Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: If people are going to condescendingly talk about anyone who supported Obama, or any politician, and how they should apologize, they deserve to be put in their place with some historical perspective on who they may have voted for.

Moda, you got my vote on that one! 

Your argument is logically consistent.

moda0306 wrote:
If the focus really is to be on Obama, I'd call him a weak leader who is inexperienced, but nowhere near as corrupt and evil as the right-wing would try to have us believe.  Dick Cheney on the other hand...

Corrupt:  "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Who is saying Obama is corrupt?  IMHO that is not his problem.  Obama has sucessfully decreased the US standing in the world (anticolonialism). He has furthered his/progressive goals of increasing gov't control of everything, fostering resentment of people towards the rich, while having the expected results on the economy/real employment rate.

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
If the focus really is to be on Obama, I'd call him a weak leader who is inexperienced, but nowhere near as corrupt and evil as the right-wing would try to have us believe.  Dick Cheney on the other hand...

Corrupt:  "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Who is saying Obama is corrupt?  IMHO that is not his problem.  Obama has sucessfully decreased the US standing in the world (anticolonialism). He has furthered his/progressive goals of increasing gov't control of everything, fostering resentment of people towards the rich, while having the expected results on the economy/real employment rate.

Historically speaking, dear follower is a "divide" strategy president.  His minions typically follow a "divert" strategy to shift blame, responsibility, accountability somewhere other than where it belongs (my opinion).  Repeat after me: 1%, "undocumented aliens", rich, rights, and best of all - Bush did it (or Cheney if you wish to divert) from the office of the Presidency. 

... Mountaineer

I think all politicians use the "divide and divert" strategy; the only difference is who the target is. For example, Liberals typically target the group itself, identifying some of its elements (the rich, the 1%, the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, etc) as "part of the problem" and trying to marginalize or destroy them. Then they blame everyone but themselves for any remaining, persisting, or new problems when their policies inevitable fail to solve any real problems. Conservatives, on the other hand, make the division between "us" and "them", with us usually being members of the group, and them being everyone else. In the case where members of the group are frightening to conservatives (criminals, foreigners, gays, illegal immigrants, etc), they are "otherized" to make it acceptable to draw a division between them and the "good guys." Conservatives do the same diversionary tactics when they fail to succeed at anything.

Mountaineer,

How about we use people's names... You sound like Hannity.

(Edit: sorry that sounded kind of mean.  Didn't sound that way in my head until I reread it ))

All politicians, and usually their supporters along with them, have excuses for EVERYTHING. 

Problems do have multiple causes and complexities tha have to be taken into consideration.  I blame all sorts of people, including Obama, for not adopting simpler health care reform and a better stimulus package and more effective and simultaneously less obstructive financial regulations.

Perhaps I'm wrong about my assertions. I'm never 100% sure about any opinion I hold.

But I'm not going to sit here in some sort of tribal rant about one man in the government, or "the media," or "the rich," or whatever, like they are ubiquely responsible for our problems. 

There's plenty of reasons we live in an imperfect country/world.  Obama not only is barely one of them, he's an aspect out of our individual control... He's just a tribal lightning rod for liberalism. And tribes looove to strike the lightning rod.

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
If the focus really is to be on Obama, I'd call him a weak leader who is inexperienced, but nowhere near as corrupt and evil as the right-wing would try to have us believe.  Dick Cheney on the other hand...

Corrupt:  "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Who is saying Obama is corrupt?  IMHO that is not his problem.  Obama has sucessfully decreased the US standing in the world (anticolonialism). He has furthered his/progressive goals of increasing gov't control of everything, fostering resentment of people towards the rich, while having the expected results on the economy/real employment rate.

We simply disagree on the main cause of current too-high unemployment then. Whether he has, in fact, "fostered resentment towards the rich," I think the crux of the unemployment issue is inadequacy of aggregate demand.

If we were suffering from a supply issue, we would be seeing high inflation.

