http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* PrinterAnywhere - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9b7d6a43e8b172ff?hl=en
* "Me" generation marriages.. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7219bb5b3666a535?hl=en
* Who loves ya, Rush? - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/50fc4bce846b7dea?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PrinterAnywhere
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9b7d6a43e8b172ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 9:27 pm
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG
In article <46c63bb9$0$24124$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, lshaw-
usenet@austin.rr.com says...
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> > An encrypted version shoots through the 'Net and prints on your buddy's
> > printer.
> > Turn the idea around and you can share your printer with anyone. It's ideal
> > for
> > sending confidential docs (the file's encrypted when sent) and unlike
> > e-mail,
> > it can't be forwarded.
> If, when they say, "can't be forwarded" what they mean is that it's
> somewhat harder to forward it, then I'll agree. If they actually
> mean "can't be forwarded", then they're nuts, and wrong.
Like pull it out of the printer, put it in a scanner, and forward
the image embedded in email?
That wouldn't give me much conference in the confidentiality.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 10:44 pm
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG
In article <MPG.21316646b9c2af05989cd5@nntp.aioe.org>,
Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG says...
> In article <46c63bb9$0$24124$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, lshaw-
> usenet@austin.rr.com says...
> > AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> > > An encrypted version shoots through the 'Net and prints on your buddy's
> > > printer.
> > > Turn the idea around and you can share your printer with anyone. It's ideal
> > > for
> > > sending confidential docs (the file's encrypted when sent) and unlike
> > > e-mail,
> > > it can't be forwarded.
>
>
> > If, when they say, "can't be forwarded" what they mean is that it's
> > somewhat harder to forward it, then I'll agree. If they actually
> > mean "can't be forwarded", then they're nuts, and wrong.
>
>
> Like pull it out of the printer, put it in a scanner, and forward
> the image embedded in email?
>
> That wouldn't give me much conference in the confidentiality.
I don't have much confIDence in my spell checker, either...
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Me" generation marriages..
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7219bb5b3666a535?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 10:20 pm
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG
In article <EMhxi.2$pf3.1@trndny06>, derjda@hotmail.com says...
> <Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
> news:MPG.212eeb3cfc67948d989ccb@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <NyIwi.939$Vd.551@trndny02>, derjda@hotmail.com
> > says...
> snip
> >> which is why there's a good chance i won't marry again. i'd need a long
> >> (years) celibate courtship to trust the men of today, and there aren't
> >> too
> >> many men out there that would stand for that in this day and age.
> > And there are also plenty of women who would refuse a similar,
> > "No, I won't give you any money or presents" restriction for that
> > same extended period.
> are you saying sex is bought with presents/presents are
> received for sex?
Not exactly.
As you apparently understand with the, "long (years) celibate
courtship" requirement, a woman should make sure that she isn't
going to be treated as an undignified booty call. To be used
just for sex. Because that view can arise if she puts out too
soon in the relationship.
However, a man also should make sure that he isn't going to be
treated as a walking wallet.
Cool women don't want to be hoes. And cool men don't want to be
tricks.
And I have seen UNcool women pull this. Hinting, or directly
stating, that she is just sooooo attracted to some guy. With the
hint (often NOT direct statement) of promising sex. And the real
motivation is to lead him around by his dick. Extracting
favours, presents, money, housing, and, sometimes, drug-enabling.
Sometimes, after a period of very overt "Oh-I-Love-You," lying,
it comes time for her to put her actions where her words are.
And the woman will suddenly draw back with, "Well, uh, I decided
that we are just friends. And you would be such an arsehole if
you reduced your generosity (and bad-behaviour-tolorance) because
of that. It would be like you abusing me, or trying to coerce me
into sex. Like trying to use me as a whore."
When, of course, she really IS a whore, of the psychological
type.
The way for a man to avoid those types, is to be just as
restrained with his wallet, as the woman is with sex.
The cool woman will stay. And the lying hoe will go bother
someone else.
> not me. the only day my husband has to acknowledge is our wedding
> anniversary, and it can be just verbal. no requirement for presents ever,
> not bd, xmas, valentines, any other day. no cards, flowers, chocolates,
> dinners out, nighties, jewelry, etc. is required. i am not for sale.
> not even a big dick can purchase me. ;)
Well, interestingly, I have also seen my above-described scenario
happen in woman-to-woman platonic "friendships." There are
female parasites who target other females with the false promise
of "friendship." Right up to the level of viewing a new female
acquaintance as a personal servant, limousine, soup kitchen,
welfare agency, and all-around emotional punching bag.
And the advantage there is that the target woman isn't likely to
say, "No Sex, No Cash," like a man might. Plus the strange
belief that female parasites have, that all prospective female
hosts are just soooooo weak that we can be guilt-tripped into
effectively infinite "generosity" and abuse-tolorance.
Really... A prospective woman-to-woman "friendship" should be
viewed with the same suspicion as that held by a guy who doesn't
want to be used as a free ATM by some chick whom he is dating.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who loves ya, Rush?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/50fc4bce846b7dea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 11:24 pm
From: "ChairMan"
In news:bearclaw-DC3254.22404317082007@news.supernews.com,
bearclaw@cruller.invalid <bearclaw@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
> In article <46c4d4f6$0$28531$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
>> how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
>
> What crap. Every competent, unbiased study shows "illegal" immigration
> is a wash economically. At least, on a national level. Now, if you
> live in California or Arizona, then yes, you pay a lot more than
> someone living in Montana, Michigan or New Hampshire.
