Playing as a single & awkward stories from who you got paired with

[BuckeyeNut]

Oh..I've got a good one!!!!

I was paired up with 2 other singles one evening.......we all just showed up at roughly the same time and were thrown together.  I don't even remember how this conversation started, but my one partner was talking about being upside down on his mortgage, and that he was seriously considering the option to just abandon it.  (Stop paying by choice....to allow a foreclosure)   I believe strongly in personal responsibility and was biting my tongue.   We were on the 8th green......

My other partner NOT SO MUCH:

He was in the process of selling his house and just flipped the switch............. he very eloquently ripped the poor sap to shreds.  he wasn't rude, but very persuasive in is discussion......he said everything I was thinking!   I have to admit, I loved it because I agreed with every word.

Not a big surprise, but that guy who wanted to quit on his mortgage quit after 9 holes.   It had to be extremely awkward for him because the guy who ripped him to shreds was very well spoken and laid his disagreement out so plainly and clear that a 4th grader could understand.   He wasn't rude, but very eloquent.    We both had a good laugh after that guy left..............

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not necessarily. One can oppose gay marriage without being against same-sex civil unions that afford all the civil rights that married people have. I know many would say that such civil unions don't exist, but if true that's an issue with how the state defines civil unions, and not an indictment of those who prefer the word "marriage" to only apply to opposite-sex couples. The issue though is that same-sex couples want the word too, not just the civil rights.

Personally I'm not against same-sex marriage, I'm just saying that those who are aren't necessarily against others' civil rights.

i have to disagree.  "separate but equal" is what you're endorsing, and its actually disguised prejudice.

I think you've mischaracterized the issue, and will leave it at that.

[ejimsmith]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I think you've mischaracterized the issue, and will leave it at that.

sorry, but you can't have the last word when you call someone else out like that.  since you're not interested in discussing futher, i'll just call you ignorant and i will leave it at that.

/for more, i'd simply say everything you said advocated separate but equal thinking - same result civil union v. marriage, but not the word marriage for same-sex couples.  how is that not separate but equal?  and, if it is, how can you justify that some people "don't like the idea of the word marriage being used for same-sex couples" as not being prejudiced and *wrong*?

[mdl]

Originally Posted by sblack5

I was playing as a single yesterday on a course I've never played before......drove about 40 miles from home looking for something different......made the turn, and there was another single on number 10 and asked if I wanted to pair up.......how about after we tee off, the dude pulls out a bowl and starts smoking a bowl on course............I politely excused myself from his company.  to each his own, people party their own way, and I'm ok with that......but I didn't expect it on a golf course.

Ha.  At the LA public courses I play, the unexpected thing would be for someone to care.  You don't care if he cracks a beer, do you?  I'd think it more rude for them not to ask if I'd like a hit.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by 1puttit

Now I've worked with a lot of special education kids over the years and it finally occurs to me that Adam has Asperger's.  Once I figure this out it all makes sense - robotic voice, black & white thinking, little/no regard for social niceties, adherence to rules, etc... The funniest thing was how he would state a fact but had no concept how it might make someone feel. We get to the sixth hole which has the toughest green on the course. Bill has a tricky 15 foot putt and leaves it 5 feet short. Adam looks at him and says "you need to practice your putting".  LOL! The look on Bill's face was priceless!  Talk about AWKWARD!

This is the funniest story I've seen in this thread so far.  I really really want to see that.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

/for more, i'd simply say everything you said advocated separate but equal thinking - same result civil union v. marriage, but not the word marriage for same-sex couples.  how is that not separate but equal?  and, if it is, how can you justify that some people "don't like the idea of the word marriage being used for same-sex couples" as not being prejudiced and *wrong*?

You should probably consult a history book for the origin of the term "separate but equal". It has to do with schools for black and white children (Brown v. Board of Education, I think). Not really relevant in the same-sex marriage dispute. As far as I know, gays are not forcibly relegated to different schools or facilities.

[newtogolf]

Some might not like the idea of the word marriage being used for same sex unions because that's not what the word is defined as.  Currently 37 states have passed laws which define marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman.

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

sorry, but you can't have the last word when you call someone else out like that.  since you're not interested in discussing futher, i'll just call you ignorant and i will leave it at that.

/for more, i'd simply say everything you said advocated separate but equal thinking - same result civil union v. marriage, but not the word marriage for same-sex couples.  how is that not separate but equal?  and, if it is, how can you justify that some people "don't like the idea of the word marriage being used for same-sex couples" as not being prejudiced and *wrong*?

[x129]

That is a rude partner. What does personal responsiblity have to do with it? As long as he returns his collateral in good order, he has fulfilled his side of the contract in several states. Others allow the bank to after his outside assets.  When the bank made the loan they knew there was  risk of default which is why they ask for a downpayment and get to charge an interest rate higher than what treasuries paid. If the banks screwed up that math, it isn't that guys fault.

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut

Oh..I've got a good one!!!!

I was paired up with 2 other singles one evening.......we all just showed up at roughly the same time and were thrown together.  I don't even remember how this conversation started, but my one partner was talking about being upside down on his mortgage, and that he was seriously considering the option to just abandon it.  (Stop paying by choice....to allow a foreclosure)   I believe strongly in personal responsibility and was biting my tongue.   We were on the 8th green......

My other partner NOT SO MUCH:

He was in the process of selling his house and just flipped the switch............. he very eloquently ripped the poor sap to shreds.  he wasn't rude, but very persuasive in is discussion......he said everything I was thinking!   I have to admit, I loved it because I agreed with every word.

Not a big surprise, but that guy who wanted to quit on his mortgage quit after 9 holes.   It had to be extremely awkward for him because the guy who ripped him to shreds was very well spoken and laid his disagreement out so plainly and clear that a 4th grader could understand.   He wasn't rude, but very eloquent.    We both had a good laugh after that guy left..............

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by x129

That is a rude partner. What does personal responsiblity have to do with it? As long as he returns his collateral in good order, he has fulfilled his side of the contract in several states. Others allow the bank to after his outside assets.  When the bank made the loan they knew there was  risk of default which is why they ask for a downpayment and get to charge an interest rate higher than what treasuries paid. If the banks screwed up that math, it isn't that guys fault.

Who's fault is the market?  The banks math can be all good, but when values drop 30%...

And there is no note and security agreement that includes returning the home or collateral in good order.  The agreement is for the repayment of the money borrowed.

A very small percentage of forclosures happen because of "bank screw ups".

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I think you've mischaracterized the issue, and will leave it at that.

sorry, but you can't have the last word when you call someone else out like that.  since you're not interested in discussing futher, i'll just call you ignorant and i will leave it at that.

I'd like to point out that as the supposedly enlightened one in this debate, you're the one who's resorted to insults.  I'd also like to point out that one possible alternative to your conclusion that I'm ignorant is that perhaps I believe that arguing with internet tough guys is a pointless endeavor.

[Rip24]

This started out as such a good thread...

[bplewis24]

Intolerance can do that to a thread.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by x129

That is a rude partner. What does personal responsiblity have to do with it? As long as he returns his collateral in good order, he has fulfilled his side of the contract in several states. Others allow the bank to after his outside assets.  When the bank made the loan they knew there was  risk of default which is why they ask for a downpayment and get to charge an interest rate higher than what treasuries paid. If the banks screwed up that math, it isn't that guys fault.

Actually, by definition your point is incorrect.

Collateral exists so losses are limited in case a partner does not fulfill his side of the contract. The promise and expectation by contract and convention is that loan payments be made on time by the borrower.

[x129]

The bank factors all that in. What happened is they messed up the risk assessment. They thought a national house slump was impossible. They were wrong.   My mortgage is very clear what happens if I don't pay. In a nonrecourse state, they get the  house back and trash my credit.   Now you can argue mortgage rates are way too low for the risk involved but that is the banks/investor  choice.

Most of the foreclosures I have read about are due to bank screw ups. I can't think of a single one where the person put down 20% and lost there house. I am sure it happened but compared to the ones where the banked loaned out 100% of the value of the house it isn't worth talking about. Giving out a 200k load to a person with no skin the game is a major screw up.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Who's fault is the market?  The banks math can be all good, but when values drop 30%...

And there is no note and security agreement that includes returning the home or collateral in good order.  The agreement is for the repayment of the money borrowed.

A very small percentage of forclosures happen because of "bank screw ups".

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by x129

The bank factors all that in. What happened is they messed up the risk assessment. They thought a national house slump was impossible. They were wrong.   My mortgage is very clear what happens if I don't pay. In a nonrecourse state, they get the  house back and trash my credit.   Now you can argue mortgage rates are way too low for the risk involved but that is the banks/investor  choice.

Most of the foreclosures I have read about are due to bank screw ups. I can't think of a single one where the person put down 20% and lost there house. I am sure it happened but compared to the ones where the banked loaned out 100% of the value of the house it isn't worth talking about. Giving out a 200k load to a person with no skin the game is a major screw up.

Banks can't just stop lending in certain areas or due to market risk.  Goes against fair lending.  The consumer took the same risk in the purchase and market.  They are the ones that agreed to pay it back.

I do agree that the 100% loans were a huge mistake by lenders.  But don't believe everything you read.  It is the borrowers (in)ability to pay, not the (real estate) market, that caused all the bulk of the for closures.  There are plenty of people that put 20% down and still lost their homes.

I work in lending.  Don't get me wrong, a lot of brokers set up people to fail with crazy loans, outside of the 100% financing.  But most for closures are still due to divorces, job loss, etc.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Banks can't just stop lending in certain areas or due to market risk.  Goes against fair lending.  The consumer took the same risk in the purchase and market.  They are the ones that agreed to pay it back.

I do agree that the 100% loans were a huge mistake by lenders.  But don't believe everything you read.  It is the borrowers (in)ability to pay, not the (real estate) market, that caused all the bulk of the for closures.  There are plenty of people that put 20% down and still lost their homes.

I work in lending.  Don't get me wrong, a lot of brokers set up people to fail with crazy loans, outside of the 100% financing.  But most for closures are still due to divorces, job loss, etc.

Again, using definition, foreclosures were ALL caused by the borrowers' inability to pay.

A drop in house prices can't cause a foreclosure.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Again, using definition, foreclosures were ALL caused by the borrowers' inability to pay.

A drop in house prices can't cause a foreclosure.

No, some forclosures were caused by people with the ability to pay the loan back just walking away due to the drop in value.

Technically, the ceasing of payments are the ultimate reason, but the actual causes vary.

[Kapanda]

ah, yeah good point.