Hey, there! Log in / Register

Need some proof Bank of America sucks?


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

You should see how their retirement accounts and investment division is run....

Hint: you money isn't safe in a CNBC looking war room. You'd be better off leaving under a mattress.

up
Voting closed 0

The banks are doing one of three things: they want to wait out the problem until the market recovers so they can then get you to sell the house for enough to break even; or, want to wait you out so you give up and run away and they can foreclose; or, their worst fear, get you in one of the moderation programs. I believe they're doing a bad job because they don't really know what they're doing and are understaffed. That, and that they don't you to refinance into a lower interest rate because they have to eat the loss.

So, I love you for all that, hunny. But you lost me after I read your About Me page. "It's not Gay Marriage, it's Gay Union." "It's like Kosher Pork," and "It's like a female bachelor". I don't know what either of those things are. I think they're nothing alike.

Sorry, hunny, but it is Gay Marriage. It was codefied as such by the Massachusetts Superior Court. Actually, no, it's not "Gay Marriage", it's "Marriage" - we have a civil ceremony before a justice of the peace just like you have at your church is a religious ceremony but both marriages are required to be recorded at city hall. See? We go through the same steps and sign the same paperwork. Your marriage in a church may give you extra points with the Big Guy but there's nothing different after that. I get discounted rental car tickets, too.

Civil marriages were a part of Massachusetts well before there were religious marriages. Yeah, it's a true fact, read a history book. We should have left it that way.

The big benefit of a same-sex civil service is most of us don't waste money on sutis and ties and gowns and fancy foods and giant church services and reception halls. I spent my wedding day with five friends eating food in a asian-fusion restaurant and dancing and signing "proud mary" as karaoke. A really great day!

We both have wonderful lives. Let's cherish them!

up
Voting closed 0

If you are going to go off on your ideals, talk directly to her. This is not the place for a gay marriage/civil union/alternative-words-for-the-same-meaning debate.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know why you think Anon's comment is inappropriate. Just because you don't think it is important or appropriate doesn't mean other people don't want to discuss gay marriage versus civil unions.

Personally, I had the exact same reaction to her site. I feel for her because I am having my own issues with a bank. But she lost me when her blog informed me that she didn't consider my marriage "real."

up
Voting closed 0

Because going off on a tangent about her views on gay marriage versus civil unions is flamebait. I doubt she is going to change her views by yours or by his commentary. But having a conservative view does have a stigma (by nature of being offended or at least in strong disagreement to the person) when the people reading it don't share that view. Looking to debate it is here can stir some real emotions (like yours).

up
Voting closed 0

What "stirred strong emotions" was your scolding.

up
Voting closed 0

Somebody has Twisted Nicker Syndrome. Maybe you should pay attention to those strong emotions of your own.

up
Voting closed 0

While I certainly have nothing against digression - I've been known to do it here, often - the best place to scold somebody is probably at where the transgression originally took place and not on a blog aggregator. The point you wish to make will have a better chance of reaching the intended target.

Now, if anon's comment had also been posted at the original site - it's not, by the way - or had been a general rant addressed toward US, as opposed to written as though it were directed at the writer of the blog ("hunny"), it wouldn't be such fair game for criticism, IMHO.

In any case, Merry Christmas (and I mean that in the nicest, non-threatening way) :-)

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

See my comment below. People need to speak out against discrimination anywhere and everywhere.

up
Voting closed 0

I cosign Suldog who says it with greater diplomacy. If you got a problem with her views, take it to email (or commentary, though I find that an uncalled for tangent if you post that in her thread about BoA.

@SwirlyGrrl/Googie Baba - I don't always write (or speak to be honest tactfully) I do apologize for that. The rest, is written by that "different anon" guys, whom I will write in response to your response of him.

up
Voting closed 0

If so, can we chat some time about how the rules around this place have changed for the worse?

If not, and this isn't Adam, then who are you and what the fuck are you doing telling people what this is and isn't the place for? If Adam links to a site on which there's a discriminatory viewpoint, then yes, I hope that people will comment here about it. You know, since this is a site on which to talk about what's going on on blogs.

(And in my opinion, anywhere and everywhere is the place to speak out against discrimination, bias, invisibility, etc. I want to hear people speak out in such numbers and with such conviction that all discrimination becomes the type of taboo that will get you jumped all over the second you start to go there.)

((Also, I wish to add some context that Christine is one of the smartest, funniest, selfless, and just outright amazing people you'll meet. But she's wrong about this issue.))

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not Adam, but does that mean I can't voice my thoughts? What I can only voice outrage on "discriminatory" things only? It sounds like your friends with her, so I doubt you meant anything like it. But you what you just wrote that you want "people speak out with such numbers and with such conviction that all discrimination becomes the type of taboo that will get you jumped" is basically thoughtcrime. Instead of entering a rational discourse and debating by logic, you just proposed they having an opinion that can be deemed discriminatory or something like that should just be screamed down to submission.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't say anything about screaming, and I certainly don't advocate doing such. Just pointing out that the way things have become taboo is that there are certain sentiments that, if you were to express them in polite company, you'd immediately have people jumping all over you telling you that that's not an OK thing to say. I'm sure you can think of plenty such things. Many of these things were once commonplace and acceptable to print in newspapers, say during a work meeting, discuss in your mother's living room. People speaking out firmly and consistently is what has changed the acceptability of these ideas. It works far better than laws against such speech or anything like that.

I don't know where the fuck you're getting thought crimes out of this, because I certainly feel that you have the right to your homophobic views. And hopefully when you express them, you'll encounter people who firmly and politely tell you how such views hurt people and need to change.

up
Voting closed 0

Eeka, does making things taboo change the mind of the person? Or does it just suppress the person from expression his ideas?

Does making things taboo change your friend's homophobic mind? Or just make things really hard to talking about it at all? FYI, I never said gay marriage should be banned.

up
Voting closed 0

which is that silence makes most people think that the ideas are fine, since no one responded to them to say anything any different.

There is research indicating that behavior changes beliefs/feelings. A lot of cognitive behavioral therapy is based upon first changing behavior and the beliefs will follow.

There's also plenty of research to indicate that a lot of folks just go along with popular opinion. Think about older friends and relatives we all have who talk about how blatant racism used to be OK and "we all said those things" but now do really know better. These people don't have the personality and convictions to have been "radical" and expressed an unpopular idea by speaking out against racism back when everyone made blatantly racist statements. It wouldn't have occurred to them to be the one person who thought that it wasn't OK to use the n-word. They said it or at least tolerated it because everyone said that. But now that it's generally not OK to use that word, they're not going to be the one person in the crowd who goes and uses that word. And they'll tell you about how racial attitudes are gradually improving.

The fact that some people do think it's OK to debate LGBT civil rights shows how LGBT folks are still lacking in status. You don't see very many people any more who would make an articulate and reasonable defense like yours if the issue was whether Blacks should own property or whether people who use wheelchairs should be able to have jobs.

up
Voting closed 0

Okay, so I'm late on this, but this has been bugging me all day.

So, this family is being screwed by Bank of America, and all you can think about is her views on marriage equity?

Serious, by commenting on her views on marriage when the topic is banks dicking people around would make it appear that you are linking the two. Just like when right-wing evangelists blame immorality (or at least their version) for natural disasters. Or like when general right-wingers call people horrible things due to who they are attracted to. So it's okay that her home is being foreclosed upon?

Look, have your opinion on marriage. But people with depth view things overall, see points of commonality along with points of difference.

One of the things I can't stand, in politics and life, is this whole idea that there are only 2 camps- those who are with us and the others. A Republican is solid on low taxes? Who cares, he thinks gays should be able to serve in the military! A Democrat has a solid union record? So what, he doesn't believe in a giveaway to the health care industry!

I like the UHub, but I don't agree with anyone 100% And that's the way I like it.

By the way, I didn't see the said blog post on her website. I did read about how BoA cannot get their act together. And that's good enough for me.

up
Voting closed 0

In MA, any adult wanting to marry any other adult can do so (provided they are not already married to someone else. That's called "settled law".

