You seem to be trying to ignore the very gist of the parents point, McCain relies on others to do any form of typing (which would include interfacing with a computer) because it is an extremly painful ordeal. What does it matter to him what computer his wife or assistant are using?
If I record a message for you to transcribe am I suppose to be aware of the fact you are using Linux or Windows? And does the fact that I don't know your choice of OS affect my ability to understand the impact of computers in general on peoples daily lives?
And since a President cannot author any legislation anyways, their knowledge or ignorance of technological minutia has less impact than that of a congressperson or senator.
So what would be wrong with Obama? I can't see any flaws which is pretty incredible.
Spoken like a true Obamabot. Not that his faults are any better or worse than any other politicians but if you truly can't see any flaws with a politician that developed his skills in possibly the most corrupt political environment in the country (Chicago), while never once challenging that environment and taking full advantage of everything it offered then you truly are a dedicate apostle.
Yeah, having both arms broken and most, if not all of his fingers, crushed making any type of repetitve action extremely painful is such a cop out. You should tell him to just get over it since apparently you're an expert on what 5 and a half years of constant torture can do to the human body.
And for the record, his issues with using a keyboard has been reported in several articles dating back to at least 2000 and not just by Fox news (though you do get extra moonbat brownie points by trying the old, "if Fox news reported it it must be false" technique.)
Either way, someones inability to personally use a computer does not hinder their ability to run a country, thats why people in power have executive assistants. At least you'll know your President won't be spending all his time watching the latest viral video on YouTube.
The IPCC report is actually written by beuracrats from several countries, often with very strong political bias, not by scientists.
Of the actual scientific studies involved with the process, the beuracrats selectively choose which of those reports to incorporate into the final product and have absolutely no discernable criteria (except for their own opinions) as to how that selection is made.
Just to clairfy, Georgia could only be considered the agressor if you start your timeline of events at August 7th (which the Russian's, with the help of the AP, have been pushing in their version) but if you look at the events of August 6th you would see the escalation of regional conflicts by the South Ossetian militia using illegal munitions which they used to fire on Georgian peacekeepers and villages.
The Democratic party is hardly what anyone thinking person would classify as a "classically conservative" party, or for that matter "classically liberal" either. They are 'Progressives" which is in fact a form of socialism.
Both classic liberalism and conservatism basically boil down to the same thing, "live and let live", where the role of the government is very limited; mostly to subjects such as natioanl defense and infrastructure. The only real difference is that one (conservatism) starts from a point which is more rigid defined social constructs than the other.
While neither party truly shines as a glowing example of either of these two belief structures the Democratic party, with its "it takes a village" mentality is as far away from the classic model as you can get on the American political landscape.
This is the party that has had members openly talk about nationalizing the oil industry or confiscating their profits even after repeated investigations have shown no illegal activity because to them it seems unfair that one group would be permitted to make so much money while others cannot (even though as a percentage of sales they actually make less profit than most soft drink companies). That is socialism, pure and simple.
Here's a comparison to try out. For $62.50 my Telus plan includes:
- free evening and weekends (starting at 6pm) - caller ID - voice mail (10 messages) - 350 minutes anytime - unlimited data, email, web and IM - Nationwide fave 5 (free calling and text to 5 people, regardless of network or location within Canada)
My point is that since there is no standing legal precedent declaring the NSA wiretaps illegal and all previous challenges to the executive privilige exception has also failed, even when specific defendants could show that they were the focus of warrantless taps, then there is no grounds to simply declare the Presidents actions illegal, as Doc was doing.
Once a legal decision is made and it withstands appeal then you can call the President's actions illegal and continue down whatever road you choose. Until then all this calling for impeachment just sounds like sour grapes.
"There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the global warming opponents."
I think you got that backwards. It should read:
"There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the [man made] global warming proponents."
Any scientific dessenter is immediately demonized and declared a hereitic. Even going so far as to accuse them of being in "big oil's" pocket if they so much as own a car.
The fact is the hard data is still entirely inconclusive as to the cause of GW or even if it is still a continuing trend let alone it's links to man (hence the complete lack of consistancy between various predictive models) but to read a newspaper article on the subject and you would assume everything is written in stone, since to say otherwise is to invite swift denouciation by the faithful.
If you doubt that just look at any article pointing out inconsistancies with the theory and real world data. Almost in the same breath that a researcher points out that global ocean temperatures have actually cooled they immediatley try and explain it away in such a way as to still be consistant with the cause, even though it is complete supposition in the face of actual recorded data.
Most writers have gotten so used to the practice or just accepting GW as a fact that they don't even bother to fact check the claims anymore. Look at the polar bear stories. Despite the fact the polar bear population, as a whole, is doing quite well and increasing to a point that more hunting permits have to be issued to help control the overpopluation, to read an article about it you'd think they were almost extinct, or endangered as the case may be.
Well the last ten years of weather records also show a complete stop, or reversal of global warming too but that hasn't managed to stop the dedicated from still trying to convince everyone else of the contrary.
But they do look so damn cute on those environmental bumper stickers and in the end, isn't that all that really matters?
For the record, of the 13 polar bear populations tracked in Canada, only 2 show any signs of decline and those are from the areas showing a drop in temperature. Those in the warmer or stable areas have all shown either population stability or some amount of growth.
But like most other issues in the great global warming scare, you show one picture of a polar bear swimming in open water (they are known to swim for up to 60 miles at a time just because they feel like it) and then the debate is suppose to be closed.
Did you read you wiki link you posted, it backs up my argument perfectly.
The administration holds that an exception to the normal warrant requirements exists when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent attack from a foreign threat. Such an exception has been upheld at the Circuit Court level when the target was a foreign agent residing abroad[49][50] a foreign agent residing in the US[51][52][53][54]and a US citizen abroad.[55] The warrantless exception was struck down when both the target and the threat was deemed domestic.[56] The legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country has not been addressed by the US Supreme Court, but has occurred at least once, in the case of Aldrich Ames.
Ames was a US citizen who was convicted of spying for the USSR in part with information gathered through warrantless searches (performed under the Clinton administration).
So once again:
National security: legal Domestic security: illegal
As you yourself admit, the court declaring Bush's actions illegal was overturned on appeal, thereby negating their decision. You can't therefore arrest him when the courts have already ruled that he did not violate the law.
And you can fall back on the "Bush and Regan" appointees line but this same reasoning has been used to defend this loop hole since Carter and unless every court in the US is filled with "Bush and Reagan" appointees, that argument falls flat on its face. One has only to take a cursory look at the SCOTUS to understand that just because a person is appointed by a Republican President doesn't mean they will rule in the Republicans favor. Two of the most liberal supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans.
And you might also want to look up what fascism means. Despite what people like to believe, Fascism is actually an extreme form of socialism (the greater good above the individual good) and was wildly accepted, and even praised by early 20th century liberals as the best form of government. The same type of people that love to praise Che and Castro for their accomplishments in creating a 'perfect' society in Cuba no doubt. People like you try and twist it around to insult conservatives, but by any definition, it shares little in common with traditional, or even the odd Bush "compassionate conservative" branch, ideals.
I'd love to stay and 'debate' you further but it seems kind of a waste of time when you just make all my points for me.
I'm sure if in person you're anything like you slashdot persona the people around you are just filled with sunshine from your peace and love outlook on life.
Just read over your statement and those of fellow leftists on this forum. Do you honestly want to make the case that all that anger just goes away when they congregate in large numbers in a faceless crowd?
A much better comparison, but still not very useful in the greater scheme of things.
It still can't track one of the easiest end runs around campaign finance laws which is for companies to give their employees 'bonuses' to make political donations (ala Hillary and Hsu). So you then have the difficult task of going through the 2mil given to McCain and the 9mil given to Obama to see which ones were filtered donations and which were honest to goodness "I just like the guy" donations.
I guess you're also not the ones who happen to wear masks and carry rocks to 'peaceful' rallies? Good for you, but you have a lot of 'friends' who don't share your views of how to behave at a rally.
Truong is case precedent which sets the legal foundation. It has been challenged but has withstood appeal many times over.
FISA has already declared that they have no authority over the President's actions in this matter.
Could you link the federal verdict (and it's appeal outcome) to show where the NSA program has been found to be illegal?
As for Mark Klein, his account is that th NSA has the ability to interrogate all internet traffic going through several main stations throughout the US. A scary thought, sure, but he has no knowledge as to what is being done with that ability so it doesn't really show any proof that they are indiscriminatly listening to or viewing peoples communications except to apply a filter. For all anyone knoew is they could be simply looking for key IP ranges and recording those data streams, which is essentially what they've already admitted to doing in targetting communications with specific countries.
