Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't know Alec Baldwin hated the Bill of Rights.

I think he was saying that the Airlines hate Alec Baldwin. Linky to story

From that article:
-Gerard Depardieu: Held up a flight for two hours in August when a cleaning crew was called in after he relieved himself in a first-class aisle .


Gerard Depardiey hates the restrooms on the plane...

kronk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't know Alec Baldwin hated the Bill of Rights.

I think he was saying that the Airlines hate Alec Baldwin. Linky to story

From that article:
-Gerard Depardieu: Held up a flight for two hours in August when a cleaning crew was called in after he relieved himself in a first-class aisle .

The inspiration for Snakes on a Plane?

SilverMK2 wrote:The inspiration for Snakes on a Plane?

I lol'd.

"Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfething poop snakes on this motherfething plane! "

I think he was making a one-eyed trouser snake reference...

kronk wrote:I think he was making a one-eyed trouser snake reference...

Either way, it is funny.

kronk wrote:I think he was making a one-eyed trouser snake reference...

I like to keep things class

SilverMK2 wrote:I like to keep things class

Dude, you're so classy, you don't even need the Y.

pretre wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I like to keep things class

Dude, you're so classy, you don't even need the Y.

I was actually going for "low class"*




*Yeah, ok, I missed off the 'y'

AustonT wrote:

Grakmar wrote:1) I hate Bank of America. They're an awful company.

2) This has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Bank of America isn't congress, they're free to do business with whatever industries they want.

3) AustonT, the note you received did NOT come directly from Kelly. It was forwarded to you by someone else, who could have changed whatever he wanted in the text, or created entirely from nothing.

1.dur.
2. How exactly did you draw the line from BoA to Congress? They are free to do business with anyone they want, specifically excluding firearms manufacturers from their business is an expression of their disagreement with the principle of keeping and bearing arms.
.

By that logic any bank that accepts accounts from a church is in violation of the Separation Clause.

I think Auston's point was to raise awareness of BofA's politically minded business practices. Sure they have the right to do this in a free market but they also risk customer backlash over it if customers become aware of it and don't like it.

BofA is a horrendous institution anyway and should probably be avoided at all costs regardless of how you feel about guns.

BofA is staffed by the dumbest decision makers on the planet. I personally know someone that owned a house with a mortgage through them. My friend paid on time every bill from them for 5 yearsish, when he and his wife both lost their jobs at the same time. Obvious problems ensued when they couldnt find work and their savings account ran out. So they had only 2 options, leave the house and run, or try and sell it. So they tried the responsible thing and tried to sell it. Problem was they owned like 50k and the house (Thanks to the market) was valued at best 30k. They eventually found a buyer that was willing to pay 37k as long as BofA agreed to let the 13k go, because banks have the power to do that and they already knew my friends couldnt afford to pay off the loan and so on and so forth. They sat on it for a few weeks and said no way, we want full asking price. MY buddy showed them look, this is the best offer we have gotten in 7 months of selling, this is it or your taking the house for the full 50k. They chose the 50k option.

The house is still sitting there, empty, for near 2 years now, the bank having to pay the upkeep on the lawn and such (because its a nice neighborhood, there are city ordnances) AND swallowing the full 50k of the loan. They could of, with all the proof and paper work filed showing that they indeed didnt have the means to pay off the loan, just taken a 13k dive, but no, wanted to be idiots

Kilkrazy wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Grakmar wrote:1) I hate Bank of America. They're an awful company.

2) This has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Bank of America isn't congress, they're free to do business with whatever industries they want.

3) AustonT, the note you received did NOT come directly from Kelly. It was forwarded to you by someone else, who could have changed whatever he wanted in the text, or created entirely from nothing.

1.dur.
2. How exactly did you draw the line from BoA to Congress? They are free to do business with anyone they want, specifically excluding firearms manufacturers from their business is an expression of their disagreement with the principle of keeping and bearing arms.
.

By that logic any bank that accepts accounts from a church is in violation of the Separation Clause.

That makes no sense and I think you know it.

Ouze wrote:I think Auston's point was to raise awareness of BofA's politically minded business practices. Sure they have the right to do this in a free market but they also risk customer backlash over it if customers become aware of it and don't like it.
.

