http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Jo-Ann Fabrics customer suffering diarrhea shits herself because they would
not let her use the bathroom. - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cd8f48b5f61f57ba?hl=en
* Your favorite free e-card? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8bf2062ff2236938?hl=en
* Nazi t-shirt sold at Walmart - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b367e5bdf9d178bd?hl=en
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 14 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Customer suffering diarrhea shits herself because Jo-Ann Fabrics would not
let her use the bathroom. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3492db825691db70?hl=en
* Pennies on the street - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8ebb8d9fdd5bbd9?hl=en
* Selling artwork in a bad market - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d3b0c99328f52aea?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jo-Ann Fabrics customer suffering diarrhea shits herself because they
would not let her use the bathroom.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cd8f48b5f61f57ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:06 am
From: ultimauw@gmail.com
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:29 am
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:03 -0800 (PST), ultimauw@gmail.com wrote:
>http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-customer-service-ever/jo+ann-fabrics-refuses-to-let-customer-use-bathroom-even-as-she-suffers-diarrhea-right-in-front-of-them-274441.php
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:24 am
From: Certainly not a sock-puppet
On Dec 14, 9:06 am, ultim...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-customer-service-ever/jo+ann-fa...
Post it a third time, you spamming imbecile.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:07 am
From: ultimauw@live.com
Certainly not a sock-puppet wrote:
(blahblahblah) *plonk*
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:11 am
From: ultimauw@live.com
some day, you may be the one pooping his underpants as a 19 year old
sales droid says no.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your favorite free e-card?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8bf2062ff2236938?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:07 am
From: larry
MSfortune@mcpmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:56 pm, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley10...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:gi1ec2$j5r$3@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> James wrote:
>>>> Have you found a really good one that you would recommend?
>>> Maybe. What's an e-card?
>> I think it is a way to give your friends e-mail addresses to companies so they
>> can sell them to spammers.
>
> I did not want to say that, but that is sometimes true. And they keep
> bugging you if you don't go to their site to view the card. People
> that send ecards are the same people that forward Internet myths and
> mail that warns them that they "must" forward this to ten people or
> die tomorrow. Generally, they are not heavy thinkers.
"A friend sent you an e-card"
Is no friend of mine. If they don't know my friend's name,
it is spam. Plonk!
We now auto delete anything with a zip attachment - nasty
virus dressed up as free (fastfood) coupons.
-- larry / dallas
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nazi t-shirt sold at Walmart
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b367e5bdf9d178bd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:11 am
From: ultimauw@gmail.com
http://consumerist.com/348776/walmart-nazi-tshirt-watch-week-62
Just when you thought all of the Walmart tshirts bearing the exact
replica of an infamous Nazi symbol were recalled, or sold to a
discount store and burned, a Walmart in Palmdale, California has them
on sale for $3.00 a pop. 62 weeks after Walmart pledged to remove the
shirts from its shelves, and 50 weeks after getting a letter from
Congress demanding the shirts removal, they're still out there.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:20 am
From: edward ohare
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:52:53 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
wrote:
>>> Well, let's all go to the Chevy dealer and get a real America car.
>>> That Chevy Aveo looks like the ticket.
>>
>> Then go next door to the Pontiac dealer to buy a Vibe. :) -Dave
>
>Well, the Solstice is kind of appealing...
>
>Actually, I do see a trend. All of the appealing GM offerings seem to
>be warmed over Opels or Holdens. Sad.
I was, of course, kidding when I suggested buying an Aveo. I don't
like tin cans. So how 'bout a Malibu? Whoops.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:32 am
From: Eeyore
clams_casino wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >clams_casino wrote:
> >
> >>the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned
> >
> >It wasn't even justified ! Or do you still believe the lies ?
> >
> Never did.
Very wise. Neither did I. It was all one big lie and look where it's got
us now ! "Another fine mess you've got us in to" comes to mind.
;~)
Graham
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:33 am
From: Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Brent wrote:
> >> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> >> > Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> >> > years.
> >>
> >> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Malibu
>
> So, where can I pick up a brand new malibu like the one in 'repo man'?
> Oh wait, they aren't made any more. The current malibu has been in
> production for what? a year? The name plate has been around for more
> than 40 years, but the car we see today hasn't. Nor can one go buy a
> new honda like they made back in the 70s or 80s either. They are
> different cars now with the same name plate. In the case of GM VERY VERY
> different cars. They don't even share the same drive wheels!
So what exactly was your point ?
Graham
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:02 am
From: edward ohare
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:39:23 -0500, "Daniel T."
<daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I have seen this thought several times and need to point out that GM
>> etc in bankruptcy reorganizations are **not** like the airlines.
>> Airline tickets have a short expected useful life, no need for a
>> supply of repair parts, no need for a warranty, no concern for
>> resale value, and cost comparatively little. People know
>> reorganization sometimes often does not work and because of the
>> issues I've identified, bankruptcy reorganization **does not** work
>> for manufacturers of duable goods.
>>
>> Wagoner has said bankruptcy is not an option. He's right. But I
>> also think that faced with that as the only choice, he'll try it...
>> one idiotic last roll of the dice.
>
>Well, repair parts will be manufactured as long as the need exists,
That is correct but most people think that isn't the case. So the
idea they can't get parts will keep them away.
> and
>resale value has little/nothing to do with whether the company exists.
Have to disagree here. For starters, there will be little if any
financing available. Default setting for a bank is going to be "we
don't loan money on those". That will necessariy drive prices down.
>So if the warranty was guaranteed by the government?
Actually that's the best thing the government could do because it
would encourage sales. Our wonderful elected officials can't figure
out that no amount of money they throw at the companies will save them
unless people buy the cars.
They ought to announce this as part of whatever it is they're going to
do (if anything) rather than after the fact saying "oh, OK, GM's gone,
we'll cover your warranties because we feel sorry for you.
>
>But even so, do you then think that if they go bankrupt, that is "lost"?
>As in the moment they go bankrupt, we will loose 1/7th of our jobs?
I didn't put that number out.
As is often the case, though, people add but don't subtract, subtract
but don't add. The assumption in all lost employment figures I see is
that none of the cars that would have been sold by GM will be sold by
anyone. This is clearly and obviously incorrect.
Somebody has to go because the industry is overcapacity even during
good times. The problem is that if they all go at once then the
industry is undercapacity even for current times. And its grossly
undercapacity for trucks and vans... even when you take out the people
who have been buying personal use trucks that aren't going to do that
in the near future.
I have written my Representative and Senators telling them they can't
save them all and they will need to pick a company or two. But that's
too hot a decision for them.
The answer is to pick GM or Ford. If Ford is picked, then they could
consider trying to have someone like Honda or Hyundai pick up the
truck portion of Chrysler. Chrysler has no appropriate cars of its
own due to Mercedes decisions and with the market moving back to cars,
Chrysler can't make it on its own.
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:06 am
From: edward ohare
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:19:52 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>And that's another thing worth mentioning. In addition to the price advantage
>of using cheaper labor overseas, most everywhere else has free healthcare from
>their governments. American industries have to cough that up. Foreign auto
>industries don't It isn't being accounted for as people scream to force the US
>auto companies out of business to make way for the foreign auto companies.
Uh... "free healthcare from their governments" is paid for somewhere.
Like in taxes. Well, people say, our taxes are already too high.
Well, maybe that's because, unlike some other coutries, we spend
bunches of money on useless government functions and a bloated
obsolete military.
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:11 am
From: edward ohare
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:49:20 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:02:57 -0500, edward ohare
><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>>>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
>>
>>
>>Who is advocating? Its happened.
>
>Advocating would be opposing measures required to help them survive. America
>needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
Its too late. This is more of George's "stay the course" talk.
>>Subsidizing anything is a loser.
>
>Oh, really? The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look where it
>is.
And the hidden cost of this? Subsizing a failure into success costs
something somewhere else.
>>Because of world wide overcapacity
>>and because they are the weakest of the large automakers, Detroit
>>requires permanent subsidies to survive... unless capacity is reduced
>>by letting some of them fail.
>
>If something is going to fail, let it be something other than US companies.
Then what if other countires subsize their in trouble but stronger
automakers? At that point it isn't competition between companies
anymore. Its competition between government subsidies.
>competitive auto industry. Right now, we have a chance, and the American built
>cars have just been getting better and better over the last 20 years.
I haven't bought a car not assembled in North America by GM, Ford, or
Chrysler in 30 years. I've been happy with my purchases. Many others
have not. Its over for at least one, and possibly two of the Detroit
companies.
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:19 am
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:02:16 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:39:23 -0500, "Daniel T."
><daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I have seen this thought several times and need to point out that GM
>>> etc in bankruptcy reorganizations are **not** like the airlines.
>>> Airline tickets have a short expected useful life, no need for a
>>> supply of repair parts, no need for a warranty, no concern for
>>> resale value, and cost comparatively little. People know
>>> reorganization sometimes often does not work and because of the
>>> issues I've identified, bankruptcy reorganization **does not** work
>>> for manufacturers of duable goods.
>>>
>>> Wagoner has said bankruptcy is not an option. He's right. But I
>>> also think that faced with that as the only choice, he'll try it...
>>> one idiotic last roll of the dice.
>>
>>Well, repair parts will be manufactured as long as the need exists,
>
>
>That is correct but most people think that isn't the case. So the
>idea they can't get parts will keep them away.
No, I think that is not correct in the cases of things that require large
foundaries to build. Also a possible bottleneck might be computers. I think
the engine control software is a trade secret. We might or might not ever be
able to get that out of them and be able to recreate the engine control
computers necessary for the car to run, _and_ meet emissions standards.
>> and
>>resale value has little/nothing to do with whether the company exists.
>
>Have to disagree here. For starters, there will be little if any
>financing available. Default setting for a bank is going to be "we
>don't loan money on those". That will necessariy drive prices down.
Public perception will be that owning an orphan car will be a hassle that few
people want to put up with, so there will always be a far greater supply of
used cars for sale than there will be buyers for them. That situation always
dictates really low prices.
>>So if the warranty was guaranteed by the government?
>
>Actually that's the best thing the government could do because it
>would encourage sales. Our wonderful elected officials can't figure
>out that no amount of money they throw at the companies will save them
>unless people buy the cars.
>
>They ought to announce this as part of whatever it is they're going to
>do (if anything) rather than after the fact saying "oh, OK, GM's gone,
>we'll cover your warranties because we feel sorry for you.
>
>>
>>But even so, do you then think that if they go bankrupt, that is "lost"?
>>As in the moment they go bankrupt, we will loose 1/7th of our jobs?
I think it will create an economic depression that will last a time-span that
nobody can predict. It might go as long as the last one. It might be
permanent. No, really. There's nothing that says that the USA has to have a
healthy economy. There can always be a worse scenario, and the economy only
recovering to the level of, say, -- well, I'm not sure - probably not a 3rd
world country, but we might not rise much above that without auto manfacturing,
especially if something also happens to agriculture. And, of course, that is
already on the schedule, as the Ogilala aquifer is being drained for
irrigation, and will run out someday. Good luck finding a substitute fresh
water supply to do irrigation, and getting it there if you do find one. WIth
both autos and agriculture hit, then yes, we could sink to the level of
Zimbabwe or some-such.
>I didn't put that number out.
>
>As is often the case, though, people add but don't subtract, subtract
>but don't add. The assumption in all lost employment figures I see is
>that none of the cars that would have been sold by GM will be sold by
>anyone. This is clearly and obviously incorrect.
>
>Somebody has to go because the industry is overcapacity even during
>good times. The problem is that if they all go at once then the
>industry is undercapacity even for current times. And its grossly
>undercapacity for trucks and vans... even when you take out the people
>who have been buying personal use trucks that aren't going to do that
>in the near future.
>
>I have written my Representative and Senators telling them they can't
>save them all and they will need to pick a company or two. But that's
>too hot a decision for them.
We should tell them to do everything they can to save and improve the AMERICAN
car companies, and if some company has to leave the market, my choice is Suzuki
or some other or combination of other foreign makes that succumb to an
onslaught of high quality, affordabe AMERICAN cars. Everyone here in this
country should do everything they can to bring that about.
>The answer is to pick GM or Ford. If Ford is picked, then they could
>consider trying to have someone like Honda or Hyundai pick up the
>truck portion of Chrysler. Chrysler has no appropriate cars of its
>own due to Mercedes decisions and with the market moving back to cars,
>Chrysler can't make it on its own.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:25 am
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:06:00 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:19:52 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And that's another thing worth mentioning. In addition to the price advantage
>>of using cheaper labor overseas, most everywhere else has free healthcare from
>>their governments. American industries have to cough that up. Foreign auto
>>industries don't It isn't being accounted for as people scream to force the US
>>auto companies out of business to make way for the foreign auto companies.
>
>
>Uh... "free healthcare from their governments" is paid for somewhere.
>Like in taxes.
Yep. But its working at least for the French. The Germans, Brits, and
Canadians will claim it works for them too, but from what I've read, they don't
hold a candle to the French system.
Could we adopt the French system? Probably not. We have too much corruption
to actually build something that benefits the people, without siphoning off
megabucks to thousands of parasites.
>Well, people say, our taxes are already too high.
Our income tax would be too high if it were $0.01. There should be no damned
income tax. It is almost universally counterproductive. I favor a National
sales tax to REPLACE the income tax.
>Well, maybe that's because, unlike some other coutries, we spend
>bunches of money on useless government functions and a bloated
>obsolete military.
Heeeyyyy... that obsolete military can still kick ass all over the globe if
the need arises. Is this knee-jerk, liberal bias against the military here, or
what are you saying is "obsolete" and "bloated?" Certainly not the personnel,
of which there probably should be 1.5X the number there are now. Those that
are serving are overworked / overdeployed. The deserve time at home with their
familes. But they don't get it. That's wrong.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:29 am
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:11:08 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:49:20 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:02:57 -0500, edward ohare
>><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>>>>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who is advocating? Its happened.
>>
>>Advocating would be opposing measures required to help them survive. America
>>needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
>
>
>Its too late. This is more of George's "stay the course" talk.
No, it is a fact. Manufacturing is one of the 3 ways to generate wealth, and
wealth is one of those things for which there can never be too much of.
>>>Subsidizing anything is a loser.
>>
>>Oh, really? The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look where it
>>is.
>
>
>And the hidden cost of this? Subsizing a failure into success costs
>something somewhere else.
Well, whatever it was, it was obviously worth it to the French. They're about
to run their only competition out of business, if we allow that to happen.
>>>Because of world wide overcapacity
>>>and because they are the weakest of the large automakers, Detroit
>>>requires permanent subsidies to survive... unless capacity is reduced
>>>by letting some of them fail.
>>
>>If something is going to fail, let it be something other than US companies.
>
>
>Then what if other countires subsize their in trouble but stronger
>automakers? At that point it isn't competition between companies
>anymore. Its competition between government subsidies.
We can win that one.
>>competitive auto industry. Right now, we have a chance, and the American built
>>cars have just been getting better and better over the last 20 years.
>
>
>I haven't bought a car not assembled in North America by GM, Ford, or
>Chrysler in 30 years. I've been happy with my purchases. Many others
>have not. Its over for at least one, and possibly two of the Detroit
>companies.
Only if we don't try...
