Romney pulls ahead in Polls.

[+joc]

It is exactly the same on both sides.

For the most part you are correct. I like to use the example of Radical Muslims vs Mainstream Christians.

Both believe devoutly that their pov is correct. But they are diametrically opposed and cannot both be right at the same time.

As far as politics goes...we on the right are the Christians...and you on the Left are...the Radical Muslims!

But just turn that around and it works too.

So...what MUST happen in Washington to turn this sinking ship around is to have a President that can bring both parties together for the common good. That President is not Obama...it just isn't. It may not be Romney either. But...you know, when your team is America, and when the team is down 30=3 in the fourth quarter...you bring in a new quarterback, that's all there is to it.

And remember what Reagan did. He didn't really twist arms in Congress all that much, he appealed to the hopes and dreams and goodness of America and WE twisted the arms in Congress...That is leadership...That is what we need in Washington today...I hope Romney is the Change that alot of Americans thought Obama was.

Edited November 1, 2012 by joc

[CommunitarianKevin]

For the most part you are correct. I like to use the example of Radical Muslims vs Mainstream Christians.

Both believe devoutly that their pov is correct. But they are diametrically opposed and cannot both be right at the same time.

Here is something to think about...we talked about this in my moral philosophy class a few years back...

Have you ever considered that both are right, or wrong? How do we determine who is right and who is wrong? We can only conclude they are different. Obviously you will feel your view is right, but just as many people will oppose that. So what makes you right and them wrong?

[+joc]

Here is something to think about...we talked about this in my moral philosophy class a few years back...

Have you ever considered that both are right, or wrong? How do we determine who is right and who is wrong? We can only conclude they are different. Obviously you will feel your view is right, but just as many people will oppose that. So what makes you right and them wrong?

It is a good question. I think the answer lies in the majority of societal opinion; within the confines of a particular Society. In the context of American Society, I think it is obvious that the majority of American citizens, regardless of political party view certain things as wrong...such as cutting the heads off of those who disagree with you. And I think that is most likely a Global pov as well. And so...cutting others heads off...is wrong. But the intracacies of politics isn't as cut and dried. As you pointed out earlier, a lot of Americans are socially liberal and fiscally conservative...and there is a mix of both scattered throughout. What makes one political pov wrong is the Societal Understanding of history.

You say that you are in favor of Capitalsim but not the Free Market System. But history proves that the FMS is by and large the most productive system known to the history of man. Why? So now I will explain my pov and why I think you are wrong on that particular point:

Allowing the market to dictate costs and quality for instance, gives the purchaser of goods and services the ability to control both. If you sell a widget for a nickel a lot of people will buy it. If I sell a superior widget for a dollar...a lot of people will buy that. But if you try to sell your widget for a dollar...no one will buy it and your business will fail. But when Government intervenes...it takes the power away from the purchaser and throws the whole system into a tail spin.

The best argument for or against a certain thing as viewed by a majority is what makes something right or wrong, good or evil, innocent or corrupted. The larger the majority of opinion, the more concrete the view is. The problem we have today is that the 'majority' is not really that large on a number of issues.

Edited November 1, 2012 by joc

[CommunitarianKevin]

It is a good question. I think the answer lies in the majority of societal opinion; within the confines of a particular Society. In the context of American Society, I think it is obvious that the majority of American citizens, regardless of political party view certain things as wrong...such as cutting the heads off of those who disagree with you. And I think that is most likely a Global pov as well. And so...cutting others heads off...is wrong. But the intracacies of politics isn't as cut and dried. As you pointed out earlier, a lot of Americans are socially liberal and fiscally conservative...and there is a mix of both scattered throughout. What makes one political pov wrong is the Societal Understanding of history.

You say that you are in favor of Capitalsim but not the Free Market System. But history proves that the FMS is by and large the most productive system known to the history of man. Why? So now I will explain my pov and why I think you are wrong on that particular point:

Allowing the market to dictate costs and quality for instance, gives the purchaser of goods and services the ability to control both. If you sell a widget for a nickel a lot of people will buy it. If I sell a superior widget for a dollar...a lot of people will buy that. But if you try to sell your widget for a dollar...no one will buy it and your business will fail. But when Government intervenes...it takes the power away from the purchaser and throws the whole system into a tail spin.