Basically this.

KingCracker wrote:BofA is staffed by the dumbest decision makers on the planet. I personally know someone that owned a house with a mortgage through them. My friend paid on time every bill from them for 5 yearsish, when he and his wife both lost their jobs at the same time. Obvious problems ensued when they couldnt find work and their savings account ran out. So they had only 2 options, leave the house and run, or try and sell it. So they tried the responsible thing and tried to sell it. Problem was they owned like 50k and the house (Thanks to the market) was valued at best 30k. They eventually found a buyer that was willing to pay 37k as long as BofA agreed to let the 13k go, because banks have the power to do that and they already knew my friends couldnt afford to pay off the loan and so on and so forth. They sat on it for a few weeks and said no way, we want full asking price. MY buddy showed them look, this is the best offer we have gotten in 7 months of selling, this is it or your taking the house for the full 50k. They chose the 50k option.

The house is still sitting there, empty, for near 2 years now, the bank having to pay the upkeep on the lawn and such (because its a nice neighborhood, there are city ordnances) AND swallowing the full 50k of the loan. They could of, with all the proof and paper work filed showing that they indeed didnt have the means to pay off the loan, just taken a 13k dive, but no, wanted to be idiots

At beginning of the banking crisis I was in a BoA and I listened to a supervisor coach a teller on how to target customers and sell equity loans for 120% of the homes value. They were embracing the fail. How else could they get juicy bailout money.

My oldest brother works for a company that works in the house market, doing price quotes and insurance quotes and so on, on the houses for sale. He recently got a promotion and is taking classes on being an appraiser, and he just gets so pissed off learning about the process that ruined the house market.

What's almost twice as ridiculous now is that you could try to finance a 60k home and be turned down by all the lenders, and the same day do to the Chevy dealership and fianance a 60k truck. So sure all those foreclosures are out there, but even well qualified buyers have a helll of a time getting a loan.

Bank of America lended me 4k about 6 years ago.

They left the prescription run out without writing my name on the debt schedule.

They allowed themselves to lose my debt because they couldn't be bothered to make a single phone call, over a period of 4 years



On a completely related note, honestly, how insecure can gun owners be?
Don't they, like, own guns, and stuff?

Kilkrazy wrote:All airlines also hate the Bill of Rights.

Also the Republican party and many Christian organizations hate it, too.

Wait, why are we trusting a McMillan rep again?

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All airlines also hate the Bill of Rights.

Also the Republican party and many Christian organizations hate it, too.

bs. Trolling bs.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All airlines also hate the Bill of Rights.

Also the Republican party and many Christian organizations hate it, too.

bs. Trolling bs.

Is that the official Republican retort? If so, I dare say you do seem to lower the quality of the discourse...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All airlines also hate the Bill of Rights.

Also the Republican party and many Christian organizations hate it, too.

bs. Trolling bs.

Is that the official Republican retort? If so, I dare say you do seem to lower the quality of the discourse...

Pretty hard to lower the discourse further than what I replied to did. Frankly it doesn't deserve any reply except to point out that it is nothing but bull crap, and bullcrap spewed with the intent of trolling.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All airlines also hate the Bill of Rights.

Also the Republican party and many Christian organizations hate it, too.

bs. Trolling bs.

Oh? So you're saying that the Republican party and many Christian organizations, who argue that marriage is a religious institution, want to uphold the first amendment and allow gays to marry? Funny, that seems to contrast greatly with what is actually said, the reality of which is where you find that the most vocal Christian groups and the Republican party in general will gladly stomp on the religious rights of the minorities in order to push their own religious views on others.

Never mind the more nebulous but still ever-present disdain for protection of the rights of the accused...

Republicans (the party as a general group, not specific members) don't care any more about the constitution than Democrats do. That is to say, both groups only care about it so long as it benefits them to do so.

CptJake wrote:
Pretty hard to lower the discourse further than what I replied to did.

And yet you managed to do so.

Truly, yours is a talent that should be celebrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Oh? So you're saying that the Republican party and many Christian organizations, who argue that marriage is a religious institution, want to uphold the first amendment and allow gays to marry? Funny, that seems to contrast greatly with what is actually said, the reality of which is where you find that the most vocal Christian groups and the Republican party in general will gladly stomp on the religious rights of the minorities in order to push their own religious views on others.

Its more complicated than that. The general point of contention is the state recognition of marriage, not the religious sacrament itself. Basically, most social conservatives I've known would probably have no real problem with a church marrying two men to each other, so long as they receive no benefits from the state.

That said, when so many social conservative start throwing around the trappings of sacrament (Marriage is Sacred!) and would most likely consider any church that weds homosexuals to be blasphemous, the confusion, or deliberate brow beating, is understandable.

Melissia wrote:
Republicans (the party as a general group, not specific members) don't care any more about the constitution than Democrats do. That is to say, both groups only care about it so long as it benefits them to do so.

Very much so.

This is starting up on other forums now.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=486047

Banks will often have policies against "politically risky" industries, while at the same time, having no problem banking other industries that people would look askance at. Its Chinatown Jake. Its Chinatown.

dogma wrote:Its more complicated than that. The general point of contention is the state recognition of marriage

I've rarely seen any conservatives argue that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government period.

Only on the internet to be sure, never actually in person.

dogma wrote:not the religious sacrament itself. Basically, most social conservatives I've known would probably have no real problem with a church marrying two men to each other, so long as they receive no benefits from the state.

Which itself only proves my point that they only care about religious freedom and religious equality when it benefits them. They want THEIR marriages recognized by the government, but marriages outside their religious views aren't to be treated as "real" marriages.

It's the same argument that the same exact groups used against miscegenation.

And this doesn't even get in to the rather vehement opposition to having synagogues or mosques in their neighborhoods regardless of the sizes of the populations of muslims or jews in the area...

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Its more complicated than that. The general point of contention is the state recognition of marriage

I've rarely seen any conservatives argue that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government period.

Only on the internet to be sure, never actually in person.

dogma wrote:not the religious sacrament itself. Basically, most social conservatives I've known would probably have no real problem with a church marrying two men to each other, so long as they receive no benefits from the state.

Which itself only proves my point that they only care about religious freedom and religious equality when it benefits them. They want THEIR marriages recognized by the government, but marriages outside their religious views aren't to be treated as "real" marriages.

(edited as misunderstood the statement). Libertarians will argue EVIL GUVMENT shouldn't be involved in the first place.

Cynics would also say "hey noone warned me, why should they be saved from the horrors of marriage."

Indeed, that's certainly a libertarian viewpoint, but I would argue that most people (especially politicians) who publically claim they're libertarian are closer to right wing social conservatives. See Ron Paul, who is easily as socially conservative as Santorum.

Melissia wrote:Indeed, that's certainly a libertarian viewpoint, but I would argue that most people (especially politicians) who publically claim they're libertarian are closer to right wing social conservatives. See Ron Paul, who is easily as socially conservative as Santorum.

Thats statement screams lack of knowledge of Ron Paul or Libertarians. Paul's a wing nut but he advocates legalization fo drugs etc. etc. There are lots of "conservatives," just like there are lots of "progressives." There are very few Libertarians.

Frazzled wrote:Thats statement screams lack of knowledge of Ron Paul

I actually paid attention to what Ron Paul has said and done. Have you?

Ron Paul tried to push forth laws which would ban the US judicial system from ruling for or against the constitutionality of any laws which possibly violated the first amendment thus allowing religious extremists free reign to oppress minorities. Ron Paul rejects the notion of separation of church and state, and wants to put God back in our schools (as long as it is the Christian God). Ron Paul wants to prohibit flag burning and opposes network neutrality, and believes that the government shouldn't try to protect children from sexual predators (that's the parents' jobs!). Ron Paul opposes the idea of transparency in political campaign donations and firmly believes that Corporations are people and that whistleblowers don't deserve protection. Ron Paul believes in mob rule judgment over the judgment of trained professional judges with years of experience in law. Ron Paul wants to get rid of sexual harassment laws because he thinks women complain too much, and should just quit their if they're harassed. Ron Paul avidly supports laws on the books which outlaw gay marriage, and wants to put Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act back on the books believing it's they're good laws, and has consistently tried to push forth legislation banning the Judiciary branch's ability to rule on the constitutionality of these laws. Ron Paul also wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and make homosexuality a crime punishabl by law. He is vehemently opposed to all forms of abortion, and wants to regulate abortion at the federal level, bypassing the states. Ron Paul gladly supports any bans on programs which help minorities, from providing free contraceptives to providing scholarships and grants to the less fortunate. Ron Paul also wants to abolish all public schools and government grants and loans, further denying the already downtrodden any chance at advancing themselves in society.

