http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Great price on flash drive - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535aa5d17db8f034?hl=en
* Will prices and tax's come down after.. - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7036baa7b384d3da?hl=en
* roll-ups or wrap ups bread - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/368e59886412ff08?hl=en
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 17 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* overdraft - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great price on flash drive
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535aa5d17db8f034?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 6:35 pm
From: "Forrest"
"Forrest" <REMOVETHISrunforrest1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:huZ1l.9736$Ei5.5499@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "metspitzer" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:umjgk4192tr3to90kuhcsjo1sk0lru2crg@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:59:37 -0800, "Forrest"
>> <REMOVETHISrunforrest1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6qoohpFdpomoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Forrest wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:GY6dnRiHHoN_i9rUnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@posted.visi...
>>>>>> Forrest wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought I saw a question here not long ago, about flash drives.
>>>>>>> Anywhoo ... can't believe how cheap they are now. My brother asked
>>>>>>> me if I knew of
>>>>>>> any good deals on them and I just found this at NewEgg. Hard to
>>>>>>> beat, with
>>>>>>> the free shipping. I already have an 8 gig LG drive and can't say
>>>>>>> as I really use it that much but what the hell, for $9 after MIL,
>>>>>>> I'll bite. Just
>>>>>>> thought I would pass it on. Makes for a good stocking stuffer.
>>>>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233037
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But other people should be warned, that $10 rebate requires a sales
>>>>>> receipt dated no later than 12/15. Unless NewEgg is staying late
>>>>>> tonight, it's too late.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, good eyes. I didn't see that. Well, it's only 7 something PM,
>>>>> here in California. I don't really NEED one but then again, the one
>>>>> that I have could go out and I would probably have to pay a lot more
>>>>> to replace it. How's that for a rationalization for spending money?
>>>>> I'm a real sucker for free shipping.
>>>>
>>>> There's plenty on ebay for the same value, and 16Gs as well for the
>>>> same
>>>> price per GB
>>>
>>>Didn't know that. I just started searching for them and found this one. I
>>>ordered one last night and I see that the rebate has been extended.
>>>Anywhoooo .. over n' out.
>>>
>> Wasn't it 9 bucks after rebate last night? It is 10 bucks after
>> rebate tonight.
>>
>> I was gonna order one anyway, but I just decided that I have no use
>> for a 9$ one. I have less need for a 10$ one. :)
>
> Yeah, you're right. I just took a look at it and they upped the price by
> $1. I took a look at ebay a few hours ago and didn't see any 16 giggers
> with free shipping for that price. Whatever ... just thought it looked
> like a good deal. I guess because I must have paid about three times that
> much for my LG brand 16 gig, on sale, no less. I still think that it's a
> good price if someone needs one, or for a cheap gift.
Ooops ... I meant 8 gig in the above post. Sorry bout that.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:00 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Forrest wrote:
> "metspitzer" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:umjgk4192tr3to90kuhcsjo1sk0lru2crg@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:59:37 -0800, "Forrest"
>> <REMOVETHISrunforrest1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6qoohpFdpomoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Forrest wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:GY6dnRiHHoN_i9rUnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@posted.visi...
>>>>>> Forrest wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought I saw a question here not long ago, about flash
>>>>>>> drives. Anywhoo ... can't believe how cheap they are now. My
>>>>>>> brother asked me if I knew of
>>>>>>> any good deals on them and I just found this at NewEgg. Hard to
>>>>>>> beat, with
>>>>>>> the free shipping. I already have an 8 gig LG drive and can't
>>>>>>> say as I really use it that much but what the hell, for $9
>>>>>>> after MIL, I'll bite. Just
>>>>>>> thought I would pass it on. Makes for a good stocking stuffer.
>>>>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233037
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But other people should be warned, that $10 rebate requires a
>>>>>> sales receipt dated no later than 12/15. Unless NewEgg is
>>>>>> staying late tonight, it's too late.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, good eyes. I didn't see that. Well, it's only 7 something PM,
>>>>> here in California. I don't really NEED one but then again, the
>>>>> one that I have could go out and I would probably have to pay a
>>>>> lot more to replace it. How's that for a rationalization for
>>>>> spending money? I'm a real sucker for free shipping.
