Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:16 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:
Reub wrote: It's not about any of those issues and never was. It's about creating voter blocks that you can count on. Soon they will have a new one.
Why would Muslim immigrants vote Democrat when they're even more conservative than Santorum?

Because Republicans don't like them, I guess. Something like 70% of Muslims voted for Bush in 2000, but turned against him in 2004 (big surprise). The irony is that if Americans do what Obama calls for and is perfectly tolerant of Muslims, his party loses that constituency.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:26 pm**

His party is the new protector of Muslims. Eureka! New votes you can depend on!

So why worry that some of them are going to kill a lot of women and children, impose Sharia law in their neighborhoods, cause a diminishment of our freedoms with their murderous practices, and wreck our economy in the process.

Btw, Donald Trump called today for a complete immigration ban on Muslims until we can figure this out. Our very own Marine Le Pen!

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:28 pm**

Reub wrote: Who says that bombing the hell out of ISIS over there won't help to stop lone wolf terrorists over here? That's utter nonsense...like most left wing and libertarian views on fighting radical Islamic terrorism.

Can you explain your logic so we can understand it instead of just saying we're all a bunch of left wingers and libertarians who don't understand these things as well as you do?

Malik, or whatever her name was, was a Pakistani, a country we are not even at war with, even though Bin Laden was (supposedly) found hiding there and killed. How would she have been deterred by bombing the hell out of ISIS? If your all-out war includes a moratorium on immigration from muslim countries then maybe you have a point, but if we are going to continue to do what we are doing, as Steve Sailer describes it, "Invade the world, invite the world" then I can't see how any number of troops or bombs in the middle east are going to have any effect on keeping terrorists from coming over here and will probably make things even worse.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:43 pm**

These people want to kill and die for a worthy cause. If you annihilate the hub of that cause it no longer is so inviting.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:48 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:26 pm**

It's real easy to feel "let's just nuke em!". But after you calm down, tell me how the American existence is threatened. In the big picture, the recent terror attacks are a flea on an elephant. Not to those involved, but in aggregate. It's our reactions that encourage them, and play into their plans.

I'm for killing them where we can. But I am against this crazy reaction to go to ground war, when
A) previous ones have failed spectacularly so far, and
B) it's what they want us to do.

I am anti-war, but it's not 100%. However in this case, I'm against it. We might have justification, which is something we have not had much of since the end of WW2. But having justification isn't enough, if there is not a way to win, or even a way to keep it won if we do "win". What see Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:30 pm**

Reub wrote: These people want to kill and die for a worthy cause. If you annihilate the hub of that cause it no longer is so inviting.

Thanks. I think I understand your logic better now. You think a show of overwhelming force and American resolve will demoralize the enemy and convince him (her) that the cause is hopeless and should be abandoned. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll have to think about it but but it sounds like the failed Vietnam strategy all over again to me, just on a much bigger scale and possibly an even more determined enemy.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:31 pm**

My prediction, what will cause ISIS's downfall: We won't be able to kill it. It will burn up from within. Maybe a basic power struggle, factions with different beliefs, internal discord due to lack of goal achievement, etc. It's way too volatile to have a long half life.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:05 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: Because Republicans don't like them, I guess. Something like 70% of Muslims voted for Bush in 2000, but turned against him in 2004 (big surprise). The irony is that if Americans do what Obama calls for and is perfectly tolerant of Muslims, his party loses that constituency.

What if Muslims start a third party?

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:07 pm**

Fred wrote:

What is that supposed to mean?

I notice she's not wearing a full face veil.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:12 pm**

Fred wrote:
Reub wrote: These people want to kill and die for a worthy cause. If you annihilate the hub of that cause it no longer is so inviting.
Thanks. I think I understand your logic better now. You think a show of overwhelming force and American resolve will demoralize the enemy and convince him (her) that the cause is hopeless and should be abandoned. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll have to think about it but but it sounds like the failed Vietnam strategy all over again to me, just on a much bigger scale and possibly an even more determined enemy.

