or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bin Laden - Page 17

post #321 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post


It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.

 

Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, and for depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.

 

The deterrent thing is a load of crap. For people who are living right down to the last dollar in their accounts every month, charging them $45.00 (current fee at my bank) for bouncing a $10.00 cheque is just going to make it harder to stay on top of things, and more likely to bounce another one in the following weeks.

 

As for who uses check books? A lot of post secondary students around here use them just because it's easier to cash your student loan with a void check than to have to make to the bank sometime between 9am and 4pm.

 

I still have a cheque book. I don't use it for much - mostly school things (field trips, gymnastics/Ultimate fees, etc.) for ds1. But, I probably average out about a cheque or so a month, over the whole year. Most people I know still use cheques for some things, especially if they have kids in school, because the schools all take cheques. I pay my rent on debit here, but I paid it by cheque everywhere else I've lived, and there are tenants here who still pay by cheque, not debit.


 

 

post #322 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.  

 

I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later.

 

What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right.

 

I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????


Well to be clear, I didn't say you did swallow anything, I didn't intend to imply that.  I merely said it makes me happy not to. 

 

I don't automatically write off everything the US media says but I find the balance of many sources effective in developing a point of view that is balanced and even.  I do think other nations who have much freer press helpful.  We see ourselves as a beacon of freedom of speech, but since the main vehicles for expression in our nation are controlled by megacorporations or linked to the Government, it is hard to find those news sources who are truly free to say exactly what you want, and many of them are written off in the mainstream as dissident whak-a-doodle news.  One can never glean the truth from one or two sites, and international perspective, as I live abroad, is really what matters most to me.  (eta:  As what people think of Americans and our government is  directly related to how I am treated.)

 

I have never read that Bush Masterminded ANYTHING.  Never.  Can you share your source?  This is what I have heard Fox News pundits claim as proof again the "conspiracy theories" but I have never heard of anyone who believes the attacks were known about and approved by the US government, and CIA as George Bush's master plan.   Far from it.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatullah0 View Post

 

I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.

 

EXACTLY!  In fact Pakistan in the inital stages was willing to comply with a search and siezure so long as the US could provide evidence to them...they never did.  Instead they threatened to invade them like they did their neighbors.  If they had proof the Un would have forced Pakistan-s hand long ago.  But they didn't get proof of indictment on 9/11 charges...so they didn't.

 

 

It's interesting, because it's hard to imagine that the US gov knew where he was, but PK didn't know, AND that the US managed to go in and "take him down" so easily, after supposing that he was running around in the mountains all this time. 

 

 

 

I'm in PK right now, a little ways outside of Islamabad. A neighboring city has a military base in it. We've gone into the most protected neighborhood in that city, an area where people who work for(but not in) the military and they checked under our front bumper with a mirror, and asked the driver for ID. That's it. Nobody else has to show ID. Nobody else has to even show their face. They don't check anything here unless they feel like it, or have reason to believe you're hiding something. There are police checkpoints in other areas too, all over the place, but the police don't usually check anything. There are also usually no women at the checkpoints, not that I've ever seen anyways, and it wouldn't have been difficult for him to wear afghani burka(a lot of women wear it here-it's not unusual) if he had to go through a checkpoint. Plus, bribes here work wonders--just pay off the policeman, and you're good to go. The gov didn't have to know anything, even if other people did know.


Interesting.  Sounds like Pakistan has a lot in common with Colombia.

post #323 of 412

They built a model of his compound and they did two practice simulations... These are highly trained men. I do not doubt their capability to do a mission like this with ease. That's what we train them to do.

 

Whether the US had the right to do it is I think an important factor in deciding if the violation of their sovereignty was legal or justified. I am watching with interest to see the world's response as it unfolds.

post #324 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

 

Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, andfor depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.

 


Yeah, I really never understood why someone gets hit with a fee for depositing a check that bounced. They are being punished for someone else not having enough money...

 

post #325 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post




Yeah, I really never understood why someone gets hit with a fee for depositing a check that bounced. They are being punished for someone else not having enough money...

 

Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.
 

 

post #326 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post



Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.
 

 


It is - but, to use my case as an example: My dad wrote me a bad cheque for Christmas (sadly, this is because he was broke, but didn't want to not get me anything!). I deposited it. I thought I had the $50, and was on a tight budget at that time, and that $50 covered part of another cheque I wrote at the same time. I got dinged $25 for dad's cheque bouncing. I got dinged another $25 for bouncing my cheque. And, my dad's bank charged him whatever their fee is. But, my bank justifies charging me for his cheque, because of their lack of payment for the "service", as you said...and they can't charge my dad, because he banks at a different bank.

 

On the plus side, I recently looked over my bank's fees. While they've jacked the NSF charge for writing a bad cheque up to $45.00 (WTF?), they've also eliminated the charge for depositing a bad cheque. I still think $45 is highway robbery, but I haven't bounced a cheque in about 15 years, and it was the only one I ever bounced, so it really hasn't affected me. I wish they at least had a sliding sclale, topping out at $45, so that you can't be charged more in fees than the actual amount of the cheque you bounced, yk?

 

Anyway - this is way OT, so I'll bow out now. I don't really have much to add to the discussion about Bin Laden, even though I'm enjoying reading it.

 

post #327 of 412

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


Does their sovereignty trump the right to send a drone to kill about twenty-five people in Pakistan a week before going in after Bin Laden?  Does it trump the right to have gone in and killed ten more today?  Or the hundreds upon hundreds that have been killed in the same manner over the past number of years?  We haven't asked permission for that, either.  America's relationship to Pakistani sovereignty doesn't begin and end with Bin Laden, by any stretch.  For American militaristic behavior this was not a case of special circumstances.

 

post #328 of 412


Quote:

Originally Posted by Amatullah0 View Post

any links?

 

Sadly not.  What happened was that i got up, turned on the news, watched a news report about it all, went about my day (i'm in the UK so no parties for that here, though a lot of folk were still going nuts about the Royal Wedding which, yawn, i didn't see).
 
Anyway a day later i was talking to my father and he was going on about the luxury Bin Laden was living in with his wives and i was like "what?  It was like 6 tiny pre-fab shacks with a chainlink fence round it!" and he was like "No, Becca, it's a modern villa!" and i turned on the news again and bob was my uncle, there was a completely different-looking place.
 
I can't find any footage of what i saw that first time.  Oh well.  Could have possibly been that the news people had the wrong location, or something.
post #329 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post



Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.
 

 

Well that`s funny, I`m sure I don`t get charged $50 every time I cash a good check, and they take processing too.
 

 

post #330 of 412

That's because the banks get money from that check and then they earn interest on it.

post #331 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

That's because the banks get money from that check and then they earn interest on it.



OK, how does a bank earn interest on, say, my paycheck? 

 

 

 

post #332 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatullah0 View Post

OK, how does a bank earn interest on, say, my paycheck? 

 


They use the money that's supposedly "in" people's accounts. That's one of the reasons why a rush on the bank is such a scary thing. They simply don't have the money to cash out everyone's accounts, if people should all show up wanting it.

 

post #333 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post




They use the money that's supposedly "in" people's accounts. That's one of the reasons why a rush on the bank is such a scary thing. They simply don't have the money to cash out everyone's accounts, if people should all show up wanting it.

 


Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.

 

post #334 of 412

We have it all invested in various ways. Also, we can loan your money out to other people, and then of course earn interest off of those loans. We just have to keep track of how much we owe you and make sure you get it when you ask for it. I don't understand the complexities of it but we earn more interest on it than we deposit into your accounts. Most free checking accounts do not come with interest, unless you carry a high balance. And, even for the most affluent clients, the rates have been rather low for 2-3 years now.

post #335 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post




Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.

 



Ok, that's what I was thinking, I just couldn't figure out how to connect the two. The scenario I was thinking was "I deposit my paycheck, then use it almost immediately, how the heck does the bank make money off of THAT?" So I guess the answer is, they don't?

 

post #336 of 412

If you spend it ASAP I doubt they have much of a chance to make money off of it, but like I said, I don't understand the complexities of it. I just know kind of the basic idea behind it. That part of banking isn't really what I do. I'm going to ask about it at work now though.

post #337 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post


Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.
 


They get interest/a return on the investments they make with your money.

post #338 of 412

Every time I see this thread I have to remind myself we are now talking about banking...

post #339 of 412

I'm sorry! Let's go back to bin Laden. What did you think about the videos? They were like "Look at this haggard, vain man" I was like? What? Vain? If I was the world's most wanted terrorist I'd want to see the news updates about that situation too! I'm glad they didn't release the audio... but they were saying he was living in luxury. Now they are saying he lived in squalor? I thought they were burning their trash and now I see it's all over the floor?

post #340 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

I'm sorry! Let's go back to bin Laden. What did you think about the videos? They were like "Look at this haggard, vain man" I was like? What? Vain? If I was the world's most wanted terrorist I'd want to see the news updates about that situation too! I'm glad they didn't release the audio... but they were saying he was living in luxury. Now they are saying he lived in squalor? I thought they were burning their trash and now I see it's all over the floor?



link?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News