iamshack

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:31 PM) There's a difference between a Best Buy CC application and a lease on a $100k car. If you're signing a lease like that, you better sit your ass down and read it through several times and make sure you completely understand it. From my understanding she did read through it, and I am sure they explained the basic terms of her contract. But then they went and changed a material element of the contract, didn't tell her, and made her believe she was signing the same contract she had earlier orally agreed to. That's an abuse of trust and good faith. It's fraud. I bought a car about a year and a half ago, and I was in and out of there within an hour. And this is part of what car dealerships advertise as a selling point- "an easy, no-hassle buying experience." Now if you honestly had to sit there and read through (and ask questions about and receive answers for) all the fine print and language of all the documents one signs when purchasing an automobile, you could be there for a week, if not more. But the dealerships advertise the no-hassle experience. And I think it's pretty fair to assume that defrauding you is not part of the "no-hassle buying experience."

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end. They absolutely DID con her. How are you missing this? The credit system is in place to not only protect sellers, but to protect buyers as well. And the credit system determined she was NOT qualified to buy the car. Yet they fudged the income figures, so that she suddenly appeared to be qualified to buy the car. But in the end, they did everyone a disservice but themselves. They conned all parties involved.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place. This is the EXACT reason the credit system is in place! To prevent people from being sucked in by smooth advertising campaigns, salesmen, and their own stupidity. It is NOT supposed to operate with salesmen and lenders manipulating the credit system to circumvent it. I can't go in to a Porsche dealer and just say "I can afford to put 15k down and pay $1500/mo." Now here is my actual income, this is my credit rating (which doesn't come close to backing up my actual statement to him). Make it happen, no matter what you have to do.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 12:12 PM) I don't know what school of signing contracts you came from but when I have a written contract in front of me, I take the time to go through it, review the terms and rates and penalties and then put the old signature on it. I dont trust the salesman, I dont trust the company I only trust what I see in black and white and that I have a copy of. When you argue any of this in front of a judge guess how much weight will be put in what is in black and white in the contract, and how you felt that day. When I have went and purchased a car, I have asked the salesman for one number. What does it take to walk out the door with this. Not what is the cost, and then taxes, and other add ons later. I want to know, entire package what is the bottom line cost when I walk out the door. Then I ask them to present the sales contract listing that specifically, and then I peruse it and then will sign if I am happy with the terms and conditions. I am sorry that she got took. Take a quick look at the paperwork before you sign something. Caveat Emptor. Now if the contract is altered after the fact, you have your copy and you can then refute it. But if you take anyones word for it, and then sign blind then you are throwing your own money out the door. Take a few minutes to review anything you sign. Its just common sense. Now all of the heat of the moment, maybe she was depressed, maybe she was sad that day. Thats all rubbish. Is every sales associate supposed to have a shrink on staff to assess mental condition. I dont remember that being part of any credit approval process. Now as many times as I can say it. THe dealership and the sales force is at fault here. But so is the person who walked out with the expensive car. I agree with the precautions you take when you sign a contract, but the simple fact is, the courts have started to realize that salesmen of all types are smooth, smart, and ruthless. And the sheer mass of paper and fine print that's thrown at you any time you're making a significant purchase is enough to overwhelm all but the most patient and savvy customers. These auto manufacturers and lenders can throw all the fine print and 17 page documents they want in front of you, but if a court peruses these documents and finds that their was an intent to mislead or defraud the customer, they are often times more than willing to throw the terms of the contract right out the window. What they will then look to is the intention of the parties. This is a particularly tough case because the woman went along with the fraud to a degree. But there is a certain level of trust and good faith involved in these contracts, and one example of that is that one should assume that after the terms have been discussed and agreed to, one party won't alter those terms and ask the other party to sign the contract still unknowing of the changes. The salesman's clear intentions were to make a sale, but did not alert the customer to the change in terms that were necessary to make the sale a possibility. And while the courts will repeat that one should fully review all the terms of a contract they are signing, they're also fully cognizant of the fact that in the real world, we all don't have all the time in the world, we can't all hire lawyers to review every contract we sign, etc. I actually think she might have a reasonable chance at having the contract voided if she really wanted to fight this, but it might be a bit of a hairy case because she participated in the fraudulent activity at first. That being said, she is an average customer who doesn't work in the financing industry. He is a salesman who works hand in hand with it every day. He may have told her "this is done all the time," or something to that effect, and if so, that could be a factor as well.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 07:28 AM) People have been convicted of much more serious crimes (drug trafficking, murder) based solely on witness testimony from questionable sources and circumstantial evidence. Not named Roger Clemens....

A few books I have read in the past that I would highly recommend- very highly, actually- are the two recent novels about Afghanistan by Khaled Housseini, the Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns. Both are absolutely brilliant and moving novels about an area of the world that we all could gain something from learning about.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 07:17 PM) The report itself would not be admissible, but the persons mentioned in the report would be subpoenaed and they would be asked to testify before the grand jury. Then they would be in the same position that Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are in: lie and you're going to prison. Well, not really. There is really not much anyone can do to prove Clemens took anything. You have to take his word or the word of McNamee, basically, and even if you believe McNamee, no one is going to put Clemens in jail based on that testimony.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 09:31 PM) Ladies and gentlemen...the new and improved iamshack: Hah, total peacock theory! I love all the terms that guy came up with to describe his theories...

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) Yep, using food sources as fuel crops (and really inefficient fuel crops at that) is a terrible, terrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the "answer" to the sustainable energy question is actually several different technologies spread out instead of one do-it-all. Solar at home, plug-in hybrids, ethanol hybrids, more biodiesel, etc. etc. Oh it absolutely will be- especially in a time where we are still trying to figure out how to make these technologies cost effective. At first, many of these technologies will supplement non-renewable energies, then they will supplement each other to replace non-renewable energies entirely, and then finally, one or two will probably emerge as the best of the bunch and that technology will be mainstream.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) Lower the business tax rates and you will attract a boatload of business to this country, and you will find multi-nationals re-patriating earnings from overseas. Not when you're paying $8,500 annually in health care for each employee working here...or when hourly wages are triple or even 10 times here what they are in other countries. An example, and this was discussed on the program that inspired this thread: Detroit, MI used to be the city in North America where the most vehicles were manufactured- by far. Now Ontario, Canada is the city where most vehicles are manufactured in North America, because the health care costs per employee are 1/10th the price. How do we compete for those jobs? Another example- Starbucks is now paying more $ in healthcare than they spend on coffee beans. What corporation in their right mind would want to set up any part of their manufacturing process here in the United States? How can we change that?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) Remember your average citizen isnt going to give 2 s***s if the price of their items are going to double because of tariffs you passed onto the supplier who in turn will put them back on the consumer. They go to walmart because of the prices, not because of politics. Yeah, that was the point of the comment about Wal-Mart. And I am not making these suggestions stating they will be easy. But we are not the lone, or part of a handful, of countries manipulating the world anymore. This is a global economy now where everyone is playing the game. And I am sick and tired of the US having all this open trade with other nations that don't have to play by the rules as we do. I know we all want cheaper goods, but when the trade deficit with China reaches 250 billion per year (and continually rising) because they are manufacturing all our goods (that we send them the raw materials for, often times) due to their gross violations of human rights and intentional devaluing of the currency, we can no longer allow them to participate in our free market economy. The average consumer may not want to pay double for the goods they buy at Wal-Mart, but if we don't do something, they're going to be paying worse than that due to the value of the dollar, the nation's credit rating, and massive inflation. There is no way to avoid the sacrifices that must be made. Talk all you want about what the average consumer wants- but we've been playing that game for far too long- that's what gets us into these messes. It's time for Americans to start making sacrifices like the rest of the world.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) Holy s***! She has man-arms. Her arms are not the thing I've always been particularly fascinated with...

