Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant“My point is that I was never offered a 15-year mortgage when inquiring about loans, I had to ask to get the information.”
When I almost bought a house last year (it was a new Pardee home), I was asking the Pardee loan guy about their interest rates. He gave me some ARM rates and some 30-year rates. I wanted a 15-year loan, so I asked, “what’s your rate on a 15-year loan?” His response: “Nobody uses a 15-year loan anymore.” I said that’s what I’d be using, and asked him again what the rate was. He said, “I haven’t even seen a 15-year loan used in the last 5 or 6 years.” I said, “that’s fascinating. Now, what’s the rate.” He said, “I don’t know. I’m not even sure I can get you one. I’ll have to find out.”
I don’t know if they get more commission on a longer term loan, or if he actually wasn’t accustomed to people asking about 15-year loans, but he sure seemed to get a bit freaky when I started asking about 15-year loans. He seemed to think I was a bit eccentric. His reaction was similar to what I imagine it’d be if I offerred to pay for the house with some bolts of silk and some pigs and goats.
Participant“It is the irony of the situation that in order to deny the existence of God, you must discuss God. It is meant as a joke.”
I see. It’s kinda cute. It’d probably be funnier, though, if “discuss” were closer in meaning to “obsessed.”
ParticipantPC: “zk, you expressed exactly what I feel about religion. I think I love you!”
Get in line, babe. No, I’m just kidding. It’s great to know that someone feels the same as I do.
CM:”Godless yes, but they had BELIEF! I’m not a communism expert, but as far as I know they believed in the people, the state, the ideology.”
True. And the society I describe would belive in the human race.
jep:”Athiests believe God does NOT exist.”
That is one definition of atheist. “2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” is another definition of atheism. I, and probably most atheists, are atheists under the second definition. If I believe that the chances of there being a god/gods is about the same as invisible elephants floating above matthew’s deck (and I do), then by some definitions I am an agnostic. Because I believe in the possibility, however ridiculously remote, that there is a god/gods. I would guess the scientists we’re talking about would feel the same way. So, call them/us what you want; it’s only a label. I use the word “atheist” to describe myself because it’s easier (and better understood) than saying “I believe the chances of their being a god/gods is less than one in a trillion to the trillionth power, but I can’t say that I’m absolutely sure there’s no god.” If one says “agnostic,” most people would probably think that person doesn’t know what to believe, or that they place the odds of there being a god somewhere in the 5-99% range. Not fitting into either of those categories, I just refer to myself as an atheist on the rare occasions that it comes up.
“Talk to any atheist for a while, and you may find that they are obsessed with God (believing in the non-existence, that is).”
None of the atheists I know are like that. Also, I don’t think most of my friends even know I’m an atheist. It’s not worth advertising in today’s american culture. If what you said were true, what would be the relevance of it?
jg:”Sounds plausible, logical, and irrefutable. Problem is when you attempt to maximize benefit to BOTH society and individuals, compromises creep in. That 90 year old person in the old folks home who never married and has outlived her friends; why keep her around? She costs society $25-50K per year in payments to her old folks’ home. Isn’t that money better spent on educating 2.5-5 kids in a CA public school for one year?”
Of course compromises creep in. That’s how society works. But to suggest that the scenario you describe above would actually happen is like me saying that if Christians were in charge, there would be murderous crusades. No, wait, that actually happened. Just because your god holds life to be sacrosanct (oh, wait, only under certain circumstances) doesn’t mean that a humanist society wouldn’t.
“Christianity says each and every individual has intrinsic value. Protect the weak and innocent. Seems okay to me. Otherwise, ad absurdum, you get developments like the Nazis, who decided that Jews, gypsies, and Slavs were unworthy of living.”
Plenty of genocide has been committed in the name of god. Doesn’t seem okay to me. Sure, protect the weak and innocent. Great. But I’d add, “don’t kill those who believe differently from you.” Seems like a lot of religions leave that out.
“Religion is the great, absolute civilizing and restraining force. It fails, often. But it works, mostly, especially Christianity; Europe and America are different and are better.”
