Ahh, the old "It's always going to be a problem so its not worth doing anything about it" appeal to defeat.

That something is hard doesn't make it less worthwhile, that something is seemingly imposssible doesn't make it impossible - and therefore not worth trying. To give up because something worth doing seems like too much effort is simply pathetic.

Promises will go unmet, and others will be kept. Deadlocks will happen, defeats will happen, but that doesn't make the attempt worthless because ultimately victories happen too, and those can be built upon into the future.

a person in the income bracket labeled "high risk" going to be able to afford Tildy? Not a terribly good one. Good lawyers cost money, and most of these people in that position don't have that much to spare.

And tell me, someone who isn't terribly good with money, who is a known credit risk for one reason or another, where is that person going to go to find a lawyer? Why, he is going to go to the guy the person offering him the loan recomends.

What America, or anywhere really, needs in order to build its economy is not debt, its cold, hard cash in the hands of the people who are buying.

Less emphasis on debt-as-wealth (As portrayed by any rap-star sports-star bull market mogul), more emphasis on the good old truism: You are rich when you don't need to borrow money to be able to afford what you want.

So you are saying the Soviet Union didn't fall in the last 30 years? That Clinton's years didn't see record surplusses? That oil prices, subsequent to Carter, didn't go down?

That the internet didn't happen? That improved environmental standards didn't lead to the slow-closing of the hole in the ozone layer?

The last six years were terrible, but that doesn't mean that nothing has been achieved in the last thirty.

I wasn't talking about Thompson there, I was talking about why leftwingers would support Kucinich. Kucinish's support isn't based on charisma, its based on solid issues where Kucinich was right.

Tildes

America's standing only really suffered under Bush Jnr. Under Clinton America enjoyed quite a solid positive rating in most of the world.

Also, which would you rather have? Someone who overpromises and underdelivers, or someone who underpromises and still manages to underdeliver?

The vast majority would be owner occupied.

People who buy multiple homes tend to have a lot of collateral or the ability to fake it, thus reducing their risk ratings enough for them to get "normal" loans as opposed to subprime loans.

Anybody can read Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, the Tao Te Ching or whatever.

Anybody can read WWI poetry, great epics like Horatius, and read Shakespeare. Anybody can quote anybody, from Aristotle to Voltaire.

Anybody can read any of the above, as a substitute for thinking for themselves. Intellegence is not defined by literacy, it is not defined by educational level, it is defined by the ability to take note of inconvenient facts and adapt accordingly.

Intellect is not being charming or well read, it is the ability to be wrong and learn from being wrong. If you are incapable of admitting an error you are not intellegent, no matter who you read, you are just an educated fool.

He is a stupid person who has enough power to do real damage.

Brainless does not equal harmless.

They were, for the most part, Saudi Arabians inspired by a Saudi Arabian nationalist who declared a Jihad on America due to American military bases being put on Saudi Arabian soil.

Of course, this meant that the only logical answer was to invade Iraq, a country which was opposed to Saudi Arabia and had no involvement in 9/11.

Two quick reasons why I don't think 9/11 was due to Bush.

1: Bush ran and hid on the day. He delivered a short speech and then disapeared into a bunker. Given that Bush is a grandstanding coward, I doubt he would have gone into hiding if he wasn't deeply afraid of having a Boeing landing on his head.

2: If it wasn't due to the planes, there would have been no need for the planes - and given that it was essentially the air lobbies that stopped Gore's added air security measures (Which would have stopped 9/11) Bush wasn't exactly out to make America's airlines look bad.

largely supports the official story - that two planes crashed into the towers, and made them fall.

WTC7 was condemned before the attack and probably with good reason.

While there are lots of sites calling 9/11 an inside job but, speaking to architects and engineers I know and trust, the official line on how 9/11 happened is pretty much made for me.

Of course, whether there was massive negligence, or malice involved in letting it happen from the administration's point of view is less clear.

Go watch any "Dumb hick comes to the big city" or "Dumb big city snob comes to the country" movie. Go watch any action movie. Go read any comic book. Go look at the popularity of figures like Paris Hilton.

Go look at America's repeated attempts to make creationism look legitimate, global warming look mythical and stem-cell research look unethical.

Go look at the whole "Liberal X source of information" series of myths.

Go look at Uncle Remus, and how the black community loathed the idea of being identified with what ammounted to being a bright old man fighting for his freedom in his own quiet way.

America glorifies the stupid, the shallow, and the seflish. It has been doing this for so long that it was only a matter of time before America ended up with a stupid, selfish and shallow president.

Hopefully, Bush has signalled the end of this. Probably not though.

You aren't being contrasted to the middle east. Indeed any contrast between the American right and the middle east would be difficult, seen as both groups seem to have largely the same aims.