All Forum Posts by: Karen Parker

Originally posted by Liz Purcell:

In some states I didnt know I had to notify the homeowner that their taxes were sold at an auction and they have a certian time to pay for it because I apply for a deed to their property.

I thought the counties notified them of this. Which states require that you do that? (Providing there isn't a lengthy list of course.)

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Yeah, I read several articles and read Snopes and it just doesn't make sense.

Agreed with Tim...

While there's not much that politicians could do that would surprise me these days, this is one of those things that even the average lazy American would get off his sofa to complain about.

If there's any proof that this has happened (other than a random Internet forum post), I'm open to it...but it doesn't pass the evidence test nor the common sense test.

(Of course, most things the gov't does don't pass the common sense test :)

I agree with Tim too but apparently not too many people have heard about it and if they have its the norm to dismiss something that outlandish as BS and like I said in another thread somewhere about this I don't imagine they would broadcast it for that very reason. Jesse, that's my point. I don't think they kept giving us money without something. That's why I have been searching the internet, libraries, newspapers, magazines, etc. for anything else on this. So far I have come up with nothing else that was given or anything to refute what is flying around on the web. Granted the link I gave was the one e-mailed to me but there are a great number on the topic out there but as mentioned none that are from reputable news sources (though I seriously doubt there is any such thing). I personally take the stance Eddie did, I don't claim its true but I won't deny it either simply because I cannot honestly do so. I have no proof of either. Just a lot of questions.

In addition, when I was working with a large team of investors we were sending out hand addressed envelopes. We got a good many more responses from these than envelopes with labels or postcards so I guess its safe to say more people were opening them. If you don't mind the extra expense, you could hire someone to address them for you.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Again, questioning and believing are two different things. No one forced you to discuss it with me to start with. You did that of your own free will. I still question it.

I discussed it because I figured that if you believed it, there was some evidence to support it and I wanted to hear that evidence. But, your definition of evidence just didn't meet any reasonable standard.

That is not what you asked me. At no time did you ask me if I felt there was evidence to support it. You asked me if I believed there was enough evidence to warrant questioning it. The answer is yes, I do.

Originally posted by Jesse R:

Originally posted by J Scott:

Ummmm...apparently they can't...otherwise I wouldn't have had to be the one to mention that the SINGULAR source of the debated information was a neo-nazi white-supremacist...

Originally posted by Sorin T:

Oh I pointed it out also but several here were still high on the "eminent domain" threat our Feds is having us swallow that they preferred to hush-hush quickly it under the table when it became obvious what an enormity that was. I wouldn't be surprised if they still believed it.

I try to stay away from conversations or debates that attack an individual on a personal level. Every individual on this sight is entitled to their own opinion. Regardless of how wrong or right they may be.

Now that these issues have been discussed in this thread, each intrigued individual may do some research and find out the "truth" for themselves.

I hope it's not to much to ask, but I'd rather have an open, attack free debate where someone doesn't feel like sh*t after the conversation.

I continued this discussion under another thread where I brought up other references from Bloomberg and my reasons for wanting to find out more about this. Sorry. I can't find time to defend wanting to know the facts on every thread on here. I literally forgot about this one but to let you in on how the other went see below. I neither feel like sh*t and I especially don't feel wrong in wanting to know the truth. Quite frankly, I feel like its the ones who are trying to stifle that are the ones that should feel ashamed.

Well of course I believe there is enough evidence to make it worth looking into or I wouldn't be questioning it.



Okay, now we're getting somewhere...

Can you lay out the evidence that is available to support this claim so that we can all be on the same page?

I know about the one random Internet post. What else is there that we should know about?



Bloomberg states this:

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,†said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/310/topics/35940-or-is-it-an-honor-to-pay-the-taxes-?page=3

From a rational person's point of view, what do have we really have that's worth holding as security other than real estate? Yes, I'm concerned. Maybe for selfish reasons since I'm a real estate investor but my thoughts are, "Am I putting my money into something that could ultimately be confiscated from me?"



Really? Really?!?!

I'm sorry, but if anything, this quote should PROVE TO YOU that no eminent domain agreement has been provided.

Please answer this:

If eminent domain rights were already granted to China five months ago (as claimed in your other piece of "evidence"), why does Bloomberg believe that China will be asking for a guarantee in the near future?


Bloomberg states this:

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,†said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€



Okay, so you believe that a quote that says "China will ask for a guarantee" is evidence that the U.S. already provided that guarantee 5 months ago?

Really? Really?!?!