If it fails often, it is neither great nor absolute.
Europe and America may or may not be different and/or better. But if they are, I don’t think christianity has got anything to do with it.
In my opinion, they are not better. The U.S.A. has the sixth-highest homicide rate in the world. The seventh-place country has barely more than half the homicide rate as us. Violent crime is a much bigger problem here than in most countries. In what ways do you think Europe and America are better, and what do you think Christianity has to do with it?
doof:”Christianity is not the only moral compass out there, and if it is for you, then I’d be very afraid of you if you ever lost your faith.”
I’m curious about that. I don’t think jg would turn into an amoral being if he lost his faith. What do you think, jg?
Participantcarlislematthew,
“I don’t need a bible or the fear of hell to not do bad things – I pride myself on being a good citizen and contributing to society.”
I feel exactly the same way, as do pretty much all the atheists I know.
“Blind faith is a crutch that some people need and I’d never want to take it away from them.”
I concur, up to a point. But what I would like to take away from them, if I could, is their usually unwarranted “holier-than-thou” attitude. Perhaps it’s a weakness of mine that their attitude bothers me so much. But bother me it does.
“However, I’m thankful that those lacking in similar moral fiber have a smattering of commandments and some religious fear and guilt to keep them in line.”
I suppose it’s better than nothing. It’s too bad it doesn’t work better. Part of the reason it doesn’t work better, in my opinion, is the idea that they’ll be forgiven, almost regardless of what they do. Whoever made up their religion really screwed that one up.
(A separate) part of the (bigger) problem comes from the fact that religious tenets aren’t subject to logic or reason. It’s god’s word, and therefore it doesn’t matter whether it’s good for society in real life or not. No matter how ridiculous it is, it’s considered true and right by the blindly faithful.
“If it weren’t for religion we’d have anarchy, because most people would go insane without some kind of “higher” purpose and reason for their otherwise meaningless existence.”
I’m not sure whether I agree with that or not. In most civilizations throughout history, religion has played a fairly large part. But what about the Soviet Union? A basically godless culture. A miserable one, to be sure, but I think that was more due to totalitarianism than to atheism. In any case, there wasn’t anarchy nor were there people going insane (that I know of).
“Opium for the masses? Sure. But keep it coming.”
I totally understand what you mean. And, being pragmatic, I must agree that for this world right now, it’s probably for the best, Islamic extremism notwithstanding. But I think that it would be possible to have a society where humans set the rules for the maximum benifit to society and to individuals. And I think that if we could get there, we’d be better off than we are today. I don’t know for sure, and I could easily be wrong, and I’ll never find out. But that’s my opinion.
Participantjg,
Perry Chase didn’t say anything about Republicans or Democrats. He said, “there are plenty of “fruits and nuts” in the holier-than-thou crowd.”
“Arnold sure ain’t a big churchgoing guy, or else he’d be against abortion and embryonic stem cell research.”
Answer me this, jg,
Why are churchgoers against embryonic stem cell research? You’re preventing embryos that are going to be discarded from being used to save human lives.
Also, you use the word “churchgoer” as though it means that one is supportive of god’s word. Surely you know that a mere profession of faith and goodness means nothing. Surely you know that there are millions of churchgoing, bible-thumping, holier-than-thou types who don’t even try to follow god’s word. I’m going to give you credit enough to assume that you know these things. So, maybe I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying. When you say, “Arnold sure ain’t a big churchgoing guy, or else he’d be against abortion and embryonic stem cell research,” do you mean to imply that if he were a big churchgoing guy that necessarily he’d do his best to live by god’s word and therefore be against those things? Or do you mean something else?
It’s been my experience that the sooner after I meet someone they profess their religious conviction, the more likely it is that they are bereft of moral charachter. I understand that plenty of churchgoers aren’t like that. But just being a bible-thumper isn’t any indication that a person is “good.” In fact, if I had a choice of leaving my daughter in the hands of a church full of people or an atheist club full of people, I’d pick the latter.
Participant“lostkitty has shown herself way too sophisticated to be insulted like that.”
Lostkitty quotes (and from just one post):
“Are you all too retarded…?”
“Start your own god-damned threads”
“shut the f**k up”
“Who the hell cares”
Yes, it’s a rare sophisticate who is able to project such elan using only the written word.
powayseller, your lack of analytical skills appears to extend beyond the housing situation.
ParticipantWhile I agree that a person should be able to post as much as they want, I think that a monopolization of the forums by one person saying pretty much the same thing over and over does detract from the diversity of ideas that make this forum so interesting and valuable.
I have an idea.
Maybe Rich can add another section to the “user forums” section. A “powayseller” section.
That way, she, and whichever readers agree with her opinion that her posts are “very good” and that she’s “helping Rich” can go to that section and read her stuff. And the rest of the posters don’t get pushed to the bottom when she posts 10 posts in a row.
It’ll be kinda like her own little blog, it’ll take only a little tiny bit of work on Rich’s part, and those who don’t want to read her stuff can skip it.
Maybe he doesn’t have to call it the “powayseller” section. Perhaps new visitors would think he is somehow endorsing her views is she has her own section. Maybe he can call it the “post your research here” section, or something equally vague, and we’ll all just know it’s ps’s own little domain.
ParticipantAssuming that the 100 liar loans they looked at were representative (and that could easily not be the case):
One third of loans are liar loans, and sixty percent overstated their income by 50% or more. So that’s 20% of all loans involve an overstatement of income by 50% or more.
That’s crazy scary.
Not an in-depth analysis I’ve just provided, to be sure. But I think that sums it up.
Participantkristinejm,
Ironically, my first thought when reading your post was, “amen.”
In fact, I agreed with it so much, I could’ve written it myself, if I were a better writer (and a lesbian). Except the part about being from a long line of non-religious people. My mom and her family were very religious. I still remember driving home from church one day when I was 6 years old. I asked my mom where god came from, and she said, “he’s always been there.” I pressed her rather tenaciously for a better answer, but none was forthcoming. I’ve been an atheist since that day.
“If you are liberal, they have a chapter of “Drinking Liberally” in San Diego. You can get on a mailing list and they will send you updates.”
Sounds pretty interesting, I may google that. But I’m not really a liberal. I may be drifting into another subject here, but here goes.
Say a person is for:
lower taxes (fiscally responsible ones, ones for low-income people, not the ones Republicans give away), for tough punishment on crimes, for a free-market-driven economy, against affirmative action, for getting welfare recipients to work and for the death penalty in principle (but against it in practice: it costs too much, it isn’t a deterrent and our justice system isn’t good enough to ensure executing the correct person),
but also for:
gay rights, well-funded public education, strict separation of church and state, keeping government out of morality issues, environmental protection, energy independence, diplomacy backed by brute force rather than just brute force, a guest worker program, and freedom of speech (the proposed amendment against burning the flag can clearly only be backed by people who have trouble thinking, and book banning is a big step towards fascism).
Such a person (me) isn’t a liberal or a conservative. I don’t understand why most people seem to have to stick to one or the other of the major parties’ platforms. Let’s hear from some other free thinkers out there.
Participant“Do what makes YOU happy, to hell with appearences, as long as its not hurting anyone and its not illegal, go for it.
I totally concur with that.
“I would feel horrible if I drove a 4 cyl. Camry and died with 4-1/2 million in the bank.”
If I had anywhere near 4 1/2 million in the bank, I wouldn’t think of driving a 4cyl camry. Or a V8 4Runner. Or a ‘Slade for that matter. So many to choose from, but I think I’d drive an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. Just looking at that car is a feast. But, with a 5-year-old and a wife to think about, and being upper middle class, I can’t have everything, and I figure I’ll settle for the Toyota and save our money for our eventual new house and more piano and skating lessons and vacations.
If I were super rich, I’d have about a hundred cars. Lots of ’60s muscle cars, lots of supercars, a race car or two and assorted others.