But this is nothing we will settle here. Best for another thread.

Pointedstick wrote: I think all politicians use the "divide and divert" strategy; the only difference is who the target is. For example, Liberals typically target the group itself, identifying some of its elements (the rich, the 1%, the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, etc) as "part of the problem" and trying to marginalize or destroy them. Then they blame everyone but themselves for any remaining, persisting, or new problems when their policies inevitable fail to solve any real problems. Conservatives, on the other hand, make the division between "us" and "them", with us usually being members of the group, and them being everyone else. In the case where members of the group are frightening to conservatives (criminals, foreigners, gays, illegal immigrants, etc), they are "otherized" to make it acceptable to draw a division between them and the "good guys." Conservatives do the same diversionary tactics when they fail to succeed at anything.

I love when heartless libertarians and statist pigs can agree.  But it gets scary when it starts happening too often...

moda0306 wrote: I love when heartless libertarians and statist pigs can agree.  But it gets scary when it starts happening too often...

I think you are secretly a heartless libertarian yourself, but just don't like the implications of it!

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Reub wrote: To those of you who voted for and supported Obama, please own up to your blunder.

Makes one wonder what kind of blunders are worth owning up to.  Especially when it is something as utterly pointless at an individual level as voting (in a non-swing state especially)

Lyndon Johnson? (Vietnam? Social programs one may not agree with anymore?)

Nixon? (Corruption... More Vietnam)

Clinton? (Bj)

Bush? (Basically being a dim-wit trust fund baby who put Dick Cheney types close to the steering wheel and deliberately misled us into war)?


Nah.  Worrying about who supported who is less useful than focusing on objective arguments (if we are going to talk about politicians) as to why one is materially worse (or better) than politicians in general.

And all that does is help us put thing in perspective a bit. There's not much good that comes from debating which presidents' follies were worse in the context of trying to rate these guys like they're anything worth rating.

If we're going to talk about the wrongs of government, perhaps if we focus on, maybe, why the draft is about 100x more poisonous to individual freedoms than high taxes or minimum wage, then maybe we can come back and re-price our presidential trading cards.

Spoken like a true believer in a "divert is the way to take the heat off of truth and reality strategy".  There is one huge difference between what Reub says and what moda says ... all of moda's references are no longer in office. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Also, I'm not asking anyone to apologize for who they voted for, and I only bring up Bush when I need to put some perspective on things a bit. I don't blame Bush often at all for our current problems. I only point out what he has done when conservatives start losing their collective shit about Benghazi.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I love when heartless libertarians and statist pigs can agree.  But it gets scary when it starts happening too often...

I think you are secretly a heartless libertarian yourself, but just don't like the implications of it!

I definitely have a few libertarian hampsters spinning wheels in the corners of my subconscious.

Not to dig too deep on this, but I basically think libertarianism and anarchism are a myth. Not just because "human nature" will result in violence, but I consider us all on one big deserted island of moral dilemmas, and government is just one "tool" to deal with those dilemmas.  Even without it, you still have a lot of little governments (called people) running around trying to impose their will on the world to survive and prosper.

If we were all nebulous entities floating through space, using only our own creativity to produce "wealth," I'd definitely be a libertarian. Like full-blown anarchist type methinks.

moda0306 wrote: I definitely have a few libertarian hampsters spinning wheels in the corners of my subconscious.

Not to dig too deep on this, but I basically think libertarianism and anarchism are a myth. Not just because "human nature" will result in violence, but I consider us all on one big deserted island of moral dilemmas, and government is just one "tool" to deal with those dilemmas.  Even without it, you still have a lot of little governments (called people) running around trying to impose their will on the world to survive and prosper.

If we were all nebulous entities floating through space, using only our own creativity to produce "wealth," I'd definitely be a libertarian. Like full-blown anarchist type methinks.

Anarchism is definitely more utopian and mythical than Libertarianism, which is not at all incompatible with force. Typical Libertarianism does not reject the state entirely; it simply calls for a very small state on the utilitarian grounds that a smaller state is less able to deploy force in bad ways.

Perhaps some of you enlightened anarchists, heartless libertarians, and statist pigs  can help me with some observations about myself.  What is the common thread?  Why do I have these observations?

1. I consider myself to be intelligent, objective, caring for others, and very good at thinking things through before taking action - probably in the top 5 or 10% of the population; most people that know me would agree (I know that sounds condescending ... sorry but I am trying to be truthful here and self-confidence is one of my strengths and also one of my weaknesses).

2. I consider myself to be in the least racist grouping, probably in the bottom 10% of people on a racisim scale.  I have had black, yellow, white, and brown friends since childhood.  I know that everyone is racist to some degree whether they admit it or not.

3. Whenever I see obama (a.k.a dear follower) speak on TV, my immediate visceral reaction is to be sick at my stomach.  I have never observed another individual who evokes such a strong reaction in me.  I have a very difficult time using his name, and especially capitalizing his name because I have as little respect for him as I've ever had for another human being; I truly do not think he had leadership qualities, thus the follower moniker used in a sarcastic sense in emulation of NK Dear Leader.  I have felt this way since before he was elected and the feeling has grown far more pronounced in the past several years as I see him apparently try to dismantle much of what made our country great (my opinion).

4. I respect the views of others, for example on this forum, whether they agree with my beliefs, philosophy, and ideas or not.  I get zero sense of disgust or revulsion from any of you.  Why do I feel so much revulsion toward dear follower?  It honestly is a conundrum to me why I have such strong feelings on that issue.  I think most members of Congress are slime balls, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in particular, but they do not evoke feelings in me like dear follower does.

OK folks, here is your chance to rip me a new one .... go for it. 

... Mountaineer

Yeah I dunno dude. I'm not disgusted by him, personally. But perhaps it is because, as a person who seems fairly conservative, you probably have a more normal level of "disgust" compared to liberals and libertarians, who, according to Jonathan Haidt (the author of the article that TennPaGa posted earlier) tend to have far lower levels of it. As a heartless libertarian, I will acknowledge that I live up to the stereotype and don't really get disgusted by much of anything.

Perhaps it's his faux Christianity that nauseates you so much.

As Bill Maher has said, the dude is an atheist, and has pretended to be Christian for political purposes. I'm 90% sure he is correct.

Obama is WAY down on the list of politicians that make my skin crawl... Not because of disagreements with the so much as how just generally sleazy they seem.

Most presidents avoid most of this since the bar of getting elected is higher. Bush sounded dumb most of the time but never made my skin crawl.

But any of these?  (And probably others?). Bleh!:

Sarah Palin
Harry Ried
Michelle bachmann
Dick Cheney
Rick Santorum
Nancy Pilosi
Hillary Clinton (at times... Other times she's really professional)
John F'king Edwards!!!
Jeff Sessions
Boehner
Honestly, Paul Ryan... Mostly because he holds himself out as a "numbers guy"... And that alone nauseates me. Actually seems like a decent dude.
Newt Ginrich when he's not in his faux intellectual element
Eric Cantor
My governor Dayton (dem)
Mitch McConnell

There's others... Just can't remember them.  Obama isn't anywhere close to this list. Most presidents aren't in fact.

Bill Clinton actually has a sliminess to him, but I love the guy, relative to most politicians.

Slimy like a fine sautéed mushroom or something haha.



(Instantly regretting making analogy between Bill Clinton and something I would happily put my mouth.)

I notice Harry Reid is only in second place on your list.  May I present his explanation of how paying taxes is voluntary in this country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg&t=0m32s

It still baffles me to watch that.

Xan wrote: I notice Harry Reid is only in second place on your list.  May I present his explanation of how paying taxes is voluntary in this country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg&t=0m32s

It still baffles me to watch that.

