Frugal Living: Dec 24, 2007

Monday, December 24, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AMT ??
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/24c6087a6b1730b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 2:54 pm
From: ""

Maybe someone can explain this to me;

For years, people of wealth have used a combination
of tax loopholes and clever accountants
to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.

The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was enacted
so everyone would pay "their fair share".

As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
( sounds fair to me )

Congress is complaining that now, this affects
middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
and the numbers should be juggled.

????

What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?

If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
then why not to the double-income yuppie ?

<rj>

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 3:09 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

<RJ> <RJ> wrote

> Maybe someone can explain this to me;

> For years, people of wealth have used a
> combination of tax loopholes and clever accountants
> to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.

Thats where you are going wrong, most dont manage to get it to zero.

> The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was
> enacted so everyone would pay "their fair share".

Its more complicated than that too.

> As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
> your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
> regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
> ( sounds fair to me )

> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or
> more, and the numbers should be juggled.

> ????

> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?

Nothing is unfair about THAT. What is being discussed is adjusting
the level at which the AMT applys so that it still catches the same
group that it was intended to catch, given that otherwise the level
wouldnt be adjusted for inflation and other tax cuts etc.

> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,

It doesnt. It only apply to those with incomes much higher than that.

> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?

Because it was never intended to apply to those either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:12 pm
From: jdoe

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:54:17 -0700, "<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com>
wrote:

>Maybe someone can explain this to me;
>
>For years, people of wealth have used a combination
>of tax loopholes and clever accountants
>to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.
>
>The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was enacted
>so everyone would pay "their fair share".
>
>As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
>your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
>regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
>( sounds fair to me )
>
>Congress is complaining that now, this affects
>middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
>and the numbers should be juggled.
>
>????
>
>What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>
>If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>
><rj>
obviously you are an ignoramus

the AMT was implemented back in the 60s to nail the super rich who
by various means avoided much of the taxes.
back when the AMT was implemented the tax rate on these people was
about 90%, so who could blame them for seeking loopholes,
anyway the AMT was never indexed for inflation and now that many
families are earning over 6 figures they are getting caught up by the
AMT which limits most deductions and causes these families to pay even
higher taxes.

I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes.
It is people like you who don't pay their fair share, and then they
want tax cuts fir them but not for the people who are actually paying
the taxes
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:06 pm
From: imascot

"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in news:q3e0n31jqgibmjq8sf6k9skpi6fmnl41b7@4ax.com:

> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
> and the numbers should be juggled.
>
> ????
>
> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>
> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>
> <rj>
>

Is $75,000 per year considered a double income where you are? Where I am, (east coast) $75,000
better be ONE of the incomes, if you plan on owning a house, and I'm not talking about buying one
at today's prices, I'm talking about keeping one like mine, bought 10 years ago for under $130,000.
The AMT, if it creeps up on folks like me, will eliminate all property tax and other deductions.
Since I pay about $7,000 per year in property tax alone, (not to even mention the extortionate
state income tax), it will make owning a home almost impossible.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:07 pm
From: jdoe

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:06:18 GMT, imascot <imnot@mycomputer.now>
wrote:

>"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in news:q3e0n31jqgibmjq8sf6k9skpi6fmnl41b7@4ax.com:
>
>> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
>> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
>> and the numbers should be juggled.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>
>> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>
>> <rj>
>>
>
>Is $75,000 per year considered a double income where you are? Where I am, (east coast) $75,000
>better be ONE of the incomes, if you plan on owning a house, and I'm not talking about buying one
>at today's prices, I'm talking about keeping one like mine, bought 10 years ago for under $130,000.
>The AMT, if it creeps up on folks like me, will eliminate all property tax and other deductions.
>Since I pay about $7,000 per year in property tax alone, (not to even mention the extortionate
>state income tax), it will make owning a home almost impossible.

you are exactly the person who the AMT is sneaking up on and is
screwing.
the real problem is that to the liberloons you are a rich person and
should be taxed even higher levels in order to give to the indigents,
whom for whatever reason either cannot or will do anything to help
themselves
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:45 pm
From: Jeff

jdoe wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:06:18 GMT, imascot <imnot@mycomputer.now>
> wrote:
>
>> "<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in news:q3e0n31jqgibmjq8sf6k9skpi6fmnl41b7@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
>>> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
>>> and the numbers should be juggled.
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>>
>>> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>>
>>> <rj>
>>>
>> Is $75,000 per year considered a double income where you are? Where I am, (east coast) $75,000
>> better be ONE of the incomes, if you plan on owning a house, and I'm not talking about buying one
>> at today's prices, I'm talking about keeping one like mine, bought 10 years ago for under $130,000.
>> The AMT, if it creeps up on folks like me, will eliminate all property tax and other deductions.
>> Since I pay about $7,000 per year in property tax alone, (not to even mention the extortionate
>> state income tax), it will make owning a home almost impossible.
>
>
> you are exactly the person who the AMT is sneaking up on and is
> screwing.
> the real problem is that to the liberloons you are a rich person and
> should be taxed even higher levels in order to give to the indigents,

You just believe anything you hear on wingnut radio.

<URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1963009420071219 />

Note that it was blue dog fiscal conservative democrats that opposed the
patch.

And just what percent of the federal budget do you think goes to
indigents? What percent do you think goes to wealthy corporate farmers?

Here's the average annual spending increase of the federal budget (does
not include the off budget Iraq War):

* Johnson: 4.1 percent
* Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
* Carter: 1.6 percent
* Reagan: 1.4 percent
* Bush I: 3.8 percent
* Clinton: 2.1 percent
* Bush II: 4.8 percent

You are just looking for a scapegoat. Value of the dollar is a bit
more than half what it was when W was elected. US debt is 50% higher and
going up. Nobody knows the risk exposure of all those CDO's and the
economy is being propped up by cheap money.

But go ahead and blame it all on a few poor people if it makes you
feel better.

Jeff

> whom for whatever reason either cannot or will do anything to help
> themselves
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Replica Gucci Chanel Sunglass Cheap Wholesale on www.globwholesale.com
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e533dd9cd06b9d14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 3:20 pm
From: globwholesale

www .globwholesale. com

our website : www.globwholesale.com
wholesale discounts nike shoes,jordan shoes,Air Force 1 shoes,kids
shoes,max TN,MAXLTD,MAX 180,max 360.max 2003,max 97,max 95,max 90,max
87,Shox TL1,shox TL3,shox NZ,shox OZ,shox R3,shox R4,shox R5,puma
shoes,bape shoes,Gucci shoes,Lacoste shoes,LV shoes,Timberland
shoes,Evisu shoes,D&G shoes,nike running ,prada shoes,DSQ shoes,nike
football shoes,nike DUNK shoes,Rift shoes,NBA basketball shoes,adidas
running,adidas NBA shoes,adidas 35th anniversary shoes,adicolor
shoes,adidas football shoes,GGG hoody,GGG T-shirt,Armani T-
shirt,Armani shirt,armani long t-shirt,AF sweater,AF women trousrs,AF
men and women coat,D&G jeans,A&G T-shirt,BBC scanties,BBC jeans,BBC
hoody,BBC T-shirt,LRG jeans,LRG hoody,LRG T-shirt,Bape jeans,Bape
hoody,Bape t-shirt,Evisu long t-shit,Evisu original jeans,Evisu jeans
wear,Evisu hoody,Evisu jeans,Evisu T-shirt,POLO T-shirt,Googi
jeans,Googi hoody,Googi T-shirt,juicy,10Deep jeans,10 Deep hoody,
10Deep T-shirt,Lacoste T-shirt,Lacoste sweater,Burberry jacket,Buberry
T-shirt,Buberry shirt,ED hardy hoody,ED hardy jeans,ED hardy skirt,ED
hardy T-shirt,Red monkey jeans,Red monkey hoody,adidas
jacket,necktie,swimming wear ,Bape Glove,buberry shawl,Ray.Ban
sunglass,LV sunglass,Gucci sunglass,prada sunglass,Dior sunglass,okey
sunglass,versace sunglass,Armani sunglass,Fendi sunglass,D&G
sunglass,Chanel sunglass,New Era hat,Y-3 hat,puma hat,nike hat,Chanel
hat,Dior hat,Gucci hat,lv hat,buberry hat,adidas hat,Catier
watch,Chanel watch,Taghener watch,Rolex watch,Boos belts,armani
belts,D&G belts,Gucci belts,LV belts,bape belts,socks,buberry
handbag,chanel handbag,Chanel purse,LV handbag and purse,Gucci handbag
and purse,prada handbag and purse,coacn handbag and purse,Fendi
handbag and purse,chloe handbag and purse,LV lighter,IPOD,call
phone ,CK underwear,LV underwear,buberry underwear
www.globwholesale.com