I could go on, but I've already posted a wall of text anyway so I'll just stop here.

Ron Paul is a fething conservative extremist on par with Santorum. You can live in denial of this, but that just means you're living in denial.

OK, in truth I haven't much other than he's entertaining in debates. He's a hippy tree hugger in frazzled's world, but to your points:

Ron Paul tried to push forth laws which would ban the US judicial system from ruling for or against the constitutionality of any laws which possibly violated the first amendment thus allowing religious extremists free reign to oppress minorities.
***No. Ron Paul doesn’t exactly want a federal US judicial system in the first place.
Ron Paul rejects the notion of separation of church and state, and wants to put God back in our schools (as long as it is the Christian God).
***No. Ron Paul doesn’t want government run schools in the first place.
Ron Paul wants to prohibit flag burning and opposes network neutrality
***Whats network neutrality?
, and believes that the government shouldn't try to protect children from sexual predators (that's the parents' jobs!).
***You’ll have t reference that. If its federal yea, he hates federal as its not in the Constitution.
Ron Paul opposes the idea of transparency in political campaign donations and firmly believes that Corporations are people and that whistleblowers don't deserve protection.
***I hate people who can whistle. The wiener dogs have mandated that I should try out my new M&P on anyone who sparks up a dog whistle within a half mile of them.
Ron Paul believes in mob rule judgment over the judgment of trained professional judges with years of experience in law.
***I’m down with that. Most judges I’ve known have been pretty bad.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of sexual harassment because he thinks women complain too much, and should just quit their if they're harassed.
***Well if they just stayed home and cooked a proper supper for their hard working husbands it wouldn’t be a problem would it? Show me a man that’s got a good woman, show me, show me…

Ron Paul avidly supports laws on the books which outlaw gay marriage
***The truth is its more like he think government should stay out of the marriage business altogether.
, and wants to put Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act back on the books believing it's they're good laws, and has consistently tried to push forth legislation banning the Judiciary branch's ability to rule on the constitutionality of these laws.
***That’s because its not in the Constitution. He hates that.
Ron Paul also wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and make homosexuality a crime punishable by law.
***Permitted them to marry is punishment enough.
He is vehemently opposed to all forms of abortion, and wants to regulate abortion at the federal level, bypassing the states.
***I don’t think so. Having said that, he’s a pediatrician so I could understand him feeling that way.
Ron Paul gladly supports any bans on programs which help minorities, from providing free contraceptives to providing scholarships and grants to the less fortunate.
***Yep. That’s both conservative and Libertarian. Its no tthe government’s responsibility.
Ron Paul also wants to abolish all public schools and government grants and loans, further denying the already downtrodden any chance at advancing themselves in society.
*** I noted that. Of course its contradicts your earlier statement above.

I could go on, but I've already posted a wall of text anyway so I'll just stop here.
*** So it sounds to me like you’re voting for him in the Texas primary.


Ron Paul is a fething conservative extremist on par with Santorum. You can live in denial of this, but that just means you're living in denial.
***No. Only a lefty just this side of Che Guevara would confuse the two, under the mantra of “they all look alike to me.”

OT but Melissia. She Who Must Be Obeyed acquired a new Beretta Storm (the compact not subcompact) in 9mm. Its choice. I highly recommend one for purchase for CCL when you get around to it. It fits excellently in her new purse. Hey wait, how did she get a new pistol, batch of wine, and a new purse on my birthday?

Frazzled, getting run over by the freight train that is his family since the New Millennium.