[kicksavedave]

Besides being able to form basic sentances, I see one primary difference so far between Obama and Bush.

Obama’s cabinet is being filled with dishonest politically connected self serving cheat, who at least initially appear to be highly qualified for the job that they are appointed to do.

Bush’s cabinet was filled with dishonest, politically connected self serving cheats, who absolutely didn’t have a clue how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I think the lesson here is that any and every politician is going to be surrounded by the stink of corruption and lobbyist influence. Not a single one of them will smell like a rose in this environment. But some politicians will actually make an attempt to legislate in a way that actually benefits the most Americans, not just a few well connected Wall Street buddies. Obama at least for now, appears to be trying to fix some things, even if he is still a true politician, and therefore inder the influence of “the interests” to borrow a phrase from Homer J. Stokes.

[kicksavedave]

Besides being able to form basic sentances, I see one primary difference so far between Obama and Bush.

Obama’s cabinet is being filled with dishonest politically connected self serving cheat, who at least initially appear to be highly qualified for the job that they are appointed to do.

Bush’s cabinet was filled with dishonest, politically connected self serving cheats, who absolutely didn’t have a clue how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I think the lesson here is that any and every politician is going to be surrounded by the stink of corruption and lobbyist influence. Not a single one of them will smell like a rose in this environment. But some politicians will actually make an attempt to legislate in a way that actually benefits the most Americans, not just a few well connected Wall Street buddies. Obama at least for now, appears to be trying to fix some things, even if he is still a true politician, and therefore inder the influence of “the interests” to borrow a phrase from Homer J. Stokes.

[kicksavedave]

Besides being able to form basic sentances, I see one primary difference so far between Obama and Bush.

Obama’s cabinet is being filled with dishonest politically connected self serving cheat, who at least initially appear to be highly qualified for the job that they are appointed to do.

Bush’s cabinet was filled with dishonest, politically connected self serving cheats, who absolutely didn’t have a clue how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I think the lesson here is that any and every politician is going to be surrounded by the stink of corruption and lobbyist influence. Not a single one of them will smell like a rose in this environment. But some politicians will actually make an attempt to legislate in a way that actually benefits the most Americans, not just a few well connected Wall Street buddies. Obama at least for now, appears to be trying to fix some things, even if he is still a true politician, and therefore inder the influence of “the interests” to borrow a phrase from Homer J. Stokes.

[kicksavedave]

Besides being able to form basic sentances, I see one primary difference so far between Obama and Bush.

Obama’s cabinet is being filled with dishonest politically connected self serving cheat, who at least initially appear to be highly qualified for the job that they are appointed to do.

Bush’s cabinet was filled with dishonest, politically connected self serving cheats, who absolutely didn’t have a clue how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I think the lesson here is that any and every politician is going to be surrounded by the stink of corruption and lobbyist influence. Not a single one of them will smell like a rose in this environment. But some politicians will actually make an attempt to legislate in a way that actually benefits the most Americans, not just a few well connected Wall Street buddies. Obama at least for now, appears to be trying to fix some things, even if he is still a true politician, and therefore inder the influence of “the interests” to borrow a phrase from Homer J. Stokes.

[kicksavedave]

Besides being able to form basic sentances, I see one primary difference so far between Obama and Bush.

Obama’s cabinet is being filled with dishonest politically connected self serving cheat, who at least initially appear to be highly qualified for the job that they are appointed to do.

Bush’s cabinet was filled with dishonest, politically connected self serving cheats, who absolutely didn’t have a clue how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I think the lesson here is that any and every politician is going to be surrounded by the stink of corruption and lobbyist influence. Not a single one of them will smell like a rose in this environment. But some politicians will actually make an attempt to legislate in a way that actually benefits the most Americans, not just a few well connected Wall Street buddies. Obama at least for now, appears to be trying to fix some things, even if he is still a true politician, and therefore inder the influence of “the interests” to borrow a phrase from Homer J. Stokes.