buy sell nike sneakers,adidas Y-3 shoes,jordan shoes,UGG shoes,NFL,NBA
basketball shoes,gucci shoes,bape hoody,Evisu jeans,LV handbag,GGG T-
shirt,AF1 shoes,Evisu hoody,prada shoes,UGG shoes,nike shoes,cheap
nike 2008 shoes,wholesale high quality cheap 2008 nike shoes,gucci
prada lv handbag purse wholesale discounts nike shoes,jordan shoes,Air
Force 1 shoes,kids shoes,max TN,MAXLTD,MAX 180,max 360.max 2003,max
97,max 95,max 90,max 87,Shox TL1,shox TL3,shox NZ,shox OZ,shox R3,shox
R4,shox R5,puma shoes,bape shoes,Gucci shoes,Lacoste shoes,LV
shoes,Timberland shoes,Evisu shoes,D&G shoes,nike running ,prada
shoes,DSQ shoes,nike football shoes,nike DUNK shoes,Rift shoes,NBA
basketball shoes,adidas running,adidas NBA shoes,adidas 35th
anniversary shoes,adicolor shoes,adidas football shoes,GGG hoody,GGG T-
shirt,Armani T-shirt,Armani shirt,armani long t-shirt,AF sweater,AF
women trousrs,AF men and women coat,D&G jeans,A&G T-shirt,BBC
scanties,BBC jeans,BBC hoody,BBC T-shirt,LRG jeans,LRG hoody,LRG T-
shirt,Bape jeans,Bape hoody,Bape t-shirt,Evisu long t-shit,Evisu
original jeans,Evisu jeans wear,Evisu hoody,Evisu jeans,Evisu T-
shirt,POLO T-shirt,Googi jeans,Googi hoody,Googi T-shirt,juicy,10Deep
jeans,10 Deep hoody,10Deep T-shirt,Lacoste T-shirt,Lacoste
sweater,Burberry jacket,Buberry T-shirt,Buberry shirt,ED hardy
hoody,ED hardy jeans,ED hardy skirt,ED hardy T-shirt,Red monkey
jeans,Red monkey hoody,adidas jacket,necktie,swimming wear ,Bape
Glove,buberry shawl,Ray.Ban sunglass,LV sunglass,Gucci sunglass,prada
sunglass,Dior sunglass,okey sunglass,versace sunglass,Armani
sunglass,Fendi sunglass,D&G sunglass,Chanel sunglass,New Era hat,Y-3
hat,puma hat,nike hat,Chanel hat,Dior hat,Gucci hat,lv hat,buberry
hat,adidas hat,Catier watch,Chanel watch,Taghener watch,Rolex
watch,Boos belts,armani belts,D&G belts,Gucci belts,LV belts,bape
belts,socks,buberry handbag,chanel handbag,Chanel purse,LV handbag and
purse,Gucci handbag and purse,prada handbag and purse,coacn handbag
and purse,Fendi handbag and purse,chloe handbag and purse,LV
lighter,IPOD,call phone ,CK underwear,LV underwear,buberry underwear

www.globwholesale.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Biofuel hoax is the cause of recent food inflation and new biofuel bill
will skyrocket food prices higher!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bf9cea09cc860f86?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 3:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel - sugar cane scrap.

> No.

You're both mangling the story.

> Brazil is using full SUGAR CANE, which is food that people
> can eat, not scrap or waste. They are not using scrap,

Yes they are, as the energy source for the distillation process.

They are ALSO using the sugar cane as the source
of sugar for the fermentation process into ethanol.

> which takes a much higher technology than they have,

Wrong again, its just worth doing when you have the sugar cane available.

> and which has not been proven to be economically viable as yet.

Sugar cane isnt reallly economically viable either.

> Brazil is cutting more and more forests to grow biofuels

Nope, those arent generally grown on newly cleared forests.

> and the earth's C02 sponge is shrinking daily.

Wrong again, the primary CO2 sponge is the oceans.

> It is true that if you have to make ethanol, sugar cane is allot better
> than corn, but this is still a band-aid fix on a gaping wound.

Nope.

> Biofuels will not stop or slow global warming,

Thats isnt the reason for biofuels, its to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

> just speed up the destruction of the rain forests which absorb C02.

Utterly mangled all over again.

> Not a good deal at all!

It is for a country like Brazil that has no oil of its own.

> One person can live for a year on the corn it takes to
> fill up your gas tank just once! Biofuels = food crisis!

There is no food crisis. The world has a surplus of food.

> Brazil has just discovered a large oil deposit off their coast,

Its peanuts compared with the world supply.

> so they are still going to be using and selling lots of oil.

Depends on how you define lots.

> For the USA, biofuels are not the answer.

No one ever said it was.

> We need to go the high-tech route that uses
> little land and does not cut down forests.
> We can do nuclear energy better than anyone,

Wrong again.

> and it is clean and safe and we have all the fuel we need, already paid for.

The nuke plants havent been paid for and thats a much higher cost than the fuel.

> If we start early, we can stop global warming in time to
> save the Midwest breadbasket from becoming a desert.

Its never going to become a desert.

> But time is short,

Nope.

> and biofuels are just a tactic to reduce foreign oil
> consumption, not a device to end global warming.

They were never intended to end global warming.

> Christopher

> see:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html -
> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!

There is no world food crisis.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:02 pm
From: "Nicik Name"

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5t9a2aF1c40o7U1@mid.individual.net...
> calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
>> see:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> No thanks.
>
>> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
>
> There is no 'world food crisis'
very true.......and their is no shortage of crude oil also
>
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Nicik Name <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> calderhome@yahoo.com wrote

>>> see:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>> No thanks.

>>> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!

>> There is no 'world food crisis'

> very true.......and their is no shortage of crude oil also

Some countrys like Brazil do however choose to reduce their dependency on foreign oil.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Merry Christmas to all you fellers who have bailed me out time and
again!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/da117bdb5029bad3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 4:27 pm
From: Dean Hoffman <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com">

Sammy bin Snoozin wrote:
> and a happy new year!
>
> Sam
>
>
In honor of the occasion, a short (3 min) video:
http://tinyurl.com/2ea4p6

It's old but still funny.

Dean

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Yet another Best Buy consumer horror story -- woman tasered by cop.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8fc4714b1a22ea0e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 4:55 pm
From: Ed Stasiak

> Joel Koltner wrote
>
> The question is whether or not tasering is an appropriate response to someone
> who's clearly agitated, verbally abusive, and basically being a royal pain in
> the ass...

I'd say tazers were created for just such an occasion.

The other options are to either physically restrain the idiot (which
is
much more likely to result in injury, to both the idiot and the cop)
or
shoot them dead.

> but has made no physical threats,

So the cop ought to wait until maybe the screaming idiot pulls a gun
and starts spraying lead all over the store?

> and is in a situation where, if they are innocent, legitimately would be agitated.

Which the cop doesn't know and can't know because the idiot is
screaming at and running from the cop, possibly looking for a chance
to pull a gun or run from the store.

While I'm sure it happens once in a great while, I have yet to see a
case where the "victim" of the tazering wasn't asking for it. If
you're
going to behave like an asshole, expect to be treated like an asshole.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:24 pm
From: max

In article
<4fc67d8a-e58e-48e8-aaf3-efc278c892f9@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net> wrote:

> > Joel Koltner wrote
> >
> > The question is whether or not tasering is an appropriate response to
> > someone
> > who's clearly agitated, verbally abusive, and basically being a royal pain
> > in
> > the ass...
>
> I'd say tazers were created for just such an occasion.
>
> The other options are to either physically restrain the idiot (which
> is
> much more likely to result in injury, to both the idiot and the cop)
> or
> shoot them dead.
>
> > but has made no physical threats,
>
> So the cop ought to wait until maybe the screaming idiot pulls a gun
> and starts spraying lead all over the store?
>
> > and is in a situation where, if they are innocent, legitimately would be
> > agitated.
>
> Which the cop doesn't know and can't know because the idiot is
> screaming at and running from the cop, possibly looking for a chance
> to pull a gun or run from the store.
>
> While I'm sure it happens once in a great while, I have yet to see a
> case where the "victim" of the tazering wasn't asking for it. If
> you're
> going to behave like an asshole, expect to be treated like an asshole.

"if you lose you temper and raise your voice, you deserve to be tasered"

gotcha

.max

--
The part of betatron @ earthlink . net was played by a garden gnome

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:44 pm
From: Ed Stasiak

> max wrote
> > Ed Stasiak wrote
> >
> > While I'm sure it happens once in a great while, I have yet to see a
> > case where the "victim" of the tazering wasn't asking for it. If you're
> > going to behave like an asshole, expect to be treated like an asshole.
>
> "if you lose you temper and raise your voice, you deserve to be tasered"

A cop is not a judge and the check out line of a store is not a court.

Screaming and behaving like an idiot will not only _not_ get you out
of trouble, odds are you will end up in _even more_ trouble no matter
how much "in the right" you originally may have been.

Just behave like a civilized person and sort it out in court, that's
why
we have them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More Selective reporting from Limbaugh
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/306db91f018962b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:36 pm
From: "Nicik Name"

"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4kqm39nqv1i63qp8g89o3ts54r8pq862p@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:57:28 -0500, jl <jl@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
>
>>Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>>completely. It's all just one sided.
> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
Chloroformed by Limbaugh for the past 18 years Fido?
NEWS BY THIS VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS NOT.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:40 pm
From: jdoe

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:36:47 -0500, "Nicik Name"
<orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:b4kqm39nqv1i63qp8g89o3ts54r8pq862p@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:57:28 -0500, jl <jl@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>>>completely. It's all just one sided.
>> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
>> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
> Chloroformed by Limbaugh for the past 18 years Fido?
>NEWS BY THIS VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS NOT.
>
what fools like you don't seem to grasp is that the NY Times purports
itself to being an unraised news operation, guys like limbaugh are not
news dissemination services, they are commentators who inject their
opinions into the daily news stories, back to your puppy chow, foolish
one
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 5:53 pm
From: "Nicik Name"

"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
news:qnn0n3t4331c4dovuqup0btdcb82er76vh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:36:47 -0500, "Nicik Name"
> <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:b4kqm39nqv1i63qp8g89o3ts54r8pq862p@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:57:28 -0500, jl <jl@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>>>>completely. It's all just one sided.
>>> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
>>> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
>> Chloroformed by Limbaugh for the past 18 years Fido?
>>NEWS BY THIS VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS NOT.
>>
> what fools like you don't seem to grasp is that the NY Times purports
> itself to being an unraised news operation, guys like limbaugh are not
> news dissemination services, they are commentators who inject their
> opinions into the daily news stories, back to your puppy chow, foolish
> one
Problem is Ditto Heads think they are getting real news from Limbaugh.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:15 pm
From: Steve

George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
>>> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
>>
>> "[I] never saw a foreign intervention that the [New York] Times did not
>> support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate
>> increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in
>> a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And
>> don't let me get started on universal health care and Social Security.
>> So why do people think the Times is liberal?"
>> ~veteran New York Times reporter John Hess

> Are you aware that both the Times and Judith Miller supported invading
>Iraq?

