Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to
> >> Clinton and then gave Bush such a hard time.
> >
> > Gore.
>
> When did Gore lose to Clinton? I guess you mean the 1992 nomination?

Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still around. Yet
he got more votes than Bush.

> So having enough money means never borrowing it?

Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.

> That strikes me as an odd definition.

Why? Perhaps you prefer personal spending to be like Reagan or Bush
Administration spending.

> >> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to
> >> borrown money in order to make money.
> >
> > Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and
> > offering a better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example.
>
> Then you concede my point.

No, because you may not like sticking around in a neighborhood in a
deteriorating house for 30 years, or you may not like the possibility of being
the family breadwinner and dying in the decades before a debt is paid. No one
in my family line has died of natural causes, and my own father and his father
died in their mid 50s. I don't feel like obligating my wife until she is 70
years old or more, if I think I'll die much sooner.

> > If
> > property values were increasing about six percent a year, and were
> > somehow able to continue, why would I take out a six percent loan for
> > the next 30 years, when I can put that into something that will grow
> > right now?
>
> No one is telling you that you should.

Then why the question, or surprise?

> > As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the
> > norm, and by the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it
> > will be about time to rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real
> > estate.
>
> I'm not talking about Japan.

Well I am including Japan.

Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my family's
exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real estate bubble?

> > A house for me, is a place to live.
>
> It is for me, too. I think most people would agree.

Can you understand how I would not sell the family home, just to get some
money, even if it were over one million dollars?

> >> Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?
> >
> > Despite being able to afford one, I would prefer not to buy a brand
> > new car. Here in Japan I would prefer to wait four or five years, and
> > buy a sweet car at about half price. Here in Fukuyama is a place
> > where you can buy even a Mercedes 500 series about ten years old, for
> > 90,000 yen during the dealer's periodical 90,000 yen campaign. If
> > other people would like to pay inflated prices to have brand new cars
> > in order to provide me with quality used cars, that is fine.
>
> You didn't answer my question.

Re read the last sentence, please. If it is some person's choice to overpay for
a car, so someone down the line can pick up a real bargain on a sweet car, they
can go right ahead.

As a matter of fact, it would be cool if I could have one of those H2 Hummers.
I do have the cash, but I'm not going to blow it on a car. I hope someone who
likes to show off or be trendy is impressionable enough to buy one new now, so
I can be offered a deal in a handful of years.

> >>> And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
> >>> purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
> >>> wife or family.
> >>
> >> I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past
> >> tense. Is the real estate paid for or not?
> >
> > I do not "invest" in real estate, and I am not going to buy a house
> > while rampant deflation continues, nor am I sure I want to spend
> > decades of my life in Fukuyama while paying off a loan, nor do I know
> > what my future holds while my family would be obligated to pay a
> > decades long loan. I have cash to buy a house. The problem is just
> > where and which one.
>
> Yes or no will do.

No, there is no real estate in my name or intended for me, which I have bought
myself.

> >>>> You never borrow money?
> >>>
> >>> No. Why should I?
> >>
> >> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
> >
> > Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle,
> > surprised that someone is able to make a decent living within their
> > means?
>
> When did I ever say anything about my expectations?

When you said you plan on being a corporate attorney.

> > Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
> > are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
> > home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
>
> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.

Try counting numbers of attacks, or the casualties, or hear from some of the
organizations themselves.

> > Did this level of terrorism occur under the tough talking Bush
> > Administration, who makes veiled threats against other Islamic
> > nations, or under Clinton?
>
> Define level. I am pretty sure the first World Trade Center attack, the
> bombings of the embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, the Air Force
> barracks in Saudi Arabia, and so on occurred while Bill Clinton was
> president of the United States.

Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such organizations, or
view the image of the US abroad.

> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't matter
> who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these two countries are
> whisked away to another planet, the Islamists will keep trying to blow them
> up.

So why hadn't they done it before?

> >>> Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
> >>
> >> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a
> >> good start. Israel does not fuck around.
> >
> > Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the
> > Israeli economy are.
>
> How do you measure safety? The Israeli economy was chugging along just fine
> until the Islamists decided to kick off another season of Blowing Up
> Israelis At Pizza Parlors.

And the Israelis responded by doing such as putting walls around Palestinians
and preventing them from working in the Israeli economy, and pissing off even
more Palestinians and sympathizers by killing more civilians and destroying
more homes and neighborhoods. Precisely.

> > Look at how at ease Israelis are with their
> > government issued gas masks. Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US
> > is becoming and has become.
>
> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?

Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the government has
become regarding foreigners and Muslims?

> > Japan does not have pissed off foreign
> > volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making high profile
> > attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US.
>
> To this I give you a big "so what?" The "pissed off" level of Islamists is
> not a very good barometer of how good a state's foreign policy is. It would
> be nice if homicidal madmen took the advice of leftist bumper stickers, but
> there are several historical examples of where bending over and being polite
> did not turn pure evil into a campfire circle singing "Kumbaya".
>
> What attacks has the US suffered on a regular basis?

I didn't say they were. But the government claims they are planned, and issue
warnings all the time.

> Can you use the regular
> basis to tell us when the next one will be? All the ones that the leftists
> said would happen in response to the Iraq war are a bit overdue. Maybe the
> terrorists didn't get the memo?
>
> > I wonder why.
>
> Because Japan is a US protectorate?

No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently preparing for,
other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are the result of the US
relationship with Japan.