http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Hussein Obama's First 10 Executive Orders - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eef1f93b8617a8e7?hl=en
* KFC 9.99 bucket - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5651e6f0a42596cd?hl=en
* Frugal air fares still exist - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/baf1b52a87b7d766?hl=en
* Would you buy this car? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a2eb58b3f859bd39?hl=en
* Best GPS Units For Less Than $200! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4874b2abe080dcd4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hussein Obama's First 10 Executive Orders
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eef1f93b8617a8e7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 1:36 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:20:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>economic policies?
The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
budgets:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 2:04 pm
From: clams_casino
HeyBub wrote:
>clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>>ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>>>Thought you might like to read the following:
>>>A little over one year ago:
>>>
>>>
>>>1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>>>2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>>>3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>>
>>>
>>>Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>>
>>>
>>>1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>>>2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>>>3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>>>4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
>>>evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
>>>5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
>>>dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Can you quote one law that was passed since 1 / 2006 that caused these
>>problems?
>>
>>
>
>What does the passage of laws have to do with it?
>
>
And here I thought the purpose of Congress was to write, debate and pass
laws (bills).
Hmm - Ok, I give up. What is their purpose?
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 2:07 pm
From: George
HeyBub wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>> ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>>> Thought you might like to read the following:
>>> A little over one year ago:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>>> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>>> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>>> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>>> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>>> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
>>> evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
>>> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
>>> dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Can you quote one law that was passed since 1 / 2006 that caused these
>> problems?
>
> What does the passage of laws have to do with it? The Democrats controlled
> Congress, that in itself is enough to collapse the confidence of many.
>
> Where confidence goes, the economy follows.
>
>
You are just parroting nonsense Rush Limbagh rhetoric (the democrats
caused everything and the republicans are as innocent and pure as
freshly fallen snow) without applying any critical thought. I am a
conservative and it is embarrassing what damage was caused by unchecked
greed and stupidity. The current version of capitalism failed for the
same reason applied Marxism failed. They are both good sounding theories
but neither can be applied with a check and balance system to prevent
the greedy few from destroying the system.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 3:14 pm
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
And your point is? The fact is the repuks have been in control. The
market meltdown is their fault.
In <48f579e4$0$25059$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>, on 10/15/2008
at 12:01 AM, "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>In news:dD9Jk.1047$Rx2.566@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,
>TruthTeller@nospam.net <TruthTeller@nospam.net>spewed forth: > In
><gd33js$8kl$1@panix2.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
>> at 05:40 PM, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>>
>>>>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>>>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>>>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>>>>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>>>>> sessions, right?
>>>>
>>>> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
>>>> Did you even read the article?
>>
>>> Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have
>>> already met and plan to call a special session immediately after the
>>> election".
>>
>>
>> Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with
>> correcting the right wing mess ASAP!
>>
>right wing mess?
>"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
>Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of
>GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American
>taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
>Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
>system, and the economy as a whole."
> -- Sen. John McCain (R) 5/25/2006
>"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis"
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
>The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and
>soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious
>financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see
>entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of
>the disaster scenarios.
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
>Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have
>the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/10/2003
>"Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular
>at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
>Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have
>exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the
>regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their
>affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish
>from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans."
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
>I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying
>to fix something that wasn't broke.
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
>"I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently
>secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis;
>I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and
>Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal
>health of this country."
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/25/2003
>"I=3Fm just pissed off at OFHEO [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
>Oversight], because if it wasn=3Ft for you, I don=3Ft think we=3Fd be
>here in the
>first place. =3F There=3Fs been nothing that indicated that=3Fs wrong
>with Fannie
>Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own =3F The question that then comes
>up is
>the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and
>regulating these GSEs."
> -- Rep. Gregory Meeks (D) 9/25/2003
>=3FCongressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie
>Mac did. OFHEO did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac
>did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it
>is about Freddie Mac.=3F
> -- OFHEO Director Armando Falcon Jr. 9/25/2003
>And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness
>concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a
>straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think
>there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't
>believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do
>it.
> -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D) 10/16/2003
>"The Capital Markets Subcommittee meets today for the purpose of receipt
>of a report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. It
>is indeed a very troubling report. But it is a report of extraordinary
>importance, to those who wish to own a home, as well as the taxpayers of
>this country who would pay the cost of cleanup."
> -- Rep. Richard Baker (R) 10/6/2004
>"I don=3Ft see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness
>problems."
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 10/6/2004
>"And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below
>4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I
>should be satisfied with 3%?"
> -- Rep. Christopher Shays (R) 10/6/2004
>"Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily
>and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital
>for holding them should be under 2%."
> -- Franklin Raines (D) 10/6/2004
>"This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."
> -- Rep. Lacy Clay (D) 10/6/2004 (Clay, a black man, is implying that
>the actual purpose of these reform hearings are to lynch another black
>man, Raines)
>"Congress needs to get them [Fannie and Freddie] reformed, get them
>streamlined, get them focused"
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 8/9/2007
>"Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to
>modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families
>stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they
>focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue
>tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 5/2008
>"We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 6/2008
>"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in
>resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was
>president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae
>and Freddie Mac."
> -- Pres. Bill Clinton (D) 9/24/2008
>Bill Clinton has just done a better job blaming the democrats for this
>than John McCain has done! By the way, in 3 years Barack Obama managed
>to become the number 2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money, beaten only
>slightly by Chris Dodd who had a 30 year head start. One of the reasons
>was Obama was majorly involved in pushing subprime loans (suing banks for
>not making loans, etc.) with ACORN during his community organizer days.
>Amazingly one of the prime arsonists and biggest money recipient is
>succeeding in blaming John McCain for the fire, is taking credit for
>helping to put out the fire, and is being allowed to get away with it.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 3:14 pm
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months
to cause the meltdown. its all the result of right wing thinking and
control.
In <fZeJk.2574$Ei5.1127@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>, on 10/14/2008
at 10:14 PM, George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> said:
>ChairMan wrote:
>> In news:OrudnWrRd_epymjVnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@earthlink.com,
>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com>spewed forth:
>>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>> But after the election Obama will still be the junior senator from
>>>>> Illinois with no power to reconvene the Senate contrary to what the
>>>>> original poster claimed.
>>>>
>>>> That was not the claim. The claim was that he had talked with the
>>>> speaker -- who does have the authority.
>>>>
>>> Not exactly. The Speaker can re-convene the House of Representatives,
>>> not the Congress. Once this august body gathers under Democratic
>>> control, they can do what they excelled at the past two years: naming
>>> post offices and issuing declarations proclaiming something or other
>>> about groundhogs.
>>
>> In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>> Thought you might like to read the following:
>> A little over one year ago:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>
>>
>> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
>> (stock and mutual fund losses);
>> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
>> 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>What were those figures in Jan.2001 compared to Jan.2007, a period of
>total Republican control?
>>
>>
>> America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
>>
>> Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with
>> what's handed to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 4:09 pm
From: Marsha
George Grapman wrote:
> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
> prescriptions? Do you have a cite showing large number of Canadians
> come here for health care?
I can't say there were "large" numbers, but over the last 18 years, our
open-heart surgery practice has seen quite a few Canadians who were
either turned down for surgery or put on a very long waiting list. They
were expected to put up with painful angina daily and an extremely
limiting lifestyle. Our orthopedic practice also had many Canadians who
were waiting for hip or knee procedures.
Marsha/Ohio
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 4:27 pm
From: Jeff
Dennis wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:20:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>> economic policies?
>
> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
> budgets:
Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
at no time did I mention national debt.
Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
increases were almost erased.
As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
worn out in Iraq.
Jeff
>
> http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
>
> Dennis (evil)
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 4:42 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:11 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:20:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>>> economic policies?
>>
>> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
>> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
>> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
>> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
>> budgets:
>
> Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
>at no time did I mention national debt.
The bottom line is: if the national debt didn't decrease, then there
was no surplus. If a private business tried to use the kind of
accounting tricks and misdirection that the government does, it would
be prosecuted. This is not a partisan criticism and is true of all
recent administrations.
> Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
>increases were almost erased.
Agreed. The deficit was small by recent standards. But no surplus.
> As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
>under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
>example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
>worn out in Iraq.
Agreed. We (and our descendents) are in deep shit.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: KFC 9.99 bucket
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5651e6f0a42596cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 1:54 pm
From: Lou Decruss
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:43:59 -0500, curly'q <mamay@gug.com> wrote:
>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:06:34 -0500, curly'q <mamay@gug.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>> JonL <JonL@Mayday.com> wrote in news:48F56745.9030500@Mayday.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Seerialmom wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 8, 8:54 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> How much would the raw chicken cost you at regular supermarket
>>>>>>> prices? At sale prices? Assume you cook regularly and have all the
>>>>>>> other stuff necessary for fried chicken so their cost is minor.
>>>>>> I tend to roll my eyes at that commercial. Yes, if you had to buy all
>>>>>> the ingredients from scratch i.e. bag of flour, spices, baking
>>>>>> powder, bottle of oil, chicken, cabbage, carrots, potatoes, coleslaw
>>>>>> dressing (bottled or ingredients) corn cobs, it likely would exceed
>>>>>> $10. The same is true for most other fast foods. The other part of
>>>>>> that commercial says you can't do it because you wouldn't know what to
>>>>>> buy for the 11 secret spices.
>>> There are some minor hidden costs..........you gotta have one of these
>>> to duplicate KFC
>>>
>>> http://www.kitchensupplydirect.com/559-FKMF.html
>>
>> I don't know why anyone would want to duplicate KFC but you sure can
>> make far better chicken with a turkey fryer for under a hundred bucks.
>>
>> Lou
>
>
>I love the stuff myself.....
I'm glad for you. I really mean that with no sarcasm.
>IMO, 'broasted' chicken is the ultimate
>preparation method for breaded chicken pieces in the 'southern fried' style.
Broasting has only been around since the early 50's and has nothing to
do with southern fried chicken. Allegedly KFC started pressure
cooking around 1940. Southern fried chicken is something dating back
to slavery days and was something almost exclusively prepared by black
women. They had no fancy equipment. The effect of chicken and the
pride of making it on the black culture still exists. If you walk
into a black church lady function and tell them you think KFC has a
good product you'll get laughed at or beat up. You can read more
about the history in a book called "building houses out of chicken
legs."
Here's some other info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broasted
http://www.kentuckyfriedchicken.com/about/history.asp
I'm not saying broasted chicken isn't good but KFC uses anemic birds
with so little meat it's pathetic.
>Don't you have to use a turkey fryer outdoors and use 5 or 6 gallons of oil?
Yes outdoors. But you can use a smaller pot and make 5-6 pieces at a
time and get away with about 2 quarts of oil. You sure don't need a
10,000 machine.
Lou
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 8:57 pm
From: "h"
"Dennis" <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35jcf4lku24nlofouahibq46o49kdtmjcj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:13:05 -0700 (PDT), tmclone@searchmachine.com
> wrote:
>
>>Agreed. We took the "$9.99 challenge" last weekend. We don't do grains
>>or
>>high-carb veggies, so there were some replacements. We ended up with
>>more
>>food for less money. We bought a whole chicken (4lbs) for $3.75 and
>>cooked
>>it in our toaster/rotisserie with some kosher salt, spices, and butter
>>for
>>$.25. We made some slaw from shredding fresh broccoli and cabbage and
>>added
>>chopped walnuts and some homemade dressing for $2. We made mashed
>>cauliflower with a cheese sauce for $2. That's dinner for four for $8.
>>We
>>also added homegrown apples free off the tree, but that's cheating.
>
> Cool. Where did you find the low-carb apple trees?
>
> Dennis (evil)
Funny :)
Fruit is our highest carb food source. We still keep to 50-60 grams of carbs
a day after 20 years of low-carbing. Breakfast is eggs and bacon/ham/steak
(I prefer crustless quiche lorraine with meat). Lunch is tuna/chicken/beef
over salad (I prefer grilled chicken with the greens and veggies) , and
dinner is "hog wild" as long as the per day total is less than 60 grams of
carbs (must allow for the carbs for cream in the coffee, cottage cheese with
lunch, etc.) Still, my small Northern Spy apples fresh off the tree are an
amazing treat, and only about 25 grams of carbs each, since they're so
small! The tree is only 15 years old, so the apples aren't very big.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal air fares still exist
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/baf1b52a87b7d766?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 2:44 pm
From: Al Bundy
On Oct 15, 2:24 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Al Bundy wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 11:18 pm, George Grapman <sfgeor...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> I wanted to head east for Thanksgiving but the fares were all in
> >> the %800 to 1,000 range. Kept playing around with the sites and found
> >> that travelocity had a fare for $450 ($20 more than if I chose to return
> >> on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving rather than on Monday.
> >> Non-stop both ways,aisle seats and the red eye going east which is
> >> always my preference.
>
> > I guess so. I just checked Orbitz and found a United flight from
> > Chicago-New York for $198 round trip with one stop, less for being
> > over 65. The non-stop price was $256. The dates I selected were
> > leaving 11/26 and returning 12/2. Of course, I don't know where you
> > are coming from or going to.
>
> SF to New York.
>
>
>
> > Los Angeles to NYC on the same dates was $244.
> > (All taxes included.)
> > Hope you didn't get hosed.
Orbitz shows $284 with one stop from SF.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 2:52 pm
From: George Grapman
Al Bundy wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2:24 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Al Bundy wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 11:18 pm, George Grapman <sfgeor...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> I wanted to head east for Thanksgiving but the fares were all in
>>>> the %800 to 1,000 range. Kept playing around with the sites and found
>>>> that travelocity had a fare for $450 ($20 more than if I chose to return
>>>> on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving rather than on Monday.
>>>> Non-stop both ways,aisle seats and the red eye going east which is
>>>> always my preference.
>>> I guess so. I just checked Orbitz and found a United flight from
>>> Chicago-New York for $198 round trip with one stop, less for being
>>> over 65. The non-stop price was $256. The dates I selected were
>>> leaving 11/26 and returning 12/2. Of course, I don't know where you
>>> are coming from or going to.
>> SF to New York.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Los Angeles to NYC on the same dates was $244.
>>> (All taxes included.)
>>> Hope you didn't get hosed.
>
> Orbitz shows $284 with one stop from SF.
It is a bit surprising that some people do not shop around. I have
talked to several people who pick travel dates ,call up an airline and
pretty much accept the quoted price. On the other hand there are people
who spend hours online to save a few dollars.
When flying east I generally want two things beside price, a red eye
and a non-stop flight. If I have to I will accept a stop over but not a
change of planes (too many problems with missed connections and luggage)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 3:07 pm
From: George Grapman
George Grapman wrote:
> Al Bundy wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2:24 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>> Al Bundy wrote:
>>>> On Oct 13, 11:18 pm, George Grapman <sfgeor...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> I wanted to head east for Thanksgiving but the fares were all in
>>>>> the %800 to 1,000 range. Kept playing around with the sites and found
>>>>> that travelocity had a fare for $450 ($20 more than if I chose to
>>>>> return
>>>>> on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving rather than on Monday.
>>>>> Non-stop both ways,aisle seats and the red eye going east which is
>>>>> always my preference.
>>>> I guess so. I just checked Orbitz and found a United flight from
>>>> Chicago-New York for $198 round trip with one stop, less for being
>>>> over 65. The non-stop price was $256. The dates I selected were
>>>> leaving 11/26 and returning 12/2. Of course, I don't know where you
>>>> are coming from or going to.
>>> SF to New York.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Los Angeles to NYC on the same dates was $244.
>>>> (All taxes included.)
>>>> Hope you didn't get hosed.
>>
>> Orbitz shows $284 with one stop from SF.
>
>
> It is a bit surprising that some people do not shop around. I have
> talked to several people who pick travel dates ,call up an airline and
> pretty much accept the quoted price. On the other hand there are people
> who spend hours online to save a few dollars.
> When flying east I generally want two things beside price, a red eye
> and a non-stop flight. If I have to I will accept a stop over but not a
> change of planes (too many problems with missed connections and luggage)
P.S. The other thing I always want is an aisle seat,a little more
leg room and easier to get up and stretch.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Would you buy this car?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a2eb58b3f859bd39?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 7:01 pm
From: "Lou"
"A "That One"" <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgewkspam-38CA12.07464115102008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article
> <b9b0e485-5a29-418c-b3a8-1b32f3898816@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The mini car produced by Zhejiang's 001 Group was designed to target
>> the increasingly serious energy crisis. The group has so far produced
>> over 10 such cars and each of them will sell for 38,000 yuan (US
>> $5,560).
>>
>> http://www.china.org.cn/environment/health_green_living/2008-10/14/content_166
>> 09473.htm
>
> ya know the first Prius could not be charged from a solar panel. or your
> home outlet.
> they changed that.,
> I assume this attempt can be charged at work or at home form the house
> current or a battery charger.
> or will be by popular demand.
> No.?
So, if it can be charged from a wall plug, what's the charge time, and
what's the range per charge?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 10:25 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Lou <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "A "That One"" <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
> news:georgewkspam-38CA12.07464115102008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article
>> <b9b0e485-5a29-418c-b3a8-1b32f3898816@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The mini car produced by Zhejiang's 001 Group was designed to target
>>> the increasingly serious energy crisis. The group has so far
>>> produced over 10 such cars and each of them will sell for 38,000
>>> yuan (US $5,560).
>>>
>>> http://www.china.org.cn/environment/health_green_living/2008-10/14/content_166
>>> 09473.htm
>>
>> ya know the first Prius could not be charged from a solar panel. or
>> your home outlet.
>> they changed that.,
>> I assume this attempt can be charged at work or at home form the
>> house current or a battery charger.
>> or will be by popular demand.
>> No.?
> So, if it can be charged from a wall plug, what's the charge time,
That obviously depends on the charger.
> and what's the range per charge?
It should be as good as a full charge from the solar panel.
Bet they're lying about that tho.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 10:41 pm
From: rst0wxyz
On Oct 15, 10:25 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lou <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "A "That One"" <georgewks...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
> >news:georgewkspam-38CA12.07464115102008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > So, if it can be charged from a wall plug, what's the charge time,
>
> That obviously depends on the charger.
>
> > and what's the range per charge?
>
> It should be as good as a full charge from the solar panel.
>
> Bet they're lying about that tho.
Support your local electric auto maker. Buy Tesla. Built in San Jose
with a over 200-mile range for a single charge, for only $109,000.
Tesla is laying off workers.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best GPS Units For Less Than $200!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4874b2abe080dcd4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 7:39 pm
From: The Real Bev
timeOday wrote:
> Al Bundy wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 8:04 am, drishaq <drishaqaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There are quite a few excellent GPS units for under $200.
>>
>> I liked it more when they were $300 and I could say I saved $300 by
>> not buying one. I know they help some people traveling or in the
>> woods, but I always try to know where I am at.
>
> If you travel for work, it sure is nice to use a gps when you arrive in
> an unfamiliar city after dark and need to drive to your hotel.
Or simply to find a business in an unfamiliar area, especially one on
the typical Main Street with lots of small shops. Around here
businesses seem to neglect putting numbers on their doors, which is
absolutely maddening. There are zoning regs/laws, of course, but
everybody ignores them.
This is especially nasty in local Asian areas :-(
--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 15 2008 10:28 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> timeOday wrote:
>
>> Al Bundy wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 8:04 am, drishaq <drishaqaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There are quite a few excellent GPS units for under $200.
>>>
>>> I liked it more when they were $300 and I could say I saved $300 by
>>> not buying one. I know they help some people traveling or in the
>>> woods, but I always try to know where I am at.
>>
>> If you travel for work, it sure is nice to use a gps when you arrive
>> in an unfamiliar city after dark and need to drive to your hotel.
>
> Or simply to find a business in an unfamiliar area, especially one on
> the typical Main Street with lots of small shops. Around here
> businesses seem to neglect putting numbers on their doors, which is
> absolutely maddening. There are zoning regs/laws, of course, but
> everybody ignores them.
>
> This is especially nasty in local Asian areas :-(
In spades for yard sales. Leaves everything else for dead for those.
Havent found one that allows you to enter them all with
their start times and which will do the best routing tho.
It would also need to distinguish between the ones which have a full street
address which can safely be rocked up at well before the advertised start
time and the ones which just give the street and where there is more of a
problem with it not being possible to work out which house it is until they
put out the balloons/signs etc.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment