Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
Why can't Menard just pay for his site with one of his consumer purchase note things?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
I think we all know the answer to that Stacey 
Is it? It's all a bit dull except for the stundies off course
Since Rob has been unfairly censored i'll speak for him and he would say his consumer purchase note thing is only for selected items like food and clothes and fuel. Have you not learned a thing from the great man. (No prizes for saying no after that last sentence).
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Yeah, that's his out for why his scheme doesn't let him have any money in his pocket; it's just for things you "can't resell" (on Kajiji*, he always seems to emphasize!)
But the problem with that is the same problem you get with Food Stamps and the like: You can re-sell almost anything for cash if you're interested enough. Hang out at the gas station, and ask people if they'll let you pay for their gas using a "consumer purchase". Offer them a CP-to-cash discounted rate, and you're sure to get a few takers. When gas is $1.30 a liter, it wouldn't take long to come up with a couple of hundred to cover his website.
*And is it just me, or does anyone else always think he sounds like Mr. Lahey from Trailer Park Boys when he says "Kajiji"?
What’s unfair about being booted off the forum for violating the rules he agreed to follow?
Unless I am mistaken Menard’s other magical way of paying for something, the “birth bond” is not dependent on Canadian commercial credit statutes.
One would think that he’d cash that big ole’ thang in and use at least part of the funds to keep the WFS site open and thereby continue in his selfless mission to educate and liberate Canadians. (sarcasm tags off)
BTW, Bob, if you have given Menard any money now would be the time to ask what you are getting for it. It would also be prudent to stop filling his pockets, at this time. . . if that’s what you are doing.
Last edited:
I like his comparison between a mortgage loan and giving the bank a block of gold. Getting a mortgage loan is the equivalent of going into the bank, giving them a block of gold and getting some money in return. Then you pay back the money with interest but the bank keeps the gold. This is why mortgages are one of the biggest scams in history according to the video.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Save for the fact that when you apply for a mortgage loan...using his analogy, you are acquiring the loan to purchase the block of gold, you don't have the block of gold....then you pay the bank back the money they lent you to acquire the block of gold, and paying them interest on the money over time because you are enjoying/using the gold they gave you the money for!
The gold is the security for the loan, the amount is what you and the seller of gold bartered...if you don't want the loan, sell the gold and pay them back..simples...
And it's called 'your loan'..because it is 'your loan'...it is not the banks loan! They gave you the money, they lent it to you..its your loan. You are the borrower.
Freemanism
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
No it isnt, getting a mortgage is like going to the bank with nothing and asking them to loan you x amount and you will promise to pay it back.
And you keep the house
Well I think under his theory when you go to get the loan you are providing them with something of value that the bank then goes and sells. So the bank gets money from your signature (the block of gold), then goes ans sells this piece of paper for great value (it is a bill of exchange after all), and then gets your money from the loan repayment (double dipping) and then when the loan is paid off they won't give you back the paper with your signature on it (the block of gold) and can only provide you with a copy of that paper (the equivalent of a picture of the block of gold).
Last edited:
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
His theory is 100% wrong.
Your signature is simply proof that you accepted the terms of the loan that can be used in a court of law to demand repayment or force closure on the home (forclosure).
The backing for the loan is the property.
It’s a sort of theory of mine that freemen are a dead-end offshoot in the process of natural selection in modern mankind.
Anybody who can’t grasp what a bank loan is about well enough to not be fooled by Menardian/freemen logic on the subject is bound to go the way of the dodo bird!
On the other hand there is a sucker born every minute.
Anybody who can’t grasp what a bank loan is about well enough to not be fooled by Menardian/freemen logic on the subject is bound to go the way of the dodo bird!
On the other hand there is a sucker born every minute.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Well, that's the problem right there, isn't it? If the original lender really does sell off their interest in the loan, then they wouldn't be the ones who eventually get the money from your repayments, would they? It would go either directly or indirectly to the new owners of their interest in the loan.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Loans are placed into large blocks which are sold on the market, which investors pay for depending upon risk of the individuals who took the loan out repayng them. Fanniemae and FreddieMac.
