Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!yahoobb218120102067.bbtec.NET!not-for-mail From: Eric Takabayashi Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: That's our Clinton! Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:32:35 +0900 Lines: 317 Message-ID: <3EDB6E12.2CAC393C@yahoo.co.jp> References: <3ED62290.B3B2D0C7@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED62DE0.AAE7A9A0@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED6369A.857DB71F@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED63D50.BD137A8E@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED759AD.43E1D588@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED767E5.C569210C@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED8A653.F693571A@yahoo.co.jp> <3ED9DDBE.D47F2038@yahoo.co.jp> Reply-To: etakajp@yahoo.co.jp NNTP-Posting-Host: yahoobb218120102067.bbtec.net (218.120.102.67) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054567999 9173524 218.120.102.67 (16 [138107]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: ja,en Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:526 Kevin Gowen wrote: > Whatever floats your boat. I call it "home" for a reason, even if I do not live there. BTW, to enjoy a capital gain, not only would I have to sell a property, but if I wanted to buy another home to live in, I would have to get a property less valuable or desirable than the one I gave up, no? There are also handling fees I would lose, yes? > When do you think one should incur debt? When it offers a more attractive return than alternatives such as keeping money in the bank, or investing in stocks or bonds. I recall seeing a map in TIME of the rising property values across the US. Values in some area in Texas were growing about 25% a year. That's nice. The rest of the map was more run of the mill, even around the interest rate. Even some negatives, if I recall. Assuming one can come up with down payment, of course. 20% of $300,000, as is the average single family dwelling in my home state, can be a bitch, as would be qualifying for the loan, when they expect you to be making about four times the monthly payments. In any case, one cannot know about property values ahead of time, or be sure about them, any more than they can about the stock market. > > Are you "wise" enough to always come out with more on your > > investments? > > I'll let you know. So far my two investments have been my property and my > education. I think I'll come out with more on both. But no one bats 1.000. > One just needs to bat more than .500. That's how casinos make money. > > > Why did you never imagine picking up Yahoo! or Yahoo! > > Japan stocks? Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work. > > What line of work do you suggest? If you are so confident and wise, you should be in investments. > >> Ever hear of homeowner's insurance? > > > > It's not enough, as people in my community learned the hard way after > > a hurricane that left about a quarter homeless and caused 1.6 billion > > dollars in damage. I was actually employed by two insurance companies > > after that hurricane, and saw how people got lowballed. > > That sounds like a personal problem. People not being able to repair or rebuild their homes because of insurance companies' low estimates, is a personal problem? > > What it cost my mother to repair her house and bring it up to modern > > building standard with a more substantial frame is almost precisely > > twice what the insurance company offered her to restore the house to > > its original condition, > > Original condition != modern building standard It was not. Modern building standard was an upgrade. > > and means my mother will be paying off a loan > > until she is in her early 90s. With the financial crisis of a number > > of large insurance companies, they also mulled cessation of service > > in so called high risk areas as Hawaii. > > > > Do you know an insurance company that will actually pay the property's > > replacement value? I'd like to hear of it. > > My policy pays for the assessed value of the property for tax purposes plus > a flat amount for the items inside the house. Is the Department of Taxation's "assessed value" of the property what you would actually be able to buy it or a comparable one for? Would you sell your property for an offer of only the "assessed value"? > > So what, is you talk of real estate as if it were a sure thing, when > > it is not. > > I never said that real estate was a sure thing. But you talk about it as if it was, and too bad for the people if it is not. > > So you're one of the lucky ones. It does not work, for many blacks or > > those who live in traditionally minority communities, for example, > > and is one big reason they are economically disadvantaged. > > What does it matter if they are black? Being left behind in home ownership decades ago, is one big reason blacks are behind today, because they don't have the nest eggs that middle class whites do. It does not help that they continue to be discriminated against in other areas such as employment and income. > >> That is too bad, I agree. > > > > Your "that is too bad" is what keeps millions of Americans poor, > > through no fault of their own, > > Sure it is. How are poor returns on real estate people's own fault, when incredible gains can be pure luck? > > yet you would penalize them for not > > being as fortunate as lucky real estate owners like my parents. > > How would I penalize them? By taking away things to support or help them. > > It is the Bush Administration which claims it has thwarted hundreds > > of attacks, and constantly puts Americans on the alert. These > > hundreds of attacks did not take place under Clinton, nor were > > thousands of American lives lost to terror under him. > > I see. So what? Surely you aren't making a post hoc ergo propter hoc > argument? > (You still haven't counted them) I don't need to when the Administration allegedly does. Clinton didn't have such problems, nor did as many attacks the Administration say have been thwarted, take place under Clinton. > >> I find your accusing another person of being paranoid quite rich, > >> Ass Baton. > > > > What of it, Jedi with concealment Kimber? Do you fear Islamist > > terror? I do not. > > Neither do I. Then why would you approve of that much security? > >>> 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. > >> > >> Count them for me. > > > > The Bush Admistration does it. Clinton did not have such troubles. > > No, I was asking about Earth, not EricWorld. You do remember the embassy > bombings in Africa, don't you? I'm talking about Earth. You compare embassy bombings to the World Trade Center and Pentagon, on US soil? > >>> What's Clinton's score? > >> > >> Tell me. > > > > No, you tell me. You hold Clinton responsible for attacks on citizens > > and US interests even abroad when you spout off your list of > > terrorist attacks, but only ask me what attacks have occurred on US > > soil since the 9/11 attacks. Why this convenient qualifier? > > What attacks have I held Clinton responsible for? None. What do you bring up attacks under Clinton for, while inserting the interesting and convenient qualifiers for terrorism under Bush? > This is because I realize that no government can guarantee to thwart every > attack against its people. > > >>> 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. > >> > >> I wasn't asking about EricWorld. I was asking about Earth. > > > > I am talking about Earth. Israel and Jews in the area did not have > > these problems, nor did the US. > > I was talking about Earth, not EricWorld. I am talking about Earth. > >>>> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem > >>>> getting her green card after 9/11. > >>> > >>> So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern? > >> > >> No. I'll tell you this, if she were openly Muslim or Middle Eastern > >> she damn well should have had a bit more trouble getting admitted. > > > > Why should such a person, even if you were married to her, be > > required to go through such trouble? > > They pose a higher risk. So do people who joke about revolting against the US with their gun buddies, but I do not foresee problems for you. Do you? Even if the woman were your own wife, you would accept that being Muslim or Middle Eastern makes them a greater risk, and they damn well should have more trouble? And how does Immigration know that your wife is not a member of Aum or yakuza, an ultra nationalist, or an ultra leftist? How do they know she is not a North Korean agent under a false name with false documents? > >>> Even US citizens are > >>> being targeted for being so because of US paranoia. > >> > >> Again with the paranoia thing. > > > > What of it? Street criminals are a greater danger than Islamist > > organizations, even in the US. > > How do you measure danger? Numbers of incidents and casualties. Probabilities. It would take a hell of a lot of terrorism on US soil to compare to common crimes on US soil. You'd need five days like 9/11 to come up with a comparable number of US murders in a year. And I would still continue to travel, just as I have always done (perhaps even more, if prices continue to go down as they have), as there are about 10,000 safe flights in the US each and every day. Sure we need airport security, but I'm not afraid to travel. If I were more interested in Southeast Asia or the Middle East, I'd go there with my family, too, though I prefer European architecture, food, and culture, myself. How do you measure danger? > >>> 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. > >> > >> Yes, we did. > > > > Then how odd that neither Bush noticed till after 9/11. > > Noticed what? The need for the current mindset about security and terror. > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Do you really think the US-Israeli relationship is a big reason for > >> the threat against the US? > > > > Yes. > > You think wrong. Do you believe the attacks and hate against the US would still be comparable, even if the US and Israel were not such allies? What do you say of such as this? http://tinyurl.com/d99n Rice: IsraelÕs Security Is Key To Security Of Rest Of World Posted 5/14/2003 By Avraham Shmuel Lewin, Israel Correspondent TEL AVIV Ð In an exclusive interview with IsraelÕs daily Yediot Aharonot recently, National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the Òsecurity of Israel is the key to security of the world.Ó Rice added that she feels Òa deep bond to Israel. [snip] http://tinyurl.com/d9a5 Israel to U.S.: Now deal with Syria and Iran By Aluf Benn Two of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior aides will go to Washington for separate talks this week. National Security Advisor Efraim Halevy will discuss the regional implications of the Iraq war and the fall of the Ba'ath regime, and the prime minister's bureau chief Dov Weisglass will bring the White House Israel's comments on the "road map" plan for a peace settlement. Israel will suggest that the United States also take care of Iran and Syria because of their support for terror and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Israel will point out the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers an important target in the war against international terrorism. [snip] Do you believe the attacks and hate against the US would still be comparable, even if the US did not practice double standards in the Middle East regarding such as acts of terror or development or possession of WMD? Israel deserves to exist. They also deserve the means to defend themselves against attack. Do they need offensive force? Should they be allowed to use bulldozers, tanks and military gunships on civilian neighborhoods? Should other nations in the region have any less than Israel? > > What is the reason, then? The US just happens to be a preferred > > target of pure evil? > > They hate western liberalism. The Islamists fear our invasion, but not in > the sense of a military invasion. They fear our cultural invasion. Western > liberalism is a threat to their way of life. They can't figure out why the > west prospers while they are in squalor. They need the west and Israel as > the targets of pure evil. If there were no US or Israel, who would the > Syrian people have to blame for living in that shithole? Answer: their > state. The state doesn't want that. So why don't they target other western nations with weaker security and weaker ties to Israel for such ambitious attacks? Japan would also make a fine target, but they are not.