In article ,
" wrote:

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.

I think in FL the Insurance Commissioner said that has to be covered by
the homeowners policy (grin).

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"DGDevin" wrote in
:



"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.



The ratings agencies had no choice but to give AAA ratings. To do
otherwise would be to openly defy Federal wishes anbd directives, and
risk their licenses. Whether or not business could go "down the street"
is irrelevant, since a civilized government would never have forced
those securities into being in the first place.

When Fan and Fred bought the AAA-rated mortgage securities, their own
internal memos acknowledged 1) that the securites were "opaque and
difficult to understand", and 2) that they were forced to buy them
anyway, to comply with Congressional/presidential demands.




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.



If you left your front door open with a sign on the lawn saying, "Large
amounts of cash, jewelery, and valuable consumer-electronics inside.
Nobody's home; help yourself", would you be surprised when somebody
actually did walk in and help himself?

You cannot have a casino without chips. Greenspan, Bernanke, Congress
and the president all cooperated to provide truckloads of free or
nearly-free casino chips. Those chips went by another name: credit.

There's only ONE single outfit in the nation which is permitted
(ORDERED) by law to create credit from nothing. Everybody else who tries
it gets strung up a tree, like Bernie Madoff.

The other thing that aforementioned culprits did was to legislatively
force lenders to push money into the hands of those who could not pay it
back. When borrowers balked, lenders used sorts of shady tactics in an
attempt at satisfying the law.




Even Mr.
Greenspan eventually admitted that his lifelong belief in the
self-regulating, self-policing market had turned out to have some
serious flaws.



Greenspan cannot admit, to himself or to others, that he was a primary
cause of the crisis. Could /you/ live with yourself if you were forced
to admit to a mistake of such enormity?



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.


It all starts with too much credit. It's after that when the "casino"
kicks in.

The lunatics are in Congress, the Fed, and the executive branch.


--
Tegger

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:28:20 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

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.

Nonsense. Even if so, are the police going to come out and do it? They won't
even get off their butts to throw the bums out. You people are *crazy* (be we
all knew that).

However how
many people know how to pick a lock? They just break a window.

There are *many* ways to get into houses, leaving no evidence. *ALL* of them
illegal (if uninvited), here. Property rights are rather important to a
society.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:59:22 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

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?

Shifting the goalposts, again, harry?

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:43:15 -0600, "
wrote:

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



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.


You're both wrong. Depends on the state.
Look up "deficiency judgement."

--Vic

On Dec 24, 1:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:59:22 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
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?

Shifting the goalposts, again, harry?

No, just postulating a possible outcome if you are right. (I don't
believe you are right). Someone will let me know.

"G. Morgan" wrote:

If I believed in a god, I would be thanking him that I'm a
Canadian living in Canada.

Than join US!

No thanks.

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.

Oh brother. There are always bone-heads like you that think that Canada
has all these advantages because we leech off the "protection" of the US
military. That we are in a better fiscal position because we don't
spend billions on our military because we can avail ourselves of US
military protection.

The truth is that the US military has and always will be more of a
threat to Canada than a support or an asset.

Yeah, we already tested the Canadian response. They go in with
few and end up leaving.

We don't participate in illegal invasions and occupations like you did
in Iraq. In Iraq, you performed a political assasination by calling it
a war. You have no shame.

The US has a different approach...

Yes - you lie to yourselves and the world because it makes you feel
better when you commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the
name of reaching your own twisted geo-political goals.

The US military is single-handedly go into a
known infested area and cleared it in minutes

Then what's taking you so long to wage your "war" in Iraq and
Afhanistan?

How many minutes are there in 8 years?

Noahbuddy wrote:

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.

They probably can't do it because of low population. (grin).

Believe that - if it helps you cope with reality.

" wrote:

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

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

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).

Be a little slower with the term "lie". He might merely be mistaken. But he's
not, entirely. It varies from state to state. My state, Texas, is a
non-recourse state. They can foreclose on the house, but can't come after you
for the balance. There are other states as well. See
http://www.realinvestortips.com/blog...ency-statutes/

-- Doug

" wrote:

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.

You're right, but it was a fairly recent change in the law -- in the last couple
of years. -- Doug

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:46:22 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 24, 1:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:59:22 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
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?

Shifting the goalposts, again, harry?

No, just postulating a possible outcome if you are right. (I don't
believe you are right). Someone will let me know.

Good God, you're stupid!

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:03:43 -0500, 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.

Not only clueless, but a damned liar, as well.

In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:

" wrote:

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.

You're right, but it was a fairly recent change in the law -- in the last
couple
of years. -- Doug

And, IIRC, it will sunset around 2017 or so.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


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.

When it comes to guns there are precious few accidents, but there is plenty
of negligence. Guns don't load and fire themselves, they don't leave
themselves where kids can find them, they don't fire themselves without
being certain of the background, they don't fire themselves at unidentified
targets, and so on. The number of cases where a dog knocks over a lamp that
tips a bowling trophy off a shelf that falls and hits the trigger of a
loaded gun causing it to put a bullet into someone are vanishingly small;
not so with people doing stupid things with firearms, like not locking them
up when kids are around.

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.

What a bizarre statement. Gun accidents happen because someone did
something stupid, their actions directly led to someone getting shot. If
you can't see either the moral or intellectual horror in a needless loss of
life due to negligence, well you must be living on a different planet from
most of us. Cops get killed on the job by criminals, it's a fact, but I
find if horrifying nonetheless.

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

In many cases because an adult did something stupid--didn't make the kid
wear a helmet, left the kid in the pool unattended, blew a stop sign and
crashed into the school bus. There are such things as accidents that could
not reasonably be foreseen, that require a complex chain of events to happen
in just the right way. But leaving a loaded gun where a kid can access it
is not one of them.

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.

True, and irrelevant. Doing something negligent that leads to a death is
not excused by the fact that down the street last month a kid died from
slipping in a rain puddle and hitting his head. It's *possible* that an
unlikely mechanical failure will cause someone to lose control of his car
and crash into a school bus. But it's way more likely he was speeding,
talking on his cell phone, and made a last-second lane change when he
realized he was about to miss his off-ramp. You must have worked lots of
traffic accidents, how many were freak occurrences with nobody to blame as
opposed to someone doing something stupid?

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.

Can you quote me saying anything about banning guns? No? Then where did
this fly ball come from?

"harry" wrote in message
...


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

My dad's shotgun was designed to kill ducks and pheasants, and his rifle
wasn't designed to shoot anything bigger than a rabbit or maybe a coyote.
The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically to shoot paper
targets. None of them ever shot a person. As usual you are more
comfortable with slogans than reality.

"harry" wrote in message
...


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.

Gotta watch that irony, it often turns around and bites people who think
they know how to use it, as you have demonstrated on various occasions.

This is the excuse parroted as a reason for having guns.

Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million times a year (depending on whether you
want to believe the DOJ or the NRA) someone in America uses a firearm for
self-defense, sometimes without firing it. I know several such people,
including a female ancestor who defended herself and her two young children
from a violent intruder (she was born in the UK too). So your claim that
the ownership of firearms for self-defense is an illusion "parroted" by
people who don't really need one is another example of your ignorance and
consuming anti-Americanism.

Oh, I've heard the other one about the Brits coming over to gitcha. I
know of no such plan.

If there were such a plan they would hardly share it with a space-cadet like
you.

But the American fear culture is real. It's how your government keeps
you repressed.

Your govt. found other means, the nanny-state in particular.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

This is the excuse parroted as a reason for having guns.

Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million times a year (depending on whether you
want to believe the DOJ or the NRA) someone in America uses a firearm for
self-defense, sometimes without firing it. I know several such people,
including a female ancestor who defended herself and her two young children
from a violent intruder (she was born in the UK too). So your claim that
the ownership of firearms for self-defense is an illusion "parroted" by
people who don't really need one is another example of your ignorance and
consuming anti-Americanism.

Heck I have gotten out of a couple minor scrapes that could have been
worse by putting my hand on my back as if I had a piece there. The
baddies have to assume that you do given the number out there.




--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

wrote in message ...


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.

Wouldn't be much of a problem should you unfortunately catch a slug with
your skull, would it--one Kleenex and a squirt of Windex would get it all.

"harry" wrote in message
...


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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.

On Dec 24, 1:50*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. *A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

I am confused. Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

HB

Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. *Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.

On 12/24/2010 1:30 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...


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

My dad's shotgun was designed to kill ducks and pheasants, and his rifle
wasn't designed to shoot anything bigger than a rabbit or maybe a
coyote. The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically to
shoot paper targets. None of them ever shot a person. As usual you are
more comfortable with slogans than reality.

Don't your firearms emit evil gun radiation which contaminates
everything around them? Guns are like the inanimate objects from
the "Transformers" movie, they will sprout little legs, jump up
and chase after you trying to shoot you. :-)

TDD

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:12:05 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

On Dec 24, 1:50*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. *A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

I buy all sorts of things[*] under these terms. Why use my money if I can use
theirs - free?
[*] Off the top of my head, in the last five years - A laptop, carpeting for a
house I was selling, a couple of sofas, fridge, dishwasher, and a sliding
compound miter saw.

I am confused. Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

No. As long as the loan is paid within the "free" terms, there is no interest
at all. Some require a minimum payment each month, some don't. If you slip
up and go a *day* over the contract, you owe all the interest (and at a rotten
rate). Don't do that.


HB

Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. *Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.

harry wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.

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

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are arguing from
a false premise: there are many people that NEED killing.

DGDevin wrote:

When it comes to guns there are precious few accidents, but there is
plenty of negligence. Guns don't load and fire themselves, they
don't leave themselves where kids can find them, they don't fire
themselves without being certain of the background, they don't fire
themselves at unidentified targets, and so on. The number of cases
where a dog knocks over a lamp that tips a bowling trophy off a shelf
that falls and hits the trigger of a loaded gun causing it to put a
bullet into someone are vanishingly small; not so with people doing
stupid things with firearms, like not locking them up when kids are
around.

We may be talking past each other. I've never locked up my guns but, by the
same token, I took my son to the range when he was about five years old.

He learned at an early age the power and capacity of a firearm to inflict
great harm, just as he learned how to cross a street. As a consequence of
this training, he never got hit by a car in an intersection nor did he
unintentionally ever shoot anybody.


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.

What a bizarre statement. Gun accidents happen because someone did
something stupid, their actions directly led to someone getting shot.
If you can't see either the moral or intellectual horror in a
needless loss of life due to negligence, well you must be living on a
different planet from most of us. Cops get killed on the job by
criminals, it's a fact, but I find if horrifying nonetheless.


I agree that negligence often leads to tragedy. The fact that gun is
involved in the negligence is, to my mind, irrelevant.


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.

Can you quote me saying anything about banning guns? No? Then where
did this fly ball come from?

I apologize. The statement wasn't directed at you; it was more of a
universal truth that I blurt out from time to time (often to the
consternation of fellow passengers on the bus).

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Don't your firearms emit evil gun radiation which contaminates everything
around them? Guns are like the inanimate objects from
the "Transformers" movie, they will sprout little legs, jump up
and chase after you trying to shoot you. :-)

I fear my firearms as much as I fear my power tools--not at all. However I
treat both with great respect because I'm aware that a moment's foolishness
can have nasty consequences. As I mentioned here once before, I knew a guy
who managed to shoot himself but was lucky enough to survive the
experience--I don't care to experience anything like that.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the
downside
of that?

I am confused. Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

What interest? Ford wanted to move cars, there was a factory rebate and
they were happy to loan me the money interest-free--zero percent--I would
have been a fool to pay cash. I got to use their money to buy their product
and pay it back over five years, that's what I call a good deal. It's
hilarious that "Harry" thinks otherwise.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:37:32 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the
downside
of that?

I am confused. Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

What interest? Ford wanted to move cars, there was a factory rebate and
they were happy to loan me the money interest-free--zero percent--I would
have been a fool to pay cash. I got to use their money to buy their product
and pay it back over five years, that's what I call a good deal. It's
hilarious that "Harry" thinks otherwise.

Ford didn't offer you cash, instead?

On 12/24/10 04:50 pm, DGDevin wrote:

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the
downside of that?

You can't automatically assume that it is a good deal, because typically
you can get *either* an interest-free loan *or* a substantial discount
for cash -- so it depends on what kind of interest you can get by
investing the cash instead of paying for the car with it.

Perce

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

You can't automatically assume that it is a good deal, because typically
you can get *either* an interest-free loan *or* a substantial discount
for cash -- so it depends on what kind of interest you can get by
investing the cash instead of paying for the car with it.


And whatever it will cost to finance the residual.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

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.

I never realised Bush was a socialist! This is a socialist idea.

On Dec 24, 7:30*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

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

My dad's shotgun was designed to kill ducks and pheasants, and his rifle
wasn't designed to shoot anything bigger than a rabbit or maybe a coyote.
The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically to shoot paper
targets. *None of them ever shot a person. *As usual you are more
comfortable with slogans than reality.

And an automatic pistol? Assault rifle?
Shoot paper targets, eh. A toy designed to brainwash children.
"Hunters" are sad *******s anyway.

On Dec 24, 7:40*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

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.

Gotta watch that irony, it often turns around and bites people who think
they know how to use it, as you have demonstrated on various occasions.

This is the excuse parroted as a reason for having guns.

Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million times a year (depending on whether you
want to believe the DOJ or the NRA) someone in America uses a firearm for
self-defense, sometimes without firing it. *I know several such people,
including a female ancestor who defended herself and her two young children
from a violent intruder (she was born in the UK too). *So your claim that
the ownership of firearms for self-defense is an illusion "parroted" by
people who don't really need one is another example of your ignorance and
consuming anti-Americanism.

Oh, I've heard the other one about the Brits coming over to gitcha. I
know of no such plan.

If there were such a plan they would hardly share it with a space-cadet like
you.

But the American fear culture is real. *It's how your government keeps
you repressed.

Your govt. found other means, the nanny-state in particular.

I expect the intruder had a gun too.

On Dec 24, 9:24*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"DGDevin" wrote:
This is the excuse parroted as a reason for having guns.

Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million times a year (depending on whether you
want to believe the DOJ or the NRA) someone in America uses a firearm for
self-defense, sometimes without firing it. *I know several such people,
including a female ancestor who defended herself and her two young children
from a violent intruder (she was born in the UK too). *So your claim that
the ownership of firearms for self-defense is an illusion "parroted" by
people who don't really need one is another example of your ignorance and
consuming anti-Americanism.

* Heck I have gotten out of a couple minor scrapes that could have been
worse by putting my hand on my back as if I had a piece there. The
baddies have to assume that you do given the number out there.



--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

That's why they carry their own guns. And shoot first.

On Dec 24, 10:12*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:50*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"harry" *wrote in message

...

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. *A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

I am confused. *Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

HB





Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. *Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

On Dec 24, 11:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:12:05 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:





On Dec 24, 1:50 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

I buy all sorts of things[*] under these terms. *Why use my money if I can use
theirs - free? * *

[*] Off the top of my head, in the last five years - A laptop, carpeting for a
house I was selling, a couple of sofas, fridge, dishwasher, and a sliding
compound miter saw.

I am confused. *Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

No. *As long as the loan is paid within the "free" terms, there is no interest
at all. *Some require a minimum payment each month, some don't. *If you slip
up and go a *day* over the contract, you owe all the interest (and at a rotten
rate). *Don't do that.



HB

Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have paid over the top for every one of those items. Dopes and
their money are easily parted. There are NO free meals in commerce.

On Dec 25, 12:08*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:svKdncUUku1R0I7QnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink .com...

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.

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are arguing from
a false premise: there are many people that NEED killing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Virtually all guns are designed to kill people. Especially hand guns,
they have no other purpose.

On Dec 25, 12:46*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 12/24/10 04:50 pm, DGDevin wrote:

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.
Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the
downside of that?

You can't automatically assume that it is a good deal, because typically
you can get *either* an interest-free loan *or* a substantial discount
for cash -- so it depends on what kind of interest you can get by
investing the cash instead of paying for the car with it.

Perce

Exactly so. They are playing on instant gratification syndrome, greed
and aquisitivness of people.

If you want to buy a car efficiently just go out and buy one a year
old. Save 33% or more. You get one then for it's true worth. You can
get one still under warrenty and any defects repaired under that
warrenty. Here in the UK there are car auctions (reposessions) where
cars can be had half price.
Just after the crash you could buy an almost new Porsche, Ferrari.
Mercedes, Jaguar or Lamboghini a year old for less than half price in
the UK.
That's the way to buy!

?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. Cash is
still king

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 04:56:18 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 25, 12:08*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:svKdncUUku1R0I7QnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink .com...

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.

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are arguing from
a false premise: there are many people that NEED killing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Virtually all guns are designed to kill people. Especially hand guns,
they have no other purpose.

Clueless, as always. There are *many* target pistols, designed specifically
to shoot paper.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 04:55:18 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 24, 11:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:12:05 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:





On Dec 24, 1:50 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

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.

Hogwash, a zero-interest loan to buy a car is a brilliant investment.
Instead of paying cash I leave the money in an interest-generating
investment and make monthly payments that can come out of petty cash. A
*free* five-year loan, and a new car to drive, what exactly is the downside
of that?

I buy all sorts of things[*] under these terms. *Why use my money if I can use
theirs - free? * *

[*] Off the top of my head, in the last five years - A laptop, carpeting for a
house I was selling, a couple of sofas, fridge, dishwasher, and a sliding
compound miter saw.

I am confused. *Doesn't the buyer have to pay the accumulated interest
at the end of the designated period?

No. *As long as the loan is paid within the "free" terms, there is no interest
at all. *Some require a minimum payment each month, some don't. *If you slip
up and go a *day* over the contract, you owe all the interest (and at a rotten
rate). *Don't do that.



HB

Send me $100 and I will become your financial adviser. Heh! Heh!

You are overestimating the value of your advice by at least $99.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have paid over the top for every one of those items. Dopes and
their money are easily parted. There are NO free meals in commerce.

Do you *try* to be wrong. You certainly are good at it!