Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. You really need help. You have become as bad as the crazies at attributing things to people. Avenattis lie does not bother me more than trump lies. I really do not care about Avenatti at all. Other people started posting about his comments and started speculating that Trunmp paid for an abortion and that Broidy took the fall for it. It was insanely stupid. And, as usual, people ate it up just like he knew they would. Just like they do with all things trump. I as simply yanking your chain a little since you like to throw the liar thing out there all the time. I thought Avenatti was teed up for you. I have stated, multiple times, any number of things that I think trump should be impeached for. So far, none of those things have been proven. Gravity? You have no idea if the tax cuts will be effective or not. Healthcare? How about we scrutinize all of the promises made by Clinton, Bush and Obama before they were sworn in and see how many of them they actually did? Debt, deficit, immigration, taxation etc etc. I guess they all "flat out lied". They did. Your double standard is comical. Bottom line is that you called me, a random poster on a message board, a "lying liar" for posting information about HUD multifamily loans that someone requested and that was completely factual. So, apparently, my comments "bothered you MORE" than his. That is the fucking unhinged post trump world you live in. Fucking amazing.
  2. Wow. You guys are really unstable. I was just poking fun at Brisket. I kind of liked the line "lying liar" (as opposed to truth telling liar?) Yes lying is generally bad. Yes the volume matters. As does the impact on me. Lying about the size of crowds or how many illegals are in the country or crime is rising or best potus ever do not really affect me. Lying about a healthcare plan that promised not to add even $1 to the deficit that caused my personal family health insurance to more than double and my dedictible to triple affects me more. Both are bad. Yes who tells the lies is important. If you are really asking me if Trump lies, then yes, repeatedly. As for Avenatti, here is what he said: “So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?” Then he went on to speculate that Broidy was not an actual client. Of course that is a lie and Broidy was listed.
  3. Do we think Brisket will now post that Avenatti is a “lying liar”.
  4. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    All of the long term non traditional financing options for multifamily are non recourse. And even in the traditional banking markets (when you do a new project from scratch) the construction loan is interest only and recourse but when you have occupancy and the construction loan goes to permanent, they are non recourse. But there are very few traditional banks that get long term mortgages on multifamily because they are not as competitive. Life insurance companies and private money make up the biggest percentage of the market. Perhaps you guys are getting hung up on what we are talking about. The HUD programs for multifamily are different than those for single family housing. But HUD's multifamily program is just another option. No loan forgiveness. Nothing. Just an option. Same underwriting guidelines. In fact, tighter guidelines in some regions. I have been involved in 5 multifamily deals like this in the last 7 years. I am not sure why you guys are arguing with me. You can search all of this info on your own. Anyone of you can put a business plan together for multifamily and find out for yourselves. There are plenty of better options for financing of these projects. Especially for a guy with hannity's income/wealth. Apparently he liked the HUD terms more than the other ones. Most people do not.
  5. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    The things you described above are not relatable to multifamily. When private equity groups, or wealthy individuals or Life insurance companies get involved in multifamily, they get the same terms as everyone else. Yes, In a deal like what Hannity did, HUD is just a competitor in the market like anyone else. Everyone has terms that are slightly different and every person looking for funding has different interests. HUD has many advantages, the biggest is the long term fixed rates. But the fees are higher than others, they require a mountain of paperwork, they take 12-18 months to close, they restrict owners getting cash back, they have penalties for early prepayment etc. There is a separate section of HUD that is for apartments with rent subsidies. I do not have any hands on experience with those types of projects and, I assume, there are beneficial terms to those deals.
  6. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    Lulz. Is that a Mike Leach. Lets just disagree on what leeching is. I do not think any definition of leeching would include the supposed leecher paying high upfront fees and market based interest but they could have changed the whole dictionary while I was napping.
  7. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    No you are being deliberately stupid. There is no contradiction at all. You are arguing that the "industry" is ONLY HUD and traditional banks. It is not. How is this hard for you to grasp. I will go slowly again. HUD has different terms than traditional banks. HUD does not have different terms from a myriad of other non traditional options for financing multifamily. HUD is not unique in the "industry" but they are unique from traditional banking that makes up a portion of the "industry". All of the non traditional financing sources for multifamily will give you equivalent terms to that of HUD. Otherwise, they would never get any business.
  8. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    Seriously? Is this how you argue as a lawyer? I hope not. The market for financing is not, as you seem to argue/think, made up solely of traditional banks and HUD. There are a myriad of financing options in multifamily. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Collectively, they make up the market. HUD, by no means, dominates the financing market for multifamily. You seem to be arguing that HUD offers better than market terms. If so, why don't they have all the business? This is just stupid. You asked a legitimate question about why someone would do a HUD loan that had higher up front fees and a market interest rate. I tried to explain why someone would go that route. What happened to you?
