What exactly has Michelle Malkin done other than spout out right-wing bullshit? Ok, besides writing books with titles like In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror, and Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces? The only good thing she’s ever done that I can think of is being the first to question the B-girl’s story.
President Obama has done more good things in six weeks as president than some presidents do in an entire term. And that’s even if you don’t count the Stimulus bill and budget, which I do. But, true, he’s only just begun. I can’t wait for the next six weeks, let alone the next 8 years.
You’re asking the wrong person. I’m not a homeowner, never wanted to be and never will be, so the whole housing bubble/foreclosure thing is all pretty much greek to me. At a casual glance, it would seem that they were irresponsible, because what kind of idiot would buy a $400,000 house in the first place, unless you were rich? My worthless opinions about housing prices range from ‘are you fucking kidding me?’ to ‘jesus mary and joseph son of a bitch fucking hell!’ so I am not the one to ask.
Finding a job is nearly impossible if you don’t have a phone for the employer to call when they decide that of the 200 resumes/applications they have received, it is you they want to interview. If you don’t have a home, you can’t have a landline. Even if you do have a home, you won’t be there to take the call if you are out hustling for a job, or standing in line at a soup kitchen. Also, a cell plan with low prime-time minutes runs about $10 a month more than a landline.
You can use the computer and read the printed want ads at the library, but you have to have your own phone or you won’t get a job.
I have no idea as I don’t read her regularly. It doesn’t change the fact that you should be skeptical of most politicians’ claims. (As well as claims of most pundits).
:shrug: You seemed to be claiming that Obama’s mortgage plan is for the benefit of responsible people, as opposed to irresponsible people. Obama’s own statement on the subject is interesting, but what’s more interesting is the details of the plan itself.
As I read things, the plan will is clearly aimed, in part, at helping out many people who (foolishly?) took out mortgages such as the one I described. In other words, it would appear that, in essence, Obama’s claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
Getting back to the OP, I would remind you that “hate” is often a legitimate feeling. Often there are good and/or reasonable grounds to feel hate. What you are really pitting is self-deception. You are pitting people who fool themselves into thinking that a deserving person is actually an undeserving person.
It seems to me it’s possible to make the opposite mistake too.
There’s a big difference between scorning homeless people based on one guy with a cell phone and scorning someone who defends our putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps just because of their heritage.
I don’t know. It’s certainly not a silly non-sequitor attempting to compare a possibly homeless man’s possession of a cheap cell phone to someone who spent six figures on unneeded home improvements.
No. As I see it, the reasons to divide mortgages in such a way are pragmatic, not rooted in some moral viewpoint that the mortgage holders are deserving or undeserving people.
That all people are, at times, deserving or undeserving of something or other doesn’t require that people can be categorized as either. And, really, most of the time (such as the case in the OP), it’s not any of my business anyway. As far as Obama’s mortgage plan, I consider the broad outlines of how mortgages are divided my business, as it is an important piece of public policy. But I’m not inclined to vent about the financial situations of random strangers, although if I cared a bit more about the matter, could certainly see the value of having examples.