Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dinesh ... /id/549091

The man who produced 2016: Obama's America, Dinesh D'Souza, has been arrested. Now there's a surprise!

"Molen, who also produced the Academy-award winning "Schindler's List," said he has not spoken to D'Souza since he learned of the indictment, and wouldn't make comments about the specific case until he's learned all the facts.

Still, he said he would not be surprised if the probe is politically motivated.

Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, "No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."

Also on Sunday, Ted Cruz' comments on D'Souza's arrest were edited out of Face The Nation. Cruz said:

CRUZ: “What you can take is that my focus is standing and fighting right now in the Senate to bring back jobs and economic growth. Let me tell you something that is deeply concerning—the abuse of power from this Administration. We’ve seen multiple filmmakers prosecuted and the government’s gone after them. Whether it’s the poor fellow that did the film that the President blamed Benghazi and the terrorist attacks on, turns out that wasn’t the reason for the attack but the Administration went and put that poor fellow in jail on unrelated charges. Just this week it was broken that Dinesh D’Souza, who did a very big movie criticizing the president, is now being prosecuted by this Administration.”?

SCHIEFFER: “Senator-“

CRUZ: “Can you image the reaction if the Bush Administration had went, gone and prosecuted Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn?”?

SCHIEFFER: Senator--

CRUZ: It should trouble everyone the government uses government power and the IRS in particular to target their enemies and you are talking a new minutes to Chuck Schumer—“

SCHIEFFER: “We are going to leave this for another day, senator. Thank you for joining us and we’ll talk to you again.”?

The public never saw this.

Looks like D'Souza's guilty, though.

Who isn't?

Chicago politics as usual.  Scary stuff.

Reub wrote: Who isn't?

Me

That's how they do it. We're all guilty of something, and if they really want to nail you, they'll find it. And it's as old as the hills. They got Capone on tax evasion, remember?

dualstow wrote: Looks like D'Souza's guilty, though.

Ha, as if the Obama and Clinton campaigns aren't 1000x more dirty.  There have been some serious accusations regarding campaign donations, but then again, his partisan AG is going to use it as a weapon against his opponents rather than look at these things on a bi-partisan basis. 

clacy wrote:

dualstow wrote: Looks like D'Souza's guilty, though.

Ha, as if the Obama and Clinton campaigns aren't 1000x more dirty.  There have been some serious accusations regarding campaign donations, but then again, his partisan AG is going to use it as a weapon against his opponents rather than look at these things on a bi-partisan basis. 

But I guess the Bush admin is squeaky clean?

moda0306 wrote:

clacy wrote:

dualstow wrote: Looks like D'Souza's guilty, though.

Ha, as if the Obama and Clinton campaigns aren't 1000x more dirty.  There have been some serious accusations regarding campaign donations, but then again, his partisan AG is going to use it as a weapon against his opponents rather than look at these things on a bi-partisan basis. 

But I guess the Bush admin is squeaky clean?

The emperor has had no clothes now for quite a while.  Not to hijack the thread, but who do you think the last "reasonably ethical" President was?

My ranking from most unethical (varied reasons) to least unethical for those in office during my lifetime would be:

Obama
Clinton
Johnson
F. Roosevelt
Kennedy
Bush II
Nixon
Bush I
Ford
Eisenhower
Reagan
Carter
Truman

... Mountaineer


Geeezzzzzeeee ... I forgot Reagan!  And FDR (I was in the womb).  Edited to include them.

As time goes on, I actually am starting to believe that Nixon was much more ethical than most. In a way that was his undoing because he did not fight dirty when attacked, unlike Clinton and Obama. And whether correct or not, he accomplished big things.

Reub wrote: As time goes on, I actually am starting to believe that Nixon was much more ethical than most. In a way that was his undoing because he did not fight dirty when attacked, unlike Clinton and Obama. And whether correct or not, he accomplished big things.

Before anyone yells, "But he spied on his political enemies!!!!" take a few moments to think about how utterly normal such a thing has become today that it barely even registers when yet another example of it comes out.

Desert wrote:Yeah, it's kinda sad when we start missing Nixon.  I think one of Nixon's biggest problems was his appearance.  He was a pretty scary guy.

It wasn't only his appearance that was scary...

RMN wrote:It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.

If you're going to publicly attack people who have the power to completely snuff your life, as in they have every bit of data on your entire existence, you had better make sure you're squeaky clean.  You still have to worry about them falsifying charges, but if we get to that point there's really not much you can do except emigrate or revolt.  This President is particularly spiteful, I think that's clear, but it's irrelevant because it's a basic fact that if you screw with the President he screws with you.  It's what happens when you give one man the kind of power we've allowed to accrue in that office.

RuralEngineer wrote: If you're going to publicly attack people who have the power to completely snuff your life, as in they have every bit of data on your entire existence, you had better make sure you're squeaky clean.  You still have to worry about them falsifying charges, but if we get to that point there's really not much you can do except emigrate or revolt.  This President is particularly spiteful, I think that's clear, but it's irrelevant because it's a basic fact that if you screw with the President he screws with you.  It's what happens when you give one man the kind of power we've allowed to accrue in that office.

As we can see, his supposed "rights" are irrelevant when one with might decides that he is annoying.

Anyone want to tell me we ever left the "law of the jungle?" To me, it kind of looks like we just covered it up a bit with constitution-themed wallpaper.

Pointedstick wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: If you're going to publicly attack people who have the power to completely snuff your life, as in they have every bit of data on your entire existence, you had better make sure you're squeaky clean.  You still have to worry about them falsifying charges, but if we get to that point there's really not much you can do except emigrate or revolt.  This President is particularly spiteful, I think that's clear, but it's irrelevant because it's a basic fact that if you screw with the President he screws with you.  It's what happens when you give one man the kind of power we've allowed to accrue in that office.

As we can see, his supposed "rights" are irrelevant when one with might decides that he is annoying.

Anyone want to tell me we ever left the "law of the jungle?" To me, it kind of looks like we just covered it up a bit with constitution-themed wallpaper.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! 

Pointedstick wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: If you're going to publicly attack people who have the power to completely snuff your life, as in they have every bit of data on your entire existence, you had better make sure you're squeaky clean.  You still have to worry about them falsifying charges, but if we get to that point there's really not much you can do except emigrate or revolt.  This President is particularly spiteful, I think that's clear, but it's irrelevant because it's a basic fact that if you screw with the President he screws with you.  It's what happens when you give one man the kind of power we've allowed to accrue in that office.

As we can see, his supposed "rights" are irrelevant when one with might decides that he is annoying.

Anyone want to tell me we ever left the "law of the jungle?" To me, it kind of looks like we just covered it up a bit with constitution-themed wallpaper.

Nicely put.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Anyone want to tell me we ever left the "law of the jungle?" To me, it kind of looks like we just covered it up a bit with constitution-themed wallpaper.

Nicely put.

Thanks! I'll see you at the gun store soon acquiring some more might, then? Gotta defend that concrete castle you're salivating over…

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Anyone want to tell me we ever left the "law of the jungle?" To me, it kind of looks like we just covered it up a bit with constitution-themed wallpaper.

Nicely put.

Thanks! I'll see you at the gun store soon acquiring some more might, then? Gotta defend that concrete castle you're salivating over…

Especially if you or Kshartle become king for a day and abolish government, leaving us all to our more animalistic natures.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Nicely put.

Thanks! I'll see you at the gun store soon acquiring some more might, then? Gotta defend that concrete castle you're salivating over…

Especially if you or Kshartle become king for a day and abolish government, leaving us all to our more animalistic natures.

Muahahahaha! Embrace the law of the jungle!

moda0306 wrote: Especially if you or Kshartle become king for a day and abolish government, leaving us all to our more animalistic natures.

I would leave just enough enforcers in place to watch over you and prevent a rampage!

"Even if allegations made against conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza in a federal indictment on campaign finance violations prove to be true, legal experts and former federal regulatory authorities tell Newsmax that the government's handling of the case has been unusual."

"This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you," famed law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.

"If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/DSouza ... /id/549845

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Especially if you or Kshartle become king for a day and abolish government, leaving us all to our more animalistic natures.

I would leave just enough enforcers in place to watch over you and prevent a rampage!

Damned statist.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Especially if you or Kshartle become king for a day and abolish government, leaving us all to our more animalistic natures.

I would leave just enough enforcers in place to watch over you and prevent a rampage!

Damned statist.

Good point. I'll take up donations for it so it's more voluntary.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I would leave just enough enforcers in place to watch over you and prevent a rampage!

Damned statist.

Good point. I'll take up donations for it so it's more voluntary.

In bitcoin?  Gold?  Ammo?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Damned statist.

Good point. I'll take up donations for it so it's more voluntary.

In bitcoin?  Gold?  Ammo?

Turkish lira. I think they just moved the short-term rates to 12.5%.