Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Of course it was their property. The borrowers who were in default had a choice to return the money they took, or trade that for their home.Since when is it amoral to demand that your property be returned to you?
It wasn't their property any more. They sliced and diced it into so many financial instruments they didn't have clue who owned it anymore. Sold it and resold it again. Made such a mockery of the financial system. It nearly collapsed except we had to unwillingly shoulder the burden. So the proeprty is our property and I vote to give it back to the occupants.
Stealing is amoral, and the borrowers in default were stealing. Now YOU want to steal stolen property. That also is amoral.
It still is not your property. It wasn't their money that they borrowed, so they made an agreement to return that money to theOf course it was their property. The borrowers who were in default had a choice to return the money they took, or trade that for their home.It wasn't their property any more. They sliced and diced it into so many financial instruments they didn't have clue who owned it anymore. Sold it and resold it again. Made such a mockery of the financial system. It nearly collapsed except we had to unwillingly shoulder the burden. So the proeprty is our property and I vote to give it back to the occupants.
Stealing is amoral, and the borrowers in default were stealing. Now YOU want to steal stolen property. That also is amoral.
The property was negotiated in less than fair faith. Valuations were trumped up and false. The baloon payments and ARM's were trumped to be unattainable by any reasonable standard. It was a simple matter of wolves feeding on sheep. Absolutely, totally immoral. The wolves should pay not the sheep.
It still is not your property. It wasn't their money that they borrowed, so they made an agreement to return that money to theOf course it was their property. The borrowers who were in default had a choice to return the money they took, or trade that for their home.
Stealing is amoral, and the borrowers in default were stealing. Now YOU want to steal stolen property. That also is amoral.
The property was negotiated in less than fair faith. Valuations were trumped up and false. The baloon payments and ARM's were trumped to be unattainable by any reasonable standard. It was a simple matter of wolves feeding on sheep. Absolutely, totally immoral. The wolves should pay not the sheep.
owner of it, or trade it for their home.
No matter how many tantrums are thrown, stealing is still is amoral, but more importantly, it is unconstitutional.
Because it is their property.It still is not your property. It wasn't their money that they borrowed, so they made an agreement to return that money to theThe property was negotiated in less than fair faith. Valuations were trumped up and false. The baloon payments and ARM's were trumped to be unattainable by any reasonable standard. It was a simple matter of wolves feeding on sheep. Absolutely, totally immoral. The wolves should pay not the sheep.
owner of it, or trade it for their home.
No matter how many tantrums are thrown, stealing is still is amoral, but more importantly, it is unconstitutional.
That is correct. So why are not more bankers in jail?
Because it is their property.It still is not your property. It wasn't their money that they borrowed, so they made an agreement to return that money to the
owner of it, or trade it for their home.
No matter how many tantrums are thrown, stealing is still is amoral, but more importantly, it is unconstitutional.
That is correct. So why are not more bankers in jail?
I would bet good money no one is willing to let you borrow a thing.
It's the property of whomever bought the note, unless the thief wants to pay back the money they stole. It certainly is not the thief's property, because that is amoral and more importantly, unconstitutional.Because it is their property.That is correct. So why are not more bankers in jail?
I would bet good money no one is willing to let you borrow a thing.
It was not their property. They handed over rights to it to wall st. They were not even the maintainer of the loans. They went in with their wolf like ways said only a small down payment, no problem. Oh don't worry about this interest 3 years from now I am sure inflation will make your wages go up by that much by then. Just sign here so I can go hurry up and sell this on the street so I can catch the next sucker.
I probably will get flamed for this, but I am begging everyone of this board to at least consider the merits of OWS (Occupy Wall Street). What we have seen for quite some time now is the purposeful division of our society along very few issues. (Gun control, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) At the same time, we have seen the Treasury gutted, our Civil Liberties curtailed, and the normalization of a permanent state of war.
It doesn't matter which vetted politician is in charge, (Obama, Bush, Clinton) we get tossed to the side all the same. Both Bush and Obama bailed out the banks. Obama continues to throw the Bill of Rights out the window.
I am sure everyone knows that the laundry list of problems looks endless, but we must recognize that a many faced monster turns us against each other while reaching into our pocketbooks. These few that attempt to steer hatred of our fellow citizens into our lives have no political agenda, they are only concerned about their own gain, and they win every time a liberal calls a conservative a fascist or a tea bagger, or a conservative calls a liberal a hippie or a commie. These people that we are dealing with at the top are political chameleons who have no interest in the survival of the nation, only the endurance of their egos and pride.
Long live the Republic.
Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution
It's the property of whomever bought the note, unless the thief wants to pay back the money they stole. It certainly is not the thief's property, because that is amoral and more importantly, unconstitutional.Because it is their property.
I would bet good money no one is willing to let you borrow a thing.
It was not their property. They handed over rights to it to wall st. They were not even the maintainer of the loans. They went in with their wolf like ways said only a small down payment, no problem. Oh don't worry about this interest 3 years from now I am sure inflation will make your wages go up by that much by then. Just sign here so I can go hurry up and sell this on the street so I can catch the next sucker.
