Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
@ Hal and Rico

Are you two completely daft or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?  Did you bother to read what I wrote?  It sure doesn't seem like you did as your comments show a complete lack of understanding.  Let me try an analogy, or three...

Nice name-calling and insults there.  That'll win the argument for you.  I highlighted the section of your post that I was responding to, and I quote "Using credit card companies, as your example, was a bad choice as they have been forcing people into a vicious cycle of debt for years."

There is only one way to interpret that statement.  You clearly believe that it is the credit companies that are forcing people into debt.  I would simply like to know what mechanism it is that the credit companies use to force people to accept their credit card and then force people to use it to spend money they don't have and then force people not to pay off their balances at the end of the month to avoid interest payments.  Please, please explain to me exactly how the credit companies accomplish this feat!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
When you buy a house with a fixed APR you know, based on that interest rate, how much house you can afford.  If the bank came along, after the fact, and increased that interest rate five times, could you still afford that house?  Would it be your fault that you couldn't?

How can the bank increase your rate by five times if you bought your house with a fixed APR???? 
If you sign a loan which contains terms that allow the bank to raise the interest rate, then you INDIVIDUALLY are accepting the risk that the interest rate could go up.  You KNEW going into the transaction that this was a possibility.  Then when it happens and you can't afford the payments, somehow it's the bank's fault?  This is logic from the Twilight Zone.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
When you buy a car, you are given an interest rate.  Based on that interest rate, and the length of the loan, you know how much car you can afford.  If the bank came along, after the fact, and increased that interest rate five times, could you still afford that car?  Would it be your fault?

See my response above!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
When you take out a business or personal loan, you are given an interst rate.  Based on that interest rate, you know how much money you can afford to borrow.  If the bank came along, after the fact, and increased that interest rate five times, could you still afford that loan?  Would it be your fault?

See my response above.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I don't know about you, but I bought my truck because I got a decent interest rate...4.99%.  I would not have made the purchase if the rate had been 25%.  First, because that is an idiotic rate and, second, because I wouldn't have been able to afford it.  Credit card companies are taking away that choice.  They let people make purchases at one rate then jack that rate up.  How you can blame the consumer for that is beyond me. 

THEY cannot "jack that rate up" unless the loan/credit card agreement that you signed ALLOWS them to "jack that rate up".  Again, if you sign a loan/credit card agreement that allows the bank to increase the rate in the future, then it is you who have thrown the dice, and you who have no room to whine when the bank exercises their right under the contract to raise the rate.  Perhaps you should have made sure you were signing a fixed rate loan agreement!  When people spend more on their credit cards than they make and carry balances, then they are subject to rate changes on those balances.  There is no way you can blame the credit card companies for "forcing" people to carry balances.  They have made a personal choice, and are responsible for the consequences thereof.  Blaming the loan/credit card company is simply a way to avoid personal responsibility/accountability.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Edit:  On second read, my opening statement came out harsher than I intended.  For that I apologize. 

Too late (especially when you follow it up with the "shoveling crap" comment)!

While I'll grant you that not everything that was used as justification for the war was an outright lie (much of it was indeed false but not known to be so by people telling it), and I'll also grant that the hands of Democrats are not clean in this either, there are still a lot of outright lies, fabrications and truth stretching by Bush and his administration used as justification for the war in Iraq.

- Omitted the fact that the CIA and German Intelligence did not believe an informant who supplied information about WMDs in Iraq, and used that informant's information when submitting the case for war.  Also omitted the fact that this information came from a single soruce without any corroboration.

- From UK's Downing Street memos:

Quote:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

- In 2002 a report comes from the DIA informing the administration that al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda member, is likely fabricating information.  This same report says "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements [like al Qaeda]. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."  The administration continues to cite al-Libi and continues to claim to the UN in 2003 that Iraq is providing training in weapons to Al Qaeda.

- In June 2002 French Intelligence reports, after having been asked to look into the claim that Niger sold uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons manufacture.  The French tell them this is bulls**t.  In August Cheney states that "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," and he will say the same in March of the next year. 

I could continue, as the Center for Public Integrity has come to a total of 935 false statements made by Bush and top members of his administration in a "carefully launched campaign of misinformation."
(here)  (also here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/23/BL2008012301758.html?hpid=opinionsbox1/ (I can't make that link work))

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Actually, yes, it is still important.  Lying to a grand jury under oath is a felony, whether its about sex, a ham sandwich, or diddling Monica on the Oval Office rug.  Clinton got a pass because he was president; you or I would still be in jail.

The rich, famous, and/or powerful have always gotten a pass for things you and I would go to jail for, whether they're a politician, businessman, or Hollywood star.    Is that right or fair?  No.  But that's reality.

And I still don't consider that the surroundings of his lie are any worse than the surroundings of any other lies told by others.  A lie is still a lie, whether you tell it under oath or not, it is still a lie.  He's a politician, he's going to lie, they all do.  Again, it's not right that politicians lie, and that they get away with it.  But that's also reality, and with as much as it has been proven, over and over again, with politicians on both sides, we should expect it.  That's why we have to judge the content and cost of the lie, not whether or not they're lying.  Because they're all lying.  Every one of them.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:


Maybe, maybe not. I often wonder what Mr. Clinton's lie cost us in the moral corruption of our young people...afterall, it wasn't sex. I wonder how much of that non-sex led to non-pregnacies and non-abortions.