And your point is?

He trusted neither of them as far as he could spit,
and he was a poor spitter,
lacking both distance and control.

...P.G. Wodehouse

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:34 pm
From: George Grapman

Nicik Name wrote:
> "jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:qnn0n3t4331c4dovuqup0btdcb82er76vh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:36:47 -0500, "Nicik Name"
>> <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b4kqm39nqv1i63qp8g89o3ts54r8pq862p@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:57:28 -0500, jl <jl@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>>>>> completely. It's all just one sided.
>>>> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
>>>> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
>>> Chloroformed by Limbaugh for the past 18 years Fido?
>>> NEWS BY THIS VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS NOT.
>>>
>> what fools like you don't seem to grasp is that the NY Times purports
>> itself to being an unraised news operation, guys like limbaugh are not
>> news dissemination services, they are commentators who inject their
>> opinions into the daily news stories, back to your puppy chow, foolish
>> one
> Problem is Ditto Heads think they are getting real news from Limbaugh.
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

>
>
I listen to maybe 5 minutes at a time and look at his site. When I see
what appears to be a lie,i.e' says media ignored a story when ,in fact,
it was on page one, I post a Limbaugh lie of the day on
alt.fan.rush-imbaugh. The dittohead replies are:

Prove he said it.
After the transcript is posted they say it was taken out of context.
Where do you find the time to listen?
He is just an entertainer.

Wonder hoe many of his fans have considered that fact that when the
listened and nodded their heads in agreement he was stoned on oxy.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:36 pm
From: George Grapman

Steve wrote:
> George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>>> since you know that already why do you listen to his show? I know that
>>>> the NY Times is a slanted leftist propaganda tool, I don't read it.
>>> "[I] never saw a foreign intervention that the [New York] Times did not
>>> support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate
>>> increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in
>>> a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And
>>> don't let me get started on universal health care and Social Security.
>>> So why do people think the Times is liberal?"
>>> ~veteran New York Times reporter John Hess
>
>> Are you aware that both the Times and Judith Miller supported invading
>> Iraq?
>
> And your point is?
>
>
The obvious one, if it was so anti-Bush it would not have supported
the invasion.
Limbaugh, who regularly attacks the Times, admitted that he never
reads it and rarely looks at their website.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:04 pm
From: jdoe

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:53:02 -0500, "Nicik Name"
<orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>Problem is Ditto Heads think they are getting real news from Limbaugh.
>http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

>
no, the problem is that people like you guessing how people take
things, your prejudices are as bad as anyone else's
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: FREE UNLIMITED iPOD DOWNLOADS - Movies, Games, Music
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b3f58f621774440c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 6:42 pm
From: iphone

FREE UNLIMITED iPOD DOWNLOADS - Movies, Games, Music
http://artguru.youripod.hop.clickbank.net/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: * Stalker Makes 25 grand a month! *
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a1ecdae1d1786a1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:37 pm
From: "cibc.grundy@gmail.com"

http://www.yourseoconsulting.com/blog/2007/12/fsm-church-of-flying-spaghetti-monster.html
Find out how this stalker makes 25 grand a month!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Don't buy a dead X-mas tree
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a05caca2ea24fce?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:49 pm
From: ""

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:43:34 -0800, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote:

>send the money to Darfur , instead.
>You'll feel better.

FAMINE !!

Nature's way of dealing with overpopulation......

<rj>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ⊙_⊙Merry Christmas⊙_⊙
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f9ed1db0cc8c862a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 24 2007 7:59 pm
From: yhnetstore1@gmail.com

⊙_⊙Merry Christmas⊙_⊙
1. if you buy 12 items product ,our company give you free shipping
cost, so that ,the shoes only about 27 usd, the cloth about 30 usd!
2 if you buy 500 usd product , when you add 100 usd, our company give
you a web like our company ,you can do business by yourself on the
internet!
3 if you buy 1200 usd product ,our company give you a web by free!and
our company give wholesale price!
our company child web www.shoesserver-yhnetsotre.cn ,pls chose the
product of you like ,and tell me what goods r u want need !
click child web go and go to our company main web

==============================================================================

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

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

4 new messages in 4 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* hot sell sports shoes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5fcf0b12ce194118?hl=en
* Free sample of SPAM - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4631cbbca4791708?hl=en
* A thought, was Re: More Selective reporting from Limbaugh - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/306db91f018962b9?hl=en
* Biofuel hoax is the cause of recent food inflation and new biofuel bill will
skyrocket food prices higher! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bf9cea09cc860f86?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hot sell sports shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5fcf0b12ce194118?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 9:05 pm
From: "nikeshoesstock.com"

nikeshoesstock@hotmail.com
nikeshoesstock@yahoo.com.cn
We sell all kinds of sport shoes.Such as nike shoes,Jordan,nike air
force,nike air max 2003,nike air max 2004,nike air max 360,nike air
max 97,nike air max 95,nike air max plus tn,nike air max running,nike
ducks,nike kobe,nike shox R4,nike shox R5 and so on.If there are
anything you are interested,please contact us at once.We will offer
you the best product and service as soon as we receiving your order.
our website is: http.//www.nikeshoesstock.com
our Email is:nikeshoesstock@yahoo.com.cn
our msn is :www_nikeshoesstock@hotmail.com
Best regards!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free sample of SPAM
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4631cbbca4791708?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 9:13 pm
From: BeaForoni@msn.com

On Dec 23, 8:05 am, mja <mjam...@cox.net> wrote:
> FreebiesPl.us wrote:
> >http://www.freebie
>
> Why does my ISP continue block your link / reporting it to be a
> suspected scam?

Why? Because you have a very good ISP... That's why!

When I tried to get 'freebies' I got maybe one out of ten. Of course
I used a fake name. Years later my fake name still gets pre-approved
credit cards and offers for reduction in home mortgage. Charities seem
to feel my fake name is a soft touch and my mailbox is full of limited
time only - act fast offerings of discount jewlery and dream
vacations. Moral of the story: My fake name is more credit worthy,
more generous and classier than me. I should have born with a funny
name instead of beautiful.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A thought, was Re: More Selective reporting from Limbaugh
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/306db91f018962b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:01 pm
From: The Real Bev

Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:

> Anybody who sees Rush Limbaugh as a news reporter needs a reality check.
> He is an entertainer (a conservative Letterman-type), not a news reporter

Funny is good. We need more funny. LOTS more funny.

> Melinda, ultra-conservative who does *not* like Rush Limbaugh because he
> lampoons those with ideologies contrary to his

Come on, who among us does not?

What bothered me about him is that the people he hires to check facts
make mistakes, allowing him to make public mistakes. He was also
espousing some homeopathic medicine, and I'm pretty sure he didn't know
what that meant either -- gotta be careful about whom you allow to
sponsor you.

--
Cheers, Bev
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoo
"There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane:
Either you have diarrhoea, or you're anxious to meet people who do."
-- Rich Jeni

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:35 pm
From: "calderhome@yahoo.com"

see:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!

by Christopher Calder

On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law an
historic energy bill that mandates massive increases in the production
of ethanol, which is to be used as "biofuel" to run automobiles and
trucks. Ethanol is currently made from corn and other foodstuffs, and
all of the various forms of biofuel, including "biodiesel," are made
from food or from inedible crops which displace normal agricultural
activity. Even at current limited levels of biofuel production, this
"renewable energy source" has already caused huge increases in the
price of food around the world, which can be experienced firsthand at
any supermarket in America. Unfortunately, consumers/voters are
undereducated as to exactly why food prices have risen so
dramatically.
The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the
world because of the high cost of food due to biofuel production.
Local food banks in the United States are running low on supplies, and
many families who use to contribute to food banks are now in need of
help themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on
artificially high corn prices created by political biofuel mandates,
they plant less wheat and fewer vegetables and other crops, and thus
food prices rise across the board. We use corn to feed chickens and
cattle, so the price of poultry, beef, and dairy products have risen
substantially and will continue to rise with no end in sight.
The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest political
hoaxes in American history. The ideology of biofuel production sounds
wholesome superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of
producing energy. The problem is that the entire biofuel scheme is
based on lies and political selfishness, without any legitimate
science based ecological justification.
1) Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need
just to survive. Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled,
and those living on Social Security and other fixed incomes are the
hardest hit.
2) Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because it
demands large subsidies to exist. Without massive Federal subsidies
and political mandates, there would be no significant free market
demand for biofuels at all. Biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone
wrong.
3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are
desperately needed as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that
causes global warming. Do we really want to cut down forests all over
the world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to
grow corn, soybeans, palm oil, sugarcane, and other crops to burn as
fuel in our SUVs? Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the
entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases
huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while destroying
native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we
breathe.
Biofuel production will aggravate water shortages world wide
because water is diverted to grow biofuel crops and thus taken away
from our ever shrinking supplies of safe drinking water. Biofuel use
also demands a dramatic increase in the production of fertilizers made
from natural gas, coal and mined minerals in a messy industrial
process which unleashes even more greenhouse gases. Biofuels are a
losing proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing them.
4) Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud
because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form
of the biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
just to produce biofuels. The economic numbers for biofuel production
do not add up any way you look at them, and at the recent United
Nations conference on strategic environmental issues held in Bali,
Indonesia, several studies were presented detailing the dangers of
making automobile fuels from crops. Respected scientists warned that
biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim. Just a few days
after the Bali conference ended, America's political leaders enacted a
new law mandating massive increases in biofuel production, the science
and the facts be damned.
5) The biofuel hoax in the United States is fueled to a large degree
by domestic American politics and corporate greed. Both the
Republican and Democratic political parties want to get the "farm
vote" in politically strategic farming states like Iowa, Ohio, and
Nebraska. Our politicians have put political gain ahead of the
world's starving poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and the welfare
of the American middle class. Rich politicians can afford to pay the
dramatically higher food bills that biofuel production creates, and
they have decided to throw science to the wind and charge blindly into
what will inevitably be branded as one of the most destructive
political fiascoes of the 21st century.
6) Making cellulosic ethanol from lignocellulose, a structural
material that comprises much of the mass of plants, is better than
making ethanol from corn, but it still has most of the drawbacks
listed for ethanol made from food crops. Growing lignocellulose
yielding grasses on land we currently use to graze cattle will
increase the price of beef and milk. We will still have to use
fertilizers made from natural gas and coal to make inedible crops
grow, and the entire process will erode topsoil and increase the price
of food. If we grow switchgrass for biofuel on "marginal" prairie
land, we will soon turn that marginal land into a desert and a dust
bowl, which it may turn into anyway due to global warming, which
biofuel use will not stop.
Computer models for the progression of global warming show the
America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of
our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel
use will do nothing to stop this progression, so why are we pinning so
much hope on an energy and environmental battle plan that any fool can
see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce
enough biofuels to run our cars, or enough food to fill our bellies!
The biofuel scheme is another example of a basic lack of intelligence
of our politicians, many of whom also voted for the disastrous Iraq
war despite the warnings of more thoughtful advisers. If you cannot
plan ahead and anticipate future trends, then you will lead this
nation into one disaster after another, which is exactly what is
occurring in Washington DC at this very moment. Our Congress has
become a chorus of stupidity, and our politicians are leading us to
national suicide, not to the nirvana of energy independence.
Even the very process of making cellulosic ethanol from
switchgrass and other plants has not been proven to be economically
viable, and the Bush energy bill assumes new scientific breakthroughs
that have not yet occurred. Many of the plants being proposed as
lignocellulose yielding crops are weeds which will have a destructive
impact on wildlife and biodiversity around the world. In practical
terms, there is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient
quantity of biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands.
The prospect of growing algae to make biodiesel has more positive
potential than making ethanol from switchgrass, but open algae sewage
ponds are difficult to manage due to contamination from invasive algae
and bacteria, and the inherent problem of finding an algae that will
survive wide swings in temperature and pH. If a system can be
developed that produces biodiesel from algae that requires only a
small amount of land and that produces much more energy than it takes
to manufacture, then algae based biodiesel might be a positive
venture. To date there has been no proof that such a system is viable
or truly carbon neutral. If you have to run algae farms off the waste
of coal fired power plants, as has been proposed, then you have a band-
aid solution that will not stop global warming in its tracks, which is
what we need to do if we want our children and grandchildren to
survive on this planet.
Dramatic increases in food prices created by biofuel production
will cause political instability around the globe, because food
products are sold in a world wide marketplace just like oil. There
have already been mass public protests in Mexico over the high price
of corn, which makes tortillas and other basic Mexican foods. Imagine
the political instability in Mexico, Central and South America,
Africa, India, and Pakistan that skyrocketing food prices and mass
starvation will cause. Will a starving Pakistan, armed with nuclear
weapons, make the world a safer place? If American politicians lead
us down a path to global use of biofuels, we will be leading the world
into a historic disaster that can easily kill more people due to
starvation than have been killed in the Iraq war by bullets and
bombs.
If we truly wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not just
waste time on destructive political scams, then we will have to create
an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved battery
technology, and hydrogen fuel, not on ethanol and biofuels. Hydrogen
releases water vapor when burned and is the cleanest burning fuel
known to man. Hydrogen can be used in both internal combustion
engines and in fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel can be made through the
electrolysis of water via electricity generated from zero emissions
nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 19.4% of our
nation's electricity. We need to build large numbers of nuclear power
plants now using mass production techniques if we want to end global
warming rather than just continue talking about the subject endlessly
with no positive effect.
Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gases at all. You do not need much land to
build a nuclear power plant, and you do not need to make fertilizer to
make nuclear energy grow. Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to
attack by insects, viruses, bacteria, or fungi as are biofuel crops.
We need to get off the organic carbon cycle for energy production and
use inorganic nuclear power to produce the highly concentrated energy
supply that solar and wind power can never hope to provide. Even by
the most optimistic estimates, solar and wind power can only hope to
satisfy perhaps 20% of our future energy needs. Solar and wind power
tap into natural energy sources that are far too diffuse to be
collected on a large enough scale to power an advanced, industrialized
nation. Solar and wind power currently produce only about 2.4% of our
nation's electricity, so even an increase to 20% would be a major
undertaking.
One of the added benefits of nuclear power is that we already own
huge amounts of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear weapons materials,
which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian power production.
The United States Government has hundreds of years worth of nuclear
fuel in storage thanks to the cold war nuclear arms race of the 1950s
and 1960s. We can turn our swords into plowshares while paying only
the modest costs of converting high level weapons grade nuclear
materials into low level nuclear fuel rods suitable for civilian power
production. Unlike oil, we do not have to import nuclear fuel from
foreign countries or fight endless foreign wars to protect our
supplies.
Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored. The nuclear "waste"
is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and that is part of the reason why
France's nuclear power program has been so successful. France relies
heavily on nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and
thus France has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in
Europe.
The fears many Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants
are largely unfounded. Our latest nuclear reactor designs are
carefully engineered with many layers of redundant safety and security
features built-in. One single disaster that occurred in 1986 at an
obsolete Ukrainian reactor is no reason to be eternally afraid of all
civilian nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl
reactor used a dangerous design that has never been used in the West,
and which did not even have a containment vessel. The infamous
Chernobyl accident was caused by Soviet engineers conducting wildly
irresponsible experiments that were totally unrelated to normal
civilian power production, and which would never be allowed in the
USA. The Chernobyl nuclear accident killed a total of 56 people, a
great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster. Far fewer people
died at Chernobyl than on Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985, when a
lone 747 jetliner crashed and killed all 520 passengers. Americans
suffer over 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year, but
there is no great human cry to ban automobiles.
Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and for clean, pollution free operation. By contrast, the over
600 coal burning power plants in the United States which produce
approximately 49% of our nation's electricity emit sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which combine with moisture in the
atmosphere to create destructive acid rain. Coal burning power plants
also release microscopic particulate matter which clog the lungs and
which are attributed to causing approximately 24,000 unnatural
premature deaths in America every year, which is 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.
Coal fired power plants in the USA release approximately 200,000
pounds of toxic mercury each year, and nearly 10% of global carbon
dioxide emissions, which represents an enormous river of skyward bound
greenhouse gas. On top of all of that, coal burning power plants
release radioactive materials into the atmosphere due to the natural
thorium and uranium content of coal. A single 1,000 megawatt coal-
burning power plant can release as much as 12.8 tons of radioactive
thorium every year, and 5.2 tons of uranium each year. The uranium
figure includes 74 pounds of uranium-235, which is the highly
fissionable form of uranium that was used to construct the "Little
Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Why is there so little fear in the United States of coal burning
power plants, but so much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier
nuclear power? The answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly
demonized by a Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick
buck (The China Syndrome, The Simpsons, etc.), and by scientifically
undereducated politicians and environmental activists. The fact is
there has never been a single human death attributable to the daily
activity of nuclear power plants in the USA, and American nuclear
power plants produce electricity at an average cost of less than two
cents per kilowatt-hour (2004 figure), which is comparable with coal
and hydroelectric power. Newer, more efficient power plant designs
and the mass production of major structural and control components can
bring the cost down even further.
Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an
extremely high volume of energy using only a tiny amount of land and
at reasonable cost, all without emitting any greenhouse gases. That
is why the father of Gaia theory, British atmospheric scientist James
Lovelock, stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large
human population on planet earth without causing global warming and
destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public
statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green
solution.
We must remember that biofuels are made from food or from
inedible crops which displace current levels of food production. With
a world wide human population of over 6.6 billion people and growing,
we cannot afford to feed our families and at the same time use
precious farm and grazing land to produce food products and/or
lignocellulose yielding crops to burn in our automobile engines. Food
belongs in the stomachs of hungry men, women, and children, not in the
gas tanks of our Fords, Hondas, and Mercedes Benz automobiles.
If you do not want food prices to double, triple, or even
quadruple in the next ten years, then write your Congressman, Senator,
Governor, and President and tell them that you do not want to waste
food production resources on biofuels. Furthermore, state the obvious
fact that food prices are already too high and that you want all
biofuel mandates repealed and all biofuel manufacturing subsidies
ended. If this is done you will soon see food prices declining
instead of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and
the United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to
meet their moral obligations to help feed the world's starving
masses. Biofuel production for use in automobiles represents a
needless man made disaster, not a blessing, and biofuels are
effectively agricultural products no matter how you make them. We
should not waste or displace food production capacity if we wish to
feed a hungry world.

Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, December 24, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

4 new messages in 4 topics - digest