Isn't it interesting how we often confuse or stereotype nationality or politics with religion.
Israeli does not necessarily mean Jewish (and vice-versa)
Arab does not necessarily mean Muslim (and vice-versa)
American does not necessarily mean Christian...
If you don't grow where you're planted, you'll never BLOOM - Will Rogers
Last edited by OakLeaf; 07-24-2008 at 05:08 PM.
Speed comes from what you put behind you. - Judi Ketteler
extremist views no matter who or what it is, is generally not good.
Islamic extremist are not the views of average Muslims. The average Muslim's concern is really no different than yours or mine. Quality of life, pursuit of happiness. Good education for your children...
As for Muslim extremists and their views, similar thing can be said about Christian extremists too. Look to the middle ages with Crusaders killing and pillaging. And bringing war and destruction to the Moors in Spain. Moors were actually more civilized than the Crusaders. Moors had utensils forks, table knives spoons... schools, libraries.. while the crusaders were still eating out of a bowl with bread and breaking food with their small knives used for hunting, warfare ...
King Phillip II of Spain was a meglomania and who used Christianity to conqure most of Europe. and oh not to forget, the Inquisitions. Do you dare to challange the words of GOD?? Look at Galileo
They are the faces of extremists and its not just limited to Muslims.
We also have extremists within Hindu religion... Buddhism unfortunately, is considered religion. It really should be considered a philosphy since it does not directly infer an omnipotent being of any kind. Nor does it have a central being whose wishes we try to live by. (okay so as it developed, pantheon of "gods" were created along the way.)
words, words and words. My understanding is the following
Islam is the name of the religion.
Muslim is the term applied to those practicing the Islamic belief.
Back to the depression related conversation
One of you was asking about the "crazy idea of interest only mortgage payment"
Here is a simple explanation:
This form of loan should only be used by those who have the ability to pay off the note in one lump sum. If you are able to secure a low enough interest rate, you are effectively freeing up the maximum amount of money from your loan. The money you didn't use to pay the principle can be used to finance other income bearing activity i.e. purchasing stocks with divident payout. If your loan interest is at 5% and you can get 8% return on your investment. you are coming out ahead by 3%.
So your loan is $1million. keeping it as a simple interest rate you would be paying $50,000 in interest only. but the same $1million would get you $80,000 in divident. You made $30,000 by borrowing money. And it didn't take into account of tax deduction on your loan. Clearly, the less money you spend on servicing the loan, the more money you will have from the divident payment. And this is one way of leveraging your money.
This is the basic premise of a interest only payment. It should never be used to get you to qualify for more money than you can really afford. Unfortunately, the basic principle and the reason behind the interest only loan was lost to those eager to qualify for a bigger loan. and they got into big trouble (because they had no hope of generating money for the principle. Their only hope is that the increase in valuation of your house or inflation to devalue your loan).
simple explanation. I hope this made sense.
Smilingcat
Last edited by smilingcat; 07-24-2008 at 05:35 PM.