Greedy **** Turns Down $974M Divorce Settlement

Again, I'm not condoning or absolving what the lenders did. What they did was unethical at best.

Fine! I won't ask you to marry me then...

I know that. What I wanted to point out is how people ignore:


These people still sought the loans. They were not forced into signing these loans.

The second part of #3 absolves the borrowers from responsibility, which is wrong. The borrowers are equally responsible for borrowing the money as the lenders are for lending the money.

Lmao. I wub u!

Stick to "Rate the avatar", it's better.

I wub you too, Seha!

Taters be tatin', and you are a potato.

Get a room you two!

That assumes equal power and knowledge in the relationship.
The borrows are only as responsible as far as the contract states, which is typically the loss of collateral, credit rankings, etc.

The borrowers also know their own paying ability. To say that they don't know even something like that is ludicrous, especially since they are the ones actually paying the loan(s)....

The lenders don't know everything. Now they have to ask for everything, but at the time they didn't.

It would go back to Clinton yes, also Bush, Reagan, and Carter.

Really it's the overall idea that people deserve a house regardless if they can afford it or not, which certainly has a home in certain political ideologies.

$10,000 at 10,000% interest. That's easy to remember. I'll take it!

Generally speaking, if there are questions or concerns about repayment of the loan, the loan is not issued; at the very least, not for that amount, or at that rate. Instead, a rate and/or amount commensurate with the risk is offered.

That's if the bank is doing what they are *supposed* to be doing.

That also doesn't go into issues with appraisals,

Again we are not talking about what the bank did, nobody is arguing against that.

We are arguing personal responsibility on the individual. Unless you want to agree on what I said earlier.

We are having 2 different conversations, you are discussing the banks, I am discussing the banks and individuals.

Side note: Not all banks did that either. Frost Bank situated here in Texas didn't.

Let us put this scenario out here:
You want a meatball sub. It is 5.25 for the sub. You have a quarter. You turn to me and ask for 5 dollars, and we agree that in five minutes, you will pay me 5.25, or I get the sub. You buy the sub, but after 15 minutes, you don"t have the money (lets just say you left your wallet at home rather than in the car, or underestimated how much cash you had on hand, or got mugged right before repaying), so you give me the sub, and walk away.

Did you fail to discharge your responsibilities?

As opposed to religions infallible 100% accurate stories?

To accurately portray this example you have to add in something about not actually having the $5.25 in car or at home, but rather thinking that eventually at some point you should be able to come up with $5.25.

That's not a good analogy of what really happened.

That's what supposed to happen, but people didn't lose their "subs" after they stopped paying (a lot of people still have mortgages owned by the government and are paying it off slowly, and at reduced values).

Let's not forget the government was forcing you to offer me money for that "sub" and promising to subsidize the risk if I fail to pay. Which they did, they said FU and you will have to take that loan of $5 and accept $2 for it instead, which the government is willing to pay what they think is a fair price. Since that sub before purchased was worth $5.25 and now worth only $2.

Oh, and it's your fault for taking the loan in the first place, even though we (the government) mandated it by law and regulation that you have to make loans to people who you would have, in normal circumstances, wouldn't have lent the $5 to begin with.

which religions say they have all the answers, can you quote them?

That's not religion any more than anyone claiming science has all the answers is science.

Science will at least attempt to find the answer when proven wrong religion lowers its head and screams like a toddler

Most of science is absolute. Drop a bowling ball out a high window and you can calculate how fast it's going when it hits the ground, the force of impact, etc. The speed of light in a vacuum is something that won't ever change. The orbital patterns of the solar system centuries from now could have been predicted centuries ago and still be true no matter what new information we learn.

The only things that can be questioned are things we don't yet have a firm grasp on. Using those few selected topics as a means of dismissing all of science is the mark of, what do you call it, an imbecile.

Science of love isn't even that complicated.

to understand it at least

How do you know the laws of space and time have been entirely consistent over the last 13.8 billion (supposedly) years? Or will remain consistent in the future?