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:38 am
From: Dennis
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:21:14 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Face it - in 20 years will there be any of today's (affordable) cars in
>parades & car shows, except perhaps a few Mini Coopers or a Jeep? Does
>anyone really look back at their first car and wish they once again had
>that Civic, Caravan, Corolla, Prius, Malibu?
I do, but then my first car was a 1969 Mustang Mach I with 428 Cobra
Jet. Fun car -- but I still don't know how I survived it. ;-)
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:52 am
From: "Daniel T."
clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that 1/7th of the US
> > population works for three companies.
>
> You don't believe 22 billion people work in the domestic three auto
> companies?
Sure don't. According to wikipedia, GM employes 266,000 and it's the
biggest of the three by a wide margin (and AFAICT that number includes
employees outside the USA.)
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:00 am
From: "Daniel T."
edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:39:23 -0500, "Daniel T."
> <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > resale value has little/nothing to do with whether the company
> > exists.
>
> Have to disagree here.
We have a classic car sales dealership in my town... The fact that none
of the cars on the showroom are made anymore doesn't seem to hurt their
resale value...
> For starters, there will be little if any financing available.
> Default setting for a bank is going to be "we don't loan money on
> those". That will necessariy drive prices down.
Why do you think the banks would do that?
> > So if the warranty was guaranteed by the government?
>
> Actually that's the best thing the government could do because it
> would encourage sales. Our wonderful elected officials can't figure
> out that no amount of money they throw at the companies will save
> them unless people buy the cars.
>
> They ought to announce this as part of whatever it is they're going
> to do (if anything) rather than after the fact saying "oh, OK, GM's
> gone, we'll cover your warranties because we feel sorry for you.
IMHO, if a company is so big that the USA can't afford to let it go out
of business, it needs to be broken up into smaller companies.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:25 am
From: necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
><55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad474@cs.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
>>>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
>>>known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
>>>dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
>>
>>Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
>>"loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major manufacturing
>>facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
>>my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
>>closing its Atlanta assembly line.
>
>Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea. Talk about
>myopia.
So, should those 6000 people just salute the flag as they head for
their job at mcdonalds instead of taking a real job that will pay real
money?
>>Fuck Detroit. Fuck Wall Street. And Fuck Bush.
>
>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
Ummm, what do you think that Kia is doing?
>The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have here. Wonder
>why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our parents in
>the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today? Well, its
>because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make wealth -
>grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
>(manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done only in
>spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain it, as if
>our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
So, what's wrong with Kia having faith in US workers and US
manufacturing in general by locating their operations in a state that
Detroit abandoned?
--
"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..."
--George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:35 am
From: never@millions.com
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:25:16 -0500, necromancer
<55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
>><55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad474@cs.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
>>>>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
>>>>known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
>>>>dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
>>>
>>>Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
>>>"loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major manufacturing
>>>facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
>>>my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
>>>closing its Atlanta assembly line.
>>
>>Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea. Talk about
>>myopia.
>
>So, should those 6000 people just salute the flag as they head for
>their job at mcdonalds instead of taking a real job that will pay real
>money?
>
>>>Fuck Detroit. Fuck Wall Street. And Fuck Bush.
>>
>>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
>
>Ummm, what do you think that Kia is doing?
>
>>The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have here. Wonder
>>why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our parents in
>>the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today? Well, its
>>because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make wealth -
>>grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
>>(manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done only in
>>spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain it, as if
>>our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
>
>So, what's wrong with Kia having faith in US workers and US
>manufacturing in general by locating their operations in a state that
>Detroit abandoned?
The problem with the employment of people to produce automobiles:
They've saturated the market with stuff that is near obsolete by the
time the buyers drive off the sales lot.
DCI
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Customer suffering diarrhea shits herself because Jo-Ann Fabrics would
not let her use the bathroom.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3492db825691db70?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:22 am
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:05:08 -0800 (PST), ultimauw@gmail.com wrote:
>http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-customer-service-ever/jo+ann-fabrics-refuses-to-let-customer-use-bathroom-even-as-she-suffers-diarrhea-right-in-front-of-them-274441.php
Bwahahahahahahahhahaha!!!!!
I wouldn't let the beast shit up my restroom either!!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pennies on the street
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8ebb8d9fdd5bbd9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 9:44 am
From: ultimauw@live.com
On Dec 13, 5:02 pm, The Real Bev <bashley10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Macuser wrote:
> > For years, I saw lots of pennies on the side because they were no longer of
> > interest. Now, I hardly ever see them. It seems that people have returned to
> > picking up pennies. Do you pick up coins? I prefer they be five cents or
> > higher before I'll bend down.
>
> I'll pick up any coin if I'm walking, but I won't get off my bicycle for
> less than a nickel, and not even that if I have to stop in the middle of
> an intersection.
>
The problem with pennies is that they are almost worth nothing, and
any amount that would approach worth something (usually still less
than a dollar) takes up a lot of phy$ical space . The logistics
involved in carrying 20 or even 10 dollars worth of pennies is an
absolute a nightmare and will royally piss of the clerk who has to
handle them. It';s no wonder vending machines don't take pennies. In
fact, I am surprised that they still take nickels.
When you get stuck with pennies and nickels, better to save them in a
large jug, and periodically enter them into your savings account so at
least you have something should TSHTF.
> I once found a $10 bill in the gutter. Sure I picked it up.
>
> I used to pick up aluminum cans. When I had enough I turned them in and
> bought a nifty Miyata bicycle.
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 10:32 am
From: angelia_t@earthlink.net
On Dec 13, 6:55 pm, "Macuser" <spamisalunch...@meat.com> wrote:
> For years, I saw lots of pennies on the side because they were no longer of
> interest. Now, I hardly ever see them. It seems that people have returned topickinguppennies. Do you pickupcoins? I prefer they be five cents or
> higher before I'll bend down.
>
> --http://cashcuddler.com
>
> "Thrift is sexy."
On Memorial Day, my daughters & I decided we'd begin picking up every
discarded coin and bill in our paths, to see how much we collect in an
entire year.
YTD, Me: $12.26. YTD, Daughter 1: $40 (all at once) YTD, Daughter 2:
Approx. $30 (including 2 $10 bills found on separate nights, w/-in a
few feet of each other)
Hot Spots for Coins:
Hess parking lot, any time
Any parking lot, near the car's door and trunk area
Little to No Coins:
Mall, restaurant parking lots
I stop my bicycle for coins when I see them, but haven't found the $10
bills that my daughters have found yet. Now that we have become
accustomed to finding money everywhere we go, I'm much more aware of
the fact that most of these coins aren't "lost." I teach at a major
university, and I have noticed that students purposely ignore the
coins that they drop, almost as a statement of their financial
security.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Selling artwork in a bad market
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d3b0c99328f52aea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 11:37 am
From: "NotMe"
"Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
news:ebF0l.1310$c35.137@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
: Can anybody give me tips on selling original artwork in a bad market? I
: have a whole room full of work to deal with, and could use the tips. Most
: recently, an antique painting that was accepted by the Doyle gallery in
NYC
: for auction sold for less than half the appraised price. The auction
: happened to take place on the day the stock market fell 700 points, so
this
: probably affected the outcome. Just my luck.
:
: And what have you got?
:
This is geared more to the commercial side but the principles apply
everywhere.
A heads up:
Check out www.no-spec.com for some of what you'll run into on CL and what
other creative folk are doing to address the abuse.
Check out www.gag.org their handbook ($35 at most bookstores) is a gold
mine. Especially the section on contracts.
Good luck and don't let anyone sell you short.
As to fine art: We sell only first sale right (we retain all copyrights).
done that for over 40 years.
Aside from a skill set you need a decent business plan and a commitment to
stick to it.
==============================================================================
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