The thief is the one in default who took money from another to buy a home they could never afford.It's the property of whomever bought the note, unless the thief wants to pay back the money they stole. It certainly is not the thief's property, because that is amoral and more importantly, unconstitutional.It was not their property. They handed over rights to it to wall st. They were not even the maintainer of the loans. They went in with their wolf like ways said only a small down payment, no problem. Oh don't worry about this interest 3 years from now I am sure inflation will make your wages go up by that much by then. Just sign here so I can go hurry up and sell this on the street so I can catch the next sucker.
So which one of the thieves are you talking about here? The one who took the small down payment that they could only afford or the ones who were stealing the monthly payments till it was time to boot them out?
The thief is the one in default who took money from another to buy a home they could never afford.It's the property of whomever bought the note, unless the thief wants to pay back the money they stole. It certainly is not the thief's property, because that is amoral and more importantly, unconstitutional.
So which one of the thieves are you talking about here? The one who took the small down payment that they could only afford or the ones who were stealing the monthly payments till it was time to boot them out?
Keep kicking and screaming and tossing a tantrum, but in the USA stealing is unconstitutional. No amount of shitting on the NYC sidewalk will change that.
You don't want to discuss the foreclosures any longer, apparentlyThe thief is the one in default who took money from another to buy a home they could never afford.So which one of the thieves are you talking about here? The one who took the small down payment that they could only afford or the ones who were stealing the monthly payments till it was time to boot them out?
Keep kicking and screaming and tossing a tantrum, but in the USA stealing is unconstitutional. No amount of shitting on the NYC sidewalk will change that.
Tell that to the lemon car salesman. That isn't what you do is it?
Our, rather MY, Constitution is not selfish; it's just fair.I do not. One can only talk to a brick for so long. Besides I am ancient. I oulived Steve Jobs. It is time for rest. Perhaps one day something will light up the brick. In the menatime peace to your selfish cold heartedness.
The thief is the one in default who took money from another to buy a home they could never afford.So which one of the thieves are you talking about here? The one who took the small down payment that they could only afford or the ones who were stealing the monthly payments till it was time to boot them out?
Keep kicking and screaming and tossing a tantrum, but in the USA stealing is unconstitutional. No amount of shitting on the NYC sidewalk will change that.
Tell that to the lemon car salesman. That isn't what you do is it?
The terms agreed upon were based on ostensibly fixed amounts. They were terms which the borrowers could have and would have complied with. But what they were led to believe were fixed mortgages turned out to be very carefully worded ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) which increased to two and three times the original terms, usually during the first six months. A moral individual will regard this as theft!If they did not know the terms of the document they signed, then that is their problem. It was not their money, they borrowed it, and they agreed to pay it back and they agreed to the terms to pay it back.Of course it's not the fault of folks who bought homes they could not afford who then did not pay.
It's not the fault of a person who took out a loan who cannot pay back that loan upon graduation.
I'm sorry, I will NEVER agree with those sentiments. Unless someone held a gun to the borrower's head to borrow money, they made a free choice TO borrow that money. They also were well aware that borrowing that money meant it wasn't THEIR money and they could not keep that money without ramifications.
It's a personal accountability thing.
Do you mean after they got laid off or when the balloon payments hit after they got laid off after the bank's manufactured bubble burst. And was that based on payments that were hyperinflated due to a false sense of home value based on that self same bubble that the banks created? Were they not creating a farcical sense of housing demand based on trading of fictitional financial instruments that created a demand not for the houses that they purportedly represented but only a demand for the farcical financial instruments. Same as they have been doing with oil for the last 7 years or so.
They could have rented, as they should have, but they freely choose to take the money of another, with terms, and when they could not meet those terms with money, the property which secured the loan was seized.
Personal accountability.
It's a simple concept.
Of course it's not the fault of folks who bought homes they could not afford who then did not pay.I have no problem with people protesting, but many of these feculent, vile sows are pissing and shitting in the streets, and going weeks without bathing.
Ok Zander Where did you get that info?
If anything I would think that shows a greater dedication to thier cause if it is even true.
Let's get off the cheap shots, heh? Were the nurses down there the other day in that state? How about the teachers? Are we losing objectivity here for the sake of Foxmindedness? How about a bit of fairness? Ya think you can throw a bunch of people out of their homes, lay them off then call them bums, call college students who graduated and can't find jobs irresposible cause they can't pay their student loans when they started school before the banks crapped all over themselves for their own misdeeds.
Come on now. We are not going to get out of this till we get honest. It ain't the people above's fault. I still get hammered every week with mail trying to get me to take out equity loans, credit card offer after credit offer ad nauseum. I can resist but when you got nothing sooner or later the temptation can catch you. Be real. The banks know all this and wait to pounce. They deserve all that they get.
It's not the fault of a person who took out a loan who cannot pay back that loan upon graduation.
I'm sorry, I will NEVER agree with those sentiments. Unless someone held a gun to the borrower's head to borrow money, they made a free choice TO borrow that money. They also were well aware that borrowing that money meant it wasn't THEIR money and they could not keep that money without ramifications.
It's a personal accountability thing.
Do you mean after they got laid off or when the balloon payments hit after they got laid off after the bank's manufactured bubble burst. And was that based on payments that were hyperinflated due to a false sense of home value based on that self same bubble that the banks created? Were they not creating a farcical sense of housing demand based on trading of fictitional financial instruments that created a demand not for the houses that they purportedly represented but only a demand for the farcical financial instruments. Same as they have been doing with oil for the last 7 years or so.