>>>>
>>>> There's plenty on ebay for the same value, and 16Gs as well for
>>>> the same price per GB
>>>
>>> Didn't know that. I just started searching for them and found this
>>> one. I ordered one last night and I see that the rebate has been
>>> extended. Anywhoooo .. over n' out.
>>>
>> Wasn't it 9 bucks after rebate last night? It is 10 bucks after
>> rebate tonight.
>>
>> I was gonna order one anyway, but I just decided that I have no use
>> for a 9$ one. I have less need for a 10$ one. :)
>
> Yeah, you're right. I just took a look at it and they upped the price
> by $1. I took a look at ebay a few hours ago and didn't see any 16
> giggers with free shipping for that price.
I said the same $/GB.
> Whatever ... just thought it looked like a good deal. I guess because I must have paid about
> three times that much for my LG brand 16 gig, on sale, no less. I
> still think that it's a good price if someone needs one, or for a
> cheap gift.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Will prices and tax's come down after..
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7036baa7b384d3da?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 6:53 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Boothbay wrote:
> Everyone is raising prices and tax's with the excuse of the rotten economy ...
Like hell they are.
> now will it ever be possible once the economy comes back strong and it
> will, it usually does...will all those raised prices and tax's come down again?
Yes, we will see a return to what happened in the previous boom prices and taxes wise.
> I think not.
Thats the only thing you did get right. Nothing to think with.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:00 pm
From: nada <@wild.il>
Boothbay wrote:
> Everyone is raising prices and tax's with the excuse of the rotten
> economy ...now will it ever be possible once the economy comes back
> strong and it will, it usually does...will all those raised prices and
> tax's come down again? I think not.
They are still playing the corrupt game. I cannot fathom a rational end
to it. We can look at what is happening and see what lesser but similar
crisis has brought. I don't care to prophesy on this one. Until we get
some People interested, in the future, of an American Republic and the
representing American Citizens we haven't got a hell, of a lot, of
future left.
We are in a feudal rule of, by, and for, Global Business. The Merchant
Class has destroyed us, with immorality. They have defrauded us, lied to
us, rewritten our Laws, and become government themselves.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:46 pm
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On Dec 16, 10:00 pm, nada <@wild.il> wrote:
> We are in a feudal rule of, by, and for, Global Business. The Merchant
> Class has destroyed us, with immorality. They have defrauded us, lied to
> us, rewritten our Laws, and become government themselves.
Unfortunately, that is nothing new. Jefferson railed against "moneyed
corporations" which he believed, if I remeber the quote correctly,
"challenge our government to a trial of strength and threaten the laws
of the land." Or something like that. By "corporations", however, he
didn't mean "the merchant class"; small businesses like the guy with
two restaurants or the real estate broker with one office. He meant
the giants like the auto industry, big oil, big retail, and big
finance. He was right, too.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
tmclone@searchmachine.com wrote
> nada <@wild.il> wrote
>> We are in a feudal rule of, by, and for, Global Business. The Merchant
>> Class has destroyed us, with immorality. They have defrauded us, lied
>> to us, rewritten our Laws, and become government themselves.
> Unfortunately, that is nothing new. Jefferson railed against "moneyed
> corporations" which he believed, if I remeber the quote correctly,
> "challenge our government to a trial of strength and threaten the laws
> of the land." Or something like that. By "corporations", however, he
> didn't mean "the merchant class"; small businesses like the guy with
> two restaurants or the real estate broker with one office. He meant
> the giants like the auto industry, big oil, big retail, and big finance.
There werent any of those in his day, so he cant have meant that.
> He was right, too.
Nope. About slavery either.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: roll-ups or wrap ups bread
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/368e59886412ff08?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 6:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Boothbay wrote:
> I bought this for the first time these called Roll ups, but they are
> also known as wrap ups...from Damaskus Greece. No instructions
> on the package on how to prepare them...anyone here knows?
> Do you heat it in a micro wave, saute it in a pan? If so, for how long.
There's this funky system called google that helps with that sort of question, stupid.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:35 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-17, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million soldiers into a few
> thousand troop transports, steam across the Pacific, land in California,
> Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so
> citizens, and claim the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the
> US Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
> citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
If china wanted the US all they would have to do is buy it with all the
dollars they hold. It's cheaper than war.
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:45 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-17, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>> The rest of the world would _sooo_ take advantage of us if we didn't keep up a
>>> strong military...
>>Why does the US need an empire around the world? Wouldn't have such a
>>need for the military if it wasn't for the US government didn't
>>interfere in other people's business for the benefit of the wealthy that
>>government serves.
> Oh, yeah, I forgot - nobody else on the planet ever engages in aggression,
No need for an empire. Nobody has invaded sweden, japan, canada,
austraila, and countless other nations that don't operate overseas
military bases.
> attempts to harrass or interdict shipping on the high seas that is vital to us,
> attack our friends or aids our enemies, etc.
The best way to defend against pirates is to arm the merchant men.
? No conflicts around the world
> ever involve American citizens trapped in combat zones the need rescuing, our
> embassies are never held hostage, or anything like that.
Part of freedom is not having the US military to bail your dumbass out.
> We have no shorelines
> that would be wide open to attack from whoever decided that their tin can of a
> combat ship could roll into San Francisco harbor and shoot up the town.
Why does that require bases in Iraq, Germany, cuba, england, japan, and
many other places far away from US shore line?
> As for empire, we've sent our soldiers far and wide around the globe, and never
> have we asked for more land than is necessary to bury those that do not return.
Just so long as those nations have pliable client governments all is
well. That's actually one of the smarter bits of the US empire.
>>Simple. get the government out of the education business. Government
>>education is designed to dumb people down because that is in
>>government's best interest. ( http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ )
> Great idea. Schools should be tuition driven, anyway. Get the gov't out of
> paying for a universal education, and send the poor kids off to factories to
> make sneakers and baseball caps. They'll never amount to anything anyway,
> y'know?
Better to grow up loving government and desiring more socialism eh?
Anyway government spends billions of the loot it takes from people on
the education of poor children and those poor children are mostly
wearhoused and treated as if they are in a prison and still come out
unable to read or do basic math. Then they go on welfare well they leave
the school system. A few are successful but that's because they applied
themselves, got scholarships and so on. They succeeded in spite of the
system not because of it.
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:46 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-17, edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:55:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The bankers have had the value of what they were holding fell
>>greatly in a few months to the tune of trillions of dollars. GM's slope is
>>less than 2% a year, the bankers' slope is factors of ten steeper.
>>
>
> Modern society can't run without banks. It can run without GM.
Why would banks cease to exist? Smaller banks that were prudent would
grow to replace the ones that failed. That's how the market works. The
morons fail and the competent pick up the pieces that are worth
something and carry on.
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:03 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Dave Head wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-16, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:56:38 -0500, edward ohare
>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:38:33 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We just have to restrain ourselves and remember what we need to
>>>>> do if we ever want to see prosperity again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Short list:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>
>>> There are no such people any more.
>>
>> Actually one ran for president. His name was Ron Paul.
>>
>>>> 2) Cut way back on the armed forces
>>
>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion, and
>>> fight them on the ground with small arms on our own soil. No need
>>> to project power around the world - we can do it all ourselves.
>>> Hope you don't mind drilling, and 2 weeks of maneuvers each year,
>>> until you're 60 years old...
>>>
>>> Hey, it'll be just like, "Red Dawn..."
>>>
>>> The rest of the world would _sooo_ take advantage of us if we
>>> didn't keep up a strong military...
>>
>> Why does the US need an empire around the world? Wouldn't have such a
>> need for the military if it wasn't for the US government didn't
>> interfere in other people's business for the benefit of the wealthy
>> that government serves.
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot - nobody else on the planet ever engages in
> aggression, attempts to harrass or interdict shipping on the high
> seas that is vital to us, attack our friends or aids our enemies,
> etc. No conflicts around the world ever involve American citizens
> trapped in combat zones the need rescuing, our embassies are never
> held hostage, or anything like that. We have no shorelines that
> would be wide open to attack from whoever decided that their tin can
> of a combat ship could roll into San Francisco harbor and shoot up
> the town.
>
> As for empire, we've sent our soldiers far and wide around the globe,
> and never have we asked for more land than is necessary to bury those
> that do not return.
That's a lie, pity about the massive bases like Diego.
>>
>>>> 3) Better education
>>
>>> Is that even possible any more? The bone-headed school
>>> administrations around the country are all sidetracked in worry
>>> about students' self esteem, and so can't possibly grade their work
>>> fairly. There can't be anyone allowed to fail, y'know?
>>
>> Simple. get the government out of the education business. Government
>> education is designed to dumb people down because that is in
>> government's best interest. ( http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ )
>
>
> Great idea. Schools should be tuition driven, anyway. Get the gov't
> out of paying for a universal education, and send the poor kids off
> to factories to make sneakers and baseball caps. They'll never
> amount to anything anyway, y'know?
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:08 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and I guess you think the stock market crash, the bank
>>>>> failures and OH YEAH, the drought had nothing to do with the great
>>>>> depression?
>>>>
>>>> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St
>>>> crash and thats what produced the great depression.
>>>
>>> hoover was an inteventionist.
>>
>> That wasnt what was being discussed. What was being discussed was LESS govt.
> No, size of government wasn't being discussed.
You're lying now.
> But hoover did leave it bigger than he found it.
And there in spades
>>> FDR followed hoover's lead on steroids.
>>
>> It was nothing like Hoover's lead.
> Study history beyond the high school clap-trap the government schools spoon out.
I didnt even go to a govt school, or get taught any history of the great depression in one either.
> There's a reason they teach Lincoln and FDR worship.
Not in any school I ever went to they didn't.
> It's the much the same reason kids in north korea are taught
> what they taught about the government that rules over them.
Not a clue, as always.
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:25 pm
From: edward ohare
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:59:10 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:01:46 -0500, edward ohare
><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion,
>>
>>
>>From where? By who?
>
>Why, from any number of places.
>
>China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million soldiers into a few
>thousand troop transports, steam across the Pacific, land in California,
>Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so
>citizens, and claim the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the
>US Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
>citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
I thought the US military planned based on enemy capability. If this
is what you've learned from your employment, we need a thorough
military housecleaning.
(Pointing out here that the China at this point isn't capable of an
opposed landing in Taiwan.)
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:29 pm
From: edward ohare
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Modern society can't run without banks. It can run without GM.
>
>Why would banks cease to exist? Smaller banks that were prudent would
>grow to replace the ones that failed. That's how the market works. The
>morons fail and the competent pick up the pieces that are worth
>something and carry on.
>
Hey, you're reading more than I intended into a quick comment meant to
show the insignificance of GM. Please see my other post.
<ipogk497d30jeq67v1knrgokp8f0k5d6u6@4ax.com>
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:30 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:03:18 +1100, "Simon Jones" <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-12-16, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:56:38 -0500, edward ohare
>>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:38:33 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We just have to restrain ourselves and remember what we need to
>>>>>> do if we ever want to see prosperity again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Short list:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>>
>>>> There are no such people any more.
>>>
>>> Actually one ran for president. His name was Ron Paul.
>>>
>>>>> 2) Cut way back on the armed forces
>>>
>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion, and
>>>> fight them on the ground with small arms on our own soil. No need
>>>> to project power around the world - we can do it all ourselves.
>>>> Hope you don't mind drilling, and 2 weeks of maneuvers each year,
>>>> until you're 60 years old...
>>>>
>>>> Hey, it'll be just like, "Red Dawn..."
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the world would _sooo_ take advantage of us if we
>>>> didn't keep up a strong military...
>>>
>>> Why does the US need an empire around the world? Wouldn't have such a
>>> need for the military if it wasn't for the US government didn't
>>> interfere in other people's business for the benefit of the wealthy
>>> that government serves.
>>
>> Oh, yeah, I forgot - nobody else on the planet ever engages in
>> aggression, attempts to harrass or interdict shipping on the high
>> seas that is vital to us, attack our friends or aids our enemies,
>> etc. No conflicts around the world ever involve American citizens
>> trapped in combat zones the need rescuing, our embassies are never
>> held hostage, or anything like that. We have no shorelines that
>> would be wide open to attack from whoever decided that their tin can
>> of a combat ship could roll into San Francisco harbor and shoot up
>> the town.
>>
>> As for empire, we've sent our soldiers far and wide around the globe,
>> and never have we asked for more land than is necessary to bury those
>> that do not return.
>
> That's a lie, pity about the massive bases like Diego.
"Diego Garcia is a British territory"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
Nope - not a piece of land that we've conquered.
Try again...
>>>>> 3) Better education
>>>
>>>> Is that even possible any more? The bone-headed school
>>>> administrations around the country are all sidetracked in worry
>>>> about students' self esteem, and so can't possibly grade their work
>>>> fairly. There can't be anyone allowed to fail, y'know?
>>>
>>> Simple. get the government out of the education business. Government
>>> education is designed to dumb people down because that is in
>>> government's best interest. ( http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ )
>>
>>
>> Great idea. Schools should be tuition driven, anyway. Get the gov't
>> out of paying for a universal education, and send the poor kids off
>> to factories to make sneakers and baseball caps. They'll never
>> amount to anything anyway, y'know?
>
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:32 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-12-17, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million soldiers into a few
>> thousand troop transports, steam across the Pacific, land in California,
>> Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so
>> citizens, and claim the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the
>> US Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
>> citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
>
>If china wanted the US all they would have to do is buy it with all the
>dollars they hold. It's cheaper than war.
>
Wouldn't get rid of the pesky population, now, would it? Wouldn't allow them
to enslave anyone, eitther. And they still don't have enough $$$ to buy
Yellowstone National Park... its not for sale, y'know?
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 8:57 pm
From: Dave Head
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:25:32 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:59:10 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:01:46 -0500, edward ohare
>><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion,
>>>
>>>
>>>From where? By who?
>>
>>Why, from any number of places.
>>
>>China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million soldiers into a few
>>thousand troop transports, steam across the Pacific, land in California,
>>Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so
>>citizens, and claim the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the
>>US Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
>>citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
>
>
>I thought the US military planned based on enemy capability. If this
>is what you've learned from your employment, we need a thorough
>military housecleaning.
>
>(Pointing out here that the China at this point isn't capable of an
>opposed landing in Taiwan.)
Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own, and simply
repelling invasions with a militia. If China wanted to, they could fly all
their troops over on 747's, and would only have to soften the place up first by
killing the population with aforementioned neutron bombs.
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:06 pm
From: "12356" <12356@hsed.com>
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>
>>>> after that was Hoover's terminal stupidity along the lines
>>>> mentioned.
>
>>> by being an interventionist.
>
>> Wrong on the great depression after the Wall St crash.
> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter7.asp#7
Just because that clown claims it doesnt make it gospel.
>
>>>> But didnt see MORE govt until FDR got elected.
>
>>> government doesn't need to grow to intervene.
>
>> We happened to be discussing LESS govt, not intervention.
> You don't decide the discussion
The context does tho.
> and it was about how the great depression became great instead of regular.
And the stupid claim about LESS govt.
>
>>>>> The end result was a long deep depression.
>
>>>> What turned the Wall St crash into the great depression what
>>>> Hoover's stupid policy of LESS govt.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> Nope.
> I'm sorry you still believe your grade school history teacher. Time to grow up.
I'm not sorry you can't guess a damned thing successfully.
It didnt even get covered in grade school history, or high school history either.
>>> Hoover was an interventionist.
>
>> Irrelevant to whether his approach of LESS govt produced the great
>> depression after the Wall
>> St crash, essentially by doing the opposite of Keynesian deficit
>> spending at just the wrong time.
> His approach wasn't less government.
You're lying now.
> That's a lie the goverment schools teach.
Pity I didn't even attend one.
> Hoover did act to keep the boom going, to prop things up, just as keynesians believe,
Wrong.
> they simply think he didn't do ENOUGH of it.
He was actually in favor of LESS govt, essentially because the tax revenue dropped dramatically.
> Well, we are going to see what LOTS of it is going to do now.
Nope. You keep confusing intervention with more govt.
> Watch as we go into the greater depression with the keynesian crap.
Not going to happen.
> It's been over a year of keynesian crap and things are getting worse,
That happens with any recession.
> just like in the 30s.
Nothing like.
>>> The problem was government interference from the get go.
>
>> Pity we happened to be discussing LESS govt, not intervention.
> You don't decide the discussion.
The context does.
> and generally speaking the size of government is proportional to its interventions.
Another lie.
>
>>>>> *Contrary to the government school version of history,
>>>>> Hoover was an interventionist just like Bush.
>
>>>> But was into LESS govt.
>
>>> Realizing your grade and high school teachers were wrong doesn't
>>> reflect badly on you.
>
>> None of those taught any of that.
>
> You're just repeating the government school fairy tale....
You just keep repeating your lies.
>
>>>>> FDR then did intervention on steroids which resulted in a longer
>>>>> and deeper depression.
>>
>>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>>> claim.
>>
>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=FDR+lengthened+depression
>>
>> Doesn't substantiate a damned thing.
>>
>>> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
>>
>> Doesn't substantiate a damned thing.
> Try reading. I'm pretty sure others were right, you're 'rod speed'.
> buh bye.
Fat lot of good that will do you, liar.
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:23 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-17, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-17, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million soldiers into a few
>>> thousand troop transports, steam across the Pacific, land in California,
>>> Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so
>>> citizens, and claim the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the
>>> US Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
>>> citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
>>
>>If china wanted the US all they would have to do is buy it with all the
>>dollars they hold. It's cheaper than war.
>>
> Wouldn't get rid of the pesky population, now, would it? Wouldn't allow them
> to enslave anyone, eitther. And they still don't have enough $$$ to buy
> Yellowstone National Park... its not for sale, y'know?
The whole government is for sale. The federal government has been
enslaving us more and more. If china said enslave us or economic ruin
you bet the feds would enslave us.
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:23 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-17, 12356 <12356@hsed.com> wrote:
>> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter7.asp#7
>
> Just because that clown claims it doesnt make it gospel.
nymshifting is poor form
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave Head wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:03:18 +1100, "Simon Jones" <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-12-16, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:56:38 -0500, edward ohare
>>>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:38:33 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We just have to restrain ourselves and remember what we need to
>>>>>>> do if we ever want to see prosperity again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Short list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no such people any more.
>>>>
>>>> Actually one ran for president. His name was Ron Paul.
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Cut way back on the armed forces
>>>>
>>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion, and
>>>>> fight them on the ground with small arms on our own soil. No need
>>>>> to project power around the world - we can do it all ourselves.
>>>>> Hope you don't mind drilling, and 2 weeks of maneuvers each year,
>>>>> until you're 60 years old...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, it'll be just like, "Red Dawn..."
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the world would _sooo_ take advantage of us if we
>>>>> didn't keep up a strong military...
>>>>
>>>> Why does the US need an empire around the world? Wouldn't have
>>>> such a need for the military if it wasn't for the US government
>>>> didn't interfere in other people's business for the benefit of the
>>>> wealthy that government serves.
>>>
>>> Oh, yeah, I forgot - nobody else on the planet ever engages in
>>> aggression, attempts to harrass or interdict shipping on the high
>>> seas that is vital to us, attack our friends or aids our enemies,
>>> etc. No conflicts around the world ever involve American citizens
>>> trapped in combat zones the need rescuing, our embassies are never
>>> held hostage, or anything like that. We have no shorelines that
>>> would be wide open to attack from whoever decided that their tin can
>>> of a combat ship could roll into San Francisco harbor and shoot up
>>> the town.
>>>
>>> As for empire, we've sent our soldiers far and wide around the
>>> globe, and never have we asked for more land than is necessary to
>>> bury those that do not return.
>>
>> That's a lie, pity about the massive bases like Diego.
>
> "Diego Garcia is a British territory"
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
Irrelevant to that claim of yours.
> Nope - not a piece of land that we've conquered.
You never said conquered.
Pity about the other bases in the pacific that the US did conquer.
> Try again...
No need, you fucked up completely.
>>>>>> 3) Better education
>>>>
>>>>> Is that even possible any more? The bone-headed school
>>>>> administrations around the country are all sidetracked in worry
>>>>> about students' self esteem, and so can't possibly grade their
>>>>> work fairly. There can't be anyone allowed to fail, y'know?
>>>>
>>>> Simple. get the government out of the education business.
>>>> Government education is designed to dumb people down because that
>>>> is in government's best interest. (
>>>> http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ )
>>>
>>>
>>> Great idea. Schools should be tuition driven, anyway. Get the
>>> gov't out of paying for a universal education, and send the poor
>>> kids off to factories to make sneakers and baseball caps. They'll
>>> never amount to anything anyway, y'know?
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-17, 12356 <12356@hsed.com> wrote:
>>> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter7.asp#7
>>
>> Just because that clown claims it doesnt make it gospel.
>
> nymshifting is poor form
Plonking is juvenile.
Identical to little kids putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and chanting
'nyah nyah, cant hear ya'
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:27 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:23:37 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:03:18 +1100, "Simon Jones" <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-12-16, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:56:38 -0500, edward ohare
>>>>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:38:33 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We just have to restrain ourselves and remember what we need to
>>>>>>>> do if we ever want to see prosperity again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Short list:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no such people any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually one ran for president. His name was Ron Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Cut way back on the armed forces
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion, and
>>>>>> fight them on the ground with small arms on our own soil. No need
>>>>>> to project power around the world - we can do it all ourselves.
>>>>>> Hope you don't mind drilling, and 2 weeks of maneuvers each year,
>>>>>> until you're 60 years old...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, it'll be just like, "Red Dawn..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest of the world would _sooo_ take advantage of us if we
>>>>>> didn't keep up a strong military...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does the US need an empire around the world? Wouldn't have
>>>>> such a need for the military if it wasn't for the US government
>>>>> didn't interfere in other people's business for the benefit of the
>>>>> wealthy that government serves.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, I forgot - nobody else on the planet ever engages in
>>>> aggression, attempts to harrass or interdict shipping on the high
>>>> seas that is vital to us, attack our friends or aids our enemies,
>>>> etc. No conflicts around the world ever involve American citizens
>>>> trapped in combat zones the need rescuing, our embassies are never
>>>> held hostage, or anything like that. We have no shorelines that
>>>> would be wide open to attack from whoever decided that their tin can
>>>> of a combat ship could roll into San Francisco harbor and shoot up
>>>> the town.
>>>>
>>>> As for empire, we've sent our soldiers far and wide around the
>>>> globe, and never have we asked for more land than is necessary to
>>>> bury those that do not return.
>>>
>>> That's a lie, pity about the massive bases like Diego.
>>
>> "Diego Garcia is a British territory"
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
>
>Irrelevant to that claim of yours.
>
>> Nope - not a piece of land that we've conquered.
>
>You never said conquered.
That's what "empire" means - taking other people's land...
>
>Pity about the other bases in the pacific that the US did conquer.
>
>> Try again...
>
>No need, you fucked up completely.
>
>>>>>>> 3) Better education
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that even possible any more? The bone-headed school
>>>>>> administrations around the country are all sidetracked in worry
>>>>>> about students' self esteem, and so can't possibly grade their
>>>>>> work fairly. There can't be anyone allowed to fail, y'know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple. get the government out of the education business.
>>>>> Government education is designed to dumb people down because that
>>>>> is in government's best interest. (
>>>>> http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great idea. Schools should be tuition driven, anyway. Get the
>>>> gov't out of paying for a universal education, and send the poor
>>>> kids off to factories to make sneakers and baseball caps. They'll
>>>> never amount to anything anyway, y'know?
>
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:26 pm
From: "12356" <12356@hsed.com>
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and I guess you think the stock market crash, the bank
>>>>> failures and OH YEAH, the drought had nothing to do with the great
>>>>> depression?
>>>>
>>>> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St
>>>> crash and thats what produced the great depression.
>>>
>>> hoover was an inteventionist.
>>
>> That wasnt what was being discussed. What was being discussed was LESS govt.
> No, size of government wasn't being discussed.
You're lying now.
> But hoover did leave it bigger than he found it.
And there in spades
>>> FDR followed hoover's lead on steroids.
>>
>> It was nothing like Hoover's lead.
> Study history beyond the high school clap-trap the government schools spoon out.
I didnt even go to a govt school, or get taught any history of the great depression in one either.
> There's a reason they teach Lincoln and FDR worship.
Not in any school I ever went to they didn't.
> It's the much the same reason kids in north korea are taught
> what they taught about the government that rules over them.
Not a clue, as always.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: overdraft
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:11 pm
From: phil scott
On Dec 16, 11:28 am, tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:18 am, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> <samh...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
> > > you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> > > at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> > > order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> > > kidding, right?
>
> > I don't know where you live, but sad to say, many banks in my community
> > will not cash a check if you don't have an account at that bank.
> > Ridiculous (except for the fact that maybe the checks could be excellent
> > forgeries) but true.
>
> Umm, they HAVE to, if it's drawn on their bank and you have photo ID.
> If it's not drawn on their bank, then they can refuse, but again, not
> if it's "their" check.
thanks... its so easy to forget the actual facts of life with some
idiot lying clerk or bank manager telling you
that you 'need to open an acccount to cash checks'... that couldnt
possibly be true if commerce is to work as it does, its obvious... I
fell for that
baloney though myself.
in the future I wont....I will look at them as though they are
criminally insane sociopaths next time I try to run a customers check
through is own bank.
... and I will have fun with that.
trust me.
and thanks again for point out the obvious.
Phil scott
==============================================================================
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
