• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

  • Yes, they very much represent their complaints & agenda.

    Votes: 11 14.5%
  • They represent some of their complaints & agenda, but also have their own unique/radical ideas.

    Votes: 20 26.3%
  • Not really, their ideas are more represent the complaints & goals of the poor and radicals.

    Votes: 17 22.4%
  • Not at all! They only speak for a radical fringe!!

    Votes: 28 36.8%

  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
Sounds like a loophole so you can steal from the bank. I have to pay for my house, so should you.
nope. it's a contract. one which we expect will be followed
why should the corporations get away with being able to bypass the stated provisions of the contract
 
Bank lends you 2.1 mil for a home (or 90k in your case), you don't pay the bill, should you be able to default on your mortgage and keep your home?


That's stealing.

the bank should be able to recover from its secured collateral
all it has to do is show that it has the required documents
it does not get to fabricate what it needs to collect against the collateral. that is fraud
 
nope. it's a contract. one which we expect will be followed
why should the corporations get away with being able to bypass the stated provisions of the contract


Because you owe them the ****ing money.

When you default, you make honest people like me pay more, wether it's through bailouts or higher rates.


To think, that you don't believe you are obligated to pay your debts because the bank sold your loan. KOOKY.


Shall we move on to the next one? :lamo:
 
Last edited:
what does (90k in your case) mean? what are you trying to say?

he is explaining that the folks in his community also have mortgages on their trailers
but if the mobile home is not found to be real property instead of personal property, he would again be wrong
 
the bank should be able to recover from its secured collateral
all it has to do is show that it has the required documents
it does not get to fabricate what it needs to collect against the collateral. that is fraud



how common is this paperwork loophole you keep talking about? Is it illegal? show me the law. Honestly unless you got something solid, I can't take your word for it.
 
A typo. Care to address ANY of the actual points or are you going to play grammar boy to hide your lack of ability to address the actual points.

I'm sorry you took it that way. Please now by all means adress the actual point and stop dancing.

OWS has valid grievances. That's the point. Of course, some folks prefer to delude themselves into thinking that by supporting & defending the uber-rich, somehow..someday...the uber-rich will reward them. Lenin had a term for such individuals.
 
OWS has valid grievances. That's the point. Of course, some folks prefer to delude themselves into thinking that by supporting & defending the uber-rich, somehow..someday...the uber-rich will reward them. Lenin had a term for such individuals.


The Good Reverend is obscenely rich. While not in the 1% I fall clearly within the "5%" perhaps even a bit higher. He has more than enough to keep him very, very, happy. Russel Simmons was my neighbor. :pimpdaddy:
 
Because you owe them the ****ing money.
but do you actually owe THEM money
they say that they have a loan outstanding and in default, but the creditor must also show that they have the original Note and other documents of hypothecation proving their legitimate interest in the defaulted loan
without the documentation proving that they have a genuine interest in the property, they have no legitimate claim to recover against the underlying collateral


When you default, you make honest people like me pay more, wether it's through bailouts or higher rates.
when you default, you are subject to lose your property pledged as collateral when the lender properly documents its legitimate interest in the defaulted loan
it does not get to fraudulently fabricate documents showing such interest in the loan
this is the kind of thing, corporate fraud legitimatized by the courts, that OWS is objecting to

To think, that you don't believe you are obligated to pay your debts because the bank sold your loan. KOOKY.
no one is saying that borrowers are not obligated to pay their their debts. what is being established is that the creditors also have an obligation to fulfill the provisions of the contract signed by the mortgagee and mortgagor. if they are unable to do so, then they have no legitimate claim to recover against the collateral securing the defaulted loan
again, you expect the corporation not to have to fulfill its contractual obligation before the courts ... which is one of the things the Occupy movement has cited as a major concern

Shall we move on to the next one? :lamo:
since it is quite obvious you have lost this one, certainly
 
but do you actually owe THEM money
they say that they have a loan outstanding and in default, but the creditor must also show that they have the original Note and other documents of hypothecation proving their legitimate interest in the defaulted loan
without the documentation proving that they have a genuine interest in the property, they have no legitimate claim to recover against the underlying collateral



when you default, you are subject to lose your property pledged as collateral when the lender properly documents its legitimate interest in the defaulted loan
it does not get to fraudulently fabricate documents showing such interest in the loan
this is the kind of thing, corporate fraud legitimatized by the courts, that OWS is objecting to


no one is saying that borrowers are not obligated to pay their their debts. what is being established is that the creditors also have an obligation to fulfill the provisions of the contract signed by the mortgagee and mortgagor. if they are unable to do so, then they have no legitimate claim to recover against the collateral securing the defaulted loan
again, you expect the corporation not to have to fulfill its contractual obligation before the courts ... which is one of the things the Occupy movement has cited as a major concern


since it is quite obvious you have lost this one, certainly



You still have to pay for your home, your dog and pony show has failed. but you go on big boy, you claim victory. :lamo


"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."