Vietnam was a "police action". The ultimate solution is not a "police action" or a show of force and resolve, but elimination. There is no bringing the RIFFF's (Radical Islamist Fundamentalist Fanatical Fascists) to the negotiating table. They don't want to and don't care to negotiate. Death is the only option.

Now if we don't go over there and get rid of them, we're going to be in an eternal "police action" at home playing defense. That is the stuff of dystopian scifi movies. Do you want that reality? I know the law-enforcement-industrial-complex and their cronies would love that.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:18 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:
Fred wrote:
What is that supposed to mean?

I notice she's not wearing a full face veil.

Sorry, I thought I was making myself clear.

Obama and Hillary (and others, including some Republicans) made comments in regards to the idea of restricting immigration from Muslim countries, subtly accusing others of bigotry, saying "That's not who we are".

So I'm just throwing it back in their faces.

In my opinion those two people do not represent "American Values" as I have come to know them and should not have been let into the country. It's not "who we are".

Hope that clears my thinking up.

Feel free to call me a bigot, racist, whatever. Don't really care any more.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:31 pm**

Reub wrote: These people want to kill and die for a worthy cause. If you annihilate the hub of that cause it no longer is so inviting.

I would love to see this fleshed out more and analyzed. I highly doubt if you attack them overseas that they'll stop attacking domestically. In fact I'm quite sure the opposite is true.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:45 pm**

Well, eventually you'll kill them all and potential recruits will realize that joining the cause is a death wish and they'll be killed before they can accomplish anything.

I think this kind of "kill your way out of war" idea is what conservatives have in mind, and it's not that it wouldn't eventually work, but that it is not politically feasible. These are the same voices who said or would have said that we could have won Vietnam, we just needed to stay longer and kill more of them. Well, maybe so, but the point was that the insurgency strategy worked to to demoralize the troops and erode support at home to the point where that option wasn't on the table. If anything the conditions have moved farther in favor of less war since then, so the "kill our way out of war" solution seems like it has no chance of being implemented and therefore other approaches are needed.

And this is of course completely ignoring the effects such a policy would have on our international diplomacy and domestic culture.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:54 pm**

moda0306 wrote: I would love to see this fleshed out more and analyzed. I highly doubt if you attack them overseas that they'll stop attacking domestically. In fact I'm quite sure the opposite is true.

I think the point in that respect is to end them from using social media to exploit our vulnerable children and young adults, from publishing their death pr0n in their propaganda magazine as well as their Youtube propaganda videos, and to organize their adherents. Basically, we need to treat them as Germany did about Nazism after WWII. It's not even political ideology at stake, its apocalyptic doom porn under guise of a cult religion.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:33 am**

Pointedstick wrote: Well, eventually you'll kill them all and potential recruits will realize that joining the cause is a death wish and they'll be killed before they can accomplish anything.

I think this kind of "kill your way out of war" idea is what conservatives have in mind, and it's not that it wouldn't eventually work, but that it is not politically feasible. These are the same voices who said or would have said that we could have won Vietnam, we just needed to stay longer and kill more of them. Well, maybe so, but the point was that the insurgency strategy worked to to demoralize the troops and erode support at home to the point where that option wasn't on the table. If anything the conditions have moved farther in favor of less war since then, so the "kill our way out of war" solution seems like it has no chance of being implemented and therefore other approaches are needed.

And this is of course completely ignoring the effects such a policy would have on our international diplomacy and domestic culture.

I would object to it also on moral grounds.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:21 am**

Libertarian666 wrote: I would object to it also on moral grounds.

It's kill or be killed and they coerced that choice on you. Deal with it or you'll wind up dead.

