NationStates Jolt Archive

first they were crucifying the Pizza restaurant for accepting pesos.. now this..

I dont have a link.. I am watching it on TV
they are so pathetic..

Bank of America (a private company) issues Credit card to undocumented Mexicans, if they have good credit.

Cavuto is interviewing this Crazy woman from Mothers-Against-Illegals.. and she is going bananas on live TV..

Next Cavuto is pressuring some Congresswoman asking her to change the banking Laws.. this Republican Media corp is asking for more regulation.

I amazed. Fox is against American corporations making money? Against them helping more poor people get further in debt? Are you sure you're watching Fox?

first they were crucifying the Pizza restaurant for accepting pesos.. now this..

I dont have a link.. I am watching it on TV
they are so pathetic..

Cavuto is interviewing this Crazy woman from Mothers-Against-Illegals.. and she is going bananas on live TV..

Next Cavuto is pressuring the Congresswoman asking her to change the Laws..

They were also discussing this on NPR Talk of the Nation today. It's an interesting idea.

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

Different opinions are not "pathetic," they are "different." I'm sure if you were on live TV voicing your opinions someone out there would think you were crazy too.

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

Different opinions are not "pathetic," they are "different." I'm sure if you were on live TV voicing your opinions someone out there would think you were crazy too.

You are right different != pathetic ... but it can be different and pathetic as well they are not mutually exclusive either.

I amazed. Fox is against American corporations making money? Against them helping more poor people get further in debt? Are you sure you're watching Fox?

It's the sorry state of the Republican party today. These neo-cons are not true Reaganites. Bush spends more tax money than most Democrats. :(

Republicans today are the exact opposite of what I am. They're all morally conservative and fiscally irresponsible. What ever happened to supporting business, lowering taxes, and having a good time without a bible in your hand and a stick up your ass?

Here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251672,00.html

A private company is issuing credit to its clients. Why is this a story?

I amazed. Fox is against American corporations making money? Against them helping more poor people get further in debt? Are you sure you're watching Fox?

Its weird, almost as if they've gone so right they've circled the political globe and appeared on the left...

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

The point is that Fox *isn't* promoting a "conservative" or "republican" viewpoint here. It is in fact arguing against them.

A private company is issuing credit to its clients. Why is this a story?

According to the articl eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.

A private company is issuing credit to its clients. Why is this a story?we, all rational people know that..

Yet FOX news is having a cow over this..
you should see the Woman starting a public campaign for everyone to switch Banks to ChaseBank..
"good Americans' cut your BoA cards and send them in" or something like that.

According to the articl eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.

Illegals with money. Illegals that suddenly become a lot more traceable.

It's the sorry state of the Republican party today. These neo-cons are not true Reaganites. Bush spends more tax money than most Democrats. :(

Republicans today are the exact opposite of what I am. They're all morally conservative and fiscally irresponsible. What ever happened to supporting business, lowering taxes, and having a good time without a bible in your hand and a stick up your ass?

Exactly! We need to dig up Reagans corpse, fill him with creamy robot goodness and set him loose on the current Republican party!
ROBOREAGEN WILL PURIFY THE UNCLEAN!

Cavuto is a dick.
Apparently, the other day he was blasting the Dixie Chicks for winning 5 Grammies and declaring they won them because they hate Bush. Then he got two asshat conservative radio personalities and put them on while insinuating they were some sort of experts on the music industry.

According to the articl eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.

So? Bet it is a lot more useful for international accounts as well, not being Dependant on an US identification number.

Cavuto is a dick.
Apparently, the other day he was blasting the Dixie Chicks for winning 5 Grammies and declaring they won them because they hate Bush. Then he got two asshat conservative radio personalities and put them on while insinuating they were some sort of experts on the music industry.

He really should have been complaining about the Dixie Chicks winning 5 Grammies because they suck. Hating Bush or not is immaterial. They're a miserable group either way.

Exactly! We need to dig up Reagans corpse, fill him with creamy robot goodness and set him loose on the current Republican party!
ROBOREAGEN WILL PURIFY THE UNCLEAN!

Robo Reagan is busy at the moment:

http://www.lalatimes.com/newsfea/en_19_ronald-reagan-0002.php?PHPSESSID=f22a4cb7fd068537f2822aac9bc0cee5

According to the articl eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.

Can citizens get a bank account without an SSN? How about people who are legally in the country but not citizens?

Or me. Apparently I can open an online chequing account right now (http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/). After that I could wait three mnonths and get my credit card. I do not have an SSN. Maybe FOX should do a story about me.

According to the article eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.

Actually I think this is a good idea that Bank of America is doing this. However I don't agree with illegal immigrants but have no problem with legal ones. What Bank of America is doing is unshackling one from their SSI number. So some illegals will use this. However this is open for all Americans. So why not throw the whole credit rating system out the door and allow people to not have to submit there SSI number in order to use credit. I see to many people have limited economic possiblities due to the credit rating system that was imposed on the American people in the late 80's and early 90's. Any way to disconnect from this shackle is a good idea to me.

Actually I think this is a good idea that Bank of America is doing this. However I don't agree with illegal immigrants but have no problem with legal ones. What Bank of America is doing is unshackling one from their SSI number. So some illegals will use this. However this is open for all Americans. So why not throw the whole credit rating system out the door and allow people to not have to submit there SSI number in order to use credit. I see to many people have limited economic possiblities due to the credit rating system that was imposed on the American people in the late 80's and early 90's. Any way to disconnect from this shackle is a good idea to me.

Could lead to interesting results for sure ... if 3 months of a bank account is enough for them to judge the persons credit worth and take the risk then I am fine with it

Could lead to interesting results for sure ... if 3 months of a bank account is enough for them to judge the persons credit worth and take the risk then I am fine with itBanks have always solicited College students with no previous credit history.. "Get Your first credit Card this week"..

keep in mind these are $500 limit.

Can citizens get a bank account without an SSN? How about people who are legally in the country but not citizens?

Or me. Apparently I can open an online chequing account right now (http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/). After that I could wait three mnonths and get my credit card. I do not have an SSN. Maybe FOX should do a story about me.
Banks will give anyone a credit card. They make the most money by ripping them the fuck off with legal technicalities in credit card papers.

Banks will give anyone a credit card. They make the most money by ripping them the fuck off with legal technicalities in credit card papers.

I agree, and my experiences as a student verify the truth of your statement. And that leads me to wonder why this is news at all. Any ideas? I mean, beyond the obvious fact that it will rile up the Minutemen contingent and marginally boost FOX ratings?

I'm about to the point where if Fox News dislikes it, I like it by default. At least, that's my starting position, and I move from there. ;)

Bush spends more tax money than most Democrats. :(
So did Reagan.

I agree, and my experiences as a student verify the truth of your statement. And that leads me to wonder why this is news at all. Any ideas? I mean, beyond the obvious fact that it will rile up the Minutemen contingent and marginally boost FOX ratings?

Because FOX news is 75+% conservative douchebag talk programs.

So did Reagan.

but...but...That's different! There were communists and shit!

Cavuto is a dick.
Apparently, the other day he was blasting the Dixie Chicks for winning 5 Grammies and declaring they won them because they hate Bush. Then he got two asshat conservative radio personalities and put them on while insinuating they were some sort of experts on the music industry.

Well, the Dixie Chicks winning 5 Grammies pissed me off, but solely because of the severe suckage of their music. How they beat out Red Hot Chili Peppers for album of the year, I just cannot understand. However, I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the fact they hate Bush. And there is no sarcasm in that statement whatsoever. Foxnews just likes to say idiotic things like that.

According to the articl eon AOL I looked at, they're not requiring a Social Security number to get the credit card. You have to keep a checking account with them for three months, then you get to apply for this card without shows an SSN. You don't need one for the checking account, either. That's why Fox is having a cow, it appears as if BoA is targeting illegals with this.
How do they report interest earnings to the IRS? That's done with all normal account holders. I would be pissed if I found out that the BoA was helping to promote tax evasion.

That's a lousy account, anyway. They will open it with $25, but charge you $5.95 every month for maintaining the account. I'll bet their credit card deals are just as bad. I fully expect the illegals to continue stuffing money in their mattresses and sending Western Union wires back to Mexico.

Its weird, almost as if they've gone so right they've circled the political globe and appeared on the left...

:D

Banks have always solicited College students with no previous credit history.. "Get Your first credit Card this week"..

keep in mind these are $500 limit.

I am at 10 grand because of all my computer building ... I need the room when I do hand built servers for small businesses

I guess fox news is mad because illegals are getting credit with the bogus Mexican Matricula id. Anyone who can speak spanish can get a Matricula card it is in no way a secure form of id. I really do not care one way or the other. I hope the Mexicans charge up a bunch of credit and burn the Banks.

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

Different opinions are not "pathetic," they are "different." I'm sure if you were on live TV voicing your opinions someone out there would think you were crazy too.

You miss the point of fox entirely - it's an entertainment channel.

Some people are entertained by agreeing with the loudmouth hacks on there, some people are entertained by the opportunity to be contemptuous of them.

Either way, fox gets its viewers and its ad profits.

Its a good business.

I amazed. Fox is against American corporations making money? Against them helping more poor people get further in debt? Are you sure you're watching Fox?

Yep. Fox, like most "conservatives," are not actually supportive of free market policies and are mostly just nationalist quasi-socialists.

How do they report interest earnings to the IRS? That's done with all normal account holders. I would be pissed if I found out that the BoA was helping to promote tax evasion.

That's a lousy account, anyway. They will open it with $25, but charge you $5.95 every month for maintaining the account. I'll bet their credit card deals are just as bad. I fully expect the illegals to continue stuffing money in their mattresses and sending Western Union wires back to Mexico.

that's what I wondered until I remembered that some people don't earn interest on their checking accounts.

Because FOX news is 75+% conservative douchebag talk programs.

As opposed to the other network's liberal douchebag talk programs.

Honestly...this "network bashing" is childish...

You miss the point of fox entirely - it's an entertainment channel.

Some people are entertained by agreeing with the loudmouth hacks on there, some people are entertained by the opportunity to be contemptuous of them.

Either way, fox gets its viewers and its ad profits.

Its a good business.

And NBC and CNN's constant live feeds of the Iraq war aren't "entertainment?" Don't they fire up your liberal anti-war buddies? :rolleyes:

Give me a break. No news is unbiased. Merely chosing which stories to report on is bias in the news. The sooner America learns to be like most other nations and stop pretending that any of its news is "fair and balanced," the better.

As opposed to the other network's liberal douchebag talk programs.

Honestly...this "network bashing" is childish...
Too bad it's actually true in FOX's case.

Too bad it's actually true in FOX's case.

OOOOH! ZING! You sure got me there!

Grow up. "75+%" What does that even mean? Do you have the statistics to back that number up? Do you have a real definition of what "douchebag talk programs" consist of and what seperates them from other talk programs? Do you have a substantial definition of what "douchebag" means in relation to talk programs in general as an adjective and not a noun used for feminine hygene? Do you have the ability to get over your ridiculous bias and look at all news objectively, instead of just saying "0MGZ FAUX N3WZ 1S 4 J0K3!!!11one1"?

OOOOH! ZING! You sure got me there!

Grow up. "75+%" What does that even mean? Do you have the statistics to back that number up? Do you have a real definition of what "douchebag talk programs" consist of and what seperates them from other talk programs? Do you have a substantial definition of what "douchebag" means in relation to talk programs in general as an adjective and not a noun used for feminine hygene? Do you have the ability to get over your ridiculous bias and look at all news objectively, instead of just saying "0MGZ FAUX N3WZ 1S 4 J0K3!!!11one1"?
Definition: douchebag - a number of hypocritical pundits with a severe political slant, ie Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, as well as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaush, and the two local radio personalities brown-nosing the first three so hard their two fat heads are up the others' fat asses.

I am looking at it objectively. Unless you yourself are a hypocritical asshat with a parallel slant, implying the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammies "because they hate Bush" is pretty obviously biased and reeking of douchebaggery, especially since their only proof is their own delusional persecution complex. And if you agree, welcome to douchebagville.

And NBC and CNN's constant live feeds of the Iraq war aren't "entertainment?" Don't they fire up your liberal anti-war buddies? :rolleyes:So you'd rather be ignorant of what's going on in Iraq? Not that I'm praising the corporate media's coverage of the Iraq War--it's been woefully inadequate--but it's been better by far than the "All is Well" cheerleading we've been getting from Fox News. But you'd rather live in ignorance, I suppose.

Here's the thing--accurate war coverage is going to result in an anti-war movement, because war is a horrible thing and should be opposed in all but the most extreme circumstances, and if you can't deal with that, tough shit, kid. Put on your Rambo Underoos and get your pop gun and go show us how it's done. The amazing thing in this case is that we've got an anti-war movement that is now a majority in the US (67% want us out of Iraq in the next year) in spite of the cheerleading for the war that the corporate media has been doing.

I am looking at it objectively. Unless you yourself are a hypocritical asshat with a parallel slant, implying the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammies "because they hate Bush" is pretty obviously biased and reeking of douchebaggery, especially since their only proof is their own delusional persecution complex. And if you agree, welcome to douchebagville.

First of all: It's quite possible, given Hollywood and the music industry's vocal disdain for Republicans. The Dixie Chicks certainly lack talent...so what's the real explanation for them winning the grammies. I'm not saying I agree with it...but without knowing exactly why everyone who voted for them did so...it would be impossible to say any opinion on the matter is false.

Second: "douchebaggery" is once again idiotic. Idiotic...hm...that's a real word. I'm sure if I cared enough I could go off and find statements which "reek of douchebaggery" that come from the mouths of the liberal media as well as Fox.

All of these political talk shows featuring "personalities" and "reporting" are bullshit. That goes for Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the like. Pretending Fox is somehow "worse" or "badder" or "0mG c0NS3Rv4T1V3 1s tH3 d3v1L!" reeks of something other than "douchebaggery;" it reeks of bias.

Sure I could get on a soapbox and rant about the "liberal controlled media" or the "fear-mongering tactics" they use to "promote environmentalism" and "undermine the war effort," but that would be ridiculous, and make me seem childish. Your crusade against Fox is no less ridiculous, and makes you seem no more childish.

"Douchebaggery" indeed...

So you'd rather be ignorant of what's going on in Iraq? Not that I'm praising the corporate media's coverage of the Iraq War--it's been woefully inadequate--but it's been better by far than the "All is Well" cheerleading we've been getting from Fox News. But you'd rather live in ignorance, I suppose.

Here's the thing--accurate war coverage is going to result in an anti-war movement, because war is a horrible thing and should be opposed in all but the most extreme circumstances, and if you can't deal with that, tough shit, kid. Put on your Rambo Underoos and get your pop gun and go show us how it's done. The amazing thing in this case is that we've got an anti-war movement that is now a majority in the US (67% want us out of Iraq in the next year) in spite of the cheerleading for the war that the corporate media has been doing.

Rambo Underoos? Because this somehow turned into me supporting the Iraq war...which I don't, mind you.

It's all ridiculous. "Liberal Media" portrays the war in a constant negative light, so in contrast Fox news "cheerleads."

The fact that you people cannot possibly believe that someone who doesn't watch Fox would defend them is an example in itself. A few posts back, Teh Pantsless Hero named more Fox news people than I could.

So lets recap. You accuse me of ignorance for watching Fox news, an idea in itself which is ignorant, however I don't watch Fox news. You accuse me of being some sort of warmongerer in that little Rambo-rant of your's without any evidence, since that was never even the topic. And...you say I support the Iraq war in general, which, of course, I do not. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Thanks.

Rambo Underoos? Because this somehow turned into me supporting the Iraq war...which I don't, mind you.

It's all ridiculous. "Liberal Media" portrays the war in a constant negative light, so in contrast Fox news "cheerleads."

The fact that you people cannot possibly believe that someone who doesn't watch Fox would defend them is an example in itself. A few posts back, Teh Pantsless Hero named more Fox news people than I could.

So lets recap. You accuse me of ignorance for watching Fox news, an idea in itself which is ignorant, however I don't watch Fox news. You accuse me of being some sort of warmongerer in that little Rambo-rant of your's without any evidence, since that was never even the topic. And...you say I support the Iraq war in general, which, of course, I do not. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Thanks.
There's an old saying--lay down with dogs and you get up with fleas. When you defend Fox News, a network whose owner admitted to biasing the Iraq War news (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/050207Murdoch.htm) in favor of the Bush administration, there are only so many logical conclusions one can come to. I came to the one that said you were a Bush supporter. I suppose I was wrong. Apparently, you're just an uninformed tool. Whatever floats your boat.

I win.

Mature.

First of all: It's quite possible, given Hollywood and the music industry's vocal disdain for Republicans.

I win.

I don't watch Fox news. I do.. sometimes. for about 2 minutes.. unless there is something really outrageous..

The only time I stayed on for a full show was for the ultimate Mano a Mano :D
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=colbert+vs+reilly

There's an old saying--lay down with dogs and you get up with fleas. When you defend Fox News, a network whose owner admitted to biasing the Iraq War news (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/050207Murdoch.htm) in favor of the Bush administration, there are only so many logical conclusions one can come to. I came to the one that said you were a Bush supporter. I suppose I was wrong. Apparently, you're just an uninformed tool. Whatever floats your boat.

...and once again you fail to see how people can look at something objectively. If I defend Fox, I must be a supporter of the Iraq war or an "uninformed tool." Obviously those are the only two conclusions one can come to. :rolleyes:

I applaud Fox for admitting their bias. All news is biased. There is no exception. There is no alternative. The main problem with American media is that unlike other countries, they refuse to admit their slant. In Spain, for instance, they have three main papers. One is conservative, one is liberal, and one is rather ultra-liberal. Each paper admits their slant, and the conservatives read their paper, the liberals read theirs, and likewise. The sooner CNN, ABC, and the like admit their own bias the better.

Don't like Fox? Don't watch it. If I, a Republican, don't watch it or give two shits about what O'Reilly says, I sure as hell don't know why you care about it so much.

I do.. sometimes. for about 2 minutes.. unless there is something really outrageous..

The only time I stayed on for a full show was for the ultimate Mano a Mano :D
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=colbert+vs+reilly

Heh...only time I ever watched O'Reilly. To his credit though he held his own MUCH better than that Crossfire idiot did against Jon Stewart.

...and once again you fail to see how people can look at something objectively. If I defend Fox, I must be a supporter of the Iraq war or an "uninformed tool." Obviously those are the only two conclusions one can come to. :rolleyes:Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, because what Fox does is by no definition journalism, not anymore assuming it ever was. So for you to defend it is for you to defend propaganda--not bias. Propaganda. Fox is the Republican Pravda, and it has been for a while--there is no defending it as a journalistic outlet. So make your choice.

I applaud Fox for admitting their bias.
Yes, by having parts of their show called "the No-Spin zone" or calling their coverage "fair and balanced." It's just like an addicts meeting with the admittance of their problems!

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, because what Fox does is by no definition journalism, not anymore assuming it ever was. So for you to defend it is for you to defend propaganda--not bias. Propaganda. Fox is the Republican Pravda, and it has been for a while--there is no defending it as a journalistic outlet. So make your choice.

:rolleyes:

Oh damn that conservative news...it must be propaganda! Bush, after all, is Hitler, right? Republicans are basically Nazis, am I correct?

that's what I wondered until I remembered that some people don't earn interest on their checking accounts.

I haven't had a bank account in so long, I don't remember. Credit unions are so superior to banks, I wonder why everyone doesn't join.

Yes, by having parts of their show called "the No-Spin zone" or calling their coverage "fair and balanced." It's just like an addicts meeting with the admittance of their problems!

Did I say that I agree with their overall fear to constantly admit their bias in the public light? No. I agreed with the article Nazz linked to.

In my view, this pretending to be "fair and balanced" is ridiculous. I've said that in numerous other posts in the thread.

All news should openly admit bias, because pretending otherwise is them lying to themselves.

:rolleyes:

Oh damn that conservative news...it must be propaganda! Bush, after all, is Hitler, right? Republicans are basically Nazis, am I correct?
Nope--I didn't go there. Bush isn't Hitler. For all his many faults--and they are many--he's nowhere near Hitler. But I find it interesting that you would drag that out in a pathetic attempt to somehow smear me.

And Republicans aren't Nazis either--they don't have the fashion sense, for starters. Besides, if you want to get technical about it, their heightened sense of nationalism, their devotion to corporate interests above everything else--that makes them far closer to fascism than naziism. And even then I only think the most extreme Republicans are fascists--nowhere close to a majority.

I haven't had a bank account in so long, I don't remember. Credit unions are so superior to banks, I wonder why everyone doesn't join.

Just wondering...since I am able to join one (PSECU)...what makes them superior in your opinion?

Just wondering...since I am able to join one (PSECU)...what makes them superior in your opinion?

I know they give better interest rates and things like that, but I don't know the specifics.

As owner of about .00000000000000000000000000000001% of BoA, I am not sure if I have a problem with this because it probably does not affect me. Whether or not I approve is a money issue. And another thing; why do democrats and other so called "unbiased" liberals get so angry at Fox News? Of course it is a conservative news station, but I could make the case that, seeing as it about the only one anyone ever mentions, the bias is overwhelmingly liberal in the rest of the media (and don't try and tell me that some news stations have no bias). No one ever complains that the New York Times is a blantantly biased newspaper. And I don't see why anyone should criticize either Fox or the NY Times. If you want unbiased news, you would probably have to go to places like Iraq in person. I am not a blind Repulican supporter, and do not like the Bible-waving money spending politicians of today. But please stop the "holier-than-thou" attitude and the hypocracy when it comes to political bias on Fox News.

why do democrats and other so called "unbiased" liberals get so angry at Fox News?
If "Did the Dixie Chicks win 5 Grammies because they hate Bush?" doesn't fucking make it click for you, nothing is going to.

If "Did the Dixie Chicks win 5 Grammies because they hate Bush?" doesn't fucking make it click for you, nothing is going to.

Or this:

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

I applaud Fox for admitting their bias. All news is biased. There is no exception. There is no alternative.

Admitting their bias? The channel that chants "Fair and Balanced" until it's throat bleeds? Fox has never admitted to being bias, they accuse all other news outlets of being bias to the left. I know the other news outlets have a bias, but they don't claim to be in the absolute center.

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

Different opinions are not "pathetic," they are "different." I'm sure if you were on live TV voicing your opinions someone out there would think you were crazy too.

He's crazy all the time.

BoA needs to get its act together by not giving credit cards to illegal aliens. That is a violation of the law and they need to be punished.

He's crazy all the time.

BoA needs to get its act together by not giving credit cards to illegal aliens. That is a violation of the law and they need to be punished.
I'm sure you have the relevant section of the US Code at your fingertips Corny--why not pop it out there for us?

I'm a lot more concerned about illegal aliens being swindled by unscrupulous creditors and lacking any real legal options than I am with a Fortune 500 bank offering a credit card with a market interest rate and a reasonable line of credit to them.

