On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:11:09 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.

Yes, Wayne got it right. I imagine the Krause has a red face about
now. Can't wait to see his response.

On 10/3/14 3:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.


Harry can't tell the difference between Palin and Tina Fey.



Sure I can. Tina is the smart one.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin

On 10/3/2014 4:27 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 3:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.


Harry can't tell the difference between Palin and Tina Fey.



Sure I can. Tina is the smart one.



For the record, I think Sarah Palin *is* a joke. What gets me however
is the sleezy reporting and repeating by certain groups of these kind of
quotes. Palin never said she could see Russia from her house but after
the SNL spoof by Tina Fey that quote was repeated over and over by
commentators on the liberal networks, yuking it up and high fiving each
other as if it was real.

On 10/3/2014 2:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and
turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a
different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not
afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every
month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our
taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every
year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a
property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning
every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest
for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150
back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you
get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract.
The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right
question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on
anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.



Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
†principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?


The principle on a loan can be called upon to pay the principal owed.

On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:45:00 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:

A better work ethic? She quit her job as governor of Alaska.


But harry....has no job.

On 10/3/14 6:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:17:16 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
â€*principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?

I have seen it defined the other way when Principal was a guy. AKA the
principal of a school.


It isn't illegal for a word to have several meanings. Check out a big
time dictionary sometime. In the school sense, "principal" used to mean
"principal teacher." It can also refer to the amount of money borrowed,
or to the lead person or persons in a business organization. "Principle"
is an entirely different word with its own list of definitions.


--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:33:08 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

===

That's lame. It's too bad the banks you defrauded didn't prosecute,
or maybe you were just luckier than you deserved. The IRS will
definitely go after you however once they get on the case of those
fraudulent conveyances and concealed assets. Send us a postcard from
the Gray Bar Resort when you get there and tell us about your new
friend Bubba. Maybe you'll get to meet Bernie Madoff since you two
definitely deserve each other.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.



It's a joke on Palin.



It's a lie, deadbeat.