I always thought the point of overdraft protection was to keep your checks from bouncing, not tso save fees. If I let my checking account run dry, I deserve the fee-- even a transfer fee, because the bank has to move my money around for me-- something I should be doing myself. What I don’t ever want is an angry call from my landlord, who’s now standing in a bank with a bounced check because my husband and I got out of sync on the funds in the joint account. That’s worth $10 to me.
Sorry, your analogy has the circumstances reversed. Try this:
Joe first puts Canadians through gas chambers and forced sterilization while whining about federal tax credits. Then he whines about the fact that people are upset when he tries to claim federal tax credits for fertilizing the land with the remains.
Later, Joe saves a child from a house fire he set and Rand Rover says, “Yay Joe, you are the best!”, then wonders why people are looking at him funny.
See, this is why I usually don’t engage idiots. I ask them to make an argument for their position, they don’t, and that’s the end of it.
In my example, I’m obviously praising Joe for rescuing kids. That’s it. Whatever else he did doesn’t matter.
The whole point is that I can have different positions on people’s actions without those positions necessarily being affected by their other actions. And there’s nothing hypocritical or otherwise bad about that.
You say that I “defended” “OMG teh banks,” and then you matched that up with what you assumed my position was on “OMG teh bailout,” and you decided that that means “OMG RR=teh hypocrite.” Well, no.
See, this is why people call you a fucking sociopath. You have no understanding of how the vast majority of people understand and react to human behavior.
Did you even notice that I mentioned that Joe set the fire? Joe is not a hero. Joe is not worthy of praise. At the most, Joe might have mitigated his crime by saving the innocent victim of his demented actions. Most people get this. You don’t.
“Hey, I know Pol Pot killed millions, but he took in stray cats, so good for him!” is not a statement most sane, rational human beings would make.
And that’s not a statement I would make either. I’m looking at the two separate events in isolation. You, as a complete idiot, must categorize people into “defenders of banks” and “attackers of banks” and can’t look at events in isolation and just discus the events.
Well then why wouldn’t you praise Pol Pot for rescuing stray cats? That’s a worthy thing and looking at it isolation and just discussing that event, why wouldn’t you give the Rand Rover seal of approval? Oh wait, because your view of him is impacted by the fact that he killed millions.
So apply that same logic, these same banks have done and continue to do things that you despise. Why doesn’t that impact your view of them?