Kevin Gowen wrote:

> > Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still
> > around. Yet he got more votes than Bush.
>
> Not electoral votes, and those are the only ones that matter.

Right. What more people actually asked for, are irrelevant to you.

> >> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
> >
> > Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
>
> Doesn't answer the question.

You can borrow if you have enough assets to cover repayment, as when I use my
credit cards as an interest free substitute for cash, or the way I might borrow
money for a house, just to keep the equivalent amount of cash in the bank.

> >> That strikes me as an odd definition.
> >
> > Why? Perhaps you prefer personal spending to be like Reagan or Bush
> > Administration spending.
>
> I am better off for incurring the debt I have. I never would have been able
> to go to school if I hadn't taken out these loans.

And what of people who do not make it, or make money as attorneys, for whatever
reason, yet still have loans to pay? Is it still responsible spending?

> You do realize that people who have 30 year mortgages do sell their property
> from time to time before the mortgage is paid off, yes? I'll be doing just
> that next year when I leave this hellhole.

And what of places where property values do not rise like loan interest rates,
or the house is damaged or lost?

> How does a 30 year mortgage oblige you for 30 years? You can sell at any
> time.

And lose money or still have a loan to pay off.

> > 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?
>
> Depends on the property. My property continues to go up in value.

So it works for you, but not for others. Among investment properties my
paternal grandfather bought at least four decades ago, was land in New Mexico,
and Florida land, which are still as good as worthless because development or
improvement of the regions did not occur. Last I heard the New Mexico home site
was worth a grand 900 dollars, with no public utility service planned. Too bad
he did not buy Nevada property instead.

> >>> 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,
>
> Which ones count?

Go ahead and count all of them, or just the ones that make the news, or just
the ones the government claims are always being planned. Clinton did not need
to be as paranoid as Bush.

> > or the casualties, or hear from some
> > of the organizations themselves.
>
> Which organizations?

Go ahead and count all of them. But special attention should be paid to those
who claim to support Palestinians, oppose Israel or the US, because those are
the ones the US seem to concern themselves with most.

> >>> 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.
>
> Have some numbers for these things?

About 3,000 dead, the loss of four aircraft, both World Trade Center towers,
and much of America's sense of security or self confidence, just on September
11 for Bush and his father.

What's Clinton's score?

> >> 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?
>
> Have you been paying attention?

Life in the region which is the current nation of Israel was not always as
dangerous or violent as recently. Jerusalem was actually characterized as a
city where Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in peace.

> There is no such thing as a Palestinian.

Then what are the people commonly referred to as Palestinian?

> >>> 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?
>
> You didn't answer my question.

It isn't relevant if you choose to ignore what the government is doing, or how
the nation has just recently become. Much of the rest of the world has noticed,
but most Americans seem not to.

> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
> getting her green card after 9/11.

So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern? Even US citizens are being
targeted for being so because of US paranoia.

> >>> 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.
>
> Then what was all this "regular basis" nonsense you said above?

I didn't say the US was suffering attacks on a regular basis. Israel is. That's
what the "or" is for. It is the US government who regularly claims that attacks
are always being planned or thwarted. The US didn't need such a mindset under
Clinton.

> > 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.
>
> Then I guess Japan has a decision to make.

Yes, it's too bad Japan does not make the right one and take care of their own
damned international issues or national security. The US military should be at
home among their family and friends where they are loved and appreciated.

> It's too bad that the Japan-US
> relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a few years
> back.

No, Japan foresees trouble from many of the same sources the US does. And
considering Japan does not have a close relationship with Israel, there would
be only one reason for such threats.