The best argument for or against a certain thing as viewed by a majority is what makes something right or wrong, good or evil, innocent or corrupted. The larger the majority of opinion, the more concrete the view is. The problem we have today is that the 'majority' is not really that large on a number of issues.

Wow joc, I am impressed. That is the conclusion I came to. Right and wrong is determined by society culture. We know what is right and wrong in our society (for the most part) but the question that is important what society is right or wrong? Some cultures practiced infanticide. I personally do not agree with that, but what is to say my culture has more authourity than theirs? Also, I think when you get down to the root of WHY they practice infanticide, it is not much different than our own. This philosophy has been valuable in the study of religion in particular. I may not agree, but who is to say they are wrong? They are simply different.

But is majority the best way to measure it? Possibly...but majorities also change, so at some point it was not the majority decision. For example I feel that women are equal and slavery is wrong. That was not always the majority opinion. Was it right then, but wrong now? Why did we change? The Bill of Rights and the Constitution also protect us from the tyranny of the majority. So is it really based on the majority, or is there something else?

Once again we will agree on capitalism to an extent. I actually found this quote this morning and it discribes my beliefs perfectly...

"Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy."- Peter Singer

First off, I just wanted to point out that there has never been a real world FMS. There has been less regulation and intervention and more. Government involvement is found back in the time of the cotton trade. Laws were passed to favor corporations and pick winners and losers. The British police forces was actually created by Robert Peel, Prime Minister of England, ironically to protect the fortune he made in cotton. Government has always been involved and I doubt it could ever been separated.

That being said, I am a capitalist because it is the best system we have, at least for the consumer. But you assume that a company will be honest and that there will be competition. You also assume there will not be conflict. Once again, going back to the cotton trade, we have the Luddites...

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who violently protested against the machinery introduced during the Industrial Revolution that made it possible to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work. -Wikipedia

Unhappy, they went to these manufacturers and smashed the machinery. As a result, a law was passed to make it illegal to break machines, with a punishment of death. Riots happen when people are not happy. It is inevitable.

You may call that tough luck, but then we also have the issue of child labor and slavery. This is a type of “innovation” that allows them to give the consumer a lower price. If they do not have to pay their workers, or have to pay them next to nothing, while keeping them in horrid conditions, they can sell their products for much cheaper. Slave labor is always cheaper than actually paying people. Economically, it is brilliant. Without a government, or labor unions (labor unions were formed exactly for this reason) to step in, who is going to stop it? Certainly not you, who benefit from the good prices, and certainly not those making money off of the situation…I know the Libertarians invoke their “libertarian police” at this point, or as I call them…government…This will happen. It has happened. We have historical examples of it happening and we have it going on today. Yet FME claims this is some type of fallacy. It is not, it is reality.

See, this is what I mean about people coming at it from different angles. You are coming at it from the angle of the consumer, and I agree with that. But you ignore the other side of it. You ignore the workers, where you would most likely find yourself in that type of system. I am worried about the people being taken advantage of, not how much you would pay for your iPhone…

Edited November 1, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[Corp]

Poking around with the CNN electoral map I a bit surprised so much attention is on Ohio. I'd think Florida would be a more important battleground. If Obama can get Florida he should be able to win the whole thing even if Ohio goes to Romney.

[questionmark]

Poking around with the CNN electoral map I a bit surprised so much attention is on Ohio. I'd think Florida would be a more important battleground. If Obama can get Florida he should be able to win the whole thing even if Ohio goes to Romney.

He only needs the leaning (or where he has less than 10% headroom) and Pennsylvania, Romney can have the rest and still would loose.

[Corp]

Based on what CNN has leaning that would still leave him short 33 seats. He'd need Florida and any other undecided state to win.

[CommunitarianKevin]

CNN says no Repub has won without winning Ohio.

[F3SS]

Last I heard Romney was up by 4 in Gallup in Pennsylvania.

[WoIverine]

2 points in Ohio as well.

[lightly]

All i know is i'm worried... that Romney will win. I'm also afraid that Obama might win.

*

Edited November 3, 2012 by lightly

[+joc]

CNN says no Repub has won without winning Ohio.

Yeah...and Ted Turner says it is a good thing that American soldiers are committing suicide in large numbers! Actually, if you listen closely...he started to say Terrific...but then changed it to Good on the fly!