2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

well said and quite accurate - thanks for your input - and especially your comment about lies, quibbles, inaccuracies - call them what you will - they are poison to an open discussion and should have been addressed immediately by the host.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

i guess i've got a problem here - i'm a vet, taught at the naval war college, and have a fairly good education.

to hear gen mcpeak say we need obama because he's "scary smart" is, in itself, scary. whether you agree with them or not, g.w.'s advisors are "scary smart" -- that sure as heck doesn't make them right. nor will it make obama right.

what we need in a leader is vision, integrity, and the ability to communicate. i found those running their lips in todays' program sadly lacking in their ability to articulate those points and tell me WHY i should vote for their candidate.

and i'm also put off by the gross generalizations voiced by many in this forum. passionate beliefs are not a substitute for rational thought.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

Seems to me that what is lacking in this discussion is talk about integrity -

posted 5 years ago
view in context

on biological controls: sounds like a great idea, but the controls can be as bad or worse than the problem. to import a biologic requires a minimum of 15 years of experiments to prove them to be harmless to native species. in the meantime, the original invasive has a huge and often insurmountable footprint. they are only one part of a control program.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

A noble concept, but i fear that would be an assumption of liability by the title company - wouldn't the attorneys love that!?

I also suspect the title companies are not hiring counselors, but closers.

A better solution would be to require the banks to hold their loans until the balloon comes due. Then see how many loans they make.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Seems as everyone is searching for a simple answer to a complex solution. Let me suggest individual responsibility is a beginning. Couple that with FULL disclosure of ALL financial issues, who is the end owner of the loan, and a healthy dose of skepticism on the part of the buyer.

Quite simply, the brokers are not working for you. Read the chapter on real estate brokers in "Freakonomics" - very enlightning.

As long as we have people who want everything for next to nothing, there will be people willing to sell it to you...

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context