AOPA credit card --- WARNING.

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I
haven't tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on
US soil under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any
that have been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in
office.

Matt

1) It was planned under Clinton, but executed under Bush. What part of
9/11, exactly, was executed under Clinton? Where is your data?

2) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html provides a list of Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks since 1993. You are correct, though. In my
second post I misspoke - these attacks were not on American soil, but they
were on American targets.

I don't think either of us will be swayed in this dispute...

You seem to believe that the lack of another 9/11 type attack is due
largely to the merit of Bush's policies, and do not consider the lag time
for such a large attack in the equation, even while you use the same lag
time to blame Clinton for the attacks in the first place. You have been
fooled into feeling safe, and want to thank Bush for that, even though in
reality, you are not much more or less safe than you were in 1993 or 2001.
You go on with your life, happy to be protected by your wonderful, all-
powerful Government.

I, on the other hand, believe that Enemies of Freedom and of Western
Civilization will continue to attack Americans and their Allies in whatever
way they can, as indicated by the rise in terrorist attacks on American and
Allied targets. I believe a better way to stop this than unilaterally
taking down an Arab country or two is to get more of our powerful Allies to
work with us against the problem. The Bush approach alienates many allies
so that they sit idly by as we increase our size on the dartboard. I don't
feel safer than I did in 2001 or 1993. But then, I am also not so afraid of
another attack that I stop shopping at WalMart. I go on with my life, being
a bit more suspicious and attentive, but mostly just happy to still be
free, despite the best attempts of my all-powerful Government.

RS wrote:
If you have an AOPA/MBNA credit card then you should check the APR on your
last statements. MBNA has been raising the APR on AOPA cardholders, even if
you pay on time.

MBNA is a bunch of crooks (this is typical of just about every AOPA related
service). They have had a long history of misapply credits and other billing
screwups on my AOPA and other accounts. It took me a long time to get one
of my other accounts (Margy's AMEX I think) straightened out due to erroneous
information reported by MJBNA).

Don't even get me started about their aircraft loan problem.

At least they now let you request your AOPA rebate on line.

That was the first one. All the others were given when each one in turn was
proven false. He ended up using the lamest after they all
failed-humanitarian. Not a lame reason in itself, but lame in that it was
the only possible one left to him and it applies so much more in other parts
of the world that just don't happen to be oil rich.

Do they still let you push tin?

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:AY%pd.572727$mD.93066@attbi_s02...

Didn't think your narrow mind could wrap itself around more than one
thing at a time. Since I never said anything about his other reasons, it
is impossible to make the conclusion you have jumped to without using
seriously flawed reasoning, but that is exactly what I would expect from
you, or any Bushie, for that matter.


Since the question was which of the reasons given for invading Iraq were
wrong, and you mentioned only WMD, it is logical to conclude you believe
the other reasons were right.

Ahh. That's right. In your pea brain, it's a fact.

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:CZ%pd.572735$mD.180317@attbi_s02...

That's you opinion, and I have no doubt that mine is NOT wrong. You prove
that consistently.


Actually, mine is not an opinion.

Almost 5 years ago I bought (with the help of my wife) a 1953 Piper
Tripacer. I still remember the initial reaction in the Piper mailing list.
It was typewritten laughter and comments such "THAT'S not a plane."

It's all I can afford, and barely at that. Often when I have had maintenance
questions, I was chided for taking the cheaper option, even though it did
not compromise safety in the least. I've found that there are many,
especially in the aviation world, who just do not understand living on a
shoestring.

The only real idiots when it comes to credit are the ones who apply for
every card offer they get and max them all out while paying minimum
payments, if that. I work with a guy who did that. He was filing bankruptcy
and getting everything reposessed in a year or 2.

mike regish

"Chuck" wrote in message
. com...



Yea.. I think that I am done with this thread...

I have tried my hardest to explain to people that I understand what they
are
saying and that I agree with them, but unfortunately, they can't
understand
that some people are not able to have cash laying around and in an
EMERGENCY
have no other choice but to use a credit card.

But you are right, I think there are 2 or maybe 3 people here than
understand what I am trying to say and then you have the jerks that have
never experienced money problems and treat anyone that doesn't drive a
Mercedes and belong to the country club, keep their Barron at their house
at
the airpark and go to the Playboy Mansion for parties like crap. These
guys
just don't get it...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

Judah wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I
haven't tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on
US soil under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any
that have been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in
office.

Matt


1) It was planned under Clinton, but executed under Bush. What part of
9/11, exactly, was executed under Clinton? Where is your data?

The financing and the flight training of the pilots, most, if not all,
of whom entered the country while Bill Clinton was president.


2) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html provides a list of Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks since 1993. You are correct, though. In my
second post I misspoke - these attacks were not on American soil, but they
were on American targets.

Yes, that is my recollection also.


I don't think either of us will be swayed in this dispute...

You seem to believe that the lack of another 9/11 type attack is due
largely to the merit of Bush's policies, and do not consider the lag time
for such a large attack in the equation, even while you use the same lag
time to blame Clinton for the attacks in the first place. You have been
fooled into feeling safe, and want to thank Bush for that, even though in
reality, you are not much more or less safe than you were in 1993 or 2001.
You go on with your life, happy to be protected by your wonderful, all-
powerful Government.

Yes, I think Bush's much more aggressive approach to terrorism has
helped. Yes, I am considering the lag time, but I'm also considering
that four years is plenty of time given that this is about how long the
planning for 9/11 apparently took.

However, I'm under no delusion that we can prevent another large scale
attack. I think we can minimize the number and make them really
difficult to pull off, but I fully expect that someday the terrorists
will find a way to pull of another one. I just believe that we will
have far fewer of them with a very aggressive world-wide response than
we will have with a cruise missile into a tent approach that Clinton took.


I, on the other hand, believe that Enemies of Freedom and of Western
Civilization will continue to attack Americans and their Allies in whatever
way they can, as indicated by the rise in terrorist attacks on American and
Allied targets. I believe a better way to stop this than unilaterally
taking down an Arab country or two is to get more of our powerful Allies to
work with us against the problem. The Bush approach alienates many allies
so that they sit idly by as we increase our size on the dartboard. I don't
feel safer than I did in 2001 or 1993. But then, I am also not so afraid of
another attack that I stop shopping at WalMart. I go on with my life, being
a bit more suspicious and attentive, but mostly just happy to still be
free, despite the best attempts of my all-powerful Government.

I agree that better cooperation with our allies will help. However, I
don't consider people who were taking oil money from Saddam to be our
allies as some other people do. So, not having the French onboard is a
plus in my book, not a minus.

I would like to see the moderate Arab countries brought into the fold
somehow, but I think that is unlikely to happen no matter what we do. I
think the only solution will come when the oil wells in the middle east
dry up and there is no longer money to fund terrorism on more than a
local scale.


Matt

"mike regish" wrote in message
newss3qd.402824$wV.36458@attbi_s54...

snip

The only real idiots when it comes to credit are the ones who apply for
every card offer they get and max them all out while paying minimum
payments, if that. I work with a guy who did that. He was filing
bankruptcy
and getting everything reposessed in a year or 2.


snip


Mike, I fully agree with your statement... Seems as though we are in a
minority though...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

Our entertainment consist of watching TV, going to visit family
(within 20
miles), going to DFW airport and sitting at the park watching planes
take
off and land, going to the American Airlines Museum (free), Pates
Museum of
transportation (free), etc... We rarely go places that cost money...

You are not alone. Some of us are just farther along life's path.

When we first moved to Iowa in '97 to set up our business, we literally
spent everything we had to do it. We risked everything, and, of
course, it took months for our business (newspaper distribution) to
make any money -- plus we had a start-up business loan to pay off.

Needless to say, flying was occasional (at best), and entertainment
consisted of going to the public library with the kids, who were just 7
and 4 years old. We only ate out at the college-student-oriented
restaurants ($3 all-you-can-eat taco night -- whoopee!), and spent a
lot of time working.

It was a tough slog in the mud, but by being careful (and having no
life!) we paid off the start-up loan in a couple of years, avoided
credit card debt, drove old cars -- and by late '98 we were in a
position to buy our first airplane. (Which actually cost less than our
full-sized Ford van, by the way. Aircraft are NOT all that expensive.)

By 2002 we had "made it" to the point where we could look at trying
something fun -- like buying an old hotel and turning it into a dream
destination for pilots. We're making 1/3 of what we made in our last
business, but are having the time of our lives.

We've got a better plane now, but we still drive old cars, don't go out
a lot -- and we still have no credit card debt. In fact, the only
money we owe is on our home mortgage.

Bottom line: Fiscal responsibility and financial success *can* be had
-- but it takes discipline and hard work.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:xk3qd.402795$wV.106004@attbi_s54...

That was the first one. All the others were given when each one in turn
was proven false. He ended up using the lamest after they all
failed-humanitarian. Not a lame reason in itself, but lame in that it was
the only possible one left to him and it applies so much more in other
parts of the world that just don't happen to be oil rich.


Which were proven false?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip

Bottom line: Fiscal responsibility and financial success *can* be had
-- but it takes discipline and hard work.


And that is what I am trying to accomplish...





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004