REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bank of America Site Crashes, Day After $5 Debit Fee Rule

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, October 9, 2011 18:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2631
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 2, 2011 5:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Heard about this on the news (the fee), and my first thought was "bastards get us coming and going, don't they?" Just like insurance companies did, when there's something coming up which will impact their huge profits, they jack it up beforehand, good old "get it while you can" mentality!
Quote:

A day after news that Bank of America would hit some debit card customers with a $5 monthly fee, the bank’s home page went down on Friday morning through the early evening.

Many users reported not being able to access their accounts after logging on through the home page. By evening on the east coast, the home page was still experiencing sporadic problems. As of 7 p.m. ET, the bank’s home page was back up and running.

Earlier, a Bank of America spokeswoman said some customers were experiencing issues, but that the site was running in the afternoon.

She added, that while the bank doesn’t comment on specific technical issues, this “had nothing to do with yesterday or hacking or anything to do with customers information being compromised.”

But some visitors to the home page encountered a message that stated some of its pages were “temporarily unavailable.”

Some users received the message: “We apologize, but Online Banking is operating slower than usual. We are working to restore full service as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.”

Other services, including looking up an ATM or a branch, appear to be operational despite the site’s crash, as first reported by Credit.com.

Regarding the company’s announcement that they will charge $5 a month to customers who use their debit card for purchases early next year, Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Riess, said the “economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations.” She said the company will notify customers in writing at least 30 days before applying the fee.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, N.C., will waive debit card charges on premium accounts and for Wealth Management/Merrill Lynch and US Trust clients. Customers will still be able to get cash through ATMs, use online bill pay and mobile phones for free.

Banks have warned that the Durbin Amendment, which is part of the Dodd-Frank Act, could lead to negative repercussions for consumers. The amendment capped debit card transaction, or interchange, fees for merchants at 21 cents per transaction earlier this year. Before the amendment, debit card companies charged merchants an average interchange fee of 44 cents per transaction.

While Chase and Wells Fargo are testing in some markets a $3 monthly fee for users who make purchases with their debit card, they said they have no immediately plans to roll-out the fees nationally. Other banks also offer free debit card options. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/bank-of-america-site-temp
orarily-down/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 5:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



My bank is only charging $3 for the debit card, at least, initially.

I laughed at the report form BoA which said they didn't think the crash was related to the news of the hike.

Crassic.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 5:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Hmm. My Credit Union charges no fees for debit or credit cards...yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:09 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


^ What Geezer said. Credit unions rock.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:37 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I am not fully versed, but I believe many of the changes that have big banks scrambling for revenue do not apply to small banks or credit unions.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:54 AM

GREENKA61


This news makes me smile! A lot! They certainly have it coming to them, just like Netflix, whose stock has tanked since they changed their fee structure.

I have zero sympathy for these greedy corporations. Zero.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 10:18 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"Bank of America Site Crashes, Day After $5 Debit Fee Rule"


DAMN THOSE REGULATIONS!!! THEY CRASHED THAT HELPLESS BANK'S WEBSITE!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2011 5:23 PM

DREAMTROVE


Oh how bogus. Banks, man.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 3, 2011 3:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thus far, Anthony, I don't think they do. My bank has no intention of following BofA's example, and I'm sure many others don't. There's a mentality at work here, and I think it's quite different at places like BofA and Wells Fargo than it is in smaller banks who know their customers and value them.

I left Wells a couple of decades ago and despise both it and BofA for many of their "practices". I made the mistake of switching to Citi long ago when something happened with my own bank which pissed me off. The experience reminded me of why I'd left Wells; I went right back to my old bank. When I walk in there, they greet me by name, and they've responded really well to problems I've had.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 3, 2011 4:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Apparently the backlash is coming, if not already here:
Quote:

Barely 72 hours later, it seems that Bank of America’s decision to charge customers $5 a month to use their debit cards is rapidly becoming a New Coke-level blunder. Consumers have taken to the blogosphere in droves to vent their displeasure, and the bank’s already-battered stock dropped by more than 3.5 percent on Friday.

When TIME Moneyland posted a poll asking Bank of America customers how they planned to respond to the fee announcement, roughly 75 percent of nearly 1,000 respondents said they’d switch banks, and a number of them took to the comments section to elaborate.

Yes, switching banks is a hassle, especially if you have automatic bill pay or direct deposit, but a ticked-off consumer is also a motivated consumer. Research shows that roughly two-thirds of people who say that they plan to switch banks do, according to Michael Beird, director of banking services at J.D. Power and Associates.

Our poll also found that 11 percent of respondents said they’d switch to credit cards to avoid the fee. Ironically, this is the outcome that would benefit banks the most, since they’re paid more by merchants for credit card transactions, and there’s the potential that customer will spend more than planned and have to revolve a balance. Nearly as many, 8 percent, said they’d switch to cash, while a relative handful (3 percent) said they’d go back to using paper checks.

J.D. Power also asked consumers which method of payment they would use for everyday purchases if a debit card was unavailable in its 2011 Retail Banking Satisfaction Study, and found that the highest percentage, 40 percent, said they’d switch to paper checks. It’s more expensive for banks to process paper checks than debit transactions, so this is an outcome Bank of America probably hopes to avoid. “If consumers banded together and switched to paper [checks], I think it would be a very telling impact,” Beird says.

For customers, the question is: Can they switch to a financial institution that doesn’t charge fees? For instance, they could dodge the debit fee by transferring to Citi, which has said it won’t charge for debit card use. On the other hand, Citi just significantly increased its minimum balance that customers must keep in their checking account to avoid a monthly maintenance fee.

More fees will probably be a way of life for bank customers, at least at larger institutions. Yahoo! Finance writer Dan Gross points out that this has the benefit of being more transparent for customers than the plethora of hidden costs and “gotcha” fees that were pervasive prior to financial reform. And, he notes, charging customers fees for services like debit card use is arguably a better business model — for banks as well as for society at large — than creating and trading complex derivatives that can threaten the entire country’s financial stability if they collapse.

And charging fees at least puts choice back in the hands of bank customers, he points out. Bloomberg Businessweek quotes none other than Warren Buffett making the same point.

“There are 7,000 banks in the United States, and if somebody else offers a better deal, people can go to that,” Buffett said today on CNN. “It’s just like you can change channels on television.”

It’s an apt analogy, and if consumers want to change the channel and bank with a smaller institution that didn’t dive headfirst into risky, unsustainable business practices and now doesn’t have to nickel-and-dime its customers to make up for lost profits, that’s their call. http://moneyland.time.com/2011/10/03/bank-of-america-backlash-consumer
s-react-to-debit-card-fee/
I would absolutely ADORE to see them hurt, along with any of the other "biggies" who've done us so much harm and have their customers by the short hairs!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Unintended consequences, my muscular buttocks.

Quote:


Credit Card rates will increase with Durbin Amendment
Posted on September 27, 2011 by Pat Dulnier

Businesses are expected to face high credit card rate hikes once the Durbin Amendment goes into effect, according to a financial expert.
Robert Livingstone

Robert Livingstone, the president and founder of IdealCost.com, said that the Durbin Amendment will do the opposite of its intended purpose and will actually increase rate hikes instead of reducing them.

Livingstone outlined three problems that will cause this rate hike.

The first problem, according to Livingstone, is that Visa is already acting to set a historically high credit card processing rate for Oct.

In addition, credit card processors who position themselves as brokers between the credit card issuers and merchants will be the ones to receive the rate reduction.

Livingstone said that processors have already informed their shareholders that they do not intend to pass their savings onto their clients.

Merchants who accept credit cards online or over the phone will not receive discounts because the Durbin Amendment only applies to card that are swiped.

"What many companies aren't privy to is that these rate reductions are specifically for swiped debit card transactions, Livingstone said. “Visa (has) announced historically high credit card processing rate increases to offset these rate reductions. Merchants who accept cards over the phone or the internet will see zero rate reductions and huge fee increases on their merchant statements. In this economic climate how are these merchants supposed to pay for these increased fees?"

Livingstone has been a vocal opponent of the Durbin Amendment and has long predicted it to be a burden to the free market.

http://creditnewsline.com/news/credit-card-rates-will-increase-with-du
rbin-amendment
/




Did the Leftists REALLY think that the companies would just eat their loss, and not try to recoup what the govt has forcibly taken from them ?

Wow.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Sounds like better regulation is needed.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I only have an ATM card with Chase :)

Just ask them for one.

