Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:31 am**

I guess I just don't really worry much about terrorism. I know this is a very emotional thing for people, myself included. I feel much more fear of domestic crime, for example (and even then, my fear level is really pretty low), while many prefer to live in a safe place and not worry about it. I think it's just the way we're wired. I don't think you're a foolish person for being nervous about terrorism, and I hope you can understand why I might not share your feelings.

But I feel like the bigger risk is that we'll overreact to the possibility of terrorism and accidentally destroy the foundations of our society by creating the PATRIOT act and TSA, militarizing small-town police forces, acclimating people to an ever-expanding civil-rights-free surveillance state, and starting endless, open-ended wars with unclear mission parameters in foreign countries full of people who hate us.

Er, whoops.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:49 am**

D1984 wrote: I'm not sure whether Obama will win or lose (I still consider it too close too call....a lot can change in two months) regardless of what the polls say but I don't see how you can call Obama OR Carter "radical and unabashedly leftist." Obama's actions (many of which were decidedly non-leftist) have already been dealt with earlier in this thread but how exactly was Carter some wild-eyed radical lefty? He cut capital gains taxes, appointed Volcker to the Fed, signed legislation that deregulated airlines, trucking, bank interest rates, and railroads (and begin the process of deregulating natural gas prices), initiated many non-lefty, non-peacenik military policies (bringing back draft registration, the MX missile, Trident SLBM, aiding the mujahideen in their fight with the Soviets, sending aid to the Contras, the beginnings of the armed forced buildup that Reagan got credit for, the Carter doctrine that all but stated we would go to war in the middle east to protect our oil supplies, etc....he did in all fairness cancel the B-1A but its mission profile was already nearly obsolete by that point in time and in hindsight the B-52 with cruise missiles or even iron bombs was and is probably more cost effective for most of our bombing missions since then), boycotted the 1980 Olympics and and ended what was left of detente in protest of what the USSR did in Afghanistan, and sent military forces in an (admittedly failed) attempt to rescue the hostages.

And to think, he is still pilloried to this day despite implementing many common sense Republican ideas! Were both houses Republican at the time of Carter?

I still think it doesn't even matter what the ideaology of any politician is as they will do whatever is politically expedient at any given moment. But true nutcases like Castro, Chavez and Kirchner obviously make Obama look right-wing.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:57 am**

MediumTex wrote: I really wish that Santorum or Gingrich was the nominee. I feel like one of those guys could give Obama a better challenge.

Are you being sarcastic? Those two right-wingnuts are so extreme there wouldn't be any challenge. Obama would pwn the left and center with ease. Romney's advantage seems to be that is he more moderate despite the dislike Republicans have for him.

I wonder what happened to all the Communists and other extreme leftwing-nuts. Do they still exist and vote for what is an effectively centrist Democratic party? It's hard to imagine they haven't just all died off or gave up voting.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:00 am**

Ad Orientem wrote: Bob Dole is high on my list of "shoulda been" presidents along with Bob Taft and Tom Dewey.

Wow, it surprises me anyone could take that bumbling, senile, old fart seriously enough to want him to have executive power. What am I missing? I did not pay much attention in 1996 because Dole just was not a serious contender to Clinton.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:15 am**

Storm wrote: We need to acknowledge that there are some things, such as healthcare for seniors and education for K-12, that will never turn a profit. In that case, private for-profit industry simply will not provide the same level of service as we can get through government spending. If you doubt this, simply look at healthcare outcomes and math/reading/science scores for students in the US vs. those in Europe and Asia.

I think you can make a case for health care because getting healthy or fixing disease is a disincentive to making a profit, so there's a huge conflict of interest. However, sending a child to school and passing standardized tests to measure progress is exactly the type of outcome a consumer can pay for. All of the experiments in superior outcomes above the turgid level of government-controlled schooling in the U.S. have been done by free enterprise methods. A centralized bureaucracy of bureaucrats and unions stands against that as it is not in their interests and minorities are their continual scapegoats. I think you'll find in other countries with better outcomes that they have extreme cultural peer pressure (homogenity), less bureaucracy or public-private partnerships. None of that really apply to the US at present at the national level.

Educational outcomes should be decided by the parents, not the state. As long as the state continues to ignore parents, the more the free market will route around the dysfunctional public school system. Already, about 250K students are taking full time, online only classes. Competition forces everyone to adapt and change to provide a better outcome, even those incredibly selfish bureaucrats and unionists. Thank gawd or the country would be doomed for sure.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:01 am**

MachineGhost wrote:
MediumTex wrote: I really wish that Santorum or Gingrich was the nominee. I feel like one of those guys could give Obama a better challenge.
Are you being sarcastic? Those two right-wingnuts are so extreme there wouldn't be any challenge. Obama would pwn the left and center with ease. Romney's advantage seems to be that is he more moderate despite the dislike Republicans have for him.

Maybe I'm just bored.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:32 am**

Reub wrote: The bottom line is that Obama's policies are so destructive to this country that all Romney really has to do is smile and comb his hair nicely and he can win.

Well, smile and comb his hair nicely is all he'd have to do in order to govern better, at least.

Come to think of it, I wish that most politicians spent their time doing stuff like combing their hair rather than exacerbating problems that they know nothing about. A lot of people knock Obama for playing a lot of golf, but to me there's nothing more beautiful than a politician skipping opportunities to make things worse.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:27 pm**

Reub wrote: As Obama did in Egypt, Libya, and Iran?

Which is why I am not voting for either Obama or Romney. The only way to avoid these kinds of situations is to cease invading, bombing and otherwise intruding into the affairs of other counties. We need to mind our own business. And both of the candidates are confirmed neo-imperialists.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:47 pm**

Lone Wolf wrote: Come to think of it, I wish that most politicians spent their time doing stuff like combing their hair rather than exacerbating problems that they know nothing about. A lot of people knock Obama for playing a lot of golf, but to me there's nothing more beautiful than a politician skipping opportunities to make things worse.

I have heard that while President, Calvin Coolidge would sometimes sleep up to 20 hours a day.

Like a White House cat.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:10 pm**

Reub wrote: While I believe in many Libertarian ideas I vehemently disagree with them on isolationism. The world is too dangerous a place and is small and getting smaller every day. We need a strong military and a proactive policy to stay as safe as we can and aid our strategic allies. This, however, does not mean leading from behind in Libya or forcing a friendly dictator out of power in Egypt (reminds me of Carter and the Shah of Iran all over again) making way for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over all over the Middle East.

If I knew for a fact that U.S. intervention in a foreign dispute would help things, I might consider supporting such actions in some cases, but in so many of these things I don't see how the U.S. being there is making anything better.

Take Afghanistan, for example. Why are we there? What's the mission? How will we know when it's time to leave? Who is the enemy?

Do you think that the U.S. Civil War would have gone better if Britain had sent troops over here to break it up?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:11 pm**

Reub wrote: There is a report that the US embassy in Libya was not guarded by US marines but, instead, by Libyan locals.

That sounds like a really bad idea.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:27 pm**

MediumTex wrote: I have heard that while President, Calvin Coolidge would sometimes sleep up to 20 hours a day.

Like a White House cat.

Rarely more than 16 hrs a day. He said his naps were in the national interest as he could not start any government programs while sleeping.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:01 pm**

Reub wrote: We went to Afghanistan for the right reasons.

What are the right reasons?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:05 pm**

Reub wrote: We went to Afghanistan for the right reasons. We went wrong, just as in Iraq, when we became politically correct and tried to rehabilitate the natives instead of installing a friendly dictator and arming him to the teeth. Unfortunately, some parts of the world do not understand reason and civility, only brute force.

To me, that kind of signals that it's a region we should stay away from rather than attempting to pacify and control it. Saddam Hussein was a friendly dictator for years… until suddenly he was a very bad man and it became important for us to invade his country… twice!. The problem with installing friendly dictators as the heads of state of barbaric, unpredictable countries is that they may turn out to be as barbaric and unpredictable as the people they rule over with an iron fist. How do we know we're not just arming the next Mujahideen, Taliban, or Al-Qaeda?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:07 pm**

Reub wrote: While I believe in many Libertarian ideas I vehemently disagree with them on isolationism. The world is too dangerous a place and is small and getting smaller every day. We need a strong military and a proactive policy to stay as safe as we can and aid our strategic allies. This, however, does not mean leading from behind in Libya or forcing a friendly dictator out of power in Egypt (reminds me of Carter and the Shah of Iran all over again) making way for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over all over the Middle East.

Liberty for me but not for thee?

The arguments you are advancing for our empire building are as old as the Roman Empire and we will end in the same place. The dangers in the modern world are in large part of our own creation.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:13 pm**

Somethings change and some don't...

100 years of consistent Republican foreign policy.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:00 pm**

Ad Orientem wrote: Somethings change and some don't...

100 years of consistent Republican foreign policy.

I'm with you on the awfulness of Republicans but I'm curious as to which Democrat president in the last 100 years would you cite as a committed non-imperialist?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:08 pm**

Carter (a terrible president but for other reasons). Other than that I can't think of one. The 20th century was the era of the American Empire as much as the 19th century belonged to Britain. But all empires crumble.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:20 pm**

Ad Orientem wrote: Carter (a terrible president but for other reasons). Other than that I can't think of one. The 20th century was the era of the American Empire as much as the 19th century belonged to Britain. But all empires crumble.

I voted for Carter the first time around but lost respect for him later on. I've started regaining it recently since I saw him on Larry King bragging about how during his presidency 'We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. We never went to war'. Not many presidents can say that and the sad thing is that not many would want to.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:13 pm**

Reub wrote: How many years did the Roman Empire last? 600 years or more?
How long will we last with Obama's combination of financial recklessness, social demagoguing, and appeasement of our enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists?

Is it desirable to have an American Empire?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:21 pm**

The Roman Empire on some level lasted near 1500 years until its final collapse in 1453. But that was in antiquity. Most of the great empires since then have lasted a century or two at most before entering decline. There are a lot of indicators that the US has peaked as a world power. Our empire is being kept afloat by massive military spending and our endless series of wars that are contributing to the bankruptcy of the nation. This is not sustainable as the Spanish, French, Germans, Austrians, Russians, Swedes and British could tell us, if we would even listen.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:31 pm**

You keep using this phrase "leading from behind." I'll admit I'm not quite sure what this means in a presidential foreign policy context. Would you mind explaining it, and perhaps what a president who leads from the front would look like?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:39 pm**

Reub,

If McCain had been elected in 2008, how do you think he would have handled things?

I think that you may be giving too much credit to what a President McCain might have done differently.

What if George W. Bush had a third term? How do you think things would be?

To me, after Bush failed to articulate any kind of mission in Afghanistan that I could understand and the complete mess that the Iraq war turned into (including the false rationale for starting the war in the first place), I'm thinking that foreign policy incompetence is a bipartisan effort.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:44 pm**

Reub wrote: I just read a definitive sounding article that stated that there were no Marines guarding the consulate in Benghazi, Libya despite known threats to Americans in that country. One of the Americans, Sean Smith, who later was killed by the savages sent this message:

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,”? the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”?

Here is the article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... e-In-Libya

Obama helped create the climate of rising Islamist radicalism in Libya by encouraging the so-called "Arab Spring" and leading from behind and then failed to provide anything close to adequate protection to our consulate there despite known threats. He will have to bomb something over there soon to cover up his mistakes.

Two quick points.

First breibart is hardly an authoritative website. It is a very right-wing news source in the same vain as Free Republic. I'm not saying it's not true. But I am saying it is a political propaganda site. Information posted there is always presented with a political agenda.

Secondly suggesting Obama is responsible for the rise of Islamic extremism is risible. It could only be suggested by persons who had decided to overlook the history of our meddling in that part of the world since at least the 1950's. If blame were to be assigned I would suggest a great deal lies with Ronald Reagan who armed and trained the Islamic fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980's, including one Osama Bin Laden.

Ooops. We aren't supposed to remember that.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:49 pm**

MediumTex wrote: If McCain had been elected in 2008, how do you think he would have handled things?

Based on his statements I am guessing we would have landed the Marines and Libya would be under US military occupation. Ditto Syria.

What if George W. Bush had a third term?

But he did.

Gyroscopic Investing

electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com