[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

LOL

“its the appeasement…

appeasement, appeasement…

appeas…

app..

ahhh”

[kicksavedave]

LOL

“its the appeasement…

appeasement, appeasement…

appeas…

app..

ahhh”

[kicksavedave]

LOL

“its the appeasement…

appeasement, appeasement…

appeas…

app..

ahhh”

[kicksavedave]

LOL

“its the appeasement…

appeasement, appeasement…

appeas…

app..

ahhh”

[kicksavedave]

LOL

“its the appeasement…

appeasement, appeasement…

appeas…

app..

ahhh”

[kicksavedave]

I followed the thread (and its creeping) just fine. It starts with a rant about Republicans, migrates through their dis-satisfaction with Obama’s response to Iran, and quickly moves to Chamberlain and “Do nothing” as if we are suddenly now blundering badly in our foreign policy that evil will spread throughout the world because of our inaction. I followed the thread, but the link from A to B was so weak it needed to be pointed out.

Back to the subject of the thread. Our current President has so many messes to clean up, its hardly the place of the party that created most of those messes to chirp about how poorly he’s doing in cleaning them all up, or how fast. They really do expect us to have a short term memory. We’ll see if we really are better off in four years… after six months we’re still feeling the Bush hangover, while some folks are chanting “have another beer”. Unless its war or a tax cut for the rich, it really has become the party of no.

[kicksavedave]

I followed the thread (and its creeping) just fine. It starts with a rant about Republicans, migrates through their dis-satisfaction with Obama’s response to Iran, and quickly moves to Chamberlain and “Do nothing” as if we are suddenly now blundering badly in our foreign policy that evil will spread throughout the world because of our inaction. I followed the thread, but the link from A to B was so weak it needed to be pointed out.

Back to the subject of the thread. Our current President has so many messes to clean up, its hardly the place of the party that created most of those messes to chirp about how poorly he’s doing in cleaning them all up, or how fast. They really do expect us to have a short term memory. We’ll see if we really are better off in four years… after six months we’re still feeling the Bush hangover, while some folks are chanting “have another beer”. Unless its war or a tax cut for the rich, it really has become the party of no.

[kicksavedave]

I followed the thread (and its creeping) just fine. It starts with a rant about Republicans, migrates through their dis-satisfaction with Obama’s response to Iran, and quickly moves to Chamberlain and “Do nothing” as if we are suddenly now blundering badly in our foreign policy that evil will spread throughout the world because of our inaction. I followed the thread, but the link from A to B was so weak it needed to be pointed out.

Back to the subject of the thread. Our current President has so many messes to clean up, its hardly the place of the party that created most of those messes to chirp about how poorly he’s doing in cleaning them all up, or how fast. They really do expect us to have a short term memory. We’ll see if we really are better off in four years… after six months we’re still feeling the Bush hangover, while some folks are chanting “have another beer”. Unless its war or a tax cut for the rich, it really has become the party of no.

[kicksavedave]

I followed the thread (and its creeping) just fine. It starts with a rant about Republicans, migrates through their dis-satisfaction with Obama’s response to Iran, and quickly moves to Chamberlain and “Do nothing” as if we are suddenly now blundering badly in our foreign policy that evil will spread throughout the world because of our inaction. I followed the thread, but the link from A to B was so weak it needed to be pointed out.

Back to the subject of the thread. Our current President has so many messes to clean up, its hardly the place of the party that created most of those messes to chirp about how poorly he’s doing in cleaning them all up, or how fast. They really do expect us to have a short term memory. We’ll see if we really are better off in four years… after six months we’re still feeling the Bush hangover, while some folks are chanting “have another beer”. Unless its war or a tax cut for the rich, it really has become the party of no.

[kicksavedave]

I followed the thread (and its creeping) just fine. It starts with a rant about Republicans, migrates through their dis-satisfaction with Obama’s response to Iran, and quickly moves to Chamberlain and “Do nothing” as if we are suddenly now blundering badly in our foreign policy that evil will spread throughout the world because of our inaction. I followed the thread, but the link from A to B was so weak it needed to be pointed out.

Back to the subject of the thread. Our current President has so many messes to clean up, its hardly the place of the party that created most of those messes to chirp about how poorly he’s doing in cleaning them all up, or how fast. They really do expect us to have a short term memory. We’ll see if we really are better off in four years… after six months we’re still feeling the Bush hangover, while some folks are chanting “have another beer”. Unless its war or a tax cut for the rich, it really has become the party of no.

[Author]

Posts