Thursday, April 18, 2013
White Pitcher: “Obama Gonna Take Our Guns Away, Man”
(www.politico.com)
“Today’s day and age has gotten so crazy. Shoot man, Obama wants to take our guns from us and everything. You got all this stuff going on; it’s just a little bit insane for me, man. I’m not sure how to take it.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 6 of 227 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last ›If we're really going to argue over 1 point at RCP, then you might want to actually visit RCP. Obama was at 46.4 on Oct. 14, then gained 0.9 on Oct. 15, then spent much of the next two weeks in steady decline, which was reversed only within the past couple days, when he gained a net +1.0 from Oct. 14 (or a whopping 0.1 from Oct. 15). This is your (and Spike's) idea of a "steady rise"?
***
I specifically said I looked at the wrong date.
What are you talking about? I covered this in #243.
Misirlou didn't mention any breach of contract by his bank.
Are you kidding me? If that is the case, then there are a long list of lenders such as BofA, Wells Fargo, Country Wide etc committing the same screw up. My mother went through the same situation with her house because of the death of my father and was told the same thing by the bank that as long as she kept up the payments she would not be eligible for a adjustment. So she goes ahead with not paying, gets sent countless paperwork by the bank to fill out and when she did , she was sent more that asked the same f'ing questions. When she or I called the company they would not have any update but would instead ask for paperwork that they already had been sent 3 or 4 times. Finally she was able to go through with a short sale and got lucky that the lender approved it. Then right after she moved out, those same a-holes sent her notices asking her if she was aware that she qualified for a loan modification through HARP. So yes there are cases of people buying houses that they should not of purchased but there are also a lot of cases of people getting caught with bills they cant afford who have to use equity in their house and help up losing the house. But I guess the simple narrative makes for the easiest talking points. FYI my mom was only making Soc Sec benefits which is $1300 a month so I guess she should be happy with the $16,000 she saved by not paying the mortgage.
If you cannot afford your mortgage payments you should not buy the house that gets you those mortgage payments. Period.
But I was somewhat surprised to see that the Economist has also endorsed Obama... it reads as a lot more of a pretty damn accurate and pitch perfect smackdown of Romney and the utter dishonesty of his campaign and plans than a hearty pro-Obama endorsement, but still.
Unfortunately, if you took all the BS "jobs" out of our economy (corporate lawyers; "consultants"; purveyors of phony products; spin merchants; etc.), half the country would mostly be sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day with no money to pay for their thumb polish. The bottom line is our economy needs all the BS it can get to keep the machine humming.
THIS! I agree with.
Honestly, I think Arthur Bryant's is a little like Derek Jeter: overrated, but still a genuine Hall of Famer. Slow's BBQ in Detroit is the best I've ever had, though I've never been to Pappy's in STL or Rendevous in Memphis.
But take all of this with a great big grain of salt. I grew up thinking Dallas BBQ was actual barbecue.
Or have your spouse get sick and die either. That really puts a cramp in your mortgage payment.
I never once have said a word about any "steady rise". That was Spike, not me. All I've done is to point out that 1.3 - 0.0 = 1.3, and shown you that this is stated on two separate parts of that October 14th page.
P.S. That same Archives page also shows both candidates in a "tie" at 47.4% each. I don't care what you want to call it, but if you're going to talk about numbers, at least get the numbers right.
What are you talking about? I covered this in #243.
You mean this?
Actually it tells us twice, in their own words, that the "RCP Average" showed Romney at +1.3 points. If you don't want to refer to that number, then you have to go to the various individual polls, which is NOT what you were citing when you first made your original claim.
Not a problem per se, but bad business IMO. They already held the debt. They could have locked it in at 2 points higher than I was currently paying. But they stuck to "you don't have the LTV and you are current in your payments so you are not in distress. I replied that no, I'm not in distress, but I could be if rates go up, in which case we'll either be right back here, or you'll have another foreclosure. As I saw it, they had no upside to refusing.
Then you should plan better and even if you planned for all contingencies and you still can't make your payments that is too bad but oh well. Owning a house is not a birthright nor a right handed down by god.
People get old and things happen to old people that's why you see all those commercials on TV telling you to plan for your old age.
— source
Or have your ex-wife die and find yourself with sole custody of your 2 kids and living in a one bedroom bachelor pad that is $100,000 under water and thus you cannot move (this happened to my brother-in-law.)
Good grief. The chart of RCP's averages is here and it plainly shows Romney +1.0, not +1.3, on Oct. 14. If you have a problem with this, take it up with RCP.
As part of the divorce from the ex I have to get the ex's name off the mortage for obvious reasons (I get the house). I make more each year than what I need to refinance. I have great credit and a pile of cash in the bank. But since I am self employed (for less than two years) I can not get a refi. I have been trying for months and even have a friend (who makes more than I do and is a w-2 employee) who is more than willing to cosign. But no dice.
