Thank God, we haven't hit rock bottom yet.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

LOL! Well said!

WTF, I gotta call Gnadfly’s right; you would normally use a slippery slope defense. I use it when I think it proper, not when you think I think it proper! That’s why common sense must prevail in each different situation rather than applying a blanket statement. I will say the exact same thing I said in the other thread...lets wait for the facts to come out. It still doesn’t make it right for the old lady to be evicted, but she will get evicted nonetheless. Maybe , maybe not, that is a PR nightmare for Chase. They might help her for the good PR it would generate. Like you said blanket statements are are not always correct. The bank will press their rights and someone will come out and put the two ladies on the street unless someone or some charity comes in and clears up the arrears on the contract. Like it or not, that’s just the way it is. Personally, I wouldn’t do it, but someone will. I understand that there is someone out there that would evict her. What I do not understand gnadfly trying to compare this with Paterno. But I never claimed to understand closeted Republicans.

I think a more poignant question would be why in the hell does a 104 year old woman, that’s lived in the same house for half her life (50+ years) have a mortgage? Like I said, I do not know the facts in this matter... I would be of interested to learn them. As a society, we should be asking why are we letting our elderly get into such straights that they have to refinance their homes to live day to day. Maybe Robert Wagner sold her a reverse mortage and she has lived longer than those things assume! Good for her. But now that would be a Slippery Slope, right? That’s the real crux of the matter not whether a bank should exercise their contractually bound rights. Maybe the crux of the matter is how a bank came to own those rights....was it done properly? Was she capable of knowing wtf she was signing? Just a few questions that come to mind. Just like in the Paterno, things are not always as simple as they seem.

[Guest050715-1]

I use it when I think it proper, not when you think I think it proper!

Then that diminishes the argument's effect in many eyes. Yes, I realize not in your eyes.

Maybe Robert Wagner sold her a reverse mortage and she has lived longer than those things assume! Good for her. But now that would be a Slippery Slope, right?

No, a slippery slope is when you make an exception for one person in a certain situation and then you are forced to make an exception for another person in a similarly bad situation which is what you are implying in this instance. You either care for all the one off conditions or you are unfair and favor one downtrodden group over another. It opens up too much liability to being sued if you preferential treatment to some but not all in equally or similarly bad situations and too much liability, in the form of costs or lost revenue, if you let too many people slide.

I will say the exact same thing I said in the other thread...lets wait for the facts to come out.

And

Maybe the crux of the matter is how a bank came to own those rights....was it done properly? Was she capable of knowing wtf she was signing? Just a few questions that come to mind. Just like in the Paterno, things are not always as simple as they seem.

If she didn’t pay her note or her taxes the bank or the county will foreclose and then evict her. It’s as simple as that. The bank has the right to because they own the note; I don’t see that as overreaching or that the evil banks have been given too much power. It sounds to me if they are down to evicting the lady, then a judge has already determined the foreclosure suit and the bank prevailed. Sucks, but that’s the reality of it.

My point was this, I’m sure the house is a modest home, how is it that we can let our elderly and infirmed get in these straits. It will cost more to keep the lady and her daughter in a retirement home than for the State to help her out on her mortgage and then redirect a portion of her SS to the bank as a direct deposit. I see no harm in being creative with her SS or entitlements to keep her in her home and a house off the banks “assets” list.

BTW, it is not all that caring to say she doesn’t care what happens to her house after she’s dead. Her daughter that is 83 lives there. What about her? It’s a bit hard to have compassion for her well being if she has no compassion for her daughter’s well being after she has no more use of the home. Just a thought.

[WTF]

Well it appears we are discussing several different subtle points.

First let look at the facts.

1) I posted what amounted to a kudos's to the folks that did not evict the 104 year old lady. With hindsight that still looks like the proper call. Unlike in the Paterno case.....with hindsight.

2) That had nothing to do with a slippery slope argument that gnadfly brought into the thread. I had not posted one way or the other on the legality of the matter. If the bank should make exceptions or any other slippery slope item.

3) Once the slippery slope argument was brought up....all I have said, just as I did in the Joe Paterno case was lets look at all the facts. I do not know the facts nor do you. You can speculate as I can. There are predatory lending laws. Were one of those broken? The 104yr old lady with no means may get pro bone legal help and maybe (note I said maybe) it can be shown the banks are at fault. Who knows without all the facts.

4) I do think that the banks would get better bank for their PR bucks by working with the woman. Especially after the media became involved. We all do cost analysis. It is up to the bank to see what a slippery slope that may invoke.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I use it when I think it proper, not when you think I think it proper!

Then that diminishes the argument's effect in many eyes. Yes, I realize not in your eyes..

I have said on numerous occasion here that we all have bias. What I think hypocritical is when all do not acknowledge our own bias.

Why would me acknowledging my bias and pointing out others bias that they will not acknowledge diminish my acknowledgement of my bias?

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Maybe Robert Wagner sold her a reverse mortage and she has lived longer than those things assume! Good for her. But now that would be a Slippery Slope, right?

No, a slippery slope is when you make an exception for one person in a certain situation and then you are forced to make an exception for another person in a similarly bad situation which is what you are implying in this instance. You either care for all the one off conditions or you are unfair and favor one downtrodden group over another. It opens up too much liability to being sued if you preferential treatment to some but not all in equally or similarly bad situations and too much liability, in the form of costs or lost revenue, if you let too many people slide.

.

I know exactly wtf a slippery slope is. I (and I think the banks will know too) know wtf a cost analysis is also.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I will say the exact same thing I said in the other thread...lets wait for the facts to come out.

And

Maybe the crux of the matter is how a bank came to own those rights....was it done properly? Was she capable of knowing wtf she was signing? Just a few questions that come to mind. Just like in the Paterno, things are not always as simple as they seem.

If she didn’t pay her note or her taxes the bank or the county will foreclose and then evict her. It’s as simple as that. The bank has the right to because they own the note; I don’t see that as overreaching or that the evil banks have been given too much power. It sounds to me if they are down to evicting the lady, then a judge has already determined the foreclosure suit and the bank prevailed. Sucks, but that’s the reality of it.
.

In my original post, I never bashed the banks. I congratulated the folks who decided not to do their job.

But since it has been brought up...I will not just defer to your opinion that the banks have done no wrong. I/You have no idea, we do not know the facts.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

BTW, it is not all that caring to say she doesn’t care what happens to her house after she’s dead. Her daughter that is 83 lives there. What about her? It’s a bit hard to have compassion for her well being if she has no compassion for her daughter’s well being after she has no more use of the home. Just a thought.

Well and this is my bias again, pardon me but I really do not hold a 104 year old womans words up to such scrunity. You seem to be more of an advocate for kids , where my bias is towards the old....not the selfish Tea Party in their sixties old though! You hear that gnadfly.

There, I hope the last two post help explain what I think are my consistant views on matters with noted bias.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

I have said on numerous occasion here that we all have bias. What I think hypocritical is when all do not acknowledge our own bias.

Why would me acknowledging my bias and pointing out others bias that they will not acknowledge diminish my acknowledgement of my bias?
[/font][/size]



I know exactly wtf a slippery slope is. I (and I think the banks will know too) know wtf a cost analysis is also.






In my original post, I never bashed the banks. I congratulated the folks who decided not to do their job.

But since it has been brought up...I will not just defer to your opinion that the banks have done no wrong. I/You have no idea, we do not know the facts.

Like I said, choosing to ignore your own argument diminishes your argument when you deem it viable. It’s one of those things that just comes back to haunt you. Personally, I think it is slippery slope situation. You want to ignore your own argument; so be it. A bank can’t let some little old lady get by with not paying her mortgage. If the camel’s nose is in the tent, then the camel’s nose is in the tent.

I never said you were bashing the bank. I’m just saying the bank has the right to exercise their contractual rights. We do know some of the facts. If they are getting around to evicting her, the foreclosure suit has been heard and decided by a judge – which BTW is what I said. Aren’t you the one that places the judicial system in such high regard? Weren’t you for letting the judicial system run it’s course for criminal proceedings, I can therefore only assume that you hold the civil courts in the same high regard.

Originally Posted by WTF

Well and this is my bias again, pardon me but I really do not hold a 104 year old womans words up to such scrunity. You seem to be more of an advocate for kids , where my bias is towards the old....not the selfish Tea Party in their sixties old though! You hear that gnadfly.

There, I hope the last two post help explain what I think are my consistant views on matters with noted bias.

I couldn’t disagree with you more this point; there is just no possible way to spin this in a good light. A, yes, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that she is being selfish and not caring where her daughter lives because it’s what she said. And B, 83 isn’t old?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Like I said, choosing to ignore your own argument diminishes your argument when you deem it viable. It’s one of those things that just comes back to haunt you. Personally, I think it is slippery slope situation. You want to ignore your own argument; so be it. A bank can’t let some little old lady get by with not paying her mortgage. If the camel’s nose is in the tent, then the camel’s nose is in the tent.

