Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Noob
ParticipantI have been a USAA customer for 29 years. They do such a great job in their insurance unit and in the Fedral Savings Bank unit. However, I have had similar luck with their Mortgage unit. About 3 years ago I tried to refinance a mortagage and had a bad expeience. I finally gave up on them. In my complaits to them regarding the situation, I learned that they outsource the mortagage business and label it as their own. Apparently, their high level of customer service has not yet been transfered to their outsource partner 3 years later…..
ParticipantI have been a USAA customer for 29 years. They do such a great job in their insurance unit and in the Fedral Savings Bank unit. However, I have had similar luck with their Mortgage unit. About 3 years ago I tried to refinance a mortagage and had a bad expeience. I finally gave up on them. In my complaits to them regarding the situation, I learned that they outsource the mortagage business and label it as their own. Apparently, their high level of customer service has not yet been transfered to their outsource partner 3 years later…..
ParticipantI have been a USAA customer for 29 years. They do such a great job in their insurance unit and in the Fedral Savings Bank unit. However, I have had similar luck with their Mortgage unit. About 3 years ago I tried to refinance a mortagage and had a bad expeience. I finally gave up on them. In my complaits to them regarding the situation, I learned that they outsource the mortagage business and label it as their own. Apparently, their high level of customer service has not yet been transfered to their outsource partner 3 years later…..
ParticipantI have been a USAA customer for 29 years. They do such a great job in their insurance unit and in the Fedral Savings Bank unit. However, I have had similar luck with their Mortgage unit. About 3 years ago I tried to refinance a mortagage and had a bad expeience. I finally gave up on them. In my complaits to them regarding the situation, I learned that they outsource the mortagage business and label it as their own. Apparently, their high level of customer service has not yet been transfered to their outsource partner 3 years later…..
ParticipantI am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.
This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.
Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.
As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?
As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.
ParticipantI am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.
This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.
Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.
As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?
As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.
ParticipantI am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.
This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.
Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.
As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?
As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.
ParticipantI am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.
This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.
Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.
As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?
As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.
ParticipantI am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.
This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.
Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.
As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?
As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.
Participant[quote=afx114]Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!
Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.[/quote]
ummm. I don’t even know where to start on this. You need go take a constitutional law class. Your right to life comes to you naturally. Its not a right to extend your life through health care. Its that the governement can’t give you “life” which is why its a right. They can take it away for sure, just like they can take away your right to pursue happiness or liberty.
Participant[quote=afx114]Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!
Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.[/quote]
ummm. I don’t even know where to start on this. You need go take a constitutional law class. Your right to life comes to you naturally. Its not a right to extend your life through health care. Its that the governement can’t give you “life” which is why its a right. They can take it away for sure, just like they can take away your right to pursue happiness or liberty.
Participant[quote=afx114]Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!
Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.[/quote]
ummm. I don’t even know where to start on this. You need go take a constitutional law class. Your right to life comes to you naturally. Its not a right to extend your life through health care. Its that the governement can’t give you “life” which is why its a right. They can take it away for sure, just like they can take away your right to pursue happiness or liberty.
Participant[quote=afx114]Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!
Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.[/quote]
ummm. I don’t even know where to start on this. You need go take a constitutional law class. Your right to life comes to you naturally. Its not a right to extend your life through health care. Its that the governement can’t give you “life” which is why its a right. They can take it away for sure, just like they can take away your right to pursue happiness or liberty.
Participant[quote=afx114]Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!
Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.[/quote]
ummm. I don’t even know where to start on this. You need go take a constitutional law class. Your right to life comes to you naturally. Its not a right to extend your life through health care. Its that the governement can’t give you “life” which is why its a right. They can take it away for sure, just like they can take away your right to pursue happiness or liberty.
-
AuthorPosts