Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 11 topics

Thursday, November 27, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 11 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: What does one get when milk spoils?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cdb0345f0221733f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 26 2008 10:49 pm
From: "Bob F"

"Kompu Kid" <deguza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:487f7c5a-bc29-4efd-bb26-ac40b6cfa3c0@23g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
> Hello All:
>
> I heated a cup of milk for one minute four days ago, then forget it in
> the microwave.
>
> I discovered that I now have a yogurt-like substance.
>
> Is this edible? Is it yogurt? Could it be toxic?
>

I'm no expert, other than making a gallon of yogurt a week. If it smells OK, I'd
try a little taste. Maybe you've discovered a delicious new culture.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 8:36 am
From: clams_casino

Kompu Kid wrote:

>Hello All:
>
>I heated a cup of milk for one minute four days ago, then forget it in
>the microwave.
>
>I discovered that I now have a yogurt-like substance.
>
>Is this edible? Is it yogurt? Could it be toxic?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Deguza
>
>

Try it. If you don't post angain, we'll know the answer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Swiss Watch International Limited Edition Chronograph Stainless Steel
Men's Watch
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/eb67854b8b0665d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 12:12 am
From: replicawatches2009@yahoo.cn

(www.86wa tches.com)wholesale wat ches, T-
Shirt,jeans,sunglasses,hats from guangzhou,china

Web : http://www 86wa tches com
Mail: china_86wat ches@yahoo com cn
MSN : china_86wat ches@hotmail com
Designer Handbag web: http://www 86ba gs com cn
More detailed photos of the new wat ches:
http://picasaweb google com/86wat ches

Swiss Watch International Limited Edition Chronograph Stainless Steel
Men's Watch

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bailout costs every taxpayer $24,000.00. Are Americans just fat sheeple?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a7c77e2271603a4f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 12:25 am
From: "Nicik Name"

"Mark B" <mark_bert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58d7e12f-214e-4773-b6ad-43552e289587@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 10:33 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> ample butts while accepting the
> theft of their money?
>
> ted

Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
NOPE not a thin dime will it cost the a tax payer

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 12:26 am
From: "Nicik Name"

"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:61ea51fd-ea4a-4f7e-b584-6b582f82dc9f@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 9:33 am, dustin <dustinjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)

> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
> every
> man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has
> spentso far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional
> Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country's
> mortgages

> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...

Who is getting the bailout money? Is it the stockholders, bondholders,
executives, or somebody else?
White collar crime..........

--
Ron

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 12:27 am
From: "Nicik Name"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:6wVWk.1515$l91.1168@newsfe02.iad...
> tomorrow@erols.com wrote:
>
>>On Nov 25, 9:17 am, Mark B <mark_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 24, 10:33 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
>>>>ample butts while accepting the
>>>>theft of their money?
>>>>
>>>>ted
>>>>
>>>Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
>>>
>>
>>Except not all 300M are taxpayers. Something like 120M file tax
>>returns, but of those, only about 80M actually PAY taxes (other than
>>FICA and Medicare). Still, that only works out to $8,750 per
>>taxpayer.
>
> Where do all these people who pay no taxes live..... other than perhaps
> AK where everyone gets a welfare check?
>
> Other than residents of AK, I 'm not sure anyone, except some on medicaid
> in a nursing home pays NO taxes.
No such amount exists

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 12:30 am
From: "Nicik Name"

"rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fe50dea-b2b4-47b3-9838-f2c0a1352cb6@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The federal government has only spent $1.1 trillion so far
> at $3500 per person. Thats still a damn lot. As much as
> the entire Iraq & Afganistan wars over six years.
>
> The $1.1 trillion comes from the increase in national debt
> in September and October - a record increase.
> Paulson and Bernanke are otherwise vague on what they actually spent.
They are operating outside of the United States Constitution
>

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 6:57 am
From: "Dave"

>Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.

The original bailout was $820 Billion BORROWED, by the time it passed (and
improperly referred to as the $700 Billion bailout). That's $1.6 TRILLION
or more by the time the loan is paid off. The next round will be another
$800 Billion, or another $1.6 Trillion OR MORE in paid off loan value. So
we're already on the hook for 3.2 TRILLION or more (probably much more).
Future plans call for a total of 8 TRILLION in bailouts (that's the BORROWED
amount). That's $16 TRILLION or more by the time all the loans are paid
off. And there are only about 138,000,000 taxpayers.

Actually, It's $115942.03 if you figure $16T / 138M people.

This is not speculation. It's just simple mathematics. -Dave

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 7:20 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Nicik Name <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com> wrote dustin <dustinjo...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)

>> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
>> every man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan, according to
>> Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half
>> the country's mortgages

>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...

> Who is getting the bailout money?

Those who need credit.

> Is it the stockholders, bondholders, executives,

Nope.

> or somebody else?

Yep.

> White collar crime..........

You wouldnt know what real white collar crime was if it bit you on your lard arse.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 7:21 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Nicik Name <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote

>> The federal government has only spent $1.1 trillion so far
>> at $3500 per person. Thats still a damn lot. As much as
>> the entire Iraq & Afganistan wars over six years.

>> The $1.1 trillion comes from the increase in national debt
>> in September and October - a record increase.

>> Paulson and Bernanke are otherwise vague on what they actually spent.

> They are operating outside of the United States Constitution

Just another of your bare faced pig ignorant lies.

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 7:36 am
From: "Rod Speed"

§tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
>> §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
>>>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote

>>>>>> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching
>>>>>> their ample butts while accepting the theft of their money?

>>>>> They stand to lose a lot more than that.

>>>> We taxpayers would end up paying even more if the bailout isn't
>>>> done. The problem with Wall Street is that there is too much money
>>>> managed by two few firms. We need to diversify Wall Street and
>>>> Detroit. Our economy should depend so heavily on a few Wall Street
>>>> firms and three automobile manufacturers in Detroit.

>>> Where do you com,e up with such nonsense that the taxpayers will have
>>> to pay more if they don't give charity to a bunch of non managing buffoons?

>> Allowing the big three automakers to go bankrupt would plunge millions
>> into joblessness and cause many suppliers to close. The cost to deal
>> with all the new jobless claims, loss of wage taxes, etc. will easily run
>> more then the cost of lending the automakers a few billion dollars.

> You honestly believe that GM would just simply go broke and padlock their doors?

Nope, but letting those 3 go bust would have real downsides.

> Why all of the sudden do you all think that there is no such thing as a buy out or a merger?

Because the car industry is different. Hardly anyone is stupid enough
to buy something as expensive as a new car if it looks like you may
well not be able to get any warranty faults fixed for free, or be able
to get parts for your car when you need them outside warranty.

> Goldman Sachs was given as one of the primary reasons
> for the financial bailout. They got bought out before the
> bailout got finalized and ended up not needing it.

Even you should have noticed the difference between the car industry and a bank.

> If GM or Ford were to go bankrupt it would not instanlty
> mean all of their employees would be jobless.

Yeah, it would mean that the vast bulk of those working for the dealers etc would be too.

> Large corporations have been in bankruptcy before and managed to reorganize into a profitable business.

Bet you cant list a single one that sells something as
expensive as a car to normal consumers that ever has.

> Seems "kneejerk" is the word for the day as of late.

So is mindless silly stuff from fools like you.

> And since when has the government ever been able to manage any business?

Schools and the courts and the cops and the military do work reasonably well.

> Hell the feds owned a whorehouse and ended up bankrupting it.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

> You honestly think that an entity that isn't capable of making a profit from a
> whorehouse has enough sense to run anything else that they have no clue about?

They dont have to run it themselves. Iacocca did make Chrysler reasonably viable with govt bailout money.

> And so they give GM a big fat check and say "you're going to make the kind
> of green vehicles that we tell you to make". And then if those vehicles end
> up not being the big boon to the market and don't sell for shit, then what?

You're left with shit that no one wants to buy.

Hang on...

> You gonna give them more money with more strings attached?
> How long are you willing to prop them up?

Forever when they vote for you, you watch.

>>> You claim that the taxpayers will pay more by not bailing them
>>> out yet fail to think about the fact that this bullshit will end up
>>> setting a standard whereas dumb greedy bastards will continue
>>> to line up at the federal trough every time they place their own
>>> companies in financial jeopardy. Forget nationalized healthcare
>>> placing any burden on the taxpayer. This kind of garbage will
>>> eat up cash faster than a health plan could ever dream of doing.

>> Not at all. We need to tie the bailout with improved regulations that
>> prevent businesses from engaging in the practices that would give
>> rise to such problems again.

> Dream on. As I asked, when has the government ever
> been able to make a profit doing a damned thing?

Have a look at the S&L fiasco sometime.

Have a look at the TVA sometime.

> You're talking about the most wasteful entity in the nation
> possibly the world telling someone how not to go broke.

Nope, you're actually attempting to avoid them going broke.

That did work with Chrysler at one time.

> BTW, you people keep throwing the figure out there that
> "millions" of employees would lose their jobs. Funny, the
> UAW has a total membership of just around 500,000.

There's a hell of a lot more than that working for the dealerships.

> That's all of the big three and then some. And no one has yet explained with any
> kind of logic how a GM bankruptcy, for example, extrapolates to "millions" losing jobs.

You're lying now.

> You people have talked of "fear mongering" for years now and damned
> if ya'll aren't doing the exact same thing with this bullshit propaganda
> aimed at putting the governments fingers more into the auto industry.

Thats what politics is about, stupid.

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 8:43 am
From: §tarkiller©

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:36:36 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>§tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
>>> §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
>>>>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote
>
>>>>>>> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching
>>>>>>> their ample butts while accepting the theft of their money?
>
>>>>>> They stand to lose a lot more than that.
>
>>>>> We taxpayers would end up paying even more if the bailout isn't
>>>>> done. The problem with Wall Street is that there is too much money
>>>>> managed by two few firms. We need to diversify Wall Street and
>>>>> Detroit. Our economy should depend so heavily on a few Wall Street
>>>>> firms and three automobile manufacturers in Detroit.
>
>>>> Where do you com,e up with such nonsense that the taxpayers will have
>>>> to pay more if they don't give charity to a bunch of non managing buffoons?
>
>>> Allowing the big three automakers to go bankrupt would plunge millions
>>> into joblessness and cause many suppliers to close. The cost to deal
>>> with all the new jobless claims, loss of wage taxes, etc. will easily run
>>> more then the cost of lending the automakers a few billion dollars.
>
>> You honestly believe that GM would just simply go broke and padlock their doors?
>
>Nope, but letting those 3 go bust would have real downsides.

Such is the nature of business. So why all the sudden NOW?
What about all of these multibillion dollar bankruptcies that have
occurred in recent years with NO bail out money?
http://www.bankruptcydata.com/researchcenter2.htm

Under 2008 one of the companies listed is Quebecor World.
Quebecor is one of my customers. They're still printing and their
plants are all still open. They went bankrupt, they got no federal
aid, yet they are still open for business and have let go of a minimal
number of employees. Go down the lists and you see many with
bankruptcies in the billions. Yet all of the doom and gloom you all
preach has not occurred.

>
>> Why all of the sudden do you all think that there is no such thing as a buy out or a merger?
>
>Because the car industry is different. Hardly anyone is stupid enough
>to buy something as expensive as a new car if it looks like you may
>well not be able to get any warranty faults fixed for free, or be able
>to get parts for your car when you need them outside warranty.