Perhaps these aliens could use these cards to bring their families over from Mexico, establish a business, or cover the costs of becoming a citizen...it's a hell of a lot better than the loan sharks and advance-pay scams that pass for credit in poor areas.

If anything, they should do this more often.

I'm sure you have the relevant section of the US Code at your fingertips Corny--why not pop it out there for us?

I think there is something in the Patriot act about not providing loans without a SS number.....at least I remember something about that a few years back when I was doing RAL's through a bank for my clients, something about "know your customer" that banks have to have all kinds of ID on people to prevent terrorists from committing fraud.

Or this:

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

FNC critical of his execution, eh? Hehe. OK, not real funny but it is satisfying to hear a lie straight from Murdoch's mouth. Well, another lie.

and don't try and tell me that some news stations have no bias.some english speaking Networks have close to zero Bias concerning US politics.

a good example is the BBC.

He's crazy all the time.

BoA needs to get its act together by not giving credit cards to illegal aliens. That is a violation of the law and they need to be punished.

To quote this guy, Chaucer, who you probably haven't heard of but who wrote a few things a number of years ago.

"questio quid juris?"

To quote this guy, Chaucer, who you probably haven't heard of but wrote a few things a number of years ago.

"questio quid juris?"

:)

I don't think we have any laws over who can and can't have a credit card.

I'm sure you have the relevant section of the US Code at your fingertips Corny--why not pop it out there for us?

If they are undocumented, then I'm willing to bet that most of them are illegal immigrants. Crossing the border illegally is a violation of US Law. Giving aide to those who violate US Law is also breaking the law. I'm surprised you do not know this Nazz.

To quote this guy, Chaucer, who you probably haven't heard of but who wrote a few things a number of years ago.

"questio quid juris?"

Oh I've heard of Chaucer. He's a very fine author.

fox news propbably got a late payment or overdraft notification from b of a.

or the're just trying to make themselves look like the're not kissing the ass of everything that has a corporate lable on it.

=^^=
.../\...

If they are undocumented, then I'm willing to bet that most of them are illegal immigrants. Crossing the border illegally is a violation of US Law. Giving aide to those who violate US Law is also breaking the law. I'm surprised you do not know this Nazz.

I didn't realize hearsay passed for legal documentation these days.

If they are undocumented, then I'm willing to bet that most of them are illegal immigrants. Crossing the border illegally is a violation of US Law. Giving aide to those who violate US Law is also breaking the law. I'm surprised you do not know this Nazz.

How is BoA providing aid (as opposed to an assistant) to illegal immigrants in this case?

How is BoA providing aid (as opposed to an assistant) to illegal immigrants in this case?

BoA issuing credit cards to undocumented Mexicans.

That is indeed providing aide.

fox news propbably got a late payment or overdraft notification from b of a.

or the're just trying to make themselves look like the're not kissing the ass of everything that has a corporate lable on it.

=^^=
.../\...

They were trapped between their desire to please corporate and the desires of their audience to bash the brown people.

BoA issuing credit cards to undocumented Mexicans.

That is indeed providing aide.
1) Have you ever had a credit card?
2) Again, when did hearsay become legal proof?

BoA issuing credit cards to undocumented Mexicans.

That is indeed providing aide.

We've been through this before, Corny, but I guess it's time to remind you--just because you say something doesn't necessarily make it so. You have to provide at least a modicum of reason and logic, if not actual evidence, to back up your assertions.

And for fuck's sake, aid is assistance. An aide is an assistant. There's a significant difference there, unless you're suggesting that Bank of America is providing a raft of employees to each illegal immigrant who opens an account with them, which would be a hell of a perk indeed.

1) Have you ever had a credit card?

Yes.

2) Again, when did hearsay become legal proof?

Think about it for 1 sec TPH. I know you can figure it out someday.

Then we'll agree to disagree on the interpretation of the Law Nazz. caio.

Then we'll agree to disagree on the interpretation of the Law Nazz. caio.

There's been no law cited, Corny--therefore, there's no interpretation of said law for us to disagree on.

And it's ciao. Jesus, do I have to do everything for you?

What's the problem...other than you not liking Fox News. It seems rather stupid to watch a news channel that's conservative if you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

Different opinions are not "pathetic," they are "different." I'm sure if you were on live TV voicing your opinions someone out there would think you were crazy too.

Because Bank of America, contrary to its name, doesn't just operate in America. It's a corporation and can sell it's goods to anyone it damn well feels like. Should we get mad at Shop-Rite for selling them food now too. Oops, you're here illegally, no food for you. That's why the opinion is stupid, not because it's on Fox. It's because of the system of free enterprise we hold so dear in America and the rest of the world. It's not the "[US Treasury" doing the work, it's a fricken bank. Now do you get it?

He really should have been complaining about the Dixie Chicks winning 5 Grammies because they suck. Hating Bush or not is immaterial. They're a miserable group either way.

Right to your opinion, tens of millions of music fans disagree with you, as do the 5 Grammy awards they won this year. Add that to the three they already have and that's probably more than your favorite artists combined. But let's end the thread hijack.

BoA issuing credit cards to undocumented Mexicans.

That is indeed providing aide.

Actually, if you want to look at it in purely legal terms, you are accusing the B of A of a crime they may have, but not necessarily have, committed.

All you can prove is that they are giving accounts to people without a Social Security Number. Guess what? That is not against the law. I do not have a Social Security number, yet I can get a chequing account and a credit card from the B of A. I am also not an illegal immigrant.

You may argue that the bank knows full well that illegal immigrants are going to use this resource. But that does not matter, in legal terms, as long as they have some sort of public policy that dictates that they will not serve illegal immigrants. Another example of this is head shops: those stores that sell drug paraphernalia. Now, obviously the people purchasing these things are doing so to smoke drugs. Everyone knows this. But right beside the cash register, there is a little sign saying that the products are not for abusing drugs, and to do so would be illegal. So now everything is legal, because they are not legally intended for such a use.

To be honest, I wish it was illegal, because it looks like the Bank of America is going to screw around a lot of people with this.

There's been no law cited, Corny--therefore, there's no interpretation of said law for us to disagree on.

And it's ciao. Jesus, do I have to do everything for you?

Well excuse the fuck out of me.

Think about it for 1 sec TPH. I know you can figure it out someday.
Thought about it, hearsay still doesn't constitute legal support.

Heh...only time I ever watched O'Reilly. To his credit though he held his own MUCH better than that Crossfire idiot did against Jon Stewart.

and he got pissed on by David Lettermen, both times. The problem is that O'Reilly and his ilk use out and out lies to "support" their claims. If you want to be biased and express your opinion then that's fine. If you want to misquote information and lie that is a different story. Fox News is not just biased, they outright lie. The actually sued claiming the "right to lie" in a Florida court. Bias is something that is mostly unintentional. Lying is just "douchebaggery." And that's the WORD!

:rolleyes:

Oh damn that conservative news...it must be propaganda! Bush, after all, is Hitler, right? Republicans are basically Nazis, am I correct?

bias=, twisting the story with your own emotional bend. Outright Lying is just Propoganda. Do you get it now? :headbang:

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/10/10/fox-news-sued-for-the-right-to-lie-and-won/comments/2

http://www.akuaku.org/archives/2004/09/fox_right_to_li.shtml

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

It's the sorry state of the Republican party today. These neo-cons are not true Reaganites. Bush spends more tax money than most Democrats. :(

Republicans today are the exact opposite of what I am. They're all morally conservative and fiscally irresponsible. What ever happened to supporting business, lowering taxes, and having a good time without a bible in your hand and a stick up your ass?

He shoots, he scores!



Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

;)

Oh I've heard of Chaucer. He's a very fine author.

You may know of Chaucer, but you don't seem to know Latin.

