OT: If Joe Long (Truthseeker) really makes "six figures".....

[BillB]

...as he bragged the other day, I have a few questions.

1. Why is he a deadbeat who doesn't pay his bills?
2. Why is his home being auctioned out from under him next month?
3. Why can't he make the payments on a measly 400k mortgage?
4. Why would he take a 400k sub-prime, interest-only loan at a whopping
6.25%?

Doesn't make any sense.

In any event, is anyone besides me willing to chip in to help poor Joe
keep a roof over his head?

[O-PGManager]

On Sep 6 2013 1:54 PM, BillB wrote:

> ....as he bragged the other day, I have a few questions.

>
> 1. Why is he a deadbeat who doesn't pay his bills?
> 2. Why is his home being auctioned out from under him next month?
> 3. Why can't he make the payments on a measly 400k mortgage?
> 4. Why would he take a 400k sub-prime, interest-only loan at a whopping
> 6.25%?

Where are you getting all this information? Maybe he's strategically
defaulting - often a good idea if the house value took a dive.

>
> Doesn't make any sense.
>
> In any event, is anyone besides me willing to chip in to help poor Joe
> keep a roof over his head?

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[Dave the Clueless]

On Sep 6 2013 2:54 PM, BillB wrote:

> ....as he bragged the other day, I have a few questions.

"measly" ... LOL! Bigoted ass-clown.

-------
"Everybody has asked the question ... 'What shall we do with the Negro?' I
have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing
with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!"
(Frederick Douglass)

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 11:26 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Where are you getting all this information?

It came to me in my email from a reliable source.

Maybe he's strategically
> defaulting - often a good idea if the house value took a dive.

Jesus Christ, Opie. Bankruptcy can be a good "strategic" option too.

"strategically defaulting" = deadbeat

He is one of the idiots who nearly brought down the US economy.

[mo_ntresor]

On Sep 6 2013 12:26 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> > ....as he bragged the other day, I have a few questions.
> >
> > 1. Why is he a deadbeat who doesn't pay his bills?
> > 2. Why is his home being auctioned out from under him next month?
> > 3. Why can't he make the payments on a measly 400k mortgage?
> > 4. Why would he take a 400k sub-prime, interest-only loan at a whopping
> > 6.25%?
>
> Where are you getting all this information? Maybe he's strategically
> defaulting - often a good idea if the house value took a dive.
>
> > Doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > In any event, is anyone besides me willing to chip in to help poor Joe
> > keep a roof over his head?

better question: what kind of little bitch posts stuff like this on the
ng? the same kind of little bitch who threatens letters to employers for
misquotes?

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

So can I put you down for a donation, or not?

[da pickle]

Still stinking up a group that has too many stinkers already.

[brattt]

On Sep 6 2013 2:33 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 06/09/2013 11:26 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Where are you getting all this information?
>
> It came to me in my email from a reliable source.

unfuckinbelievable - this is low even for YOU

[Truthseeker]

It is pretty pathetic, but then I do pity the man. How much must your
life suck to need to troll for attention like that?

Of course, his "reliable source" isn't so reliable. He has his facts
wrong and his information incomplete, padded with ridiculous speculation.

BTW, I'll drop a couple of tidbits here. A new Regional Park is across
the road from my property with hiking/biking trails. A gated community
of 35-acre lots is on another side (none of the houses are or will be in
view of my house). City open space with twelve miles of hiking/biking
trails is on another side. So I tried to give the city an acre of my
land to build a trail connecting their two trail systems. The bank
would not agree. So I gave the city a conservation easement on which
they can build their trail, and I built a temporary unofficial trail
myself and opened it to the public to use in the meantime.

No one needs worry about me, I'm fine.


--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[brattt]

I assume you know who shared your email with B-BillB and would love for
you to tell us who it is.

[bub]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 10:54:51 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>i'm sitting here on my fat ass all day and this is all i have to do
>someone please pay attention to me

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:34:39 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

No, it's really not.

[homoind...@gmail.com]

12:54 PMBillB

How is it that a big shot lawyer thinks 6 figures is a big deal?

[fffurken1]

Deabeat strategic defaulting all you want but I've never really understood
why you would blame reckless borrowing over reckless lending. A property
bubble is created by banks and government, not people.

[Travel]

Well, BillB is an automatic to do something like that to Pickle if the opportunity presented itself, but it is a little surprising that he'd do it to someone other than Pickle.

I, too, must have been giving BillB more credit for a certain base-level of character than he's obviously due. I mean, this is something only Risky Biz would stoop to. Or so we thought.

Pawlousy would do something like this to Mr Coleman, but that seems to be a nutty, isolated obsession on Pawlousy's part.

"Truth"seeker must have "got-in" a few "subtle snarks" on BillB.

The "subtle snark" seems to work miracles with some. It penetrates in a very deep and lasting way, as shown by how much Pickle particularly bothers Risky Biz, BillB and Poupon; they're permanently and pro actively beside themselves over Pickle's subtle snark jabs.

I've often considered switching to the subtle snark technique, because it works so spectacularly well with exactly those on whom you want it work. Plus, I'd be good at it.

However, I enjoy "calling a baboon a baboon" too much.

[O-PGManager]

Eh, I don't think anyone owes the criminal banksters jack shit. Banks and
corporations strategically default all the time... you don't question
their honor. Strategic defaulters had zero to do with the crashed economy.

[Truthseeker]

Travel wrote:

> "Truth"seeker must have "got-in" a few "subtle snarks" on BillB.

Give the man a cigar, he scored a bulls-eye.

[risky biz]

'Travel' never ceases to exceed my estimation of how much more stupid he
can make himself appear.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Master of Ceremonies, Travel, enthusiastically announcing a
video guide to crossdresser ("ladyboy") bars in Thailand:

"Buck Wild, Cominacha with a brand new video."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkp1lcmGtPQ
Buck Wild Travel Apr 2 2013 12:04 PM PST

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 7:51 PM, homoind...@gmail.com wrote:

> How is it that a big shot lawyer thinks 6 figures is a big deal?

It's not a big deal for a lawyer, but he's not a lawyer. It's a very big
deal for a complete idiot who believes the federal government spends 45%
of GDP, and that Sarah Palin will be the next Margaret Thatcher. How
many retarded people do you know who make "six figures," yet are in
foreclosure because they can't make the payments on their sub-prime
mortgage on the scrub land they paid way too much for?

You must be one gullible SOB.

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 2:17 PM, Truthseeker wrote:

> It is pretty pathetic, but then I do pity the man. How much must your
> life suck to need to troll for attention like that?

I'm simply exposing you as the hypocritical asswipe you are, and if I
didn't, someone else was going to. I asked if I could do the honors.

