• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Okham's Razor

Come on. I'm not buying what you're selling. Of course he had something to do with managing those businesses. You make him sound like a blood-sucking vampire. Don't believe every negative ad you see on TV.

Romney had nothing to do with the management of the businesses that Bain took over. His only interest was in extracting as much cash from them as he could. If it meant sending them into bankruptcy versus growing them, it made no difference to Bain.
 
Romney isn't a conservative a la Rush Limbaugh or anything. He's from MA for goodness sake. I believe he's pro-choice and everything. He's just pro-business which we need.

Romney was a progressive when he was Governor of MA. He worked with the democrats and democrats are better at lower deficits and debt than republicans are. Now, Romney is a severe conservative. He will not be able to work with the US congress and maintain his conservatism.
 
Me, personally? I look at my own company, at our customers, how business is going and how prospects look for the future. I imagine most people assess the economy the same way.... by how it touches them personally.

Parents might look at if their college-age kids are getting jobs. Average joes might look at their paychecks, at the price of gas and food, etc.

My whole point is that people know whether the economy is working for them. They're not really looking at a bunch of data.

Guaging the whole United States economy by your own personal economy isn't really guaging the United States economy. And if you think that Romney's economy will touch your personal economy better or not, which is kind of what I'm trying to get from you, has still yet to be shown by you in any way. Basically you are asking people to take your word for it. Which coindidentally seems to also be the Romney's message on how he will better the economy.
 
That's a good point and worth looking in to, but the prez still calls the shots.

A venture capitalist knows how to make money, not how to effect the economy in a good way. Businessmen don't always make good economist. President Obama and Mitt Romney are not experts in he economy, that is why they have advisers. ROmney's adviser is from the GW Bush administration. I do not want to return to the GW Bush economy.
 
Romney isn't a conservative a la Rush Limbaugh or anything. He's from MA for goodness sake. I believe he's pro-choice and everything. He's just pro-business which we need.

Romney claimed to be a severe conservative, did he lie?
 
No, but you've got to vote based on your own situation. Romney is more pro-business, which for me personally would be a good thing.

For example, we are involved in two sectors: natural resource development and construction. Construction projects have been up under Obama, so that has been good for us. Especially true for public projects, for example we're involved with many municipal civil engineering projects, universities, road and bridge construction, etc. which are up under this president.

Oil and gas drilling have ground to a halt though. Thank the EPA for that.

Coal and other quarrying/mining operations are down, once again thank the EPA.

My company will benefit a lot from a president who will open up drilling and mining. So I think Romney would be better for us.

Guaging the whole United States economy by your own personal economy isn't really guaging the United States economy. And if you think that Romney's economy will touch your personal economy better or not, which is kind of what I'm trying to get from you, has still yet to be shown by you in any way. Basically you are asking people to take your word for it. Which coindidentally seems to also be the Romney's message on how he will better the economy.
 
Occam's Razor is defined as:
The law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

No matter how you feel about Obama or his results, this man does not use that strategy. He has a proclivity for the complex. I voted for him and I expected Occam's Razor but I didn't get it. Certainly we have made progress in the last 4 years but at a staggering cost and a further concentration of wealth among the elite. He's not a bad man, he's not a socialist and he's even done a few wonderful things. I don''t feel that I got "my moneys worth". I won't vote for him this time.

Now, just to be fair and balanced, I wonder if you all remember the trashing of Romney during the early selection process. Nobody liked him, he was a "RINO", he was detached and not the man for the job. Now, suddenly he's the greatest thing since bubble gum? I think he's a better manager but I also think he's expressed some unrealistic, self serving proposals. This tax cut is a blatant farce. He's no angel and I won't vote for him either.

Voting 3rd party is a dark and lonely job but somebody's got to do it.
 
Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has almost doubled.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Millions are able to buy private healthcare policies and millions have the security they will not be dropped in the event of a preexisting condition.
The US needs to continue climbing its way out and I like the contrast from 2008 when the economy crashed.
Romney has all the same people lined up as advisors as BuCheney when they spent on war profiteering and cut taxes on the wealthy and gave a windfall of billions to BigPharma that we could not afford.

Do we need to get better ... yes.

Obama-Biden 2012 Forward

The pendulum is always swinging, isn't it?

You want to be careful not to assign only one cause when there may be a cluster of causes, including, simply, the pendulum swinging.
 
No, but you've got to vote based on your own situation. Romney is more pro-business, which for me personally would be a good thing.

For example, we are involved in two sectors: natural resource development and construction. Construction projects have been up under Obama, so that has been good for us. Especially true for public projects, for example we're involved with many municipal civil engineering projects, universities, road and bridge construction, etc. which are up under this president.

Oil and gas drilling have ground to a halt though. Thank the EPA for that.

Coal and other quarrying/mining operations are down, once again thank the EPA.

My company will benefit a lot from a president who will open up drilling and mining. So I think Romney would be better for us.

His history doesn't show him to be more "pro business". It only shows that he is more pro his own business. That is all.
 