[kicksavedave]

NavyDoc,

Apart from Peon’s advice above, I’m not sure most of the adice you’ve been given here is entirely accurate and legal. I’m a landlord now, and just had to evict some deadbeat tenants. I’ve learned a ton about the process, but I am also certainly NOT a real estate lawyer either.

However, unless there is something specific in your lease that grants you immunity from an eviction in the event the landlord goes into default, you not paying your rent is a simple default on your lease and your landlord can pursue you for that money. That doesn’t mean they will, and it doesn’t mean that if they do that it would happen before the NOT or Trustee sale or the 3 or 6 month periods being thrown about in here. Those are personal and timing issues which you may or may not find important.

But that’s not the relevent legal issue here. You owe your rent, and not paying it can bring eviction proceedings against you, regardless of the landlords troubles himself. Will they pursue you via the proper legal means? Probably not. Can they? Yes.

Its up to you to decide A) if you want to risk it, and B) if you risk it, will you win or lose. Chances are good that you won’t get caught and lose the legal process of eviction here. But you are not legally entitled to live rent free, unless there is a clause in your lease stating such.

Its all a question of what’s right, what’s legal, and what you can probably get away with. Don’t blur the issues, they are separate.

Good luck what ever you do.

EDIT: Peon’s latest advice is spot on. They can legally force you to pay or evict you, and that process can happen quicker than some people realize. After 3 days notice they can process eviction papers which you legally must respond to by paying, or appearing in court. Its a real risk that they can take this course of action.

[kicksavedave]

NavyDoc,

Apart from Peon’s advice above, I’m not sure most of the adice you’ve been given here is entirely accurate and legal. I’m a landlord now, and just had to evict some deadbeat tenants. I’ve learned a ton about the process, but I am also certainly NOT a real estate lawyer either.

However, unless there is something specific in your lease that grants you immunity from an eviction in the event the landlord goes into default, you not paying your rent is a simple default on your lease and your landlord can pursue you for that money. That doesn’t mean they will, and it doesn’t mean that if they do that it would happen before the NOT or Trustee sale or the 3 or 6 month periods being thrown about in here. Those are personal and timing issues which you may or may not find important.

But that’s not the relevent legal issue here. You owe your rent, and not paying it can bring eviction proceedings against you, regardless of the landlords troubles himself. Will they pursue you via the proper legal means? Probably not. Can they? Yes.

Its up to you to decide A) if you want to risk it, and B) if you risk it, will you win or lose. Chances are good that you won’t get caught and lose the legal process of eviction here. But you are not legally entitled to live rent free, unless there is a clause in your lease stating such.

Its all a question of what’s right, what’s legal, and what you can probably get away with. Don’t blur the issues, they are separate.

Good luck what ever you do.

EDIT: Peon’s latest advice is spot on. They can legally force you to pay or evict you, and that process can happen quicker than some people realize. After 3 days notice they can process eviction papers which you legally must respond to by paying, or appearing in court. Its a real risk that they can take this course of action.

[kicksavedave]

NavyDoc,

Apart from Peon’s advice above, I’m not sure most of the adice you’ve been given here is entirely accurate and legal. I’m a landlord now, and just had to evict some deadbeat tenants. I’ve learned a ton about the process, but I am also certainly NOT a real estate lawyer either.

However, unless there is something specific in your lease that grants you immunity from an eviction in the event the landlord goes into default, you not paying your rent is a simple default on your lease and your landlord can pursue you for that money. That doesn’t mean they will, and it doesn’t mean that if they do that it would happen before the NOT or Trustee sale or the 3 or 6 month periods being thrown about in here. Those are personal and timing issues which you may or may not find important.

But that’s not the relevent legal issue here. You owe your rent, and not paying it can bring eviction proceedings against you, regardless of the landlords troubles himself. Will they pursue you via the proper legal means? Probably not. Can they? Yes.

Its up to you to decide A) if you want to risk it, and B) if you risk it, will you win or lose. Chances are good that you won’t get caught and lose the legal process of eviction here. But you are not legally entitled to live rent free, unless there is a clause in your lease stating such.

Its all a question of what’s right, what’s legal, and what you can probably get away with. Don’t blur the issues, they are separate.

Good luck what ever you do.

EDIT: Peon’s latest advice is spot on. They can legally force you to pay or evict you, and that process can happen quicker than some people realize. After 3 days notice they can process eviction papers which you legally must respond to by paying, or appearing in court. Its a real risk that they can take this course of action.

[kicksavedave]

NavyDoc,

Apart from Peon’s advice above, I’m not sure most of the adice you’ve been given here is entirely accurate and legal. I’m a landlord now, and just had to evict some deadbeat tenants. I’ve learned a ton about the process, but I am also certainly NOT a real estate lawyer either.

However, unless there is something specific in your lease that grants you immunity from an eviction in the event the landlord goes into default, you not paying your rent is a simple default on your lease and your landlord can pursue you for that money. That doesn’t mean they will, and it doesn’t mean that if they do that it would happen before the NOT or Trustee sale or the 3 or 6 month periods being thrown about in here. Those are personal and timing issues which you may or may not find important.

But that’s not the relevent legal issue here. You owe your rent, and not paying it can bring eviction proceedings against you, regardless of the landlords troubles himself. Will they pursue you via the proper legal means? Probably not. Can they? Yes.

Its up to you to decide A) if you want to risk it, and B) if you risk it, will you win or lose. Chances are good that you won’t get caught and lose the legal process of eviction here. But you are not legally entitled to live rent free, unless there is a clause in your lease stating such.

Its all a question of what’s right, what’s legal, and what you can probably get away with. Don’t blur the issues, they are separate.

Good luck what ever you do.

EDIT: Peon’s latest advice is spot on. They can legally force you to pay or evict you, and that process can happen quicker than some people realize. After 3 days notice they can process eviction papers which you legally must respond to by paying, or appearing in court. Its a real risk that they can take this course of action.

[kicksavedave]

NavyDoc,

Apart from Peon’s advice above, I’m not sure most of the adice you’ve been given here is entirely accurate and legal. I’m a landlord now, and just had to evict some deadbeat tenants. I’ve learned a ton about the process, but I am also certainly NOT a real estate lawyer either.

However, unless there is something specific in your lease that grants you immunity from an eviction in the event the landlord goes into default, you not paying your rent is a simple default on your lease and your landlord can pursue you for that money. That doesn’t mean they will, and it doesn’t mean that if they do that it would happen before the NOT or Trustee sale or the 3 or 6 month periods being thrown about in here. Those are personal and timing issues which you may or may not find important.

But that’s not the relevent legal issue here. You owe your rent, and not paying it can bring eviction proceedings against you, regardless of the landlords troubles himself. Will they pursue you via the proper legal means? Probably not. Can they? Yes.

Its up to you to decide A) if you want to risk it, and B) if you risk it, will you win or lose. Chances are good that you won’t get caught and lose the legal process of eviction here. But you are not legally entitled to live rent free, unless there is a clause in your lease stating such.

Its all a question of what’s right, what’s legal, and what you can probably get away with. Don’t blur the issues, they are separate.

Good luck what ever you do.

EDIT: Peon’s latest advice is spot on. They can legally force you to pay or evict you, and that process can happen quicker than some people realize. After 3 days notice they can process eviction papers which you legally must respond to by paying, or appearing in court. Its a real risk that they can take this course of action.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=TheBreeze]I was wanting to get that deal where you can watch every NFL game. Is that only available with DirecTV or are there other services that have it?[/quote]

Its only on Direct TV and its about $250 a season, but that only gets you the standard def. For the HD games, plus a nice package of extras called Super Fan, its another $100 a season. If you haggle well with DTV you can occasionally get them to waive the $100 for Super Fan, but not always.

