, it left the Democratic and Republican national committees free to spend as much as they can raise on “independent” electioneering—anything not directly</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109121502214891448'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109121502214891448'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/mccain-feingold-has-failed-to-reduce.html' title='McCain-Feingold has failed to reduce the influence of money in politics.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109112013283599549</id><published>2004-07-29T12:52:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-29T12:56:21.660-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The president should immediately support all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Cherry-picking allows the administration to avoid difficult but critical reforms. The administration has already hinted it will reject some reforms recommended unanimously by the bi-partisan commission. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has "signaled administration opposition to the idea of a new intelligence chief" – a key recommendation of the commission. If the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109112013283599549'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109112013283599549'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/president-should-immediately-support.html' title='The president should immediately support all of the 9/11 commission&apos;s recommendations'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109103403930444078</id><published>2004-07-28T12:59:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-28T13:09:02.323-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Ken Lay's influence in the Bush administration continues to undermine America's energy policy</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right: 1.Lay’s appointees control the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  In exchange for Kenneth Lay’s fundraising work during the 2000 campaign, President Bush made “Kenny Boy,” then-chairman of Enron, a member of the Energy Department transition team.  Lay submitted a list of his preferred candidates for appointment to the five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109103403930444078'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109103403930444078'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/ken-lays-influence-in-bush.html' title='Ken Lay&apos;s influence in the Bush administration continues to undermine America&apos;s energy policy'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109094746224688184</id><published>2004-07-27T12:53:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-27T12:57:42.246-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research should be repealed</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The restrictions impede the discovery of new treatments or cures for severely debilitating diseases. Stem Cell research has great potential to uncover breakthrough treatments for ailments such as Alzheimer's disease, spinal injuries, Parkinson's and diabetes. President Bush has prohibited federal funding for stem cell lines created after August 2001. As a result federally </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109094746224688184'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109094746224688184'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/bush-administrations-restrictions-on.html' title='The Bush administration&apos;s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research should be repealed'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109086837512309758</id><published>2004-07-26T14:50:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-26T14:59:35.123-04:00</updated><title type='text'>There are too many people in prison in America</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right: 1. For many non-violent crimes, treatment is more effective than incarceration. A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that every dollar spent on drug treatment outside of prison for drug law violators yields $8.87 in benefits in the form of reduced crime and regained productivity. Drug treatment in prison yielded less than $3 in benefits for</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109086837512309758'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109086837512309758'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/there-are-too-many-people-in-prison-in.html' title='There are too many people in prison in America'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109061641017884681</id><published>2004-07-23T16:46:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-23T17:00:10.176-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The situation in the Sudan is a genocide.</title><summary type='text'>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109061641017884681'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109061641017884681'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/situation-in-sudan-is-genocide.html' title='The situation in the Sudan is a genocide.'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109042763263824094</id><published>2004-07-21T12:32:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-21T16:28:49.203-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration treats science as a political tool </title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:   1.  It manipulates science to please industry.  For this administration, corporate needs trump empirical evidence about the environment.  Early drafts of the 2003 comprehensive report on the state of the environment referenced studies on the recently accelerated rate of temperature increase and its human causes, but White House officials demanded that these references be </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109042763263824094'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109042763263824094'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/bush-administration-treats-science-as.html' title='The Bush administration treats science as a political tool '/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109024802170978053</id><published>2004-07-19T10:38:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-19T13:57:34.096-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration should release the $34 million being withheld from UNFPA </title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:   1.  The money would save lives.  The United Nations Family Planning Agency estimates that the $34 million could have prevented 4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.  This estimate does not include deaths due to HIV/AIDS, the transmission of which is also decreased by UNFPA programming (UNFPA)      2.  The money would reduce recourse to abortion.  </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109024802170978053'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109024802170978053'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/bush-administration-should-release-34.html' title='The Bush administration should release the $34 million being withheld from UNFPA '/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108999171300706881</id><published>2004-07-16T11:26:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-21T16:30:36.766-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Media consolidation is bad for democracy</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:   1.  It denies citizens access to a diversity of opinion.  When one company owns radio and television stations and newspapers in the same market, the same editorial viewpoint guides all these media.  Especially troubling is the fact that most people remain unaware that the content of their various news sources is ultimately controlled by the same group of executives.  As the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108999171300706881'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108999171300706881'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/media-consolidation-is-bad-for.html' title='Media consolidation is bad for democracy'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108991966593611802</id><published>2004-07-15T15:25:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-15T15:29:52.930-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Congress should prevent the Bush administration from changing the overtime rules</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The revisions would cause an estimated six million people to lose overtime benefits. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the new Labor Department regulations reclassify jobs and create newly exempted fields, causing millions to lose benefits. Among those no longer able to receive overtime would be "130,000 chefs and cooks, 160,000 financial service workers and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108991966593611802'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108991966593611802'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/congress-should-prevent-bush.html' title='Congress should prevent the Bush administration from changing the overtime rules'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108982180375092634</id><published>2004-07-14T12:13:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-14T12:20:32.576-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration should not allow states to permit road-building in protected national forests</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. It would pollute drinking water. Roadless areas in national forests are responsible for producing clean drinking water for millions of Americans. Protected areas of national forests serve as source areas for drinking water in 39 states. Erosion and landslides from roads can send "tons of silt and unwanted nutrients into forest streams." (Republicans for Environmental </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108982180375092634'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108982180375092634'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/bush-administration-should-not-allow.html' title='The Bush administration should not allow states to permit road-building in protected national forests'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108973033088643211</id><published>2004-07-13T10:50:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-13T19:37:50.273-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The assault weapons ban should be renewed</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  An overwhelming majority of Americans support the ban.  The 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey revealed that 71% of people in households without guns support the ban, as do 64% of those in households with guns.  Even in households with at least one NRA member, 46% of respondents supported the ban.  (The Washington Times)2.  The prohibited guns are designed </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108973033088643211'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108973033088643211'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/assault-weapons-ban-should-be-renewed.html' title='The assault weapons ban should be renewed'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108965163041185175</id><published>2004-07-12T12:53:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-12T13:01:59.560-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Senate Intelligence Committee report does not absolve the White House of responsibility for hyping intelligence about Iraq</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The report tells only half the story. It purposely avoids any serious evaluation of White House efforts to pressure the CIA. The report ignores "the ways intelligence was used, misused, misinterpreted or ignored by administration policymakers in deciding to go to war and in making the case to the American people that war with Iraq was necessary." Republicans on the committee</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108965163041185175'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108965163041185175'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/senate-intelligence-committee-report.html' title='The Senate Intelligence Committee report does not absolve the White House of responsibility for hyping intelligence about Iraq'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108938833274531646</id><published>2004-07-09T11:46:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-09T17:28:52.553-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States should not amend its constitution to prohibit gay marriage</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  There has never been an amendment legalizing discrimination.  The constitution has been amended only seventeen times since the original Bill of Rights.  These seventeen amendments have abolished slavery, established equal protection for people of all races, and granted women the right to vote.  The constitution is amended infrequently because, by short-circuiting the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108938833274531646'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108938833274531646'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/united-states-should-not-amend-its_09.html' title='The United States should not amend its constitution to prohibit gay marriage'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108931297744708054</id><published>2004-07-08T14:52:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-08T15:07:42.590-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The White House is politicizing the "war on terror"</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. White House officials encouraged the Pakistani government to capture high-ranking members of al-Qaeda during the Democratic convention in July. According to a well-sourced article by The New Republic, a White House aide told a Pakistani general last spring "'it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT [high value target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven,</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108931297744708054'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108931297744708054'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/white-house-is-politicizing-war-on.html' title='The White House is politicizing the &quot;war on terror&quot;'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108920864784782274</id><published>2004-07-07T09:54:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-07T09:57:27.846-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Churches should not endorse candidates for office.  </title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  It’s not good for democracy.  Allowing churches to endorse would open another enormous loophole in our already ailing campaign finance system.  Unlike political action committees, churches are non-profit organizations entitled to tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status.  If congregations endorsed candidates, then giving to a church would enable a politically motivated donor to </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108920864784782274'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108920864784782274'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/churches-should-not-endorse-candidates.html' title='Churches should not endorse candidates for office.  '/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108912938485564874</id><published>2004-07-06T11:54:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-06T15:06:06.036-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Large class action law suits should not be limited to federal courts</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Federal Courts are already overcrowded. If state courts can no longer be a venue for class action law suits all plaintiffs will be forced to file in federal courts. There are already 34,067 cases that have been languishing in federal courts for over three years. (Federal Court Management Statistics)2. Attorney's fees are lower in state court. The primary rational for </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108912938485564874'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108912938485564874'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/large-class-action-law-suits-should.html' title='Large class action law suits should not be limited to federal courts'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108903854039635205</id><published>2004-07-05T10:36:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-05T10:42:20.396-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States should not amend its constitution to prohibit flag desecration</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1. It would undermine the bedrock principles of free speech. The point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is unpopular. If we chip away at free speech protections so they only apply to uncontroversial expression the First Amendment will be meaningless. (PFAW)2. Constitutional amendment should expand rights, not restrict them. Since 1791 – apart from the failed </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108903854039635205'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108903854039635205'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/united-states-should-not-amend-its.html' title='The United States should not amend its constitution to prohibit flag desecration'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108880306432628000</id><published>2004-07-02T17:10:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-05T10:43:39.370-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Democratic senators should not confirm Bush's extreme judicial nominees</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right: 1.  The Senate is instructed by the Constitution to provide “advice and consent.”  This clause, intended as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to nominate judges and those who wanted the Executive to do so, creates a meaningful role for the Senate in the process.  If it is unacceptable for the Senate to block any nominees, then the clause is emptied of meaning.  </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108880306432628000'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108880306432628000'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/democratic-senators-should-not-confirm.html' title='Democratic senators should not confirm Bush&apos;s extreme judicial nominees'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108870564083516326</id><published>2004-07-01T14:06:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-01T14:16:04.406-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States should not repeal the estate tax</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Repealing the estate tax would significantly increase the national debt. Between 2014 and 2023 repealing the estate tax would add $820 billion to the national debt. This would come at a time “when the baby boomers will be retiring in large numbers and Social Security and Medicare costs will be rising substantially.” (CBPP)2. Repealing the estate tax would only benefit the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108870564083516326'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108870564083516326'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/07/united-states-should-not-repeal-estate.html' title='The United States should not repeal the estate tax'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108862199518049554</id><published>2004-06-30T14:57:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-30T18:33:43.676-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The United States should increase the size of the Army</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The Army is so overburdened that much of it is not combat-ready. According to a senior army official, "four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months" of 2004, as they recoup from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Washington Post)2. The Army is now unable to respond to emerging threats. North Korea, for </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108862199518049554'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108862199518049554'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/united-states-should-increase-size-of.html' title='The United States should increase the size of the Army'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108851879789819069</id><published>2004-06-29T10:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-29T12:41:18.100-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Today’s economy doesn’t feel like a recovery for most Americans</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1.  The jobs being created are lower quality than those being lost.  A widely cited CIBC World Markets report found that higher wage industries such as manufacturing, transportation, and natural resources are shedding jobs.  