Gyroscopic Investing

Reub wrote: If I have to explain to you why domestic terrorism is a greater threat to this country than car accidents then I will just opt to forego the subject.

In other words, you have no arguments for your position; it is just a matter of faith.
Which is fine, but you can't expect very many other people to be convinced by that approach.

Come on now.

Terrorism can destroy all we hold dear. Our historical buildings, our financial systems, our electrical grids, this very internet, our health via deadly germs and agents via air, land, and water, our freedoms, our very way of life. It can kill more people in a day than all of the poor people who have died in car crashes and horse and buggy deaths too since the beginning of time. Besides killing and maiming us, it can change every aspect of our lives for the worse by it's very threat.

Ignoring or minimizing it's importance does not make it go away.

I'm surprised that this has to be pointed out.

BTW, I am not looking for a long, drawn out argument here so blast away if you must but I will not respond in kind.

Why is that special to terrorism? Can't anything destroy our way of life? Hypothetically, if a tyrannical government tried to abandon the principles of the country by systematically violating the constitution, and people rose up against them and were branded terrorists… well, who's right? Would the government be right because the "terrorists" were trying to destroy the new non-constitutional way of life? Or would the "terrorists" be right because the it was government that had tried to destroy the prior way of life?

What's the limiting principle?

No one said that this was an either/or argument. Yes, there are many threats with varying degrees of danger. Some are more likely (and more dangerous) than others.

http://images.nymag.com/images/news/02/ ... y/lg/2.jpg

My New Yorker father had a similar reaction to 9/11. I understand how wrenching and traumatic it must have been to have your city attacked by evil foreigners. But please understand that to many others, it was certainly an awful event, but not something worth totally re-organizing our entire society over to make sure it never happens again. If we are so fearful of terrorists physically destroying our country that we radically alter its legal institutions to centralize government power over the citizenry in a way that would make it very easy to become tyrannical overnight, haven't we done the terrorists' work for them?

Desert wrote: There are terrorism scenarios that could result in much more loss of life than the WTC attacks, unfortunately.  Auto fatalities are a horrible, ongoing scourge.  But a very severe terrorist attack could change everything.

Only if reported in the "news".    Think about how negative events were squashed in WWII. 

Pointedstick wrote: Why is that special to terrorism? Can't anything destroy our way of life? Hypothetically, if a tyrannical government tried to abandon the principles of the country by systematically violating the constitution, and people rose up against them and were branded terrorists… well, who's right? Would the government be right because the "terrorists" were trying to destroy the new non-constitutional way of life? Or would the "terrorists" be right because the it was government that had tried to destroy the prior way of life?

What's the limiting principle?

There is no such thing as a "losing revolutionary". It's only if they win that they get that title.

In other words, the winners write the history books, and the losers are always the bad guys.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: My New Yorker father had a similar reaction to 9/11. I understand how wrenching and traumatic it must have been to have your city attacked by evil foreigners. But please understand that to many others, it was certainly an awful event, but not something worth totally re-organizing our entire society over to make sure it never happens again. If we are so fearful of terrorists physically destroying our country that we radically alter its legal institutions to centralize government power over the citizenry in a way that would make it very easy to become tyrannical overnight, haven't we done the terrorists' work for them?

this is my concern as well, i totally get the worries rube and others have and i don't consider them unrealistic, but we are playing with a defensive grade school checkers strategy and using totally "in the box" thinking, against an enemy using asymmetrical warfare. They act, we respond, they use freedom against us we do away with freedom, they use asymmetrical tactics we respond with conventional warfare (drones invasions ect..) we are very much doing their work for them and doing little to think out past "kill a few more of them". We need three dimensional chess level thinking/strategy to defeat them, one that strengthens our freedom instead of destroying it. i don't see us ever winning by killing the constitution or by bombing/invading countries

Are drones really traditional warfare?  I think of anything with boots on the ground as more conventional, and unmanned drones as potentially problematic but far, far better than occupation.

Simonjester wrote: its technologically advanced, but the underlying idea of fly over and bomb is conventional.

i agree its better than boots on the ground, as far as # of american solders killed, but it is still a strategy with no obvious end game, it seems like another boondoggle war like the war on poverty and the war on drugs... oops you mean the poor/drugs/ terrorists are still out there and likely in greater numbers?.... lets throw more money/bombs at it and see if that works... still didn't work? ...must have not thrown enough....

Reub wrote: Come on now.