Last I checked, no one has ever gotten pregnant from oral sex.  As for moral corruption, lying may be that indeed, but sex is only corruption if your religion teaches it to be sin.

Who said any5hing about sex, Cass?  Not me. He LIED under oath before a grand jury, wht the lie was about is totally irrelevant. Now if you really want to tal about the sex aspect andthe fine upstanding moral charqacter which William Jefferson Clinton possessed, i suppose we could do that.

Skip

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
While I'll grant you that not everything that was used as justification for the war was an outright lie (much of it was indeed false but not known to be so by people telling it), and I'll also grant that the hands of Democrats are not clean in this either, there are still a lot of outright lies, fabrications and truth stretching by Bush and his administration used as justification for the war in Iraq.

- Omitted the fact that the CIA and German Intelligence did not believe an informant who supplied information about WMDs in Iraq, and used that informant's information when submitting the case for war.  Also omitted the fact that this information came from a single soruce without any corroboration.

- From UK's Downing Street memos:

Quote:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

- In 2002 a report comes from the DIA informing the administration that al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda member, is likely fabricating information.  This same report says "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements [like al Qaeda]. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."  The administration continues to cite al-Libi and continues to claim to the UN in 2003 that Iraq is providing training in weapons to Al Qaeda.

- In June 2002 French Intelligence reports, after having been asked to look into the claim that Niger sold uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons manufacture.  The French tell them this is bulls**t.  In August Cheney states that "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," and he will say the same in March of the next year. 

I could continue, as the Center for Public Integrity has come to a total of 935 false statements made by Bush and top members of his administration in a "carefully launched campaign of misinformation."
(here)  (also here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/23/BL2008012301758.html?hpid=opinionsbox1/ (I can't make that link work))

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Actually, yes, it is still important.  Lying to a grand jury under oath is a felony, whether its about sex, a ham sandwich, or diddling Monica on the Oval Office rug.  Clinton got a pass because he was president; you or I would still be in jail.

The rich, famous, and/or powerful have always gotten a pass for things you and I would go to jail for, whether they're a politician, businessman, or Hollywood star.    Is that right or fair?  No.  But that's reality.

And I still don't consider that the surroundings of his lie are any worse than the surroundings of any other lies told by others.  A lie is still a lie, whether you tell it under oath or not, it is still a lie.  He's a politician, he's going to lie, they all do.  Again, it's not right that politicians lie, and that they get away with it.  But that's also reality, and with as much as it has been proven, over and over again, with politicians on both sides, we should expect it.  That's why we have to judge the content and cost of the lie, not whether or not they're lying.  Because they're all lying.  Every one of them.

You cite a report from the UK, Cass. They were reaching a conclusion but and stating an opinion, that does not make it so. Theywere not insidePresident bush's head and therefore cannot state factually that he either lied or or had pre-determined to go into Iraq, a typical democratic misdirection basedon half-truths and mis interpreted facts.

In your comment about french intelligence you mix two different things with no recognition of the words and the mneaning involved.

- In June 2002 French Intelligence reports, after having been asked to look into the claim that Niger sold uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons manufacture.  The French tell them this is bulls**t.  In August Cheney states that "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," and he will say the same in March of the next year. 

France was referring to whether or not Uranium was SOLD. Dick Cheney was stating a known fact that Iraq was attempting to ACQUIRE uranium, he did not say they had actually procurred any from Niger, which we now know he was not able to do...thank God.

Skip

Quoting Rico:

Quote:

Ps - Hal is it your turn or mine to shovel the crap today?

I think it's your turn! 

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
While I'll grant you that not everything that was used as justification for the war was an outright lie (much of it was indeed false but not known to be so by people telling it), and I'll also grant that the hands of Democrats are not clean in this either, there are still a lot of outright lies, fabrications and truth stretching by Bush and his administration used as justification for the war in Iraq.

Again, even if Bush lied and stretched the truth, isn't it the responsibility of Congress...the ones who gave him permission to go to war...to make sure all the facts are correct?  Am I really supposed to believe they are that gullible?  If they are, then they all need to be removed from office. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Of course you are correct.  That is why congress is looking into this practice and saying it is wrong, if not outright criminal behavior.  That is why BofA fired MBNA officials, for fear that they would be subject to criminal prosecution, for this practice.  But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Get back to me when they get a conviction.  Until then it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation!!!!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
As I said, BofA purchased MBNA and then fired the heads of the company because this practice was wrong and they were worried that they could face criminal charges.  That, to me, is proof enough that the credit card companies are to blame.

Sorry, but unless they were charged with and convicted of some illegal activity, the fact that they were fired proves absolutely nothing.

And furthermore, it is noted with interest that you chose not to respond at all to the fact that credit card companies do not force people to sign up for a card, nor charge purchases to it nor fail to pay off their balances at the end of the month.  If they were to just do the latter, then the interest rate could be raised to 100%, and it wouldn't matter one iota!!!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
And furthermore, it is noted with interest that you chose not to respond at all to the fact that credit card companies do not force people to sign up for a card, nor charge purchases to it nor fail to pay off their balances at the end of the month.  If they were to just do the latter, then the interest rate could be raised to 100%, and it wouldn't matter one iota!!!

I didn't address it because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion...which was the raising of interest rates on money you already borrowed.  Of course, it wouldn't matter had they payed off the balance.