The Republicans have admitted that Obama inherited a very bad economy thanks to Bush. But they are saying get rid of Obama because he is not doing a good job. And so elect to the presidency a guy who wants to put the old Bush wines into new bottles? That is patently stupid. And any low info voter who votes for this other fellow...

The economy is improving and it matters little who the next president will be. I say stay the course.

My prediction for the second debate: It will be a toss-up unfortunately for Obama and good for Romney. Whoever wins the first debate will have the momentum. But keep in mind that 5 of the 6 recent incumbent presidents lost the first debate but were reelected anyway.
 
That didn't help me much.

shrug...

That's the best you are going to get...and it's a darned sight more than you'll get from Obama.

Ya gots ta make up yo own mind.
 
If Romney or some other republican were president today and the unemployment had dropped to 7.8% what would they be saying? Oh, everything is just heavenly. But since Obama is president and he is black, of course they are saying something extremely different. Sununu called the President "lazy" and shows no respect for the president whatsoever. Someone should do something about this guy's intemperate tongue!
 
The Republicans have admitted that Obama inherited a very bad economy thanks to Bush. But they are saying get rid of Obama because he is not doing a good job. And so elect to the presidency a guy who wants to put the old Bush wines into new bottles? That is patently stupid. And any low info voter who votes for this other fellow...

The economy is improving and it matters little who the next president will be. I say stay the course.

My prediction for the second debate: It will be a toss-up unfortunately for Obama and good for Romney. Whoever wins the first debate will have the momentum. But keep in mind that 5 of the 6 recent incumbent presidents lost the first debate but were reelected anyway.

Check out that statement I've highlighted, eh? You got anything to substantiate that? I mean...can you point out these Republicans who have admitted that Obama inherited a very bad economy thanks to Bush?

btw, I do agree that Republicans are saying to get rid of Obama because he's not doing a good job. They are correct, too.
 
If Romney or some other republican were president today and the unemployment had dropped to 7.8% what would they be saying? Oh, everything is just heavenly. But since Obama is president and he is black, of course they are saying something extremely different. Sununu called the President "lazy" and shows no respect for the president whatsoever. Someone should do something about this guy's intemperate tongue!

Whoops!!

Dude, you just slapped your credibility upside the head big time...and you only have ten posts here.

Good job!!
 
That is all you have?

I use the razor everyday with my science degree and life's work.

You just failed.

You wish.

Ockham's razor
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Occam's razor is named after the deviser of the rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1285?-1349?).


Any elementary school student would be able to understand that your application of Ockham's razor is flawed. This is especially true as you are applying it to politics.

It would be akin to any conservative saying the following;

Romney gaining in polls.
Obama job approval in decline.
Economy turning around.

Therefore, the best course of action for this country is a Mitt\Ryan victory in 2012!



The fact that you fail to understand how Ockham's razor has no applicable place in a political discussion is proof enough that you shouldn't be practicing science in any capacity to begin with.

What you are experiencing is known as confirmation bias. Ockham's razor has not even been given two competing theories to weigh the variables for.
 
Last edited:
The whole "times are great" argument is probably not going to be a winner for Obama, regardless of what numbers the Politburo come out with. People need to be able to feel the progress themselves.

I guess you won't like this news then...

WASHINGTON -Americans spent more money at retailers in September — a buying surge that reflected growing consumer confidence and the launch of the latest iPhone.

Retail sales jumped 1.1 percent last month, producing the best two months of sales in two years, according to figures released Monday by the Commerce Department.

"The consumer is back," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors. "They are not spending money like it is going out of style, but they are spending at a more normal pace that is consistent with a moderately growing economy."

The spike in spending could boost sluggish growth and help revitalize President Barack Obama's campaign after a strong debate performance by challenger Mitt Romney.

The increase comes only 10 days after a report that unemployment fell to its lowest level since Obama took office. And it follows a survey last week by the University of Michigan that showed consumer confidence rose in early October to a five-year high.

Stocks climbed after the retail report. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 95 points to close up at 13,424. Broader indexes also rose.
Confident consumers give US retail sales a lift - DailyFinance

Or this...

0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg
 
The Republicans have admitted that Obama inherited a very bad economy thanks to Bush. .

Not really.

Do you really think Bush is responsible for the "very bad economy" all by himself? No Frank and his Fannie Freddie games. No political posturing by Pelosi and Reid (followed by McConnell and Boehner)? The 2 wars I keep hearing of. Biden voted all in on those. Hillary was front and center.

Dems really knock themselves down a peg when they post "Bush's fault". People aren't buying it just like they aren't buying the war on women (check latest polls for women LVs).

Both Pubs and Dems are at fault. Start there, people tend to listen. Talk about birth certs, 9-11 conspiracies and the middle tunes you out.
 
I pay 33% in federal income tax. I have nothing to lie about. Yet, interesting this thread attracted attacks on me and my hygiene or cognitive abilities on Okham's Razor!

Ouch! ; )

I am kidding ... That is okay TD and VE I knew a few facts would bring it on!



Congratulations on your 7 figure income! ; )

I knew you were lying about the tax rate-nothing more

and thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom