teef
-
Posts
11,873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by teef
-
-
11 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Not to mention the most obvious of all J6 over arching happenings:
The notion that a bunch of middle aged, unarmed morons were able to gain access to the Capitol building of the most powerful government on planet earth, then simply mill around inside for a bit, only to turn around all on their own in order to be home by dinner time.
Insurrection!!!
😂
why go in at all? why were a bunch of morons smashing windows and doors? and milling around inside? every time with you. no common sense...just looking to place blame. i could see if this was a rare occasion for you, but it's on every single topic.
j6 happened because of a number of easily manipulated d-bags felt they needed to take their government back. if they hadn't shown up to do so, or just quietly protested outside, none of this would have happened. but it did, so take the lump and just move on. once this country opens up, the epstein files are going to be a thing again. then what? how soon before you start calling it a democratic hoax even though trump himself showed us it wasn't.
-
1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:
Gotta love the semantics in use by teef.
Of course J6 happened. What a cop out.
What also happened in addition to what you've been spoon fed and swallowed and don't want to dare pause for a moment to consider:
Opening the multi ton, impenetrable Capitol doors from INSIDE and allowing hundreds in. Why?
Corrupted pipe bomber cell phone data, while cell phone geo fencing was of course reliably used to nab many other J6ers. Why?
Bomb sniffing dogs missing a bomb placed in plain sight right in front of the DNC. Why?
The face of the insurrection, the Buffalo hat guy, being escorted throughout the Capitol, and then right into the Senate chamber by friggin CHP. Why?
Numerous people on video doing much more than others who did prison time who were never caught, let alone searched for by FBI. Why?
The secret service deleting comms from J6. Why?
The J6 committee itself deleting data and transcripts. Why?
240+ FBI associated individuals present in the crowd on J6. Why? Or better yet if they had knowledge from proud boys etc....why didn't they stop it?
Etc...
Oh J6 happened alright....just not the way you've swallowed.
how am i using semantics? why is it a cop out? the group decided to be there and they were the ones who went into the capital building. were there democrats there helping them to walk inside? they didn't have to go in. they chose to. people inside were barricading themselves into rooms afraid for their well being. not a single person forced them to take any action at all. if they don't show up, there's no j6. unless the dems gathered all of those people there, walked them inside, and helped tear the place apart...it's not a hoax as you've called it all along.
-
3 minutes ago, Homelander said:
The election was stolen - they even had a lot of theories, they said, but they didn't have the evidence.
Pathetic.
apparently there was enough to incite a riot.
-
Just now, wnyguy said:
I agree with you. No one forced anyone to enter the Capitol Building but those that did were prosecuted and sentenced for their involvement. This has nothing to do with who was walking around dropping pipe bombs in strategic areas at the time.
also fair, but j6 wasn't a hoax, nor was it orchestrated by the dems. that's what i was calling the op out on.
-
11 minutes ago, wnyguy said:
Yes I do think it was stolen. Anyone with two brain cels to rub together could see that. As far as the actions of the crowd, I agree that is on them and it should not have happened. I don't agree with what went on but I really understand why it did.
this is fair. it doesn't even really matter who thinks what about the election, my point in this thread was that the crowd was their on their own free will, and stormed the capital. even if someone understands why they did it, it still should never happen. the dems did not arrange this, and the constant framing this into a giant hoax is just avoiding accountability of those men. no hoax, just #######s.
6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:Teef:
I'd be happy to tag you, but I can't. Blame Simon and The King.
And not only was the election not stolen, it was the most secure election in US history!!!
😂
I mean how else would you expect an election with the majority of votes counted by unsecured mail in ballot (the first time in US history) with a candidate who campaigned from his basement to turn out? 81 million votes for the victor. An all time record! And the MOST SECURE!
😂
what you think about the election doesn't matter. those protestors were there to no peacefully protest. they new what they were there to do and mob mentality set it. we all saw what happened. the dems didn't make them do it, it is not a conspiracy, it is not a hoax. just idiots.
-
5 minutes ago, wnyguy said:
We all know why the crowd was there, to protest the stolen and fraudulent election. Why does saying that mean something to you?
so you think the election was stolen? you really don't think it was a giant tantrum by trump?
this is what happened. a bunch of rednecks got together to protest a so called stolen election. they got there, got all riled up, and attacked the capital over a complete false pretense. no one forced them to be there. no one forced them to run into the capital and rip the place apart...all of this was done on their own free will. no dem told them to be there and do any of it. trump at any point could have calmed it down, but we all know he didn't want to. this wasn't a conspiracy...it was a giant tantrum because the president refused to admit he lost an election. if you want to feel the election was stolen, so be it. it still didn't mean j6 had to occur. the dems didn't put that together. that group of #######s did.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
You don't think the dems would gladly sacrifice their own to nail trump?
maybe. it wouldn't blow me away depending who it involves. it out of their hands now.
-
Just now, JDHillFan said:
Absolutely not. They learned their lesson when the Russian hookers/golden shower bit didn’t gain much traction. They would never again go down a road of that sort.
i agree. i don't think the epstein files are a democratic hoax at all. i think a number of people on both sides have a lot to lose, but acting like this presidency isn't covering something is insane. i just assumed the dems never released it due to too many of their party members involved. now we know there's much more than that. trump just created more trouble for himself that it was worth.
-
4 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Nope.
I'm sorry.
If you aren't honestly going to engage, I'm done.
Asking questions that are known to all is not helpful, no matter what your point is here.
Have a good day.
why can't you answer? i'm being complete serious. the crowd was there by their own doing correct? no one forced them to be there. if you can't even engage the most basic of conversations...its for a reason. don't scream hoax and then not be able to answer the most basic questions. you won't because you know where i'm going.
1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:News according to teff:
Bombs left at DNC right near the VP elect?
Old news.
Actual old news with previously unredacted name, now newly redacted by Dems?
BOMBSHELL!
dude, you mention me in threads but don't tag me in because you don't want me to see them. you can't even answer the question of why the protesters were there. you're kind of a coward. all a hoax right? all another side's fault right? keep putting out conspiracies that you can't back up.
-
Just now, B-Man said:
Multiple reasons.
The majority to protest
a few with more nefarious reasons.
But you knew that Teef.
why were people there to protest?
-
Just now, BillsFanNC said:
Bump
so you want to believe this great conspiracy theory, yet you can't even answer the most simple, basic question...maybe the conspiracy theories are all garbage. if you can only post tweets and not have a conversation, so be it. you think everyone else is duped, but you sure it's not you? again, why were people at the capital building.
-
17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I wasn't implying anything, Teef. I stated how I view these issues generally, and this issue specifically.
understood.
-
On 11/11/2025 at 2:04 AM, BillsFanNC said:
We already know J6 happened.
- teef
just waiting for you to respond to my question. you can tag me in too when you mention my name so i can take part. so...why were people gathered in front of the capital building in the first place.
-
7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I'm not certain I could have been more clear in my reply.
i wanted it to be more clear. is that what you were implying?
-
17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
If life has taught me anything, it's that you cannot count anyone out on anything. Of course, that includes everyone in the food chain that has something to gain from this sort of thing. The overwhelming likelihood is that it's a story designed to do lasting political damage to the opposition party leader.
so the dems are making this up to damage trump?
-
1 minute ago, B-Man said:
Not news
This is what the lemmings have always believed.
But I don't believe it.It may mean something, it may mean nothing. The mass media have no credibility to tell us which is the case.
But this will be the top story in the New York Times for the next three years.
Odd he would hang himself if he had that information
do you think this is beyond him? why did trump not release the files? why did he call everyone who wanted it released a, "loser' and then follow it up by telling people to just stop thinking about it. then it was a dem conspiracy. they're going to have to deal with this at some point. and when do you finally stop calling everything a hoax or a dem conspiracy?
-
1
-
-
On 11/11/2025 at 2:04 AM, BillsFanNC said:
We already know J6 happened.
- teef
ok. let's just do some common sense stuff here. why were people gathered in front of the capital building that day?
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Tenhigh said:
I look at it as a safe alternative to a balloon. They are both rolls of rhe dice, but you can live with the 50 until the interest rates come down.
it's not so much the interest rate rather the terms of the loan. you could knock it down to a 30 year over time, but you're much better off creating a budget where you can afford the 30 year than taking on the 50.
what makes me the most nervous about this proposal is that it shows me that there is absolutely no plan to fix the housing market. if this is the best that can be done, we're *****.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
A house is in general an appreciating asset, while everything else you finance is a depreciating asset. Financing a house is a necessity for 98% of our country when starting off. If the 50 year mortgage allows you to get the house, which appreciates and you then pay it off in 25 years because you make more money it was a great decision if the house is what you want. Bad financial decisions is the hallmark of the Democrat party which makes me think this a good idea since they are so upset. As for the 15 year car loan, I can't defend, that is aimed directly at the low information morons, I can't even imagine the loan rate.
it doesn't always appreciate. look at some of the homes in florida after the hurricanes. some have dropped wildly in value, and with the increasing insurance costs of insurance, some of the real estate down there is taking a hit. can you imagine if people had 50 year mortgages. and if someone is taking out a 50 year mortgage, there's a very good chance they don't have the ability to pay it off in 25 years. if they could they would have taken a traditional 30 year and saved a ton.
republicans are also furious about this. i think trump went a little rogue and moved too fast on this. again, this isn't political at all...it's financial.
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:First, almost everyone agrees a 50 year mortgage is a bad contract for the home buyer. A wonderful deal for the lender. If you run an amortization table the amount of principal of the monthly payment applied to the loan doesn't exceed the interest amount until sometime in year 37. So after 37 years of payments you haven't accrued very much equity in the home and are dependent on appreciation in the market value of the home to derive any real equity. You might be better off renting.
Second, until you sell your home the appreciation in its value doesn't do anything for you. A 100% increase in your homes value will not provide you with any extra enjoyment, it won't increase the size of your kitchen, or make the basement hold any more stuff as you look around and wonder what's in all these boxes? One thing capital appreciation will do is qualify you for a nice big HELOC. Although the interest rate is about the lowest you'll get from any loan I would advise anyone to proceed with caution.
The party home appreciation helps the most is the municipality of your residence which is more than happy to keep raising your property taxes every year at a rate which is multiples of your increases in income. Something that was the amount of a car lease on a Toyota Camry is now the equivalent of an additional mortgage payment each month. Then there are repairs, replacements, and upgrades to pay for like a new HVAC system or a roof. So at least being aware of these things is helpful in estimating a total cost of ownership of a home. Generally, if you plan on staying in the home then paying off the mortgage as fast as possible is the best approach. If you can accomplish that and bank say 1,500 to 2,000 a month instead of servicing a mortgage you can accumulate a lot of cash that can lead to you living a life of at least partial freedom from being a debt slave.
thank you for articulating this so well.
-
1 minute ago, OrangeBills said:
Oh stop, where were you when Biden said dumb things every day (at least, the days he was working), and where have you been when our Gov't has subsidized and bastardized prices across a million things in our society from College to Housing to Healthcare (ACA subsidies, anyone?)
stop what? we had an awful time with sleep joe, and now we have to go round 2 of it. what did you think about when you heard the 15 year car loan. i bet you thought it was ***** insane. i'm willing to be that anyone of an age to buy a car immediately thought it was a shocking stupid idea. but you know who didn't think that? the president of the united states. to that pop in your head only to quickly tweet that out is a big problem. it's the first time i've really thought that trump was getting disconnected from reality. i don't want to deal with this again. none of us should. enough.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, milfandcookies said:
Agreed , we should be insulted. A 15 year car loan is even dumber than a 50 year mortgagethe American people aren’t stupid I wish they stopped trying to act like we are
a 15 year car loan is the most absurd thing that i can think of. for the president of the us to actually tweet that out is disgusting. there's no other group that he's appealing here other than the extremely stupid, and no...it just can't be attributed to "trump just says things". we're all hoping to fix the economy and these are the suggestions.
so...is @Wolfgang ######ed? the guy just laughs at everything and thinks getting rid of more illegals is going to fix the cost of housing problem. something is off.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, OrangeBills said:
You keep saying "how much interest would I have paid?"...Um, you'd have paid less interest than the Montly rent you paid that was just thrown away.
Your monthly rental payment will have included all the factors of home ownership - the owner's financing costs, Insurance, taxes, etc etc
So while the long-term interest question/point is valid (in terms of 30yr vs. 50yr., it's not relevant over a considered 7-10 year own/rent decision
I would assume if my monthly 50-year payment was $2,000 that I would be amortizing maybe $300/month, which over 7 years is $25,200 of Equity built up (not assuming down payment or asset appreciation)...
If I put down 5% down on a $500,000 home, and the asset appreciated 10% and that was my loan payment, then I'm looking at $100,000 of Equity 7 years later, and I got to live in a better place, etc etc.
You guys are freaking out about the 3-5% of people who would live in the same house for 50 years, who by the way could pre-pay to over come this stuff.
No sensible
you can reason this any way you want brother. it's a bad investment. you said it yourself it was a bad idea. i've never rented a home, but the full ins and taxes i'm assuming are all placed on the renter. you'll always save more money renting. you have no idea if i'll be spending less in interest than a monthly rental. you make so many assumptions. a 5% down on a 500k home on a 50 year mortgage and you walk away with 100K? no. there's too many assumptions.
i have no idea why anyone would argue this is an ok fit. tell you what. let's put mortgages aside for a min. sell me on a 15 year car loan now.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, OrangeBills said:
Fine, but you are getting indignant without factoring all the variables involved here
Like location and quality of the home/apt/condo...if the Lease payment is similar to a 30-year mortgage (again, these are USUALLY similar) and the 50-year is $200-$300 less AND I build some Equity over 7 years, maybe that's what I'd opt to do to also live in a better place? Especially if they bring down the frictional costs associated with buying & selling (another variable)
The fact is during the first term the Trump Admin wanted to sell 50 and 100 year Treasuries, and everyone called them dumb...which was stupid, because it wasn't long till we were borrowing TRILLIONS at durations in the 30 day to 2 year time-frame, creating financial pressures in our system
So, let's hold off on the "they're stupid" stuff
mortgages aren't complicated so there's no need to make it so. you keep claiming you'll have some equity over 7 years of a 50 year mortgage. how much equity do you think you'll have gained. as i mentioned earlier, the majority of that equity will be from your down payment. you'll be getting your money back with a slight bit more, but how much do you pay in interest to make that tiny bit of equity? and where do you plan on going after 7 years of a 50 year mortgage?
i'm not holding on it's or they're stupid. this is dumb. for the president to present this as a solution is irresponsible. on top of that, he packaged it with a 15 year car loan? we should be insulted with the idea of a 15 year car loan. this isn't political...it's financial.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:
Home ownership is almost never a good investment. To me the big win here is to homebuyers that are speculating that interest rates are coming down drastically in the not too distant future but want a house now, so they take the liw interest 50 year loan until rated tank and they can refi.
i hear ya. back in the day the best investment a young person could make was to buy a home, and we all know that is no longer the case. i also realize that just because of my age, i was amazingly lucky to buy a house 10 years ago and the cheapest of rochester housing prices. since then the house has doubled in value. the trick with the 50 year isn't the interest rate. it's the interest itself.
a few posters have mentioned staying in the house for a decade, sell it off an at least you have some equity. but how much equity do they actually have. i'm willing to be that the majority equity they build comes from the down payment first placed, and a fraction is what's been paid off over the years. how much interest was paid in that time? i'll guarantee far more than equity gained. even with the equity, where are you going to go then? another 50 year mortgage or a rental?
the entire point to a mortgage is to get to the side of it where you're paying more in principal than interest. that will never happen with a 50 year mortgage.
-
1
-
BOMBGATE: The J6 DNC/RNC Pipe Bomber: The Blaze IDs Bomber as Former CHP Shauni Kerkhoff
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
i agree with this 1000%. well put.