Han wrote:

As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
to discussion.

And that's my final answer ...

Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what the
document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document MEANS.

With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document means is
vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible, it's a little more
complicated.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

The good ones are those with small origination fees and interest
rates comparable to HELOCs. (prolly hard to find)

http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_ju...everse_mortgag.
ht
ml
Balanced view?

Interesting article. The "bad points" are the clincher to me. But,
there must be a proportion of people for whom it is the best option.
Regrettably, they got in that position by not having enough cushion
for old age expenditures.

Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most
don't have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted.
But try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account
hasn't seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live
in a whole 'nother world.

Amen to that

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
to discussion.

And that's my final answer ...

Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
MEANS.

With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible, it's
a little more complicated.

I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document written
by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another "authority". If you
want to take the word in some way, you have to "believe". Nothing wrong
with that, unless it impacts others adversely. Period.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in
:

That's indeed where "democracy" works ... And that is good if all
involved have good in mind and heart, which I sincerely hope is a
correct assumption.

Sorry if this sounds rather apprehensive. My best friend is very much
right wing and proud of it. We differ in opinion and argue a lot about
things, mostly friendly, but always sincere, or knowingly joking. He
disagrees with me on the above, and means it. No further comment since he
doesn't read this and can't defend his opinions here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 +0000, Han wrote:

to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a
better deal.

Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV

Prolly. Too bad for them, but luckily I don't believe I have to worry.

I may or may not have to worry, depending on how long we live, but the
reverse mortgage is certainly a valid option in certain circumstances -
like no money and no family.

But as with everything, the con artists come out of the woodwork. That's
why I don't agree with Larry J et al about government being the problem.
Yes, government is a royal PITA, but we need some legal sanction for the
predators. But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
owned by the predators.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:36:59 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most don't
have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted. But
try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account hasn't
seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live in a
whole 'nother world.

Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Han wrote:


I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
"authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
"believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
adversely. Period.

I suppose you would apply that statement about beliefs to all beliefs -
biblical, and non-biblical, alike. Regardless of whether they are
pro-religious beliefs or not? Period. Though it sounds nice and tolerant,
it only takes a brief look at that statement to see that it cannot work in
any application.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:36:59 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most don't
have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted. But
try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account hasn't
seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live in a
whole 'nother world.

Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!

Maybe you're _finally_ coming to your senses.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 +0000, Han wrote:

to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a
better deal.

Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV

Prolly. Too bad for them, but luckily I don't believe I have to worry.

I may or may not have to worry, depending on how long we live, but the
reverse mortgage is certainly a valid option in certain circumstances -
like no money and no family.

But as with everything, the con artists come out of the woodwork. That's
why I don't agree with Larry J et al about government being the problem.
Yes, government is a royal PITA, but we need some legal sanction for the
predators. But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
owned by the predators.

Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

"Larry Jaques" wrote

But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
owned by the predators.

Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?

No, just for the predators.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
"authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
"believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
adversely. Period.

I suppose you would apply that statement about beliefs to all beliefs
- biblical, and non-biblical, alike. Regardless of whether they are
pro-religious beliefs or not? Period. Though it sounds nice and
tolerant, it only takes a brief look at that statement to see that it
cannot work in any application.

Sorry, I'm basically an agnostic. I do not believe in any god-given word
as the final say-so for any religion, quasi-religion or movement. That
doesn't mean you can't. That would be just fine with me, unless it
impacts others in any adverse way.
And to confuse everyone even more, I fully subscribe to my Mother's
saying that God put you and me on this world to do good.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


Sorry, I'm basically an agnostic. I do not believe in any god-given
word as the final say-so for any religion, quasi-religion or
movement. That doesn't mean you can't. That would be just fine with
me, unless it impacts others in any adverse way.

Beliefs are beliefs and everybody is entitled to theirs, but what about the
agnostic belief? What if it impacts others in an adverse way? That's the
point I was getting at. To qualify whether another can hold a belief by
saying "as long as..." just can't work. Not to mention that it's a bit
presumptuous. Who decides what defines "impacts"? The thing with beliefs
is that they just have to be accepted (not necessarily agreed with), and
can't be qualified by another.


And to confuse everyone even more, I fully subscribe to my Mother's
saying that God put you and me on this world to do good.

That's ok - we all have that part of us that is a walking contradiction.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:b1c25$4efa3ff0
:

I'm not sure I get it. If I do nothing to your belief, how can I impact
you adversely? My saying that I do not believe something you do, is not
impacting you in the least (IMNSHO).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:b1c25$4efa3ff0 :

I'm not sure I get it. If I do nothing to your belief, how can I
impact you adversely? My saying that I do not believe something you
do, is not impacting you in the least (IMNSHO).

Might have misunderstood you but the "as long as..." clause struck me as you
saying you put conditions on the beliefs of others. In this day and age of
political correctness, it's easy to imagine people saying they are offended
by this or that, simply because this or that exists - or other people hold a
belief in them. You are correct in your last point above though - your
beliefs do not impact me in the least - that's not what I was trying to
point out.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
to discussion.

And that's my final answer ...

Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
MEANS.

With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible,
it's a little more complicated.

I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
"authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
"believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
adversely. Period.

Uh, no. There are at least three distinct methods.

In the Jewish view, the authority and ability to reach a ruling is contained
in the text itself and that text devolves its technique thusly: "If a matter
comes before you that is too hard for you to judge, take the matter to the
sages of the generation and be bound by their decision."( See Deut 17:8.)
[This probably comes closest to our current civil law].

In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested with
the Church as an institution.

In the non-catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
with the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Most of the time these three methods reach the same answer (i.e., "Thou
shalt not murder"), but sometimes not. Consider abortion:

* Under Jewish law, abortion is sometimes mandated!
* Under the Catholic Canon, since no good can come from an immoral act,
abortion is always banned.
* In the non-catholic tradition, I know of no organized Protestant church
that has an official position on the subject, leaving the decision, instead,
up to the individual.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:01:31 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?

What am I offered for Bernie Madoff's scalp?

Or Angelo Mozillo's?

Or the &%$! that keeps robocalling everyone and offering to fix our
credit card rates.

Unfortunately, by the time people like that have done enough damage that
we're sure they qualify, it's too late. But I sure would like to see
some of them in jail. And I don't mean a "country club" prison.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:55:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!

Maybe you're _finally_ coming to your senses.

Or the other way around :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains
ope to discussion.

And that's my final answer ...

Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
MEANS.

With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible,
it's a little more complicated.

I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
"authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
"believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
adversely. Period.

Uh, no. There are at least three distinct methods.

In the Jewish view, the authority and ability to reach a ruling is
contained in the text itself and that text devolves its technique
thusly: "If a matter comes before you that is too hard for you to
judge, take the matter to the sages of the generation and be bound by
their decision."( See Deut 17:8.) [This probably comes closest to our
current civil law].

In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
with the Church as an institution.

In the non-catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is
vested with the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Most of the time these three methods reach the same answer (i.e.,
"Thou shalt not murder"), but sometimes not. Consider abortion:

* Under Jewish law, abortion is sometimes mandated!
* Under the Catholic Canon, since no good can come from an immoral
act, abortion is always banned.
* In the non-catholic tradition, I know of no organized Protestant
church that has an official position on the subject, leaving the
decision, instead, up to the individual.

Sure, here you should take my use of "belief" as the belief that there is
a religious authority of one kind or another for your "group". Fine by
me, as long as you do not apply your religious "rules" on me. And, no, I
do not believe grin that "anything goes". There are rules very much
like the laws based on our Constitution, or the Dutch "grondwet" or
"basic law", or those based on our Judeo-Christian basis. But my rules
and your rules may differ. Again, no harm as long as you allow me my
laws, and as long as my laws do not harm others.

Btw, in many Protestant groups, there are many rather official rules
and/or laws and/or customs that you better follow if you want to belong.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:48:19 -0700, "Max"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote

But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
owned by the predators.

Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?

No, just for the predators.

Bad Max. Go lie down.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:28:12 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:55:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!

Maybe you're _finally_ coming to your senses.

Or the other way around :-).

I dunno. I've been a liberally moderate conservative for a lonnnnng
time now.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

"Larry Jaques" wrote

, "Max" wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote
Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?

No, just for the predators.

Bad Max. Go lie down.

I was lying.............down.