  9. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    You are a strange cat sometimes. The terms you can get with HUD you can also get from other non-traditional sources of funding. Life insurance companies will fund multifamily, there are a ton of private equity groups that fund multifamily and any term is negotiable even in the traditional marketplace. Multifamily financing is kind of its own thing. But the terms you can get with HUD you can get other places. Simply because of HUD's terms, the industry has had to match them. So, yes, it is market. Getting a fixed rate is simply a hedge. Rates go up and down. There are penalties for refinancing a HUD loan early in most cases and typically not in traditional loans. I have no idea why Hannity used HUD, if he even did. People make decisions on financing for a variety of reasons. But the HUD loans are expensive upfront and the rates are market. The whole point is that this is a ridiculous example of people trying to make some idiotic point about tax payer money or welfare.
  10. LOL. You probably need to check on things yourself. The SIC asked a lot of questions related to the Dossier, Nataliya did not bring it up. In fact, here is her direct quote on the Dossier "absolute nonsense."
  11. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    Well I dont think I have ever seen his TV show and I have heard his radio show a handful of times but it has been a while. What I remember was that he just repeats his points over and over and is not funny or entertaining. I think any show/host that is virtually one sided in their approach/view is a tool and that doesnt interest me.
  12. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    Not much, it is a question of risk. The biggest advantage to the HUD deals (and they are fee heavy) is that they will give you a fixed rate loan with a longer amortization than traditional banks. HUD will actually do 40 year ams and fix the rate for 25 years. Traditional lenders will be less expensive up front but will only fix the rate for 10 years or so and usually they will not do an am schedule over 20 years. With the HUD deal you give up cash up front to lock in todays interest rate. They are also assumable, but so are most traditional loans. if you are going to sell the asset in the next 5-7 years then HUD is nott he best option but if you intend to hold it long term, then HUD makes some sense.
  13. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    I hope the irony of Sean Hannity using HUD support to expand his real estate portfolio at taxpayer expense isn't lost on those who bemoan the existence of welfare queens. Rich people need welfare too. Not that any of you care, but the HUD program for multifamily is not, at all, a form of welfare. The fact that some of you do not even know what you are talking about is kind of funny. Also funny how the media can slant something and the usuals just eat it up. The HUD multifamily program is simply a loan program designed for multifamily. It is not designated to poor areas or underserved areas. If Hannity used it, then he paid hundreds of thousands in fees to HUD and is paying market interest on the debt. The fact that people think a program where the borrower pays hundreds of thousands of fees as well as market interest on a loan is welfare is awesome. If everyone would use this welfare then the US could retire its debt pretty quick because the HUD program is a net financial gain for the tax payers. And, Hannity is a tool.
  14. Well she did testify to the HIC for 3 hours in Berlin. She has been very consistent that she has no ties to the Russian govt and that all they talked about was sanctions related to Magnitsky and adoptions. Rinat, who is a US citizen, has testified to Mueller. He has said that he had no knowledge of the meeting until the day of, and was asked to attend that day by Nataliya as they were working together in lobbying efforts for adoptions/Magnitsky. There could obviously be something there, but it seems very unlikely to me as Nataliya, Rinat, Trump Jr, Kush and Manafort have all told the exact same story. They could certainly all be lying but that would be very hard to prove. Obviously if there were extraneous notes by Manafort on the meeting at his residence then it would be helpful to the case. I think it is unlikely anything comes of that meeting that implicates the trump crew in a conspiracy/collusion. And I get that some people think Trump Jr saying "i love it" is enough to prove collusion. I disagree but I can see the point. If there had actually been any dirt on Hillary exchanged or if there had been even one single follow up with the parties involved then Im ight feel differently. And obviously, if they find some evidence/notes in Manaforts stuff then it could change.
  15. Not particularly clever but there was an article several years ago where a random sampling of women rated pick up lines and the #1 was "Want to see my Harley".
  16. Actually met him and drank with him. Was in Sacramento around 1989 or 1990. Was in college in the Bay area and was dating a gal from Sacramento. We were at her place and her sister worked at a hotel bar. We went down to see her late night and she was freaking out and said Andre was in a booth all alone and drinking heavily. We went to see him and he asked us to sit. There was no one else in the bar. His english was bad but he understood pretty well. I can attest that his hands were enormous. Never saw anything like it. He was drinking some French liqueur and was on bottle number 2 when we arrived and he finished the second one. Just kept pouring out huge shots and he gulped them down. When he stood up he did not seem like he was 7'4" or anything but I would guess about 6'9". We stayed maybe an hour. Not sure what to ask a guy like that so I asked a wrestling question and he did not want to talk about wrestling. Turns out he liked baseball and we talked about the Oakland As and Canseco. All I got.
  17. Well when people suggested that it meant something when Comey said it, the reply was it is still very early and the investigation is ongoing. Which was a reasonable response. After an entire year, I have to believe the obstruction stuff has been fleshed out. There are only 3 or 4 people involved. One of which is the current deputy attorney general, Rosenstein, who is overseeing the investigation. I realize there can be a conspiracy involving multiple people. But this is not some crime scene with no suspects. We already know everyone involved and all of them, except Trump, have testified. You honestly think Rosenstein, who wrote the memo suggesting Comey be fired, could tell Trump that he was not a target of any investigation while there still being a chance that Trump is charged/accused/recommended for obstruction? Who else could be the target? Sessions? Rosenstein? And even if the Bloomberg story is made up bullshit, I still think it is hilarious that people think there will be a case for obstruction when the man who is overseeing the actual investigation of all things Trump/collusion/obstruction/mob ties/pee tapes etc, Rosenstein, wrote a memo that Comey should be fired a few days before Trump fired him.
  18. Interesting. Could be bullshit from Trumps own people. Anonymous sources suck going both ways. But, if true, I wonder what this does to the supposed obstruction charges. I get the "subject" versus "target" semantics, although I believe that is a bit of wishful thinking, but it could be accurate that Rosenstein is being coy with Trump and his lawyers. But for obstruction, there can only be one target. Only trump could fire Comey right? In any investigation there has to be a target or supposed crime. I have never heard of anyone else in this deal being investigated for obstruction. Only trump. We shall see.
  19. What an amazing thread. There is some serious stupidity and some serious assigning of beliefs going on. On the OP, horrible treatment of the men at Starbucks. If the facts are accurate as have been reported, the manager should not have the option to go to another store. She should be fired. Not sure I agree that the cops have much blame here. I certainly agree that cops have some discretion but only to a certain point. The cops certainly could have tried to work with the manager and men to work out a solution. But, if the manager says they are trespassing by not buying something (yes I realize that this may be selectively enforced or whatever but the cops can't make that distinction) then the cops do not really have a choice. They have to ask the men to leave. They can tell the men that they think the manager is a total whack job, racist white devil, but, legally, she can ask them to leave if they refuse to buy something. After the men refuse the police order, then they are going to get arrested. It was a shitty situation and the men got a very raw deal but I can't condemn the cops in this particular instance. There is an amazingly slippery slope for the public to give on scene cops the discretion to decide how to selectively enforce the law.
  20. Lulz. Really? From the NSA? They can re-route international cell towers? You guys realize that Mueller can get about any info he wants. NSA, Nat Sec, Customs, IRS, phone companies, aviation records, hotel records, credit card records, bank records, etc. They can interview Cohen's receptionist, secretary, co workers, friends that may have texted or called him, neighbors, virtually anyone except, I assume his wife and kids. If Cohen disappeared for a few days and went all the way to prague, there is a record.
  21. Perfect. Lawyer files motion in District Court that the allegations against Cohen in the Steele dossier are false. See that means it really is true. Lawyer says that the references to Cohen in the dossier are false. Twitter person gets reposted by saying "lawyer says entire dossier is debunked".
  22. Of course he could have an additional passport. And the state dept would know because they issue them and, as a result, Mueller would know. I am not sure I agree that showing his passport doesn't prove much, but you guys were the ones making claims that he hadn't done anything. I do not know if I would consider McClatchy a "major news organization" but that is unimportant. I think Cohen is likely a sleazy guy but I do not think he is abjectly stupid. He has come out very, very strongly that he was never even in Prague. In 2018, if a person is under investigation by the FBI it is virtually impossible to conceal their whereabouts. Cohen knows that if he was, in fact, in Prague that it would be easily found out by investigators. You guys are so blind in your hope to get Trump on something that you suspend all objectivity and reason. You say a story like this warrants discussion and I agree. 20 people discuss it based on the assumption that it is true. 1 person discusses it on the assumption that it is not true and that person is labelled a troll, trumpkin etc. When challenged, you guys admit that it has not been proven public yet. So you say you want discussion but any discussion that it might not be true is met with childish, unhinged retorts. I agree that message board bets are dumb. But not as dumb as people labeling someone a troll for posting their opinion on the topic at hand and backing up that opinion with some evidence to support their opinion. That is basically the opposite of trolling. That is actually having a discussion versus a circle jerk. You guys abuse the aggies of stuff like this and yet you are just as bad. News agency says Mueller has proof that Cohen was in Prague based on anonymous sources. You guys dance gleefully and speculate all of the ways that Cohen will flip and that trump will go down. I point out that Cohen did, in fact, share his passport with a news agency. He was in fact in LA when he said he was. He said he was in NYC everyday in September. Presumably he was seen by people. I am sure he gets many texts and calls everyday like all of us which would be very easy for an investigator to check. I suggest that maybe the article is bullshit. Your response is like aggies. Burn the troll!!!
  23. Lulz. Yes, it does seem crazy that Cohen would put this stuff out there at the time the actual accusation first came out. I am happy to make the bet, but not just with you. I have never heard of you. I will happily make it with Mojo, Pods, Hugo, Triple, wildcat09, derty etc.
  24. I am certain he does. It is very hard to hide your location anymore.
  25. sheeeit

    Sean Hannity

    I get it just fine. Apparently you do not get it. I am simply giving my personal opinion on what types of things I would be in favor of impeachment for. I realize that my opinion has no bearing on actual impeachment proceedings. I think a few of think yours does.
×
×
  • Create New...