Inspired by (Rosemary) Williams, second homeowner vows eviction fight

[Robb]

Source: Minnesota Public Radio

Rosemary Williams' public battle to stay in her foreclosed home has inspired at least one other Twin Cities woman, who now vows to resist eviction from her own home in Robbinsdale.

Linda Norenberg sat on her front steps Wednesday and said she would fight eviction like Williams, who has staged a months-long rally and gathered support from several community organizations.

"We're both 60 years old. We're both in family-owned houses," Norenberg said Wednesday. "I want to stay here. I love it here. I love the neighborhood."

(snip)

On Wednesday, it was Williams who sat on Norenberg's steps, holding a sign that read "Save Mom's Home." Williams vowed to continue to encourage other foreclosed homeowners to remain in their homes.

Read more: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/12/woman-resists-eviction/

[ejpoeta]

1. good for them.

[LanternWaste]

2. When the lenders systematically and amorally take advantage

When the world's lenders systematically and amorally take advantage of the poor, I imagine the world's poor have few avenues of recourse; this form of civil disobedience being one of few avenues.

I'd like to see this approach become a new movement.

[kelly1mm]

5. Doesn't any lender in today global economic system

take advantage of borrower? There are some small exceptions such as the micro lending movement which should be expanded. However, if this movement were to take hold the end result would logically be for the lenders to end access to the credit markets for the poor. Kind of the same problem with pay day lenders and cash for title lenders. We can legitimately despise their business models and the way they get OBSCENE profits from those who can least afford it but for many poor it is a last lifeline. No easy answers so long as we have a capitalistic system. Any ideas?

[Bjorn Against]

19. My idea is that we should resist that capitalistic system you speak of.

[kelly1mm]

21. How so? I am really interested in your thoughts. nt

[Bjorn Against]

24. Rosemary Williams is a great example.

Protest is a good thing, people need to march on the banks and they need to publicly confront those who exploit vulnerable citizens. I practice what I preach, I protest regularly and I want more people out there standing up to the bankers and war profiteers.

There are many ways for individual citizens to stand up, all you have to do is get out there and do something that is publicly visible.

[kelly1mm]

27. "exploit vulnerable citizens" is the problem. It is one

thing when banks (mortgage brokers really) go door to door and tempt seniors and the poor with half lies. It is another when a poor person needs money for food/gas/etc. and put up their house (their only asset) as collateral. In the later case we can regulate the banks to not allow this type of lending. But then the person does not have funds for food/gas/etc.

[snooper2]

90. I love it when people don't read the whole article...

"Her problems began when she had to refinance her home twice over the years because of job loss and low wages. She said she lost her job as a school bus driver after getting a DWI in 2003.

It was my first DWI ever," she said. "I had been driving for a living for many years."

Norenberg was unable to keep up with the $1,200 monthly mortgage payments, and the house was sold at a sheriff's sale in January. Chase Home Mortgage sold the house to CitiMortgage for $91,000, Norenberg said.

Norenberg was supposed to leave July 30, but has remained in the home, despite the risk of arrest. She now who makes $9.45 an hour working as a supermarket cashier and said she wants to renegotiate with her lender."

[LanternWaste]

100. I have few doubts...

I have few doubts you love all kinds of things...

[Demobrat]

3. People need to be educated about the dangers of 2nd mortgages and equity loans.

What they don't say in all those pretty ads extolling the ease and practicality of "accessing your equity" is that if you get behind on your payments they WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE. People need to understand that any other form of debt is preferable, and that their homes should NEVER be used as collateral if at all possible. She refinanced twice, and I'm sure the banks made it easy as pie. But she would have been better off with $80,000 in credit card debt, which she probably could have gotten just as easily.

[Downwinder]

4. Some states used to have laws on the subject.

Lenders got them thrown away when they took over ownership of the Government.

[kelly1mm]

7. She definitely contributed to her problems by

refinancing twice because of low income and losing her job. The low income part suggests that she was living beyond her income stream. I know that wages have stagnated which is primarily to blame for her condition. And I also know that the bank who made the loan probably could have seen that she would not be able to make the payments (because she was living beyond her income stream) and that they would end up with the underlying asset. Getting the DWI conviction when she was a school bus driver certainly didn't help as well.

[slackmaster]

8. Getting a DUI so she couldn't drive school buses any more didn't help either

:eyes:

[kelly1mm]

10. If your going to quote me you should be accurate at least.

assuming you were being sarcatic? I really can't tell anymore.

[slackmaster]

51. Self-delete

:hi:

I wasn't attempting to quote anyone. My reply was misplaced.

[kelly1mm]

58. No problem. I think we agree on this matter

in most respects after reading your other comments. My comment was based on the similarity of your post with the last line of my previous post and could have been read like I was trying to say that she went out and got a DWI purposefully so she would lose her job. DU can be a rough place sometimes if your words are not carefully crafted. Anyway, have a great day!

[Demobrat]

11. Her problem is not that she took on debt to get by.

Lots of people have to do that, for lots of reasons, unfortunately. It's that she took on the WORST KIND of debt. 50 years ago a second mortgage meant you were in big trouble. These days people think nothing of it it - until they can't make the payments on time and realize what they've done.

[kelly1mm]

12. I agree that she took on the worst kind of debt. Also, in good

conscience, I could not condone her going out and funding her lifestyle on credit cards KNOWING that she could not pay them off - even if she couldn't make ends meet. Some here see no problem with that though. While it may be fun to see the banks squirm a little, the logical end of that type of movement would be cutting off access to credit from the poor at all.

[Demobrat]

17. She didn't take on debt knowing she couldn't pay

and I don't think many people really do that, with equity loans or credit cards or anything else. When the car breaks down and you have no choice you pay with a credit card and make your payments as best you can. But if you're late once the fees start kicking in, the rate starts going up and voila - mountains of debt you never counted on. The difference is whether or not if you have to default you lose your credit rating or your house. But people don't understand that. They need to.

[kelly1mm]

23. I definitely agree. Pay off your house ASAP and don't borrow against it. NT

[slackmaster]

6. Someone please explain why you think Linda Norenberg deserves special treatment

I still haven't gotten a straight answer on Rosemary Williams.

TIA while I check on the availability of public record data on Linda Norberg.

[annm4peace]

13. Slackmaster you need to get out more and off the computer

why keep doing back ground checks on these people? It seems like you are obsessed by it.

Why don't you go down to the nearest Acorn office or some other group like them and question the people who are in foreclosure.

How shameful you are using the words "Special Treatment" how about "FAIR TREATMENT".

unlike many want to think (I guess it makes them feel more important), there is no one type of person or borrower who is in foreclosure.
and actually they aren't all ARM products. There are people who had fix mortgages and people who had 20% equity in their home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxsYBOfeISk&feature=channel

[slackmaster]

52. Please explain how you think she is being treated unfairly

She signed a contract. She was unable to keep up with her end of the bargain. The remedy - foreclosure - was stated in the contract and is the way such situations have always been handled.

[Bjorn Against]

9. I just met her at Rosemary's tonight, she is a wonderful person

[kelly1mm]

16. And just because she is a "wonderful person" she should

get to stay in a house she borrowed money on (twice) and did not pay back?

[Bjorn Against]

18. Her house was built by her father in 1944, it has been in her family for 65 years

The banks got bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars, but kicking out people who have lived in their homes for decades because they fall on hard times is wrong. These foreclosures are destroying our economy, they are destroying our communities, and they are destroying people's lives. The people facing foreclosure pay taxes which were handed over to the very people who are taking away their homes. If the banks can be bailed out with our tax money then they can bail out the people.

[kelly1mm]

20. Do you feel she should bear ANY responsibility for the situation

she is in? It looks like she could not afford her lifestyle. It looks like she drove drunk and lost her job as a school bus driver as a result. I understand the situation for the working class in this country. Personal responsibility needs to be in the equation as well.

[Bjorn Against]

22. She has faced a great deal of consequences already

She paid very dearly for that single DWI that she had, she has faced massive consequences for her actions. I am not saying that she should not bear any responsibility, but the punishment she is receiving goes far beyond the offense.

[kelly1mm]

25. How is she being being "punished" for the logical

consequences of not paying back money she owes and agreed to pay back? She can't afford this house. She couldn't afford it earlier if she needed to borrow against it to subsidize her life. She should have sold it when she still had equity even if it was her "family home". This is not pretty but it is reality.

[Bjorn Against]

26. If you haven't noticed there is a foreclosure crisis in this country

You seem really eager to blame the victims, but the fact is when we have a massive foreclosure crisis the likes of which we haven't seen since the depression there is a problem much deeper than a lack of "personal responsibility". There is clearly a problem with the system and that is why we need to fight against the system.

[kelly1mm]

28. The foreclosure crisis is mainly about the recent housing bubble and

the exotic financing that went along with it. This individual could not afford this house not withstanding the housing bubble period. She was/is emotionally attached to this house and I understand that. Does not change the fact that SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

[Bjorn Against]

29. Her father built the house, her family was paying for it for over six decades

Do you really want to kick a person out of the place that was actually built by her own family because the banks exploited her when she was at her most vulnerable moment? If she can't afford a home that has been in her family her whole life doesn't that suggest there may be something wrong that goes far beyond her personal situation? To ignore the impact the wealthy banking interests have had on her situation is to ignore reality.

[kelly1mm]

30. What in the OP or the linked article shows that the banks

took advantage of her at her most vulnerable moment? If her only choice was to mortgage the house or eat/pay for heat/ etc. then I guess you can call that exploitation but the result would be banning loans to people in her position. Meaning that she would have a house but no heat/ food/etc. Not really a good outcome.

It sounds like her family has been paying (and re-borrowing) against this property for six decades. You are right in the big picture in that wages in this country have stagnated and that is probably the big picture problem. But we are talking about the little picture. She can't afford this house.

[WriteDown]

36. No she wasn't....

there are no 70 year motgages. She cashed out TWICE. Probably got a couple of 100K.

[Bjorn Against]

37. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone going through financial turmoil

When a person falls on hard times and they are desperate for money they sometimes need to take desperate measures just to provide for their basic expenses. You are so quick to judge others but if you were in their shoes you would probably do the same thing.

[WriteDown]

40. She could've sold the house...

downsized, and lived off the proceeds. She decided to borrow against the house TWICE and demand a free house. Using your house as an ATM has consequences.

[Bjorn Against]

44. There was a lot of sentimental value in that house...

You expect her to just give up her house that her father built with his own hands. You clearly don't have any empathy for people who fall on hard times temporarily.

[WriteDown]

46. She had the option of living in that house free and clear...

but she chose to borrow against it TWICE. How much have you given her to help with her situation?

[Bjorn Against]

48. I just met her last night and I plan on volunteering to help her.

I will sit in her house if need be. I am not wealthy and I can't give a lot of money but I can volunteer.

I am done with you now though, I don't appreciate people who attack the less fortunate but don't bother to address the role of those who exploited them.

[WriteDown]

49. She is far more fortunate than me....

I haven't had the option of cashing out my equity. In fact, I'm working hard on paying off this little house. It sounds like all her volunteers should just loan her money to get her out of her financial straights. I'm sure she would pay you back.

[IdaBriggs]

55. ROFLMA!!! Well said! nt

[snooper2]

93. ding ding ding

your house is NOT an ATM card

nt

[mbperrin]

31. If by exotic financing, you mean gamblers who needed suckers to sign

for loans that could never be paid back so that the mortgages could be bundled and sold to other suckers who were told they were great, and then derivatives were formed against those bundles, which were sliced into tranches so that more gambling on the outcomes could occur, to the great profit of the casino owners, and when the profits ran out, huge bailouts from the taxpayers, and now they're back for more/

That exotic financing?

Afford? Can AIG afford to be in business? Citibank? Bank of America? Merrill? Goldman?

Let's start with the big problems first and work our way down the next 20 years to the microscopic fish who were pawns in the game.

K?

[kelly1mm]

32. OK. It may be a good idea to wipe out all debt out there

a "Jubilee" or sorts. Add in the US debt while we are at it and start over. Just don't expect anyone to be able to borrow money ever again.

[mbperrin]

50. Why would I be sad about nobody borrowing money ever again?

For most of the existence of the planet, no one could. Then for a long time, only royalty could.

Why is it good for people who produce nothing to make more than the producers of goods by raising the price of the goods sold by hundreds of per cent?

Why is cooperative action not at least as good? Why isn't layaway or owner finance any good? Why isn't saving any good?

There are very fine reasons why bankers in literature have such a reputation. That's collective memory. I haven't had dealings with banks since the late 70s for anything. I think I'm better off.

BTW, I never suggested wiping out any debt. I suggested triage. Go after the biggest, most serious problems first. Big banks and their buddies not only do not have to reap what they sowed, we gave them more seed, which most of them have already used in the same way that got them in trouble. Makes little sense to put individuals on the street, ruining neighborhoods, blighting lives and property values, when the people that made the problems are being rewarded.

In fact, we could have simply paid off every mortgage in the country, in trouble or not, for less than the $12 trillion we're on the hook for (that we know about) because of big banking and their asshole buddies in charge of money.

So you have your Jubilee, if you like, and remember: if we put the drug dealers out of business, your kid may not be able to buy meth (ever) again. That's quite a threat.

[kelly1mm]

59. It would not be a bad thing in my opinion.

It would however put an end to the rise of the so-called standard of living. Given the way things are ecologically and socially in this world that may not be a bad thing either. I actually like this idea in theory but would be difficult for governments to live by. One one hand they would not have the ability to borrow money for social spending in times of need but on the other they would not be able to borrow for wars either. Thanks for your posts - they were insightful.

[NashVegas]

75. That Was Caused By Nice People Taking Out Loans They Shouldn't Have

What the banks have been doing is immoral, but they aren't doing it alone.

[WriteDown]

35. Those 70 year mortgages are a killer.

:eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

38. I never said it was a seventy year mortgage I said they were paying for it since they owned it

That is undeniably true, people put a lot of money into their homes and not all of that money is mortgage payments. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though, doesn't it fill nice distorting people's words in order to attack the less fortunate?

[WriteDown]

39. She had a paid for house....

and cashed out twice.

[Bjorn Against]

41. She cashed out when she fell on hard times

She was in a desperate situation, maybe you should try gaining a bit of empathy for people instead of blaming individuals for problems that clearly systemic throughout the system. It is not like she is the only person facing foreclosure right now, when you see mass amounts of people being thrown from their homes then you can safely assume there are severe problems with our economic system and this is not purely an issue of individuals making bad decisions.

[WriteDown]

42. And there are consequences for that...

If she wants free lodging, there are public housing options available and she should have sought them out. People who get DUI's when their livelihood is based on driving tend to have problems.

[Bjorn Against]

45. She isn't asking for "free lodging"

The claim that she wants free lodging is a lie, and I don't have time talking to people who lie in order to smear the less fortunate. I am done with you.

[WriteDown]

47. Let's go through it...

She had the house free and clear and cashed out twice. She received a DUI when her livelihood is based off driving a vehicle. Now she is unable to pay off the funds borrowed. Sounds like public housing may be a good option for her.

[slackmaster]

54. Why was there any debt load on the property at all?

It should have been free of liens for 30+ years.

It sounds like somewhere along the line someone got greedy.

[slackmaster]

53. Does being a wonderful person entitle her to free housing at someone else's expense?

Please explain.

[Bjorn Against]

63. Please show me where anyone said anything about free housing

People are not asking for free housing, they are asking the banks to negotiate. Stop using strawmen to tear down the less fortunate.

[slackmaster]

64. Banks do negotiate when doing so has a reasonable chance of a better outcome than foreclosure

But they cannot be obligated to. A contract is a contract.

I don't see how someone making $9.45 per hour could come anywhere near making a $1,200 mortgage payment.

[Bjorn Against]

65. I ask again show me where anyone said anything about free housing

[slackmaster]

66. You are absolutely right, nobody actually said that

But nobody has proposed a workable solution that both keeps the woman in her (former) house and respects the rights of its new owners.

All I'm seeing is people calling for sit-in protests and (at least in the case of Rosemary Williams, asking for money to cover legal expenses.

[Bjorn Against]

67. Well yesterday GMAC agreed to negotiate

Can we at least agree that it will be a good thing if these negotiations lead to an affordable payment plan that will allow Rosemary to stay in her home?

[WriteDown]

69. No....

It sullies the name of people with legitimate hardships and who are the legitimate victims of predatory lending.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Rosemary Williams fell behind on her payments when her mom died and she lost her job

If you don't think that is a legitimate hardship then I don't think you would find anything legitimate. For the banks to exploit a woman by pushing an adjustable rate mortgage on her when she lost her mother is predatory lending. For you to actually admit you want Rosemary to be thrown out of her house and you don't even want the bank to negotiate shows whose side you are on, and it is not the side of the ordinary citizen.

[WriteDown]

74. No...

She fell behind when she used a paid off house as an ATM TWICE and lost her job when she received a DUI. What if she had killed someone while driving drunk? Would you still feel she had to have her lifestyle subsidized?

[Bjorn Against]

78. Rosemary Williams never got a DUI

You may want to read the facts of a case before you slander a person.

[WriteDown]

83. Once again...

This thread is not about her. Feel free to start a new thread about Rosemary in General Discussion if that is who you want to discuss.

[slackmaster]

72. Yes, I agree that would be a good thing

Peace be with you.

[IdaBriggs]

57. Bjorn, you keep saying the same things over and over --

and I'm not understanding you. Please understand that my family is going through some horrible financial times thanks to other people taking advantage of us to the tune of thousands of dollars, and please try to clarify some stuff:

You are advocating for helping two older woman who are losing their homes. By every measure of common sense, these homes should have been paid for as they have been lived in by the families for decades. As near as I can determine, the people living there asked for money from a lending institution, received it, and used their homes as 'collateral' -- meaning if they didn't pay the money back, they promised to give up their homes.

For reasons beyond their control, they are unable to pay the loans back. I am not sure why you think they should NOT be held to the terms of their contract -- were they mentally incapable of making legally binding agreements? Is it just "bad luck" for them, or is it financial mismanagement? (Which, frankly, is what it looks like to an outsider -- it appears they used their homes as credit cards, instead of valuing them as "homes.")

Banks = Bad is not an adequate justification for helping people. The bank was not "bad" when the bank gave them money, which one assumes they spent. I am not sure why you think the bank should subsidize other people's living expenses, whether that be with "free housing" or "giving money for living expenses" -- frankly, if she does not pay the money back, they have, in essence, STOLEN IT. And interest is how a home owner makes it worth while for an institution which is FOR PROFIT ON PURPOSE to "give" them money.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement that you are preaching that is very hard to fathom. Please explain why you believe anybody should be entitled to ignore legal obligations.

And keep in mind, if its a good enough excuse, I plan to jump on it -- if these folks can ignore their legal obligations, then I should be able to, also, because trust me! I've got a whole series of sob stories (but for some reason, if I don't pay my bills, bad things happen).

[Bjorn Against]

62. People keep telling me I said things I never said

You quoted me as saying that I think that the banks should provide "free housing" and "giving people money for living expenses", the problem is that despite your use of quotes I never said what you claimed I said. Neither of these women are asking for free housing, they are asking to be able to negotiate a deal with the banks so that they can make reasonable payments that they can afford. If you want to distort my position or the position of these women then we can not have a reasonable argument.

The fact is that millions of people are losing their homes because the banks exploited them by getting them to sign contracts that the banks knew they wouldn't be able to abide by, when people fall on hard times however they are stuck signing into these predatory loans because they are out of options. The banks just got a massive bailout for hundreds of billions of dollars yet they are still kicking people out of their homes, if the banks get bailed out then the people should be bailed out as well. You can not blame a massive foreclosure crisis on a lack of personal responsibility, there is clearly something wrong with the system and the banks are in large part responsible for the mess.

[WriteDown]

68. So....

If the banks MADE her accept 100's of 1000's of dollars in cash against her will, then who MADE her drink alcohol and get on the road leading to dismissal from her job. Spuds McKenzie? Alex from Strohs?

I'm also confused as to how the banks MADE her SPEND 100's of 1000's of dollars or was that Alex as well? :shrug:

[Bjorn Against]

71. I am sure glad you have never made a mistake in your life

[WriteDown]

73. I have...

Just never one that netted me tons of money.

[Bjorn Against]

76. If you think her mistake "netted her tons of money" you clearly don't know the situation

Her mistake put her in economic ruin, to suggest that it netted her tons of money is absurd.

[WriteDown]

77. She cashed out...

TWICE on a house that was paid in full. That was a ton of money. Enough to live off for years and years. If she did not decide to break the law and drive drunk that is.

[Bjorn Against]

79. I don't think you know very much about the case

When you accused Rosemary Williams of having a DUI in a previous post you showed us that you did not even realize that Linda Norenberg and Rosemary Williams are two different people, that does not make me believe that you know the facts of this case and I don't think you have any clue how much money she received.

[WriteDown]

80. They both are in similar situations..

due to them cashing out. Linda is the one with the DUI though so that is the one I was was referring to.

[Bjorn Against]

81. No you were responding to two posts both of which were clearly about Williams

[WriteDown]

82. This thread is about Linda....

If you want to talk about Rosemary, feel free to start a new thread in General Discussion.

[Bjorn Against]

84. Then why is Rosemary's name in the title of the OP?

[WriteDown]

85. Inspired by?

So if the title said "Murder near Washington Monument" you would want to discuss George Washington?

[Bjorn Against]

86. If the murder was inspired by George Washington then yes...

If it was not inspired by George Washington then you are comparing apples to oranges. This is the first time I have ever been told I could not discuss the person named in the title of an OP.

[WriteDown]

87. Please keep on topic..

We have been discussing Linda from the onset.

[Bjorn Against]

88. I am on topic, Linda and Rosemary are working together directly

The article that is linked is about BOTH of them.

[WriteDown]

89. The article is about Linda..

who we have been discussing from the onset. The whole thread has been about Linda and even this sub-thread. If you wish to discuss Rosemary, you can either start a new thread or at least a new sub-thread.

[Bjorn Against]

91. Please explain to me why you don't think these words are about Rosemary Williams

From the article linked in the OP...

The two women met over the weekend when Norenberg joined other activists outside Williams' Minneapolis home. Williams told the crowd she will remain in the house despite being ordered to leave by Hennepin County Sheriff's deputies.

On Wednesday, it was Williams who sat on Norenberg's steps, holding a sign that read "Save Mom's Home." Williams vowed to continue to encourage other foreclosed homeowners to remain in their homes.

"Why would we want to lose a person that's so rooted in the community?" Williams said. "It makes no sense. None at all."

Slackmaster and myself were discussing Rosemary before you jumped in, we even ended up coming to an agreement in the end. You jumped into our discussion and brought Norberg up again without realizing she was a different person than Rosemary.

[WriteDown]

92. Like I said...

This belongs in at least a new sub-thread. That is why they exist. I'll be glad to discuss it with you there.

[Bjorn Against]

94. Slackmaster and I were discussing it in a different subthread and you jumped in

I am done with you though, I have to work and you want to regulate what kind of arguments I can and can not use. I have no time for that.

[WriteDown]

96. See post 95...

That is what is called a subthread.

[Lance_Boyle]

97. Why should the banks negotiate with them now?

The banks negotiated with these ladies when they took out the loans they now can't repay. I don't know why you think the banks should be obligated to go "double or nothing" on these people. They made a deal once. These people broke the deal. Why on Earth would the banks then want to make another deal with known dealbreakers?

[Realityhack]

99. I don't think I agree with everything you said there...

"The fact is that millions of people are losing their homes because the banks exploited them by getting them to sign contracts that the banks knew they wouldn't be able to abide by..."

Here is my issue. If the banks denied them the loan in the first place they would not be in the home at all. And it is not 'their' home it is the banks. Furthermore the people share at least equal responsibility for entering into a contract that they could not fulfill.

[WriteDown]

14. This has EPIC FAIL written all over it....

DUI while employed as bus driver, cashed out twice after her father built the house in 1944....


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/12...

[WriteDown]

15. Deleted, wrong spot

[crim son]

56. Yep.

I agree. Bad things happen to good people, etc. but she should have taken action some time ago to live within her means and if that means selling the house and moving out, then that's what she should have done. My ex and I did it last year: we couldn't afford to live in the big house any more, and rather than bankrupt ourselves trying, we sold the place and moved. It happens all the time.

[slackmaster]

60. At some point, she probably could have filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and kept the house

Hindsight is 20/20, and good financial advice is almost impossible to find.

[Realityhack]

98. Definately. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

33. Homeowners of the world, unite!

You have nothing to lose but your chains... also your safe, warm, comfortable homes

[Vidar]

34. I applaud them for fighting.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Damned useless Baby Boomers!

Just more of that whole "me generation" stuff! ;) Honest to goddess, if the MILLIONS of people who are being foreclosed upon/evicted would take note and follow Williams' lead, what they hell could they do?

[Odin2005]

61. Good for them!

:woohoo:

[WriteDown]

95. As far as Rosemary is concerned...

My only question for her is where did the money go?