chucK

I would think that the government "fix" is not going to make everybody happy happy. The damage is done. People are now aware of the holes in the system. I think a government "fix" may just soften the decline (long term slow sag, versus catastrophic drop). For those itching to buy a house as soon as possible this might be dismaying, but it would be nice if we could avoid all the crazy stuff that might happen with a total implosion. I don't think anyone is going to get terribly punished by a govt. "fix", and they might just be saved from calamity (like the business they work for going under, or their home-downpayment fund that's currently in mutual funds losing 50% of its value). Plus, if this becomes a standard thing, you might just be benefited in the future by the increased stability of your future home investment.

"Buy when there’s blood in the streets." Lowball, lowball, then lowball some more. You'll probably make a shitload of enemies but eventually be able to fleece some desperate sad-sack out of their entire life savings. Hopefully it will be some overconsuming POS instead of a feeble grandmother or starving single-parent family so you can feel smug rather than shitty. But in any case, the tens of thousands of dollars you will save can buy a pretty damn fine sink (for washing your hands).

Democratic base bitterness

You guys sound just like the Republicans when they argue that welfare helps only the welfare cheats, who argue that the Iraq War kills only terrorists, that all people our govt. tortures and eavesdrops upon are terrorists, that gun control laws would only make it harder for good people to get guns. I'd wager that any fairly reasonable plan designed to help maxed-out borrowers would help poor people keep their homes AND would help speculating, overconsuming assholes. A good plan will do the best to maximize the former and minimize the latter, but no giant government plan is going to get it perfect. Like we love to yell at the conservative kill-em-all warmongers, it's NOT all black and white.

How exactly are people who made the right decision being punished? The only thing I can think of is by higher taxes (or less services) because govt. money is going toward the dumbshits. In that case, everybody who pays taxes or gets govt. services is being punished. The basic idea, I think, is to prop up the struggling economy so we don't all pay a lot more due to a catastrophic crash (though it could just be election-year pandering). Sort of the reason they bailed out Bear-Stearns, a lot of people had money tied up in Bear-Stearns, and if they went broke those people's money would be tied up for years in bankruptcy procedings (which could be really fucked for retired people using those investments for income). It's counterproductive to think that all of us who didn't make a stupid investment are being punished. It's more like those who did aren't getting punished as much as some would like. There's a difference.

No, just Les is more "real" but less entertaining.

Bear Gryllis = Mac/Wii Les Stroud = PC/PSP MFoyp71xw3w&NR

Could she possibly be a deep-cover mole for the GOP?

Man, we must just be on totally different wavelengths. Carry on!

I've got 7.5mm rope. I got all concerned about the small-diameter prussik thing and bought 5mm prussik cord (Man that's thin! Not very confidence inspiring). Afterwards, I thought about it and just tried out ascending the rope with 6mm prussiks. Worked just fine for that application. Moral of the story is: It's good to be cautious and listen to doomsayers on the internet, but don't blindly trust them all the time. (Hopefully it goes without saying that it's even worse to blindly trust foolish optimists on the internet. If you do decide to take 6mm prussiks and an 8mm rope, then you really should at least try it out in your backyard first before getting to the dangling in a crevasse part.)

I wonder if Peter's question is answered yet?

We bought in 1998 too! I don't think they hawked an ARM but they did indicate they'd be willing to offer us a loan that would have had payments more than we were taking home after our fixed expenses. They didn't want to hear anything about our very predictable fixed things like daycare.

???? I think I replied with a basic variant of "I don't know how they would rule, didn't I? Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer? How would the Supreme court rule Peter?

Not our gun ownership rights, but theirs. Using our experience as a model, and going on the premise that it should be the right of a populace to bear arms to hold off a tyrannical government, then it seems to logically follow that these folks in Basra, clearly fearful of being controlled by a tyrannical government should be allowed to bear arms. Unless, of course, one could make a clear distinction between their situation and ours, between our fear of tyrannical despots and theirs, etc...

I think I did, in my reply post.

I think it's pretty clear that the Iraqis in Basra find themselves to be under the control of tyrannical government. That is why they are fighting and shooting and stuff.

Peter, The wording of your question confused me, though I did manage to parse it successfully I guess? To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal. This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was.

OK Archenemy, sorry to not to be understanding you. Maybe this would clear things up for me: You wrote: emphasis mine What would be "the reason" for the existence of our gun-rights statutes. (If you reply with "because it's in the constitution", I will cry ) And I promise no more questions.

The Supreme Court is deciding that one as we speak. Though appearances can be deceiving, the oral arguments seemed to imply that the justices were leaning more toward making machine-gun ownership legal than toward upholding the D.C. gun ban (which the Bush administration solicitor general spoke in favor of BTW).

Archenemy, Can you summarize at least a few of the reasons that you think the gun ownership thing is more than mere words on a piece of paper. I honestly don't see any reasoning in your posts on this point other than Those don't tell my why you think so, but just what you think. I'm most interested in what reasons there are that should give us these rights while denying them to others.

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal. If you are asking me whether the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, I think that's fine. I still don't know how gun rights advocates would feel about that vis-a-vis their guns though. I'd guess (though of course, I do not presume to speak for Archenemy) that they would be even more reluctant to lay down their arms if open warfare were going on inside the US. See my post above.

Of course you don't have to justify anything to me. I am still asking a question. If you don't want to answer just don't post.

Did they make guns illegal in the South after their defeat in the Civil War? I truthfully do not know. Would you support that though? How about if, say LA goes up in flames after the assassination of a presidential candidate. Police can't quell violence for a week. Would you support a decree having everyone give up there guns? What about a less stringent case? What about Washington D.C. an urban area with a very high rate of violent crime. Would you support gun restriction meant to quell violence and help the police gain control of the situation? Where does the slope get slippery?

You certainly are keeping your cards close to the vest. If you think the right to own guns goes deeper than mere words on paper, you haven't given any justification, besides "I personally believe".

Your answers all seem to come down to "it's the law". The "law" is merely words unless there's something to back it up. Possible foundations could be: a) hey, it works! b) it's a good way to prevent abuses of power, c) it will grease the wheels of commerce, d) it will keep people from dying...etc. Saying, "it's the law", "Sucks to be them if their govt. doen't want a law like that", and "I enjoy shooting" all seem to say to me that you enjoy our law, are thankful that it is what it is, but you don't see any more significance to it, especially not enough to want to meddle in other people's affairs about it. Perhaps I misunderstand your reasonings, but just summarizing my take. And thanks for responding.