The Audacity of Loan Default

Filed under:Jerks,Politics — posted by Anwyn on April 1, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

The crazy isn’t just coming out of the wife:

It’s also time to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren’t forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair.

Also sprach Obamessiah. The culture of stupidity and irresponsibility will march on proudly under Obama’s banner–why bother to read the terms of your loan and decide for yourself if you can stick them or not? Under The Obama Nursery, you won’t have to!

The infuriating hypocrisy of people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year firstly making noises to the effect that they don’t have enough money or, more believably, don’t manage it so that they save enough, and then soothing the herd–“there there, there there”–with promises that they won’t have to try, won’t have to save their money or manage it, won’t have to pay attention to the way they run their lives because the government will bail them out with the money of those who do is beyond reproach–it’s all the way to “outcry,” but it remains to be seen how much of one there will be before this clown is actually elected, since apparently there’s not going to be enough to deny him his deluded party’s nomination.

Silly Allah, Victory Is for Thugs

Filed under:Jerks,Politics,Priorities — posted by Anwyn @ 7:01 am

Allah wants to know how Obama defines victory. However he might define it, he’s not going to get it by keeping “a strike force” somewhere “in the region.” How is a strike force not an occupation? And if it is an occupation, how could he justify keeping it somewhere else, any more than he can in Iraq? But that’s beside the point that Obama and others of his ilk will always refuse to define victory, because the word presupposes a cause of action, one that might even be justified and whose success might be desirable. And that would wreck the whole foundation of their platform. Listen in vain–Obama will never say what would have defined success in Iraq because that presupposes a justification to be there, even while he proposes keeping an undefined body of troops in an undefined location to perform semi-defined tasks to a level of undefined success–because to define that success would imply that the other side has a perfectly good operating definition of their own.

Update: See?

McCain has not specified the number of troops he will keep in Iraq or the length of time they will be kept there. Obama has willfully distorted this position and implied that McCain wants to keep U.S. forces enmeshed in a century long war in Iraq. Fine. Distorting the other guys position is part of the game–or at least that’s how the “old politics” worked. But Obama can’t have it both ways. His Iraq plan also involves keeping an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified length of time. The difference? McCain’s objective is victory. Obama’s objective, like the details of his strike force, remains unspecified.

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace