Good morning, everyone! Before we get started, I’d like to address a scurrilous rumour that due to last week’s “Obsession” getting front-paged by Kos himself, I’ve become insufferably immodest.
I was insufferably immodestlong before that.
Now that that canard has flown innuendo, let’s cycle the airlock and see what putrid posts the Freeperati have to offer…
Our appalling appetizer –Apparently Freepers don’t have credit cards!
The Wall Street Journal ^
| SUDEEP REDDY
Posted onWednesday, May 20, 2009 6:28:09 AM byGOP_Lady
Sweeping new restrictions on credit-card companies would ban extra
fees and fluctuating rates and arm tens of millions of consumers with
more information on their debts.
Starting in February 2010, a
Senate bill passed Tuesday would ban practices such as charging
consumers to pay by phone and sudden surges in interest rates. Payments
above the minimum due would be applied to balances with the highest
interest rates. Information once relegated to tiny print must be made
clearer, and consumers will soon be told how long it would take to pay
off a balance if they pay only the minimum due.
Um – hasn’t that been part of the problem?
The problem was not the credit card companies/banks but people
living way beyond their means. If this were not the case they could
take their business elsewhere.
It’s not good news if freedom is what you’re after.
When the governmnet(sic) “lightens your load” in one instance it doubles, triples, or quadruples it in another.
Boucheau is seriously conflicted here.
On the one hand, he disagrees with Mr. Ramsbotham that people living beyond their means is a problem. Or maybe it is.
In the next sentence, he allows that in either case, this is bad news for Freedom.
They do, however, agree that any legislation signed into law by President Obama is bad, because he’s Obama.
Yeah! Because of the part of the bill that restricts interest rate increases.
These people clearly inhabit Bizarro-world.
The only “wealth redistribution” I see in credit card-land is out of working stiffs’ pockets to MBNA.
The terms are very clearly laid out in the CC agreements.
Most people are too lazy to read them.
Most people are too stupid to read what they sign and deserve to be had more than they are!
Those poor old financial institutions! Stupid people need to have clauses in their credit card contracts that obligate them to be sent off to a work farm, because they’re stupid, and banks are all nice and stuff.
And of course, there always has to be a killjoy:
No, that’s not necessarily true at all. In the past, I’ve been in
situations (major car and home repairs, medical bills, and wholly
unexpected college/university fees) in which I would have been royally
screwed if I did not have a credit card to back me up.
credit card companies are in fact THE problem, with their fraudulent
lending and pricing policies, and countless pitfalls, any one of which
leads to major fees and interest rate hikes at usury levels, courtesy
of those fine-print “Important Amendments” we all get in the mail from
time to time. The whole system, as it is now constituted, is one big
Having been screwed myself by my credit card issuers
in the past, I actually agree with Obama on the need for this
legislation because this industry is wildly out of control, with prior
congressional complicity (Kennedy, Biden, and Dodd).
Sorry to burst some bubbles on this thread, but even a clock is right twice a day.
posted onWednesday, May 20, 2009 6:45:36 AM
(Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
Well, more and sillier Republicans after the jump, so follow me into the dark, children…
I knew it –Freepers love Dick!
| Roger Simon
Posted onWednesday, May 20, 2009 2:04:13 PM bypissant
Dick Cheney is 68, white and bitter. He is the Republican Party today.
Republican Party has no serious wing other than the Cheney wing. The
moderate wing of the Republican Party is distinguished by the fact that
it does not exist, and yet it is still shrinking.
Specter, senator from Pennsylvania, recently left the Republicans for
the Democrats, and Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, is
joining the Obama administration as its ambassador to China.
Huntsman’s appointment was announced last week, article after article
said he had been one of his party’s “leading” candidates for the
presidential nomination in 2012.
Leading candidate? With the
possible exception of Salt Lake City, you could fire a cannon down the
main street of any city in America at high noon and not hit a person
who had ever heard of Jon Huntsman.
Everybody has heard of Dick
Cheney. True, a Washington Post headline last week said: “As Cheney
Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince.” But a wince can sometimes be
mistaken for a spasm of ecstasy.
Cheney has many pluses. He is
very, very good on TV. (People who don’t like what he says overlook how
good he is at saying it.) He is calm, articulate and often courageous.
Who else but Dick Cheney would have the guts to go on “Face the Nation
With Bob Schieffer” and say “in terms of being a Republican, I’d go
with Rush Limbaugh” rather than Colin Powell?
Maureen Dowd wrote: “Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out
of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has
had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a
four-star general who spent his life serving his country.”
To which the Republican wing of the Republican Party replies, “Yeah? So who wouldn’t?”
of Cheney’s greatest attributes is that he revives the whole “Daddy
Party vs. Mommy Party” argument that has bedeviled Democrats for
Republicans say they are the Daddy Party. They are
strong and will protect us from communists, terrorists and people who
want to take away our guns. Republicans say Democrats are the Mommy
Party. They say Democrats care only about social programs for the poor,
don’t care about national defense and don’t understand terrorism.
Clinton described the dilemma in December 2002 by saying: “When people
feel uncertain, they’d rather have someone strong and wrong than weak
Cheney offers a clear choice. He is for
waterboarding to save the United States from terrorism. He is a Daddy
Party kind of guy.
True, President Obama gave the go-ahead for
the military to shoot three pirates last month. But Cheney actually
shot a guy in the head once. How Daddy Party can you get?
Wait til they find out that all those people that voted for Obama did
so because it was “cool”. Now that the excitement is over and “change”
is afoot, voting is for squares.
The Dems are feeling pretty good these days?
Well, only because they’re pretty much crushed you at the polls and all.
Besides, it was “cool” to institute some “change” into our “Government”, not to mention having a surplus of “quotation marks” for the first time in a long time.
div class=”EC_a2 blockquote” style=”margin-left: 40px;”>To: pissant