Positions
 

On 10/27/2014 1:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over):



The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of
them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want.

Thank you for participating.




How do you figure that?

You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you
say
they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present
ideas
to improve them.

But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just
made
a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about
printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid.

Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you
different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has
nicer
legs?



It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than
mine.


Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't
defend your position. But that's just more of the usual.
Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy
Carter was president in 1984?

Nice job, you found I made an error.
I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my
first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate
was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%,
with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's
policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office.
So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was
out of office when I bought my home.
I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The
company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates
became to costly and they had to cut back.
By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or
have since, inflation adjusted.
But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

Mikek



Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals.


I have been shopping for a bike, but, "there you go again",
changing the subject.
Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Positions
 

On 10/27/2014 2:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over):



The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of
them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want.

Thank you for participating.




How do you figure that?

You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you
say
they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present
ideas
to improve them.

But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just
made
a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about
printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid.

Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you
different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has
nicer
legs?



It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than
mine.


Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't
defend your position. But that's just more of the usual.
Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy
Carter was president in 1984?

Nice job, you found I made an error.
I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my
first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate
was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%,
with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's
policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office.
So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was
out of office when I bought my home.
I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The
company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates
became to costly and they had to cut back.
By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or
have since, inflation adjusted.
But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

Mikek



Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals.




We bought our first house in 1978 not long after leaving the Navy. I've
forgotten the interest rate on the loan but I know it was very high
compared to today's rates. The house was basically a winterized cottage
because it was all we could afford at the time. Paid $28K for it. :-)

In 1983 we bought our second home due to a growing family. I used the
GI bill to get a VA guarantied loan. IIRC, the interest rate was 12.5
percent with 2 "points". I remember it was slightly lower than the
going rates at the time because 12.5 percent was the most the VA would
approve and guarantee. Seems ridiculous now.

Positions
 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:

But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

===

Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman.

Positions
 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:48:20 -0400, wrote:

Don't confuse Harry with facts. He can't assimilate them.

He is "Factose Intolerant"

===

Heh, good one.

Positions
 

On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:

But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

===

Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman.



LOL

That thought has occurred to me several times but I never dared say it.
Debating with my wife is exhausting enough.

Positions
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/27/2014 2:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over):



The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of
them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want.

Thank you for participating.




How do you figure that?

You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you
say
they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present
ideas
to improve them.

But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just
made
a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about
printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid.

Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you
different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has
nicer
legs?



It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than
mine.


Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't
defend your position. But that's just more of the usual.
Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy
Carter was president in 1984?

Nice job, you found I made an error.
I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my
first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate
was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%,
with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's
policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office.
So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was
out of office when I bought my home.
I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The
company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates
became to costly and they had to cut back.
By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or
have since, inflation adjusted.
But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

Mikek



Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals.




We bought our first house in 1978 not long after leaving the Navy. I've
forgotten the interest rate on the loan but I know it was very high
compared to today's rates. The house was basically a winterized cottage
because it was all we could afford at the time. Paid $28K for it. :-)

In 1983 we bought our second home due to a growing family. I used the GI
bill to get a VA guarantied loan. IIRC, the interest rate was 12.5
percent with 2 "points". I remember it was slightly lower than the going
rates at the time because 12.5 percent was the most the VA would approve
and guarantee. Seems ridiculous now.

I bought my present house in 1979. $138.5k Assumed a 9% variable loan with
a 1/2% change cap a year. Interest rates were 13.5%. First house in 1969
was I think 6.5%. $25k house.

Positions
 

On 10/27/14 4:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:

But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

===

Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman.



LOL

That thought has occurred to me several times but I never dared say it.
Debating with my wife is exhausting enough.



There's very little "debating" going on here.

--
A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST:

Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean
Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding
Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT
Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote.

Positions
 

On 10/27/14 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:

But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

===

Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman.


You suck at both.

--
A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST:

Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean
Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding
Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT
Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote.

Positions
 

On 10/27/2014 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:21:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



We bought our first house in 1978 not long after leaving the Navy. I've
forgotten the interest rate on the loan but I know it was very high
compared to today's rates. The house was basically a winterized cottage
because it was all we could afford at the time. Paid $28K for it. :-)

In 1983 we bought our second home due to a growing family. I used the
GI bill to get a VA guarantied loan. IIRC, the interest rate was 12.5
percent with 2 "points". I remember it was slightly lower than the
going rates at the time because 12.5 percent was the most the VA would
approve and guarantee. Seems ridiculous now.




My first house was in Maryland for $31k, 30% down and the rate was
7.25% no points. (my ex still lives there)
I bought a condo on Treasure Island, near St Pete for $52k in 77 and a
12% rate. I was able to refi that down to 8% for 10 years, some time
later (85-86?) for the same payment. I ended up paying it off early.
I paid cash for this house in 84.



Yeah, we paid off the second house in 2000 and haven't had a mortgage
payment since. Basically swapped mortgage payments for health insurance
premiums. :-)

Positions
 

On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:

But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence
upholding your position.

===

Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman.


More like arguing with Debbie Wasserman Schults, but she is no woman...