Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:26 am**

Gumby wrote: Minutes: Is the U.S. Senate broken?[/url]

It got broken when Progressives enabled direct election of Senators.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:32 am**

MachineGhost wrote: If Republicans really wanted to do something about the so-called problem, they would strongly pressure Mexico to reform economically and institutionally instead of using it as an excuse to pump up their neo-KKK ideaology.

+100

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:06 am**

Pointedstick wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: If Republicans really wanted to do something about the so-called problem, they would strongly pressure Mexico to reform economically and institutionally instead of using it as an excuse to pump up their neo-KKK ideaology.
+100

Agree. But political measures have limitations: we can use diplomatic channels to push Mexico, we can help fund certain programs and reforms, but in the long run it should be a combination of measures on both sides of the border.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:40 am**

RuralEngineer wrote: I'd appreciate it if you could explain a bit more why exactly you think a federal database that only keeps track of people's legal status is dangerous. For one thing, there's no way to get rid of it. It's called social security numbers, and every legal citizen is already in a database and has been for a very long time. We require such databases to establish who is eligible for certain benefits, or who can vote. Expanding this to include legal immigrants and then using it to filter out future law breakers doesn't strike me as particularly dangerous.

Actually, you can still get by without having a SSN assigned to you or being enumerated at birth, though its increasingly difficult post-09/11. There is no law requiring anyone to participate in SSN or get a number assigned anymore than there is a requirement to carry ID documents. But it will be chipped away into nullness over time as technology makes Big Data on citizens easier to implement and track.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:47 am**

foglifter wrote: Agree. But political measures have limitations: we can use diplomatic channels to push Mexico, we can help fund certain programs and reforms, but in the long run it should be a combination of measures on both sides of the border.

Why stop at just diplomacy which seems largely ineffective? There's the weapon of war that conservatives are so enarmored of utilizing for nation-building.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:54 am**

Mission seekers are ready to unleash multiple beefy arguments at President Obama during the upcoming debates. But demanding military action against Iran should not be one of them.

Why? Because, it might help President Obama win, not just the second, but also a third term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gue ... _blog.html

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:41 am**

Hidden camera at a Republican Get out the Vote Meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

My inflation adjusted two cents (negative real value...). Republicans lost the mandate from heaven with Bush and the recent wars. It is a logic pretzel and looks real phony to promote small government/decreased government spending while actively practicing guns and butter. Bush started two unending wars, created a large new federal department (Homeland Security) and entitlement (Medicare Part D) - while decreasing taxes (especially on the super wealthy), limiting freedoms (patriot act), and letting bankers run wild.

Example of the loss of confidence in Republicans - Bush was hidden in the election. Clinton was center stage and actively campaigning. Which toothpaste are you buying - Clinton's record and ability to communicate versus Bush's?

My hope is that the Republican party fractures and loses the war pigs, tax freaks (on incomes over 1 million dollars), and the god squad. I will never vote for the gang of Rove, McConnell, Norquist, Reed, Limbaugh, Kristol, etc. Looking back, it would be have been cool to see how Ron Paul would have fared as a Third Party candidate.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:12 am**

brick-house wrote: Bush started two unending wars...

I hope that history records just what a stupid, stupid, stupid exercise the whole second Iraq War was.

- It was based on bad intelligence and bad premises.

- It was poorly planned and executed.

- Even if one accepts the cynical theory that Iraq War II wasn't about Saddam, WMDs or freedom, but rather just about stabilizing world oil markets, it even failed on that front, as world oil price volatility increased dramatically after 2003.

***

And come to think of it, the first Iraq War was also pretty stupid:

- It didn't achieve stability in the region--in fact, we had to go fight the same war a second time a little over a decade later.

- Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up on their own after the war and then provided no support for them when they did.

- Evil Saddam Hussein was allowed to stay in power (what kind of war ends with the evil dictator still in power?).

- It destroyed Iraq's ability to act as a counter to Iran as it had in the 1980s.

- The U.S. could have avoided the whole thing by simply having ambassador April Glaspie send a stronger message to Hussein in the summer of 1990. For anyone who doesn't remember the April Glaspie story, here is some background:

One of the crown jewels of secret pre-Gulf War negotiations was unveiled tonight when the notorious Glaspie Memo, or as it is now known 90BAGHDAD423, was released by WikiLeaks

The cable, whose official title was “Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush”? details the meeting between US Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990, just a week before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The meeting has long been a matter of speculation, as it had long been speculated that comments by Glaspie had led Saddam to believe that the United States was giving them the green light to invade Kuwait if diplomacy failed.

The memo reveals indeed Hussein expressing concern about the Bush Administration’s position on Iraq owing to its participation in military exercises with the United Arab Emirates and pledges to “defend its allies”? in the region. He complained the US pledges were making Kuwait and the UAE refuse to negotiate with Iraq. He also expressed concern about negative media coverage in the US, which Ambassador Glaspie assured him did not reflect US policy and singled out a Diane Sawyer report on “nuclear bomb triggers”? for condemnation.

Rather Glaspie assured Saddam of Bush’s friendship and expressed support for the negotiations being set up by Hosni Mubarak for the weekend of July 28-30. She also explicitly said the United States took no position on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, though the summary also mentions that she made clear the US wanted the move solved peacefully. Hussein assured that no action would be taken against Kuwait if the negotiations showed some progress, which seemed to suit the US at the time.

LINK

Think of a world in which the first Bush administration instructed its Iraq ambassador to take a slightly harder line on the Kuwait dispute. Hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have died, two wars would have been avoided, hundreds of billions of dollars would have been saved, Iran might be a much less problematic situation today, etc., etc.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:55 am**

Medium Tex wrote:

War was also pretty stupid:

War - What is it good for - absolutely nothing.... WWI is the highest on the stupidity meter for me...

Edwin Starr and Black Sabbath were right on. (YouTube is highly addictive, I will now get away from my palantir and do my chores...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7y3PQ5DFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZCyOWLrRTE

War Pigs Lyrics

ngwriters: F. IOMMI, W. WARD, T. BUTLER, J. OSBOURNE
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:07 pm**

It was supposed to be a "killer app," but a system deployed to volunteers by Mitt Romney's presidential campaign may have done more harm to Romney's chances on Election Day—largely because of a failure to follow basic best practices for IT projects.

Called "Orca," the effort was supposed to give the Romney campaign its own analytics on what was happening at polling places and to help the campaign direct get-out-the-vote efforts in the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Colorado.

Instead, volunteers couldn't get the system to work from the field in many states—in some cases because they had been given the wrong login information. The system crashed repeatedly. At one point, the network connection to the Romney campaign's headquarters went down because Internet provider Comcast reportedly thought the traffic was caused by a denial of service attack.

As one Orca user described it to Ars, the entire episode was a "huge clusterfuck." Here's how it happened.

http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -meltdown/

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:17 pm**

MachineGhost wrote: Plus there are no federal benefits available to illegal aliens. If a state decides to extend certain welfare benefits to illegal aliens, that is the state's choice. So the backlash against open borders is just latent bigotry and racism. With the poor economy of recent years, there hasn't beeen a "massive immigration of millions of illegal aliens"; if anything, they've slowed to a trickle. So it wasn't about "welfare magnets".

If Republicans really wanted to do something about the so-called problem, they would strongly pressure Mexico to reform economically and institutionally instead of using it as an excuse to pump up their neo-KKK ideaology.

Why not just invoke Godwin and get it over with. You know you want to.

There is a lot (A LOT) wrong with the Republican platform, particularly on social issues. However, comparing them to the KKK is just lazy. I'm sure Marco Rubio has a whole closet of white hoods hidden away. Pointing out that there are racists in the Republican party isn't particularly useful since the Democrats has a stable of racists as well. Racism spans every political ideology. If you want to make the argument, spend a little more time and provide an analysis showing why you think the Republican platform is synonymous with the KKK.

As for federal vs. state social programs, money is fungible. In addition, many of the "state benefits" you're referring to are directly subsidized by the Federal government, so no, it isn't just a state's rights issue. End all federal subsidization and I'll still have a problem with it, but just in whatever state I happen to reside in.

Regarding your suggested solution to the problem in Mexico...you must be joking. Mexico can't keep there from being 30 headless bodies under every overpass just south of the border and you think the solution is for the U.S. to "pressure" them to reform economically? Mexico is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet. If more than 40,000 dead in the last 6 years won't motivate reform, no U.S. pressure is going to get the job done.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:57 pm**

All right, here's another tiny little reason that surely helped Obama win:

Foodstamps Surge By Most In One Year To New All Time Record, In Delayed Release

"This time the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing."

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:04 pm**

Gumby wrote: If you haven't seen it yet...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-n ... ove-s-math

That was great, and forgive me if this has already been commented on, but I'm really riled up by the O'Reilly part of the clip. (I guess I'm 'Reilled up). Blaming foreigners and minorities always gives me goosebumps.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:48 pm**

dualstow wrote:
Gumby wrote: If you haven't seen it yet...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-n ... ove-s-math
That was great, and forgive me if this has already been commented on, but I'm really riled up by the O'Reilly part of the clip. (I guess I'm 'Reilled up). Blaming foreigners and minorities always gives me goosebumps.

Ever since O'Reilly was involved in the "dildogate" affair a few years ago I've often gotten goosebumps while watching him.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:35 pm**

Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.

If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pm**

MachineGhost wrote: Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.

If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

Talking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.

There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:15 pm**

Haven't checked back since I posted this the night after the election when I was drinking rum only because they haven't legalized pot in my state yet.

Lots of good arguments but I'll stand by my original thinking. I think only a very small part of the electorate gives a rat's ass about ideology and they don't even care that much about "stuff" though they would prefer having stuff to not having stuff I suspect. In 2012 I just think they prefer a president that's like cool. You know, like really awesome cool!

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:37 pm**

If people were to base their election decisions on how to obtain the most "stuff" for themselves, they wouldn't vote at all. I would say that maybe it's possible that many Americans fundamentally believe that some level of social safety net should be provided, and when tens of millions of people can't get health insurance, that indicates a pretty big hole.

Likewise, the other side wants to take home more income that they feel they've right fully earned, and fundamentally believe they have a right to.

I think most people vote on some level of principal. Whether that's a good principal or not is the better question than simply asserting that they actually think by going to the polls they'll get more stuff.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:40 pm**

moda0306 wrote: I think most people vote on some level of principal. Whether that's a good principal or not is the better question than simply asserting that they actually think by going to the polls they'll get more stuff.

Even those that want a OBAMA! Phone?

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:41 pm**

notsheigetz wrote: Haven't checked back since I posted this the night after the election when I was drinking rum only because they haven't legalized pot in my state yet.

Lots of good arguments but I'll stand by my original thinking. I think only a very small part of the electorate gives a rat's ass about ideology and they don't even care that much about "stuff" though they would prefer having stuff to not having stuff I suspect. In 2012 I just think they prefer a president that's like cool. You know, like really awesome cool!

I agree, the coolness factor definitely was in play, as well as Romney's lack of likeability. It's impossible to really pick just a single reason behind the election result: there are various groups, subgroups, microgroups of voters that all had their reasons behind choosing Obama. For many people it was just a single policy issue that decided their vote: one my right-leaning friend this time voted for Obama only because he had an open heart surgery last year and was quite anxious about any prospects of Obamacare going away along with preexisting conditions and lifetime maximum policy.

It's worth noting that the election was pretty narrow compared to 2008. There were many factors that actually could change the outcome, e.g. voter participation, but certainly minorities, women, and young voters made the difference. Looks like GOP learned the lesson, so next election promises to be interesting.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:47 pm**

foglifter wrote: Looks like GOP learned the lesson, so next election promises to be interesting.

I'll lay you 100 to 1 odds that they didn't lean a damn thing. My $100 to your $1.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:54 pm**

notsheigetz wrote:
foglifter wrote: Looks like GOP learned the lesson, so next election promises to be interesting.
I'll lay you 100 to 1 odds that they didn't lean a damn thing. My $100 to your $1.

I saw a few articles that point in that direction, including an interview with Ted Cruz. It's clear that they have to change if they intend to win.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:03 pm**

Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:09 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:
moda0306 wrote: I think most people vote on some level of principal. Whether that's a good principal or not is the better question than simply asserting that they actually think by going to the polls they'll get more stuff.
Even those that want a OBAMA! Phone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8if1pbQioCg

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:14 pm**

melveyr wrote: Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.

It appears to me that the shift of Republicanism from an economic to social animal is all-but fully complete. As soon as a Democrat initiated Civil Rights legislation in the 60's, the Republicans have been slowly obtaining more and more Social Conservatives. Now the entire Bible Belt is solidly Republican. If they don't keep the dog whistles going in those areas, they'll lose their enthusiasm.

MG,

One can disagree with the Obama phone and still see the vast hole in the social safety net that exists when someone is uninsurable and can't get it through work. That's a much more legitimate need than the Obama phone. Even if someone wanted a phone for free, driving to a voting location is probably the least efficient and least certain way to accomplish that goal, and even welfare queens are smart enough to realize that.

Gyroscopic Investing

Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won

Re: Why Obama won