If you are in the public sphere, an adult in such a legal relationship is called "married". In your church or home, go ahead and argue about it ... it won't change the reality that gay couples can LEGALLY marry here and are entitled to all the same legal benefits that straight couples get (not to mention the basic courtesy of being said to be married). Period.

Recognizing the legal realities and expectations of common courtesy and citizenship != "political orthodoxy". What it demands is maturity. Life isn't a decades long high school clique that self-appoints itself to decide what it finds to be "acceptable".

up
Voting closed 0

The law have settled it legally, but the it doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way as you do. You are correct that in the public sphere Gay Marriage is Gay Marriage. But writing about a person's thoughts of Gay Marriage or anything someone can disagree, is their thoughts. So people taking offense is political orthodoxy (and political orthodoxy is matters of opinion, unless you can scientifically prove that one idea is fundamentally true).

From what I can remember from that about me page, she was writing about her opinion, not pretending to be part of the legislature or a judge. I do not see how this enters into the realm of maturity expect the subtle implication that the anon is immature. That is not how one discuss logically of this matter. Though we shouldn't be talking about this at all.

up
Voting closed 0

That is not how one discuss logically of this matter. Though we shouldn't be talking about this at all.

Again, where do you get off deciding what we "should" talk about? No one "should" be commenting on anyone else's civil rights at all, yet people do. And when they do, I'm sure as hell going to call them on it.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm saying that since we are bigger concern that how BoA is a bunch of assholes. The "should" is BoA, not suppression voicing about civil rights. Again, I am saying no one should talk about civil rights. When a post comes up talking about the injustice of BoA, one should think the big concern to discuss is BoA.

Finally, for responding, you did not attempt to address the major point I wrote. Isn't it better to convince a person you think who have a wrong view that the person is wrong by demonstration or rational discussion? The problem is "calling them out" and making it into a taboo is that it doesn't change he mind of the and approaching Orwellian type of thinking: thoughtcrime. I mean they cannot express their thought at all without taking severe pressure for saying it (and these cases, I cannot categorize things like Gay Marriage as things like genocide or slavery, where I can see resorting to such tactics can be necessary) and it doesn't change the person mind either.

up
Voting closed 0

I have to hand it to you Rhoninfire. You are absolutely tenacious in posting your opinion about what people should and should not be posting.

up
Voting closed 0

I did note that I am posting too much. This doesn't address my point that I said (though refer to Suldog, I think he said it with less offense).

up
Voting closed 0

and I think you're pretty much invoking a variant of Godwin's law by saying it's Orwellian that people disagree with you.

No one is policing your thoughts. I'm just saying that I will continue to call people out pretty much any time they say something homophobic, and I don't care if some stranger thinks I should have other priorities. If someone witnesses homophobia and DOESN'T speak out against it, they're perpetuating it. Feel free to perpetuate homophobia if you like, but know that I'm going to call you on it.

up
Voting closed 0

I had two reactions to her blog. I read her post about her foreclosure. I honestly feel for what she is going through. In fact, her experience has been haunting me all day. But I also read her "About Me" page. She feels strongly enough about gay marriage to state her opinion there. I have a reaction to someone stating that they believe I don't have a "marriage." According to her I am not married even if the state says otherwise. I am afraid it is a bit of a deal breaker.

Personally, I don't appreciate the issue being trivialized. It is a big fucking deal for someone to decide that their marriage is legit while yours is not.

up
Voting closed 0

i apologize if i stepped on any toes. i wrote that in 2001. perhaps i should revise it. i've got gay friends whose weddings i've been to who have always honored what i thought and felt and my opinions. and ... thank you to eeka who disagrees with me but for many many years has been a dear, wonderful and exceptional friend to me.

i'm so glad you had a great wedding.

and i like being called hunny. it makes me think of winnie the pooh.

but we have digressed from the original concepts i stated in my blog entry. my friend larry would blow a whistle, throw a flag and yell "NON SEQUITOR!" at the top of his lungs over this one.

cheers.

up
Voting closed 0

I think colored people shouldn't be allowed to marry white folk. It isn't mocha, it's oil and water.

