- This topic has 715 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
ra633.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM #347842February 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM #347297
temeculaguy
Participantit didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.
February 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM #347618Participantit didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.
February 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM #347733Participantit didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.
February 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM #347767Participantit didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.
February 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM #347867Participantit didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.
February 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM #347307NotCranky
ParticipantBreeze, are you taking into consideration that it is not the upside down borrowers fault that tax payers are picking up the slack? Should they be masochistic because the remedies offered offend some of us, including myself? They are not victims but whether they see themselves as that or not, very few of us are going to look that proverbial gift horse in the eye if in their shoes.It would definitely come down to a cost benefit analysis once the damage was done. They always had the right to walk by contract . There were various consequences but those are the basics. If there are better choices that were not originally in the contract that isn’t their fault.
February 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM #347627ParticipantBreeze, are you taking into consideration that it is not the upside down borrowers fault that tax payers are picking up the slack? Should they be masochistic because the remedies offered offend some of us, including myself? They are not victims but whether they see themselves as that or not, very few of us are going to look that proverbial gift horse in the eye if in their shoes.It would definitely come down to a cost benefit analysis once the damage was done. They always had the right to walk by contract . There were various consequences but those are the basics. If there are better choices that were not originally in the contract that isn’t their fault.
February 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM #347743ParticipantBreeze, are you taking into consideration that it is not the upside down borrowers fault that tax payers are picking up the slack? Should they be masochistic because the remedies offered offend some of us, including myself? They are not victims but whether they see themselves as that or not, very few of us are going to look that proverbial gift horse in the eye if in their shoes.It would definitely come down to a cost benefit analysis once the damage was done. They always had the right to walk by contract . There were various consequences but those are the basics. If there are better choices that were not originally in the contract that isn’t their fault.
February 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM #347777ParticipantBreeze, are you taking into consideration that it is not the upside down borrowers fault that tax payers are picking up the slack? Should they be masochistic because the remedies offered offend some of us, including myself? They are not victims but whether they see themselves as that or not, very few of us are going to look that proverbial gift horse in the eye if in their shoes.It would definitely come down to a cost benefit analysis once the damage was done. They always had the right to walk by contract . There were various consequences but those are the basics. If there are better choices that were not originally in the contract that isn’t their fault.
February 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM #347877ParticipantBreeze, are you taking into consideration that it is not the upside down borrowers fault that tax payers are picking up the slack? Should they be masochistic because the remedies offered offend some of us, including myself? They are not victims but whether they see themselves as that or not, very few of us are going to look that proverbial gift horse in the eye if in their shoes.It would definitely come down to a cost benefit analysis once the damage was done. They always had the right to walk by contract . There were various consequences but those are the basics. If there are better choices that were not originally in the contract that isn’t their fault.
February 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM #347312Participant[quote=temeculaguy]it didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.[/quote]
Good! You got it!LOLFebruary 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM #347632Participant[quote=temeculaguy]it didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.[/quote]
Good! You got it!LOLFebruary 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM #347748Participant[quote=temeculaguy]it didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.[/quote]
Good! You got it!LOLFebruary 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM #347783Participant[quote=temeculaguy]it didn’t make sense until the last ten seconds and then i laughed my A$$ off.[/quote]
Good! You got it!LOL -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