I never said you were bashing the bank. I’m just saying the bank has the right to exercise their contractual rights. We do know some of the facts. If they are getting around to evicting her, the foreclosure suit has been heard and decided by a judge – which BTW is what I said. Aren’t you the one that places the judicial system in such high regard? Weren’t you for letting the judicial system run it’s course for criminal proceedings, I can therefore only assume that you hold the civil courts in the same high regard.

Olivia, personally you not being able to acknowledge your own bias is way worse than me acknowledging my own bias. Me not thinking there a slippery slope here does not diminish slippery slopes.

It says to me that you do not understand human nature and think you are always right and live in this black and white world whereas I feel the world is much more gray.

Look, for you the world may just be black and white. That may be how you best cope in this world. Nothing wrong with that. But for me, it is much more subtle and nuanced.

In you world, my world view will be viewded as wrong, in my world your world view is viewed as your world view and I like to break down people's world view in scientific thought.

A bank can do wtf ever it wants. It is a private institution. Do you think there is going to be a run on the bank of 104 year old women that haven't paid their mortage? I think your slippery slope argument on this one is full of holes if not caca.

I have said we do not know all the facts. That means you do not know all the facts. I stated exactly what could happen if there had been some sort of fraud or this woman has diminished mental capacity and some lawyer helped her. I have said let the system play out. You seem to think that there is no recourse. Maybe that is true but maybe it isn't. YOU DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. You do seem to assume allot though.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I couldn’t disagree with you more this point; there is just no possible way to spin this in a good light. A, yes, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that she is being selfish and not caring where her daughter lives because it’s what she said. And B, 83 isn’t old?

Oh yes there is....that you haven't thought of it or will not understand it does not mean that there isn't many many ways to spin this in a positive light. And furthermore you are lying, she did not say she did not care where her daughter lived. You just assumed that is wtf she meant when she said what she said. She said she did not care what happened to the house after she died.

Positive light one:
My 89 year old aunt knows my name when she see's me. If we have a short conversation she seems rather normal. But she is far far from the woman she once was in fact she had stopped paying her Condo's dues. Her place was paid for and the people in her community loved her but she had lost the ability to think properly. That is what can happen when you get old. That is why I cut those folks slack. We had to move her to a home. Had she not had family to help her out and understanding Condo neighbors, the Condo association could have started foreclosure proceedings. She did not want to leave her house. Had someone tried to take it from her I am sure she would have said that all she wanted to do was live out her years here. That does not mean she did not care about others. It means she has limited mental capacity to understand the world around her.

Postive light two.

Maybe she hates her daughter...maybe her daughter is mentally abusing her. Similar to the Sanduski situation. Maybe she really does not care what happens to that house after she is dead. For good reason. Does not make her a selfish/mean person.


All I am saying is lets slow down and gather all the facts before rendering judgment. You seem hell-bent on hearing parts and parcels of things and then with some GOD like power.... knowing exactly what is right and wrong about everything.

btw, Why are you so hard on the elderly ?

[Guest050715-1]

Here’s the quote What the. I’ve bolded where she says she just wants to live out HER DAYS and AFTER SHE’S GONE YOU CAN COME BACK AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. Because I paraphrased, doesn’t mean I lied. Damn, first you loose all your credibility when you say you are the only living creature that can evoke the “slippery slope” defense and then you used these inflammatory comments like “YOU’RE A LIAR” and you expect people to take you seriously.



“The reprieve comes just three weeks shy of Lee’s 104th-birthday. Lee said she just wants to live out her last days in the place she has called home for more than half a century. "I love it. It’s a mansion," she said about the modest house.
Still, the stress of the situation was apparently too much for Lee’s daughter, who reportedly was rushed to the hospital. Lee said she hopes now the bank will leave her alone.
"Please don't come in and disturb me no more," Lee told WSBTV.com. "When I'm gone you all can come back and do whatever they want to."


I know you’re a “scientist – and all” and not a lawyer, so I’ll say this one more time. Since I’m not there to say it in person slowly, please read it slowly. Maybe that will help. Since you cannot evict a homeowner without filing and winning a foreclosure suit, then A JUDGE HAS ALREADY HEARD AND DECIDED THE FORECLOSURE SUIT. Due process was served because they were to the point of evicting the lady. Period. Just because the lady is old, isn’t a reason to allow her a by under the law.