No more debit card....

No more BS



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

BTW... I love my General Discussion Peeps. If you feel a strong need to judge me on RWED discussions I've had in the General Discussion, I welcome it, but I also say that they are two different worlds......

And while my core never wavers and though I may say things you don't like in the RWED, I'd never say them in General Discussions and I hope you would do the same.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Sounds like better regulation is needed.





And by 'regulation', you mean more govt control.

Because this fiasco has worked out, so very well.

The Dodd - Frank bill, and this Durbin amendment, are turning out to be every bit as a disaster as expected.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 4:14 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


We've had 10 years of doing it the republican way. Less regulation, lower taxes, 'trickle down' economics, bubble economies to hide the real economic problems. And the economy has gone from strong under Clinton to faltering and ready to fall under Bush, and the continued republican policies.

And you want to double-down. You know what the definition of insanity is, right?

Oh, and please, don't respond with your fantasy-land statements you claim are reality. Unless of course you back them up with FACTS. Not opinion statements from the mouthpieces you use for brains, but complete sets of figures. With references, links, or searchable quotes.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 4:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Except your revisionist view of the past 10 years omits a bunch of facts.

The Bush administration actually tried to implement MORE regulations, namely on Fannie and Freddie, predicting the potential for an economic crisis.

The Dems ( ironically Dodd - Frank, and others ) actively fought to fight reform. This isn't even debatable.

The economy was doing well under Clinton thanks in large part to the GOP cutting spending, and enacting welfare reform.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 4:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Cites? Figures? Links?

Or just another brain fart from you. Yeah, I'm done with you.

For anyone interested in FACTS - this is an interesting chart:



It comes from here:

http://www.thestreet.com/stock-market-news/11078128/us-gdp-vs-revenue-
vs-spending.html





Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 5:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



You've had your head in the sand from the very start. You can't HANDLE the facts.

First, on Fannie / Freddie...PAY ATTENTION!



And an extra bonus, lookie who helped with those 'obscene' AIG bonuses...




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 6:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Care to explain the chart? Of course not. Any data on HOW Fannie and Freddy supposedly caused the crash? Of course not. Any data on HOW the bonus rule changed the trillions in bailouts? Of course not.

For anyone interested, I've reposted the chart with salient dates underneath



salient dates

Clinton 1993 – 2000
Democratic House 1993
Democratic Senate 1993
Clinton tax increases 1993
Republican House 1995
Clinton minimum wage increase 1996
"Dot-com" boom and bust 1999 – 2001
Bush 2001 – 2008
Alternating Democratic and Republican Senate 2001 – 2003
Bush tax cut 2001
9/11 2001
note: only budgeted spending is reflected in the graph, during the Bush administration Afghanistan and Iraq were funded off-budget
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq 2001
Bush tax cut 2003
OCC preempts all state predatory lending laws 2003
OCC promulgates new rules preventing states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks 2003
Republican Senate 2003
Housing bubble begins 2004
Housing crash begins 2007
Democratic House 2007
Democratic Senate 2007
Global Financial Crisis begins 2008
Republican house 2011

As for the BUSH tab that he ran up with reckless tax-cuts and increased spending evident during his entire administration:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/c
ost-of-the-bush-era-11-point-5-trillion.aspx


Here are five areas where Bush has approved massive outlays of taxpayer money.


Wall Street bailouts: $6 trillion

When the real-estate bubble burst, Wall Street collapsed, too. Starting with Bear Stearns in March, investment banks fell like dominoes, done in by overexposure to mortgage-backed securities. We're still sifting through the damage. But we know U.S. taxpayers are among the biggest losers.

In hopes of stanching the bleeding, the federal government has spent or put at risk approximately $6 trillion.

Iraq and Afghanistan: $3 trillion

The searches for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have morphed into occupations. So far, the U.S. has spent around $860 billion on both, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University say the agency is underestimating the tab. In their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" they claim Iraq will be far costlier.

Tax cuts and deficit spending: $2 trillion

In 2001 and 2003, Bush signed legislation that cut taxes, much to the benefit of the affluent. The first cut was designed to help the economy after the Internet bubble collapsed. The second was to boost growth after the 2001 recession ended.

Kogan estimated the tax cuts have cost the Treasury $1.7 trillion in revenue to date. Of course, that may not be one bit disturbing to the taxpayers who've watched their tax bills go down. The only problem is, the cuts have been critical in opening up the gargantuan budget gap that Obama will face.

Because Bush did not reduce spending, Washington has paid about $265 billion in interest on loans to cover the lost revenue. So the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts really cost around $2 trillion.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: $270 billion

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, New Orleans' levees gave way, and the city was inundated. Stories of survivors trapped in the Superdome and incompetence at the Federal Emergency Management Agency transformed the natural disaster into a national disgrace.

9/11: $260 billion

New York City lost about $95 billion because of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a 2002 report by City Comptroller William Thompson Jr.

That price tag includes costs associated only with New York: $22 billion to replace the World Trade Center, $65 billion in lost economic activity in the three years after the attacks and $9 billion in the human potential that disappeared when the hijackers killed 2,819 people in Manhattan -- a calculation that illustrates why economics is called the dismal science. It does not include Washington's $22 billion in aid.





Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 11:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



You nicely ignored my entire post. Well done.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 10:42 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:The Bush administration actually tried to implement MORE regulations, namely on Fannie and Freddie, predicting the potential for an economic crisis.


You have been shown now many times that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing market to crash. Your an idiot for continuting to think that.

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:The economy was doing well under Clinton thanks in large part to the GOP cutting spending, and enacting welfare reform.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Cold hard numbers say you are wrong. Spending went up each year Clinton was in office. He did however pass tax increase his first year that helped produce the yearly surpluses.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 10:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:The Bush administration actually tried to implement MORE regulations, namely on Fannie and Freddie, predicting the potential for an economic crisis.


You have been shown now many times that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing market to crash. Your an idiot for continuting to think that.


That I've not bought the spin is one thing. But YOU'RE the idiot for not seeing the damage caused by Fannie / Freddie.


Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:The economy was doing well under Clinton thanks in large part to the GOP cutting spending, and enacting welfare reform.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Cold hard numbers say you are wrong. Spending went up each year Clinton was in office. He did however pass tax increase his first year that helped produce the yearly surpluses.




No, they don't. Spending would have gone up far more under Clinton, had the GOP not been in control of Congress. The tax increases only helped because the economy turned around, ( thanks in large part to the dot com bubble starting up ) The economy did NOT get better because we were taxed more.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 11:08 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That I've not bought the spin is one thing. But YOU'RE the idiot for not seeing the damage caused by Fannie / Freddie.



The damage was caused by a lack of regulations on the entire investment market. The biggest impact was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act.


Quote:

No, they don't. Spending would have gone up far more under Clinton, had the GOP not been in control of Congress. The tax increases only helped because the economy turned around, ( thanks in large part to the dot com bubble starting up ) The economy did NOT get better because we were taxed more.


So which is it, did spending go up or not. You said it was because the GOP cut spending. To quote "The economy was doing well under Clinton thanks in large part to the GOP cutting spending."

Then you say the tax increases only helped because the economy got better, but because of the tax increases. Hasn't it been your argument before that tax increases would cause the economy to get worse?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Nick, you're doing it again. Keep reminding yourself: Raptor will write whatever fits his agenda AT THE MOMENT; expecting consistency is like believing one of the candidates on the right is fit for office!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 9, 2011 2:59 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


My dad and I are going to switch to a different bank as soon as B of A leaves our grocery store and a new bank gets put in, we'll use whatever it is because I like being able to get money at the grocery store.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 9, 2011 6:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


No, they don't. Spending would have gone up far more under Clinton, had the GOP not been in control of Congress.



The years 2000-2006 say you're lying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, April 18, 2024 05:41 - 6257 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, April 18, 2024 04:57 - 2263 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 00:50 - 147 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:29 - 3529 posts
Sentencing Thread
Wed, April 17, 2024 22:02 - 364 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Wed, April 17, 2024 20:05 - 50 posts
Share of Democratic Registrations Is Declining, but What Does It Mean?
Wed, April 17, 2024 17:51 - 4 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Tue, April 16, 2024 21:17 - 740 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Tue, April 16, 2024 20:24 - 795 posts
I agree with everything you said, but don't tell anyone I said that
Tue, April 16, 2024 12:42 - 14 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Tue, April 16, 2024 02:04 - 504 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL