harry wrote:

Obama is not a Marxist or a socialist. The people that claim this
don't know what socialism is.. But your right, he's in the pockets of
the wealthy too. That's exactly why there's no hope. There is no party
for the ordinary American worker.
Time for another revolution. Against your own government.
The first one was only so the rich wouldn't have to pay their taxes.
Nothing's changed since then. Your bill of rights is only for the
wealthy. Exactly as the Magna Carta was only for the wealthy in the
UK. Things are getting worse too not better. They keep you down with
a fear culture.
I wonder how long it will be before they start putting Americans in
Gitmo.

You simply do not understand basic economics. The rich may, individually,
have enormously more than an single "worker," but there are relatively few
super-rich and almost uncountably many plebeians. If the government takes,
say, 50% of the rich folks' assets, the government will have a substantial
sum.

But if the government takes only one percent from the downtrodden, the
government will have incredibly more than had they pillaged the rich. And
without the grief the rich can visit upon the heads of the factotums.

Plus, the rich are not stupid. When Clinton levied a 10% surtax on yachts
costing more than $500,000, the rich simply bought their boats in the
Bahamas. (And put hundreds of American shipwrights out of work.) Even today,
John Kerry is berthing his yacht in Rhode Island to escape the enormous tax
in his home state of Massachusetts.

Point is, if the government tries to soak the rich, the rich respond -
usually to the detriment of not only the tax collectors but of the workers
the rich employ.

harry wrote:

Crime is so bad in America that everyone needs to sleep with a gun
under his pillow. Kids in the USA find these guns and shoot
themselves or one another.
It's actually paranoia, the American fear culture. The boogy under the
bed syndrome.

Well, actually, by any measure we have less crime than the UK.

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the ability to
waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than kids getting shot
with the family gun).

And in spite of what you hear, guns are not that pervasive in the USA. The
agency that regulates guns and gun sales estimates that only half of the
U.S. population lives in a home with at least one gun. Fifteen years ago
this same agency estimated that there are about 223 million guns in the
country. Recent figures report that about 37,500 guns are sold daily in the
U.S. For the 15 years intervening since the last estimate, that means an
additional 200 million guns have been added.

Of course some have worn out and been trashed. Some have been taken from
gang-bangers and destroyed. Some have even been turned in during gun
"buy-back" programs (including toy guns just this week in Providence, Rhode
Island).

There are more cats in the U.S. than dogs, but fewer cat owners! This is
because cat owners tend to have multiple cats, whereas dog owners are
satisfied with just one. Point is, gun owners tend to have multiple guns and
hoplophobes have none. This accounts for only 50% of households having a
weapon. (Its worth pointing out that some households contain felons,
mentally unstable people, domestic abusers, or Democrats.)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:12:04 -0600, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact
wrote Re O.T. Next financial bubble to burst.:

Remember about 18 months or two years ago, there were 2 or 3 posters here
bragging about all the $$$$ they were making or going to make flipping
houses?


Wonder where they are now.
Try here http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/Bankruptcy.aspx

--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Dec 23, 11:12*am, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

news
"David Nebenzahl" *wrote in message
s.com...

I see you basically skirted my questions. Tell us more about how you
"have it here too"; that's what I was getting at. It's not as if we (the
U.S.) are the source of *all* that's wrong in the world.

Snip

Remember about 18 months or two years ago, there were 2 or 3 posters here
bragging about all the $$$$ they were making or going to make flipping
houses?

Wonder where they are now.

Bob-tx

The latest con is to try and get peope to put their money into stocks
& shares. They are temped because of the crap less than inflation
interest in banks.
The markets are rigged and they will lose it all. Here's an example.
(Far from home)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12033373
As usual the rich rip off the poor. Or the dopey ones at least.

On 12/22/10 11:04 pm, DGDevin wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

Perce

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.


In MY state, there is the offense of "criminal trespass."

Texas Penal Code - 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property,
including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent
or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent
and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude
intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to
the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders,
indicating that entry is forbidden;

Criminal Trespass is a Class B misdemeanor - a fine of up to $2,000 and 180
days in jail.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:00:56 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

harry wrote:

Canadian property bubble,

House and condo prices have declined during the past 6 months to a year,
or have showed zero growth during that time frame.

The differences betweed US and Canadian residential real-estate markets
a

1) No ARM's, no no-money-down mortgages here in Canada.
2) Anything less than 25% down requires mortgage insurance.

It's 20% here. Not a lot of difference.

3) Very little speculation done by the average home owner (ie - very
few second homes being purchased out of pure speculation)

There aren't all that many here either, OTOH, it doesn't take that many to
drag the market under when it does turn South (that fractional reserve can be
a bitch).

4) We don't have the equivalent to Nevada, Florida, or other
locations where second homes used as vacation homes can be
built

No, your folks buy their second homes in Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. ;-)

5) We can't deduct mortgage payments from income tax, which limits
speculative home buying and bubble-forming price increases.

I don't see this as having anything to do with "bubbles", or much of anything
else.

6) Our banks did not re-package mortgages into fancy derivative-
based products, and because of that our banks did not and do
not cut corners when qualifying potential mortgage borowers.

*THERE* is the problem. Congress screwed the pooch on that one!

You can't look at the headlines about Vancouver or Toronto's high house
prices and extraplolate them to the rest of Canada.

followed by general collapse due to dependency on exports to the
USA.

We've had the loss of the Auto Pact, followed by 3 consecutive years of
the Canadian dollar being over-valued by 15% because it's been pegged at
95 - 99% of a US dollar. Still lots of oil, natural gas and electricity
being shipped to the US from Canada, but our economy is slowing becoming
less export-driven and more domestically driven.

How is that automatically "over-valued"?

After that Australia.
Saw it on Russia Today so it must be right. Kieser report.
He's been pretty accurate so far. ?

Don't count on it. Look for more pain from a handful of Euro-zone
countries way before Canada or Australia.

Mexico will continue to deteriorate, their self-destruction fed by
US-made guns flooding south across their border.

Nonsense. Their self-destruction is completely self-induced. It's been a
thugocracy for decades.

Conditions in the US will also get worse - "security" budgets will
continue to spiral out of control as the US wages it's "War on Terror"
(tm) against it's own citizens. The "War on Terror" is a lot like
fighting cancer with chemo-therapy: It doesn't seem to matter how many
good people you harm (financially, psycologically, morally) in order to
detect, apprehend or (rarely) kill a handful of bad people. The end
result will be to create a culture of control. What you see now is just
the beginning.

So you're saying that you would never submit to chemotherapy? How many people
are harmed by drugs? How many more would be were drugs legal?

It's really sad to sit here in Canada and watch you Americans consume
yourselves over this terrorism pretense as you allow your gov't to
destroy the very ideas of personal freedom and liberty your country was
founded on. We watch your local TV news, your national 6:30 pm network
news (which reported last night that your restaurants and grocery stores
are now on the lookout for food poisoning performed by home-grown
terrorists). If I believed in a god, I would be thanking him that I'm a
Canadian living in Canada.

Clueless.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:52:27 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 12/22/10 11:04 pm, DGDevin wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

So if the perp picks the lock he can live there forever? You harrys are
*nuts*.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:41:57 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

Home Guy wrote in :

harry wrote:

Canadian property bubble,

House and condo prices have declined during the past 6 months to a
year, or have showed zero growth during that time frame.

The differences betweed US and Canadian residential real-estate
markets a

1) No ARM's, no no-money-down mortgages here in Canada.
2) Anything less than 25% down requires mortgage insurance.
3) Very little speculation done by the average home owner (ie - very
few second homes being purchased out of pure speculation)
4) We don't have the equivalent to Nevada, Florida, or other
locations where second homes used as vacation homes can be
built
5) We can't deduct mortgage payments from income tax, which limits
speculative home buying and bubble-forming price increases.
6) Our banks did not re-package mortgages into fancy derivative-
based products, and because of that our banks did not and do
not cut corners when qualifying potential mortgage borowers.



There are more differences:

7) Canadian homebuyers cannot refinance an existing mortgage at a
new, lower rate, without paying a penalty to do so. That penalty
is formulated to make it financially unfeasible to break the
original contract.

That's *dumb*. To get a mortgage rate reduction one has to move.

8) Canadian homebuyers cannot escape their legal obligation to
fulfill the terms of the contract (i.e.: pay it off) by simply
handing in the keys and walking away from the home.

You can't in the US, either. They may take the keys and sell the house at
foreclosure, but that doesn't in any way relieve the borrower of his
obligations. Bankruptcy *might*.

9) Unlike the US, Canada does not use legislative and policy measures
to force banks to tease people into real-estate debt.

Clueless.

The US housing bubble was created by the shiploads of artificial credit
conjured up by the Fed. Canada also creates artificial credit, but not to
the same extent, and without accompanying legislative idiocies like the
Community Reinvestment Act.

Does anyone argue that Congress is 1) stupid and 2) crooked?

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:31:27 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

harry wrote in news:da79305b-4d70-45fc-a7f8-
:

On Dec 22, 2:12*pm, Home Guy wrote:
harry used improper usenet form when he unnecessarily full-quoted:

So, what happens if you can't pay your mortgage? It sounds to me
that the borrower is worse off than in the UK or Canada?

You sell your house. *What's what happens.

What happens if your house is worth substantially less than the money
you owe?


In most of the US, you walk away from it and incur no penalty other than
forfeiting what little equity you might have. That's a consequence of law.

That's a lie. Under any foreclosure (and handing the keys in to the bank is a
foreclosure) the borrower is *still* responsible for the entire loan, unless
discharged in a bankruptcy (which is difficult to do).

In the UK, you have to pay it back.


In Canada, you are legally obligated to pay the dollar-amount owing,
whether you walk away or not.

The US is no different.

If you hand over the keys, the
bank sells your house, probably for even less than that. You still owe
them the difference.



Not in the US. In the US, government entities Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and
FHA eat the difference, not the banks or the ostensible homeowner. That too
is a consequence of law. The law was specifically and particularly designed
to insulate banks from risk of borrower default, so that banks would be
more willing to lend to deadbeats.

Not true. The bank gets it money, but the borrower is still on the hook for
the money.

People end up bankrupt. Still, they can't go in
for any more foolish loans.



Congress and the executive branch feverishly and maniacally continue to
push the public into real-estate debt, as though 2008 never happened.
Unreal.

Nonsense.

One day, perhaps centuries hence, history will look upon the modern debt-
fetish the way we now regard Mayan human-sacrifices.

Clueless.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:11:25 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2010 11:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:31:27 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In most of the US, you walk away from it and incur no penalty other than
forfeiting what little equity you might have. That's a consequence of law.

People are starting to find out that is not true. Back in the olden
days when a bank could recover all of what it was owed in the
foreclosure sale they let people walk away but now that the loan are
more than the house is worth they are coming after the owner for the
difference. The only out is bankruptcy.

I believe they're sending 1099 forms to the IRS for the amount not
recovered in the foreclosure. You have no money to pay the mortgage
and you give the house back to the bank, the bank sells the house at
a loss and you get a 1099 for the amount of the loss. The IRS comes
after you for the amount on the 1099 as income. Anyway, you get screwed
unless you take precautions with other paperwork maneuvers.

No, home loans that are discharged are not taxable income. Other discharged
loans *are*.

http://illinoislawnews.net/?p=367

There is something wrong here. Forgiveness on mortgage loans is not taxable.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:48:27 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Mexico will continue to deteriorate, their self-destruction fed
by US-made guns flooding south across their border.

Mexico will continue to deteriorate due to it's epidemic level
corruption. US made guns have nothing to do with it

You know that De Nile is not just a river in Egypt, right?

Clueless.

We watch your local TV news, your national 6:30 pm network news
(which reported last night that your restaurants and grocery
stores are now on the lookout for food poisoning performed by
home-grown terrorists).

Again, the media you are watching presents a very distorted picture.

Yes. ABC, NBC, and CBS does present a distorted picture. It's a
picture seen through a rose-colored lens, because they are loath to put
bad news on their newscasts because it turns off the viewers. That's
why they load their broadcasts up with feel-good stories near the end of
their shows.

Laughably clueless.

The majority of people in the US are not in any way worrying about
terrorism, they are going about their lives perfectly normally.

I suppose that's why they're always oh so glad and approving to take off
their shoes and have naked-body xray imaging performed on them at
airports.

Like there is a choice? Wanna go to jail?

I suppose they're happy and approve of the video messages being shown
inside their local Walmart stores.

http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago

Homeland Security shuts down web domains - VIDEO
Homeland Security visits elementary school
Feds spotted using mobile x-ray technology twice this week
Homegrown terrorists using the Internet as WMD
Chicago ranked in the top three cities when it comes to preparedness
Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano addressed her employees
State budget shortfalls provoke diverse responses
House subcommittee passes $315 million drinking water safety bill

That's our stupid government, thanks to Obama, *NOT* the population at large.
snip

I certainly have not been concerned with terrorism personally at
all and it has no impact on my daily life.

You mean that you don't have a supply of duct tape and plastic wrap -
enough to wrap your house and seal it up in case someone detonates a
dirty nuclear or biological bomb nearby?

No.

So you're not personally affected by the tax increases and/or reductions
to municiple services that come from all the extra spending on
anti-terrorism programs?

Nope. The lights are still on and the garbage was collected today. ..and
they managed to send us the bill for it all this month.

Do you live in a state that requires a finger-print to get your drivers
license? What a strange concept - we don't have that here in Canada...

You don't see very well up there either.

On 12/23/10 07:06 pm, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

So if the perp picks the lock he can live there forever? You harrys are
*nuts*.

I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls
them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

Perce

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 06:43:01 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Actually two thirds of the weapons seized by Mexican police at crime
scenes do not originate in the U.S. However the American appetite
for illegal drugs is very much driving the corrosive drug war
underway in Mexico.

Yep.

It's almost as if decriminalizing those drugs
would be worth looking into for a variety of reasons. The single
most destructive drug in the world is alcohol, and yet you can walk
into a convenience store and stroll out with all the booze you can
carry--maybe that's why Mexican drug cartels are not smuggling booze
into America by the truckload and shooting anyone who gets in their
way.

Fortifying the border - say with land mines or radioactive hot spots - is
essentially a one-time expense. Substantial, but only a one-timer. A small
on-going expense is a "shoot to kill" free-fire zone.

Sell licenses. Lease "stands". Turn the border into a money maker.

Contrast this with the repetitive expense of dealing with legalized drugs.
When someone overdoses on alcohol, they go to sleep. I'd much rather contend
with a sound-asleep driver than one who suddenly realizes the cab of his
pickup is filled with cloven-hoofed demons, breathing fire and trying to
suck his blood!

Admittedly, some drugs, when ingested in excess, cause the user to go "on
the nod." Others, such as crystal meth or PCP, turn a 4'11', 90-pound female
into a Berserker that takes five hefty cops to subdue.

As to your assertion of "corrosive drug war in Mexico," I'll admit that the
3,000 murders in just one town (Juarez) seem excessive. But there are a
couple of silver linings: 1) In the main, the killings are by drug gangs
killing other drug gang members. I don't see where the bad is in that. 2) An
attraction to the drug trade keeps a goodly number of Mexicans in Mexico
instead of coming to the USA where they could ply their anti-social
activities with abandon.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:25:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 12/23/10 07:06 pm, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

So if the perp picks the lock he can live there forever? You harrys are
*nuts*.

I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls
them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

He says the door was unlocked. How do you tell? What's the difference? Shoot
the bum! He won't do it again.

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:31:27 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:




In Canada, you are legally obligated to pay the dollar-amount owing,
whether you walk away or not.

The US is no different.



Yes it is. The US is completely different. America invented artificial
credit in December 1913, and America continues to invent more of it,
causing reciprocal infections in other parts of the world.









Not in the US. In the US, government entities Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
and FHA eat the difference, not the banks or the ostensible homeowner.
That too is a consequence of law. The law was specifically and
particularly designed to insulate banks from risk of borrower default,
so that banks would be more willing to lend to deadbeats.

Not true. The bank gets it money, but the borrower is still on the
hook for the money.




Nope. Buyers lose their equity, and their credit rating tanks, but
they're still off the hook for the remainder. That's how the banks ended
up with so many "foreclosed" properties on their books.






Congress and the executive branch feverishly and maniacally continue
to push the public into real-estate debt, as though 2008 never
happened. Unreal.

Nonsense.




Sorry, but it's completely true. It's happening now. Look it up.

Specifically, look up what the FHA is now doing under orders from
Congress, and look up how Congress removed the caps on how much low-
quality debt Fan and Fred are allowed to buy.





--
Tegger

"harry" wrote in message
...

Crime is so bad in America that everyone needs to sleep with a gun
under his pillow.

Nonsense.

Kids in the USA find these guns and shoot
themselves or one another.

Leaving firearms unsecured so children can get their hands on them is
illegal.

It's actually paranoia, the American fear culture. The boogy under the
bed syndrome.

So first you said America is so violent everyone needs a gun, but how you're
suggesting it's just paranoia, the fear is unjustified. Can't make up your
mind? Is your Ameriphobia so crippling that you can't decide which
ill-formed and whiny complaint to go with?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the ability to
waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than kids getting shot
with the family gun).

Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. Anyone who leaves a firearm
unsecured where a child can handle it is an idiot, and in many jurisdictions
a criminal as well. To suggest that kids being killed by unsecured firearms
they find is just "the price we pay" for security is morally and
intellectually repugnant.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...


... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did the
intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access, no
crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

I've seen multiple news stories from the UK about such situations, and they
all seem to have occurred in a manner that would have required forced entry
but without the police being able to find proof of that--in some cases the
new "tenants" changed the locks while the owner was away on holiday or even
just out shopping. The notion that the police are helpless to act when
someone has been forced out of his own home by trespassers is bizarre, which
is why I said the UK is messed up in incomprehensible ways.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock still
counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls them) can
be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

Great, so an 85-year-old woman comes home to find the locks changed and a
"Section Six"¹ note on the front door warning that at least one of the new
occupants is always home and for the former owner not to attempt entry. The
old lady (who has lived in the house for 50 years) is supposed to find
another place to live and hire a lawyer, and maybe some months down the road
she might get her house back, at which point she discovers the appliances
missing and every item of value gone. The cops and the local council are
apparently helpless to intervene.

I'm taking all that from actual news stories, as you are probably aware.
It's insane.

¹A bit of British law which prohibits the lawful owners of property from
gaining access to that property by violence or threats of violence;
presumably that includes forcing open your own door.

"The Henchman" wrote in message
...


How do you know you are better off than most?

"Harry" set his goals low enough that they were not difficult to meet; he
assumes that what's he's content with is better than what most folks have.

There are smart ways to borrow money and there are dumb ways to borrow
money. Borrowing money for a luxury car or a new coat or video game
system is dumb. Borrowing money for gambling or big screen tvs or alcohol
is dumb.

Borrowing money to purchase solid dividend paying buy-and-hold stocks in a
retirement shelter that refunds a portion of your taxes at year-end is
smart when done correctly.

Borrowing money for expanding or starting a well-thought of small business
plan is smart.

Borrowing money for a good useful education is smart.

There are ways to better yourself, your family and your financial future
by borrowing WISELY.

Well said. Reckless borrowing is foolish, but wise use of credit to improve
your future is what separates the men from the Harrys of the world.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:11:35 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:25:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls
them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.


I will take the Florida law any time. You can shoot them and have the
coroner drag the bodies out for you.

But nothing is perfect. You still have to pay to have the brain matter
cleaned off the walls.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the
ability to waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than
kids getting shot with the family gun).

Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. Anyone who leaves a
firearm unsecured where a child can handle it is an idiot, and in
many jurisdictions a criminal as well. To suggest that kids being
killed by unsecured firearms they find is just "the price we pay" for
security is morally and intellectually repugnant.

I did NOT say "children killed by unsecured firearms;" I said "victims of
gun accidents." I agree with you on the responsibility of securing firearms.

That said, children being killed by firearms is not morally and
intellectually repugnant - it is a fact. Facts are not subject to moral
judgements nor intellectual ones.

Children die riding their bicycles. Children die in swimming pools. Children
die on the school bus.

I agree that owning a firearm carries responsibility. So does owning a
swimming pool or buying a child a bicycle. But irrespective of the
responsibility or diligence, children WILL drown, children WILL get hit by
cars, children WILL die in school bus crashes. And children WILL die from
gunshot wounds.

The fact that some children will die from a gunshot is no more a reason to
ban guns than children drowning is a sufficient reason to ban swimming
pools.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:33:56 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:31:27 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:




In Canada, you are legally obligated to pay the dollar-amount owing,
whether you walk away or not.

The US is no different.



Yes it is. The US is completely different. America invented artificial
credit in December 1913, and America continues to invent more of it,
causing reciprocal infections in other parts of the world.

No it certainly is not (any different). You're just showing your
cluelessness.




Not in the US. In the US, government entities Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
and FHA eat the difference, not the banks or the ostensible homeowner.
That too is a consequence of law. The law was specifically and
particularly designed to insulate banks from risk of borrower default,
so that banks would be more willing to lend to deadbeats.

Not true. The bank gets it money, but the borrower is still on the
hook for the money.




Nope. Buyers lose their equity, and their credit rating tanks, but
they're still off the hook for the remainder. That's how the banks ended
up with so many "foreclosed" properties on their books.

You're simply *wrong*. You really haven't a clue. Just because you turn in
your keys doesn't let you off the hook for the remainder of the contract,
unless the lender *allows* it. Often they will (short sale) so they don't
lose even more, but they're under no obligation to unilaterally release you
from your obligations.




Congress and the executive branch feverishly and maniacally continue
to push the public into real-estate debt, as though 2008 never
happened. Unreal.

Nonsense.




Sorry, but it's completely true. It's happening now. Look it up.

You're wrong here, too. Credit is much tighter. Yes, silly things are still
being done, but it's not as you suggest.

Specifically, look up what the FHA is now doing under orders from
Congress, and look up how Congress removed the caps on how much low-
quality debt Fan and Fred are allowed to buy.

To cover the banks, yes. They are also going after banks that made (and
packaged) bad loans under iffy or fraudulent circumstances. You simply don't
know what you're talking about.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:19:55 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:33:56 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Not true. The bank gets it money, but the borrower is still on the
hook for the money.




Nope. Buyers lose their equity, and their credit rating tanks, but
they're still off the hook for the remainder. That's how the banks ended
up with so many "foreclosed" properties on their books.

The bank still has the right to pursue the former owner for costs and
any outstanding balance from the foreclosure sale. (I know someone
facing that as we speak)
Read the terms of your mortgage it may even be spelled out there that
you agree to pay. That is likely if this is a post 2000 loan.

In any case you can get sued for just about anything in the US.
Bankruptcy will generally get you off the hook if you can take it.

If you can *get* it. Even bankruptcy is means tested. It's rare that the
borrower will get off completely.

On 12/23/2010 5:45 PM DGDevin spake thus:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the ability to
waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than kids getting shot
with the family gun).

Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. Anyone who leaves a firearm
unsecured where a child can handle it is an idiot, and in many jurisdictions
a criminal as well. To suggest that kids being killed by unsecured firearms
they find is just "the price we pay" for security is morally and
intellectually repugnant.

Hey, you just described "HeyBub" to a T!


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

" wrote:

9) Unlike the US, Canada does not use legislative and policy
measures to force banks to tease people into real-estate debt.

Clueless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Crazy-ass federal or state policies like this simply don't happen in
Canada, for any type of consumer product or service. Including
mortgages.

"Tegger" wrote in message ...


US law dictated that certain investors be prohibited from determining
their own risk ratings for certain securities, but instead had to use
risk ratings from "independent" sources to determine risk-rating. These
ended up being the three licensed rating agencies.

Which, as their own internal documents and former employees have revealed,
stamped triple-A on securities that were totally obscure to them purely
because they didn't want the business to go down the street to Moody's, or
vice versa. S&P made an average of half a million bucks each rating
securities that were actually composed of toxic waste, securities so complex
they had no computer models to to even guess what they were really worth.
But they held their noses and took the money, as most of Wall St. did, the
party was never going to end.

This view that it was really all the fault of the government, and blind
self-destructive greed on the part of Wall St. had nothing to do with it is
incredible in the original meaning of the word. Even Mr. Greenspan
eventually admitted that his lifelong belief in the self-regulating,
self-policing market had turned out to have some serious flaws. As it
happens, when you allow the financial sector to be transformed into a casino
run by lunatics, there's going to be trouble. What a shocker.

On Dec 23, 6:03*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

In MY state, there is the offense of "criminal trespass."

*Texas Penal Code - 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property,
including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent
or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent
and he:
* * * * * * * * * *(1) *had notice that the entry was forbidden; *or
* * * * * * * * * *(2) *received notice to depart but failed to do so.
* * * * (b) *For purposes of this section:
* * * * * * * * * *(1) *"Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
* * * * * * * * * *(2) *"Notice" means:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (A) *oral or written communication by the owner or someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner;
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (B) *fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude
intruders or to contain livestock;
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (C) *a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to
the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders,
indicating that entry is forbidden;

Criminal Trespass is a Class B misdemeanor - a fine of up to $2,000 and 180
days in jail.

We could do witha law like that over here.

"Pete C." wrote in message
er.com...

They represent just under a third of the weapons seized by the
authorities
in Mexico. As you say, there are other sources, although that doesn't
argue
against trying to reduce the flow of weapons from the U.S. to Mexican
drug
gangs.

Yep, and reducing that flow mates nicely with the goal of reducing the
flow of other contraband in the opposite direction. For some reason the
US left wing doesn't seem to want either flow stopped.

The right wing doesn't seem to want it stopped either, as industry is quite
fond of the cheap labor provided by illegal aliens, and selling guns and
participating in the profitable law enforcement and incarceration industries
ain't so bad either.

Yep, and the laws for such exist yet somehow aren't being used to stop
those few problem dealers.

Ah, no, actually, the law largely prohibits info the ATF gathers on such
businesses from being used by anyone but the ATF, and the ATF can go years
without even inspecting a dealer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121305890.html

"This is the way Congress wrote the law," said James Zammillo, who was with
ATF for four decades and served as deputy assistant director of industry
operations before retiring this year. "The spirit of the law is that unless
the applicant is prohibited, you have to issue a license. There is no
discretion."

Because of the secrecy Congress imposed on federal gun records in 2003, the
details of inspection violations are typically redacted from public records
unless a case ends up in court. When revocations are pursued, the problems
can include sales done without background checks, improperly completed forms
or missing weapons, one of ATF's chief concerns.

Revoking a gun dealer's license is ATF's most aggressive enforcement action
short of criminal prosecution. It is a rare last resort for less than
one-quarter of 1 percent of dealers annually. It often follows years of
warnings for serious violations and sometimes leads to years of appeals.
Although gun dealers complain that ATF harps on clerical errors, the agency
says it revokes licenses only when dealers continually fail to comply with
gun laws and the violations threaten public safety.

The Post investigation is the first to document the extent of the
re-licensing practice, in which about 7 percent of the gun merchants that
had licenses revoked continued to operate."

I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't mean I need to be a
damn fool when it comes to sloppy or criminal gun dealers.

Yep, but it seems the left doesn't want those few problem dealers dealt
with, lest they no longer have any incidents to try to hype in their
anti gun lunacy. It's rather like the religious folks being against sex
ed. lest they no longer have any appreciable quantity of abortions to
use to whip their minions into a psychotic frenzy.

In 2003 Congress passed a law concealing from public view the database of
firearms dealers who break the law. Snap quiz: who controlled Congress in
2003? Was it "the left"? Just a thought, but you might consider taking a
good look at who is responsible for something rather than assuming it's "the
left" whether the facts support that conclusion or not.

On Dec 24, 12:06*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:52:27 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"





wrote:
On 12/22/10 11:04 pm, DGDevin wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

So if the perp picks the lock he can live there forever? *You harrys are
*nuts*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the door is left open it is not burglary and it becomes a civil
matter to remove them. The new gov has promised to make it a criminal
matter. We'll see.

If they force an entry, it's burglary and a criminal matter, they can
be hauled off by the police and charged with criminal damage at least.
Or more likely cautioned these days.

On Dec 24, 12:33*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:25:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"





wrote:
On 12/23/10 07:06 pm, wrote:

The UK is screwed up in ways most Americans can scarcely comprehend.

snipped the cases about which I know nothing

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).

Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did
the intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access,
no crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

So if the perp picks the lock he can live there forever? *You harrys are
*nuts*.

I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls
them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

He says the door was unlocked. *How do you tell? *What's the difference? Shoot
the bum! *He won't do it again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It can be determined forensically if a lock was picked. However how
many people know how to pick a lock? They just break a window.

On Dec 24, 1:42*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

Crime is so bad in America that everyone needs to sleep with a gun
under his pillow.

Nonsense.

Kids in the USA find these guns and shoot
themselves or one another.

Leaving firearms unsecured so children can get their hands on them is
illegal.

It's actually paranoia, the American fear culture. The boogy under the
bed syndrome.

So first you said America is so violent everyone needs a gun, but how you're
suggesting it's just paranoia, the fear is unjustified. *Can't make up your
mind? *Is your Ameriphobia so crippling that you can't decide which
ill-formed and whiny complaint to go with?

It is called irony. Americans don't understand it.
This is the excuse parroted as a reason for having guns.
Oh, I've heard the other one about the Brits coming over to gitcha. I
know of no such plan.
But the American fear culture is real. It's how your government keeps
you repressed.

On Dec 24, 1:52*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" *wrote in ...

... Guy goes away for the
weekend, comes back to find east-European illegal aliens squatting in
his house and when he calls the cops they tell him it's a civil matter
and there's nothing they can do, takes him months to get his house back
and it's trashed when he does (case repeated over and over).
Of course trespass is a civil matter, but forced entry is not. How did the
intruders get in? If they did not have to break in to gain access, no
crime was committed and it's a civil matter.

I've seen multiple news stories from the UK about such situations, and they
all seem to have occurred in a manner that would have required forced entry
but without the police being able to find proof of that--in some cases the
new "tenants" changed the locks while the owner was away on holiday or even
just out shopping. *The notion that the police are helpless to act when
someone has been forced out of his own home by trespassers is bizarre, which
is why I said the UK is messed up in incomprehensible ways.

Well your right in the latter. Part of the legacy of B-liar.
The reason is historical. In the past (as an example) it was common
practice for landowners to put out "mantraps" Like this only bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_trap#Foothold_traps
As a reaction to this it was all made illegal and as usual lawmakers
got it wrong.
However, if you meet a burglar in your house and they are a threat,
you can do what you like including killing them. but you have to
desist when they cease to be a threat. So I can hit someone with a
baseball bat but once he's on the floor, I have to desist.
Definitely bad news to shoot someone in the back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

" wrote:


It's really sad to sit here in Canada and watch you Americans consume
yourselves over this terrorism pretense as you allow your gov't to
destroy the very ideas of personal freedom and liberty your country was
founded on. We watch your local TV news, your national 6:30 pm network
news (which reported last night that your restaurants and grocery stores
are now on the lookout for food poisoning performed by home-grown
terrorists). If I believed in a god, I would be thanking him that I'm a
Canadian living in Canada.


Than join US! The only reason Candia does not go first is
because they expect US recourses, and the Navy there is behind 20+
YEARS COMPARED TO US SHIP/SUBS.

Yeah, we already tested the Canadian response. They go in with
few and end up leaving. The US has a different approach...
complete destruction of the enemy recourses, leaving no RADAR or
satellite evidence. The US military is single-handedly go into a
known infested area and cleared it in minutes

On Dec 24, 2:08*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"The Henchman" *wrote in message

...

How do you know you are better off than most?

"Harry" set his goals low enough that they were not difficult to meet; he
assumes that what's he's content with is better than what most folks have..

*There are smart ways to borrow money and there are dumb ways to borrow
money. *Borrowing money for a luxury car or a new coat or video game
system is dumb. Borrowing money for gambling or big screen tvs or alcohol
is dumb.
Borrowing money to purchase solid dividend paying buy-and-hold stocks in a
retirement shelter that refunds a portion of your taxes at year-end is
smart when done correctly.
Borrowing money for expanding or starting a well-thought of small business
plan is smart.
Borrowing money for a good useful education is smart.
There are ways to better yourself, your family and your financial future
by borrowing WISELY.

Well said. *Reckless borrowing is foolish, but wise use of credit to improve
your future is what separates the men from the Harrys of the world.

Any form of borrowing merely reduces your standard of living. You pay
more.
It's as simple as that.
Some times you have to insure an item bought with borrowed money, the
biggest con of all.
Furthermore the extra you pay goes into the pocket of parasites on
society.
If I want something, I go out and buy it for as little money as
possible.
I put money by for it's replacement if it's a consumable/
deteriorating item.
I don't feel the need for instant gratification or a stupid yearning
to keep up with the people next door.
I buy things efficienctly
I hope to die owing money to the taxman.
I have everything I want. I have a large house with a large garden
( and I have recently downsized.)
I have never been out of work.
By adopting my principles, you too can have all these things, no
problem.
No luck good or bad involved.
With one exception. I have been exceptionally lucky with my wife.
Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. Heh! Heh!

On Dec 24, 2:11*am, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:25:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law calls
them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

I will take the Florida law any time. You can shoot them and have the
coroner drag the bodies out for you.

So if your kid goes into next door nieghbour's garden to retrieve a
ball, he can shoot him?

On Dec 24, 2:19*am, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:33:56 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Not true. *The bank gets it money, but the borrower is still on the
hook for the money.

Nope. Buyers lose their equity, and their credit rating tanks, but
they're still off the hook for the remainder. That's how the banks ended
up with so many "foreclosed" properties on their books.

The bank still has the right to pursue the former owner for costs and
any outstanding balance from the foreclosure sale. (I know someone
facing that as we speak)
Read the terms of your mortgage it may even be spelled out there that
you agree to pay. That is likely if this is a post 2000 loan.

In any case you can get sued for just about anything in the US.
Bankruptcy will generally get you off the hook if you can take it.

So, more or less the same as here (UK). The banks always get their
pound of flesh. But don't expect to pay it.

On Dec 24, 2:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the
ability to waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than
kids getting shot with the family gun).

Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. *Anyone who leaves a
firearm unsecured where a child can handle it is an idiot, and in
many jurisdictions a criminal as well. *To suggest that kids being
killed by unsecured firearms they find is just "the price we pay" for
security is morally and intellectually repugnant.

I did NOT say "children killed by unsecured firearms;" I said "victims of
gun accidents." I agree with you on the responsibility of securing firearms.

That said, children being killed by firearms is not morally and
intellectually repugnant - it is a fact. Facts are not subject to moral
judgements nor intellectual ones.

Children die riding their bicycles. Children die in swimming pools. Children
die on the school bus.

I agree that owning a firearm carries responsibility. So does owning a
swimming pool or buying a child a bicycle. But irrespective of the
responsibility or diligence, children WILL drown, children WILL get hit by
cars, children WILL die in school bus crashes. And children WILL die from
gunshot wounds.

The fact that some children will die from a gunshot is no more a reason to
ban guns than children drowning is a sufficient reason to ban swimming
pools.

The difference is that guns are designed to kill people. None of the
rest are.

On Dec 24, 7:03*am, Home Guy wrote:
" wrote:
9) Unlike the US, Canada does not use legislative and policy
* *measures to force banks to tease people into real-estate debt.

Clueless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Crazy-ass federal or state policies like this simply don't happen in
Canada, for any type of consumer product or service. *Including
mortgages.

We (UK) had them without government help. (Except to de-regulate them
and fail to oversee where they were going.) B-liar/Brown again.