Terrorism can destroy all we hold dear. Our historical buildings, our financial systems, our electrical grids, this very internet, our health via deadly germs and agents via air, land, and water, our freedoms, our very way of life. It can kill more people in a day than all of the poor people who have died in car crashes and horse and buggy deaths too since the beginning of time. Besides killing and maiming us, it can change every aspect of our lives for the worse by it's very threat.

Ignoring or minimizing it's importance does not make it go away.

I'm surprised that this has to be pointed out.

BTW, I am not looking for a long, drawn out argument here so blast away if you must but I will not respond in kind.

Hyperbole.  The type of terrorism you're talking about isn't possible from Islamic extremists operating out of caves in the Middle East for the most part.  It would require backing from a nation with chemical, nuclear, or biological warfare programs to cause the kind of damage you're talking about and even then only a biological attack is going to cause enough deaths to kill "more people in a day than all of the poor people who have died in car crashes and horse and buggy deaths too since the beginning of time."  What utter crap.

And again, this doesn't justify spying on U.S. citizens.  You fail to show even the most basic understanding of the distinction between foreign and domestic terrorism.

This is the point at which I'd post something pithy like "Your argument is an abject failure." but you haven't even made an argument for me to pass judgement on regarding this subject.

Can't be done by people in caves? I'm sure naive people said the same exact thing before 9/11. Were you one of them?

The only way for terrorists to kill that many is with biological weapons? So then you admit that there are ways for them to accomplish this. Probably more than you admit to knowing. There are also many ways to do great damage short of killing great numbers of people.

Can only be done with the aid of a country possessing such weapons? Well now I feel better because we all know that there are no countries on the planet that possess these weapons and have ever assisted terrorists before.

This is where I could raise the decibel level but instead I will proclaim this my last, last post on the subject and just ask you why you get so angry discussing it?

MediumTex wrote:

Reub wrote: Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

My suggestion would be for the government to have complete and total freedom to do whatever it wanted to do, so long as it only exercised powers granted to it under the Constitution.

In other words, I don't mind the government doing it's thing as long is doesn't engage in illegal activity.

***

What's ironic is that virtually all of the acts of terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. interests probably never would have happened in the first place if the government had been acting within the constraints of the Constitution.

Think about it.

When I think of this post, it keeps reminding me of that book 'The Pirate Coast.' Because of the (Muslim) Barbary pirates, none other than Thomas Jefferson sent the first Marines off to topple Tripoli. I guess there is no new thing under the sun.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1801 ... rate_Coast

Reub wrote: Can't be done by people in caves? I'm sure naive people said the same exact thing before 9/11. Were you one of them?

The only way for terrorists to kill that many is with biological weapons? So then you admit that there are ways for them to accomplish this. Probably more than you admit to knowing. There are also many ways to do great damage short of killing great numbers of people.

Can only be done with the aid of a country possessing such weapons? Well now I feel better because we all know that there are no countries on the planet that possess these weapons and have ever assisted terrorists before.

This is where I could raise the decibel level but instead I will proclaim this my last, last post on the subject and just ask you why you get so angry discussing it?

I'll not address this whole post since it's all covered under "you don't understand the difference between domestic and foreign terrorism."  I'm not and have never suggested that the U.S. should not be trying to gather legitimate intelligence on Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.  You've been off having your own private little debate, more or less with yourself, unable to understand or unwilling to engage on the topic at hand.

I will address in detail the bolded section.  I get angry at people who use weak, hyperbolic arguments with little or no basis in reality to justify their support of the jack booted thugs who want to deprive me of my Constitutional rights.  The privacy and various other violations perpetrated by the government do get me angry, justifiably in my opinion.  However, I hope you weren't too offended by my previous post because I think given the circumstances it was the model of civility, as is this one.  You are free to disagree.

RuralEngineer wrote: I get angry at people who use weak, hyperbolic arguments with little or no basis in reality to justify theirsupport of thejack booted thugs who want to deprive me of my Constitutional rights. 

The idea that the cattle at the slaughterhouse should lick the boots of the farmer who builds a fence to protect them from wolves is silly. It's Stockholm syndrome. The billions spent on "Anti-terrorism" is a farce. It's just an expansion of the farmers power over the human cattle. Governments have always been far more concerned with controlling their own populations and that's what the "War on Terror" is all about.

Come on people are we still worried about guys in turbans getting us? If there were actual terrorists they could just go buy guns and go shoot up churches, the mall, wherever. This is a total scam.