Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think it’s fair that a child molester gets to buy a house but a drug atttic can’t which one is worse.

  • About the money.

    It's addict, not atttic you druggy. L.O.L.
    First off, I think that anyone who molests children should have the offending appendage amputated. Thing is, banks only care about what a person can afford and the history the person has in paying financial debts. Tho criminal convictions can make it difficult for a person to get good paying jobs, an addiction makes it even harder for the addict to afford much more than their drugs. Further, being on drugs makes it more difficult to get or keep a job. Another factor could be that many addicts turn to crime as well to pay for their habit, so with all these factors, drug addicts are far less likely to qualify for a lease much less a mortgage.

  • As Long As They Both Have Good Credit

    Child molesters are reprehensible people. However, just because they've committed a crime and they've done their time for it, doesn't mean they should have the right to purchase and own property removed from them. As long as you have good credit, and don't owe money, you should be able to buy a house, even if your a drug addict. Though I think the problem is drug addicts don't have good credit, because they waste all their money on drugs. Banks aren't going to give a loan or a mortgage to someone who they feel won't pay it back, and they are justified in doing so.

  • Child milster is worse.

    I think that a child melster shuld be KILLED FOR WHAT HE OR SHE DID . Why ? Because lest say that your a 12 year old girl in new york and you walk on the wrong side of the street u get raped and it changes your opinion about guys for the rest of your life


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.