Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 24 new messages in 13 topics

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: Where to buy a nikon en-el3e battery in London?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a8ef13c3cc645ffa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 3:10 am
From: clams_casino

Zanasil wrote:

>Any1 has idea about replacement nikon en-el3e battery recourse online
>in london?
>.Thanks for your advice.
>
>

My advice is to stop spamming this newsgroup.

abuse@ecommerce.com
abuse@cnc-noc.net
postmaster@cnc-noc.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Don't they just print more money?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/372a5a8a074f3f89?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 4:36 am
From: "Dave"

"'nam vet." <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgewkspam-20E90C.14542323122008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> aren't these "bail-outs" just more $$$ that they print. backed by
> nothing and they're running these presses 24/7
> Inflationary? ya think?

It's worse than that. They're not printing money, they are borrowing money,
mainly from China. So all the bailouts come with decades of interest
payments, doubling or tripling the dollar amount of the actual money that
was originally stolen from the taxpayers. Take the original "700 billion"
package, which was defeated, and then 820 Billion by the time it actually
passed. The payoff on that one alone is going to be somewhere North of 1.6
Trillion dollars. So the taxpayers are on the hook for something more than
1.6 Trillion dollars already. But assuming the loan payoff value is exactly
1.6 Trillion, and knowing there are about 138,000,000 taxpayers in the U.S.,
do the math to find out how much each taxpayer is going to pay for that "700
billion" bailout package. Now multiply by two if you're in the typical
two-income family... and that is how much money was stolen from YOUR family.
To go to the Chinese. -Dave

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:06 am
From: Napoleon

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:36:59 -0500, "Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:

>But assuming the loan payoff value is exactly
>1.6 Trillion, and knowing there are about 138,000,000 taxpayers in the U.S.,
>do the math to find out how much each taxpayer is going to pay for that "700
>billion" bailout package. Now multiply by two if you're in the typical
>two-income family... and that is how much money was stolen from YOUR family.
>To go to the Chinese. -Dave

But, but the USA has no intention of paying anything off. Kind of like
the housing bubble where no actual money was ever switched hands and
no one actually ever paid off anything.

See, the USA is that illegal alien who lives in Watts CA, and he needs
an overinflated house that costs 500,000. How does he get it with no
money? Well, go to the bank, who is China, tell him that he needs half
a million dollars pronto, and he is not putting any money down as a
down payment, nor does he need to prove he can ever pay the money
back.

The bank says, that's fine because in one year you can sell that house
and make 200,000 or if you can't and I get stuck with the house I can
sell it for even more! Sure, here's your money. Don't bother to make
one payment, because you have no money and your goal isn't to pay off
and live in the house anyway, it's to make money. The illegal alien
smiles and runs off to his overinflated house thinking "this is the
American dream! Living off air!"

But I still wonder why the Chinese are covering our debts, for now.
They obviously know we will NEVER pay them back. Maybe the domino
theory of communism works with no guns needed. Let the USA fall like a
house of cards. Oh well.

-N

==============================================================================
TOPIC: self-employed, the price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 4:45 am
From: George

clams_casino wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> George wrote:
>>>
>>>> Napoleon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:52:41 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> or completely eliminate the income tax and go to a sales tax with
>>>>>> say a 35% rate to collect equivalent tax funds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what should be done. Sales tax only, no exceptions for
>>>>> anyone. In return, it would be required to fund National Healthcare
>>>>> with a single payer government fund.
>>>>> Then the rich would actually, possibly pay taxes. And for frugal
>>>>> people the hit would not be so bad since we know how to live without
>>>>> excessively spending anyways. It might also stop Americans from being
>>>>> considered as only "CONSUMERS" and we might become CITIZENS once
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bah, ha, ha. Like that would ever happen. How would we fund the Afghan
>>>>> war?
>>>>>
>>>>> -N
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thats the wrong argument for why it would never happen. If a sales
>>>> tax brought in the same amount of money then it is status quo. It
>>>> won't happen because of the special interests such as those who have
>>>> tax exemptions or considerations for whatever reason and the massive
>>>> industry consisting of accountants and lawyers required for our
>>>> current tax system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would also significantly shift the burden of tax from the upper
>>> classes onto the lower and middle classes.
>>
>>
>> It wouldn't have to if implemented in the same fashion as out state
>> sales tax. Food that you buy to prepare yourself is exempt and so is
>> basic clothing. Medical is exempt. Pretty much everything else is
>> taxable.
>
>
> If you don't tax everything, then the percentage will have to be much
> higher than 35% on the non exempt items.

Sure, but it is fair and responds to your objection. And it would be a
good thing because when all of the other taxes are removed and
everything has to be paid via the sales tax folks will get a much better
grasp of who actually pays for the government when they pay 39% sales tax.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 4:55 am
From: Napoleon

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:42:29 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>Ask a IRS agent - the force would quadruple (or more) because it would
>be much harder / much more time consuming to track tax revenue via sales
>taxes vs. payroll taxes.
>

How do other countries do it? You know, the countries that actually
provide national health care to their citizens and impose VAT/GST. It
can be done, it's being done now.

People in this country hate change - apparently except Obama, but he
only talks about change he's not actually going to do anything. That's
why the USA will never have national healthcare, will never go back to
the moon or Mars, will never find a cure for cancer, and will never
ever manufacture anything every again. What you see is what you get
for the rest of America's history, which should be mercifully short.

-N

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Collision insurance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2850cf9d787416a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 4:50 am
From: George

Marsha wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote:
>> If you can write off $7000 without "undue hardship" where's the "undue
>> hardship" about kicking in $170 a year?
>>
>> --Vic
>
> It's not much, granted, but I abhor donating money to insurance
> companies. A necessary evil, though.
>
> Marsha/Ohio

Why? insurance is nothing more than gambling. You are betting something
will happen and they are betting that it won't. Most folks can't cover
catastrophic stuff but are able to cover the routine stuff. If you add
up all of the money you never spent on extended warranties, collision
etc you would find that you could easily cover the routine stuff if
necessary and still be ahead.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:22 am
From: Marsha

George wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>> If you can write off $7000 without "undue hardship" where's the "undue
>>> hardship" about kicking in $170 a year?
>>>
>>> --Vic
>>
>> It's not much, granted, but I abhor donating money to insurance
>> companies. A necessary evil, though.
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>
> Why? insurance is nothing more than gambling. You are betting something
> will happen and they are betting that it won't. Most folks can't cover
> catastrophic stuff but are able to cover the routine stuff. If you add
> up all of the money you never spent on extended warranties, collision
> etc you would find that you could easily cover the routine stuff if
> necessary and still be ahead.

If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability
is required in this state, although, by my insurance company's
statistics, 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why
should anyone need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?

Marsha/Ohio

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:48 am
From: "Ben"

"Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitk2q$nps$2@news.datemas.de...
> If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability is
> required in this state, although, by my insurance company's statistics,
> 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why should anyone
> need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?
>
> Marsha/Ohio

You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you have
uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
a deductible.

I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:57 am
From: imascot

James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b933e313-dccc-4b0a-9354-
9d9564f3e11d@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

> I've also had lots of collisions but I
> figure I pay for it either way. If I had the insurance they jack up
> my premiums for 3 years.
>

Lots of collisions, eh? Um, where do you live?

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:57 am
From: Marsha

Ben wrote:
> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitk2q$nps$2@news.datemas.de...
>> If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability is
>> required in this state, although, by my insurance company's statistics,
>> 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why should anyone
>> need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>
> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you have
> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
> a deductible.
>
> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.
>
>

I didn't know that. Is that true for underinsured motorist coverage, too?

Marsha/Ohio

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:12 am
From: Marsha

Ben wrote:
> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you have
> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
> a deductible.
>
> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.
>

I just called the insurance company and that's not true in my case. If
I didn't carry uninsured/underinsured coverage, which costs me $120/yr.
for 2 cars, I would get nothing for injuries or property damage. On the
other hand, they told me I was on a list of names for them to check
other carriers for a lower premium overall, since my insurer's rates
went up.

Marsha/Ohio

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:27 am
From: "Ben"

"Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitn16$3vg$2@news.datemas.de...
> Ben wrote:
>> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
>> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
>> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you
>> have
>> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
>> a deductible.
>>
>> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.
>
> I just called the insurance company and that's not true in my case.

Your company gave you wrong/misleading info.

Medical bills etc aren't covered. But your collision insurance will
cover damage to the car if the other person is uninsured. I checked
this multiple times before I removed it.

> If I didn't carry uninsured/underinsured coverage, which costs me $120/yr.
> for 2 cars, I would get nothing for injuries or property damage. On the
> other hand, they told me I was on a list of names for them to check other
> carriers for a lower premium overall, since my insurer's rates went up.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:30 am
From: "Ben"

"Ben" <ben@ben.com> wrote in message
news:gitnu5$t91$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message
> news:gitn16$3vg$2@news.datemas.de...
>> Ben wrote:
>>> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
>>> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to
>>> pay
>>> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you
>>> have
>>> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
>>> a deductible.
>>>
>>> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.
>>
>> I just called the insurance company and that's not true in my case.
>
> Your company gave you wrong/misleading info.
>
> Medical bills etc aren't covered. But your collision insurance will
> cover damage to the car if the other person is uninsured. I checked
> this multiple times before I removed it.

I have really good medical insurance - so I wasn't worried about it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: =======> WHERE'D THE BAILOUT MONEY GO? SHHHH, IT'S A SECRET! <=======
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bef5a70b1f20852f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:17 am
From: hpope@lycos.com

On Dec 23, 6:41 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\General-Business\20081222\Meltdown-Secrets.xml&cat=money&subcat=business&pageid=1
>
> Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret
> 12/22/2008 06:08:26
> By MATT APUZZO
>
> It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a
> loan: Where's the money going?
>
> But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's
> largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the
> money or they simply refuse to discuss it.
>
> "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any
> accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a
> spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency
> bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're
> declining to."
>
> The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least
> $1billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has
> been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings,
> and what's the plan for the rest?
>
> None of the banks provided specific answers.
>
> "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry
> Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which
> got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
>
> Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.
>
> "We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp.
> spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is
> not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part
> of the financial bailout.
>
> The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Assets
> Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion -- about the size of the
> Netherlands' economy -- to help rescue the financial industry. The
> Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S.
> banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start
> lending money.
>
> There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers
> summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them
> to lend the money -- not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses,
> junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to
> make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who
> don't comply.
>
> "It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their
> taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth
> Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial
> bailout.
>
> But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
>
> Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly,
> Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in
> October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never
> asked banks how it would be spent.
>
> "Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day
> One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services
> Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through
> Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be
> spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
> Nearly every bank AP questioned -- including Citibank and Bank of
> America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money -- responded
> with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was
> being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to
> ease the credit crisis.
>
> A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan
> Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies
> next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based
> Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money
> allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
>
> But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal
> money.
>
> "We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for
> Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.
>
> Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for
> North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have
> its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's
> recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be
> sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would
> have made that deal regardless.
>
> Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to
> discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP
> refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to
> comment on your story."
>
> Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.
>
> "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time,"
> said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which
> received $2.25 billion from the government.
>
> Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share
> spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say
> that we're not going to discuss those details."
>
> The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those,
> such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only
> recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither
> provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would
> be spent.
>
> Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-
> to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is
> handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is
> trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
>
> "What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed
> to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them,
> and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said
> at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as
> we're going."
>
> Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her
> oversight panelwill try to force the banks to say where they've spent
> the money.
>
> "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.
>
> But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.
>
> "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with,
> if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a
> position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic
> information that should already be in public documents," she said.
>
> Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a
> clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
>
> "A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a
> bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

For practical purposes you do not exist unless your folks in Congress
hear from you. Email or phone via this site:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

mitch

==============================================================================
TOPIC: poverty line
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4eaa805a9a816468?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 6:31 am
From: Marsha

Dave Garland wrote:
> catalpa wrote:
>
>> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
>
> And a lot of them are elderly. But what's your point? Should they be
> paying $1000/mo in rent, instead of nothing (if they have the home
> paid off) or $550/mo mortgage?
>
>> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car;
>
> Unfortunately, in the US, most places you can't hunt for work, hold a
> job (many poor households do hold down jobs), or shop for groceries
> without a car.
>
>> 31 percent own two or more cars.
>
> How many of those are up on blocks? But in any case, owning a car
> isn't difficult, you can find a car for a couple of hundred dollars.
>
>> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens,
>
> $10 at garage sales
>
>> more than half have a stereo,
>
> free for taking from the alley
>
>> http://www.heritage.org/
>
> A far-right organization.
>
> Dave

But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
no medical care. Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or a
cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category. Most
truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices. What we need
is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.

Marsha

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:15 am
From: clams_casino

Marsha wrote:

>
> But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
> someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
> no medical care. Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or
> a cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category.
> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices. What
> we need is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.
>
> Marsha

What the US really needs is a revision to the tax code. The amount of
money going into welfare is negligible relative to the perks the rich
receive via generous tax breaks. For a start, why do the lower and
middle income groups typically have to pay for health care using after
tax income while most upper & wealthy receive / enjoy $14k + / year free
/ untaxed health care?

Why is it a concern to provide a few hundred dollars / month in housing
subsidies for the poor while providing tens of thousands of dollars in
tax relief for the wealthy to live in multi-million dollar homes.

Why is it such a concern to provide food stamps to the needy, but
provide tax free $100+ lobster & steak dinners to businessmen?

Why are spa, box seat sporting event seats, country club memberships,
etc provided tax free which primarily the wealthy enjoy?

The cost of welfare is negligible relative to the bonuses being hand out
to financial bankers at the expense of tax payers.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:52 am
From: Rick

On Dec 22, 10:35 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you are at the line, what are you supposed to be able to do? Are
> you supposed to be able to afford a certain size apartment with heat,
> eat healthy, and dress warmly? Or is it just a number that qualifies
> you for welfare?

That is a tricky number. It is calculated so differently by so many
different people that you could easily have a large range to tell
people "I live below the poverty line" and you would not be lieing.

In Michigan, if you can prove you have expenses more then a certain
amount that when subtracted from your gross income it falls below
predetermined amounts for the size faimly you are in, you can have
your property taxes dismissed. It's called Poverty Exemption and many
people are taking advantage of it right now as you can probably guess.

Regards,

Rick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Companies closing down without telling their employees
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e9ad2a790d1b3e5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:08 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<f158d9ac-349d-4d0a-afd2-8d2926459ac3@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
ultimauw@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 21, 11:24 pm, ultim...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 8:37 pm, ultim...@live.com wrote:
> >
> > >http://consumerist.com/5113170/three-tgifridays-mysteriously-close-no...
>
> How does the Orthodox Capitalists feel about companies closing down
> without telling their employees?

I think it sucks, but it seems to me that in many situations, employees
can see the writing on the wall. Unless the bosses are cooking the
books, when business drops significantly, any employee who doesn't
notice that and doesn't start thinking about his or her job security is
living in an alternate reality.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Holiday Picture
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cbec63a1f70c7741?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:24 am
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com

On Dec 23, 11:55 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com>
wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> >On Dec 23, 10:52 am, MSfort...@mcpmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 23, 9:34 am, Rick <r...@quesocabezafarm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Hello everyone,
>
> >>>I thought I would share our Christmas Picture with everyone.
>
> >>>Rick Boesen
>
> >>Just spamming the Internet with his store site.
>
> >No. That's a link to my blog.
>
> and that's not spam?

He manages to get his commercial link into every post. I guess a lot
of people may not care just like they throw the junk mail out of their
mailboxes and move on. This just ain't the place for it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: supply discount ugg boots, up to 29% off, Options HOT SALE UGGS Classic
Tall Boots (5815)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d500fba3abec4537?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:26 am
From: nanasmith001@gmail.com

UGG Women's Classic Tall Boot in Pink
$160.00 $113.99
Save: 29% off
UGG Women's Classic Tall Boot in Chocolate
$160.00 $112.99
Save: 29% off
UGG Women's Classic Tall Boot in Sand
$160.00 $113.99
Save: 29% off

UGG Women's Classic Tall Boot in Black
$160.00 $113.99
Save: 29% off
UGG Women's Classic Tall Boot in Chestnut
$160.00 $111.99
Save: 30% off

http://www.uggsweet.com/ugg-classic-tall-boots-5815-c-3

==============================================================================
TOPIC: supply discount ugg boots, up to 21% off, Options HOT SALE UGGS Classic
Short Boots (5825)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f6fb9950db803c10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:28 am
From: nanasmith001@gmail.com

UGG Women's Classic Short Boot in Chestnut
$130.00 $101.99
Save: 22% off
UGG Women's Classic Short Boot in Black
$130.00 $102.99
Save: 21% off
UGG Women's Classic Short Boot in Chocolate
$130.00 $101.99
Save: 22% off

UGG Women's Classic Short Boot in Sand
$130.00 $103.99
Save: 20% off

http://www.uggsweet.com/ugg-classic-short-boots-5825-c-4

==============================================================================
TOPIC: supply discount ugg boots, up to 21% off, Options HOT SALE UGGS Classic
Cardy Boots (5819)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8ee4f5f3aa166056?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:29 am
From: nanasmith001@gmail.com

UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Chocolate
$140.00 $112.99
Save: 19% off
UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Black
$140.00 $109.99
Save: 21% off
UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Grey
$140.00 $109.99
Save: 21% off

UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Oatmeal
$140.00 $109.99
Save: 21% off
UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Dusty Rose
$140.00 $112.99
Save: 19% off

Monthly Specials For December

UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Dusty Rose
$140.00 $112.99
Save: 19% off
UGG Women's Classic Cardy Boot in Oatmeal
$140.00 $109.99
Save: 21% off

http://www.uggsweet.com/ugg-classic-cardy-boots-5819-c-2

==============================================================================
TOPIC: supply discount ugg boots, up to 23% off, Options HOT SALE UGG Women's
Nightfall Boot in Chestnut 5359
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bee765f648c76c40?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:30 am
From: nanasmith001@gmail.com

http://www.uggsweet.com/ugg-womens-nightfall-boot-in-chestnut-p-16

The stylish Nightfall boot is made with twin-faced sheepskin and a
durable molded rubber outsole. The wrap around lace feature adds a
fashionable touch with wooden beads at the end. A removable and
replaceable sheepskin insole gives extra comfort and warmth.

Twin-faced shespkin uppers with suede toe and heel guards
Removable and replaceable comfort system insole is made of sheepskin,
latex and foam for ultra comfort. Features a Mylar sockliner for
warmth.
Molded rubber lug cup sole for strength and durability on rugged
surfaces
Approximate boot shaft height: 13"
Approximate mid-calf circumference: 12"
By UGG® Australia; Imported.

Care and Cleaning
For more information on the care and cleaning of your UGG® Australia
products, see our features and benefits section.

Comfort and Fit
UGG® footwear should be snug, but not uncomfortable. UGG® twin-faced
sheepskin boots will give a bit as they mold to your feet. UGG®
footwear is designed to be worn barefoot to maximize the cushioning
and warmth of sheepskin.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Negro, hispanic crime ripping through America.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dc68feb795ea956f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:43 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com

http://www.newnation.org/

What wimps be these American who tolerate such outrages.

Death to diversity!

ted

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

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

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 24 new messages in 13 topics - digest

No comments:

Post a Comment