Originally posted by PhoenixDemon
I don't think Aggie is "defending the government".
Not in this thread, in this thread he's defending the corporate crooks. But in countless other threads, regarding the government, he sure does.
Everytime.
I think it comes down to we live by a system of laws. Just because the law isn't good or you don't like it doesn't mean you ignore it. If its a bad
law you work to get it changed.
Any amount of work attempting to change laws that benefit the corporate puppet masters of the current 2 party scam, is in vain, unfortunately. When
the people vote for or against a law they don't like, the vote is ignored and overturned. Everytime.
Hopefully enough people will grow tired of being ignored, and basically sold off as livestock to various entities that make billions off our labor,
and throw us table scraps. Maybe enough people will realize that those entities would be NOTHING without us, and we don't have to accept it as "just
the way it is". Then the people will hold the power again, and maybe one day will figure out a way to stamp out corruption in the government for
good, and work on a system where everybody
truly has a chance to succeed.
I do agree that contracts should be written so that anyone with a high school education should be able to understand it.
I'm glad you agree with that, because the way legal contracts are composed now is meant to confuse people into signing unfair agreements. Most
regular folks don't have the money for a lawyer to read and translate documents for them. You can't trust those who are pushing the loan to lay out
the cons of an agreement for you. You never see the true bottom line written in the contract, after all the jumbled interest and percentage rates,
probably because the number is usually grotesque, and at least triple the amount of the loan. They take advantage of people's dreams, and rake them
over the coals, because they can.
But don't you see the slippery slope that this case takes us onto? A judge who doesn't like how someone is treated, regardless of the activity being
LEGAL can override the law and do what that judge pleases. Look at the power you would be giving to the bench.
Sorry, in this case i won't disagree with the judge. Sure, it may just be the personal satisfaction i get from seeing a judge stand up for the little
guy, but i won't disagree. Like i said, the laws won't change, even if the 100% of the people want them to. At this point, i see no other way the
little guy can get a fair shake, without help from the bench.
I understand everyone wants to crush the evil banksters...But this is not the way.
I'm open for suggestions, just please don't bring up voting. Like i said, if they don't like what the people have to say, they tell us we don't
understand the impact of our decisions and they will not let the decision stand. It happens time and time again.