If I were a prisoner at Guantanamo and they wanted me to talk, there would be no need to waterboard. All they’d have to do is play these commercials for 10 minutes and I’d be telling them everything I know.
They can either 1)persuade Congress to increase the fines to a level that actually deters the crime or 2)sit with their thumbs up their asses, secure in the knowledge that, in the absence of (1), nothing they do will matter for squat.
I take it you arent a fan of the “Its my money, I need it now!”, the JK Harris, or Bender and Bender ads either 
There truelly is no accounting for taste is there?
J. G. Wentworth stopped advertising several months ago-not sure why. The “opera” one alone must have cost a fortune…
I’m with you. It’s not free if you have to buy something to get it.
you don’t though - you’re signed up for a service which is free for 30 days. after that time, only then are you charged
That’s not what I was referring to.
Which means it wasn’t free in the first place. Your payment was just time-delayed.
No. Speaking as someone who did this :smack: you can use the service for the first (in my case) 21 days and then cancel. This leads to no charges on your account, and in fact the folks at freecreditreport were quite nice about processing the cancellation (unlike for example the worthless bastards at Vonage).
They are not using time-delaying billing; they do not charge you for the first bit. Now I suspect that they make tons of money from people who don’t cancel for a couple of months, but that’s a different thing.
you are free to cancel within the 30 days and not incur any charges.
Sorry, but IT didn’t charge you for anything. You willfully gave your CC info and hit a submit button once or twice at least.
You didn’t follow up with the cancellation until how many months went by at $14.95? Once would think that one would keep an eye on their emergency fund a little better. If you captured your cancellation info including transaction ID’s you have a case for getting your money back. If not, well…
I fell for the same thing years ago if it makes you feel any better.
They’re still going at it - I saw the opera spot on Friday.
I run from everything that is “Free” or “No Risk”, they aren’t and there is.
Burden is on the OP to prove that he cancelled, and he presumably didn’t bother to write down the cancellation number or he’d be on the phone with Experian instead of posting here.
I’m not sure that marketing departments are exactly a bastion of conservative thought.
Nothing’s free, and I have no clue why you would want to mandate such a hyper-restrictive use of the term in commerce.
Most people can deduce that “free” in the context of a commercial transaction does not actually mean gratis. There’s no point changing the law for the few people who cannot figure it out.
That’s pretty good idea, protecting the language from violence.
Let’s go further, and stipulate that you can’t charge money to people whom you have labeled as a “guest,” or for anything that you’re calling a “gift,” or for anything that you’re calling “an invitation.”
Why would a conservative be against truth in advertising? Why even bring politics into it?
FTR, I completely agree about the “free means free” logic.
Well, there are at least two kinds of conservatives.
Ones that are generally pro-business/pro-rich. The reasoning and justifications for them come after the fact.
And ones that believe in actual principles that TEND to be pro-business/pro-rich as a side effect. Or at least principles that tend to not be anti-rich/anti-business.
The former IMO tend to be possers that are often appear to be the later or try to paint themselves as such while laughing all the way to bank.
The later generally have no issues with truth in advertising or product labels or fair business practices and things of that ilk. The former not so much. And, I think it would be nice if folks here considered that it is fairly likely the “conservatives” that post here are of the later category even though they may appear to be of the former category. Just an opinion.
I don’t necessarily think you’re a “faux” republican/conservative-of-convenience if you have strong beliefs about government regulation/intervention/nannyism in regards to product labeling (and government regulation at large). They would tend to prefer “free market” solutions to this. This would be in contrast to your claim that they wouldn’t have any problems with “truth in advertising” laws/rules/regulations.