[XBoxBoy]

> At this rate of decline, sometime in 2010 house
> prices will hit zero.

Actually if that’s correct, and we assume that houses will not go to zero, then you make a strong argument that the bottom will be sooner than 2010. Very good news IMHO.

[XBoxBoy]

> At this rate of decline, sometime in 2010 house
> prices will hit zero.

Actually if that’s correct, and we assume that houses will not go to zero, then you make a strong argument that the bottom will be sooner than 2010. Very good news IMHO.

[XBoxBoy]

> At this rate of decline, sometime in 2010 house
> prices will hit zero.

Actually if that’s correct, and we assume that houses will not go to zero, then you make a strong argument that the bottom will be sooner than 2010. Very good news IMHO.

[XBoxBoy]

When I read about this story on various blogs, I often see suggestions that the Fed was behind this deal, twisting BofA’s arm to make it happen. Anyone have any idea how the fed twists a large banks arm? What leverage can they use other than to ask pretty please with cream and sugar and a cherry on top?

Inquiring minds want to know.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

When I read about this story on various blogs, I often see suggestions that the Fed was behind this deal, twisting BofA’s arm to make it happen. Anyone have any idea how the fed twists a large banks arm? What leverage can they use other than to ask pretty please with cream and sugar and a cherry on top?

Inquiring minds want to know.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

When I read about this story on various blogs, I often see suggestions that the Fed was behind this deal, twisting BofA’s arm to make it happen. Anyone have any idea how the fed twists a large banks arm? What leverage can they use other than to ask pretty please with cream and sugar and a cherry on top?

Inquiring minds want to know.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

When I read about this story on various blogs, I often see suggestions that the Fed was behind this deal, twisting BofA’s arm to make it happen. Anyone have any idea how the fed twists a large banks arm? What leverage can they use other than to ask pretty please with cream and sugar and a cherry on top?

Inquiring minds want to know.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

When I read about this story on various blogs, I often see suggestions that the Fed was behind this deal, twisting BofA’s arm to make it happen. Anyone have any idea how the fed twists a large banks arm? What leverage can they use other than to ask pretty please with cream and sugar and a cherry on top?

Inquiring minds want to know.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Regardless of whether the president has much impact on your life, as a Californian, your vote has virtually no impact on who will be elected. In political circles it’s a given that whoever the Democrats run in California will win ALL of the electorial college votes for the state of California. And I guarantee this year will be no different. In the last several elections the republican candidate has not even bothered to do anything more than one or two token appearances in California.

There are three ways you can look at this:
1) Not vote since the result is a foregone conclusion.
2) Be a good sheeple and vote Democratic and enjoy the fact you voted for the winning candidate.
3) Vote for some radical nutcase candidate, hoping to send a “message” that you are fed up with the lousy bums the demrepubs give us.

My personal preference is #3, but then again I never have had much sense and always had a soft spot for radical nutcases.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Regardless of whether the president has much impact on your life, as a Californian, your vote has virtually no impact on who will be elected. In political circles it’s a given that whoever the Democrats run in California will win ALL of the electorial college votes for the state of California. And I guarantee this year will be no different. In the last several elections the republican candidate has not even bothered to do anything more than one or two token appearances in California.

There are three ways you can look at this:
1) Not vote since the result is a foregone conclusion.
2) Be a good sheeple and vote Democratic and enjoy the fact you voted for the winning candidate.
3) Vote for some radical nutcase candidate, hoping to send a “message” that you are fed up with the lousy bums the demrepubs give us.

My personal preference is #3, but then again I never have had much sense and always had a soft spot for radical nutcases.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Regardless of whether the president has much impact on your life, as a Californian, your vote has virtually no impact on who will be elected. In political circles it’s a given that whoever the Democrats run in California will win ALL of the electorial college votes for the state of California. And I guarantee this year will be no different. In the last several elections the republican candidate has not even bothered to do anything more than one or two token appearances in California.

There are three ways you can look at this:
1) Not vote since the result is a foregone conclusion.
2) Be a good sheeple and vote Democratic and enjoy the fact you voted for the winning candidate.
3) Vote for some radical nutcase candidate, hoping to send a “message” that you are fed up with the lousy bums the demrepubs give us.

My personal preference is #3, but then again I never have had much sense and always had a soft spot for radical nutcases.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Regardless of whether the president has much impact on your life, as a Californian, your vote has virtually no impact on who will be elected. In political circles it’s a given that whoever the Democrats run in California will win ALL of the electorial college votes for the state of California. And I guarantee this year will be no different. In the last several elections the republican candidate has not even bothered to do anything more than one or two token appearances in California.

There are three ways you can look at this:
1) Not vote since the result is a foregone conclusion.
2) Be a good sheeple and vote Democratic and enjoy the fact you voted for the winning candidate.
3) Vote for some radical nutcase candidate, hoping to send a “message” that you are fed up with the lousy bums the demrepubs give us.

My personal preference is #3, but then again I never have had much sense and always had a soft spot for radical nutcases.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Regardless of whether the president has much impact on your life, as a Californian, your vote has virtually no impact on who will be elected. In political circles it’s a given that whoever the Democrats run in California will win ALL of the electorial college votes for the state of California. And I guarantee this year will be no different. In the last several elections the republican candidate has not even bothered to do anything more than one or two token appearances in California.

There are three ways you can look at this:
1) Not vote since the result is a foregone conclusion.
2) Be a good sheeple and vote Democratic and enjoy the fact you voted for the winning candidate.
3) Vote for some radical nutcase candidate, hoping to send a “message” that you are fed up with the lousy bums the demrepubs give us.

My personal preference is #3, but then again I never have had much sense and always had a soft spot for radical nutcases.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Allan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.

From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.

My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts