http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* useing a curved pot with an induction heater? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8510c23808cd8a87?hl=en
* Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets - 14 messages, 9
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
* supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty - 6 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
* Frugal Kitchen Tip - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b377d4bf277b66f7?hl=en
* Free outdoor games for kids to play - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f49711f82329ceb9?hl=en
* What can't I stop the ZoneAlarm service? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/363cd1fb7e25b9cc?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: useing a curved pot with an induction heater?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8510c23808cd8a87?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:04 pm
From: Mark Thorson
john zeiss wrote:
>
> The pot looks like a miniature witches cauldron with a curved bottom and
> three tiny little stumpy legs to rest on. The fact that the pot surface
> area in contact with the induction heater surface is reduced to three little
> legs, would that mean that electricity is actually being wasted in heating
> such a pot or is it that it just would not heat up very much using an
> induction heater ? Thanks for any advice.
You could place a flat pot on the induction heater,
half-full that pot with water or oil, then place the
cauldron in the water or oil.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:03 pm
From: "Dave"
> > I would tell him to balance the budget,
>
> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget. Times are
good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is it now
less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more important
than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on your
previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep that you
will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
employment later.
>
> no matter what it takes. And to
> > decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>
> When has that ever worked?
>
A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep taxes at
current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
ountry? -Dave
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:05 pm
From: Jeff
Dave wrote:
>> However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
>> infrastructure would address two problems at once.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> In the short term, you are absolutely RIGHT. But do do that, we have to
> increase taxes. So let's look ahead a few years or a few decades...
Deficit spending seems to be adequate to fund the Wall Street bailout,
the war, etc.
> While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
> our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
> the country in droves.
False premises. Infrastructure is more that roads and bridges. It is
telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing economy.
Jeff
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:23 pm
From: "Dave"
> Deficit spending seems to be adequate to fund the Wall Street bailout,
> the war, etc.
>
> False premises. Infrastructure is more that roads and bridges. It is
> telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
> speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
> taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
> of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing
economy.
>
> Jeff
Y'know Jeff, the best way I could describe a liberal like you is a phrase I
heard on the radio recently:
Liberals treat the country like OJ treats his ex-wives.
How true.
You speak of deficit spending like it's a good thing. And you think
improving infrastructure while at the same time chasing employers out of the
country will somehow help.
Hint: Depression does not mean that the economy is growing. -Dave
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:40 pm
From: Jeff
Dave wrote:
>> Deficit spending seems to be adequate to fund the Wall Street bailout,
>> the war, etc.
>>
>> False premises. Infrastructure is more that roads and bridges. It is
>> telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
>> speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
>> taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
>> of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing
> economy.
>> Jeff
>
> Y'know Jeff, the best way I could describe a liberal like you is a phrase I
> heard on the radio recently:
>
> Liberals treat the country like OJ treats his ex-wives.
Insults are no substitute for reasoned argument, which appear to have
run out of at this point.
> How true.
>
> You speak of deficit spending like it's a good thing. And you think
> improving infrastructure while at the same time chasing employers out of the
> country will somehow help.
A balanced budget offers certain possible advantages, but it is no
guarantee of economic health or prosperity. Money could be redirected
from the Wall Street bailout and the war to rebuilding infrastructure,
without a net increase in the admittedly already huge deficit.
I see you have partaken of the Right wing/ Corporatist Kool Aid, and
believe that Corporate taxes must be slashed or even eliminated, or they
will all leave the country. However, this is unproven, and sounds very
much like a blackmailer's threat.
> Hint: Depression does not mean that the economy is growing. -Dave
Hint: The economy always does better under Democrat stewardship. It is
Republican policies that seem to lead to economic chaos.
Jeff
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:31 pm
From: Dan
Dave wrote:
> )
>>>> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing
> procurement
>>>> boost GDP?
>>>>
>>> It wouldn't, without corresponding tax cuts. But with corresponding tax
>>> cuts, there will be more money available to private companies to use to
> grow
>>> their businesses.
>>>
>>> Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient.
> The
>>> same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
>> Ah, yes, the George Bush economic growth plan on steroids. History has
>> been ever so kind to that one...
>>
>> Didn't anyone ever talk to you about "stop digging?"
>>
>> Dan
>
> Dan - I take it you believe our government can more efficiently create jobs
> by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do tell...-Dave
Funny, I never mentioned either of those options. But look at what
Bush's tax cuts have wrought.
Now, about that job creation efficiency of the private market... How's
that one working out?
Dan
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:38 pm
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
> While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
> our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
> the country in droves.
Nothing need be so black and white.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:42 pm
From: Dan
Dave wrote:
>>> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
>>> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil scott
>> Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Dan - With high taxes, producers have two choices.
> 1) Be less competitive, leading to lower profits, or operating at a loss
> 2) Move to a location with lower operating expenses, most specifically to
> include lower taxes.
3) Invest in their businesses, instead of extracting from their
businesses. Note that extracting from the business rather than creating
jobs and growing the business is a direct consequence of lower taxes.
4) Find ways around the tax code (very popular these days). We can
either reward these people for antisocial behavior (lower taxes) or
shore up the loopholes and encourage the ones who cannot perform to
leave. We can, however, put limitations on our market for such
antisocial behavior...
You see, without even breaking a sweat I can find TWO additional
possible actions. With a modicum of thought, many more possibilities
can be found. You are intellectually lazy - you jump at the idea that
fits your puny world view and expect others to agree that your
limitations are universal. All of us out here are not so lazy, much to
your chagrin.
> This is basic economics that only a moron would TRY to dispute.
Been there, done that, got the Depression. YOUR lack of knowledge,
understanding, and creativity is not a limitation on US.
> The "interesting opinion" you speak of is RIGHT ON. -Dave
Still just an opinion lacking is supporting facts.
And, by the way, mindlessly repeating your Mantra over and over does not
bolster your position any (though it might be an effective way of
emptying your mind [!] preparatory for meditation).
Take some time off. Quit assuming WE are the morons...
Dan
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:44 pm
From: Dan
Jeff wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
>>> When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
>>> percentage) is lower.
>>
>> Ah, yes, Voodoo economics. THAT works well... [NOT]
>>
>>> Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the
>>> short
>>> term and hurt a lot in the long term.
>>
>> actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
>>
>>> If you want to spur the economy to
>>> get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
>>> drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
>>
>> Any EVIDENCE that might work?
>>
>>> If you do that
>>> (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S.
>>> government
>>> will actually INCREASE over time.
>>
>> Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself
>> by citing "the Reagan years.")?
>>
>>> The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
>>> (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the
>>> economy
>>> makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
>>
>> Faith-based economics. No thanks.
>>
>> Dan
>
> If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
> spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp and
> unemployment benefits.
>
> However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
> infrastructure would address two problems at once.
>
> Jeff
Yeah, that is something that has been neglected (by politicians of BOTH
Parties) for far too long, and is consequently much more expensive to
fix than it would have been to maintain.
Dan
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:43 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eqGZk.7640$v37.3808@newsfe01.iad...
> Dave wrote:
>> )
>>>>> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing
>> procurement
>>>>> boost GDP?
>>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't, without corresponding tax cuts. But with corresponding
>>>> tax
>>>> cuts, there will be more money available to private companies to use to
>> grow
>>>> their businesses.
>>>>
>>>> Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient.
>> The
>>>> same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
>>> Ah, yes, the George Bush economic growth plan on steroids. History has
>>> been ever so kind to that one...
>>>
>>> Didn't anyone ever talk to you about "stop digging?"
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> Dan - I take it you believe our government can more efficiently create
>> jobs
>> by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do
>> tell...-Dave
>
> Funny, I never mentioned either of those options. But look at what Bush's
> tax cuts have wrought.
>
> Now, about that job creation efficiency of the private market... How's
> that one working out?
Well let's see.
85 million new jobs plus 30 million new jobs sounds prety good to me.
'Course they are in China and India.
"Mission Accomplished"!
Heck of a job dumbya!
I wonder if Bush plans to change his last name to Hoover?
JC
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:47 pm
From: Dan
Dave wrote:
> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:gh751q$a2r$2@reader1.panix.com...
>> In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
>>
>>> Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes
> to
>>> employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
>>> though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
>>> long run, the only significant employment growth will be in
> infrastructure
>>> improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to
> the
>>> government.
>> Why won't improved infrasructure make our businesses more efficient?
>> Better access to ports, better rail service, better access to roads and
>> electricity and other necessary inputs?
>>
>> ISTM that wigthout infrastructure, businesses are less efficient.
>
> Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be more
> efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
>
> Ok, that was a sarcastic exaggeration of course. But what you fail to
> consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we are
> ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
> production out of the country. No doubt whatever employers who are stupid
> enough to REMAIN here will enjoy the infrastructure improvements. But will
> it matter when we are all unemployed? Not a damned bit.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
>>> including lower taxes.
>> Why do you discount the effect of good infrastructure?
>>
>
> Because there won't be many employers left in the country to use it? Like,
> DUH! -Dave
>
>
Dave, do us all a favor and beat the rush to the exits. Send us a post
card.
Dan
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:57 pm
From: Jeffrey Turner
Dave wrote:
>>> I would tell him to balance the budget,
>> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
>
> Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget. Times are
> good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is it now
> less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more important
> than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on your
> previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep that you
> will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
> employment later.
The federal government isn't your family. Not even close. Your
simplistic notions don't model macroeconomics. Things get worse instead
of better if the federal government shuts down spending in a recession.
>> no matter what it takes. And to
>>> decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>> When has that ever worked?
>
> A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep taxes at
> current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
> ountry? -Dave
Employers aren't leaving, and haven't left, the country because of high
taxes. That's nonsense. Since you can't give an example of when your
policy has ever worked, we'll have to conclude that it's a bad idea.
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:23 pm
From: Sue
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:52:41 -0600, Jeff <nospam@nothanks.org> wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
>>> When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
>>> percentage) is lower.
>>
>> Ah, yes, Voodoo economics. THAT works well... [NOT]
>>
>>> Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the
>>> short
>>> term and hurt a lot in the long term.
>>
>> actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
>>
>>> If you want to spur the economy to
>>> get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
>>> drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
>>
>> Any EVIDENCE that might work?
>>
>>> If you do that
>>> (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S.
>>> government
>>> will actually INCREASE over time.
>>
>> Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
>> citing "the Reagan years.")?
>>
>>> The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
>>> (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the economy
>>> makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
>>
>> Faith-based economics. No thanks.
>>
>> Dan
>
>If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
>spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp
Please!! I am already overworked.
Sue who has job security
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:11 pm
From: Jeff
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>>> I would tell him to balance the budget,
>>> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
>>
>> Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget.
>> Times are
>> good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is
>> it now
>> less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more
>> important
>> than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on
>> your
>> previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep
>> that you
>> will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
>> employment later.
>
> The federal government isn't your family. Not even close. Your
> simplistic notions don't model macroeconomics. Things get worse instead
> of better if the federal government shuts down spending in a recession.
>
>>> no matter what it takes. And to
>>>> decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>>> When has that ever worked?
>>
>> A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep
>> taxes at
>> current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
>> ountry? -Dave
>
> Employers aren't leaving, and haven't left, the country because of high
> taxes. That's nonsense. Since you can't give an example of when your
> policy has ever worked, we'll have to conclude that it's a bad idea.
Republicans are a one trick pony and that lame pony is Supply Side
Economics.
The sales pitch being that if businesses had more money (from another
big tax cut) they would hire more people. This of course ignores the
obvious, that nobody is hiring because demand is falling. Not that
"Voodoo Economics" has ever worked at any time. Not so oddly, the only
sure result of Republican economics is some kind of bank failure. Reagan
had the S&L crisis.
The stock method of Republicans dealing with that has not changed
since Hoover, shovel money to their friends in banking.
Jeff
>
> --Jeff
>
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dan <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
> What industries did FDR nationalize?
Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
Just what do you claim social security is ?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:09 pm
From: Marsha
Dennis wrote:
> I do find it interesting that the Obama camp has so far spent almost a
> million dollars in legal fees to avoid simply releasing a piece of
> paper that would put this whole issue to bed. What could their
> reasoning possibly be?
>
> (And don't even try to suggest some mythical "right to privacy".
> Recent campaigns have proven that there is no such thing in the
> political area.)
>
> Dennis (evil)
True, but you would think Hillary's camp would have fought this to the
bitter end a long time ago. Then again, Obama has fought to keep a lot
of things under wraps.
Marsha
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:15 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:09:46 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> I do find it interesting that the Obama camp has so far spent almost a
>> million dollars in legal fees to avoid simply releasing a piece of
>> paper that would put this whole issue to bed. What could their
>> reasoning possibly be?
>>
>> (And don't even try to suggest some mythical "right to privacy".
>> Recent campaigns have proven that there is no such thing in the
>> political area.)
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>
>True, but you would think Hillary's camp would have fought this to the
>bitter end a long time ago. Then again, Obama has fought to keep a lot
>of things under wraps.
I agree -- I can't imagine that the brass at the DNC would field a
presidential candidate with that kind of glaring fatal flaw in his
resume. So why the big showdown over cooperation? I'd hate to think
that it's the same old arrogance that we saw from Bill Clinton during
the whole Monica mess. Great way to start an administration that ran
on a platform of change...
:-(
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:18 pm
From: "Daniel T."
"Dave" <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
> "max" <betatron@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:betatron-D48844.16144403122008@news.ftupet.com...
> > In article <y4DZk.2657$us6.1370@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> > "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > it's all over the blogs.
> > >
> > >
> http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=63&topic=53329.msg5
> 74
> > > 74;topicseen
> > >
> > > http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
> > >
> > > overnight fedex supreme court w/ your concerns; only way to reach them:
> > >
> > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82449
> > >
> > >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=supreme+court+obama+eligibility&aq=1&oq
> =s
> > > upreme+court+obama+eli
> >
> > dipshit.
> >
>
> What? This is a real court case that the supremes are going to have to rule
> on. I for one am interested in what the supremes have to say on the
> atter. -Dave
They already dismissed it.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:41 pm
From: Marsha
Dennis wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:09:46 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> I do find it interesting that the Obama camp has so far spent almost a
>>> million dollars in legal fees to avoid simply releasing a piece of
>>> paper that would put this whole issue to bed. What could their
>>> reasoning possibly be?
>>>
>>> (And don't even try to suggest some mythical "right to privacy".
>>> Recent campaigns have proven that there is no such thing in the
>>> political area.)
>>>
>>> Dennis (evil)
>> True, but you would think Hillary's camp would have fought this to the
>> bitter end a long time ago. Then again, Obama has fought to keep a lot
>> of things under wraps.
>
> I agree -- I can't imagine that the brass at the DNC would field a
> presidential candidate with that kind of glaring fatal flaw in his
> resume. So why the big showdown over cooperation? I'd hate to think
> that it's the same old arrogance that we saw from Bill Clinton during
> the whole Monica mess. Great way to start an administration that ran
> on a platform of change...
> :-(
>
> Dennis (evil)
We could use the same excuse the Dems had for Palin - Obama wasn't
properly vetted :-)
Marsha
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:35 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-857148.20182503122008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> "Dave" <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
>
>> "max" <betatron@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:betatron-D48844.16144403122008@news.ftupet.com...
>> > In article <y4DZk.2657$us6.1370@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>> > "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > it's all over the blogs.
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=63&topic=53329.msg5
>> 74
>> > > 74;topicseen
>> > >
>> > > http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
>> > >
>> > > overnight fedex supreme court w/ your concerns; only way to reach
>> > > them:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82449
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=supreme+court+obama+eligibility&aq=1&oq
>> =s
>> > > upreme+court+obama+eli
>> >
>> > dipshit.
>> >
>>
>> What? This is a real court case that the supremes are going to have to
>> rule
>> on. I for one am interested in what the supremes have to say on the
>> atter. -Dave
>
> They already dismissed it.
i think that was a federal judge. i don't think they're looking at this
until friday
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:39 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:52:22 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:19:30 -0500, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>> it's all over the blogs.
>>
>> Doubtless the same bloggers that think George W Bush has been a good
>>president. You guys will believe anything that a fellow wingnut spews.
>
>I do find it interesting that the Obama camp has so far spent almost a
>million dollars in legal fees to avoid simply releasing a piece of
>paper that would put this whole issue to bed. What could their
>reasoning possibly be?
>
>(And don't even try to suggest some mythical "right to privacy".
>Recent campaigns have proven that there is no such thing in the
>political area.)
>
>Dennis (evil)
The whole thing is stupid, and has been around for ages. He has a
mother who was a U.S. citizen.
Who was it that was born in the Panama canal zone and would have had
even less legitimacy in a court case? McCain.
IIRC there are a couple of other instances of "questionable"
qualifications like this through the years that were contested and
laughed out of court. Goldwater was one, I think.
Besides, it is pretty obvious by now that everyone in Washington and
the states will be on the cabinet and part of the Presidency. I
wouldn't be surprised to see Rush apply for the job of drug czar.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Kitchen Tip
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b377d4bf277b66f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:12 pm
From: Marsha
Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> Go to the dollar store and buy however many iced tea spoons one can get
> for a dollar these days. The long handles and small tips are perfect
> for getting the last bits out of jars and cans, particularly tall ones.
>
> For that matter, when you are using a can of, say, tomato sauce, and you
> are also adding water to what you're cooking, put the water in the can
> and swish it around to get all the sauce out.
>
> You may not save lots of money, but you will get better value for your
> money.
>
My parents always added a bit of water to get that last drop of catsup
out of the bottle. I still do that, for whatever bit of money it saves.
Marsha
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:02 pm
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com
Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> Go to the dollar store and buy however many iced tea spoons one can get
> for a dollar these days. The long handles and small tips are perfect
> for getting the last bits out of jars and cans, particularly tall ones.
>
> For that matter, when you are using a can of, say, tomato sauce, and you
> are also adding water to what you're cooking, put the water in the can
> and swish it around to get all the sauce out.
>
> You may not save lots of money, but you will get better value for your
> money.
>
> --
> Evelyn C. Leeper
A spoon works, but it's a waste of time. If it's something that sticks
to the can I can either cut both
ends off the can and push the lid through or use a rectangular
spatula made for the purpose. One scoop and the can is empty.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free outdoor games for kids to play
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f49711f82329ceb9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:05 pm
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com
On Dec 3, 2:43 pm, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I thought I'd post this because I've forgotten how to play most kids'
> games that don't involve toys, and one hears about some of these only
> in books such as the "Little House" series and "Pippi
> Longstocking." (Namely, Run Sheep Run and Drop the Handkerchief,
> which, I found, is similar to Duck Duck Goose.) While I remember Red
> Rover, Marco Polo, Duck Duck Goose and maybe a few others, most of
> these I don't know - and I didn't know anything about musical chairs
> until my teens!
>
>
> Enjoy it!
>
> Lenona.
The outdoors is already free. Kids have an imagination. They can make
a game out of anything. We pretend we have a farm under the deck. We
actually planted potatoes. We have 40 cows and 40 chickens.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What can't I stop the ZoneAlarm service?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/363cd1fb7e25b9cc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:43 pm
From: mi290m@yahoo.com
What rationale behind ZoneAlarm's design that user can't stop or
disable the TrueVector service in normal Windows mode (i.e., not safe
mode), even login as Administrator role? This is too extreme. Does it
think user's not capable of handling his/her own PC? Software vendor
with such kind of attitude may file chapter 11 sooner then it thinks.
==============================================================================
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