Not talking about cars fool. Talking about a business.
If GM shuts its doors completely tomorrow there will be some
conglomerate willing, even eager, to buy them.
But it isn't likely that they would simply shut down.
Business is business whether talking about a bank or a manufacturer.
The rules are the same regardless. Your argument that the type of
product made somehow means something different is seriously lacking in
logic.

BTW, My particular truck model has been out of production since 98.
I have no problem getting any part I need for it and I rarely use GM
factory replacement parts as I can obtain the same parts from other
manufacturers that aren't owned by GM that are of equal or better
quality at a better price.(one of the reasons they are in financial
hot water). So your claim that we won't be able to get parts anymore
is simply ill informed.

>
>> Goldman Sachs was given as one of the primary reasons
>> for the financial bailout. They got bought out before the
>> bailout got finalized and ended up not needing it.
>
>Even you should have noticed the difference between the car industry and a bank.

When it comes to accounting , profit and loss, and the ability to keep
the doors open there isn't much difference. You seem to be stuck on
what the product is as opposed to business practices.
>
>> If GM or Ford were to go bankrupt it would not instanlty
>> mean all of their employees would be jobless.
>
>Yeah, it would mean that the vast bulk of those working for the dealers etc would be too.

As stated, virtually every big three dealership here also has other
franchises as well. If one brand were to go belly up then there would
be a need for more employees at other franchises whose business would
likely increase in order to fill the hole in the market. The general
public will buy X number of cars in any given year. If one player
gets eliminated the market share for the competition will increase
thus creating a demand for workers in their plants.
>
>> Large corporations have been in bankruptcy before and managed to reorganize into a profitable business.
>
>Bet you cant list a single one that sells something as
>expensive as a car to normal consumers that ever has.

http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/Largest_Overall_Non-Financial.pdf

>
>> Seems "kneejerk" is the word for the day as of late.
>
>So is mindless silly stuff from fools like you.
>
>> And since when has the government ever been able to manage any business?
>
>Schools and the courts and the cops and the military do work reasonably well.

None of the above are businesses. If they were then they would be
financial disasters. The courts, police and military NEVER make a
profit.
Instead we have ever increasing budgets for all and at the end of any
given year those entities always say they need more.
If they were looked at as true business they would be financial
failures. The best they can hope for is to break even. But that
never happens because any government employee will be happy to tell
you that if they don't eat up their budget and then some then they
won't get as much money next year. The government is designed to
spend money, not make it.
>
>> Hell the feds owned a whorehouse and ended up bankrupting it.
>
>The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

If you can't manage a lousy 10,000 square foot piece of property with
only around a hundred employees, how can you be expected to know how
to handle a multibillion dollar industry?

>
>> You honestly think that an entity that isn't capable of making a profit from a
>> whorehouse has enough sense to run anything else that they have no clue about?
>
>They dont have to run it themselves. Iacocca did make Chrysler reasonably viable with govt bailout money.

LIE

Iacocca got no bailout money. What he negotiated were LOAN
GAURANTEES. That's a far cry from simply giving money away. While it
is sometimes said that Congress lent Chrysler the money, it, in fact,
only guaranteed the loans. If the government were talking of loan
Guarantees now instead of the loose form of a so called loan as in the
current bailout package then there wouldn't be any argument.
>
>> And so they give GM a big fat check and say "you're going to make the kind
>> of green vehicles that we tell you to make". And then if those vehicles end
>> up not being the big boon to the market and don't sell for shit, then what?
>
>You're left with shit that no one wants to buy.

