Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Right, and if Bush had fallen behind in the Florida vote count, you
> would have just rolled over and accepted it.

No. I would have got all my gun nut buddies together and we would have
revolted.

>>> 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?
>
> No, the same would apply to even the fastest appreciating house. If I
> buy a house, it is because I like it and want to live in and keep it.
> I don't sell houses to get cash, much less the family house I grew up
> in.

Whatever floats your boat.

>>> 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,
>
> Then how can you assert nothing or "not a thing" is wrong with deficit
> spending?

Because there is nothing wrong with it per se, just as there is nothing
wrong with eating per se.

>> just as I have never said that no one such ever incur debt.
>
> Neither have I.

When do you think one should incur debt?

>>>> 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.
>
> 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?

>>> or the house is damaged or lost?
>>
>> 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.

> 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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

>> 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.

> yet you would penalize them for not
> being as fortunate as lucky real estate owners like my parents.

How would I penalize 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 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.

>>> 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?

>>> 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. 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.

>>>> 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.
>
> Then why does even Israel refer to them as Palestinians?

Because they are mistaken. We need another Golda Meir.

>>>> 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.

>>> 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?

>>> 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?

>>>> 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.

> 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.

-- 
Kevin Gowen