> Of course, his "reliable source" isn't so reliable.

Uh, yes s/he is. Extremely so, and you know it.

He has his facts
> wrong and his information incomplete, padded with ridiculous speculation.

Nonsense.

> BTW, I'll drop a couple of tidbits here. A new Regional Park is across
> the road from my property with hiking/biking trails. A gated community
> of 35-acre lots is on another side (none of the houses are or will be in
> view of my house). City open space with twelve miles of hiking/biking
> trails is on another side. So I tried to give the city an acre of my
> land to build a trail connecting their two trail systems. The bank
> would not agree. So I gave the city a conservation easement on which
> they can build their trail, and I built a temporary unofficial trail
> myself and opened it to the public to use in the meantime.

What does any of that BS have to do with your house being scheduled to
be auctioned off on October 9th because you can't pay your bills?

I'm going to put an offer in, just for shits and giggles.

> No one needs worry about me, I'm fine.

No, you're not. Denial is what got you to this point.

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 2:28 PM, wilm...@gmail.com wrote:


> Yet you said nothing when Coleman posted an address that both he and you thought were mine. Matter of fact, you reposted it several times. So, nothing is too low even for you.

That's totally different. You don't share her warped political beliefs.

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 8:46 PM, Travel wrote:

> Well, BillB is an automatic to do something like that to Pickle if the opportunity presented itself, but it is a little surprising that he'd do it to someone other than Pickle.
>
> I, too, must have been giving BillB more credit for a certain base-level of character than he's obviously due. I mean, this is something only Risky Biz would stoop to. Or so we thought.
>
> Pawlousy would do something like this to Mr Coleman, but that seems to be a nutty, isolated obsession on Pawlousy's part.
>
> "Truth"seeker must have "got-in" a few "subtle snarks" on BillB.

That's not it at all. You don't see the irony and hypocrisy of someone
bragging on the internet about how much money he makes (which is a total
fabrication), WHILE he simultaneously argues that certain people who are
trapped working full time in a shite job aren't entitled to make enough
to feed, house and clothe themselves, WHILE his house is being sold out
from under him for being a deadbeat borrower?

Come on, that's some funny shit.

[BillB]

So if I loan you 100 bucks, and you refuse to pay me back, it's
primarily MY fault for not being more careful who I lend to?? That's
some fine morals your mama taught you.

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 8:46 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Eh, I don't think anyone owes the criminal banksters jack shit.

That's because you are an immature man-child. You're a "strategic
defaulter" yourself, aren't you Opie?

[BillB]

On 06/09/2013 1:34 PM, brattt wrote:

>>>> It came to me in my email from a reliable source.
>
> unfuckinbelievable - this is low even for YOU

Sorry, I don't follow. Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is what I do.

[fffu...@hotmail.com]

You can be as simplistically stupid as you want to be Bill, because that's for free.

I'm not condoning strategic defaulting, I'm telling you who is predominantly to blame for a property bubble.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 1:48 AM, fffu...@hotmail.com wrote:

> You can be as simplistically stupid as you want to be Bill, because that's for free.
>
> I'm not condoning strategic defaulting, I'm telling you who is predominantly to blame for a property bubble.

The people who are primarily responsible for any kind of asset bubble
are idiot purchasers who are WILLING to pay way too much for assets.
That is rather fundamental. Whether they get the money to make such
purchases from friends, family, winning the lottery, easy credit, hard
credit, or lifelong savings is really neither here nor there. THEY are
the ones who signed on the dotted line. I do see that in some situations
the lenders have SOME culpability, but the primary responsibility is
always with the person who says "YES," (absent fraudulent
misrepresentation or similar) and especially so when they *know* they
should be saying "NO," as most do/did.

That was the case with the OVERWHELMING majority of sub-prime borrowers
who triggered the housing crash. Have you never seen some of these
idiots interviewed on TV? Almost to a one, they are always FULL OF SHIT,
and try to bend over backwards to minimize their own responsibility,
just like Opie does.

[fffu...@hotmail.com]

So you want to blame an idiot for being an idiot and not the reckless greedy people (banks and government) for giving them the money?

That's not real world Bill, it's faux nobility.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 2:11 AM, fffu...@hotmail.com wrote:

> So you want to blame an idiot for being an idiot and not the reckless greedy people (banks and government) for giving them the money?
>
> That's not real world Bill, it's faux nobility.

They weren't so stupid that they didn't see a way to freeroll for big
bucks with other people's money, and that if worse came to worse they'd
just squat for two years instead of having to pay rent. And that's
exactly what they did. Some people, regular working stiffs, got the
equivalent of 80-100k of free rent out of the deal, living in houses
they couldn't DREAM of affording at market rates. You can be an idiot
but still be smart enough to game the system at the same time. That's
who these people are.

Granted, I have seen one or two who were genuinely bub-level stupid, who
REALLY, TRULY didn't understand that the 0% interest dealy was only good
for a year or whatever (they thought it just went on forever), but we
both know that encountering bub-level stupidity outside an institution
of some sort is an extremely rare event. I don't hold those people
responsible, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking
about people like Truthseeker and Opie.

[Clave]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message news:l0eq9g$ahc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 07/09/2013 1:48 AM, fffu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> You can be as simplistically stupid as you want to be Bill, because
>> that's for free.
>>
>> I'm not condoning strategic defaulting, I'm telling you who is
>> predominantly to blame for a property bubble.
>
> The people who are primarily responsible for any kind of asset bubble are
> idiot purchasers who are WILLING to pay way too much for assets. That is
> rather fundamental. Whether they get the money to make such purchases from
> friends, family, winning the lottery, easy credit, hard credit, or
> lifelong savings is really neither here nor there. THEY are the ones who
> signed on the dotted line. I do see that in some situations the lenders
> have SOME culpability, but the primary responsibility is always with the
> person who says "YES," (absent fraudulent misrepresentation or similar)
> and especially so when they *know* they should be saying "NO," as most
> do/did.

To be fair, there's blame enough to go around -- *both* parties sign on the
dotted line. I know from friends in the industry that the lenders weren't
anywhere near innocent in the deal. The brokers humping subprimes knew the
paper was worthless -- but all they needed to do was book it, tranche it,
sell it and it's not their problem any more. No one believed it was
sustainable, but if you weren't going after that easy money at the time, you
were a rube.

IMO, neither side has any claim to moral high ground.

Jim

[fffu...@hotmail.com]

Well look, it's a little bit different from where I'm sitting because people in Ireland can't escape mortgage debt in the same way they can in America even after they default.

And even if it's little old Ireland, we had one of the biggest property bubbles (and crashes) in the history of the Universe and I saw people, both stupid and smart, saddle themselves with huge debt in the belief that it was safe (as an investment) and fuelled by the banks recklessly giving them money and the government through longer term tax incentives.