It's not as if the government is going to competently protect you at all times or if they even have a legal obligation to do so. I've never understood how Republicans can reconcile their loathing of the state, yet glorify law enforcement. The corruption and incompetence is U-N-I-V-E-R-S-A-L not magically excluding the latter just because they got a hard on for it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:37 pm**

Fred wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
Fred wrote:
What is that supposed to mean?

I notice she's not wearing a full face veil.
Sorry, I thought I was making myself clear.

Obama and Hillary (and others, including some Republicans) made comments in regards to the idea of restricting immigration from Muslim countries, subtly accusing others of bigotry, saying "That's not who we are".

So I'm just throwing it back in their faces.

In my opinion those two people do not represent "American Values" as I have come to know them and should not have been let into the country. It's not "who we are".

Hope that clears my thinking up.

Feel free to call me a bigot, racist, whatever. Don't really care any more.

Can this picture be taken down because it is blasphemous to billions of people?

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:44 pm**

So the bottom line is we need a litmus test to separate the apostates from the RIFFF's. And this will be in the hands of our omniscient, all-powerful, never-admit-a-mistake Federal government who can't even secure our borders. I feel safe already.

Hey Greg, make you'll get more bang for your labor if you focus on lightweight, personal body armor... just a thought.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 6:06 pm**

That picture is extremely blasphemous!

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:30 pm**

MachineGhost wrote: So the bottom line is we need a litmus test to separate the apostates from the RIFFF's. And this will be in the hands of our omniscient, all-powerful, never-admit-a-mistake Federal government who can't even secure our borders. I feel safe already.

Hey Greg, make you'll get more bang for your labor if you focus on lightweight, personal body armor... just a thought.

That'd make sense MG and probably be better than what I currently do at times. I work on a professional tattletale machine called an AN/TPQ-53 radar. Pretty much says where the bad guys are when they shoot a rocket off and tells good people to run from where the rocket will land.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:41 pm**

I would totally wear clothing made entirely out of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and boron carbide cotton.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:34 am**

Greg wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: So the bottom line is we need a litmus test to separate the apostates from the RIFFF's. And this will be in the hands of our omniscient, all-powerful, never-admit-a-mistake Federal government who can't even secure our borders. I feel safe already.

Hey Greg, make you'll get more bang for your labor if you focus on lightweight, personal body armor... just a thought.
That'd make sense MG and probably be better than what I currently do at times. I work on a professional tattletale machine called an AN/TPQ-53 radar. Pretty much says where the bad guys are when they shoot a rocket off and tells good people to run from where the rocket will land.

I've seen your radar in action, keep up the good work.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:54 am**

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Greg wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: So the bottom line is we need a litmus test to separate the apostates from the RIFFF's. And this will be in the hands of our omniscient, all-powerful, never-admit-a-mistake Federal government who can't even secure our borders. I feel safe already.

Hey Greg, make you'll get more bang for your labor if you focus on lightweight, personal body armor... just a thought.
That'd make sense MG and probably be better than what I currently do at times. I work on a professional tattletale machine called an AN/TPQ-53 radar. Pretty much says where the bad guys are when they shoot a rocket off and tells good people to run from where the rocket will land.
I've seen your radar in action, keep up the good work.

Thanks!

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:33 pm**

I was struck with the new SUV that the pair were gunned down in... I initially wondered how they could afford such a car but came to understand later that it was a rental...

As far as funding internal terrorism:

Per Rueters:

Online lender Prosper recently made a $28,500 loan to Syed Rizwan Farook who, along with his wife, killed 14 people at a holiday party last week in San Bernardino, California, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining financial activity they engaged in before their attack, a U.S. government source said earlier on Tuesday.

Authorities have said that Farook, 28, and wife Tashfeen Malik, 29, were radicalized Muslims who committed an act of terror. While investigations into such attacks often focus on how they were financed, the Reuters source and two other informed government officials said there are no indications the money trail in this case links the couple with any foreign group.

...only in America...

Gyroscopic Investing

Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California

Re: Religion Of Peace Visits California