Since the current economic expansion began in 2001, the total number of jobs in higher wage sectors has decreased by 2%, while the number in lower wage </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108851879789819069'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108851879789819069'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/todays-economy-doesnt-feel-like.html' title='Today’s economy doesn’t feel like a recovery for most Americans'/><author><name>Rachel</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108845290953954514</id><published>2004-06-28T15:58:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-28T16:01:49.540-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The U.S.-led CPA did not adequately prepare for the transfer of power in Iraq</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) failed to adequately train Iraqi security forces. The CPA set a goal of training a 35,000 person Iraqi army. But, according to the most recent data available, only 7,116 have been fully or partially trained. Only 32% of the Iraqi police force have been fully or partially trained. U.S. officials concede that overall Iraqi security </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108845290953954514'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108845290953954514'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/us-led-cpa-did-not-adequately-prepare.html' title='The U.S.-led CPA did not adequately prepare for the transfer of power in Iraq'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108819310887321681</id><published>2004-06-25T15:48:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-25T15:51:48.873-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The war in Iraq made al-Qaeda stronger</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. The war in Iraq reenergized al-Qaeda. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) says, "the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers." The group estimates al-Qaeda now "has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries." (BBC)2. The war in Iraq weakened the global counter-terrorism coalition. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108819310887321681'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108819310887321681'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/war-in-iraq-made-al-qaeda-stronger.html' title='The war in Iraq made al-Qaeda stronger'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108809643189118861</id><published>2004-06-24T12:56:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-24T13:00:31.890-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration's AIDS policy is a failure</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Bush has underfunded his own AIDS initiative. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush promised to spend $15 billion over 5 years to combat AIDS. Two years later he has requested just $4.8 billion dollars. Just $350 million has been distributed to countries in need. (2003 State of the Union, USA Today, Health GAP Coalition)2. Bush is undermining global AIDS </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108809643189118861'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108809643189118861'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/bush-administrations-aids-policy-is.html' title='The Bush administration&apos;s AIDS policy is a failure'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108794096773668909</id><published>2004-06-22T17:43:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-07-13T14:56:23.520-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Patients should be able to sue HMOs in state courts</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Allowing HMOs to be sued in state court would give HMOs the right incentives. It is always in an HMO's short-term financial interests to deny medical treatment. Allowing patients to sue HMOs in state court balances those incentives with significant financial penalties if an HMO's decision to deny treatment results in an adverse medical result. In federal court, plaintiffs </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108794096773668909'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108794096773668909'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/patients-should-be-able-to-sue-hmos-in.html' title='Patients should be able to sue HMOs in state courts'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108784030558027626</id><published>2004-06-21T13:48:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-21T13:53:12.316-04:00</updated><title type='text'>CBS is a shill for the right-wing</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. CBS refused to run an ad from MoveOn.org. The MoveOn.org ad – which they were planning to run during the 2004 Super Bowl – explored the mounting budget deficits since George W. Bush has been president. At the time CBS said, "Our policy is long-standing and clear. We do not run contentious messages that are clearly divisive." (Ad Week)2. CBS agreed to run an ad from </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108784030558027626'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108784030558027626'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/cbs-is-shill-for-right-wing.html' title='CBS is a shill for the right-wing'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108770094142329135</id><published>2004-06-19T23:02:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-19T23:09:52.810-04:00</updated><title type='text'>American CEOs make too much money</title><summary type='text'>Why you’re right:1. CEOs are paid 300 times the average worker. While the average worker earned $517 per week in 2003, the average CEO for a large company earned $155,769 a week. In 1982 CEOs made just 42 times the average worker. (Business Week)2. CEO salaries aren’t determined fairly. CEOs have their salaries set by corporate boards packed with cronies. Corporate boards are also “interwoven</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108770094142329135'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108770094142329135'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/american-ceos-make-too-much-money.html' title='American CEOs make too much money'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-108759151278822313</id><published>2004-06-18T16:35:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-06-18T16:45:12.786-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 attacks</title><summary type='text'>Why you're right:1. Bush explicitly stated that Hussein was involved in 9/11. In a letter to Congress on the day the war started, Bush wrote that he was acting pursuant to authority permitting him to act against "those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." USA Today wrote that it was an effort </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108759151278822313'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/108759151278822313'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/06/bush-administration-said-s_108759151278822313.html' title='The Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 attacks'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry></feed>
