| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<0> Fr33Trade: by a real estate huckster
<1> I can sell you a house in reversion which reverts to my ownership in 40 years.
<1> The house you own until 40 years and I come back.
<1> Then I can retake title.
<0> Fr33Trade: are you really above apologizing for calling someone a liar?
<2> Free the poitn I think they are making here is: the way the conteracts are written are worse then even US lawyer talk: you get the right to do diddly and you pay for that
<0> I thought you a better man.
<1> The creative ways of owning real estate in america is almost without end..
<3> it's not that jhicks
<1> No you get the essential rights of ownership just as in america, itsjust that its a trust relationship within the restricted areas of Mexico.
<3> he's on a roll
<0> oh
<0> ok, i can wait.
<1> Jhicks, if you tell me you cant by land in Mexico, I am calling you a liar.
<2> anyone here need Windows server SW?
<3> whoa
<1> If you retrace it, I will retract my statement.
<3> record time
<3> !
<0> Ok.
<1> If you retract it, I will retract my statement.
<0> I can't retract it.
<0> It's the law.
<2> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/software/default.mspx
<1> Ok then actually its probably better not to call you a liar, but what you are saying is untrue, which probably comes from ignorance rather than malice.
<0> I can accept that.
<1> You dont understand what the definition of property is.
<0> But I am not a liar.
<1> I am a real estate Broker.
<4> Yes, Americans and other foreigners may obtain direct ownership of property in the interior of Mexico. However, under Mexican law, foreigners cannot own property outright within the restricted zone. Instead, a real estate trust must be set up to hold title for the foreigner. Since foreigners are not able to enter into contracts in buy real estate, they must have a bank act on their behalf, much as a trust is use to hold property for mi
<1> Not an agent
<1> A BROKER
<1> I am the highest level of realtor you can be.
<1> I can hire agents to work for me.
<1> Agents cant hire anyone.
<3> I find discussions of realty incredibly dull
<1> They must work under brokers
<3> but that's just me
<0> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_970.html
<1> brb i have to look at some things
<0> an excellent link
<4> ooh ft is bitchy today hehe
<0> I hate being called a liar.
<4> jhicks: try this one http://www.mexonline.com/propmex.htm
<0> Already did.
<3> so other than realty, anything else going on?
<3> oh, the immigration thng
<1> back
<3> wb
<0> Timur-: bluegills are biting
<5> yea the immigration thing is definitely goign on :P
<1> Jhicks, how about this, define to me what real estate onwership is.
<3> jhicks: fry em up, be right over
<1> And I will show you where you are right and where you are wrong.
<4> real estate ownership is what sovereign governments have :)
<0> Fr33Trade: being forced to pay taxes on it :)
<4> you are not forced to, you can quit at any time
<4> hehe
<0> right
<0> and then the "landlord" will boot you off
<4> that is correct
<5> quit paying taxes and you'll see force soon enough
<4> only the state really owns land
<0> yes
<1> Well, Ill drop this debate because there is no point it it, There are villages owned by american which have majority American populations who live there.
<1> These are people who retired in mexico to live.
<3> like San Miguel de Allende
<3> has tons of American retirees
<1> They bought a home and they have communities
<5> the state is supposed to enforce your right to hold property, i would call that state ownership
<1> Yep
<5> wouldnt*
<5> :D
<0> Fr33Trade: and the first commie whim that takes over Mexico again...
<1> There is a libertarian definition of ownership,but its not a legal ownership.
<1> The libertarian definition of ownership is you cant be forced to pay taxes on it.
<0> sounds great!
<1> Commie whim, They love foreign investment, but anyway what does this whole conversation have to do with the price of tea in china ?
<1> Why are we discussing it.. Evern if foreignors couldnt buy property in mexico, why would that make any difference ?
<0> Because.
<1> Its insane to get bent on a subject which has no relavence to the issue which was being discussed.
<3> I haven't the faintest, it was tangentialized into nonexistence from a fairly reasoned discussion of immigration to the limits of American citizens' ownership possibilities in Mexico
<4> immigration from mexico is only limited by the mexican birth rate in mexico. we are incapable of putting our foot down.
<4> you watch, you will see. we won't do ****.
<0> It's the fact that a wave of people used to corrupt government and napoleonic law are going to bring their cultural values into our own
<5> i heard that something as high as 90% of americans in the states near the borders are for building a wall, do ya think this is anywhere close to the truth? (taht so many are for it)
<4> ye
<4> s
<0> the mexicanization of USA
<4> but the fact is, politicians will not do anything, because they are in the pocket of business
<4> it hurts the lower cl*** working man, but it helps business, so screw the lower cl*** they say.
<1> Anyway, The GOP is writing its death sentence,and they are starting to realize it, the democrats are goign to try to use the imigration issue to pound on republicans, and vice versa. The Republcians claim they want to p*** comprehensive legislation but Reid is blocking it.. The Democrats are claiming the republicans are trying to water it down and make it so much harder for the new legal non-residents, and they want to put everyo
<0> crime rates will escalate
<0> watch them
<1> Denny hastert in the house is biting his fingernails over p***ing that stupid proposal
<5> business subsidies <--> campaign sponsorship >_<
<1> They have tried to take it back, Democrats wont let them take it back..
<1> Democrats right now are coming out ahead.
<1> Bush and McCain though are people who republicans think can help keep at least some of the hispanic vote. but the political reality today is you can not win a national election without a hispanic vote.
<1> Thats a fact
<6> whats the channel topic say, its in some language that is alien to me
<1> you can win a house seat why ?
<5> funny thing is that the republicans in office have probably spent more than the democrats would have had they been in office
<1> Because a house seat represents districts, some are virtually all black
<1> some are virtually all white
<5> i guess thats offtopic though ^^
<1> some are mixed
<1> Senators though will have a problem politically
<1> SInce they represent states and they have a lot of hispanic voters.
<6> i guess they will have a problem politically
<6> being politicians
<1> This is the political reality. Both parties who are the brains behind the parties and the politics know this issue could really harm one party or the other.
<0> crap, let's just merge with mexico!
<0> problem solved!
<1> No lets not,
<1> I want autonomy
<0> aw man
<1> I want a border
<1> and I want stronger border enforcement
<0> well, it's an impotent border
<0> why bother with it
<1> I want controlled immigration not free..
<1> Right now the laws of capitalism say we have equilibrium, so we should not tamper with the laws of capitalism.
<0> urm
<1> But in the future we need to do it legally through preapproved future workers on a waiting line who get 3 year p***ed to do legal work in america when the labor is short.
<1> How to determine that I dont know...
<1> We could have a serious shortage of labor and a lot of people who try to stop the legal immigration.
<1> So we need a mechanism which isnt tied to emotions.
<0> so that would slow growth
<1> Like I wouldnt mind the federal reserve bank making that decision
<1> or another body of economists .
<0> eep
<0> Harvard?
<0> yikes
<0> I'd be ok with Columbia, but never Harvard.
<1> They would come out with statements like, We need 100,000 more laborersin the west or central 30% farm workers, 40% construction labor and 10% child care
<5> "Right now the laws of capitalism say we have equilibrium" explain this, youre referring to some aspect of the economy ?
<1> they would determine where the labor shortage was.
<0> Based on what perceived need?
<1> and it would have to be a purely economic decision and not an emotional decision.
<3> Harvard's pretty top-notch, generally.
<0> Timur-: they make too many lawyers
<1> Yes
<7> jhicks....why the South has cottonwood trees
<7> Lawyer control
<8> hey cry
<1> Our supply and demand relationship for labor in america rightnow is near equilibrium.
<7> Rebec :)
<0> Cryola: bwahahaha
<1> Actually there is slightly more demand of labor than supply but its close
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
#heroin
gals
#computers
#politics
#mirc
#unix
#beginner
gamegardın
gopbl
|
|