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?

>>>> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
>>>> example being home/real property ownership.
>>>
>>> Then they don't have enough money.
>>
>> How do you define having enough money?
>
> Having cash on hand, not having to borrow money from family, friends
> or banks. I had money in the bank, but it was tied up, thus I "did
> not have enough money" to buy Yahoo! Japan stocks or invest in the
> stock market until it was already near its peak.

So having enough money means never borrowing it? That strikes me as an odd
definition.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> A house for me, is a place to live.

It is for me, too. I think most people would agree.

> It is hardly relevant that my
> family's property values have shot up, because I don't want to sell
> off the family house, the only house I have ever known, or my
> grandfather's 19th century house to get at that money (minus taxes).

I see.

>>> Going into debt for property
>>> ownership is only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or
>>> one cares to commit themselves for a few decades of residence or
>>> repayment.
>>
>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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.

>>> 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.

> 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?

> 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? 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?

-- 
Kevin Gowen