Gyroscopic Investing

Kbg wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I mean the ultimate maverick, love him or hate him, was Teddy Roosevelt (as far as I know).  The guy was simultaniously a brutal racist nationalist and an anti-racist (yup... he was a weird dude), enviornmentalist, anti-trust, pro-regulation populist.  He simply Did. Not. Care. what ANYONE thought cuz he KNEW he was right, and often did a pretty good job of arguing his case.  It's part of the reason I'm utterly captivated by the guy.  Some of his accusations of others sound downright hateful.  But he's on a lot of people's short-list of favorite presidents that would label Obama the anti-Christ.

What are we in some alternate universe tonight? I'm totally agreeing with Moda on this one. TR is da Man! I highly recommend Edmund Morris' trilogy on his life. It would be a real toss up to me who was the most talented President ever between TR and Lincoln. For pure renaissance man qualities TR beats Lincoln hands down. Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

Pointedstick wrote: That said, I voted for him and prefer him to Obama, since my views align better with his than with Obama's.

moda0306 wrote: I think there's a LARGE portion of the Republican electorate that sees Obama THIS way, rather than simply someone who is in over his head, perhaps a bit pompous, and who's nausiating to listen to... or whatever.

Kbg wrote: Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

Simonjester wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
I mean, I would imagine that if what you say is true, electing a guy like Rand (or especially ol' Ron) would be ESPECIALLY interesting. Those guys have some CONVICTION!! And they don't like playing the game that so many in Washington are skilled at playing.

Would we call them "hateful, spiteful, vindictive, and malevolent" when they side-step congress, the Fed, and the systems in place to bring about the change they wish to see?

would they side step? if so then they really aren't men of CONVICTION are they? especially when the constitution is the very thing they have a history and reputation for being men of conviction about...

Simonjester wrote: as far as i know neither one has proposed using unconstitutional authority to do anything with the fed, both have tried to pass bills to audit the fed which is a perfectly legal way to force the fed to be subject to higher standard of transparency. i would hope that if the fed was audited and IF it was exposed that they were up to illegal, corrupt or criminal acts they would be the type to resist the urge to rationalist there own taking of criminal acts...
but power does corrupt, so i would hope we keep an eye on the guys with a history of being men of conviction with regards to the constitution.. even if they are voted "most likely to resist"..

MachineGhost wrote:

Kbg wrote: Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

What the heck are you talking about?  Lincoln all but transformed the country into the modern interventionist nation state we're suffering with today.  He was a traitor to our Constitutional principles.  The ends do not justify the means of using the Constitution as toilet paper because someone else down the line will take advantage of the weakened loopholes.  Has not the last 165 years made that evident?

In my book, Lincoln and FDR have special place in hell for their treason.  The ends do not ever justify the means in a Constitutional Republic (RIP).

Tyler wrote: That said, I expect the republicans to commit seppuku and nominate Jeb.

Kbg wrote: As for God and hell, my guess is things turned out pretty good for Mr. Lincoln at the Pearly Gates.

MachineGhost wrote: What's wrong with Jeb? 

Lowe wrote: The problem with Jeb Bush is that he looks soft and weak.  Whether he is those things, is beside the point.  The guy looks like a caricature of an accountant.  The glasses don't help.  That he would be running after his older brother, makes worse the image of him as a person with no internal compass or personal strength.

MachineGhost wrote:

Kbg wrote: As for God and hell, my guess is things turned out pretty good for Mr. Lincoln at the Pearly Gates.

So being a humanist in the end absolves all your other sins?  That's comforting.  But you know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The living have to live with that.

Kbg wrote: Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Kbg wrote: Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kbg wrote: Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Food for thought: Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. The south, bitter over their loss, continued to enslave black people through the practice of convict leasing, which involved arresting young blacks for doing nothing at all (e.g. being unemployed) and then selling them to private firms as unpaid labor. This practice ended only the first half of the 20th century. In addition, while this was going on, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan made life almost unlivably bad for blacks. They were largely barred from gainful employment and routinely murdered for no real reason and with no repercussions. An honest reading of history is that life for blacks in the south was, until about the 1950s, no better after slavery was officially abolished, and in some ways was far worse.

The unnecessary civil war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax.

Lincoln imposed the first federal mandatory conscription.

Lincoln set the precedent for secession being punishable by death in the USA. Throughout the rest of the world, secession is usually a peacefully and mutually beneficial affair.