If BoA is so clearly violating the law, it should be very easy for you to cite the specific law they are violating, and to cite cases where that law was applied similarly.

We are waiting with bated breath.

We've been through this before, Corny, but I guess it's time to remind you--just because you say something doesn't necessarily make it so. You have to provide at least a modicum of reason and logic, if not actual evidence, to back up your assertions.

And for fuck's sake, aid is assistance. An aide is an assistant. There's a significant difference there, unless you're suggesting that Bank of America is providing a raft of employees to each illegal immigrant who opens an account with them, which would be a hell of a perk indeed.


That thing is corneliu!? I should have guessed...

That thing is corneliu!? I should have guessed...

Don't give me any credit--someone outed him long before I did.

Don't give me any credit--someone outed him long before I did.

Well then, the discussion shifts poles.

We can be confident that everything BoA is doing is legal, because when Corny - the "Duke of Wrong" - makes statements, those statements can be considered strong and compelling evidence for whatever is the opposite of their conclusions.

There is no law in violation here. A bank may do business with whatever clients it chooses provided it adhere to regulations. Because a checking account does not require a social security number (because checking accounts do not generate income they are not reportable on taxes, and as such a social security number is not needed), anyone may have one.

moreoever one not need be IN the united states to have a bank account in the united states. Numerous people have offshore bank accounts, perfectly legally, and never set foot in the bank, or the country where the bank is. Someone in an entirely other country can have a bank account in this country.

So anyone can set up a bank account, and the company may, as their policy, issue cards on credit backed by their own monetary reserves, to whomever they wish. Giving aid and comfort to a criminal only applies when:

1) you are aware of the criminal nature of the conduct
2) the aid you provide directly relates either to the commission of the crime or the avoidance of apprehention for that crime.

Having a credit card neither aids you in crossing the border, nor does it help you avoid being caught. In fact, by leaving a paper trail, if anything, it helps.

So there is no law in violation here.

of course, what do I know? Not like I'm actually a lawyer who specializes in banking and monitary transaction laws.

No, wait, crap, I am.

It's the sorry state of the Republican party today. These neo-cons are not true Reaganites. Bush spends more tax money than most Democrats. :(

Republicans today are the exact opposite of what I am. They're all morally conservative and fiscally irresponsible. What ever happened to supporting business, lowering taxes, and having a good time without a bible in your hand and a stick up your ass?

That's why poeople are leaving the party, they have forgotten the ideals of the party and abandoned the ideals of the Republican Revolution. 08 is a good starting point for a viable third party. Even the Democrats have abandoned the "working man" who helped build their party. :mad:

He shoots, he scores!


Yeah. Reagan was twice the **** that GW Bush is and at least 5 times as evil.

Numerous people have offshore bank accounts, perfectly legally, and never set foot in the bank, or the country where the bank is. Someone in an entirely other country can have a bank account in this country.

yes, but those are mostly rich people. which makes it ok.

this is dirty mexicans. which makes it wrong and evil.

I was pissed when they railed over the Pizza Papron (because seriously, I love their pizza)

But I can see where they're coming from for not liking undocumented Mexicans gettign credit cards, regardless of credit, its a risk. These people are, by definition, at least mildly skilled at living below the radar and as good a character as they might have, there will always be the risk that they will have to skip the country again, or lay low for a little while, in either case leaing some unpayed bills behind.

anyway, Ronald Reagan was the devil! Ronald Wilson Reagan? Each of his names have six letters? 666?

I was pissed when they railed over the Pizza Papron (because seriously, I love their pizza)

But I can see where they're coming from for not liking undocumented Mexicans gettign credit cards, regardless of credit, its a risk. These people are, by definition, at least mildly skilled at living below the radar and as good a character as they might have, there will always be the risk that they will have to skip the country again, or lay low for a little while, in either case leaing some unpayed bills behind.

anyway, Ronald Reagan was the devil! Ronald Wilson Reagan? Each of his names have six letters? 666?

Why would that be a concern of the country if they are leaving bills unpayed ... would that not be the concern of the corporation? the one that is risking the capital?

And it's ciao. Jesus, do I have to do everything for you?LOL
good one.
:D

Just wondering...since I am able to join one (PSECU)...what makes them superior in your opinion?

It depends greatly on the credit union. Both of the CUs that I belong to have a very short fee list. Basically, there are no fees for checking accounts, nor for the checks you write. There are no maintenance fees. I can't think of any regular fee that either charges. Even web bill paying is free. There are no minimums to qualify for the fee-free service, either. When you are interested in loans, the rates and fees are much better than a bank.

The one that is associated with my current workplace sucks, unless you have direct deposit. They have fees for everything. With most credit unions, once you join, you can remain a member for life. Thus, I've never joined the sucky one.

of course, what do I know? Not like I'm actually a lawyer who specializes in banking and monitary transaction laws.

No, wait, crap, I am.

NO, i guess you're not right because you have to just accept that you and corny's "interpretation of the law" differ.

Corny isnt a lawyer or anything, but he runs his mouth, so, you know, maybe you should rethink your 'interpretation,' because he sure does sound like he thinks he's right.

:rolleyes:

I was pissed when they railed over the Pizza Papron (because seriously, I love their pizza)

But I can see where they're coming from for not liking undocumented Mexicans gettign credit cards, regardless of credit, its a risk. These people are, by definition, at least mildly skilled at living below the radar and as good a character as they might have, there will always be the risk that they will have to skip the country again, or lay low for a little while, in either case leaing some unpayed bills behind.
It's pretty easy to live below the radar when you don't have a credit card that tracks your every purchase.

Yeah. Reagan was twice the **** that GW Bush is and at least 5 times as evil.

:rolleyes:

It's pretty easy to live below the radar when you don't have a credit card that tracks your every purchase.

Yeah it seems people don't want to realize that having a credit card leaves a paper trail

It makes it easier to find out where you are. Tha and, you know, when you have a credit card, banks tend to have to have a place to send you a bill, which means they have an ADDRESS.

Yeah it seems people don't want to realize that having a credit card leaves a paper trail

It makes it easier to find out where you are. Tha and, you know, when you have a credit card, banks tend to have to have a place to send you a bill, which means they have an ADDRESS.

Interesting.

Seriously, instead of spending millions of taxpayer dollars on identification cards, let's make extensive use of our very own corporations to maintain tabs.

My only question regarding the logical implications of this: if an illegal immigrant defaults on his debt and returns to Mexico, what legal recourse does the comapny have to pursue and/or how will they prevent this sort of "under the radar" operation from occurring on a regular basis?

Interesting.

Seriously, instead of spending millions of taxpayer dollars on identification cards, let's make extensive use of our very own corporations to maintain tabs.

My only question regarding the logical implications of this: if an illegal immigrant defaults on his debt and returns to Mexico, what legal recourse does the comapny have to pursue and/or how will they prevent this sort of "under the radar" operation from occurring on a regular basis?

You underestimate the lending industry. They arn't still in business because they suck at getting the money they deserve, plus some extra money that they don't deserve.

You underestimate the lending industry. They arn't still in business because they suck at getting the money they deserve, plus some extra money that they don't deserve.

:D

So who is Corny?

So who is Corny?

Corny is short for Corneliu, his former nation name. He's got a, well, unique debating style, so unique that some other posters have given some of his better known maneuvers their own names. Others can explain it better than I can.

Corny is short for Corneliu, his former nation name. He's got a, well, unique debating style, so unique that some other posters have given some of his better known maneuvers their own names. Others can explain it better than I can.

Corny was a couple of years ago made to appologize for insisting that terry schiavo's husband tried to murder her, and wanted to 'finish the job' and 'collect his money' or something like that.

He has a habit of being wrong about everything he talks about, categorically.

Searching for all the posts by "corneliu" can give you quite an entertaining education into forum history.

first they were crucifying the Pizza restaurant for accepting pesos.. now this..

I dont have a link.. I am watching it on TV
they are so pathetic..

Bank of America (a private company) issues Credit card to undocumented Mexicans, if they have good credit.

Cavuto is interviewing this Crazy woman from Mothers-Against-Illegals.. and she is going bananas on live TV..

Next Cavuto is pressuring some Congresswoman asking her to change the banking Laws.. this Republican Media corp is asking for more regulation.


The Republican media corps is against undocumented immigrants whos first act upon entering the country was breaking a law, too recieve credit cards? They may get prefrence and service before a legal citizen of the US? Regulation that favors our citizens, that American financial service firms should look too the citizens of the country it operates in, before an illegal with "good credit"?

Stupid Republican, facist, money-hungry, earth rapers. :rolleyes:

Corny was a couple of years ago made to appologize for insisting that terry schiavo's husband tried to murder her, and wanted to 'finish the job' and 'collect his money' or something like that.

WRONG!!! I had that nation prior to Terri Shaviavo's case.

He has a habit of being wrong about everything he talks about, categorically.

Wrong again. People just do not like opposing opinions on this board.

Searching for all the posts by "corneliu" can give you quite an entertaining education into forum history.

Either that or show just how stupid other posters can be.

:rolleyes:


Fine. Reagan was thrice the **** and ten times as evil. Happy now?

*grumbles*

Fine. Reagan was thrice the **** and ten times as evil. Happy now?

*grumbles*

Oh for heaven's sake, grow up.

Aren't you forgetting this smilie in your post: :upyours: ?

Wrong again. People just do not like opposing opinions on this board.
.

Au contraire. I alone was awarded pwnage of your sad behind at least twice, and I'm a relative n00b. I suggest you just take it and live with it, lest we glue the blonde wig on you again.

Wrong again. People just do not like opposing opinions on this board.
No, you're usually just wrong.

Corny was a couple of years ago made to appologize for insisting that terry schiavo's husband tried to murder her, and wanted to 'finish the job' and 'collect his money' or something like that.

He has a habit of being wrong about everything he talks about, categorically.

Searching for all the posts by "corneliu" can give you quite an entertaining education into forum history.

I think "Corny" and I would agree on a lot of things. I must admit though, it is quite fascinating that "the left" who preach tolerance and "open mindedness" label those with opposing viewpoints douchebags. It's even more amusing that conservatives are flat out WRONG on OPINION topics, yet if a conservative ever tells a liberal they're wrong we have to sit and listen to a lecture akin to:

"Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to say that somebody is wrong just because they disagree with you?"

Liberal hypocrisy flows rampant. The only thing is that as long as you accuse OTHERS of being "close-minded" by default yours must assumed to be "open." :rolleyes:

I think "Corny" and I would agree on a lot of things. I must admit though, it is quite fascinating that "the left" who preach tolerance and "open mindedness" label those with opposing viewpoints douchebags. It's even more amusing that conservatives are flat out WRONG on OPINION topics, yet if a conservative ever tells a liberal they're wrong we have to sit and listen to a lecture akin to:

"Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to say that somebody is wrong just because they disagree with you?"

Liberal hypocrisy flows rampant. The only thing is that as long as you accuse OTHERS of being "close-minded" by default yours must assumed to be "open." :rolleyes:

I have no trouble with Corneliu's politics. It is his inability to respond to any post that shows him to be wrong that annoys me. Also, his inability to back up his claims with any sort of source, even biased ones.

I think "Corny" and I would agree on a lot of things. I must admit though, it is quite fascinating that "the left" who preach tolerance and "open mindedness" label those with opposing viewpoints douchebags. It's even more amusing that conservatives are flat out WRONG on OPINION topics, yet if a conservative ever tells a liberal they're wrong we have to sit and listen to a lecture akin to:

"Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to say that somebody is wrong just because they disagree with you?"

Liberal hypocrisy flows rampant. The only thing is that as long as you accuse OTHERS of being "close-minded" by default yours must assumed to be "open." :rolleyes:

Either you are new, or a puppet, so your opinion is either moot because it has been expressed and is just now being said for political asshattery or moot because you don't have any experience in what you are saying.

And he is usually wrong because he starts shooting off at the mouth about this and that and makes like we should take his word as Gospel, then flakes when we demand proof. Ie, I still don't see any sort of legal documentation that proves his oft-repeated statement that what BoA is doing is illegal.


PS. "Liberal hypocrisy"? You obviously mean common neocon political hackery where they demand that their opinions be accepted as fact then piss and moan about "liberals" when people tell them they are full of shit without the support of real facts.

Either you are new, or a puppet, so your opinion is either moot because it has been expressed and is just now being said for political asshattery or moot because you don't have any experience in what you are saying.

And he is usually wrong because he starts shooting off at the mouth about this and that and makes like we should take his word as Gospel, then flakes when we demand proof. Ie, I still don't see any sort of legal documentation that proves his oft-repeated statement that what BoA is doing is illegal.


PS. "Liberal hypocrisy"? You obviously mean common neocon political hackery where they demand that their opinions be accepted as fact then piss and moan about "liberals" when people tell them they are full of shit without the support of real facts.
I've been reading your stuff for several days now and always find your posts "laughable" at best. Your liberal use of words that don't exist to illustrate points you really don't have leaves one not knowing what the hell you're really saying.

As far as "demanding proof" is concerned... I've seen multiple instances where you (and some of your "like-minded" pals) rant and rave without providing "proof" either or citing your sources. I've also seen where you have asked for evidence from others and then completely dismissed the evidence provided when it was given.

If your preconceived notions are going to prevent you from ever having a willingness to bend, break, or concede why ask anyone to provide you with "proof," "sources," or "evidence?" Is it merely a power trip to send someone off to do a homework assignment so that you can dismiss whatever information is provided because you planned to do so anyway?

Lets face it your mind is no more "open" than the minds of Hitler, Stalin, Bush, or myself. The difference between conservatives such as myself and liberal loons like you is that I am more than willing to look you in the eye and admit that I have a bias, an agenda, a mission, and a fundamental belief that I am right (for if I did not, I would not believe what I do -- would I?) -- whereas folks like you are more prone to pretend that you've "evolved" beyond the realm of bias and "propaganda" through dedicated "research" and have long since surpassed any thought I'm capable of mustering up because... well, lets face it, you're better than me. :rolleyes:

We could never convince you of anything, because nothing we could EVER present would be acceptable you; besides -- I'm sure you've already contemplated every conceivable argument, to any and every issue, already. I mean, truth be told... you liberals are so "brilliant" that merely engaging us is quite the sacrifice on your part as it requires you to lower your IQ a good 20 to 30 points to talk to us unevolved beasts in a manner in which we can comprehend your brilliance. :rolleyes:

Why don't you get over yourself and stop pretending to be anything other than a pompous, elitist who stands on the opposite side of the issues of those who oppose you. The only difference between you and I (other than our stances on the issues) is that you're busy patting yourself on the back for being so vastly superior to me and others like me while I couldn't give a damn as to whether or not you or anyone else agree with me.

The truth is Christian conservatives are belittled for "pawning their beliefs off on others" while secularist liberals are applauded for a "willingness to educate the public." :rolleyes:

Awwwww, horse crap!

I'd just like to state; Every side has a stick up their ass. That's what politics and debates are about.

As far as "demanding proof" is concerned... I've seen multiple instances where you (and some of your "like-minded" pals) rant and rave without providing "proof" either or citing your sources.
I don't expect people to take what I say as god-given fact. And on the occasion I am stating fact, as opposed to opinion, a difference people like you don't seem to understand, then I will provide proof as requested. As opposed to ignoring the request for a good 4 pages+ now.

I've also seen where you have asked for evidence from others and then completely dismissed the evidence provided when it was given.
Cite it.

If your preconceived notions are going to prevent you from ever having a willingness to bend, break, or concede why ask anyone to provide you with "proof," "sources," or "evidence?"
Because opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. Asserting opinions as facts, like for say "Bank of America is breaking the law with this credit card program," requires proof of your assertion.


Lets face it your mind is no more "open" than the minds of Hitler,
Political douchebaggery, Godwin, response over.

I'll make this response relatively short (although I do tend to ramble more than most, so I'm sure it will linger)...

Nothing was ignored. He did provide evidence as to how BoA is breaking law by aiding illegals. Several of you quickly swatted that notion away. Your unwillingness to accept his evidence does not mean that he ignored your request nor does it mean that his evidence isn't accurate. Instead, it means you ignored him -- NOT the other way around.

You don't see providing credit cards to illegal aliens as aiding them, I do... obviously he does. IF we are right, BoA is indeed breaking the law. IF the courts were to decide that a line of credit is not aid (and I have no idea how one reaches that conclusion) then the argument changes.

One might even point out that one of your "friends" in this thread pointed out that the credit cards could be used to "bring their families over". Funny, not only would that aid illegals, but would be a direct effect to helping illegals bring in MORE illegals.

--

-Jace

p.s. before you reply with some asinine response having to do with "Corny" stating a FACT, whereas you only offer "OPINIONS" so you need not cite your sources I might point out that you're walking a very narrow line.

His stating, "BoA is breaking law." is not necessarily a "fact" that needs "proof" but instead a conclusion that he has reached. You do then have the right to ask how he has arrived at said conclusion (which he was nice enough to oblige), but once he explains you then need to focus your argument into another direction rather than clamoring, "I want more!"

p.p.s. if you insist on replying to be again, I would ask that you please refrain from fictitious words with which to levy your argument as I am not fluent in gibberish. Might I suggest dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)?

I'd just like to state; Every side has a stick up their ass. That's what politics and debates are about.

QFT. I know I have one up there somewhere.

I think "Corny" and I would agree on a lot of things. I must admit though, it is quite fascinating that "the left" who preach tolerance and "open mindedness" label those with opposing viewpoints douchebags. It's even more amusing that conservatives are flat out WRONG on OPINION topics, yet if a conservative ever tells a liberal they're wrong we have to sit and listen to a lecture akin to:

"Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to say that somebody is wrong just because they disagree with you?"

Liberal hypocrisy flows rampant. The only thing is that as long as you accuse OTHERS of being "close-minded" by default yours must assumed to be "open." :rolleyes:

Well said JaceManica. You hit the nail right on the head.

I'd just like to state; Every side has a stick up their ass. That's what politics and debates are about.

A very true statement.

A very true statement.

so...you still can't provide proof about how this is illegal?

The difference between conservatives such as myself and liberal loons like you is that I am more than willing to look you in the eye and admit that I have a bias, an agenda, a mission, and a fundamental belief that I am right (for if I did not, I would not believe what I do -- would I?) -- whereas folks like you are more prone to pretend that you've "evolved" beyond the realm of bias and "propaganda" through dedicated "research" and have long since surpassed any thought I'm capable of mustering up because... well, lets face it, you're better than me. :rolleyes:

I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong, because I am better than you.

We could never convince you of anything, because nothing we could EVER present would be acceptable you; besides -- I'm sure you've already contemplated every conceivable argument, to any and every issue, already. I mean, truth be told... you liberals are so "brilliant" that merely engaging us is quite the sacrifice on your part as it requires you to lower your IQ a good 20 to 30 points to talk to us unevolved beasts in a manner in which we can comprehend your brilliance. :rolleyes:

Based on the nonsensical crap most of your kind comes up with, 30 points is quite optimistic.

Why don't you get over yourself and stop pretending to be anything other than a pompous, elitist who stands on the opposite side of the issues of those who oppose you. The only difference between you and I (other than our stances on the issues) is that you're busy patting yourself on the back for being so vastly superior to me and others like me while I couldn't give a damn as to whether or not you or anyone else agree with me.

Because I'm better than you, duh.

The truth is Christian conservatives are belittled for "pawning their beliefs off on others" while secularist liberals are applauded for a "willingness to educate the public." :rolleyes:

Awwwww, horse crap!

You are belittled because your ideas are stupid and the public shouldn't be exposed to such stupidity. We are applauded because by and large the public benefits when they understand what we have to say.

Why is this so hard to understand?

so...you still can't provide proof about how this is illegal?

As a long term poster here, I have realized that no matter the proof I post, I'm still going to be told I am wrong so, in truth, I am not even going to bother. Not because I can't, because I can, but that it will not matter on this board.

so...you still can't provide proof about how this is illegal?

Apparently not.

The Republican media corps is against undocumented immigrants whos first act upon entering the country was breaking a law, too recieve credit cards? They may get prefrence and service before a legal citizen of the US? Regulation that favors our citizens, that American financial service firms should look too the citizens of the country it operates in, before an illegal with "good credit"?

Stupid Republican, facist, money-hungry, earth rapers. :rolleyes:

In other words, you want to dictate how a private company does business?

That seems horribly un republican, an interesting attitude of "we are against government regulation of business..unless they do things in a way we don't like in which case regulate the fuck out of them...but only to stop themfrom doing what we don't want, as long as they behave as we want them to they should be free to do so"

American financial srvice firms should look to whomever the hell they want to, they are a private business.

As a long term poster here, I have realized that no matter the proof I post, I'm still going to be told I am wrong so, in truth, I am not even going to bother. Not because I can't, because I can, but that it will not matter on this board.

So...you have proof, but you won't present proof, because your proof would not be accepted.

Look, you made a claim about LAW, backing up claims about law is easy, cite the fucking law. The fact is though, I am not only an attorney, I'm an attorney who specializes in banking law.

There's nothing illegal here.

So you can't prove it, at all. You have no proof because it simply does not exist. How do I know it doesn't exist? Because my job is based on knowing whether things like this exist or not.

So in other words...you're lying. You can't do shit to back up your claims.

In other words, you want to dictate how a private company does business?

That seems horribly un republican, an interesting attitude of "we are against government regulation of business..unless they do things in a way we don't like in which case regulate the fuck out of them...but only to stop themfrom doing what we don't want, as long as they behave as we want them to they should be free to do so"

American financial srvice firms should look to whomever the hell they want to, they are a private business.

Well, no. They should look to their bottom line. Which is what they're doing in this case.

As a long term poster here, I have realized that no matter the proof I post, I'm still going to be told I am wrong so, in truth, I am not even going to bother. Not because I can't, because I can, but that it will not matter on this board.

Translation: I have a magical little box, that has all of the answers in it, but you can't look at the box. You'll just have to take my word for it.

and for the fun of it, here's the model penal code commentary for aiding and abetting:

The guilt of a person in a criminal case may be proved without evidence that he personally did every act involved in the commission of the crime charged. The law recognizes that, ordinarily, anything a person can do for himself may also be accomplished through direction of another person as an agent, or by acting together with, or under the direction of, another person or persons in a joint effort.

So, if the acts or conduct of an agent, employee or other associate of the person are willfully directed or authorized by the person, or if the person aids and abets another person by willfully joining together with that person in the commission of a crime, then the law holds the person responsible for the conduct of that other person just as though the person had engaged in such conduct himself.x Notice, however, that before any person can be held criminally responsible for the conduct of others it is necessary that the person willfully associate himself in some way with the crime, and willfully participate in it. Mere presence at the scene of a crime and even knowledge that a crime is being committed are not sufficient to establish that a person either directed or aided and abetted the crime.

Note the bolded part, the necessary elements of aiding an abetting is that a person willfully associate with the CRIME and willfully participate it.

Merely doing something that helps someone who happens to be a criminal is not aiding and abetteing.

See, corny, THIS is proof. This is citation. This is documentation.

Something you have failed to do.

Translation: I have a magical little box, that has all of the answers in it, but you can't look at the box. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Fantastic summation! Seems to be a whole lot of that in this thread.

Well, no. They should look to their bottom line. Which is what they're doing in this case.

actually there is a common legal maxim that the government shouldn't tell a company what it has to do, because it doesn't wish to make assumptions as to the best course of action.

It's called the business judgement rule. Even if a company does something blatantly unprofitable the courts will not say it's a bad choice, because the courts do not want to be put in the position of defining what is, or is not, a good business decision. They are interpreters of law, not business.

actually there is a common legal maxim that the government shouldn't tell a company what it has to do, because it doesn't wish to make assumptions as to the best course of action.

It's called the business judgement rule. Even if a company does something blatantly unprofitable the courts will not say it's a bad choice, because the courts do not want to be put in the position of defining what is, or is not, a good business decision. They are interpreters of law, not business.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong, because I am better than you.

We could never convince you of anything, because nothing we could EVER present would be acceptable you; besides -- I'm sure you've already contemplated every conceivable argument, to any and every issue, already. I mean, truth be told... you liberals are so "brilliant" that merely engaging us is quite the sacrifice on your part as it requires you to lower your IQ a good 20 to 30 points to talk to us unevolved beasts in a manner in which we can comprehend your brilliance. :rolleyes:

Based on the nonsensical crap most of your kind comes up with, 30 points is quite optimistic.



Because I'm better than you, duh.



You are belittled because your ideas are stupid and the public shouldn't be exposed to such stupidity. We are applauded because by and large the public benefits when they understand what we have to say.

Why is this so hard to understand?
I am now dumber for having sit through that. I thank you.

P.S. fix your broken quote code.

I am now dumber for having sit through that. I thank you.

I doubt that's the reason.

I've also seen where you have asked for evidence from others and then completely dismissed the evidence provided when it was given.

examples?

examples?

Yes, I've missed any such evidence, and wait with baited breath to examine it, so that I may be convinced of the error of my ways.

WRONG!!! I had that nation prior to Terri Shaviavo's case.



Wrong again. People just do not like opposing opinions on this board.





Wrong about what?? How could you have apologized about it if your nation had been created afterward? What does that post even mean?

Opposing opinions aren't the problem, false ones are. Reasonable people can have differing opinions about things that are all valid, but unreasonable opinions don't share in that validity.

Wrong about what?? How could you have apologized about it if your nation had been created afterward? What does that post even mean?

Opposing opinions aren't the problem, false ones are. Reasonable people can have differing opinions about things that are all valid, but unreasonable opinions don't share in that validity.
I've said it before: you're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Corny has trouble distinguishing between the two at times.

Wrong about what?? How could you have apologized about it if your nation had been created afterward? What does that post even mean?

Opposing opinions aren't the problem, false ones are. Reasonable people can have differing opinions about things that are all valid, but unreasonable opinions don't share in that validity.

No no, his opinion about how the law is interpreted is valid, despite the fact that no such law exists and he has no training in interpreting law!

Don't you see, how dare you call his untrained interpretation of non existant law invalid? You damned liberal hypocrite!

I think "Corny" and I would agree on a lot of things. I must admit though, it is quite fascinating that "the left" who preach tolerance and "open mindedness" label those with opposing viewpoints douchebags. It's even more amusing that conservatives are flat out WRONG on OPINION topics, yet if a conservative ever tells a liberal they're wrong we have to sit and listen to a lecture akin to:

"Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to say that somebody is wrong just because they disagree with you?"

Liberal hypocrisy flows rampant. The only thing is that as long as you accuse OTHERS of being "close-minded" by default yours must assumed to be "open." :rolleyes:


You're the first person to bring up "douchebags" "close-minded" &c.

We're talking about right and wrong here, correct and incorrect, reasonable and unreasonable. Are you familiar with these notions? Do you believe in them?

A conservative doesn't get some magic pass to be left alone when wrong, why should he?

You're entitled to think anything you like about your own opinions, you can be of the opinion that the holocaust is a fantasy and part of a conspiracy, you can think indians did 9/11.

These are 'opinions,' but they are wrong and you should expect to be corrected and put to ridicule.

An open mind is one willing to look at some inane idea and say "wait, that's wrong."

so...you still can't provide proof about how this is illegal?

If he had proof that it was factual, he would have had to take a different tack.

The corny strategy of debating is to find the most unreasonable position, ideally one which is demonstrably wrong, and then try and win us over by force of repetition.

If he had proof that it was factual, he would have had to take a different tack.

The corny strategy of debating is to find the most unreasonable position, ideally one which is demonstrably wrong, and then try and win us over by force of repetition.

Is that the Corny Hammer of Frustration?

I'd just like to state; Every side has a stick up their ass. That's what politics and debates are about.

I don't. I took it out and now use it to thrash others with, frequently handing them the besmeared end.


Well said JaceManica. You hit the nail right on the head..

Yeah, "Jacemanica"....The 'Ms Piggy' to your 'Kermit'


Not because I can't, because I can, but that it will not matter on this board.
..

So your crap is so pathetic nobody on this board will swallow it....Is it off your own myspace blog?

Yeah, "Jacemanica"....The 'Ms Piggy' to your 'Kermit'

The same person has his hand up both their asses?

Quite possible actually.....

Yeah, "Jacemanica"....The 'Ms Piggy' to your 'Kermit'
More like Fozzy. Ms Piggy isn't such an ass kisser.

Let the Character assassinations of annoynomous posters begin. It is amazing that people sink that low to bash their opponets.

Well done. have fun with whatever life you guys lead. As for me, I'm taking a different rout and not bash those who do not like my views.

bon voyage.

Yeah good idea, if you can't bother with support, sail off.

Let the Character assassinations of annoynomous posters begin. It is amazing that people sink that low to bash their opponets.

Well done. have fun with whatever life you guys lead. As for me, I'm taking a different rout and not bash those who do not like my views.

bon voyage.

so.....you still got nothing?

Alright then, you can't back up your argument. At least be honest with that.

Neither one of you characterize as an opponent, you don't oppose me in any way, you don't offer any opposition in the slightest.

so.....you still got nothing?

Alright then, you can't back up your argument. At least be honest with that.

Neither one of you characterize as an opponent, you don't oppose me in any way, you don't offer any opposition in the slightest.

I'm beginning to think that if we stop feeding him, he'll go away. Or maybe curl up into a ball and die. I'm really not sure at this point, but the lack of rationality from his position is beginning to irk me.

That and the lack of facts.

And the inability to actually address people's arguments, as opposed to attacking them personally.

Let the Character assassinations of annoynomous posters begin. It is amazing that people sink that low to bash their opponets.
.
Well it usually only takes one post to destroy your 'argument',, so 'the devil makes work for idle hands" etc.....

we, all rational people know that..

Yet FOX news is having a cow over this..
you should see the Woman starting a public campaign for everyone to switch Banks to ChaseBank..
"good Americans' cut your BoA cards and send them in" or something like that.


I knew the Liberal lie factory would go into full spin mode on this! So its rational to agree with you but not rational to disagree? How I love listening to Libbies talk...most of all when they don't state why they feel the way they do..just that they do.:rolleyes:

So its rational to agree with you but not rational to disagree?

on the issue of people being able to get credit without random, pointless exclusions? yes. unless you wish to argue for some other rational position, like that the credit card companies are exploitative scum that ought to be abolished. but when your position is that it is bad that people that aren't american citizens can get credit, well, that's pretty much just mind numbingly stupid.

I knew the Liberal lie factory would go into full spin mode on this! So its rational to agree with you but not rational to disagree? How I love listening to Libbies talk...most of all when they don't state why they feel the way they do..just that they do.:rolleyes:
"Mr. Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle..."