Hey! I'm not racist! I wrote that in 2001, when obviously it was appropriate. I have several colored friends, too!

up
Voting closed 0

Okay, that said, because a commentator on her blog pointed out the Consumerist. This article could be related:

http://consumerist.com/2010/12/arizona-sues-bank-o...

It seems since BoA bought Countrywide (to be fair, the Consumerist's commentators seems to say that BoA was forced to by the government and Countrywide was playing with that subprime mortgage thing while BoA was not so much), they have taken to some practices that have pissed off an entire state. Perhaps it is the same practice.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't post in the blog's comments, but I did forward the link to Consumerist last night. Love that site.

up
Voting closed 0

i got about 3 emails from people telling me they sent it to them. right now, it feels like 90% of the world is in the same position i am. i actually had never read their site before... and spent quite a bit of time on it learnin' stuff.

up
Voting closed 0

I can't wait to see what Wikileaks releases on these guys next year.

I can't believe anyone does business with Bank of America, anymore. Letting Bank of America hold your money/debt is like letting your coked up falling down blacked out drunk friend hold the keys to your new car. I'd like to see Bank of America shut down, broken up, and sold off in tiny little pieces.

up
Voting closed 0

Mortgages get sold. My previous one got sold to one of the notorious evil banks. I was fortunately able to refinance to a bank that hasn't sold off mortgages, but that was due to some lucky timing in terms of my home value going up sharply thus magically having equity despite being assbroke as a general rule. Not everyone is so lucky.

up
Voting closed 0

eeka, we were countrywide customers for 13 years. for all the griping people have done about countrywide, i never once had a problem. i did three refis with them on my first house. i found everything to be smooth and easy with them.

and then they got bought.

i immediately tried to get a new bank, but we were already in kind of rough waters. doug had been laid off, my company had informed me that i would most likely be laid off within 3 months (luckily, they kept me on for another year and 2 months). so in trying to get another bank to take on our mortgage we were having no luck.

on top of that, we bought at the top of the market. we have a fantastic, beautiful antique of a house. but we lost about 50k in value, and refinancing was not an option. no one would touch us.

one of the things i'm finding most amusing about this whole situation is all the BOA URLs that they are buying up. they are buying everything that ends with sucks and blows. but ... are they buying stuff that ends with sucksandblows? hmmmmm.

;-)

up
Voting closed 0

Countrywide didn't get "bought" in the traditional sense. Basically, they were neck-deep in the scandalous sub-prime debacle that caused the entire housing bubble/credit default swap meltdown. Countrywide was corrupt from the top down and while some people might have had fine dealings with them and never known that they were financing what I'll call "legal criminals" (ethically they were complete trash, but legally thanks to tons of bought legislation, they were technically not breaking any laws...most of the time).

When it was realized how deep they were in the weeds with all of these sub-prime mortgages blowing up on them, Countrywide's head honchos begged the Bush administration to bail them out. The government couldn't pull that off, but it *could* make it _extremely_ beneficial-looking for another bank with a strong enough balance sheet amid all of the exploding meltdowns to buy up Countrywide so the head honchos could get out of the game scot-free and all of those detrimental mortgages wouldn't destroy whomever acquired them. That became BoA's job. They were one of the only banks big enough and without much skin in the credit default swaps who could take over Countrywide's problems. The government sweetened the deal for BoA and basically made them "an offer they can't refuse" by threatening BoA if they didn't take the deal. BoA basically paid for Countrywide's mistakes and its head honcho got to float off into the sunset instead of go to jail for mishandling so many peoples' money. And BoA got to write off a ton of Countrywide's losses on its taxes, thanks to Bush. You can read about it here.

So, of course everything was smooth and easy with Countrywide. They were giant liars who handed out debt like it was going out of style (not to say you were one of the sub-primes who NEVER should have been able to buy a house, necessarily). And of course BoA is going to be a jerk, they didn't WANT your mortgage anyways...it was pretty much shoved down their throat by the government AND for every defaulted mortgage, they get to write off more in taxes, so why would they *want* to help you out? Talk to the federal government for making such a nice deal with BoA just to help out Countrywide's corrupt assholes.

up
Voting closed 0