Like I said, personally, I’d have never put her on the street, but some constable or sheriff’s deputy will need Christmas money or something and put her on the street unless she can get a pro bono attorney to get a judge to stay the eviction, appeal the decision and then have a legitimate reason to overturn the verdict based on something other than the lady’s old. Personally if she doesn’t give a shit about where her aged daughter lives after she has no more use for the house, I wouldn’t be wild about bending the rules for her.

Maybe her daughter is abusive? Maybe the mother is abusive. If a 104 year old lady gets to stay in her house because she’s old then why not a 94 year old lady. Why not the poor 26 widowed mother of six handicapped kids not be able to stay in hour home? We could go on all day with semantics.

BTW, why am I hard on old people? Do you still beat your wife? I believe in my original statement, I felt the main point of the article was why are we a society that pulls all the safety nets out from under our citizens. There should be a safety mechanism or a way to divert her SS to pay her arrears and directly pay her mortgage. Or any handicapped person for that matter. Why in the world is it even legal to write a mortgage to someone that is that old and has no, I’m assuming since she’s well past her working years, visible means of support.

Goddamn you are such a know-it all-argumentative ass and – WRONG! You’re wrong about me lying, you are wrong about due process, you are wrong about voting restrictions and the age of majority in that other thread. Just imagine what other things you are wrong about. Fuck all it I feel stupid for even trying to engage you into a legitimate discussion. So you’ll have to forgive me if ignore your childish rants in the future. Stalk my comments all you want. I’m not going to play because you simply aren’t consistent, and you aren’t nearly the provocative and open-minded thinker that you seem to think you are.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Here’s the quote What the. I’ve bolded where she says she just wants to live out HER DAYS and AFTER SHE’S GONE YOU CAN COME BACK AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. Because I paraphrased, doesn’t mean I lied. Just because you are not smart enough to know you lied, or that you did not lie on purpose, does not mean you didn't lie. Damn, first you loose all your credibility when you say you are the only living creature that can evoke the “slippery slope” defense I never said I was the only one who could use it, you just lied again! and then you used these inflammatory comments like “YOU’RE A LIAR” and you expect people to take you seriously. I could care less how you take me. But you lied. I said you lied. I should have said your were mistaken because I do not think you meant to lie. You just seem to have trouble with gray area.

When you are proven to be wrong you just leave a thread....just like you did when you called me defending child rapist. I gave you your own quote and nothing from you. You just ran from it. You think you can say something and then when told what you said, you say you didn't say it. That is lying in my book.



“The reprieve comes just three weeks shy of Lee’s 104th-birthday. Lee said she just wants to live out her last days in the place she has called home for more than half a century. "I love it. It’s a mansion," she said about the modest house. The only quoted part is she loves her house
Still, the stress of the situation was apparently too much for Lee’s daughter, who reportedly was rushed to the hospital. Lee said she hopes now the bank will leave her alone.
"Please don't come in and disturb me no more," Lee told WSBTV.com. "When I'm gone you all can come back and do whatever they want to."

Like I had pointed out earlier, saying that they can have the house after she is gone does not prove your argument that she is selfish. You must have never been around old folks. They are not in full mental capacity. I cut them slack, you don't. I get it.

I know you’re a “scientist – and all” and not a lawyer, so I’ll say this one more time. Since I’m not there to say it in person slowly, please read it slowly. F u c o f f Maybe that will help. Since you cannot evict a homeowner without filing and winning a foreclosure suit, then A JUDGE HAS ALREADY HEARD AND DECIDED THE FORECLOSURE SUIT.
You sure the fuc aren't a lawyer and have never heard of an appellant process. I said, that if it can be proven that there was fraud in the process....notice I said 'if', then it 'could' be reversed, notice I said could. I really doubt if the old lady had been to any proceeding but I sure the fuc could be wrong. I do not know the case. Just as you do not. If I thought you did , you might have something to add othere than speculation as fact. I have speculated and had the good sense to say so. You have said wtf you think, as fact. We do not know enough of this case to know all the facts.
Due process was served because they were to the point of evicting the lady. Period. No not period. God Damn...again haven't you heard of an appeal process? Just because the lady is old, isn’t a reason to allow her a by under the law. I understand that and have never said she should get one. I said the bank would get more bang for the buck if they worked something out with the old lady. That is wtf I believe. You may believe different but I never said that their should be some law change to protect old people from getting evicted. I have said lets look at all the facts. Period. You do not have them and neither do I. You just think you do!


Like I said, personally, I’d have never put her on the street, but some constable or sheriff’s deputy will need Christmas money or something and put her on the street unless she can get a pro bono attorney to get a judge to stay the eviction, appeal the decision and then have a legitimate reason to overturn the verdict based on something other than the lady’s old. Personally if she doesn’t give a shit about where her aged daughter lives after she has no more use for the house, I wouldn’t be wild about bending the rules for her. Oh so now you only bend the law for folks that seem caring in nature! Now that is a fucking slippery slope. I have never said to bend the law for her. I have said I would like to hear all the facts AND I have said that Chase would get better bang for the PR buck by helping her out. If they have done everything by the book...they are not
obligated to her her.

Maybe her daughter is abusive? Maybe the mother is abusive. If a 104 year old lady gets to stay in her house because she’s old then why not a 94 year old lady. Why not the poor 26 widowed mother of six handicapped kids not be able to stay in hour home? We could go on all day with semantics. And we do, it is called politics and charity. We have these debates as a nation all the time. Good Lord, where you been hiding, under a rock?

BTW, why am I hard on old people? Do you still beat your wife? I am not married and never have been but I was being sarcastic...you acted in another thread that if folks did not agree with you then they were defending child rapist. I reserve the right to be an asshole to people that are being bitchy to me. I believe in my original statement, I felt the main point of the article was why are we a society that pulls all the safety nets out from under our citizens. There should be a safety mechanism or a way to divert her SS to pay her arrears and directly pay her mortgage. Or any handicapped person for that matter. Why in the world is it even legal to write a mortgage to someone that is that old and has no, I’m assuming since she’s well past her working years, visible means of support. That has been my point Olivia..you assuming, .why not hear all the facts in the case. You just pointed out some very good ones. But they may or may not be true. Hell the old witch might bev a con artist for all I know. I do not know the FACTS. Neither do you.

Goddamn you are such a know-it all-argumentative ass and – WRONG! You’re wrong about me lying, No I have proved you to have lied. You won't admit it. No big deal. I don't think you meant to. you are wrong about due process, No again you are wrong about voting restrictions and the age of majority in that other thread.I sure the fuc ain't wrong in that thread. Just imagine what other things you are wrong about. Fuck all it I feel stupid for even trying to engage you into a legitimate discussion. So you’ll have to forgive me if ignore your childish rants in the future.That is music to my ears, it is a huge waste of time trying to discuss gray to folks that only see in black and white. Stalk my comments What came first, the bitch or the bastard? all you want. I’m not going to play because you simply aren’t consistent, and you aren’t nearly the provocative and open-minded thinker that you seem to think you are. I have told you I am biased in my thinking, I think we all are. You seem to think you aren't. Good bye and good riddance!

I feel you are playing to another board , amore civil boardplay away.

[wellendowed1911]

Oliva give it up sweetie WTF is clearly the winner!!!!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Oliva give it up sweetie WTF is clearly the winner!!!!

Hardly. Olivia is kicking his gay arse. 31 more posts for WTF to beat his egotistical compulsion record. WTF crawfishes, hurls homoerotic insults, misuses arguments, paranoid about being outed that he outs himself, can't remember his own posts...He's hit rock bottom.

WE1911, "Tiffany" literally could not post a working link for 5 years. YES FIVE years.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

WE1911, "Tiffany" literally could not post a working link for 5 years. YES FIVE years.

Take it out of your mouth and my link works just fine.

How about you grannytranny, should 18 year olds be allowed to vote? Opps Wrong thread? Ok, is granny going to get kicked out of her house or not? Did you gather all the facts for us while you were gone or have you and Olivia already solved this case?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Tiffany

Take it out of your mouth and my link works just fine.

You love to project your homosexuality on others. I can see why you defended Sandusky so passionately. Two of a kind.

You're rock bottom and still diggin' Tiffany.

[Tiffany Cums]

Why are we using my name?? I don't get it....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You love to project your homosexuality on others. I can see why you defended Sandusky so passionately. Two of a kind.

You're rock bottom and still diggin' Tiffany.

A word to the wise....do not change my handle. The Mods do not like that. It could get you in trouble and I'd hate to see that happen. We have already lost one rightie here this week!

You can call me what you want but you can not change my handle in quotes.

btw, I never defended Sandusky. Find one single post where I defended him. You can say it and hope someone will believe you just like you can say you are straight.

What is wrong with being homosexual btw? Are you a homo phobe?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiffany Cums

Why are we using my name?? I don't get it....

Because he is an ignorant SOB. Forgive him.

Originally Posted by Tiffany
Take it out of your mouth and my link works just fine.




See gnadfly, that is why they do not like you to do that. We could have all kind of confusion if we started doing that.