Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> 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.

And to the Constitution, and for that I am glad.

>>>> 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.

How odd. Does the money in the bank have a higher interest rate than the
appreciate rate of the house? We are talking about Japan, right?

>> 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?

Depends on the situation. I never said that debt is always a good idea, just
as I have never said that no one such ever incur debt. Debt is a means, not
an end.

>> 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,

Then I guess a wise person would not purchase property there.

> or the house is damaged or lost?

Ever hear of homeowner's insurance?

>> 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.

Or gain money. So what?

>>> 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.

Yes. Imagine that.

> 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.

That is too bad, I agree.

>>>>> 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.

Go ahead and count them for me, as I still don't know which ones count in
EricWorld.

> Clinton did not need to be as paranoid as Bush.

No, he only thought he didn't need to be while he was playing footsie with
Iran and telling Sudan that we didn't want bin Laden.

I find your accusing another person of being paranoid quite rich, Ass Baton.

>>> 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.

Count them for me.

>>> 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?

Tell me.

>>>> 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.

I wasn't asking about EricWorld. I was asking about Earth.

>> There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
>
> Then what are the people commonly referred to as Palestinian?

Depends on the person. Yassir Arafat, for example, is Egyptian.

>>>> 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.

Noticed what?

>> 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.

> Even US citizens are
> being targeted for being so because of US paranoia.

Again with the paranoia thing.

> 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.

>>> 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.

I think the Japanese people have become a bit more appreciative of the SOFA
in recent years.

>> 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?

-- 
Kevin Gowen