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) How praytell do you think this is going to get done. Do you think that companies are going to voluntarily make changes that will affect their bottom line and their shareholders. No. Do you think that with politicians on both sides of the aisle so knee deep in PACs that they will make this happen. No. So the only way this will happen is either by financial incentives for running clean which they dont want to do because it affects a revenue stream for the government. Or signing the Kyoto accord and putting a stranglehold on the economy. Do you know what will happen if the Kyoto accord is signed here. The chinese factory workers are going to have a lot more job opportunities as companies left and right move operations overseas. Becky and Jimmy dont want you ripping up their prize garden because of the fiber you want to run there. Plus those little green poles you have in your backyard from AT&T are nothing like the 6 foot cabinets that will be required on every block to support the fiber plants you speak of. By I dont want a 6 foot large green cabinet sitting in my yard in the utility area. That comment about running fiber to every business is rubbish. My fiber cost nickles to get to the premises and then 60k in the encapsulated pipe because of some requirement by the electrical union here. Every turn required a turnbox. I would rather wait for DOCIS 3.0 and the 100mbs connection, or WiMax than have fiber run to my house. I don't, and never did believe, that the Kyoto Protocol was the best idea we could come up with. Rather than dumping money into trying to comply with artificial restrictions assigned by the Protocol, or purchasing GHG emission reductions elsewhere (which accomplishes absolutely nothing), I believe the best solution still involves pouring that money into federal and state subsidies to give private corporations the opportunities to further develop and perfect green technologies. Let capitalism work for us here, because it isn't exactly working for us in some other areas. The second thing we must do, in my humble opinion, is begin placing very large tariffs on goods coming in from China, and any other countries that are blatantly violating human rights principles- I'm tired of allowing them to participate in our free market but not playing by the rules everyone else has to play by. We must make it more of a decision for not only corporations based elsewhere, but American companies, to manufacture in nations where the citizenry and the workforce is abused or taken advantage of. There's no way we can ever compete for those jobs otherwise. And yes, the prices at Wal-Mart will get much higher. Finally, we've got to attract any high-tech industries to the United States that we can. We need to get over some of he moral hesitancies we have regarding stem-cell research as well as other bio-industries that are either on the cusp now or in the near future. These are the industries we can best attract through our combination of infrastructure, facilities, and education.

QUOTE(max power @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 11:36 PM) I'd crap on her chest.

I've always found Katie extraordinarily sexy....am I alone on this?

I find it interesting that 33% say they buy "upscale designer jeans," and yet only 11% say they pay over $75.

This is somewhat embarrassing, but I actually just finished the infamous book written by Neil Strauss- "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists." A roommate of mine a few years ago had it and was always telling me about it, and I read a few chapters then but never got around to getting into it then. Recently, some friends of mine had just read it and asked me if I had heard of it. I ordered it from Amazon (was too embarrassed to go anywhere and buy it in person and read it this past weekend. What an amazingly interesting book! And not even from the side of the interactions with men trying to pick up women, but how this "goal" absolutely took over and ruined some of these men's lives. Anyone looking for a really light, yet extremely interesting book on interaction between the genders, especially in the singles' scene, I highly recommend it. I found it humorous, ridiculous, and certainly obnoxious, but absolutely fascinating as well.

Not sure if many of you caught it or not last night, but CNN had a great show (Anderson Cooper 360) addressing all the main issues facing our next President. The two "experts" were former Clinton Advisor David Gergen and Newsweek Editor Fareed Zakarai, and they discussed several of the most pertinent issues facing the next President, including Iraq and the "war on terror," the healthcare crisis, the growing economic crisis, and global warming. I'm not a frequent viewer of the show, but I enjoyed it because of the great discussion by the two panelists and Anderson Cooper, including the fact that it was edited and the two panelists worked off of one another's comments rather than simply arguing with one another. I found both of their comments to be extremely enlightening, and at the same time somewhat frightening because of the enormous and urgent nature of the issues. Watching the show, I think it only supplemented my opinion more on who I believe must be our next President (I don't want to necessarily turn this into a thread on who should be our next President), and what a tremendous task he/she has ahead of him/her. Anyone else catch this program?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 9, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) Interesting stuff about "Charlotte" From WSI I don't think there is much question time travel is going to start playing a much bigger role in the show. I just started getting into "Lost". I am almost all caught up on the last 3 seasons, but also watched the "Lost rewind" episode. They picked and choose what was important for people to know for season four and beyond, and they added in the scene with Hurley and Sayid or Desmond(I don't remember who it was) when they heard the 40's music on the radio, and Des said "It could be coming from anywhere", and Hurley added, "Or any time...just playing". They do this sort of thing all the time- most of the time you just don't catch it. Before this season started, I watched the season finale of season 3 online, and they showed some of these things, which they call "easter eggs." In that episode, where they first began showing flash forwards, the name of the funeral home where Jack went was an anagram from the words "flash forward." And Jack was going to visit the coffin of someone who he obviously cared about, probably needed to get back to the island, but they wouldn't show us...the song playing on Jack's radio as he pulled up to the funeral home? Nirvana's "Scentless Apprentice." All kinds of characters and places on the island are named after philosophers whose themes play a part in the theme of the show, authors, historical figures, etc. They are really clever with these things...we just don't catch the majority of them...

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 9, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) Would I be offended? No. I'm of Polish descent and I'm never offended by jokes, because I know they don't apply to me. Would I assume that everyone listening to a major-market radio show (low-rated though it may be) would also be OK with it? No. Would I take the chance that any of my Polish bosses or Polish advertisers might be offended? No. I'd like the world to lighten up, too, but that simply isn't the way things are these days, and it was stupid of Coppock to blurt something like that into an open mic. If you go through life always worrying about offending no one, you won't accomplish much of anything...

Well, I'm going to go with what some of the apparently younger, single guys have said...it's all about what the women are digging...if you're married or over the age of 40 or so, you should probably go with what's most comfortable- nothing wrong with a nice pair of Levi's, A&F, whatever...but if you're single, live in a somewhat urban area (such as Chicago), and below the age of 40, you should probably try something a little trendier...and I'm not saying you have to go out and spend $250 on a pair of Rock and Republics or Diesels, but it never hurts to buy something that shows off your caboose a bit for the ladies. Ask any woman what they like about men in a pair of jeans (or why they watch baseball or football for that matter), and many will tell you I like a man who has a nice ass. I know it's not manly to talk about, but it's true. So if you're single like me, I don't see anything wrong in investing a couple hundred bucks in a few nice-fitting, reasonably-trendy pairs of denim. Now obviously if you live in some of the more southern areas, the women there tend to like the old school Levi's more than a $200 pair of Sevens...but for those of us here near Chicago...those don't really fly with the ladies unless you are married or older...

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 8, 2008 -> 08:13 PM) But was that comment fun and entertaining? I didn't find it either of those things. I think busting someone's balls on an individual basis is much funnier and can give insight into the relationships between people you hear on the radio. Tired racial remarks and stereotypes don't entertain me. Maybe I read too much into it, I don't know, but I just want something a little more clever than that. You know Ben Finfer is Jewish, right? He was probably just razzing his ass...they were probably bothing razzing eachother's asses. I don't know, people need to lighten up a bit IMO. I'm not saying it was a smart thing to say, but honestly, would you be offended if the guy had told a polish joke about them having a screen door in a submarine?

I honestly am one of the people who think the pendulum towards political correctness has swung much too far. Obviously some things should not be joked about, whether it is the use of the "n" word, or other ethnic slurs which are purely hateful. But others are less offensive and more silly than hurtful. If we continue to take the ability away to laugh at ourselves, joke about ourselves, etc., the world really becomes a dry, boring place to be. Additionally, that's when you get these nutjobs coming out of the woodwork, who've been storing anger and just go out and start shooting people. In no way do I advocate the use of insults and slurs as a way of discussing people or ethnic groups. But come on, let's not take all the fun out of every little humorous jab we can take at one another to keep things fun and entertaining.

Why was the plane underwater? Was that whole thing planted?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 8, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) I wouldn't think so. Why would the first guy have such an awful reaction to it if it was just some plane that went down? Maybe you are right, maybe they were compelled to get involved? I guess we'll find out. I just don't see that dude reacting in that way unless something really bad had happened on the island and it triggered his memory. Plus, the status quo for this season has been flash-forwards, not flash-backs. Hmm, I had assumed those were flashbacks as well. As far as the dude freaking out when he saw the plane go down, I think it was Naomi who referred to him as a "head case" or "lunatic" or whatever...before they had gone to the island. And she also called Miles a "Ghostbuster." So it's really difficult to tell if those were flash forwards or flashbacks, but this much is clear- they had those characteristics/powers before they were selected for that mission.