So I'm sympathetic towards them and really not at all for the people I find most accountable.

PS. Morning Clave.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 2:27 AM, BillB wrote:

>We're talking
> about people like Truthseeker and Opie.

Not that I'd put him in anywhere near the same class as those two
scoundrels above, but I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that Dutch
has admitted to buying products, using them, then returning them, as a
premeditated money-saving scheme. I think Popinjay can confirm that,
because iirc he issued a formal reprimand. Again, not nearly as bad as
Opie and Truthseeker, but I'd say continued behavior like that puts him
at an elevated risk of someday becoming a strategic defaulter.

[brattt]

On Sep 7 2013 3:12 AM, BillB wrote:


B-BillB - there is not one fucking person in this thread who agree with
what you did.

Are you now going to continue to deny you called my place.

and if it was the right thing to do, why hasn't the person who sent you
the email come forward? They sent it to you because they knew you would
be a big enough sack of shit to publish it.

[homoind...@gmail.com]

I don't know anything about his views on Palin or the GDP, but it sure looked
like you thought 6 figure income was a big deal.

And that doesn't even touch how much of a worthless motherfucker a "man" like you must be to attempt to post shit like that on the Internet. Your life must be really empty for you to spend time trying to impugn the reputations of people you chat with on usenet. I feel sorry for you.

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:27:45 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>They weren't so stupid that they didn't see a way to freeroll for big
>bucks with other people's money, and that if worse came to worse they'd
>just squat for two years instead of having to pay rent. And that's
>exactly what they did. Some people, regular working stiffs, got the
>equivalent of 80-100k of free rent out of the deal, living in houses
>they couldn't DREAM of affording at market rates. You can be an idiot
>but still be smart enough to game the system at the same time. That's
>who these people are.

Were any black folks involved in this?

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:27:23 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>That's not it at all. You don't see the irony and hypocrisy of someone
>bragging on the internet about how much money he makes (which is a total
>fabrication), WHILE he simultaneously argues that certain people who are
>trapped working full time in a shite job aren't entitled to make enough
>to feed, house and clothe themselves, WHILE his house is being sold out
>from under him for being a deadbeat borrower?

Why don't you prove it? You don't need to tell us your secret source.
Just post the link to his property on his state's recorder page. You
have that, right?

[brattt]

If there really was a secret source, doesn't it make sense that he/she
would have come forward by now? Obviously it must be an RGPer.

[ChrisRobin]

On Sep 7 2013 4:29 AM, BillB wrote:

> So if I loan you 100 bucks, and you refuse to pay me back, it's
> primarily MY fault for not being more careful who I lend to??

Would you loan 100 bucks to someone with no job, no income, and a proven
track record of not paying bills on time? Given that you possess this
information before lending, uber-responsible BillB would never be so
stupid, right?

Since the banks were handing out money to anyone with a pulse, there must
be a reason they were willing to act so irresponsibly. Had to be in their
own self-interest somehow, right? So let's re-frame this hypothetical:

Would you still loan that 100 bucks to some random deadbeat if you knew
you were going to chop that note into a hundred pieces, leverage the
pieces to high heaven, and then sell them on down the line to unsuspecting
investors who thought they were buying grade-AAA securities because you'd
bribed rating agencies into labeling them as such?

Remarkable that you've managed to navigate dozens of discussions on this
topic over the years, and still haven't learned fuck-all about any of it.
L-O-L.

[BillB]

Sure, I have that, but I don't want to post his home address. That
wouldn't be right.

[BillB]

A. That's not what happened.

B. Even if it did, how does any of that absolve the deadbeat's primary
responsibility in any way?

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 10:27 AM, brattt wrote:

> If there really was a secret source, doesn't it make sense that he/she
> would have come forward by now?

Not really. It's someone Joe considers a friend. If I told you, you'd be
absolutely shocked -- that is, if it's not you, which I am neither
confirming nor denying.

Nobody ever accused Joe of being the sharpest tool in foreclosure court.

[risky biz]

It's almost as funny as trying to carry on an intelligent conversation
with 'Travel'.

[risky biz]

This is so typical of 'Bill Vanek'. In one post he implies the
disreputableness of an action and in the next post he attempts to expand
the action referred to. Hey, dummy- why didn't you use your other screen
name for the second one? Or maybe you thought you were.

[fffurken1]

Oh, so you're STILL here?

OK, primary responsibilty for what?

[brattt]

On Sep 7 2013 1:22 PM, risky biz wrote:

> On Sep 7 2013 9:37 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:27:23 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >That's not it at all. You don't see the irony and hypocrisy of someone
> > >bragging on the internet about how much money he makes (which is a total
> > >fabrication), WHILE he simultaneously argues that certain people who are
> > >trapped working full time in a shite job aren't entitled to make enough
> > >to feed, house and clothe themselves, WHILE his house is being sold out
> > >from under him for being a deadbeat borrower?
> >
> > Why don't you prove it? You don't need to tell us your secret source.
> > Just post the link to his property on his state's recorder page. You
> > have that, right?
>
> This is so typical of 'Bill Vanek'. In one post he implies the
> disreputableness of an action and in the next post he attempts to expand
> the action referred to. Hey, dummy- why didn't you use your other screen
> name for the second one? Or maybe you thought you were.

Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
anonymous source?

If so, my opinion of you just went in the dumpster.

[risky biz]

If they are idiots why do you expect them to correctly analyze whether the
price everyone else in the world is paying for an asset class is on the
verge of collapse? And why don't you expect the more knowledgeable and
sophisticated lenders to be more capable of that?

In any case, analyzing any asset bubble from the perspective of an
individual is pointless. It's herd behavior invariably facilitated by the
individual greed of everyone involved and the lack of any modulating
mechanism in the market structure.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 11:28 AM, fffurken1 wrote:

> OK, primary responsibilty for what?

Failing to fulfill his or her obligations under a contract, or even in
the absence of a valid contract, unjust enrichment.

[brattt]

Thanks for confirming you made the whole thing up. Good troll.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 11:29 AM, brattt wrote:

> Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
> anonymous source?

My source wasn't anonymous, and his or her information was backed up by
public information. If Joe can persuade me that the public records are
wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I don't think they are
wrong...it just fits. Listen to the guy.

Just curious....do you remember ever posting any information about me?

Didn't you go sleuthing and try to "prove" I am not (or never was) a
lawyer? I could have sworn that actually happened.

What about when you posted wilma's home address?

Does that mean your opinion of yourself is in the dumpster too?

[risky biz]

Nonsense. I've seen someone very intelligent misunderstand the mechanics
of an adjustable rate mortgage, even after I warned him to make sure he
understood it thoroughly (this is a smart guy who has a daughter with an
IQ of 140+). He was upset at how much his interest rate increased after
one year and after poring over the terms in the paperwork yet again, he
still couldn't be sure he understood it properly. These mortgages were
created and fashioned for DECEPTION.

Additionally, everyone (EVERYONE) was assuming that the value would be
higher later and allow them to refinance at a lower fixed rate. One of the
significant groups of speculators who got wiped out by the crash were real
estate "professionals". Regardless of how smart we consider them to be
they certainly aren't outright mentally deficient.

[risky biz]

It wasn't necessary to confirm what a completely worthless wretch you are.

[fffurken1]

Which is a little bit different from almost bringing down the US economy
isn't it?

You could almost be describing anything.

[O-PGManager]

On Sep 7 2013 4:30 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 06/09/2013 8:46 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Eh, I don't think anyone owes the criminal banksters jack shit.
>
> That's because you are an immature man-child. You're a "strategic
> defaulter" yourself, aren't you Opie?

No I was the idiot who put a ton of money down and still had equity after
the market crashed. This is a separate discussion anyway - you asked how
Joe Long could make 6 figures and be in default.... this is how.


Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[da pickle]

Just when I thought it could not really be you literally becoming a
gigantic pile of shit, you present conclusive proof. Kafka could write a
story of that transition.

[risky biz]

If a corporate business plan fails and it seeks bankruptcy protection are
they considered "scoundrels"? Please don't come back and say yes without
showing me where you described it as such prior to the recent housing
collapse.

It's a business decision when an institution lends money and a business
decision when an individual has no choice but to default on a debt.
Nothing more. An individual can only be properly described as a scoundrel
when they can reasonably afford to meet the terms of the contract they
agreed to and refuse.

[BillB]

Well, no one individual was responsible for causing the housing bubble
and crash. Even Joe Long isn't that evil. Surely you didn't think I was
saying that. It was a massive collective of deadbeats who caused it. It
is an undeniable fact that had the deadbeats simply fulfilled their
promises, instead of defaulting en masse, the housing crash never would
have happened. That was the PRIMARY cause...people borrowing money they
had no intention of, or no ability to, pay back.

[risky biz]

On Sep 7 2013 2:29 AM, Clave wrote:

> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message news:l0eq9g$ahc$1...@dont-email.me...

> > On 07/09/2013 1:48 AM, fffu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> You can be as simplistically stupid as you want to be Bill, because
> >> that's for free.
> >>
> >> I'm not condoning strategic defaulting, I'm telling you who is
> >> predominantly to blame for a property bubble.
> >
> > The people who are primarily responsible for any kind of asset bubble are
> > idiot purchasers who are WILLING to pay way too much for assets. That is
> > rather fundamental. Whether they get the money to make such purchases from
> > friends, family, winning the lottery, easy credit, hard credit, or
> > lifelong savings is really neither here nor there. THEY are the ones who
> > signed on the dotted line. I do see that in some situations the lenders
> > have SOME culpability, but the primary responsibility is always with the
> > person who says "YES," (absent fraudulent misrepresentation or similar)
> > and especially so when they *know* they should be saying "NO," as most
> > do/did.
>

> To be fair, there's blame enough to go around -- *both* parties sign on the
> dotted line. I know from friends in the industry that the lenders weren't
> anywhere near innocent in the deal. The brokers humping subprimes knew the
> paper was worthless -- but all they needed to do was book it, tranche it,
> sell it and it's not their problem any more. No one believed it was
> sustainable, but if you weren't going after that easy money at the time, you
> were a rube.
>
> IMO, neither side has any claim to moral high ground.
>
> Jim

This is exactly the structural mechanism that greases the skids for asset
bubbles. Pass the hot potato and get rich. The real fools were the ones at
the end of the line who were left holding when the music stopped and you
can't really say they were fools, either, if they were institutions,
because their influence over the state allowed them a refund on their
speculation and a lot of them even got huge bonuses.

[risky biz]

Good post. L-O-L is right.

[brattt]

On Sep 7 2013 1:45 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 07/09/2013 11:29 AM, brattt wrote:
>
> > Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
> > anonymous source?
>
> My source wasn't anonymous, and his or her information was backed up by
> public information. If Joe can persuade me that the public records are
> wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I don't think they are
> wrong...it just fits. Listen to the guy.

He/she is anonymous. And if he/she actually did send you that email then
he/she is even a bigger sack of shit than you are (if that's possible)

> Just curious....do you remember ever posting any information about me?
>
> Didn't you go sleuthing and try to "prove" I am not (or never was) a
> lawyer? I could have sworn that actually happened.

Public information is different than private information - something I
guess you can't separate. And public information proves you are a lying
sack of shit.

> What about when you posted wilma's home address?

Not me - I slammed Ramashiva for posting that info. But once again, he
found it by using the internet - not private parties.

Now tell us again how you didn't call planetpizza.

[Bill Vanek]

Redact the APN and/or address, leave his name.

[risky biz]

That covers the "fuck-all" part.

> B. Even if it did, how does any of that absolve the deadbeat's primary
> responsibility in any way?

I've already explained why and that shouldn't have been necessary to start
with.

[fffu...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:01:54 PM UTC+1, BillB wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 11:48 AM, fffurken1 wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7 2013 8:35 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 07/09/2013 11:28 AM, fffurken1 wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> OK, primary responsibilty for what?
>
> >>
>
> >> Failing to fulfill his or her obligations under a contract, or even in
>
> >> the absence of a valid contract, unjust enrichment.
>
> >
>
> > Which is a little bit different from almost bringing down the US economy
>
> > isn't it?
>
> >
>
> > You could almost be describing anything.
>
>
>
> Well, no one individual was responsible for causing the housing bubble
>
> and crash. Even Joe Long isn't that evil. Surely you didn't think I was
>
> saying that.

No I didn't, of course. I try to take baby steps with people who are a little bit slow.

It was a massive collective of deadbeats who caused it. It
>
> is an undeniable fact that had the deadbeats simply fulfilled their
>
> promises, instead of defaulting en masse, the housing crash never would
>
> have happened. That was the PRIMARY cause...people borrowing money they
>
> had no intention of, or no ability to, pay back.

No one can fulfil a promise to pay if they can't. More fool the (legal) lender.

If you have a gun, like a drug dealer does, you might have a few more options.

[risky biz]

Would you like to explain how anything you just said has anythong to do
with what I said?