As for the ACLU. Any organization that takes in almost $100 million a year in donations and court settlements, with almost no actual legal fees (almost all lawyers work pro bono and office supplies do not cost that much) can easily be said to have deep pockets. It wasn't meant to imply anything, it's just a statement of fact. If you don't have the money yourself and you think your rights are being violated you go to the ACLU. It's why they exist. The fact you think that that is an insult is more telling of your mindset than mine.
Of course, from a persons whose strongest argument is to call someone a "Republican", it's not all that unexpected. For the record I'm not even American, so you can hardly blame me for your perceived injustices.
I would have summarized it as more along the lines of one candidate has actual responses (which you can agree or disagree with as you please) and the other likes to live in the magical world of make believe and rainbows where everyone will simply agree to follow his will and all will be right with the world. Even the "rise of the oceans {will begin} to slow and our planet {will begin} to heal" simply by his being elected. But your summary works ok too.
Have you ever been to a rally for almost any far left cause? Rocks, molotov cocktails, pushing, shoving, punching and property destruction are all pretty much the norm. It's not that the majority participate but ask any law enfocement officer what they expect at a large "peace" or "equality" rally and it's definately NOT peaceful.
For that matter look at conservative rallies, a lot of pushing, shoving and small fights, but mostly from the counter protestors.
I'm guessing from your response that you never even bothered to look up the Truong case since it set the standard and expressly permitted tapping of US based communications for the purposes of national security. The only requirements for a warrantless tap, according to established precedent, is that the target of the tapped conversation be an agent of a foreign power and that the tapping be for national security and not simply law enforcement reasons; there physical location does not matter. Now you can debate whether an terrorists organization can be considered a 'foreign power' but thats another issue.
As for the taps being indiscriminate, do you have any links showing that they were not in fact targetted as the administration claims? While picking certain countries as 'places of interest' for their systems to monitor may be a bit wide, it is selective targetting and is also the reason for their inability to use FISA's 3 day rule (simply TMI).
As for your Article II blah blah blah statement, I don't even think I referenced a particular Article, merely that established law, that pre-dates Bush by decades, sets up the use of this type of surveilence program for the purposes of national security. It may never have been set up to this scale, but the target of such investigations have never been as dispersed as they curretly are either.
Don't like it, find a lawyer and challenge it. That's the American way. Though the fact that every challenge so far has appeared to fail may hinder finding anyone without the deep pockets of the ACLU behind them to take up your case. And just saying something is impeachable, simply because you want it to be, in the face of established law, is not a legal argument that carries a lot of weight.
But according to the FISA court themselves, âoeFISA could not encroach on the Presidentâ(TM)s constitutional power.â
Whatever article or ammendment they are reading, from it's very beginning FISA and its authors have admitted that they cannot actually limit the Presidents consititutional powers to protect the nation except when the President himself allows that limitation.
So this is not a case of the legislative dictating terms to the Executive, but merely a case of the Legislative and Executive agreeing on a set of guiding principles which by their own admission technically cannot be enforced if the executive chooses not to follow them. Like much of Washington, it's all for show with little substance.
I've never understood how voting for conservatives are "against economic and personal self intrest". Personally I like the idea of the government not taking all my money to fund ponzi schemes meant to make people feel safe while at the same time bankrupting the nation.
My 'economic and personal self intrest' is based on the government sticking to what it should be doing and leaving me alone to make my own decisions. Safety nets are fine but the push to the nanny state where no matter what stupid decision people make is ok because big brother will step in to bail you out is not in my economic self interest.
The housing market is a perfect example. The government should not bail out people who got greedy and bought houses well out of their price range through mortgages with conditions that would make Black Beard blush. It would be acceptable for agents of the government to step in to act as a negotiatior and try and prevent mass forclosures, but failing the lending institutions acceptance of new terms, there is really little that the government should do except pass legilation detailing new guidlines for future transactions.
Too many people want to use the government as a giant equilizer to make sure no matter how you play the game, everyone crosses the finish line at the same time. The truth is your own personal decisions affect how well you live and what options you have for the future and expecting any government department to step in to make things better is just inviting trouble. Of course in the current make up it's hard to tell the Dems from the Repubs as to who wants to spend more of the tax payer money on over reaching social programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did Palin enter into this thread?
This was about McCain and his (in)ability to use a computer, which is well documented outside of Fox news and has been for several years.
And the award for complete nonsequiter to avoid a debate goes to ........
You seem to be trying to ignore the very gist of the parents point, McCain relies on others to do any form of typing (which would include interfacing with a computer) because it is an extremly painful ordeal. What does it matter to him what computer his wife or assistant are using?
If I record a message for you to transcribe am I suppose to be aware of the fact you are using Linux or Windows? And does the fact that I don't know your choice of OS affect my ability to understand the impact of computers in general on peoples daily lives?
And since a President cannot author any legislation anyways, their knowledge or ignorance of technological minutia has less impact than that of a congressperson or senator.
So what would be wrong with Obama? I can't see any flaws which is pretty incredible.
Spoken like a true Obamabot. Not that his faults are any better or worse than any other politicians but if you truly can't see any flaws with a politician that developed his skills in possibly the most corrupt political environment in the country (Chicago), while never once challenging that environment and taking full advantage of everything it offered then you truly are a dedicate apostle.
Yeah, having both arms broken and most, if not all of his fingers, crushed making any type of repetitve action extremely painful is such a cop out. You should tell him to just get over it since apparently you're an expert on what 5 and a half years of constant torture can do to the human body.
And for the record, his issues with using a keyboard has been reported in several articles dating back to at least 2000 and not just by Fox news (though you do get extra moonbat brownie points by trying the old, "if Fox news reported it it must be false" technique.)
Either way, someones inability to personally use a computer does not hinder their ability to run a country, thats why people in power have executive assistants. At least you'll know your President won't be spending all his time watching the latest viral video on YouTube.
The IPCC report is actually written by beuracrats from several countries, often with very strong political bias, not by scientists.
Of the actual scientific studies involved with the process, the beuracrats selectively choose which of those reports to incorporate into the final product and have absolutely no discernable criteria (except for their own opinions) as to how that selection is made.
Just to clairfy, Georgia could only be considered the agressor if you start your timeline of events at August 7th (which the Russian's, with the help of the AP, have been pushing in their version) but if you look at the events of August 6th you would see the escalation of regional conflicts by the South Ossetian militia using illegal munitions which they used to fire on Georgian peacekeepers and villages.
The Democratic party is hardly what anyone thinking person would classify as a "classically conservative" party, or for that matter "classically liberal" either. They are 'Progressives" which is in fact a form of socialism.
Both classic liberalism and conservatism basically boil down to the same thing, "live and let live", where the role of the government is very limited; mostly to subjects such as natioanl defense and infrastructure. The only real difference is that one (conservatism) starts from a point which is more rigid defined social constructs than the other.
While neither party truly shines as a glowing example of either of these two belief structures the Democratic party, with its "it takes a village" mentality is as far away from the classic model as you can get on the American political landscape.
This is the party that has had members openly talk about nationalizing the oil industry or confiscating their profits even after repeated investigations have shown no illegal activity because to them it seems unfair that one group would be permitted to make so much money while others cannot (even though as a percentage of sales they actually make less profit than most soft drink companies). That is socialism, pure and simple.
Here's a comparison to try out. For $62.50 my Telus plan includes:
- free evening and weekends (starting at 6pm)
- caller ID
- voice mail (10 messages)
- 350 minutes anytime
- unlimited data, email, web and IM
- Nationwide fave 5 (free calling and text to 5 people, regardless of network or location within Canada)
Any ideas how much that would cost in the US?
My point is that since there is no standing legal precedent declaring the NSA wiretaps illegal and all previous challenges to the executive privilige exception has also failed, even when specific defendants could show that they were the focus of warrantless taps, then there is no grounds to simply declare the Presidents actions illegal, as Doc was doing.
Once a legal decision is made and it withstands appeal then you can call the President's actions illegal and continue down whatever road you choose. Until then all this calling for impeachment just sounds like sour grapes.
"There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the global warming opponents."
I think you got that backwards. It should read:
"There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the [man made] global warming proponents."
Any scientific dessenter is immediately demonized and declared a hereitic. Even going so far as to accuse them of being in "big oil's" pocket if they so much as own a car.
The fact is the hard data is still entirely inconclusive as to the cause of GW or even if it is still a continuing trend let alone it's links to man (hence the complete lack of consistancy between various predictive models) but to read a newspaper article on the subject and you would assume everything is written in stone, since to say otherwise is to invite swift denouciation by the faithful.
If you doubt that just look at any article pointing out inconsistancies with the theory and real world data. Almost in the same breath that a researcher points out that global ocean temperatures have actually cooled they immediatley try and explain it away in such a way as to still be consistant with the cause, even though it is complete supposition in the face of actual recorded data.
Most writers have gotten so used to the practice or just accepting GW as a fact that they don't even bother to fact check the claims anymore. Look at the polar bear stories. Despite the fact the polar bear population, as a whole, is doing quite well and increasing to a point that more hunting permits have to be issued to help control the overpopluation, to read an article about it you'd think they were almost extinct, or endangered as the case may be.
Well the last ten years of weather records also show a complete stop, or reversal of global warming too but that hasn't managed to stop the dedicated from still trying to convince everyone else of the contrary.
Numbers do not matter, only belief.
But they do look so damn cute on those environmental bumper stickers and in the end, isn't that all that really matters?
For the record, of the 13 polar bear populations tracked in Canada, only 2 show any signs of decline and those are from the areas showing a drop in temperature. Those in the warmer or stable areas have all shown either population stability or some amount of growth.
But like most other issues in the great global warming scare, you show one picture of a polar bear swimming in open water (they are known to swim for up to 60 miles at a time just because they feel like it) and then the debate is suppose to be closed.
Ames was a US citizen who was convicted of spying for the USSR in part with information gathered through warrantless searches (performed under the Clinton administration).
So once again:
National security: legal
Domestic security: illegal
As you yourself admit, the court declaring Bush's actions illegal was overturned on appeal, thereby negating their decision. You can't therefore arrest him when the courts have already ruled that he did not violate the law.
And you can fall back on the "Bush and Regan" appointees line but this same reasoning has been used to defend this loop hole since Carter and unless every court in the US is filled with "Bush and Reagan" appointees, that argument falls flat on its face. One has only to take a cursory look at the SCOTUS to understand that just because a person is appointed by a Republican President doesn't mean they will rule in the Republicans favor. Two of the most liberal supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans.
And you might also want to look up what fascism means. Despite what people like to believe, Fascism is actually an extreme form of socialism (the greater good above the individual good) and was wildly accepted, and even praised by early 20th century liberals as the best form of government. The same type of people that love to praise Che and Castro for their accomplishments in creating a 'perfect' society in Cuba no doubt. People like you try and twist it around to insult conservatives, but by any definition, it shares little in common with traditional, or even the odd Bush "compassionate conservative" branch, ideals.
I'd love to stay and 'debate' you further but it seems kind of a waste of time when you just make all my points for me.
I'm sure if in person you're anything like you slashdot persona the people around you are just filled with sunshine from your peace and love outlook on life.
Just read over your statement and those of fellow leftists on this forum. Do you honestly want to make the case that all that anger just goes away when they congregate in large numbers in a faceless crowd?
A much better comparison, but still not very useful in the greater scheme of things.
It still can't track one of the easiest end runs around campaign finance laws which is for companies to give their employees 'bonuses' to make political donations (ala Hillary and Hsu). So you then have the difficult task of going through the 2mil given to McCain and the 9mil given to Obama to see which ones were filtered donations and which were honest to goodness "I just like the guy" donations.
I guess you're also not the ones who happen to wear masks and carry rocks to 'peaceful' rallies? Good for you, but you have a lot of 'friends' who don't share your views of how to behave at a rally.
I'm trying to get this through to you:
Truong is case precedent which sets the legal foundation. It has been challenged but has withstood appeal many times over.
FISA has already declared that they have no authority over the President's actions in this matter.
Could you link the federal verdict (and it's appeal outcome) to show where the NSA program has been found to be illegal?
As for Mark Klein, his account is that th NSA has the ability to interrogate all internet traffic going through several main stations throughout the US. A scary thought, sure, but he has no knowledge as to what is being done with that ability so it doesn't really show any proof that they are indiscriminatly listening to or viewing peoples communications except to apply a filter. For all anyone knoew is they could be simply looking for key IP ranges and recording those data streams, which is essentially what they've already admitted to doing in targetting communications with specific countries.
As for the ACLU. Any organization that takes in almost $100 million a year in donations and court settlements, with almost no actual legal fees (almost all lawyers work pro bono and office supplies do not cost that much) can easily be said to have deep pockets. It wasn't meant to imply anything, it's just a statement of fact. If you don't have the money yourself and you think your rights are being violated you go to the ACLU. It's why they exist. The fact you think that that is an insult is more telling of your mindset than mine.
Of course, from a persons whose strongest argument is to call someone a "Republican", it's not all that unexpected. For the record I'm not even American, so you can hardly blame me for your perceived injustices.
I would have summarized it as more along the lines of one candidate has actual responses (which you can agree or disagree with as you please) and the other likes to live in the magical world of make believe and rainbows where everyone will simply agree to follow his will and all will be right with the world. Even the "rise of the oceans {will begin} to slow and our planet {will begin} to heal" simply by his being elected. But your summary works ok too.
This is the same Obama who didn't think his campaign had the technical ability to create a youtube video.
Have you ever been to a rally for almost any far left cause? Rocks, molotov cocktails, pushing, shoving, punching and property destruction are all pretty much the norm. It's not that the majority participate but ask any law enfocement officer what they expect at a large "peace" or "equality" rally and it's definately NOT peaceful.
For that matter look at conservative rallies, a lot of pushing, shoving and small fights, but mostly from the counter protestors.
Do you happen to have the At&T numbers for Obama donations? Without those those number are pretty much meaningless.
It can be pointed out that other communications companies such as Time Warner give much more to BO's campaign then At&T have given to McCains.
Neither candidate is free from big Comm clutches.
I'm guessing from your response that you never even bothered to look up the Truong case since it set the standard and expressly permitted tapping of US based communications for the purposes of national security. The only requirements for a warrantless tap, according to established precedent, is that the target of the tapped conversation be an agent of a foreign power and that the tapping be for national security and not simply law enforcement reasons; there physical location does not matter. Now you can debate whether an terrorists organization can be considered a 'foreign power' but thats another issue.
As for the taps being indiscriminate, do you have any links showing that they were not in fact targetted as the administration claims? While picking certain countries as 'places of interest' for their systems to monitor may be a bit wide, it is selective targetting and is also the reason for their inability to use FISA's 3 day rule (simply TMI).
As for your Article II blah blah blah statement, I don't even think I referenced a particular Article, merely that established law, that pre-dates Bush by decades, sets up the use of this type of surveilence program for the purposes of national security. It may never have been set up to this scale, but the target of such investigations have never been as dispersed as they curretly are either.
Don't like it, find a lawyer and challenge it. That's the American way. Though the fact that every challenge so far has appeared to fail may hinder finding anyone without the deep pockets of the ACLU behind them to take up your case. And just saying something is impeachable, simply because you want it to be, in the face of established law, is not a legal argument that carries a lot of weight.
But according to the FISA court themselves, âoeFISA could not encroach on the Presidentâ(TM)s constitutional power.â
Whatever article or ammendment they are reading, from it's very beginning FISA and its authors have admitted that they cannot actually limit the Presidents consititutional powers to protect the nation except when the President himself allows that limitation.
So this is not a case of the legislative dictating terms to the Executive, but merely a case of the Legislative and Executive agreeing on a set of guiding principles which by their own admission technically cannot be enforced if the executive chooses not to follow them. Like much of Washington, it's all for show with little substance.
I've never understood how voting for conservatives are "against economic and personal self intrest". Personally I like the idea of the government not taking all my money to fund ponzi schemes meant to make people feel safe while at the same time bankrupting the nation.
My 'economic and personal self intrest' is based on the government sticking to what it should be doing and leaving me alone to make my own decisions. Safety nets are fine but the push to the nanny state where no matter what stupid decision people make is ok because big brother will step in to bail you out is not in my economic self interest.
The housing market is a perfect example. The government should not bail out people who got greedy and bought houses well out of their price range through mortgages with conditions that would make Black Beard blush. It would be acceptable for agents of the government to step in to act as a negotiatior and try and prevent mass forclosures, but failing the lending institutions acceptance of new terms, there is really little that the government should do except pass legilation detailing new guidlines for future transactions.
Too many people want to use the government as a giant equilizer to make sure no matter how you play the game, everyone crosses the finish line at the same time. The truth is your own personal decisions affect how well you live and what options you have for the future and expecting any government department to step in to make things better is just inviting trouble. Of course in the current make up it's hard to tell the Dems from the Repubs as to who wants to spend more of the tax payer money on over reaching social programs.