Republicans Behaving Badly

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:23 am

ZorbasLeGreque wrote:

I really do not understand that whole repo thing. Are there no bailiffs / marshals / hussiers de justice in the US of A ?

On a private contract, if you owe money and don't pay it along with putting the item up for collateral - you lose the item. Most of the time the lender must pay someone such as a repossession man to take control of the item until the debt is paid.
They get paid a percentage of the value of the item or a set fee depending on the deal with the lender.

Shagnastie · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:30 am

Zorbas:

Quote:

Methods like repossessing are - btw - called "WIld West Methods" over here and they are completely illegal.

They should be in the USA as well, but then where would Reality TV be ... :roll:

borealis · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:30 pm

Zorbas: A sheriff or marshall's service is employed when the lender takes repossession of real estate in the form of evictions or foreclosure. Otherwise, the purchaser simply forfeits the item.

borealis · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:54 pm

ZorbasLeGreque wrote:

borealis wrote:

Zorbas: A sheriff or marshall's service is employed when the lender takes repossession of real estate in the form of evictions or foreclosure. Otherwise, the purchaser simply forfeits the item.

Borealis, if seller and buyer agree all is good. No court or officials needed. But what if the buyer does not agree ? It seems to me that this lady in AZ wanted not to give up her possession of the car. My problem still is that it seems you need no court order in such a case. Is that right ?

People do get pulled into court over unpaid debt for medical bills. However, when you purchase items like cars or furniture, it is usually spelled out clearly in the purchase contract, that if you default on payments for 90-180 days the company or lender has the right to automatically repossess. Also, keep in mind our courts have tremendous backlogs and may not wish to be bothered with these issues. Maybe some of our legal minds can explain the history on this.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:12 pm

Here's a summary of the California Code regarding auto repossession. Every state has its own law but are similar in the notion of contractual rights and obligations.

http://www.saclaw.lib.ca.us/pages/repossessions.aspx

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:00 pm

I am not at all sure that this crazy Republican would have acted any differently had a marshal or police officer shown up to enforce the repossession of her car. There is a thread in modern wacko Republicanism (Sovereign Citizens and some Tea Baggers) that rejects the authority of anyone but the sheriff, the only legitimate law enforcement officer in a county. If it had been the sheriff, she might have claimed that he was violating her Constitutional rights. I don't know that she was a Sovereign Citizen; it is possible that she is simply loony.

It is hard to over-estimate the degree of violent wackiness that exists in some parts of our body politic. The calls for revolution have been intense ever since President Obama was elected, and the decision on Affordable Care has simply ramped them up. I have no doubt but that some have been arming for a revolution for a long time.

This confrontation could have turned out tragically. I think it is not too long until we see another tragedy resulting from the wacky Sovereign Citizen legal theory. The Kanes were just one dot on a trend line that is sloping upwards.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:54 pm

It is a secured contract - where money is involved (a loan) using something (house) as collateral. The contract gives the bank the right to repossess anything that was put up as collateral if the the loan is defaulted on.

Car loans are done this way using the new (used) car as collateral to secure the loan. If you don't make the payment to the finance company (bank etc) for a certain amount of time then the finance company can repossess the car. No fuss, no muss, just a tow truck.

Shagnastie · **Posted:** Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:40 pm

Ain't over yet ... now she's gonna sue everybody involved:

http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.a ... leID=51521

Sounds like something Oogly might wanna get involved in ... she could file a Writ of Habeas Jeepus

borealis · **Posted:** Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:50 pm

Shagnastie wrote:

Ain't over yet ... now she's gonna sue everybody involved:

http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.a ... leID=51521

Sounds like something Oogly might wanna get involved in ... she could file a Writ of Habeas Jeepus

Why do Tea Baggers think the law doesn't pertain to them? But they make up laws to sue others for the problems they cause? Hope they oust this disgrace.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2126

I don't see anything in that article indicating that she is a teabagger. The author deems her to be a "local politico" because she was a delegate at the state GOP convention. That's a bit of a stretch IMO.

Sugar Magnolia · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:26 am

AnitaMaria wrote:

I don't see anything in that article indicating that she is a teabagger. The author deems her to be a "local politico" because she was a delegate at the state GOP convention. That's a bit of a stretch IMO.

More info on Sharon Holmes. It appears that she is a Tea Party member.
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profile/Sha ... e=activity
"Hi Sharon, WE ARE GLAD YOU HAVE JOINED US IN OUR FIGHT TO TAKE BACK AMERICA ..."

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:52 pm

That settles it. Guilty as charged. =((

kate520 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:05 pm

She's so proud of herself, too! The tea baggers will egg her on, even if she has second thoughts. I hope we get a follow up on her court date...I predict she will not prevail.

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:10 pm

Louisiana Republican Supports State Funds For Religious Schools, As Long As They’re Not Islamic

Quote:

Louisiana Republicans supported Gov. Bobby Jindal’s overhaul of the state’s education system, which includes a voucher program that allows state funds to be used to send students to religiously-affiliated schools — until they began to realize that Islamic schools could also be among the institutions supported by taxpayer funds.

Rep. Valarie Hodges (R-Watson) voted for Jindal’s bill in the Louisiana House, but has since withdrawn her support for the measure because she now realizes that it “unfortunately” applies more broadly:

Quote:

HODGES: I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools…Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion. We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.

Hodges said that she is concerned about bringing “damaging schools” to her district because “we can not risk putting [the students] in jeopardy.”

Hodges isn’t the first Louisiana Republican to backtrack on support for the voucher program after discovering that Islamic schools would be included. Rep. Kenneth Havard (R-Jackson) has also maintained he won’t support any education spending plan that “will fund Islamic teaching.”

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012 ... ?mobile=nc

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:58 pm

Do you suppose these geniuses will ever figure out that a good part of the reason separation of religion/state laws and decisions have been made is precisely because of the (some rightly, some wrongly) unwanted side effects? Geez, these people should be made to live in the world they'd like to create without harming any of the rest of us.

Wintermute · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:48 pm

If someone has the forwarding address for the Taliban we could send them to boot camp.

borealis · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Florida GOP school board members want to ban FLOTUS visit

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:07 pm

borealis wrote:

Florida GOP school board members want to ban FLOTUS visit

Seems pretty unsavory to me.

Emma · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am **Posts:** 2883

http://renierdlp2012.com/index.html

On the home page of his campaign website:

My goodness ... looks like he's in a classroom.

Some very angry comments on his facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Renier-D ... 2453175663

Quote:

Where was George W. Bush on 911? Reading to children in a Florida School! Your a sick man and a partisan political hack. I promise you you will not ever be elected to the school board again, you hypocritical shameless coward.

Quote:

Lost my vote when you showed your ignorance of school board policy to lease facilities regardless of religion, political affiliation, etc. Or is it that you just want as few blacks as possible speaking at "your" school?

And then there's this:

Quote:

Renier Diaz de la Portilla for State Representative
April 12 via VerticalResponse Social
Visiting schools in my district next week and we encourage students and teachers to finish strong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/0 ... 58875.html

However, according to the district's "Use of District Facilities" bylaws, government groups are categorized as approved users of school property, subject to rental fees.

"The district is leasing the gymnasium to the organization. This is not a school event. Students and staff will not be participating," John Schuster, the district's chief communications officer, wrote to HuffPost Miami in an email.

School Board attorney Walter Harvey told the Miami Herald that under the School Board policy, all groups -- including political and religious -- can apply to lease schools facilities.

Shagnastie · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:22 pm

More GOP stupidity from Texas. I think we're going to have to put up a thread just to cover the ooze south of the Red ... and I'm not talking about poorly capped oil wells.

Quote:

Lawyers allege racial motives in challenger's Supreme Court bid

At a lunch meeting last summer, according to two longtime Houston lawyers, Texas Supreme Court candidate John Devine said he wanted to challenge incumbent Justice David Medina because "he had a Mexican name" and was therefore vulnerable in a GOP primary.

More at the linque:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 15818.html

vic · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:08 pm

Shagnastie wrote:

More GOP stupidity from Texas. I think we're going to have to put up a thread just to cover the ooze south of the Red ... and I'm not talking about poorly capped oil wells.

Quote:

Lawyers allege racial motives in challenger's Supreme Court bid

At a lunch meeting last summer, according to two longtime Houston lawyers, Texas Supreme Court candidate John Devine said he wanted to challenge incumbent Justice David Medina because "he had a Mexican name" and was therefore vulnerable in a GOP primary.

More at the linque:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 15818.html

Sadly, it's happening in California as well. In the June election, there was a candidate for Superior Court Judge who had previously run and lost in 2010; he decided to try again, this time against a well-respected judge who happens to have a foreign name.

Judicial candidate banks on very low profile[comma] non-foreign name

[comma] above because the linky markup uses a comma.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10669

AFAIK, Devine is a RWCNJ. Medina isn't exactly a pillar of virtue either. Several years ago his house burned down and his wife was investigated for arson. As I remember it, there wasn't quite enough to charge her, but they were several months behind on the mortgage (he does get a steady paycheck). So, a pox on both their houses (before they catch fire).

esseff44 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:00 pm

IIRC, O'rly's client/co-plaintiff in Indiana, Bobby Kern aka Bobby Hidalgo, won a primary race because he was running against someone with a foreign-sounding name. Bobby's birth name was not Kern but he sued the Elections Board to be able to use it on the ballot. When the voters realized who Bobby was and what a sad joke he was, he failed to get a single vote in a later election.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Not quite the right thread, but it seemed close:

AP Story: McCain defends Clinton aide against allegations

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain on Wednesday strongly defended a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton against unsubstantiated allegations that her family has ties to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, repudiating charges leveled by another Republican, Rep. Michele Bachmann.

In a speech on the Senate floor, McCain praised the work and patriotism of Huma Abedin, a State Department employee who has been a constant presence at Clinton's side. Without mentioning Bachmann by name, McCain assailed the attacks on Abedin, a Muslim, as an example of ignorance and fear that defames the spirit of the nation.

"Huma represents what is best about America: the daughter of immigrants, who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies so fully." McCain said. "I am proud to know Huma, and to call her my friend."

Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, made the allegations in a June letter to the State Department as well as in a letter Wednesday to fellow Minnesota lawmaker Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Republicans Behaving Badly

Who is online