Originally posted by LVHerbie
Quang willingly borrowed money, at terms agreed upon by both parties in advance, to buy things he couldn't live without. Now, many months later.....Quang has decided he should no longer have to repay this loan. Even though, again, THE CONTRACT FOR THIS LOAN WAS WILLINGLY AGREED TO BY QUANG.
Now, Quang thinks he should simply renege on his part of the contract, even though the lender has already completed their responsibility. He thinks he should also be able to use his money to gamble with instead of paying his bills.
Quang thinks the lenders have plenty of money, why should they be paid back? Quang should definitely get to use his money to fund his gambling habit, instead of making good on the promise he made to pay back his debt.
This sound about right??


Ironic in many ways (as I would place myself somewhere close to the label of an anarcho-capitalist) but unfortunately I just crawled out of bed about an hour ago and (being very far from the top of the shit pile) have a full night worth of work to do and won't be able to continue the forum debate game right now...

Sounds cool, man. Run along now....