What would you all drive?
ParticipantI saw Johnny Carson driving a MB 350SL convertible, green with a black top, in 1978.
I’ve seen a few rich guys (Jeff Dunham, some pro athletes) driving Hummers. Real Hummers, the kind you can drive over large boulders. Not H2s or H3s, where they took out all the real Hummer stuff except the ugly. If it weren’t for status-conscious people, I don’t think they’d sell any H2s or H3s. No more sporty or utile than your average sport utility vehicle, but a hell of a lot uglier. And yet, in the eyes of many, they elevate one’s status. I don’t get it. Makes you look like a dumbass to me.
I think if a guy is driving around in a $250,000 Aston-Martin, he’d have to either be at least borderline rich or have his priorities completely out of whack. I’ve seen a few of those around. The most beautiful cars in the world, if you ask me.
I’m a little bit of a car guy (damn I miss my ’67 GTO convertible), but I can’t see spending much of the money from the sale of my house on one. Sure, I could buy an Aston-Martin or a Ferrari. But then I’d be a dumbass. I admit that with my windfall I decided to buy a V8 4Runner instead of the previously planned 4 Cyl Camry (nothing will make you feel less like a car guy than driving a 4 Cyl Camry). But that’s all I bought, and even that made me feel a tad careless with my money.
ParticipantThat argument leaves out one thing. And that one thing is the thing that drives the market up past where it should be and down past where it should be. And that thing is, of course, market psychology.
The only reason prices are as high as they are is that people thought prices would keep going up forever. So, no matter how much they had to stretch, no matter how many extra hours they had to work, no matter how many other things they could’nt buy or services they couldn’t afford, buyers would spend whatever it took to get a house at whatever price they could buy one at. The only reason so many people paid $500,000 for a 1300 s.f. crackerbox in Clairemont Mesa was that they thought it’d be worth $600,000 in a year or two.
So, it doesn’t matter if interest rates go down again (unless buyer sentiment turns around with it. But that would require the whole herd to change direction again, and that doesn’t seem likely to happen twice in one year). Because if interest rates went down, then while affordability would be back to where it was when interest rates were lower (and affordability was pretty damn low then), people wouldn’t make the sacrifices and stretches that they would have before in order to buy the house. They wouldn’t pay more than the house was worth as shelter (plus whatever premiums “pride of ownership” and what not add). Because they’d be expecting them to drop in price, rather than go up.
In fact, now that the herd is expecting a drop in prices, there will be plenty of people out there who won’t want to buy a house at any price until they’re convinced that prices aren’t dropping any more. The herd has a lot of inertia. And the herd is accelerating. So it may be a while before the herd is convinced that prices aren’t dropping anymore.
Affordability wasn’t the issue on the way up. If it was, then prices wouldn’t have gotten so high. And affordability, while it may be what turned the tide and sent the herd thundering in the other direction, is not the issue on the way down, either.
Fear of being priced out of the market was the main factor on the way up. And fear of losing money will be the main factor on the way down.
September 18, 2006 at 5:56 PM in reply to: I cant take it anymore! It’s a TRACT house not a TRACK house #35749ParticipantNot knowing a damn (or is it damned) thing about it, I’d say that “pNSPerStreamCounterInfo->u64TxFrames.low = LVAL(pIn, iOffSet);” must be computer code.
I guess after writing all day where every single keystroke must be correct, you’re happy to rip through a blog entry without concern for every little nitpicking (or is it nit picking) thing.
My job involves rapid-fire decisions all day long. Then, when I get home to my wife, she can’t understand why it takes me five minutes to decide what I want for dinner.
Same type of thing, probably.
Considering your circumstance, I’ll give you a pass. Everybody else, get your colons in order!
September 18, 2006 at 5:34 PM in reply to: I cant take it anymore! It’s a TRACT house not a TRACK house #35746ParticipantWho knew James Brown was so grammatically correct.
Speaking of “exception,” what the heck does “the exception that proves the rule” mean?
-
AuthorPosts