At $350 a season for what amounts to my team on TV about 12 times vs seeing them in a bar when they are not the national game, it’s barely break even. If I go to a bar I’ll spend ~$30 each time for a meal and a few beers, which I never bother with at home.

This may be the last year I get the NFL Sunday Ticket.

To the OP, I pay about $78 for Direct TV with most channels except the premiums, HD, on 2 TVs. I pay about $49 for Time Warner Cable Internet. I consider neither to be a bargain but my only options at this time.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=TheBreeze]I was wanting to get that deal where you can watch every NFL game. Is that only available with DirecTV or are there other services that have it?[/quote]

Its only on Direct TV and its about $250 a season, but that only gets you the standard def. For the HD games, plus a nice package of extras called Super Fan, its another $100 a season. If you haggle well with DTV you can occasionally get them to waive the $100 for Super Fan, but not always.

At $350 a season for what amounts to my team on TV about 12 times vs seeing them in a bar when they are not the national game, it’s barely break even. If I go to a bar I’ll spend ~$30 each time for a meal and a few beers, which I never bother with at home.

This may be the last year I get the NFL Sunday Ticket.

To the OP, I pay about $78 for Direct TV with most channels except the premiums, HD, on 2 TVs. I pay about $49 for Time Warner Cable Internet. I consider neither to be a bargain but my only options at this time.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=TheBreeze]I was wanting to get that deal where you can watch every NFL game. Is that only available with DirecTV or are there other services that have it?[/quote]

Its only on Direct TV and its about $250 a season, but that only gets you the standard def. For the HD games, plus a nice package of extras called Super Fan, its another $100 a season. If you haggle well with DTV you can occasionally get them to waive the $100 for Super Fan, but not always.

At $350 a season for what amounts to my team on TV about 12 times vs seeing them in a bar when they are not the national game, it’s barely break even. If I go to a bar I’ll spend ~$30 each time for a meal and a few beers, which I never bother with at home.

This may be the last year I get the NFL Sunday Ticket.

To the OP, I pay about $78 for Direct TV with most channels except the premiums, HD, on 2 TVs. I pay about $49 for Time Warner Cable Internet. I consider neither to be a bargain but my only options at this time.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=TheBreeze]I was wanting to get that deal where you can watch every NFL game. Is that only available with DirecTV or are there other services that have it?[/quote]

Its only on Direct TV and its about $250 a season, but that only gets you the standard def. For the HD games, plus a nice package of extras called Super Fan, its another $100 a season. If you haggle well with DTV you can occasionally get them to waive the $100 for Super Fan, but not always.

At $350 a season for what amounts to my team on TV about 12 times vs seeing them in a bar when they are not the national game, it’s barely break even. If I go to a bar I’ll spend ~$30 each time for a meal and a few beers, which I never bother with at home.

This may be the last year I get the NFL Sunday Ticket.

To the OP, I pay about $78 for Direct TV with most channels except the premiums, HD, on 2 TVs. I pay about $49 for Time Warner Cable Internet. I consider neither to be a bargain but my only options at this time.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=TheBreeze]I was wanting to get that deal where you can watch every NFL game. Is that only available with DirecTV or are there other services that have it?[/quote]

Its only on Direct TV and its about $250 a season, but that only gets you the standard def. For the HD games, plus a nice package of extras called Super Fan, its another $100 a season. If you haggle well with DTV you can occasionally get them to waive the $100 for Super Fan, but not always.

At $350 a season for what amounts to my team on TV about 12 times vs seeing them in a bar when they are not the national game, it’s barely break even. If I go to a bar I’ll spend ~$30 each time for a meal and a few beers, which I never bother with at home.

This may be the last year I get the NFL Sunday Ticket.

To the OP, I pay about $78 for Direct TV with most channels except the premiums, HD, on 2 TVs. I pay about $49 for Time Warner Cable Internet. I consider neither to be a bargain but my only options at this time.

[Author]

Posts