I'm sorry, but if anything, this quote should PROVE TO YOU that no eminent domain agreement has been provided.

Please answer this:

If eminent domain rights were already granted to China five months ago (as claimed in your other piece of "evidence"), why does Bloomberg believe that China will be asking for a guarantee in the near future?



Because it also says:
"That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

Obviously, Hilary's already been over there and they're still giving us money and I find it hard to believe it was her winning personality alone that got them to do it.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Because it also says:
"That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

Obviously, Hilary's already been over there and they're still giving us money and I find it hard to believe it was her winning personality alone that got them to do it.

If you want to believe something is true because of a single Internet forum post and an illogical interpretation of cause and effect from a newspaper article, I guess I shouldn't bother arguing.

Sorry, I can't have this discussion anymore.

Again, questioning and believing are two different things. No one forced you to discuss it with me to start with. You did that of your own free will. I still question it.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Bloomberg states this:

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,†said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

Okay, so you believe that a quote that says "China will ask for a guarantee" is evidence that the U.S. already provided that guarantee 5 months ago?

Really? Really?!?!

I'm sorry, but if anything, this quote should PROVE TO YOU that no eminent domain agreement has been provided.

Please answer this:

If eminent domain rights were already granted to China five months ago (as claimed in your other piece of "evidence"), why does Bloomberg believe that China will be asking for a guarantee in the near future?

Because it also says:
"That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

Obviously, Hilary's already been over there and they're still giving us money and I find it hard to believe it was her winning personality alone that got them to do it.

Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Well its my understanding that they have been given eminent domain right to the US. Meaning they can come and take my houses, your houses or entire cities if they want. That sounds like a foreclosure to me.

Yes, you are right. The only question is would they have the military might to do it...

You seem to be the only one I've talked to on here that knows anything about this and doesn't just dismiss it as some BS. Could you elaborate some more on where you got your information, what you have heard. Anything you got out of it that confirms or disputes it.

I'm not dismissing or accepting. I just think is impractical. Lets review what eminate domain means, It means that the government reserve the right to confiscate private property for the good of the people in exchange for compensation without the owner's consent.
Now, if anyone believe that the US government will confiscate private property to give to China, this person must be a fool.
If anyone believe that somehow the government of China will have the power to confiscate American properties on US soil, this person is a fool as well since the Chinese will have to pass through the US military first and I don't see that happening. The only thing the Chinese government can do, is confiscate US property (Private or otherwise) on Chinese soil, but that won't do any good since the value of all those properties combined would only be a small fraction of the debt.

I wasn't dismissing it or accepting either but I am not sure I agree with all of the statements you made above. But I must admit some of the people I've spoken with who believe it whole heartedly just blow it off because they don't believe China can collect either. But we have gone into war and confiscated lands. That's how we have Puerto Rico, although I don't understand why. What makes you think another nation would not do the same? China has the largest population in the world.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

Well of course I believe there is enough evidence to make it worth looking into or I wouldn't be questioning it.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere...

Can you lay out the evidence that is available to support this claim so that we can all be on the same page?

I know about the one random Internet post. What else is there that we should know about?

Bloomberg states this:

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,†said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.â€

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/310/topics/35940-or-is-it-an-honor-to-pay-the-taxes-?page=3

From a rational person's point of view, what do have we really have that's worth holding as security other than real estate? Yes, I'm concerned. Maybe for selfish reasons since I'm a real estate investor but my thoughts are, "Am I putting my money into something that could ultimately be confiscated from me?"

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

No I didn't say there wasn't enough evidence for it to hold water. I think there is some evidence that the Chinese were given some sort of security but no one said what that was. That statement from security came from Bloomberg. Then there was the so called rumors about the "eminent domain" rights. I have talked to many people about this and most never heard of it at all but neither do they know about China requesting security for all that money. I just want to know what they gave them.

Wow, it's really tough to get a straight answer...are you sure YOU'RE not a politician? :)

Let's make this easy:

Do you believe that there is enough evidence of the U.S. giving China eminent domain rights (not just some form of collateral, but specifically eminent domain rights) that we should consider giving it any consideration whatsoever?

Yes (you believe there is enough evidence) or no (you do not believe there is enough evidence)? (and again, we're not talking about a general form of security; we're specifically talking about eminent domain rights)

Well of course I believe there is enough evidence to make it worth looking into or I wouldn't be questioning it. The ambiguity, I believe, is whether I believed they did. I don't believe sh*t stinks unless you rub my nose in it but I question everything.