Oh boy, Tom

Ha HA Ha....You better get ahold of the whiskey suppliers in the county where Blueone lives and have them lay in extra stock cause he's gonna party hardy when he sees this.
 
I told you so….. just doesn’t feel like enough….. quite a few years ago in Chicago I was sitting at a bar. This very pretty woman sat beside me and started partying. I asked her what was the occasion she said that day she closed three reverse mortgages….. she said her commission was going to be huge. I really didn’t know much about them at the time. So I asked a lot of questions…. The drunker she got the more she said. I basically walked away thinking she was using her looks and flirty personality to dupe people out of their homes and she was good at it….. no one could say no

Then came along fucking Tom ….. and I thought of that woman at the bar….. exactly the same ….they were using him to dupe.
I told you guys I went thru the application for a reverse mortgage up to the point of signing to really understand the scam…..
the $400k fine is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people they ripped off…… the prosecuter should be disbarred along with the judge….. and as far as Tom goes….. Phuck Tom
 
I get it, blueone. I think there are a ton of bad financial decisions being encouraged by those who may profit from them.

And this is a question, not a statement... Where is the fraud? I did not read the story above, but any illegal activity, or fraudulent behavior should be appropriately punished by our legal system. I'm not aware of any fraud that has been established in a court of law and then ignored.

As far as the rest of it... People falling for a pretty face such as the woman in the bar or Tom Selleck.... There is no amount of crushing the reverse mortgage business that can save them. If you make financial decisions based on openly accepting opinions given to you by the pretty face of a stranger, you will be losing your money one way or another.

You noted you went all the way through the process to fully understand it. And it was obvious to you not to sign. Why would others not simply do the same?

I know of a few that considered reverse mortgages. I don't know anyone that went through with it after evaluating the deal. But I can think of a situation where someone might. Say someone had a paid for house, virtually no money, nobody she cared to leave the house to, and wanted to stay there until she died of cancer which she had a 95% medical chance of doing within 1 year. If the terms to get some money and stay in the house were acceptable under those circumstances, why not?

There are scant few situations where a reverse mortgage would make sense to me. But if you think that is a ripoff, take a look at what you get from assisted living for that same hard earned life savings.

Point is, we all have financial decisions to make. Our legal system does not allow fraud or deception, but opinion and spin and pretty faces telling you the rosy side of a story are all perfectly legal.

Everyone wants your money, part with it with caution.
 
keokie said:
I get it, blueone. I think there are a ton of bad financial decisions being encouraged by those who may profit from them.

And this is a question, not a statement... Where is the fraud? I did not read the story above, but any illegal activity, or fraudulent behavior should be appropriately punished by our legal system. I'm not aware of any fraud that has been established in a court of law and then ignored.

As far as the rest of it... People falling for a pretty face such as the woman in the bar or Tom Selleck.... There is no amount of crushing the reverse mortgage business that can save them. If you make financial decisions based on openly accepting opinions given to you by the pretty face of a stranger, you will be losing your money one way or another.

You noted you went all the way through the process to fully understand it. And it was obvious to you not to sign. Why would others not simply do the same?

I know of a few that considered reverse mortgages. I don't know anyone that went through with it after evaluating the deal. But I can think of a situation where someone might. Say someone had a paid for house, virtually no money, nobody she cared to leave the house to, and wanted to stay there until she died of cancer which she had a 95% medical chance of doing within 1 year. If the terms to get some money and stay in the house were acceptable under those circumstances, why not?

There are scant few situations where a reverse mortgage would make sense to me. But if you think that is a ripoff, take a look at what you get from assisted living for that same hard earned life savings.

Point is, we all have financial decisions to make. Our legal system does not allow fraud or deception, but opinion and spin and pretty faces telling you the rosy side of a story are all perfectly legal.

Everyone wants your money, part with it with caution.
Click to expand...
Read the article…. It’s not well written…. Tom’s company was found guilty and fined for fraud Miss leading.
I could care less about reverse mortgages as an investment….. I don’t agree with them…. Buyer beware.
What my problem is with tom…. Using his fame and like ability and his truthful monologue…… the guy has millions why is he screwing around with reverse mortgages???? ……. Because he is a low life scum….. a prostitute…… he will Phuck anyone for money….. a useless piece of our society
 
Blueone said:
Read the article…. It’s not well written…. Tom’s company was found guilty and fined for fraud Miss leading.
I could care less about reverse mortgages as an investment….. I don’t agree with them…. Buyer beware.
What my problem is with tom…. Using his fame and like ability and his truthful monologue…… the guy has millions why is he screwing around with reverse mortgages???? ……. Because he is a low life scum….. a prostitute…… he will Phuck anyone for money….. a useless piece of our society
Click to expand...


Thanks, I'll make a note to read it. Is this "Tom's company", or is he the spokesperson? I don't know Tom from Adam, or care to. If it is his company and he is engaged in fraud, that is very different than if he is a paid spokesperson reading a script. If it is the latter, I wouldn't hold Selleck any more accountable for the company's actions than I would hold Michael Jordan accountable for Nike's use of child labor...
 
I guess it is a testament to his acting skills, if you actually believe he is somehow responsible for the actions of the company who hired him.
 
Tom mustache is a POS and he will be punished for his sins. Liar pants on fire cheat scoundrel actor fake who is a trickster and fraud.
 
I'm just trying to get an understanding of the scenario. Is this Tom's company? Did he write the script? Is he involved with their business activities? Does he have authority to dictate their practices? He may. I just may not be aware.

I remember a number of years back a new local car dealership came onto the scene. They advertised heavily on the radio and paid DJ's to read the scripts. The dealership was later prosecuted for false advertising directly related to what was in their radio ads. I never felt the DJ's were responsible. How were they to know what the dealership was doing?

And many of the DJ's referred to themselves as satisfied customers. I don't doubt the dealership gave them sweetheart deals and the red carpet treatment as part of their official (or even unofficial) pay. So, Im sure they felt fine about saying what a great bunch the folks at the dealership were.

Again, the dealership was prosecuted for this. But the DJ's weren't charged in any way.

And by the way, the DJ's endorsement of the dealers was never the least bit meaningful to me. Would it be for any of you?

Tom Selleck certainly isn't going to influence any of my financial decisions.
 
keokie said:
I'm just trying to get an understanding of the scenario. Is this Tom's company? Did he write the script? Is he involved with their business activities? Does he have authority to dictate their practices? He may. I just may not be aware.

I remember a number of years back a new local car dealership came onto the scene. They advertised heavily on the radio and paid DJ's to read the scripts. The dealership was later prosecuted for false advertising directly related to what was in their radio ads. I never felt the DJ's were responsible. How were they to know what the dealership was doing?

And many of the DJ's referred to themselves as satisfied customers. I don't doubt the dealership gave them sweetheart deals and the red carpet treatment as part of their official (or even unofficial) pay. So, Im sure they felt fine about saying what a great bunch the folks at the dealership were.

Again, the dealership was prosecuted for this. But the DJ's weren't charged in any way.

And by the way, the DJ's endorsement of the dealers was never the least bit meaningful to me. Would it be for any of you?

Tom Selleck certainly isn't going to influence any of my financial decisions.
Click to expand...
He’s a paid spokesman just like Jonathan from Colonial Life, Natham, DynoMite, Capt Kirk, The big eared 30yo midget that plays a kid for St Jude the last 20 years. Or is it The Masons, The Boumi Temple, The Knights Templer? ASPCA? Surprised they aint dug Mother Theresa out of her grave, propped her up beside a jukebox and CGI her voice for Children of the Poor. So many I get confused.
Next thing you know some dementia fat guy be selling red hats, begging you contribute to his run to be president. Never ends.
upload_2023-3-14_15-33-55.jpeg
 
If you endorse a company without knowing what they do and how they do it you are complicit. Whether Tom is ignorant or just plain greedy he should have known better.

I remember meeting the wrestler Big John Studd (John William Minton) when I was a teenager. He told me that his childhood was very difficult and his father was a raging alcoholic. He told me he refused to do any commercials or media events that had anything to do with alcoholic beverages regardless of how much they offered to pay him. He died in 1995 but he was a good man with strong convictions who wouldn’t sell out for an easy buck.

Everyone has a choice and ignorance is no excuse.
 
blaster said:
If you endorse a company without knowing what they do and how they do it you are complicit. Whether Tom is ignorant or just plain greedy he should have known better.

I remember meeting the wrestler Big John Studd (John William Minton) when I was a teenager. He told me that his childhood was very difficult and his father was a raging alcoholic. He told me he refused to do any commercials or media events that had anything to do with alcoholic beverages regardless of how much they offered to pay him. He died in 1995 but he was a good man with strong convictions who wouldn’t sell out for an easy buck.

Everyone has a choice and ignorance is no excuse.
Click to expand...



So, every spokesperson is responsible for the entity they are speaking for?

A celebrity says, "Come on down to Disneyland and have a family-friendly, fun, safe time. Hope I see you there." And what if it turned out Disneyland was aware of pick-pockets, and safety violations of the rides and people got robbed, hurt, or even killed? Tar and feather the celebrity for not properly re-searching Disneyland and refusing the gig? What about the TV stations running the ads? Shouldn't they then do due diligence before accepting ad money for use of their platform for nefarious purposes?

And as far as the wrestler, didn't that whole industry face charges of fraud for falsely stating the matches were real? So, he shared responsibility for that?
 
keokie said:
So, every spokesperson is responsible for the entity they are speaking for?

A celebrity says, "Come on down to Disneyland and have a family-friendly, fun, safe time. Hope I see you there." And what if it turned out Disneyland was aware of pick-pockets, and safety violations of the rides and people got robbed, hurt, or even killed? Tar and feather the celebrity for not properly re-searching Disneyland and refusing the gig? What about the TV stations running the ads? Shouldn't they then do due diligence before accepting ad money for use of their platform for nefarious purposes?

And as far as the wrestler, didn't that whole industry face charges of fraud for falsely stating the matches were real? So, he shared responsibility for that?
Click to expand...

This is a slope slope. Yes! If you are representing a company as a spokesperson your reputation is attached whether good or bad. The analogies you make are disingenuous. There is a point at which you can reasonably be unsure of the company’s actions or cover ups. Regarding Tom Selleck, shame shame.
 
keokie said:
So, every spokesperson is responsible for the entity they are speaking for?
Click to expand...
Only if they have integrity…. And are not low life scum

damn I didn’t think there was a Phuck tom fan club here. You can’t do hypothetical Disney comparisons….. have you read the article yet?
 
blaster said:
This is a slope slope. Yes! If you are representing a company as a spokesperson your reputation is attached whether good or bad. The analogies you make are disingenuous. There is a point at which you can reasonably be unsure of the company’s actions or cover ups. Regarding Tom Selleck, shame shame.
Click to expand...



My analogies are "disingenuous"? Why? That means not sincere, or not candid. Why would you assume my different view from yours is either? I think the analogies are valid, that's why I gave them. If you think an analogy I used is invalid, please explain why, and I will consider your point(s).

I don't hold spokespeople accountable, because I don't consider them credible. I don't know people who make decisions based in any way on their appeals. I can't imagine who would. Selleck is not a financial planner, advisor, mortgage broker, or expert on the matter in any way. Spokespeople are almost never qualified in what they are paid to promote. I could hate them all for it, or I could just ignore them when they give their paid for opinions. I like to hand out as little hate as possible, so I generally choose the latter. I don't give a rip about Tom Selleck. If he broke the law, I hope he will be prosecuted. Beyond that, he will not influence any of my financial decisions.
 
Blueone said:
Only if they have integrity…. And are not low life scum

damn I didn’t think there was a Phuck tom fan club here. You can’t do hypothetical Disney comparisons….. have you read the article yet?
Click to expand...


Okay, I read it... quickly... So, a watchdog group I have never heard of, and the New York Times which has mis-represented plenty have accused the group. Have they been charged, or indicted? Maybe they will be, and if so, possibly prosecuted. But what if they are charged and after a lengthy trial, a jury decides they misrepresented nothing, and they are acquitted. Would you then apologize?

I have not made up my mind as to whether AAG is guilty of what they are being accused. There is nowhere near enough information from that article to make that assumption. But if they are charged and convicted, let me say in advance, "*&%# them". And if Tom was aware and/or complicit of any wrongdoing "&%$# Tom" as well. But I'll need a lot more information than that article to make a remotely definitive judgement.

What is wrong with the Disney analogy?
 
keokie said:
Okay, I read it... quickly... So, a watchdog group I have never heard of, and the New York Times which has mis-represented plenty have accused the group. Have they been charged, or indicted? Maybe they will be, and if so, possibly prosecuted. But what if they are charged and after a lengthy trial, a jury decides they misrepresented nothing, and they are acquitted. Would you then apologize?

I have not made up my mind as to whether AAG is guilty of what they are being accused. There is nowhere near enough information from that article to make that assumption. But if they are charged and convicted, let me say in advance, "*&%# them". And if Tom was aware and/or complicit of any wrongdoing "&%$# Tom" as well. But I'll need a lot more information than that article to make a remotely definitive judgement.

What is wrong with the Disney analogy?
Click to expand...
lol…. Phuck Tom
 
keokie said:
A celebrity says, "Come on down to Disneyland and have a family-friendly, fun, safe time. Hope I see you there."
Click to expand...
Okay…. Hang on there pro spokesperson supporter….. we are talking about people’s home not a roller coaster ride. So your Disney analogy is wrong….. Tom Selleck has been around for a long time… so older people relate to him like him probably fantasize about him…. Then he comes on tv and says he will give you free money. A lot of vulnerable older people will trust Tom and sign on….. that’s the problem.
When was the last time you saw an ad on TV for a black rock fund ?…. Tom is scum nothing more…. Show me his reverse mortgage ….. if he has one I will add stupid to scum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,118
Messages
1,426,467
Members
61,033
Latest member
SeaMonster8
Back
Top