The whole thing is maddening, especially the multiple times people have said sure and then many forms and such later I am told nope. So I am converting to a w-2 employee just so I can get my mortgage refinanced and free up the ex to buy their own house. It is a first world problem I admit, but really frustrating that no one wants my perfectly good money.
So I have no sympathy for banks at all on this on a personal level.
So the hurricane, which apparently didn't hurt Virginia all that badly, is keeping Dems from voting but not Republicans?
Stupid Polish thumbs coming over here in their kielbasa boats and stealing all our thumb jobs.
Of course we want loving parents involved in the critical life decisions of their 13 year old children, but in practice it plays out rather differently wrt the MAP and notification, and that's not even taking into account the issues implicit in a 13 year old who does not want her parents knowing she's pregnant.
I will.
Stupid actions by one does not negate the stupid actions of another.
How is it any different than giving an aspirin or any other basic medication to a minor, which can't be done without parental consent?
The idea that 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill, or even to abortion, without parental notification or consent, while those same 13-year-olds can't get their ears pierced, go tanning, or be given an aspirin by the school nurse, is patently absurd.
Not unsympathetic, but part of the mortgage problem was that people were fudging their earnings & assets to get loans on property they really couldn't afford. Self-employed may have more ability to do that, although I'm sure that isn't what anyone here is doing. I guess self-employed may also be considered more volatile than those employed by more established companies, which might account for the two-year requirement.
Of course 13 years old are biologically old enough to make decisions which result in them being pregnant and in the real world some parents are terrible proxies for this sort of decision. If they (parents) are not involved in the decison, the 13 year old decides to have the child aren't the grand parents basically financially on the hook for the kid and grandkid?
Really I don't think there are any good solutions once the teenage pregnancy occurs. Sex education and easy access to birth control is important everyone.
But in any event things happen and I think there is a pretty good case to be made for having some adult proxy in the process even if not the parent. I don't know enough about the details about what Bloomberg wants to know more though.
Teenage girls should have access to all health care services, including aspirin or any other medication, without parental consent. The right to get your ears pierced or to get a hideous tan isn't as fundamental as the right to make one's own health decisions, but I'd support those too. I'll sign a petition to that effect. Would you sign a petition in favor of guaranteeing a female's right to make her own reproductive decisions free from any interference from any parental, religious, or governmental authority?
Thanks. I hadn't gotten that impression from the news reports or especially from Primates from the D.C. and No. Virginia areas. Still, it's hard to imagine that a two-day shutdown of early voting would be enough to cause a ~20 percent hit in the Obama strongholds. Hasn't early voting been underway in Virginia for several weeks?
zonk,
Do you think it's possible that the fact that you refer to them as "wasteland states" is one reason they might be hesitant to hand over some of the power they have to you?
The history of world politics is a history of the majority screwing with the minority because they can. When it comes to New York and California vs Montana and Idaho in a pure democracy, which pair do you think should be more concerned?
For 13-year-olds? No, I would not.
Do you believe the average 13-year-old girl is mature enough to consent to have sex with a 40-year-old man? If so, I suspect you're in a very small minority. And if not, then why would that 13-year-old be considered mature enough to consent to medication or medical procedures without any parental involvement?
She also describes him as "probably [the Times'] most high-profile writer at this particular moment."
I'd feel a lot better about this if decision-makers at the banks got the same treatment as taxpayers got in 2008-2009 and the home buyers got when they were foreclosed.
BTW this isn't really an MBS problem. My employer buys and sells MBSs all the time, and no home owner notices a thing. When somebody on the service end changes though, things get complicated. And the western credit apparatus was built for speed, not 'complicated'.
So it's not a nanny state when the government is trying to put in place a restriction that aligns with your political beliefs?
Are you under the impression that the only way a 13-year-old girl can need morning-after contraception is if she consented to sex with another man? Think about that a little.
It's just not that complicated. Rural states have extra power. Rural states use extra power to their benefit. There's no missing step where you need to insert name-calling from other people to explain the outcome.
It isn't their fault they have extra power--mostly it's the fault of 19th century Republicans scrambling to save their bacon. But it does have real and not always good consequences.
You mean like not having to pay a dime in mortgage payments for years and sometimes for decades like a few select cases?
When we've reached the point where we pretend that 13-year-olds don't need parents as long as bureaucrats are around, while 40-year-olds need the mayor of New York City to make their beverage selections, then, yes, I'm comfortable calling it a Nanny State.
***
Where are you going with this? Are you referring to rape? Consensual sex with another minor? (And what do you mean by "another man"?)
Good point - "man", then.
I'm pointing out that one of the most obvious reasons for not requiring parental consent in these cases is that the 13-year-old won't seek the care she needs if she knows that her parents will be notified, and that sometimes goes along with her not consenting. And that, in a (presumably) small but tragic fraction of these cases, it's because her parents were in some way culpable. It would be nice to believe that would we would never, ever have to consider that arrangement of events when making policy, but, outrageously, this is a thing that happens.
At what age do you think a female should be allowed to make her own reproductive decisions free from parental, religious, or governmental interference?
Page 6 of 227 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.