I agree with this, but lets see where you put the blame. I bet it's as dumb as where they put it.
 
how common is this paperwork loophole you keep talking about? Is it illegal? show me the law. Honestly unless you got something solid, I can't take your word for it.

each mortgage contract is a unique document
but it has been established that many lenders proceeded to foreclosure with loan documents that were fabricated to give the appearance the lender actually had an interest in the loan ... here is a cite describing such robo signings of illegitimate documents: Robo-Signing Redux: Servicers Still Fabricating Foreclosure Documents - American Banker Article
 
each mortgage contract is a unique document
but it has been established that many lenders proceeded to foreclosure with loan documents that were fabricated to give the appearance the lender actually had an interest in the loan ... here is a cite describing such robo signings of illegitimate documents: Robo-Signing Redux: Servicers Still Fabricating Foreclosure Documents - American Banker Article



ahh so it is illegal. Then who do you blame for not going after them?


Still doesn't mean you can steal your home.
 
The Good Reverend is obscenely rich. While not in the 1% I fall clearly within the "5%" perhaps even a bit higher. He has more than enough to keep him very, very, happy. Russel Simmons was my neighbor. :pimpdaddy:

that was a snappy chain link fence securing your concrete patio
a very rich estate you exhibited for our viewing pleasure there rev
thanks for the laughs
 
You still have to pay for your home, your dog and pony show has failed. but you go on big boy, you claim victory. :lamo


"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."


I agree with this, but lets see where you put the blame. I bet it's as dumb as where they put it.
then you both agree with me that i won the first round and with the Occupy movement that the bailouts and bonuses do not belong together
what more needs to be said

glad you are figuring out that by agreeing with me you will be found wrong less often

what's your next objection to the Occupy movement's declaration
 
that was a snappy chain link fence securing your concrete patio
a very rich estate you exhibited for our viewing pleasure there rev
thanks for the laughs



Ahh yes, My fence. Ever see the other side of my property?



7e36ff05.jpg



See my two cows? "tax" and "deduction"? Just had this outdoor grill island built. Looks great doesn't it?


My other egg sits near the fence line near the kitchen, the One I use the most. Wanna see the house?



I made thanksgiving outside. used all three.


5ada839c.jpg
 
Last edited:
ahh so it is illegal. Then who do you blame for not going after them?
like the Occupy movement, i blame the government for unfairly tilting the playing field in favor of the corporate interests, and not adequately ferreting out the fraud being perpetrated in the courts


Still doesn't mean you can steal your home.
was that one of the Occupy positions? i missed it
 
then you both agree with me that i won the first round and with the Occupy movement that the bailouts and bonuses do not belong together
what more needs to be said

glad you are figuring out that by agreeing with me you will be found wrong less often

what's your next objection to the Occupy movement's declaration



Avoiding the question as usual? who do you blame? the banks or the government that gave them the money "no strings attached"?
 
like the Occupy movement, i blame the government for unfairly tilting the playing field in favor of the corporate interests, and not adequately ferreting out the fraud being perpetrated in the courts

Cept they don't otherwise they wouldn't be at zucotti,. but the white house.


Simple really.


was that one of the Occupy positions? i missed it

You miss a lot of things.



Wanna see something cool?

2662f72e.jpg


I control my egg bbq pits from the network. Cool eh?
 
since it is quite obvious you have lost this one, certainly

To my understanding, when a Bank sells your loan to another place it requires your approval of it first? At least that's what I've experienced when my bank sold my loan to another group which then sold it to another.

If that's the case, are you suggesting that the original bank attempting to forclose on your house is wrong because they don't hold the contract with you anymore? In which case, are you basically saying that the entity that does now hold your contract should be the one who is forclosing on you?
 
Back
Top Bottom