Don't get me wrong. I really like Naam. He even gave me some very sound financial advice when I needed it.

Money really does buy you love.

Renters like those who go to swimming pools to buy love would know.

As opposed to those like Naam who have been happily married for many decades & not in need of love buying services.

Of course I realize people who are happily married are morally superior and more intelligent and just better all around people than those who aren't.

Before I hire a broker or brain surgeon I always ask as to his home situation.

I would also never go to a male psychiatrist but that's another issue.

Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years though.

Of course I realize people who are happily married are morally superior and more intelligent and just better all around people than those who aren't.

Before I hire a broker or brain surgeon I always ask as to his home situation.

I would also never go to a male psychiatrist but that's another issue.

Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years though.

Of course I realize people who are happily married are morally superior and more intelligent and just better all around people than those who aren't.

Before I hire a broker or brain surgeon I always ask as to his home situation.

I would also never go to a male psychiatrist but that's another issue.

Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years though.

I would like to congratulate you . Turning “Foreign squatters given legal aid to fight eviction from £1million house... as its British owner has to represent himself in court” into a US marriage bashing thread is quite an accomplishment.

Does beat all your old war stories & supposed ability with rent a chicks though

PC madness indeed. Right on topic.

Replying to your post as I was could be considered a form of PC madness I guess?

Of course I realize people who are happily married are morally superior and more intelligent and just better all around people than those who aren't.

Before I hire a broker or brain surgeon I always ask as to his home situation.

I would also never go to a male psychiatrist but that's another issue.

Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years though.

I would like to congratulate you . Turning “Foreign squatters given legal aid to fight eviction from £1million house... as its British owner has to represent himself in court” into a US marriage bashing thread is quite an accomplishment.

Does beat all your old war stories & supposed ability with rent a chicks though

Everyone has their specialty. Mine is old war stories and sex, others Israel and Palestine and still others anti Americanism. Some can turn anything into an animal story or gender issue.

I would however point out it was you that brought up, Happily Married.

I would however point out it was you that brought up, Happily Married.

It was in response to a bonehead backhand cowardly as usual remark....(not yours in this case But in response to your comment)

ie: Money really does buy you love.

I would however point out it was you that brought up, Happily Married.

It was in response to a bonehead backhand cowardly as usual remark....(not yours in this case But in response to your comment)

ie: Money really does buy you love.

Money is the only thing that will buy you love.

You can trade, barter, give, earn or fall into love without money - but not buy it.

It was in response to a bonehead backhand cowardly as usual remark

You must be refering to this "bonehead backhand cowardly as usual remark".

Renters like those who go to swimming pools to buy love would know.

I'm not sure what anyone would find offensive about laughingly pointing out that Naam and Mark45 disagree on almost every issue politically, but that Mark appreciated Naam's financial advice. "Money really does buy you love" was hardly an insult or mean-spirited in this harmless little exchange.

I guess that it takes all kinds.

Insulting post removed.

OTB topics are left pretty much to run unmoderated as your are all expected to behave with a modicum of maturity in here, however if flames/insults continue, offenders will reap the rewards.

I guess that it takes all kinds.

Seems here it is the same kind over & over.

Innuendo then feign ignorance or try to change the intent when called on it.

Consistent as always.... No problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZyVZFJGX5g

It takes 70 posts to get a decent comment !!

It takes 70 posts to get a decent comment !!

And #70 is a warning from a mod.

#72 is a golden oldy.

Back to the funding of criminals by the British state :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/pakistan/8386732/Salman-Butt-Mohammad-Asif-and-Mohammad-Amir-to-apply-for-Legal-Aid.html

For non-cricket-followers, the three Pakistani cricketers, while representing their country abroad, agreed to bowl some 'no-balls' (i.e. not valid pitches as they crossed a mark on the pitch and came too near the opposing striker) at a certain period of the game.

These no-balls may not have affected the result of the game, but in the realms of spot-bets it was a good-odds fixing for the punter.

The offenders have already been found guilty by the International Cricket Council, punished by them within the sport. Now the British government wants to try them and jail them.

But they are applying for legal aid, so one part of the government is paying to prosecute, another part paying to defend them. Would have been much cheaper to have just told them never to come back to UK.

While I sympathise with your stance HB and agree it rankles a bit and seems silly.....isn't one of the core principles of democracy the right to a fair trial? A fair trial implies competant defence.

If the state chooses to prosecute, then the defendant must be supplied an advocate if he does not have the means to obtain defence for himself.

The cost of democracy.

While I sympathise with your stance HB and agree it rankles a bit and seems silly.....isn't one of the core principles of democracy the right to a fair trial? A fair trial implies competant defence.

If the state chooses to prosecute, then the defendant must be supplied an advocate if he does not have the means to obtain defence for himself.

The cost of democracy.

Criminal trial, where the state is paying one side of the case anyway, is one thing. It is the right of everyone arrested and charged to have a lawyer to represent their case.

Squatting is a civil offence, which is currently in front of Parliament to be made a criminal offence.

Still an awkward situation if one side has money and the other doesn't, but it is indisputedly one man's property. Therefore the others are trespassing (a criminal offence, I believe) and will have caused damage to get in (breaking and entering - another criminal offence).

If the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)(unless it has changed it's name again) was willing to chase this sort of crime, then there are good grounds for getting convictions, without either private party having to pay.

But in a civil suit, if you bring it, you pay. The other side seem to get supported by the do-gooders in the legal system, while the guy with the occupied house has to shell out a lot more without hope of recovering any costs. And he is the sinned-against.

While I sympathise with your stance HB and agree it rankles a bit and seems silly.....isn't one of the core principles of democracy the right to a fair trial? A fair trial implies competant defence.

If the state chooses to prosecute, then the defendant must be supplied an advocate if he does not have the means to obtain defence for himself.

The cost of democracy.

Criminal trial, where the state is paying one side of the case anyway, is one thing. It is the right of everyone arrested and charged to have a lawyer to represent their case.

Squatting is a civil offence, which is currently in front of Parliament to be made a criminal offence.

Still an awkward situation if one side has money and the other doesn't, but it is indisputedly one man's property. Therefore the others are trespassing (a criminal offence, I believe) and will have caused damage to get in (breaking and entering - another criminal offence).

If the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)(unless it has changed it's name again) was willing to chase this sort of crime, then there are good grounds for getting convictions, without either private party having to pay.

But in a civil suit, if you bring it, you pay. The other side seem to get supported by the do-gooders in the legal system, while the guy with the occupied house has to shell out a lot more without hope of recovering any costs. And he is the sinned-against.

I understand why squatters get supported Because if you've evr read "The Good Earth" or the "Grapes Of Wrath" there are time when the "rich get too rich and the poor get too poor". I can't say if this is one of those times. It might be, but if it it is, we're not quite there yet.

Yes going broke borrowing $$$ couldn't have anything to do with 700 million a day

(as of 2007) being spent on the Iraq, Afghanistan invasions

That of course did not contribute to the record deficits we're facing now....Ok sweet dreams

i [not so] humbly beg to differ! if Obama had not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan total U.S. national debt would be much lower. to the best of my knowledge his predecessor G.W. left office, a balanced budget and a trade surplus with China. that's why the FED is now holding trillions worth of Chinese government bonds and cash CNY which Obama is now wasting on public health care and welfare.

right?

Excuse me? Obama was NOT in power when the Republican party instigated an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama wasn't even on the political radar when the war started.

Obama was dumped into an ALREADY huge problem started by someone else... who may or may not have been that George Bush puppet who was being led around by the big oil companies.

But now Ian, it is Obama who is attacking Libya. And it is only oil that is driving this.

Obama yesterday was saying that the end aim was regime change.

Cameron (British PM) yesterday was saying that regime change was not on the agenda.

Sarkozy wasn't saying anything, 'cos he's worried about the publication of his election expenses (Gaddafi is claiming he bought the election for Sarkozy). With ex-President Chirac up on corruption charges, current Italian PM Berlusconi facing corruption and sex charges, ministers in other European governments, members of the European parliament and Brussels mandarins all resigning or facing investigations, it is not a good time for Sarkozy to have a high profile.

The UN resolution was aimed to protect civilians (i.e. non-combatants) in Libya. So far the evil coalition have managed to kill 47 civilians with their raids, injuring many more.

The coalition sought the backing of the Arab League and the African Union. The AL is now shouting about indiscriminate bombing that is endangering civilians and saying that this is not what they signed-up for.

The whole damned thing should stop now. Neither Britain (BP) France (Elf/Total) nor USA (Mobil) will get any more concessions than they already have. I doubt that Italy (ENI) will do much better, despite Gaddafi owning 30% of the shares. Probably Rosneft or a Turkish company will come out of all this with the new contracts, together with Sinopec.

The Western governments have completely screwed their chances in this one and the best thing they can do is not waste further time or munitions on this exercise. They are in a lose/lose situation that will only go downhill.

Libya will export all the sub-Saharan Africans on it's territory to Italy (around a million, I believe) as refugees. What will Europe do with them?

I don't think that it is about oil - at least on America's part. My guess is that France will finally start backing some important US resolutions in return for backing France on this.

I don't think that it is about oil - at least on America's part. My guess is that France will finally start backing some important US resolutions in return for backing France on this.

I agree.

As the Republicans were initially against intervention because "we don't get our oil from there...it"s France's problem". But now they have fallen silent on the matter...which means they agree with what BO is doing....so something else is enticing the US to get involved in Libya/Europes oil problem.

Actually a lot of Republicans and Democrats are angry about getting into this thing.

Actually a lot of Republicans and Democrats are angry about getting into this thing.

You hate me agreeing with you don't you!

Whatever the case may be as far as concencus or lack thereof in Congress and the Senate, there has to be some diplomatic deal going on behind the scenes as you have suggested.

Libya will export all the sub-Saharan Africans on it's territory to Italy (around a million, I believe) as refugees. What will Europe do with them?

Filter them up to England to become squatters.

I don't think that it is about oil - at least on America's part. My guess is that France will finally start backing some important US resolutions in return for backing France on this.

I agree.

As the Republicans were initially against intervention because "we don't get our oil from there...it"s France's problem". But now they have fallen silent on the matter...which means they agree with what BO is doing....so something else is enticing the US to get involved in Libya/Europes oil problem.

So why did I build seven desert camps for Mobil workers?

Mobil were the biggest extractors of oil when I was there, lots of guys on Canadian passports, with Texas accents and attitudes.

BP are trying to get a good foothold there (release of the PanAm 103 convicted bomber a part of it)(even though I doubt that he had any part in it - look to Syria). But Mobil are top dog. Maybe the US government should tell it's citizens a bit more about the world.