Then you're once again going broke and have your hand out for another
"bailout".
>
>Hang on...
>
>> You gonna give them more money with more strings attached?
>> How long are you willing to prop them up?
>
>Forever when they vote for you, you watch.
>
>>>> You claim that the taxpayers will pay more by not bailing them
>>>> out yet fail to think about the fact that this bullshit will end up
>>>> setting a standard whereas dumb greedy bastards will continue
>>>> to line up at the federal trough every time they place their own
>>>> companies in financial jeopardy. Forget nationalized healthcare
>>>> placing any burden on the taxpayer. This kind of garbage will
>>>> eat up cash faster than a health plan could ever dream of doing.
>
>>> Not at all. We need to tie the bailout with improved regulations that
>>> prevent businesses from engaging in the practices that would give
>>> rise to such problems again.
>
>> Dream on. As I asked, when has the government ever
>> been able to make a profit doing a damned thing?
>
>Have a look at the S&L fiasco sometime.
>
>Have a look at the TVA sometime.
>
>> You're talking about the most wasteful entity in the nation
>> possibly the world telling someone how not to go broke.
>
>Nope, you're actually attempting to avoid them going broke.
>
>That did work with Chrysler at one time.

Again, Chrysler received no loan from the government.
>
>> BTW, you people keep throwing the figure out there that
>> "millions" of employees would lose their jobs. Funny, the
>> UAW has a total membership of just around 500,000.
>
>There's a hell of a lot more than that working for the dealerships.

Still the figure is nowhere near the "millions" you all keep throwing
out there for shock factor.

And if GM goes completely under a large chunk of those dealers will
simply change brands to one of the others that will gladly step up to
fill the hole left by GM, Ford or Chrysler.
Dealerships are not part of the Automakers. They are independently
owned franchises. The vehicles on their lots belong to them as they
buy them directly from the factory. The automakers do not provide
vehicles to dealers on consignment. One individual here has been a
Ford, GM and Chrysler dealer at one time or another over the years.
The other larger dealerships here typically have two or three brands.
The Gwatney family, for example, owns Chevrolet, GM and Saturn
dealerships. Homer Skelton owns both Ford and Hundai dealerships.
>
>> That's all of the big three and then some. And no one has yet explained with any
>> kind of logic how a GM bankruptcy, for example, extrapolates to "millions" losing jobs.
>
>You're lying now.

No, show us the actual figures instead of the dumbassed guesses ya'll
keep throwing out there.
You all also seem bent on just guaranteeing that a GM bankruptcy would
immediately shutdown every dealership and every auto parts store in
the world and that just simply is not true.

>
>> You people have talked of "fear mongering" for years now and damned
>> if ya'll aren't doing the exact same thing with this bullshit propaganda
>> aimed at putting the governments fingers more into the auto industry.
>
>Thats what politics is about, stupid.
>
Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.

Regards

§tarkiller©

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is
big enough to take away everything you have.'

"You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich."

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 9:54 am
From: "Jerry Okamura"

"Nicik Name" <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:K9WdnR_XYsNSxLPUnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> news:61ea51fd-ea4a-4f7e-b584-6b582f82dc9f@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 9:33 am, dustin <dustinjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)
>
>> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
>> every
>> man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has
>> spentso far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional
>> Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country's
>> mortgages
>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...
>
> Who is getting the bailout money? Is it the stockholders, bondholders,
> executives, or somebody else?
> White collar crime..........
>
You don't know? It is after all your money, don't you think you should know
the answer?

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 9:55 am
From: "Jerry Okamura"

"Nicik Name" <orbits@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lLqdnRa8DNYhx7PUnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8fe50dea-b2b4-47b3-9838-f2c0a1352cb6@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> The federal government has only spent $1.1 trillion so far
>> at $3500 per person. Thats still a damn lot. As much as
>> the entire Iraq & Afganistan wars over six years.
>>
>> The $1.1 trillion comes from the increase in national debt
>> in September and October - a record increase.
>> Paulson and Bernanke are otherwise vague on what they actually spent.
> They are operating outside of the United States Constitution
>>
>
And if they are, who is going to stop them? Are the democrats going to stop
them, or are they encouraging them to spend the money?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Negro savage beat, mutilated,murdered TV anchor in Little Rock
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8962b12aa44fb235?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 2:01 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:42:06 -0800 (PST), hpope@lycos.com wrote:

>On Nov 27, 2:39 am, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
>> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TV_ANCHOR_ATTACKED?SITE=FLTAM&...
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>> Additional readins:
>>
>> http://www.newnation.org/ New Nation News

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Constitution of the Kingdom of God, Earth (www.grishenkoff.com)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/108ccf116ffbeab9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 2:25 am
From: Prime Minister Serge Grishenkoff

The Constitution of the Kingdom of God, Earth (www.grishenkoff.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a
year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 5:28 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net

Thanks for showing us your true colors. You don't give a damn about the
unborn, you're just a hate-filled moron who lies and whines.

In <birri4d3rs5lcsrg7873pht7mutrdhs90f@4ax.com>, on 11/26/2008
at 08:43 PM, LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> said:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:15:13 GMT, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:

>>In <vsahi4p4r78oh9fvfrn2u3o4pihqta1b73@4ax.com>, on 11/23/2008
>> at 01:06 AM, LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:50:41 -0500, "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry if I sound somewhat pessimistic, but this abortion issue was decided
>>>>fairly many years ago with roe v. wade and the religious wackos have been
>>>>trying to overturn it ever since.
>>
>>
>>>Do you and those like you qualify as "Abortion Wackos" since you have
>>>been supporting Roe vs Wade for so many years?
>>
>>
>>You know right wingner, I have a solution for the abortion issue that
>>shows you right wign creeps for what you really are;
>>
>>We have a national vote on the issue, but you have to use your name on the
>>vote. If it passes, all those who wanted no abortion will have that as
>>the law of the land -- however, they will also receive a special tax bill
>>every month to help pay the way of all those children they wanted born,
>>who have no other source of support.

>Of course the issue to be balloted on will include the following --
>For every child not aborted but born under the conditioned you set down
>there would be deported one wrong-winger aka democrap to Canada. That
>would even out the load on the majority of tax payers who happen to be
>REPUBLICANS, democraps, as clearly demonstrated in the recent election
>and its result. being mostly welfare and food stamps kind of folks.-I
>know you'll agree,

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 5:28 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net

Wrong asshole. The big three works make a couple of dollars more per hour
then other auto workers. The rest goes to pay the cost of retireees.
Learn to do homework goober. You might get to move out of trailer you
live in and watching rush limbrain for your information.

In <8cvri493g4djpi8417v5n6gitp7cqe76d0@4ax.com>, on 11/26/2008
at 08:55 PM, LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> said:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:57:10 GMT, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:

>>
>>
>>The problem is a Big 3 management failure. Not a worker failure.
>>Furthermore, you are using the total per hour labor cost that is given
>>out. That includes current workers and retirees. Using it as a current
>>worker number -- as you guys are doing, is spinning the facts to suite the
>>nonsense.
>>
>>The problem will not be changed by whining.

>The auto workers got where they are drawing a ridiculous wage and benefit
>package by collective whining (of course that will go swooooosh, right
>over your pointed head.)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 7:38 am
From: "Rod Speed"

TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:

> Wrong asshole.

How many assholes have you got ?

> The big three works make a couple of dollars more per
> hour then other auto workers. The rest goes to pay the cost of
> retireees. Learn to do homework goober. You might get to move out of
> trailer you live in and watching rush limbrain for your information.
>
>
>
>
>
> In <8cvri493g4djpi8417v5n6gitp7cqe76d0@4ax.com>, on 11/26/2008
> at 08:55 PM, LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> said:
>
>
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:57:10 GMT, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is a Big 3 management failure. Not a worker failure.
>>> Furthermore, you are using the total per hour labor cost that is
>>> given out. That includes current workers and retirees. Using it as
>>> a current worker number -- as you guys are doing, is spinning the
>>> facts to suite the nonsense.
>>>
>>> The problem will not be changed by whining.
>
>
>> The auto workers got where they are drawing a ridiculous wage and
>> benefit package by collective whining (of course that will go
>> swooooosh, right over your pointed head.)

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 8:34 am
From: clams_casino

TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:

>Wrong asshole. The big three works make a couple of dollars more per hour
>then other auto workers. The rest goes to pay the cost of retireees.
>Learn to do homework goober. You might get to move out of trailer you
>live in and watching rush limbrain for your information.
>
>
>
>

Where did you get that nonsense?

Any references to support the claim that UAW workers do not get
substantially more benefits than the non three domestic competition?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: www.sellting.com thanks for the thanksgiving day.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b5b8650cf5a3847f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 5:54 am
From: kingwong167@gmail.com

WE ARE A FOOTWEAR WHOLESALE FROM CHINA.A LOT OF LOW PRICE GOODS THAT
WILL SUIT FOR YOU TO MAKE A E-STORE ONLINE. NOWADAYS,THE ECONOMY IS AT
A
LOW GROWING,AND TO WORK SOHO IS WELCOME BY MANY PEOPLE,BUT THE
PROBLEM IS HOW TO GET LOW PRICE GOODS AND SELL TO CUSTOMER.

BECAUSE WE MADE THE PRODUCTS AT A LOW COST,SO WE CAN SUPPLY THEM AT A
LOW PRICE.THE PRODUCTS WE SUPPLIED FROM SHOES TO HATS,INCLUDING
T-SHIRT,HANDBAG,POLO SHIRT,JEANS,JACKET,HOODIES,ETC. ALTHOUGH THEY
ARE
ON SALE AT A LOW PRICE,BUT ALL OF THEM ARE VIA ADVANCED
EQUIPMENT,WELL-
KNIT TECHNOLOGY,SO THE QUALITY ARE ALL HIGH,THE MATERIALS ARE
FASHIONABLE,THE CRAFTWORK IS PERFECT,AND THE STYLE ARE NOVEL AND
ENJOYED BY THE CONSUMER.OUR PRODUCTS ARE WARMLY WELCOME BY
CUSTOMERS FROM AMERICA,EUROPE,MIDDLE EAST,SOUTHEAST ASIA,ETC.

NOW,IT'S THE GOOD CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR OWN BUSINESS,AND
EARN YOURSELF.

LET'S ALL DO OUR BEST TO FIGHT WITH THE FINANCIAL STORM.HOPING THAT
THE STORM GONE EARLY.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ALL THINGS ON SALE AT A DISCOUNT PRICE
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8570e0cf0981f626?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 5:56 am
From: kingwong167@gmail.com

WWW.SELLTING.COM
WE ARE A FOOTWEAR WHOLESALE FROM CHINA.A LOT OF LOW PRICE GOODS THAT
WILL SUIT FOR YOU TO MAKE A E-STORE ONLINE. NOWADAYS,THE ECONOMY IS AT
A
LOW GROWING,AND TO WORK SOHO IS WELCOME BY MANY PEOPLE,BUT THE
PROBLEM IS HOW TO GET LOW PRICE GOODS AND SELL TO CUSTOMER.

NOW,IT'S THE GOOD CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR OWN BUSINESS,AND
EARN YOURSELF.

LET'S ALL DO OUR BEST TO FIGHT WITH THE FINANCIAL STORM.HOPING THAT
THE STORM GONE EARLY.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Acting Poor Is the Newest Obnoxious Trend for the Rich
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e9d1d3b9d6366c31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 6:03 am
From: "'nam vet."

In article <5M9Xk.33$4c1.14@newsfe25.iad>,
Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Interesting trend and article.
>
> http://gawker.com/5097524/acting-poor-is-the-newest-obnoxious-trend-for-the-ri
> ch

Did you hear my "Compassion for the Rich" rant?
They are a minority that suffers. Sometimes they wonder if their friends
are just hangers on. And of course they have to worry about someone
taking their "shi..er stuf"
Preliminary research anyway.
I'll need a lot of money to find how they really live.
Send your spare change to me. OK? ;)
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Business School... in About an Hour?"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/19eba4b4abd52027?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 8:07 am
From: Patricia Martin Steward

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:17:58 -0800 (PST), Shaun Eli
<missingchild@BrainChampagne.com> wrote:

>"You can learn a lot about how to run your business from a guy making
>jokes about kindergarten, his parents and some of the Ten
>Commandments."

For instance, that he posts spam from Google groups.

Doesn't endear you to us, son.

--
"This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids;
to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental
truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt,
and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can." President-elect Barack Obama, November, 4, 2008
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

==============================================================================
TOPIC: do you plant to lower your indoor temp this winter?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a259dedc39c3ba0d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 27 2008 10:45 am
From: E Z Peaces

JonquilJan wrote:
> 73!!!
>
> Not too many years ago, I was comfortable at 58. Of course, I layered, wore
> shoes or good slippers and occasionally when the wind blew (old house) even
> a knit hat. snuggled at night with flannel sheets, thermal blankets, a few
> comforters and a flannel nighty.
>
> Now with increasing age and decreasing mobility (disabled and getting worse)
> have the thermostat set at 65 - which seems tolerable. I do layer and don't
> go barefoot or even stocking footed. And -- again when the wind blows --
> put on the knit hat.
>
> I live in northern New York - and right now it's very white outside with 6+
> inches of snow last night and it's still coming down. Better than the wind.
>
> JonquilJan
>

I grew up in VT in an old house where I think we kept the thermostat at
67. Layering didn't work for me. I was often chilled and got bad colds.

I'd add wool socks, ankle-length drawers, and a sweater to my summer
attire. That was all I could wear indoors without sweating, yet it
wouldn't keep me warm indoors.

One problem was non-uniform temperatures, which included drafts and
stratification. The other was varying biological heat production.
Depending on your diet, metabolism can drop when you're hungry. After a
meal, digestion can produce heat in addition to metabolism.

I served in the Coast Guard. Regulations called for us to work in dress
socks and work shoes which were perpetually damp and had cold, hard
soles. Standing watch on freezing surfaces, I developed leg problems.
Still, as long as a coat and hat protected my vital organs, I could be
warm with very cold feet. After I began wearing woolly socks, my leg
problems went away.

Once I was lookout on the prow in somewhat rough weather. There was
only one set of foul-weather gear, and it was short. I stood two hours
in a 30-knot wind at 30 degrees, doused with salt water every 30
seconds, in cold, wet shoes with about 9 inches of bare skin on each
ankle and each wrist. I was uncomfortable, but as long as my head,
neck, and torso were protected I didn't shiver. As soon as I went in,
my feet and hands got warm. I believe that while cold people have cold
feet, cold feet don't make a person cold.

We were issued wool watch caps, turtleneck sweaters, and pea coats. We
didn't often wear the coats or sweaters because they could be just right
one minute but cause overheating the next.

I grew a beard to reduce heat loss from my face, indoors or out. I wore
a sleeveless sweatshirt under my work shirt most of the year, along with
a lined cotton jacket and a ball cap. I didn't wear long drawers
under my pants. The executive officer said he wished the crew would
follow my example. He had noticed that most of the crew suffered from
one cold after another, but I didn't catch them.

Outside it could be freezing and windy. Some spaces inside were chilly,
while others could be in the 90s. Without long johns, my legs helped me
get rid of excess heat without being a big liability in the cold. In
warm spaces I could remove my cap and jacket. My beard and sweatshirt
provided constant protection.

We were lucky because our foam-rubber mattresses provided good
insulation. Not all foam rubber or all mattresses provide good
insulation.

For two years after I got out, I lived in a finished attic. It would
have cost me nothing to turn the radiators on, but I found I was more
comfortable keeping it cold and dressing suitably: warm socks, long
johns, vest, sweater, collar, hat, and possibly a coat. Still, I would
have been cold without closed-cell pads on my chair and my mattress.

I haven't used pads like that in many years. I just ordered some. They
can make a big difference.

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

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

Thursday, November 27, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

No comments: