Gyroscopic Investing

I see that Romney's U.S. flag lapel pin is slightly larger than Obama's.

That's the biggest difference I've seen between them in the debate thus far.

The great foreign policy question... who will bomb and invade more countries faster?

I am so bored with this debate.  I really want a Ninja vs. Pirates question.

Romney has missed chances to go for the jugular with Libya and Israel.

I have not watched any of the debates.  I can proudly admit to it. They are a waste of time, provoke lots of anger and anxiety, are exercises in verbal one-upmanship and body-language silliness, and there are other interesting things to watch.  BTW, Ancient Aliens returns to The History Channel (actually, it's the other History channel, H2) on Friday November 2.

smurff wrote: I have not watched any of the debates.  I can proudly admit to it. They are a waste of time, provoke lots of anger and anxiety, are exercises in verbal one-upmanship and body-language silliness, and there are other interesting things to watch.  BTW, Ancient Aliens returns to The History Channel (actually, it's the other History channel, H2) on Friday November 2.

I am 100% addicted to Ancient Aliens. There are just too many inconsistencies with accepted ancient history.

Yes this was a snoozer.

smurff wrote: interesting things to watch.  BTW, Ancient Aliens returns to The History Channel (actually, it's the other History channel, H2) on Friday November 2.

AA went off the deep end for season two.  Then off the main channel alltogether.  Talk about reaching and overstaying a welcome!

As to the OP, Obama won the third debate.  It's obvious Romney is just grasping at straws with very little substance.  If Obama had more economic/business sense, he'd be the one to vote for.

MachineGhost wrote:

As to the OP, Obama won the third debate.  It's obvious Romney is just grasping at straws with very little substance.  If Obama had more economic/business sense, he'd be the one to vote for.

[/quote]

MG, Interesting perspective.  Mine was mostly different.  I thought Romney had substance and Obama tried for his usual style points.  Romney had a much better command of the foreign situation than I expected and actually seemed more presidential than Obama who at times seemed like a petulant child who did not get his way; Obama also frequently pulled out the blame card, just like a teanager does when something goes awry.  Romney had a more concrete strategy for the future while Obama seems to be mired in more of the same that has not accomplished forward progress for most families/individuals (other than to get us very much deeper in debt while sabotaging our position as a world leader, e.g. not stopping Iran's nuclear program and tolerating the major unrest and lack of leadership in Packistan - all I see in my area are higher prices, higher unemployment, and many more people outright mocking Obama than any other past president).  Obama's personal attacks on Romney did not seem presidential either - more like that angry petulant child.  I was impressed that Romney did not fall into the trap of getting mired in the minutia of Libya, he kept the event tied to the much larger picture of our declining influence in the Middle East and how Obama's foreign policy has failed to maintain order and reduce chaos in the region.  I won't even get in to Obama's blatant lying - that is certainly unbecomming of anyone, let alone our president.  The network I was watching fact checked two of Obama's statements almost on the spot - both were completely false.  The bottom line for me is Romney seems to have character, a positive vision, and is believable; Obama appears to tell the audience what he thinks they want to hear and is a good speaker, but is not believable - he appears to be as unqualified for the job and as unvetted by the press as he was four years ago.

It really is interesting how two adults can see the same debate and perceive it so differently!  That is probably why the country is so divided at present; much more so than anytime in my rather long life with memories of presidents back to Truman.  It would certainly be refreshing to get a president that actually leads and rallys us together toward a common vision versus promoting class envy and racial hatred; our cauldron is simmering just below boil over in my opinion.  On a separate subject, I am reading "The War", a book on World War II by Ward and Burns.  The stories of the hardships and terror the common soldier went through and the sacrifices made by those living in the USA are almost unbelievable.  No matter how bad we think things are in this great country now, they were far, far worse then.  We are so fortunate to be living at a time where the global pissing contest is constrained to relatively moderate loss of life (other than in Africa which neither party seems to care about) rather than killing millions and millions of people all across the "civilized" countries.

Best wishes to all,  ... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: That is probably why the country is so divided at present; much more so than anytime in my rather long life with memories of presidents back to Truman. 

I am nearing the end of David McCullough's Truman right now, and it is amazing how much different the world was back then.

Every generation seems to think that it's the first to face really BIG problems.

Reub wrote: Romney knows that he is winning the election. His debate performance was meant to gain favor with women voters and reassure the general public that he is not a war-monger. He looked presidential while Obama looked small and desperate.

I'm super excited to see how you react when he loses.

dragoncar wrote: I'm super excited to see how you react when he loses.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-supporter ... te-romney/
Some of your fellow progressives are preparing for the outcome of the election.

I will be glad when the election is behind us.

Speaking of one of HB's favorite topics, trying to influence others and controlling things you can't control, the president is almost the epitomy of that.  Even if you're in a swing state, even voting, much less spending months debating your family and neighbors beyond the degree of interesting banter into the realm of anger and frustration, is very, very unlikely to make any difference.

Further, even if you could be that one vote that decides an election, it's just one election, and chances are your taxes won't be much different, and neither will Social Security, Medicare, our military, our regulatory agencies, etc.

It seems to me simply foolish to allow ouselves to get emotionally tied to this stuff.  Control what you can.  Your relationship with your profession, family, neighbors and friends can effect your life far more than trying to control things like who gets elected.

I agree, MT.  I'll be glad when this season is behind us.  I don't like it when I see people willingly putting themselves into traps over the uncontrollable, becoming frustrated, etc, all while their personal relationships are suffering as a result (most likely).

moda0306 wrote: Speaking of one of HB's favorite topics, trying to influence others and controlling things you can't control, the president is almost the epitomy of that.  Even if you're in a swing state, even voting, much less spending months debating your family and neighbors beyond the degree of interesting banter into the realm of anger and frustration, is very, very unlikely to make any difference.

Further, even if you could be that one vote that decides an election, it's just one election, and chances are your taxes won't be much different, and neither will Social Security, Medicare, our military, our regulatory agencies, etc.

It seems to me simply foolish to allow ouselves to get emotionally tied to this stuff.  Control what you can.  Your relationship with your profession, family, neighbors and friends can effect your life far more than trying to control things like who gets elected.

I agree, MT.  I'll be glad when this season is behind us.  I don't like it when I see people willingly putting themselves into traps over the uncontrollable, becoming frustrated, etc, all while their personal relationships are suffering as a result (most likely).

Very well said.

moda0306 wrote: Speaking of one of HB's favorite topics, trying to influence others and controlling things you can't control, the president is almost the epitomy of that.  Even if you're in a swing state, even voting, much less spending months debating your family and neighbors beyond the degree of interesting banter into the realm of anger and frustration, is very, very unlikely to make any difference.

Further, even if you could be that one vote that decides an election, it's just one election, and chances are your taxes won't be much different, and neither will Social Security, Medicare, our military, our regulatory agencies, etc.

It seems to me simply foolish to allow ouselves to get emotionally tied to this stuff.  Control what you can.  Your relationship with your profession, family, neighbors and friends can effect your life far more than trying to control things like who gets elected.

I agree, MT.  I'll be glad when this season is behind us.  I don't like it when I see people willingly putting themselves into traps over the uncontrollable, becoming frustrated, etc, all while their personal relationships are suffering as a result (most likely).

Amen.

Still, you guys do realize how good we have it in the States, don't you?
I'm not denying that it could be better, but come on.

dualstow wrote: Still, you guys do realize how good we have it in the States, don't you?
I'm not denying that it could be better, but come on.

We have it very good (it could be better, but it's still good).  People who think the U.S. is in decline ought to go to any of a hundred places around the world that are experiencing real decline.

The U.S. will see decline one day, but IMHO that day is not close.  Ironically, people complaining about something is often a sign of health.

Reub wrote:
I will not riot or kill anyone if my side loses. 

Uh, congratulations?

Reub wrote:
BTW, Barrack Obama is crashing on Intrade:

http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-o ... z2A8DkFgFZ

LOL, you believe Intrade is wrong (predicting Obama win), but then cite it as evidence?

Wasn't that Ryan divorce due to him going to sex parties?  I mean, think of all the Americans that would be downright jealous... Err... Outraged at our leaders doing that!

In a roundabout way, Jeri Ryan is responsible for Obama being the president! If Ryan hadn't pulled out, he probably would have walloped Obama in the race that really marked the ascendancy of his political career. Instead the Illinois GOP, in disarray, ran Alan Keys who Obama destroyed in some kind of ridiculous landslide.

Anyone considered using intrade as a hedging mechanism? Just bet on your most hated candidate winning 

We actually use to have a very liquid and accurate market for presidential election betting.

You can check out a paper that explores it http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/Bettin ... ubmit).pdf. As a young person this reinforces my thoughts that people used to have more fun 

TennPaGa wrote:

Reub wrote: Intrade was wrong and they are now correcting their egregious error when they said that Obama would win in a landslide.

Whose fault is it that Intrade was initially so wrong, but now so right?

You guessed it...

Frank Stallone

That actually wasn't what I guessed.

Meant to watch but fell asleep.

Watching Fox New the following evening they kept playing the clip over and over where Romney said that "America doesn't dictate to other countries, America frees other countries from dictators". Most of the neocons agreed it was his finest moment.

This left me concluding that Romney lives in the same choir boy fantasy world as G.W. Bush. If I was Obama I would have followed up by asking what countries he planned on freeing if he gets elected.

TennPaGa wrote: Romney basically told everyone that his foreign policy will be Dickinsonian...

Bruce Dickinsonian, to be precise.

It's the same as Obama's, but with more cowbell.

+1 for Iron Maiden reference.

I saw them around 1985 on the Powerslave tour.

It would be cool if Romney could play bass like Steve Harris.