Debt and liabilities are the same thing, at least in this context. In a real estate deal there is no liability if there is no debt. Honestly, you come across as not having a clue what you're talking about.
Bubba, you tell me one more time I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to real estate and I will $&#@&^%$*%*&#%*!!!!! Use your imagination!
Furthermore, there is liability whether there is debt or not. Frankly, it would appear I have forgotten more real estate deals than you have done.
Until then, you're simply blowing smoke.
Deals like this don't occur without consideration. He gave up something.
Clearly, you do not know the deal points and therefore, anything you say is idle speculation. Until you know the specific deal points, your comments are nothing more than simply blowing smoke.
Pension funds don't put up the financing and give up control of a project for no reason. Something was received in exchange. Again, as a neophyte you may not understand this, but there is no other logical explanation for a deal this lopsided. Typical liberal elitest criminal behavior -- we just don't know what the crime is yet.
How many deals have you done exactly? Two or three? Unfortunately, you bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "a little goes a long way!"
Once again, not knowing the deal points only limits this conversation.
What I said was that there is no concrete evidence dug up by the Nat. Review that says it was illegal. Again, why are you having trouble reading what I post?
It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. It's a freaking duck. I agree there isn't enough there to charge the guy, but I'm confident we'll see an investigation.
Well, lets see how far you get in a court of law with your duck analogy. |