They catagorize loans by risk into large blocks and sell them.
This what caused the problems we experienced in 2008, hi risk loans being made and underwritten then sold off as low risk into portfolios.
His theory is completley wrong. His anology is completley wrong.
Me give money to Rob???? i don't think so.
I had enough of laughing at him about a year ago when i realised why was i wasting my time with this. I say if rob can get some moron to give him money for his bull then so what, people give money to the catholics. You even see begging letters here and for what? A few sanctimonious folk can go ooh there is no such thing as mediums or hold wee conferences with other dull people to congratulate themselves on how super clever they are cause they don't believe in fairies. A pointless load of old hamshank. At least Rob, in his mind, is a freedom fighter, he's han solo, he's william wallace, he's out there smoking dope and shouting down with this sort of thing to people who like hearing that this sort of thing should be down with.
Keep up the fight Rob and don't let the bastards grind you down.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
I also, as mentioned in a previous post, find it humorous how Menard would refer the the lender calling 'your loan'..well..'your loan' as some super evidence that one did not have to pay the bank the money the borrower borrowed...from the lender...and promised to repay...to the lender.
Semantics.
It's the banks Money. They lend the money to the borrower. it is then the borrowers loan.
When you pay the bank back the money you borrowed, your loan is cleared, and likley you now own the real estate you took out your loan to acquire.
Unsecured loans are funded on a similiar principle with security backing them, but no collateral (common). They analyze your past credit history, which shows how likely it is that you will pay back your loan. The higher the risk the lender takes in making your loan, the more interest the borrower pays.
I really do not even understand this whole line of freeman semantic argument.
Semantics.
It's the banks Money. They lend the money to the borrower. it is then the borrowers loan.
When you pay the bank back the money you borrowed, your loan is cleared, and likley you now own the real estate you took out your loan to acquire.
Unsecured loans are funded on a similiar principle with security backing them, but no collateral (common). They analyze your past credit history, which shows how likely it is that you will pay back your loan. The higher the risk the lender takes in making your loan, the more interest the borrower pays.
I really do not even understand this whole line of freeman semantic argument.
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
From what I can make out freemen believe it is your signature when applying for a loan that creates the money out of thin air. So, when you fill out the application your signature creates funds that you are in effect lending to the bank. The bank then passes these funds back to you. Because the bank refers to these funds as "your loan" that is proof that it is you that has done the lending, not the bank.
Or something like that.
Last edited:
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
But there is nothing to validate that belief.....
I know you know a lot more about this stuff than I do Stacy...so tell me why do they believe this?
Semantics, however, It would'nt be 'my loan' in your story, it would be 'my money', it would be 'the banks loan' to repay....thats why it isn't 'your money'..it's the lenders money....it is 'your loan'.
Also, the money is not created from thin air, it is real, and a risk back by either the collateral (property) or by security (like Fannie and Freddie).
I know you know a lot more about this stuff than I do Stacy...so tell me why do they believe this?
Semantics, however, It would'nt be 'my loan' in your story, it would be 'my money', it would be 'the banks loan' to repay....thats why it isn't 'your money'..it's the lenders money....it is 'your loan'.
Also, the money is not created from thin air, it is real, and a risk back by either the collateral (property) or by security (like Fannie and Freddie).
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Because it lets them get what they want without paying.
I know that seems rather silly, but ultimately, that's the reason. They're sure there's a way they can manage this, and are willing to lie to themselves about the plain meaning of words if it lets them reach their goal.
ComfySlippers
Banned
FOTL-Waffle relies upon misinterpreting words and using them in the wrong way. It fools people who don't have much of a grasp of the English Language and/or can not understand Grammar. Menard is a perfect example of this.
A firm belief in the old "banks create money out of thin air" helps too.
It's a very old scam designed to fool gullible dimwits who think that "knowing the secret meanings" of words will get them out of paying their debts.
Last edited:
- Status