At Home

I'm in favor of keeping it at 21.

Saw Radiohead and Beck tonight. Amazing.

My love.

I'm still really waiting for an aggressive campaign from the Dems. It doesn't have to be slanderous, dirty, or overbearing, but I don't think anyone is going to say that there isn't a lot on the line this fall. The election is 2 and a half months away, yet the only real action is business as usual punctuated by Obama "slamming" McCain on just one issue, which usually never amounts to anything more than "McCain's policies will lead this country into Bush territory." McCain's a pretty easy target. There's a lot to hammer him on. I've said this time and time again, but when is an aggressive campaign going to rear its head? Also, Time reports that McCain picked Romney, and says, "if you're the wagering type, bet on Biden for Obama."

Because the joos own arugula

Getting back to hitting women, I'm for it.

Bush was the incumbent, and in wartime too. Not to mention that he ran against John Kerry, who ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history.

Damn you, feeding into my worst vices. Youtube comments from truthers and shit are pretty hilarious. "WE GAVE OSAMA MONEY LOOK AT THE FACTS OMG" We gave Osama Bin Laden money in the 1980s to fight Russia in Afghanistan, as well as to plan 9/11 HAHAHA SUCH WONDERFUL FORESIGHT.

I don't know what you're trying to say, Jingus. Of course he's going to talk like that. This isn't CNN, you're allowed to be biased.

What's your history of/current exercise? I used to be into baseball and basketball a lot, but never really did a serious sport until I took up kayaking. Worked on my abs a lot. Now I just ride my bike. I've always had strong legs though. Even before riding, I could leg press up to about 350.

Okay.

Did anyone miss this?

I don't know how to continue to respond to you. You told me that I wanted to watch people suffer (untrue), and I turned that around on you and asked how you wanted to wildly throw money out at fools (also, untrue)? It's also not true that bailing people who get fucked in these subprime mortgage deals will prevent economic disaster. Because that's the kind of situation Japan's economy is in right now, and it is about as fragile as ice. After the 80's boom in Japan, lots of people and businesses went under, but the government bailed them out, so right now, there's a giant populace of totally ineffective and, moreover BANKRUPT businesses as well as people. Their economy could completely collapse in a matter of days. Eric, do you understand what a business cycle is? Do you understand that in a recession, some institutions have to go under? Of course they're going to pull us down. A recession tends to do that. My parents aren't millionaires. They're successful realtors, but they get to feel the crunch just like everybody else.

Yes, us Norwegians can be quite generous.

I don't got a problem with suckin off Judd. But maybe carving out the Bay Area for me and Dave would be good.

YES I REALIZE THAT, ERIC. I KNOW WHAT A RECESSION MEANS AND WHAT IT DOES TO REGULAR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME.

Well, yes, you are, but that's besides the main point. My other point is that the recession isn't the worst thing in the world. Fannie Mae and the other one are going down because they aren't efficient enough to survive a recession. That's the whole point of a recession.

No, Eric, I don't want to see them suffer. That is the wrong way to put it. In fact, that is exactly how I expected you to misunderstand it and then put it. So, I guess on the flip side, you want to waste my money by giving it to fools? There's a little more to this. There were many reasons that lead into the recession. A country, obviously, doesn't just go into a recession; several economists agree that about 6 months any pundit was beginning to even think about recession, that the economy was beginning to go down. It's a business cycle. With government spending through the roof on the war, pushing GDP and consumption spending up, it had to come to an end sometime. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a recession, it exists to level out wages and the basic forces in the economy.

I don't care if it's callous or not, that's just where I consider myself to be more conservative or not. You can blame the subprime loan business (which is legitimate) and you can blame the people who sign for them (also equally as legitimate). Perhaps the threat of no federal help once you get in the red would prove to be a greater stimulus against taking shitty loan offers. The subprime loan business is dirty, but let's also not forget that there are people who can pay them off as well. You just simply cannot take subprime loans off the market because some people are actually able to follow through with the risk instead of getting buried in debt (which is almost 100% because they take loans out that they couldn't possibly pay anyways, but in the hopes of skating by with a low interest rate). It's like I'd love people to stop eating McDonalds, but that is not in the cards. But anyway you spin it, like I said before, these people put their signature on risky loans. No matter how egregiously dirty a business can be, if it's completely legal, then you can only put so much on the business. The loan business is complicated (I know personally, it's a huge part of my parent's business), that's true, but they're required to put everything down for you on record by law. No possible way to get around it. If you sign it, all the binding terms and conditions are yours and yours alone to deal with. If it's going to be between bailing no one out and bailing everyone out, then, yes, fuck 'em. I'm not sure how it's possible to solve or even approach the deep-seeded problems that you talk about in the foreseeable future, but as for now, this is where I'm planting my feet. I've made my case for the subprime loan market and whatever you can extrapolate from that, and it's where I deviate from the left-wing path. But also getting back to the topic, if your pay raise can't really match the rate of inflation, then you kind of have to take it. It's too bad that Marvin got a raise, though.

That's why they get to sit in their stew when people file for bankruptcy. The fact that these loans had wildly variable interest rates is their defining characteristics. If those people couldn't understand that, it's not my fault, and (to me) it's irresponsible to use federal money to bail these people out.

Shame on those people for ruining the economy? Come on. There are a lot of factors at play. Edit: I just read that again. You are such a fucking piece of shit. People "whining and complaining?" ABOUT NOT HAVING AN INCOME? Fuck you. RE: CG's "basis of me being liberal" post. I think economics and such is one area where I consider myself moderate to conservative. Take that whole variable rate loan scare. The loans were unfair, and caused a lot of people to go bankrupt. They weren't illegal, though. Nevertheless, a lot of people were calling for the government to help bail these people out. I don't want me and my parents tax dollars to help these people out. There were much safer loan options, it was their fault for taking the loans no matter how you spin it, and even outlawing those kinds of loans are unfair because they don't allow the people who can afford those loans to take them. It's the responsibility for the lender to work these problems out, not my tax dollars. I don't really believe that they are the main/only cause for the recession, but the recession isn't the worst thing for us. One of the benefits of a recession is that inefficient businesses go bye-bye, and thus these lenders who give out dangerous loans will feel the pinch, and many of them will go under as a result of that. Essentially, I feel that if people dig their own grave, they get to sit in it. I'm socially liberal in the sense that I'd like my tax dollars to go programs to help bring people out of terrible situations that they were born into instead. After all, you wouldn't let your tax dollars go to help gamblers, why let it go to people who gambled with shitty home loans? They, like a casino gambler, knew the risks from the beginning. Written in paper.

First airing of Scooby Doo was in 1969, so it couldn't have come before that.

It's Obama's fault that we're not winning because he voted not to increase military spending. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT. VOTING NOT TO FLUSH MORE MONEY INTO THE IRAQ WAR?

First glimpses of a hangover today. ± A dozen shots of whiskey and some high-shelf vodka.

Well I was 9 in 2000. I like the medal count version anyways. I think that's better than just counting golds.