AOPA credit card --- WARNING.

"Mike V." wrote in message
news:7BQpd.102152$5K2.72055@attbi_s03...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

Apparently, you already had your opinion of me and my luxuries...


No, it was formed when you admitted you spent money on luxuries while
bitching about your financial situation.


Were you born a prick or did you learn to become one?

Neither. Were you born a poor judge of character or did you learn to become
one?

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I know the reasons that were given to the public and the UN beforehand.
That is unlikely.
Every single one of them was either wrong or an outright lie.
Explain why.

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction - LIE
2. Saddam has ties to Al Queda - LIE
3. Saddam is a threat to America - LIE
4. Saddam was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger - LIE
5. Deposing Saddam will make America safer - LIE
6. The Iraqi people will greet American troops as liberators and there
will be no need for massive numbers of troops to secure the country
afterwards - WRONG

Ok, which reasons do you think I missed?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
My group's mission statement - 'You want *what* ? By *WHEN* ?'
-- Simon Burr

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction - LIE


Not a lie. It may have been wrong but it was definitely not a lie. The one
point before the war on which there was agreement was that Saddam had WMD.



2. Saddam has ties to Al Queda - LIE


Not a lie, Saddams ties to Al Qaeda were demonstrated.



3. Saddam is a threat to America - LIE


How so? Saddam with WMD is certainly a threat to America and it was agreed
that he had WMD.



4. Saddam was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger - LIE


Not a lie, Saddam did attempt that.



5. Deposing Saddam will make America safer - LIE


Not a lie, the whole world is safer without Saddam.



6. The Iraqi people will greet American troops as liberators and there
will be no need for massive numbers of troops to secure the country
afterwards - WRONG


Many Iraqis did greet American troops as liberators.



Ok, which reasons do you think I missed?


I don't know, but it doesn't matter. You were wrong on all counts.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction - LIE


Not a lie. It may have been wrong but it was definitely not a lie. The one
point before the war on which there was agreement was that Saddam had WMD.

Most of the intelligence source said he didn't. Bush's people decided to
believe the ONE source (who was a defector and then very suspect) who told
them what they wanted to beleive.


2. Saddam has ties to Al Queda - LIE


Not a lie, Saddams ties to Al Qaeda were demonstrated.

Thoroughly disproved by the 9/11 Commission.

3. Saddam is a threat to America - LIE


How so? Saddam with WMD is certainly a threat to America and it was agreed
that he had WMD.

He didn't have them, and if Bush's people hadn't cooked the books, we all
would have known that.

4. Saddam was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger - LIE


Not a lie, Saddam did attempt that.

Thoroughly disproved. The document cited in his State of the Union
address was known to be a lie before he cited it. It was even supposedly
signed by somebody who was no longer in the government position that he
supposedly was in.


5. Deposing Saddam will make America safer - LIE

Not a lie, the whole world is safer without Saddam.

Bull****. The US presence in Iraq is making thousands of new fanatical
terrorists every week, both in Iraq and outside. People whose anger was
directed towards their oppressor Saddam is now directed towards their
invaders, us. And Bush's calling it a "crusade" was sure to fanaticize a
lot of formerly moderate muslims.

6. The Iraqi people will greet American troops as liberators and there
will be no need for massive numbers of troops to secure the country
afterwards - WRONG


Many Iraqis did greet American troops as liberators.

Army war planners demanded 200,000 - 300,000 troops to make sure there
wasn't any looting and destruction of infastructure after the "end of
major combat operations". Rumsfeld overruled them and went in without
enough people, and the resulting chaos fueled the insurgency.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"using Outlook to read e-mail is like licking public toilets; using Outlook
with a virus checker is like taking antibiotics and then licking public
toilets (it might work, but it's hardly optimal" -- David Megginson

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:52:32 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

How is Canada these days? I haven't visited since before 9/11 due to
the hassles at the border. It was bad enough before.

Hassles? Where?

We live on the border and have not been subject to any hassles.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction - LIE


Not a lie. It may have been wrong but it was definitely not a lie. The
one
point before the war on which there was agreement was that Saddam had WMD.

Most of the intelligence source said he didn't. Bush's people decided to
believe the ONE source (who was a defector and then very suspect) who told
them what they wanted to beleive.


Wrong. Every nation with an intelligence gathering capability said he had
WMD. The only nation that disputed it was Iraq.



2. Saddam has ties to Al Queda - LIE


Not a lie, Saddams ties to Al Qaeda were demonstrated.

Thoroughly disproved by the 9/11 Commission.


Confirmed by inspectors in Iraq.



3. Saddam is a threat to America - LIE


How so? Saddam with WMD is certainly a threat to America and it was
agreed
that he had WMD.

He didn't have them, and if Bush's people hadn't cooked the books, we all
would have known that.


He was believed to have had them and it has not been proven that he didn't
have them. There's no evidence that any books were cooked and no reason to
believe any were.




4. Saddam was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger - LIE


Not a lie, Saddam did attempt that.

Thoroughly disproved.


No, it was proven.



The document cited in his State of the Union
address was known to be a lie before he cited it. It was even supposedly
signed by somebody who was no longer in the government position that he
supposedly was in.


5. Deposing Saddam will make America safer - LIE

Not a lie, the whole world is safer without Saddam.

Bull****. The US presence in Iraq is making thousands of new fanatical
terrorists every week, both in Iraq and outside. People whose anger was
directed towards their oppressor Saddam is now directed towards their
invaders, us. And Bush's calling it a "crusade" was sure to fanaticize a
lot of formerly moderate muslims.


Nonsense. You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to
your own facts. The fact is you've bought the propaganda.

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

"Mike V." wrote in message
news:7BQpd.102152$5K2.72055@attbi_s03...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

Apparently, you already had your opinion of me and my luxuries...


No, it was formed when you admitted you spent money on luxuries while
bitching about your financial situation.


Were you born a prick or did you learn to become one?

Neither. Were you born a poor judge of character or did you learn to
become one?

Sorry. My mistake. I thought you were a prick but evidently you are a douche
bag.

"Mike V." wrote in message
news:KZRpd.150167$HA.59696@attbi_s01...

Were you born a prick or did you learn to become one?


Neither. Were you born a poor judge of character or did you learn to
become one?


Sorry. My mistake. I thought you were a prick but evidently you are a
douche bag.

I answered your question. Why wont you answer mine?

Chuck wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Chuck wrote:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...


In a previous article, "Chuck" said:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...


Anybody who carries a balance on any credit card is an idiot or a

sucker.


Or isn't as wealthy or well off financially as you are...

Nobody is *forcing* you to buy what you can't currently afford, you

know.

Back before credit cards existed, people actually saved up money ahead

of

time for major purchases, instead of all this "buy now and pay later"
instant gratification stuff.




Ya know... I didn't say that paying the balance off was a bad thing. I

guess

what kinda ticked me off about your post was you said that people were
idiots or suckers for not paying the balance. I merely pointed out that

some

people can't do that.

If I get a new job and have to go to Sears and buy $2,000 worth of

tools, I

will not be able to pay the balance off in one month. But I gotta have

the

tools if I want the job.

That is exactly why any financial advisor worth their salt recommends
that you save an amount equal to 3 - 6 months of expenses as an
"emergency" cash fund. Yes, it takes time to do this and a lot of
self-control, which most Americans no longer have, but that eliminates
the need to ever use a credit card for a situation like this ... or a
transmission failure in your car ... or a leak in your roof, etc.

Rather than save, most people use credit as their emergency fund. And,
as Paul said, that is a sucker play.



And some people like me are financially strapped and do not have the money
to save after the bills are paid. In fact, I was putting $20 a paycheck into
the credit union at work trying to save a little bit and had to stop making
that deposit because I needed that $20 per pay period just to make bills. In
the last 3 years, our health insurance at work has gone up 135% and co-pays,
etc have risen also. I have 3 prescriptions, my wife has 5 and our son has
one. That's around $150 per month or a little more. Both vehicles are paid
off, so no car payments. We rent a house and it is actually about $100 below
the going rate for our area. Electric bills are out the roof. Do I need to
keep going? In otherwords, by me living paycheck to paycheck, and my yearly
raises at 3% if I am lucky that don't even cover cost of living, I am doing
everything that I can to stay afloat and will resort to whatever means I
have to to provide for my wife and son. I wish that you people that make
$100,000 a year, own airplanes, drive Lexus and Mercedes and live in half
million dollar houses could understand...

I truly feel sorry for people in your situation. However, it doesn't
change the mathematics. If you have no excess income to save, where do
you find the extra money to pay the interest on the credit card?

Matt

Chuck wrote:

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...

snip

I've almost never kept a balance on a credit card. If I can't get a
real loan (i.e. bank loan with reasonable terms), then that means I
probably can't afford whatever it is I want to buy.



Must be nice... I don't have the option of very many luxuries, so I need
credit from time to time for necessities...

I still don't see how this works as the interest you pay means that you
can now have even fewer necessities than if you paid cash for them.

Matt