Pure bullshit. Now if you live in the real world, it costs everyone.
From the Center for Immigration Studies which is an independent,
non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985.
l The Mexican immigrant population is highly concentrated, with 78 percent
living in just four states, and nearly half living in California alone.
l Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high
school, compared to less than 10 percent of natives. As a result, the
primary effect of Mexican immigration on the U.S. labor force is to increase
the supply of unskilled workers -- 22 percent of all the high school dropouts
in the U.S. labor force were born in Mexico.
l By increasing the supply of unskilled labor, Mexican immigration during
the 1990s likely has lowered the wages of workers who lack a high school
education by roughly 5 percent. The native-born workers adversely affected
by Mexican immigration are already among the poorest in the United States.
More than one-fourth of the native-born working poor lack a high school
education. Natives without a high school education also comprise a large
share of Americans trying to move from welfare to work.
l There is no evidence to indicate that the United States has a shortage of
unskilled workers that needs to be satisfied by immigration from Mexico. The
real wages (adjusted for inflation) of high school dropouts who work
full-time actually declined 7.2 percent in the 1990s, while the real wages
for other workers increased. Also, the number of jobs available for
unskilled workers declined by 400,000.
l Although Mexican immigration is likely to have a significant impact on the
wages of unskilled natives, its overall impact on prices in the United
States is very modest because unskilled labor accounts for a very small
share of economic output. By lowering the wages of unskilled workers,
Mexican immigration in the 1990s reduced prices by between 0.08 and 0.2
percent. As a result, immigration from Mexico is almost certainly not an
effective tool for holding inflation in check during periods of economic
expansion.
l Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households
remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of
households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those
headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare
program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare.
Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of
natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States
for many years (see Figure 1).
l More than one-half (52.6 percent) of Mexican immigrants do not have health
insurance, compared to 13.5 percent of natives, and Mexican immigration by
itself accounts for 3.3 million or 29 percent of the growth in the size of
the nation's total uninsured population since 1987. Even among legal Mexican
immigrants who have lived in the country for more than 20 years, more than
one-third are still uninsured (see Figure 1).
l By itself, Mexican immigration accounts for 2.9 million or one-third of
the national increase in the school-age population since 1982. The impact on
public schools in some states has been even larger.
l Because of their much lower average incomes and resulting lower tax
payments, coupled with their heavy use of means-tested programs, Mexican
immigrants have a significant negative effect on public coffers. Based on
estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by
age and education level at arrival, the estimated life-time net fiscal drain
(taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is
negative $55,200.
l The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist
across generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born
Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half
times that of other natives. As a result, native-born Mexican Americans lag
far behind other natives in income, welfare use, and other measures of
socio-economic well being.
lMexican immigration reduces wages for the poorest American workers and
imposes significant fiscal costs without generating significant economic
benefits, the United States should consider policies designed to reduce
unskilled legal and illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere.
Reducing Future Illegal Mexican Immigration. Reducing illegal immigration
should also be made a much higher national priority. The analysis done here
indicates that there are at least three million and perhaps closer to four
million illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. There are
also three to four million illegal aliens from other countries living in the
United States. Illegal immigrants from Mexico have added significantly to
the size of the poor and uninsured population in the United States and,
because they receive benefits on behalf of their native-born children, they
have also added to the welfare case load.
Conclusion
This report has found that Mexican immigration has added significantly to
the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as to the welfare
case load in the United States. For example, while Mexican immigrants and
their children comprise 4.2 percent of the nation's total population, they
comprise 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty and 12.5 percent of those
without health insurance. Perhaps most troubling, the findings of this
report show that the welfare use, income, and other measures of
socio-economic status of legal Mexican immigrants do not converge with
natives over time. Their low incomes coupled with heavy use of means-tested
programs create very significant fiscal costs as well. While employers may
want increased access to unskilled labor from Mexico or elsewhere, this
cheap labor comes with a very high cost.
>
> But as people like you so enjoy intoning, love it or leave it. There
> are plenty of countries in the world that don't let anyone in or out.
And this has exactly *what* to do with US immigration?
Who gives a damn what other countries do.
And just so we're clear, I am a LEGAL immigrant and I know first hand the
hoops I had to jump through to do it legally.
And yes, it pisses me off to no end for the ones that come here ILLEGALLY
and receive more benefits and services than I did and do, or for that matter
than MOST American born citizens.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 11:25 pm
From: "ChairMan"
In news:bearclaw-DE0161.22350717082007@news.supernews.com,
bearclaw@cruller.invalid <bearclaw@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
> In article <46c48831$0$6239$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
>> A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
>
> Please explain the simple, simple, simple concept of an illegal human
> being. Oh, how simple it will be.
Where did it say human being?
I said illegal immigrant.
Play word games all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are here
in this country illegally, which makes them ILLEGAL immigrants.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 11:25 pm
From: "ChairMan"
In news:bearclaw-EED5A7.22510517082007@news.supernews.com,
bearclaw@cruller.invalid <bearclaw@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
> In article <46c4d4f6$0$28531$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants
>
> No, you dope. It *might* make their behavior actionable. It does NOT
> make *them* "illegal".
Maybe not in your world, but their action does make them illegal
visitors/aliens/immigrants/workers.
Just like a rapists actions make him a rapist
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment