Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... 16800.html

Keep in mind this only means that people are unhappy their own particular brand of ideology cannot be implemented.  That's all.  Its sports team mentality, not anti-Statism per se.

MachineGhost wrote:

Kshartle wrote: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... 16800.html

Keep in mind this only means that people are unhappy their own particular brand of ideology cannot be implemented.  That's all.  Its sports team mentality, not anti-Statism per se.

Yeah. They don't want to be king of their own life but they want to be king's of everyone else's. It's weird.

I think the linked chart may explain why dear leader "goes after" the military so hard, he views it as competition to be eliminated so his relative pee poor rating will go up.  jk

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote: Yeah. They don't want to be king of their own life but they want to be king's of everyone else's. It's weird.

You're being dogmatic again.  That's not how mainstream people view the application of government-cum-statism.  It is more equivalent to the self-defense against initatory coercion in their eyes and justification.  Since we're in the New Age now, I think we need to use a much broader definition of coercion than has typically been used by libertarians.

MachineGhost wrote:

Kshartle wrote: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... 16800.html

Keep in mind this only means that people are unhappy their own particular brand of ideology cannot be implemented.  That's all.  Its sports team mentality, not anti-Statism per se.

This is a great point. 

That's the only explanation when you consider how high re-election rates are in Congress.  It's something both sides of the political isle can agree on.... 

"The Congressmen on the other side of the isle are clowns"

Haha, so true but I think this poll understates this population.  It's more like 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _tea_party

(I'll leave you all to argue which is which...)

MachineGhost wrote: Since we're in the New Age now, I think we need to use a much broader definition of coercion than has typically been used by libertarians.

What do you mean by new-age and what definition of coercion should we use and why?

Those are sincere questions about your ideas, not attempts at personal swipes. The former interests me, the latter does not.


What is it that I'm being dogmatic about? Saying that people who want others to conform to their wishes are acting like kings? I'm just using that to get to the root to show how the current view of acceptable coercion is really no different than the old. It's just that instead of 1 king ruling 2 subjects (the old style) is now replaced with 2 kings rulling 1 subject.

How can that be any more virtuous?

Only 7%? That's progress!