Gyroscopic Investing

You have blinders on my friend.

Not at all.

I'll just wait for the investigation to conclude rather than jumping the gun.

jafs wrote: She may have done something very wrong, but I'll wait for the FBI investigation to conclude before deciding myself.

Something like 8 separate investigations of the Benghazi issue have been completed, led by R, and all concluded no evidence of wrongdoing, and yet there are those who still maintain she did something very wrong there.

I want to point out the blindingly obvious fact that the FBI is currently run by the OBAMA! administration.  The investigative results will depend on whether or not OBAMA! decides if he'll put their personal enimity aside for the good of the political Democrackdnuts.

An investigation is only as good as the questions asked and the results that are allowed to be released.  The opposition won't ask questions and/or allow results that impugne their own crony motives as hypocritical or criminal.  Independence is a myth in government.  It's all a game show where appearances triumph truth.

jafs wrote: Not at all.

I'll just wait for the investigation to conclude rather than jumping the gun.

You do. Bring back mathjak107!

jafs wrote: She may have done something very wrong, but I'll wait for the FBI investigation to conclude before deciding myself.

I truly would like to know your opinion.  There has been no proven wrongdoings by the current white house (least I think not).  Do you think that is because they have not doing anything wrong i.e. criminal or because they have done such things and successfully stonewalled/covered them up?

Well, generally speaking, politicians are a nasty lot, and I don't like them, and they do lots of things I don't like or approve of - and they're often found to have broken a law as well.

But, our system operates according to an "innocent until proven guilty" system.

And, I find that many people jump to conclusions about things much too fast, and based on emotion rather than fact, and tend to immediately assume that those they don't like are up to no good, and those they like are morally superior, even when there are facts that contradict that.

I have no idea whether the current "white house", whatever that means, has done something wrong.  But I do know that politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have been found guilty of wrongdoing, and so I sort of assume that it's possible for any of them.

It is reasonable to assume that all politicians have committed numerous crimes, and that they will not be held accountable for them unless their political enemies control the apparatus of "justice." It would be nice if this were not the case, but alas that's the world we live in.

Even then, it doesn't always happen - there seems to be some sort of unspoken agreement not to go after former presidents, probably because the current ones don't want that to happen to them after they leave office.

Also, I find this constant investigating of political scandals a bit annoying.  It's important to try to hold elected officials to some sort of standard, but we just seem to be replacing one set of flawed folks with the next, and not changing the culture in any significant way.  And, it's costing us a lot of tax dollars to do that, while we have plenty of problems/issues that the government could be working on instead.

Pointedstick wrote: It is reasonable to assume that all politicians have committed numerous crimes, and that they will not be held accountable for them unless their political enemies control the apparatus of "justice." It would be nice if this were not the case, but alas that's the world we live in.

In other parts of the world and at other times I don't think it has been at all uncommon for politicians to end up in jail after their administrations were over. Whether this means we are now more civilized or not I'm not so sure.

If they could have been sent to jail for lying us into war I can name several (popular) presidents who should have suffered that fate based on my reading of history. For some reason that seems to be a highly pardonable sin by the judgment of history though I don't know why.

In modern times I do think Richard Nixon should have gone to prison and not just for Watergate but for the secret war he was waging in Cambodia and Laos which strikes me as far worse than the Watergate crimes.

Yes that secret war was such a secret!  Don't tell anybody.

We have probably thousands of murderous Islamic terrorists living in every one of our 50 states and you want to go after Nixon who probably had more honor and dignity in his pinky finger than both Clintons combined. She needs to be scrutinized because she isn't worthy today of being President based on her beliefs,  actions and lack of moral character.

jafs wrote: we just seem to be replacing one set of flawed folks with the next, and not changing the culture in any significant way.  .

Changing the culture (well past tense) is the problem. BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Sick the IRS on your enemies (not all political crimes are equal), define opposing views as by definition unacceptable.  Having large groups of the population believe lying is acceptable in service of your ends.

jafs wrote: Also, I find this constant investigating of political scandals a bit annoying.  It's important to try to hold elected officials to some sort of standard, but we just seem to be replacing one set of flawed folks with the next, and not changing the culture in any significant way.  And, it's costing us a lot of tax dollars to do that, while we have plenty of problems/issues that the government could be working on instead.

Why would they?  They don't want to eliminate their own jobs and that is the source of the "plenty of problems/issues".  So instead, its all a dog and pony show.  Great job if you can get it!

You misunderstand, Benko.

I mean changing the culture of corruption in politics.

Reub wrote: Yes that secret war was such a secret!  Don't tell anybody.

I hauled cargo up to the Cambodian border on the U.S.S. Brule just before the invasion of Cambodian in 1970. Where were you at the time?

jafs wrote: Well, generally speaking, politicians are a nasty lot, and I don't like them, and they do lots of things I don't like or approve of - and they're often found to have broken a law as well.

But, our system operates according to an "innocent until proven guilty" system.

And, I find that many people jump to conclusions about things much too fast, and based on emotion rather than fact, and tend to immediately assume that those they don't like are up to no good, and those they like are morally superior, even when there are facts that contradict that.

I have no idea whether the current "white house", whatever that means, has done something wrong.  But I do know that politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have been found guilty of wrongdoing, and so I sort of assume that it's possible for any of them.

I bolded your statement above - to me, it is an example of (warning, religious term) original sin.  In my opinion (based on many decades of observing human behavior) we humans are all subject to the possibility of doing abhorant deeds - I consider it a great morning when I wake and realize I survived another day/night without undue hostility from another person or me doing something bad to another person.  I think most of us can sense the evil that is within us, hopefully dormant or surpressed, if we really try to objectively self-observe.  I have my ways of warding off that evil, most others have a way of coping.  The ones that do not have a supression mechanism or do not have a commonly held definition of evil that the rest of us have are the loose cannons.  Just my two cents.

... M

jafs, I miss mathjak more every time that I read one of your posts!