[risky biz]

On Sep 7 2013 12:00 PM, brattt wrote:

> On Sep 7 2013 1:45 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > On 07/09/2013 11:29 AM, brattt wrote:
> >
> > > Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
> > > anonymous source?
> >
> > My source wasn't anonymous, and his or her information was backed up by
> > public information. If Joe can persuade me that the public records are
> > wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I don't think they are
> > wrong...it just fits. Listen to the guy.
>
> He/she is anonymous. And if he/she actually did send you that email then
> he/she is even a bigger sack of shit than you are (if that's possible)
>
> > Just curious....do you remember ever posting any information about me?
> >
> > Didn't you go sleuthing and try to "prove" I am not (or never was) a
> > lawyer? I could have sworn that actually happened.
>
> Public information is different than private information - something I
> guess you can't separate. And public information proves you are a lying
> sack of shit.

In both cases it's public information so that's no excuse. And I don't
care much for either. A lot of people on the internet pretend that they're
something more or something different than they actually are. Playing
Columbo to unearth the truth shouldn't be necessary. Anyone who's opinion
is worth anything should be able to recognize the fakes just by their
demeanor and behavior.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 12:27 PM, risky biz wrote:

> In both cases it's public information so that's no excuse. And I don't
> care much for either. A lot of people on the internet pretend that they're
> something more or something different than they actually are. Playing
> Columbo to unearth the truth shouldn't be necessary. Anyone who's opinion
> is worth anything should be able to recognize the fakes just by their
> demeanor and behavior.

You know what? When you're right, you're right. I should have stayed
right out of it. It was going to come out anyway, but you know me, I
always like to be the one pouring gas on the fire. I guess I wasn't held
enough as a child. If my source wants to fan the flames, that's up to
him or her.

[homoind...@gmail.com]

Oh that's rich. You build a bonfire and then worry someone might throw a twig on it. You're a coward. You would never do what you did here to someone's face

[brattt]

On Sep 7 2013 2:27 PM, risky biz wrote:

> On Sep 7 2013 12:00 PM, brattt wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7 2013 1:45 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/09/2013 11:29 AM, brattt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
> > > > anonymous source?
> > >
> > > My source wasn't anonymous, and his or her information was backed up by
> > > public information. If Joe can persuade me that the public records are
> > > wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I don't think they are
> > > wrong...it just fits. Listen to the guy.
> >
> > He/she is anonymous. And if he/she actually did send you that email then
> > he/she is even a bigger sack of shit than you are (if that's possible)
> >
> > > Just curious....do you remember ever posting any information about me?
> > >
> > > Didn't you go sleuthing and try to "prove" I am not (or never was) a
> > > lawyer? I could have sworn that actually happened.
> >
> > Public information is different than private information - something I
> > guess you can't separate. And public information proves you are a lying
> > sack of shit.
>
> In both cases it's public information so that's no excuse. And I don't
> care much for either. A lot of people on the internet pretend that they're
> something more or something different than they actually are. Playing
> Columbo to unearth the truth shouldn't be necessary. Anyone who's opinion
> is worth anything should be able to recognize the fakes just by their
> demeanor and behavior.

Public information? Tell you what - I'll give you a week to use any
public information source you want to come up with my address and
financial situation.

It's not public. He has never posted his real address. I don't think he
has even posted his real city.

[brattt]

I'm not going back through the whole thread. I am just hoping that you
are not defending B-BillB.

[da pickle]

BillB is the ultimate Internet coward. Watch as he tucks his smelly tail.

[risky biz]

I'll take that to mean you don't want to try to expalin how what you said
has anything to do with what I said.

[risky biz]

You're diverging from the facts. BillB didn't post his address.

That doesn't mean I agree with the idea of posting public information
about someone to embarrass them. Just to help you keep it clear about what
I'm saying.

Did you or didn't you look up public records about BillB? If you did you
haven't adequately explained the difference between what you did and what
he did.

[brattt]

I looked at yellowpages and canadian lawyer list. Neither one has ANY
information on a personal level. That is the difference. I will admit
however, that if I had a clue how to look up personal information on that
scumbag, I would and I would post it here after this little troll he has
posted.

[brattt]

no - because this entire thread disgusts me - and I don't want to reread
it. OK? Obviously I questioned you about something you didn't say. I
wouldn't even have bothered had this been Jerry - clavie - pepe etc. but
because I have enough respect to you I questioned. End of story.

[bub]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:27:45 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> oinked

>
>Granted, I have seen one or two who were genuinely bub-level stupid, who
>REALLY, TRULY didn't understand that the 0% interest dealy was only good
>for a year or whatever (they thought it just went on forever), but we
>both know that encountering bub-level stupidity outside an institution
>of some sort is an extremely rare event. I don't hold those people

>responsible, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking

>about people like Truthseeker and Opie.
>

you are one creepy mother fucker thinking about bub at night

[Truthseeker]

brattt wrote:

> It's not public. He has never posted his real address. I don't think he
> has even posted his real city.

Everyone, thanks for the support, but chill, please. The risks posed by
some of the nutcases that inhabit Usenet are the reason that I stopped
posting under my real name and went to an avatar (although I didn't make
a serious attempt to hide my identity and it didn't take long for some
people to begin referring to it).

But in this case, BillB has not actually done me any harm. So please
lay off of him, the point has been made. Besides, you just feed his
craving for attention.

Because there has been so much discussion of this, I will clear up what
my situation is and how it came about. About seven years ago a
beautiful horse property came on the market that my wife and I loved.
Alas, it was too expensive for us even with a "six-figure income," a lot
higher than that $400K BillB quoted. The empty 35-acre lots on the
gated community next door were listed at over a million. But -- I was
nearing retirement age, so we bought it with a five-year ARM to get
payments that we could handle, with the intent of selling it for a
profit when the ARM kicked in. You know what happened next: the market
tanked, putting us under water.

Had the institution that I borrowed the money from still held the
mortgage I'd be in an ethical pickle, but considering the circumstances
I'm not. The mortgage was sold to the guys who made the mess
repackaging those things, and is managed by a bank that has already had
to pay out huge judgements for their dishonest dealings with mortgage
holders. Considering who I'm dealing with, I have a lawyer on retainer
to check over documents before I sign them, and to make sure that
everything I'm doing is legal and above board.

I did manage to get the principal payments delayed for nearly two years,
but when they kicked in I put my house up for short sale. Which is
where it is now. There are other things in the works that I won't talk
about, but there is no foreclosure auction scheduled at this time.

Part of what is complicating the short sale is that, to make the large
mortgage payments, I had to defer some maintenance on the house. Also,
the well is going bad, and it will cost over $50,000 to replace it (you
have to drill deep in this area). Nevertheless, I've been privileged to
live in such a beautiful place. I have no regrets. It is time to
downsize, though. Besides the high maintenance costs, the house is too
big for the two of us (five bedrooms, three-and-a-half baths). I only
bought such a big house to get the land and barn, and now that I no
longer own horses I don't need the acreage or the barn.

I've found that I don't want to retire yet, just live somewhere smaller
and easier to keep. Sure, I'll miss the scenery, the open space, the
park and the trails, but hey, this is Colorado. Beautiful scenery and
great trails are always nearby.



--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[da pickle]

Thanks for sharing, Joe, but no one is going to "lay off" the piece of shit
that started this unforgivable thread. I only wish that BillB would show up
at some public location like BARGE so those that know you could tell him
face to face what a disgusting human being he is.

I wonder if anyone knows him personally that is a member of this group or
close to this group. I doubt that anyone so bitter and disgusting could
have any close friends at all.

I suspected your situation from the tone of the discussion and I am sorry
for your losses. I know that you will recover from the current financial
situation and I know that you don't give a that's ass what BillB posts, but
that does not excuse his behavior.

Good luck and see you again soon.

[fffu...@hotmail.com]

Joe, I take quite a dim view of this thread to be quite honest.

But the *truth* is, and don't sugar coat it, you ARE being kicked out on your ass because you can't afford what you bought.

Let this be a lesson to you - live within your means. A nice apartment and a part time job in McDonald's maybe.

Good luck.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 3:45 PM, da pickle wrote:

>I only wish that BillB would show up
> at some public location like BARGE so those that know you could tell him
> face to face what a disgusting human being he is.

lol...what are y'all going to do? Gum me to death? Bore me to death,
more likely.

Do you remember last year when you and Joe Long were harassing Ramashiva
mercilessly, simply because he backed out of a bet, that had not yet
commenced, because the person he bet with was behaving like a total asshole?

Wasn't Truthseeker calling Ramashiva a welcher over and over again?
Didn't he compare Ramashiva's behavior to a scenario where he (Joe Long)
walks into his bank and says he will no longer honor his mortgage? IIRC
he also threw in a bunch of cliches like "A man's word is his bond." How
prescient. Or do you think he was already in default at that point?
Wouldn't that be funny? I'll have to check the dates.

So by Joe Long's own words and definition, he is a "welcher." The both
of you must feel pretty damn silly right about now.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

BillB wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 1:34 PM, brattt wrote:
>
>>>>> It came to me in my email from a reliable source.
>>
>> unfuckinbelievable - this is low even for YOU
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is what I do.

When you aren't committing it yourself, you mean?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

BillB wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 7:48 PM, fffurken1 wrote:
>> On Sep 6 2013 9:33 PM, BillB wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/09/2013 11:26 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where are you getting all this information?

>>>
>>> It came to me in my email from a reliable source.
>>>

>>> Maybe he's strategically
>>>> defaulting - often a good idea if the house value took a dive.
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ, Opie. Bankruptcy can be a good "strategic" option too.
>>>
>>> "strategically defaulting" = deadbeat
>>>
>>> He is one of the idiots who nearly brought down the US economy.
>>
>> Deabeat strategic defaulting all you want but I've never really
>> understood why you would blame reckless borrowing over reckless
>> lending. A property bubble is created by banks and government, not
>> people.

>
> So if I loan you 100 bucks, and you refuse to pay me back, it's

> primarily MY fault for not being more careful who I lend to?? That's
> some fine morals your mama taught you.

If you lend him 100 bucks with no collateral, you're nice (and likely a
little dumb)

If you lend him 100,000 bucks with idiotic collateral, you're a fucking
moron

[BillB]

That is totally unnecessary. Joe has now come (mostly) clean and
admitted that I made my point about his runaway hypocrisy and thoroughly
misplaced condescension and disregard for the working poor. Joe was, by
his own admission, a textbook sub-prime idiot who welched the moment the
going got rough. He hit every single bullet point. AND he gave exactly
the same type of long-winded, self-serving, nonsensical, buck-passing,
keep-a-stiff-upper-lip & woe is me explanation for his financial
irresponsibility that I said I hear from all the other sub-prime
"victims" on TV. I think deep down he knows I have helped become a
better person today. He grudgingly admitted it in so many words.

Geez, you're a nosy little bitch, aren't you? Why don't you go google
some pics of Anthony Weiner's cock?

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 8:23 PM, BillB wrote:

>I think deep down he knows I have helped become a
> better person today. He grudgingly admitted it in so many words.

Sorry, confusing typo.....helped *him* become a better person

[BillB]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Unfortunately, it's
difficult to give you the courtesy of a good response when I don't
really know what you mean by "what you did here."

All I can tell you is that I have very little patience for obnoxious
hypocrites and phonies like Joe Long (a reformed Joe Long might be a
different story). If some guy is at a poker table, ranting and raving
day after day about the worthless working poor, and how they don't
deserve 10 bucks an hour to live in a First World country, and all kinds
of other teabagger bullshit, you're damn right I'm going to say
something. I am very likely going to be the first to speak up. That
said, there are certain people I'd avoid pissing off, if I thought there
was a high probability of getting my teeth kicked in. Obnoxious and
dangerous is a wicked combination. I'd probably just leave. If that
makes me a coward, so be it.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:01:54 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>Well, no one individual was responsible for causing the housing bubble
>and crash. Even Joe Long isn't that evil. Surely you didn't think I was

>saying that. It was a massive collective of deadbeats who caused it. It

>is an undeniable fact that had the deadbeats simply fulfilled their
>promises, instead of defaulting en masse, the housing crash never would
>have happened. That was the PRIMARY cause...people borrowing money they
>had no intention of, or no ability to, pay back.

Why was it that, at this particular point in history, a massive
collection of deadbeats appeared on the scene all at once ready,
willing, and able to buy houses that they couldn't afford?
--

Pepe Papon

[BillB]

They found a bunch of idiots downstream who were willing to put up the
cash. The easy financing created its own demand and therefore rising
prices in an already elevated market. MOST people (hell, almost ALL
people) weren't tempted by the easy financing, because they didn't WANT
a house they knew they couldn't afford. But that still left millions of
low-character individuals who saw an angle to game the system. That was
enough. When housing prices fell, they all scattered like rats, leaving
you and I to pay to clean up their filth. They were freerolling all
along. Face it, man, we got played, bad. Luckily, Canada had GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS in effect to protect greedy and immoral consumers from
themselves, and us from them, which is why Canada pretty much avoided
the sub-prime crisis altogether. It's too bad Joe didn't have a little
more "nanny state" government watching out for him -- then he never
would have qualified for that bozo loan.

[Travel]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 3:58:32 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
> On Sep 6 2013 8:46 PM, Travel wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Friday, September 6, 2013 4:34:39 PM UTC-4, brattt wrote:

>
> > > On Sep 6 2013 2:33 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > On 06/09/2013 11:26 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Where are you getting all this information?
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > It came to me in my email from a reliable source.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>

> > > unfuckinbelievable - this is low even for YOU
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Well, BillB is an automatic to do something like that to Pickle if the
>
> opportunity presented itself,
>
> > but it is a little surprising that he'd do it to someone other than Pickle.
>
> >
>
> > I, too, must have been giving BillB more credit for a certain base-level of
>
> character than he's
>
> > obviously due. I mean, this is something only Risky Biz would stoop to. Or
>
> so we thought.
>
> >
>
> > Pawlousy would do something like this to Mr Coleman, but that seems to be a
>
> nutty, isolated
>
> > obsession on Pawlousy's part.
>
> >
>
> > "Truth"seeker must have "got-in" a few "subtle snarks" on BillB.
>
> >
>
> > The "subtle snark" seems to work miracles with some. It penetrates in a very
>
> deep and lasting way,
>
> > as shown by how much Pickle particularly bothers Risky Biz, BillB and
>
> Poupon; they're permanently
>
> > and pro actively beside themselves over Pickle's subtle snark jabs.
>
> >
>
> > I've often considered switching to the subtle snark technique, because it
>
> works so spectacularly
>
> > well with exactly those on whom you want it work. Plus, I'd be good at it.
>
> >
>
> > However, I enjoy "calling a baboon a baboon" too much.
>
>
>
> 'Travel' never ceases to exceed my estimation of how much more stupid he
>
> can make himself appear.
>


See what I mean? Risky Biz is deeply miffed (chortle).

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 11:08 PM, BillB wrote:

>When housing prices fell, they all scattered like rats, leaving
> you and I to pay to clean up their filth.

You and ME. wtf is wrong with me?

[Travel]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 2:29:15 PM UTC-4, brattt wrote:
> On Sep 7 2013 1:22 PM, risky biz wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Sep 7 2013 9:37 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 01:27:23 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >That's not it at all. You don't see the irony and hypocrisy of someone
>
> > > >bragging on the internet about how much money he makes (which is a total
>
> > > >fabrication), WHILE he simultaneously argues that certain people who are
>
> > > >trapped working full time in a shite job aren't entitled to make enough
>
> > > >to feed, house and clothe themselves, WHILE his house is being sold out
>
> > > >from under him for being a deadbeat borrower?
>
> > >
>
> > > Why don't you prove it? You don't need to tell us your secret source.
>
> > > Just post the link to his property on his state's recorder page. You
>
> > > have that, right?
>
> >
>

> > This is so typical of 'Bill Vanek'. In one post he implies the
>
> > disreputableness of an action and in the next post he attempts to expand
>
> > the action referred to. Hey, dummy- why didn't you use your other screen
>
> > name for the second one? Or maybe you thought you were.
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
>
> anonymous source?
>
>
>
> If so, my opinion of you just went in the dumpster.

Major chortle.

Risky Biz should have pretended that the didn't see this thread (chortle).

[Travel]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 3:27:49 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
> On Sep 7 2013 12:00 PM, brattt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7 2013 1:45 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 07/09/2013 11:29 AM, brattt wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Are you defending B-BillB's posting this information about Joe from an
>
> > > > anonymous source?
>
> > >
>
> > > My source wasn't anonymous, and his or her information was backed up by
>
> > > public information. If Joe can persuade me that the public records are
>
> > > wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I don't think they are
>
> > > wrong...it just fits. Listen to the guy.
>
> >
>
> > He/she is anonymous. And if he/she actually did send you that email then
>
> > he/she is even a bigger sack of shit than you are (if that's possible)
>
> >
>
> > > Just curious....do you remember ever posting any information about me?
>
> > >
>
> > > Didn't you go sleuthing and try to "prove" I am not (or never was) a
>
> > > lawyer? I could have sworn that actually happened.
>
> >
>
> > Public information is different than private information - something I
>
> > guess you can't separate. And public information proves you are a lying
>
> > sack of shit.
>
>
>
> In both cases it's public information so that's no excuse. And I don't
>
> care much for either. A lot of people on the internet pretend that they're
>
> something more or something different than they actually are. Playing
>
> Columbo to unearth the truth shouldn't be necessary. Anyone who's opinion
>
> is worth anything should be able to recognize the fakes just by their
>
> demeanor and behavior.
>
>

Lol, so much for the irony meter.

[Travel]

That explanation wouldn't even have been necessary if it weren't for BillB's and, supported by Risky Biz, (did I call it or what) astonishingly smallness-of-person. It's something we thought only Risky Biz would do.

The further despicable part is that BillB is actually trying to justify this over some political-issue thread, pissing contest.

These "types" never ask themselves how they would like if someone did that to them. Someone should.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

What a lying fuck

The canadians aren't defaulting because they cannot escape the debt even if
they DO default

[Bill Vanek]

No, no, no, not confusing at all. We all know you're here to help
others. We all got it.

[BillB]

On 07/09/2013 11:58 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

>> Luckily, Canada had GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS in effect to protect
>> greedy and immoral consumers from themselves, and us from them, which
>> is why Canada pretty much avoided the sub-prime crisis altogether.
>> It's too bad Joe didn't have a little more "nanny state" government
>> watching out for him -- then he never would have qualified for that
>> bozo loan.
>
> What a lying fuck
>
> The canadians aren't defaulting because they cannot escape the debt even if
> they DO default

lol...I'm "lying," am I? What I said is common knowledge. Thanks for
proving once again that you are an economic illiterate.

"As Mr. Pollack concludes in his report: 'The most important difference
between the US and Canadian mortgage markets [was] their relative
exposure to unregulated lending channels and products � and it is this
difference that best explains why Canada avoided the credit crisis that
plagued the United States.'

In Canada, tight CMHC mortgage regulations and strict lending rules for
major banks prevented the use of exotic mortgage instruments. The
economic slowdown has seen Canadian housing sales fall from record
levels in 2009 and 2010, however there has been no corresponding jump in
mortgage defaults and foreclosures, nor has there been a fall in housing
prices as seen in most US markets.

The big Canadian advantage has been the structure and microeconomic
foundations of the Canadian financial system and particularly the
mortgage markets implementation and regulations. ***The Canadian system
is much different than in the US and works to limit downside risks to
the household sector.****"


http://www.buyric.com/vancouver/2010/11/10-key-differences-helped-canada-avoid-a-us-style-mortgage-crisis-125/1887/

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

BillB wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 11:58 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> Luckily, Canada had GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS in effect to protect
>>> greedy and immoral consumers from themselves, and us from them,
>>> which is why Canada pretty much avoided the sub-prime crisis
>>> altogether. It's too bad Joe didn't have a little more "nanny
>>> state" government watching out for him -- then he never would have
>>> qualified for that bozo loan.
>>
>> What a lying fuck
>>
>> The canadians aren't defaulting because they cannot escape the debt
>> even if they DO default
>
> lol...I'm "lying," am I? What I said is common knowledge. Thanks for
> proving once again that you are an economic illiterate.

No, fuckhead, I proved you're a goddamn cock sucking liar

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/mortgage-defaults.html

Another important difference is that Canadian mortgages are, for the most
part, 'recourse'. If you don't pay your mortgage, creditors have recourse to
other means to force payment: seizing other assets, garnishing wages, etc.
If your house goes 'under water' - that is, if the market value of the house
drops below that of the mortgage - then those with recourse mortgages have
little incentive to engage in strategic defaults: they're going to have to
pay the mortgage anyway.

Now shove your fucked in the ass retard head back up your boy pussy

[BillB]

On 08/09/2013 12:54 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> Another important difference is that Canadian mortgages are, for the most
> part, 'recourse'. If you don't pay your mortgage, creditors have recourse to
> other means to force payment: seizing other assets, garnishing wages, etc.
> If your house goes 'under water' - that is, if the market value of the house
> drops below that of the mortgage - then those with recourse mortgages have
> little incentive to engage in strategic defaults: they're going to have to
> pay the mortgage anyway.
>
> Now shove your fucked in the ass retard head back up your boy pussy

You have not showed where I lied. Another Beldin epic fail.

I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, which is why you
are a can stacker by trade, but the author starts your chosen quote with:

"Another important difference..."

A skilled adult reader takes the word "another" as a cue that a more
important factor has very likely already been mentioned. Sure enough, if
we look to the paragraph IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the one you quoted, we see
the author starts with the words "A key difference...."

So we have a "key difference" first, and "another reason" second. Which
of of the two is the author trying to convey was likely the more
important factor. Think of this as a question from an IQ test designed
for people in the 60-80 range.

And, most importantly, as an adult reader with a 66 IQ, which should be
ample for this question, what was the "key difference" you chose to
ignore (because it showed I WASN'T "lying"). Quote that one too, and
then compare it to what you said I "lied" about.

[BillB]

On 08/09/2013 1:47 AM, BillB wrote:

> So we have a "key difference" first, and "another reason" second.

Sorry, "another important difference" second. I accidentally left out
"important", probably because I know it really isn't that important,
which I'll explain later. I don't want Beldin's little head to explode
by teaching him too much at once.

[paulpo...@sbcglobal.net]

On Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:03:32 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> I don't want Beldin's little head to explode
>
> by teaching him too much at once.

No, please! Let it explode.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

BillB wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 12:54 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> Another important difference is that Canadian mortgages are, for the
>> most part, 'recourse'. If you don't pay your mortgage, creditors
>> have recourse to other means to force payment: seizing other assets,
>> garnishing wages, etc. If your house goes 'under water' - that is,
>> if the market value of the house drops below that of the mortgage -
>> then those with recourse mortgages have little incentive to engage
>> in strategic defaults: they're going to have to pay the mortgage
>> anyway. Now shove your fucked in the ass retard head back up your boy
>> pussy
>
> You have not showed where I lied. Another Beldin epic fail.

Sure I did

BUT you're a fucked in the ass retard

So lets shove some things further up your chute


They were freerolling all
along. Face it, man, we got played, bad. Luckily, Canada had GOVERNMENT

REGULATIONS in effect to protect greedy and immoral consumers from
themselves, and us from them, which is why Canada pretty much avoided
the sub-prime crisis altogethe

That's false. The lending restrictions were eased, and there are, right now,
a great number of Canadian homes underwater.
My link mentions both the lending easing AND the underwater canadian
property, and explains the only reason people aren't defaulting is that they
CAN'T, they will still owe the money anyway

>
> I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, which is why you
> are a can stacker by trade, but the author starts your chosen quote
> with:
> "Another important difference..."
>

Sure, idiot, but we're discussing the "dispicable act" of defaulting on a
mortgage when underwater

And, fucked in the ass lying retard, the reason Canadians don't is simple...
they still owe the money anyway

What's in it for them to keep paying? There is something to say for wanting
to stay in your home where you have been raising a family and living. There
is also a stigma that comes with somebody slapping a foreclosure sign on
your property -- suddenly your neighbours know a little more about your
financial situation.


"At the end of the day though, that's the rational thing to do. You are
talking about houses that are under water more than 20%. Based on an
economics textbook, that would be the rational thing to do," says Mr. Tal.


In Canada it's pretty tough to do. For starters, if you have an insured
mortgage, backed by the government, the bank will get paid off for their
loan. But the insurance company, whether it's Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corp. or a private insurer, will go after you for any deficiency created by
proceeds from the property being less than the mortgage.


It's the case in most of the country for uninsured mortgages too, says John
Turner, director of mortgages for Bank of Montreal. Rules are slightly
different in Alberta and designed to protect consumers but Mr. Turner says
banks can elect to go after other assets in some circumstances.

http://www.financialpost.com/personal-finance/Underwater+mortgages+When+just+walk+away/4576374/story.html

You assclowns aren't more moral,. you just can't get financial relief doing
it

Since we're discussing lies, start here :

Well, no one individual was responsible for causing the housing bubble
and crash. Even Joe Long isn't that evil. Surely you didn't think I was
saying that. It was a massive collective of deadbeats who caused it. It
is an undeniable fact that had the deadbeats simply fulfilled their
promises, instead of defaulting en masse, the housing crash never would
have happened. That was the PRIMARY cause...people borrowing money they
had no intention of, or no ability to, pay back.

Everyone who got approved had the ability, and the intention, of making good
on the loan. They expected the rising market to make sure they could
When it tanked, they were fucked, but they (foolishly perhaps) expected that
not to happen.

Now lets look at THIS Idiocy :

Granted, I have seen one or two who were genuinely bub-level stupid, who
REALLY, TRULY didn't understand that the 0% interest dealy was only good
for a year or whatever (they thought it just went on forever), but we
both know that encountering bub-level stupidity outside an institution
of some sort is an extremely rare event. I don't hold those people
responsible, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking
about people like Truthseeker and Opie

A HUGE number of minorities were steered into loans JUST like that and
failed utterly to understand the subtleties.... and expected to sell before
the rate jumped


More lies here :
You going to call them all idiots, fuckface, or admit you're a lying hoser,
that loads of people just didn't understand what the contract really said?

Jesus Christ, Opie. Bankruptcy can be a good "strategic" option too.

"strategically defaulting" = deadbeat

Strategic default : rational economic decision (in the US)
In canada, it's not POSSIBLE because you can't DO it, and that's your real
problem, isn;t it, fuckface

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Peepee, Willie can't teach... he's a moron