Bush Job Approval (Forum Members)

[A18]

LOL, this WMS guy is such an idiot.

I oppose theft. I'm sorry that offends you so much.

Under your definition of 'corporatism,' even lowering taxes on corporations would be corporatism, since corporations would no doubt support it.

[Smash255]

January 20, 2001:Strongly Disapproved
June 10, 2001: Strongly Disapproved
January 20, 2001: Strongly Disapproved
June 10, 2001: Strongly Disapproved
September 14, 2001:  Disapproved 
November 5, 2002: Strongly Disapproved
March 24, 2003: Strongly Disapproved
June 2, 2003: Strongly Disapproved
December 10, 2003: Strongly Disapproved
November 2, 2004: Strongly Disapproved
January 20, 2005: Strongly Disapproved
July 22, 2005: Strongly Disapproved
October 6, 2005: Strongly Disapproved
November 3, 2005: Strongly Disapproved
April 1, 2006: Strongly Disapproved

[minionofmidas]

Bush is an idoit, why did we elected him?

Because you were being idoits too, maybe.
What is an idoit anyways?

[WMS]

LOL, this WMS guy is such an idiot.

I oppose theft. I'm sorry that offends you so much.

Under your definition of 'corporatism,' even lowering taxes on corporations would be corporatism, since corporations would no doubt support it.

How are bankruptcy laws theft? They're designed to give people in serious debt troubles a chance to rebuild their finances. And yes, I've had family members who had to use them, so if you're going to call my family thieves for that...

Credit card companies deliberately target people who are in financial difficulties, especially those who don't have the leisure time to fully understand each and every point of financial law, and flood them with offers, with the express goal of getting them into more debt that they can pay. And then they have the gall to bitch about people using bankruptcy laws to avoid getting raped by interest fees for the rest of their lives. This is reality, not some Ayn Randist dreamworld.

Thank you so much for reminding me why I am neither a libertarian nor a conservative nor a Republican.

Edited for personal attacks.

[A18]

How are bankruptcy laws theft?

By wiping out a person's debt. If I let you borrow something, and you don't pay it back, that's theft.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha. Of course, no one is forced to make use of credit. But if you do, it is your responsibility to be able to pay. It doesn't take a genius, or even average intelligence, to figure that out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence why there's no such thing as a free lunch.

BTW, I don't know anything substantive about Ayn Rand.

Edited for personal attacks (while they are weak, they were clearly intended to provoke flaming).

[WMS]

How are bankruptcy laws theft?

By wiping out a person's debt. If I let you borrow something, and you don't pay it back, that's theft.

Some repayment is always part of bankruptcy law. The timeframe is adjusted so that the person can get back on their feet and actually, you know, pay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha. Of course, no one is forced to make use of credit. But if you do, it is your responsibility to be able to pay. It doesn't take a genius, or even average intelligence, to figure that out. It's true that someone as dumb as you might not know what he's doing, but that's a very rare case.[/quote]

I've never been in default in my life, so that snide little assertion of yours is false. And your grasp of reality is rather weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence why there's no such thing as a free lunch.[/quote]

Unless you're a credit card company...and, again, bankruptcy doesn't ensure that there is no repayment of debts, just that the person in debt isn't financially destroyed in the process. Not that you care about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go read up. You'd love her, I'm sure.

Edited for personal attack.

[A18]

What does living up to part of one's promise have to do with anything?

I didn't say you were ever in default. Only that you you do not understand credit markets, a fact your incessant whining has done nothing to obscure.

It is not a 'free lunch' to give someone money in exchange for repayment with interest.

Another weak personal attack removed.

[WMS]

What does living up to part of one's promise have to do with anything?

I didn't say you were ever in default. Only that you do not understand credit markets, a fact your incessant whining has done nothing to obscure.

It is not a 'free lunch' to give someone money in exchange for repayment with interest.

You are going on and on about 'theft' although no one is forcing the credit card companies to extend credit either, now are they? If you want to talk about pure capitalism, let both sides share some risk. The way the changes in the law go, there is no risk whatsoever to the credit card companies no matter who they lend to - no matter how unsuitable the recipient of credit, they'll never take a loss.

You implied it. And you know, your points might be better recieved if they didn't come with personal attacks attached, but courtesy is something foreign to you. And you completely fail to understand what bankruptcy law is for, from your incessant whining.

Yes, guaranteed repayment no matter how poor of a credit risk the person may be - businesses take losses on bad investments, don't they? Why should this be any different for credit card companies?

Previous quotation edit.

[??????????]

A18 is absolutely correct in his postings here. Its about time the bankruptcy laws were tightened up a bit and make people take some responsibility for their wasteful ways. They weren't FORCED to take a credit card, they took it of their own free will and decided to abuse the credit card. They decided to live above their means and ended up going bust. That's their problem, not mine or any company they had credit with. If you can't afford it...don't buy it. Simple as that.

[WMS]

A18 is absolutely correct in his postings here. Its about time the bankruptcy laws were tightened up a bit and make people take some responsibility for their wasteful ways. They weren't FORCED to take a credit card, they took it of their own free will and decided to abuse the credit card. They decided to live above their means and ended up going bust. That's their problem, not mine or any company they had credit with. If you can't afford it...don't buy it. Simple as that.

*sigh* Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here States...

[??????????]

A18 is absolutely correct in his postings here. Its about time the bankruptcy laws were tightened up a bit and make people take some responsibility for their wasteful ways. They weren't FORCED to take a credit card, they took it of their own free will and decided to abuse the credit card. They decided to live above their means and ended up going bust. That's their problem, not mine or any company they had credit with. If you can't afford it...don't buy it. Simple as that.

*sigh* Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here States...

What is so unreasonable about my belief? Nothing at all actually. Their is a huge difference between WANT and NEED. Most people don't NEED the majority of junk that sends them down the toilet. My philosophy that I have been taught by my parents and grandparents is "Work hard..if you can't pay for it in cash, you don't need it!"

[A18]

You are going on and on about 'theft' although no one is forcing the credit card companies to extend credit either, now are they?

Neither side is forced. The difference is that the credit card company lived up to its obligations.

You implied it.

I implied no such thing. You simply erected a strawman.

And you know, your points might be better recieved if they didn't come with personal attacks attached...

What a joke. You started the personal attacks. I just responded in kind.

And you completely fail to understand what bankruptcy law is for, from your incessant whining.

Oh, I understand the purpose. I simply disagree with it.

The stuff following the comma simply has no connection to the words preceding it.

Yes, guaranteed repayment no matter how poor of a credit risk the person may be - businesses take losses on bad investments, don't they? Why should this be any different for credit card companies?

An investment involves no promise, genius. If I let you borrow something on the condition that you give it back to me in two weeks, and you don't, that is not a 'bad investment.' It's theft.

Personal attack edit.

[Nym90]

A18 is absolutely correct in his postings here. Its about time the bankruptcy laws were tightened up a bit and make people take some responsibility for their wasteful ways. They weren't FORCED to take a credit card, they took it of their own free will and decided to abuse the credit card. They decided to live above their means and ended up going bust. That's their problem, not mine or any company they had credit with. If you can't afford it...don't buy it. Simple as that.

*sigh* Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here States...

What is so unreasonable about my belief? Nothing at all actually. Their is a huge difference between WANT and NEED. Most people don't NEED the majority of junk that sends them down the toilet. My philosophy that I have been taught by my parents and grandparents is "Work hard..if you can't pay for it in cash, you don't need it!"

I agree that people need to be more responsible with credit. However, the same can be said of the lender as well. They made the choice to lend out the money, and one of the risks of lending is that you might not get the money back. If you aren't willing to take this risk, don't lend.

The law should be balanced, not structured such that the lender has all the power and the borrower has none, which is what this legislation did. Credit card companies have goten more and more aggressive, targeting people who are the least likely to pay the money back.

Placing all of the blame on the borrower is somewhat analogous to blaming a crime victim for having been in the bad part of town, or blaming a rape victim for having been attractive.

[A18]

I agree that people need to be more responsible with credit. However, the same can be said of the lender as well. They made the choice to lend out the money, and one of the risks of lending is that you might not get the money back. If you aren't willing to take this risk, don't lend.

Ridiculous. This is the equivalent of saying that fraud should not be punished, because one of the risks of buying something is that the company might have lied to you.

Perhaps we shouldn't punish the assassins of presidents either, since one of the risks of the job is that you might be murdered.

[Nym90]

I agree that people need to be more responsible with credit. However, the same can be said of the lender as well. They made the choice to lend out the money, and one of the risks of lending is that you might not get the money back. If you aren't willing to take this risk, don't lend.

Ridiculous. This is the equivalent of saying that fraud should not be punished, because one of the risks of buying something is that the company might have lied to you.

Perhaps we shouldn't punish the assassins of presidents either, since one of the risks of the job is that you might be murdered.

No, I am not advocating that those who default on their credit should not be punished, simply that we need some semblance of balance and not have the cards stacked 100% in favor of one side.

I am certainly not saying that people shouldn't have to pay back their debts or be held blameless, simply that this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

[Emsworth]

No, I am not advocating that those who default on their credit should not be punished, simply that we need some semblance of balance and not have the cards stacked 100% in favor of one side.

The bankruptcy reform law does not reopen debtors' prisons. It simply makes it more difficult to declare bankruptcy. With all due respect, it is inaccurate to suggest that the cards would be "stacked 100% in favor of one side," merely because bankruptcy has been made somewhat more difficult to obtain.

Moreover, I question the need for "balance" between creditors and debtors. Why should there be a "balance" between the rights of the creditors on the one hand, and the convenience of the debtors on the other?

[A18]

The creditors lived up to their obligations. The debtors should do likewise.

[The Duke]

Bush is an idoit, why did we elected him?

Excuse me, but your original screen name was "josh4bush".

In fact, "josh4bush" is still you actual username and is printed right under you new handle for everyone to see.


And your spelling of idiot reminds me of this:

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think it is possible that the person holding the sign may have been  refering to congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, better known as the loudmouth moron.

[opebo]

My philosophy that I have been taught by my parents and grandparents is "Work hard..if you can't pay for it in cash, you don't need it!"

Of course that is what you believe, States - all workers are taught to believe that, for obvious reasons.  The only problem is that 'hard work' has nothing to do with the quantity of remuneration - that is set by ones position in the social heirarchy.

Btw, didn't you borrow money for your house?

[The Constitarian]

The only good thing Bush did was his response to 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan but it should have been quicker.  Other than that I almost always disagree with him.

[The Duke]

The only good thing Bush did was his response to 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan but it should have been quicker.  Other than that I almost always disagree with him.

The invasion of Afghanistan happenned 26 days after 9/11, how much uicker coudl it have been?

[??????????]

The only good thing Bush did was his response to 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan but it should have been quicker.  Other than that I almost always disagree with him.

The invasion of Afghanistan happenned 26 days after 9/11, how much uicker coudl it have been?

They could have started leveling that dump 2 days after the attack.

[Cubby]

January 20, 2001:      Strongly Disapprove
June 10, 2001:           Strongly Disapprove
September 14, 2001: Disapprove
November 5, 2002:    Strongly Disapprove
March 24, 2003:         Strongly Disapprove
June 2, 2003:             Strongly Disapprove
December 10, 2003:  Strongly Disapprove
November 2, 2004:    Strongly Disapprove
January 20, 2005:      Strongly Disapprove
July 22, 2005:             Strongly Disapprove
October 6, 2005:        Strongly Disapprove
November 3, 2005:     Strongly Disapprove
April 1, 2006:              Strongly Disapprove

I was stunned when that 90% Approval Rating poll came out in Mid-Sept. 2001, I still disapproved, that poll was ridiculous. Here's my interpretation of what happened across America:

Mary: "John, terrorists have destroyed the World Trade Center!"

John: "Oh my god! We have to support President Bush!
...
...
...
Oh, and its a shame about those towers."

Maybe someday, sociologists will figure out what happened in September 2001 to the public psyche. I remember it as a horrible time where Jay Leno never made fun of Bush, only Clinton, there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

I've disapproved of Bush ever since November 1999 when in a GOP primary debate he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. I hated that he was pandering to the lunatics and that he was too stupid to know any other philosophers like Augustine or John Locke.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

January 20, 2001:      Strongly Disapprove
June 10, 2001:           Strongly Disapprove
September 14, 2001: Disapprove
November 5, 2002:    Strongly Disapprove
March 24, 2003:         Strongly Disapprove
June 2, 2003:             Strongly Disapprove
December 10, 2003:  Strongly Disapprove
November 2, 2004:    Strongly Disapprove
January 20, 2005:      Strongly Disapprove
July 22, 2005:             Strongly Disapprove
October 6, 2005:        Strongly Disapprove
November 3, 2005:     Strongly Disapprove
April 1, 2006:              Strongly Disapprove

I was stunned when that 90% Approval Rating poll came out in Mid-Sept. 2001, I still disapproved, that poll was ridiculous. Here's my interpretation of what happened across America:

Mary: "John, terrorists have destroyed the World Trade Center!"

John: "Oh my god! We have to support President Bush!
...
...
...
Oh, and its a shame about those towers."

Maybe someday, sociologists will figure out what happened in September 2001 to the public psyche. I remember it as a horrible time where Jay Leno never made fun of Bush, only Clinton, there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

I've disapproved of Bush ever since November 1999 when in a GOP primary debate he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. I hated that he was pandering to the lunatics and that he was too stupid to know any other philosophers like Augustine or John Locke.

Yep, that proves it.  You're scum.  The President and my favorite philosopher wouldn't like me calling you that though.