It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am just not quite ready to just throw in the towel and give up hope. That is how Bush got into office.
Originally posted by blood0fheroes
It boils down to one basic concept. Do you own yourself, and the product of your labor; or does the government own you, and the product of your labor?
I do not want my house to burn down because my neighbor is either unlucky or unsafe so I willingly give up a little bit of money for that.
Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Sinnthia
There is no democrat or republican, only politicians.
This woman needs to be tried and if found guilty, hung from the highest tree.
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Yep
Its stuff like that that makes me proud Im not an American.
What an absolute disgrace, she should actually be strung up.
Any information or elaboration on why you chose not to "hear the case from the Senate."? Concerned Nevada citizen, wondering why debt collectors/foreclosure agents should not be required to prove they own the property/debt? Why was the case not heard? I love the United States but it sickens my stomach to see what appears to be a undermining of the democratic process given by the People, as authorized under the Constitution. So before I assume, I would really like some elaboration as to why, Yours respectfully, chose not to even hear the Bill. Best regards, (NAME REMOVED)
Originally posted by Sinnthia
Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Sinnthia
There is no democrat or republican, only politicians.
This woman needs to be tried and if found guilty, hung from the highest tree.
Sorry but I have been on ATS long enough to have heard this song enough to sing it in my sleep.
When Republicans are inexcusably bad, all politicians are bad.
When Democrats are bad on any level, them $#^*in' Democrats is evil!!!!!!
Yeah yeah yeah.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
and weve seen enough of your posts to know youll be the first one to come out with the leftvsRight arguement every time.........
Give it a rest man........seriously, youve had tons of threads in the last few days that keep pushing this agenda......
Are you really here for answers and to interject common sense , or are you here to play party politics?
This thread was about an idiot who struck a bill down that would have done a lot of good........not about your damn partisan politics.........
GIVE IT A REST!
Originally posted by blood0fheroes
Herein lies the key! You do so willingly, as would most sane people who want to protect their investments, and that of their community. However, when you believe as I do that I own myself, you own yourself, etc., etc...It becomes inherently and morally wrong for the majority of 51% or greater to decree legislation for the remaining 49%. Even in a wholly logical and reasonable form such as a tax to fund the local fire department, you will always have that one individual who would rather take the risk of his home burning down than to pay a tax that supports the fire dept.....and that is his choice, and rightly so because he owns himself.
The same goes for mandated health insurance and life insurance, from ambiguous property taxes and income taxes, right on down to seat belt / motorcycle helmet legislation. I wear a seatbelt because I value and wish to protect my life - not because of a government mandate. To the contrary, the government mandate is a constant thorny reminder that they believe they own me.
Originally posted by Cataclysmo
I'm sorry but I must say that for anyone who really cares about our government knows that this doesn't matter whether your Dem or Repub. It's actually silly for you to say such a thing when it's clearly a representative who is not doing her job for the people.
It is not an accident, I'm sure, that the bill in question in Arizona would have simply required that anyone foreclosing on a home prove that they are in fact the lawful owner of the debt in question and therefore that they have the right to foreclose. That this bill, which was clearly by the vote in their Senate about to become law, was deemed "unacceptable" by certain people who have not been identified is further proof that we no longer live in a Republic, and that neither Arizona or the United States has a functional Constitution - or the Rule of Law.
Update: The original sponsor of this bill, Ms. Michele Reagan, was sued in 2010 by her lender over her mortgage when she tried to find out who actually owned it. It appears that in order for a "Striker" amendment to be passed in Arizona the sponsor of the bill must concur. Therefore, the obvious questions arise: Is Ms. Reagan still being sued, was the case previously settled, and is there a quid-pro-quo - or perhaps even something more overt - going on here?
Why would a lawmaker who was sued for simply trying to find out who actually owns their mortgage drop a bill that would require documentation of ownership before foreclosure?
It gets better. There are reports that the House Committee Chair, Nancy McClain, threatened to "not hear" the bill as passed. That's right - the Republican (where are you Tea Party?) Committee Chair intended to kill a bill without a vote that passed the Senate 28-2! Why? Well gee, who do you think she was talking to? (cough-banksters-cough!)
I smell a big, fat, stinking rat.
What started out as a half a page homeowner bill ended up anything but. When Reagan sponsored SB 1259, she never anticipated any problems.
"It sailed through the Senate, 28 I believe to 2, which is a good vote," Reagan said.
The next step was the House Banking and Insurance committee, where Reagan expected a similar reaction.
Instead committee chair Nancy McLain moved to strike the bill before it even had a chance to be read.
"Just to be clear, representative, it was solely your decision to not hear the original bill in committee, right?" asked reporter Elizabeth Erwin.
"That is correct, yes," McLain answered.
"I've got to ask, did lobbyists have anything to do with your decision?" Erwin asked McLain.
"Well, there were people that came and talked to me about it," she responded.
Originally posted by airspoon
It saddens me to see how quickly people try to turn this into a partisan issue, with all of the "if she was a democrat" non-sense. Don't you see that it is this kind of thinking (ignorance) that allows these politicians to get away with a lot of what they do? If she was a democrat, she would still be corrupt, period.
Originally posted by Cataclysmo
Well with your original partially off topic comment with saying that if she was a DEM then the Democrats would have been bashed for an eternity. (yes this is an exaggeration) Instead of nonsense about the DEMS vs. REPS, maybe we should look past an affiliation to the system and look at the problems with the system as a whole.
Originally posted by thegoods724
No one see the bigger problem that would come from this bill passed, tons of people would get free houses.