Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: IMHO it's very unfortunate when Democratic presidents do this because conservatives seem to have a weak point for foreign war that liberals don't, so they're inherently worse at holding people accountable for it. And partisan rancor ensures that members of the president's own party will be more inclined to agree with what he does even if they would hate it if a member of the other party did it.

At least when a Republican president does this, the Democrats howl bloody murder. When a Democratic president does it, the response is disappointingly muddled and muted.

Pointedstick wrote: I highly approve of the use of that Tintin panel in the poster. Where are you getting these from, Ad Orientem? They're kinda cool.

Simonjester wrote: interesting site...... the "dark enlightenment" essays look like they will make for some interesting reading http://matthewgleslie.com/post/31114643460/the-dark-enlightenment-the-complete-series-by-nick

MediumTex wrote: Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

AdamA wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Pointedstick wrote:

AdamA wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

TennPaGa wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I assume everyone considers the noises about the U.S. getting involved with the Syrian civil war just wag the dog, right?

It's very convenient for the U.S. to declare that Assad has been using WMDs right when Obama is dealing with multiple scandals at home.

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

The proposed involvement seems to be minor at this point (and I've also read about some pushback from Congress).  While I wholeheartedly disapprove of any U.S. involvement in Syria, I would think Obama would do something bigger if he wanted to wag the dog.

Then again, I don't really understand (or even want to understand) politicians' motives in these these things.  So wag the dog could be right.

clacy wrote: That was the first thing that crossed my mind as well. Obama seemed very reluctant to get involved but all of a sudden changed his mind??

A few months ago, Obama said Assad "has to go", and later drew a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons.  That hardly sounds like someone reluctant to get involved.

Pointedstick wrote: IMHO it's very unfortunate when Democratic presidents do this because conservatives seem to have a weak point for foreign war that liberals don't, so they're inherently worse at holding people accountable for it. And partisan rancor ensures that members of the president's own party will be more inclined to agree with what he does even if they would hate it if a member of the other party did it.

At least when a Republican president does this, the Democrats howl bloody murder. When a Democratic president does it, the response is disappointingly muddled and muted.

Actually, I would say the responses from the other party depends on the pretext of the intervention.  If it is "humanitarian" intervention, or can be couched in those terms, D's go along with it when it is R-initiated.  It used to be that R's were opposed to D-initiated humanitarian intervention, but lately I think they've gotten less picky, because they've decided that war is just so awesome, so who gives a crap what lame excuse is used.

If the intervention is terrorism related, the response is usually as PS states.  D's of course howl when R's propose it, and are silent otherwise.  However, when D's propose it, R's sometimes (and neocons always) will protest that the involvement is too small.

MediumTex wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

AdamA wrote: But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

Reub wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

If Nixon had done one quarter of the stuff that we know Obama has he would have been impeached before he could resign.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Reub wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

If Nixon had done one quarter of the stuff that we know Obama has he would have been impeached before he could resign.

I'm inclined to agree. Though it's worth noting that Obama hasn't done much that W didn't do first.

MediumTex wrote: Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

smurff wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

As well as eclipse the news about the theft ... gift ... of a Superbowl ring.

TennPaGa wrote:

The Patriots are doing their part to avoid an international incident.

From NFL.com:

    “It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells for laughs. He loves that his ring is at the Kremlin ...”?

Source: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/robert- ... bowl-ring/

TennPaGa wrote: From NFL.com:

    “It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells for laughs. He loves that his ring is at the Kremlin and, as he stated back in 2005, he continues to have great respect for Russia and the leadership of President Putin,”? a team spokesman said. “In particular, he credits President Putin for modernizing the Russian economy.”?

“It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells because its the only way he can speak honestly about the incident without being pressured by the State Department to remain quiet. He is still pissed that he got ring-jacked by that commie thug and the idea that his ring is now on display in Putin's former thug clubhouse next to Lenin's creepy corpse gives him the willies and, as he stated back in 2005, he continues to grit his teeth and smile when the subjects of Russia and Putin come up,”? a team spokesman said. “In particular, he credits President Putin for turning the Russian economy from a state-owned enterprise model into a Putin's cronies-owned enterprise model.  He just wishes his ring hadn't gotten caught up in the wave of kleptocracy that has swept Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union.”?

TennPaGa wrote: I liked this part:

  “I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, ‘I can kill someone with this ring,’ ”?

Remember when George W. Bush met Putin?

Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.

They say they found the basis for a relationship of mutual respect.

At the end of their first summit meeting in Slovenia Mr Bush described Mr Putin as a straightforward and trustworthy man.

[...]

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue... I was able to get a sense of his soul..." Mr Bush said.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1392791.stm