It seems to me that a utilitarian assessment of the effects of Lincoln's actions does not at all necessarily result in the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Kbg wrote: Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Food for thought: Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. The south, bitter over their loss, continued to enslave black people through the practice of convict leasing, which involved arresting young blacks for doing nothing at all (e.g. being unemployed) and then selling them to private firms as unpaid labor. This practice ended only the first half of the 20th century. In addition, while this was going on, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan made life almost unlivably bad for blacks. They were largely barred from gainful employment and routinely murdered for no real reason and with no repercussions. An honest reading of history is that life for blacks in the south was, until about the 1950s, no better after slavery was officially abolished, and in some ways was far worse.

The unnecessary civil war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax.

Lincoln imposed the first federal mandatory conscription.

Lincoln set the precedent for secession being punishable by death in the USA. Throughout the rest of the world, secession is usually a peacefully and mutually beneficial affair.



It seems to me that a utilitarian assessment of the effects of Lincoln's actions does not at all necessarily result in the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

I have mixed feelings on Lincoln, and definitely don't disagree with some of what you're saying, but still... a few things on this:

1) Of course Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves.  Even if he did, it was more congress than him.  But the status of anything is only comparable to its most reasonable alternative, which brings me to...

2) What would the status of blacks have been from 1865 onwards had the federal government NOT won or NOT gotten involved.  Much to the dismay of revisionist-historians, slavery was actually gaining traction in the South, and no where is that more clear than the reasons the states gave to secede in the first place.  It wasn't about tariffs or any "states right," other than the right to own slaves as property and have Northerners not only accept this, but join them in hunting runaway slaves.  You seem to know this from past conversations on the subject.

So this begs the question... "What would have happened to the slaves over time?"  My prediction is that slavery would have stuck around for some time to come, and either one of the following would have eventually occurred as the world progressed beyond the South...

a) Black revolts rising to the level of revolution.
b) Mass genocide of blacks once they were no longer needed/desired as property (if Germans could do it to Jews, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the South do it to slaves).
c) Eventual 3rd-party intervention on the matter.

This was going to be an ugly scenario no matter what.  That's what happens when 2/3 of the population enslaves 1/3 as the rest of the world progresses around you.

3) This is probably where I disagree the most.  I'm sure there are hundreds of instances where what could be called "Secession" was or would have been greeted with military might of the central government before the U.S. Civil War.  Usually they're not labelled "secessions," but "rebellions."    Hell, it's essentially what we did in the Revolutionary War... and Great Britain said "No."  The only real precedence Lincoln set was that there was no inherent "right" that was going to be recognized for a state to just leave the Union (and claim Union resources in that state).  This type of conflict between the authority of levels of government is as old as when civilization was mature enough to HAVE multiple levels of government.  I'm willing to bet even Mesopotamia had plenty of issues surrounding legitimate authority of various government powers, and people's individual right to "ignore" the "illegitimate" authority of the "city counsel" or whatever they had.

It's a story as old as time, man.  Individuals vs small gov't.  Small gov't vs bigger gov't.  Big government vs another big government disputing authority over region overseen by small gov'ts.  Same sh!t.  Different pile.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Mountaineer wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Wow, pretty interesting!  Very clever/legalistic and I hate to say it, but Constitutional.  Lincoln did not literally free the slaves.

But issuing orders for which you have no jurisdiction over is tyranny.

moda0306 wrote: Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Is it opinion when backed by coercive force?  I think not.  What is especially galling is the fact the states were sold the Constitution on the understnaind that they could seceed anytime they wanted.  So Lincoln is still treasonous in that regard.  Does he still belong in hell if freeing the slaves was an afterhought rather than the whole point of the Civil War? 

I haven't seen Lincoln yet.  Really not in the mood for Hollywood liberal biased propaganda.  Some day.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Is it opinion when backed by coercive force?  I think not.  What is especially galling is the fact the states were sold the Constitution on the understanding that they could seceed anytime they wanted if the arrnagement became abusive.  So Lincoln is still treasonous in that regard.  Does he still belong in hell if freeing the slaves was an afterhought rather than the whole point of the Civil War?  What good was pseudo-freeing the slaves if he took away another, more significant freedom?  There's still separatist movements.  Does the Fed government plan to put them violently down if they ever get close to seceeding via the polls?

I haven't seen Lincoln yet.  Really not in the mood for Hollywood liberal biased propaganda.  Some day.