He's something else.  Whatever personality that ever exhibits itself above that lifeless demeanor is pure garbage.  How did this man ever become anything important?

moda0306 wrote: Perhaps it's his faux Christianity that nauseates you so much.

As Bill Maher has said, the dude is an atheist, and has pretended to be Christian for political purposes. I'm 90% sure he is correct.

Bill Maher makes my skin crawl so I had not heard this, but I agree with you that it's almost certainly correct. Secret Muslim my ass... he's a secret atheist!

Simonjester wrote: i get a visceral reaction from listening to Obama as well, in my case i think it is that i know he won't say anything i agree with, i don't believe much of what he does say, i know i will learn little or nothing from it, and i will generally be left irritated, i suspect the visceral knot in the stomach is more a feeling of disgust for myself for wasting time, doing something that i know to be irritating and pointless as it is a reaction to the man himself.. i get the same feeling, to about the same degree from john McCain, Nancy pelosi, harry reed, John Boehner and many other members of the slimeball political class, who are so blatantly.. players, in it for themselves, stupid, corrupt, hopeless idealogues or all of the above and then some...

All of those pointless words. And still no admission that you screwed up big time!

Could it be different this time because he's your demon?

Desert wrote: I voted for Bush (in 2000).  Al Gore was a whiny, hypocritical douche.  After the slimy Clinton years, the nation was ready for the white house to get a good cleansing.  Instead, they got George.  But that's all ancient history now, right?  It's time to throw this bum out, and put Rand Paul in.

In the event of a Republican victory in 2016, I wonder how long it will be after Obama leaves office before Republicans stop blaming the next president's failures on him?

"He could be doing a lot better if only that dope Obama hadn't wrecked the economy/health care/the military/Iraq/Afghanistan/our relations with our allies/our standing in NATO/our moral fiber/the integrity of the border/the dollar's standing in the world currency markets!"

Gallup has a neat interactive chart thingy that lets you compare presidents' approval ratings during the same time in their presidencies. Here's Obama's contrasted with W's:

[img width=800]https://i.imgur.com/ycch4Jh.png[/img]

It's interesting how Bush's approval rating spiked after 9/11 and then basically fell continuously until he left office. Though the same general downward trend is visible in Obama's approval rating, the line has been a lot wavier. But it's still pretty low now; been hovering near 40% for a few months. Not so good for him.

Desert wrote: I'd love to see a third party break out in 2016, but I doubt it will happen.  Paul is the closest thing I see to an alternative to the sort of standard Repub/Dem standoff we've been suffering with for too long.  I'm not idealistic enough to think that he'll be that different, but I think he's worth a try.

I don't think he'll win. He is not likable and he is a boring privileged white man who would be running be running against the potential FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE FRIKKIN UNITED STATES ZOMG!!!11!!one!!!!eleven I almost feel like we have to get these "firsts" out of the way so we can finally move on and someday get a good black or female president. Not that any president has really been very good since ol' Silent Cal.

Desert wrote: But back to the chart ... I wonder if that's a characteristic curve for most presidents?  A brief honeymoon period, followed by progressive disappointment.

Check it out for yourself: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presi ... enter.aspx

It's very much a modern phenomenon. Clinton left office with approval ratings in the mid 60s. Bush Sr's approval rating is all over the map. I almost feel sorry for the guy. He seems like he caught the country and congress during a time of unease and consistently misread the national sentiment. And needless to say, Reagan's approval rating was mostly very high, too. Though not as consistently high as Clinton's, interestingly enough.

Desert wrote: So if Jeb will do the decent thing and stay in Florida, we'll have a race between a hated, ball-busting bitch, and a boring, privileged, elitist libertarian.  Sounds like fun to me! 

Gee, I can't wait!

Is it possible that Lebron James is going back to play in Cleveland to gain an electoral edge fpr a future Presidential run? If he can take Ohio and Florida, the 2 states that he's played in professionally,  then who's going to stop him?