http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a year -
12 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
* Obama gets it! Oil is FINITE, regardless of current price. - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b131e99a30a9010?hl=en
* Auto Insurance Center - Auto Insurance Quote - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7cfcd444e16ebe51?hl=en
* Doorbell always uses electricity! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
* Filling a reusable water bottle at fast food restaraunts - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bcc797f1909c12d9?hl=en
* Get Cash Back At Ebay - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3a6533836f4916c2?hl=en
* 50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53568b9fdc824ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a
year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 9:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Truly Stunned <violin@thebridgeofsighs.sad> wrote:
> In article <iCHVk.832$ve.264@newsfe23.iad>,
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore -
>>
>> UAW employees also receive the following extraordinary provisions:
>>
>> * 30-and-Out contracts. UAW employees work under a 30-and-Out
>> contract that allows them to retire with generous pension
>> benefits after 30 years on the job, irrespective of age.
>> * Seven weeks' vacation. A Chrysler worker with 15 years' tenure
>> was entitled to 34.5 paid holidays and vacation days in
>> 2006--seven weeks in paid time off. This is three weeks more
>> paid vacation
>> than the average private sector
>> worker with similar tenure.
>> * Paid not to work. Under UAW contracts, workers whom the
>> automakers let go when plants close are not laid off. Instead,
>> after exhausting regular unemployment payments from the
>> automakers and the government, they are transferred to a JOBS
>> bank where they are paid nearly full wages to not work.
> Hmm. Did the unions negotiate in a vacuum?
> What weapon was held to the head of the manufacturers to force them to agree to these terms?
The weapon of not getting any cars made to sell.
> Perhaps the Big Three were not interested in the long-term effects
> of their negotiations because they knew if the day came when their
> companies were truly threatened, they could simply declare bankruptcy
> (if the government refused to fund their shortsightedness) and walk away.
Unlikely.
> Meanwhile there was all that money to be made crushing electric vehicles.
Mindless silly stuff.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:08 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Get over the bullshit son. If the UAW was gone today, the big three
still would not have cars that people want to buy.
In <wvIVk.833$ve.546@newsfe23.iad>, on 11/21/2008
at 07:37 PM, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> said:
>TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>The problem is a Big 3 management failure. Not a worker failure.
>>Furthermore, you are using the total per hour labor cost that is given
>>out. That includes current workers and retirees. Using it as a current
>>worker number -- as you guys are doing, is spinning the facts to suite the
>>nonsense.
>>
>>The problem will not be changed by whining.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>It's a management failure to the point that they have always bowed to
>the UAW in fear of strikes.
>When GM controlled the market, the UAW shared in the wealth. Now that
>GM's share has tanked, the UAW need to take some serious cuts in
>benefits to get into line with the market..
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:37 am
From: Marsha
Snowbound wrote:
> In article <gg4t3b$76f$1@news.datemas.de>, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> The subject was health benefits for union workers to cover abortion
>> (among other things), to which you gave an idiotic response.
>
> Your advocacy of outlawing abortion only for women who can't afford to
> travel someplace where it is safe and legal is worse.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? I didn't say that.
>It is a direct throwback to the days of slavery, the closest this land has ever been to
> enforced abortion. You would condemn the entire nation into being a
> prison for women simply to enforce your anti-empirical policies, usually
> based on religious faith. Then you would staunchly ignore the very pain
> and suffering you cultivated, claiming "they" have no right to your
> greedy prosperity.
Slavery? Apples and oranges. You insult African-Americans with that
statement. Aren't anti-life women the same ones who supposedly "own"
their bodies, hence their choice. If they own their bodies, they should
take more responsibility for not getting pregnant. And please don't
throw in the tired old argument about rape and incest. That accounts
for what, 0.05% if truth be told? Did you know that many women who get
an abortion are repeaters? What a nice way to control the population.
And why do you assume that my opinion on abortion is based on religious
faith?
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:49 am
From: clams_casino
TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>Get over the bullshit son. If the UAW was gone today, the big three
>still would not have cars that people want to buy.
>
>
>
>
Considering GM still has 25% of the US market, how can you say that?
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:50 am
From: "Evelyn"
"Snowbound" <loosebowels@ixnay.invalid> wrote in message
news:loosebowels-096E74.22291421112008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <gg4t3b$76f$1@news.datemas.de>, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> The subject was health benefits for union workers to cover abortion
>> (among other things), to which you gave an idiotic response.
>
> People like you should count your blessings. You could live under an
> enforced abortion regime, which this country has never seen. Plenty of
> regimes have been, though.
>
> Your advocacy of outlawing abortion only for women who can't afford to
> travel someplace where it is safe and legal is worse. It is a direct
> throwback to the days of slavery, the closest this land has ever been to
> enforced abortion. You would condemn the entire nation into being a
> prison for women simply to enforce your anti-empirical policies, usually
> based on religious faith. Then you would staunchly ignore the very pain
> and suffering you cultivated, claiming "they" have no right to your
> greedy prosperity.
>
> There has NEVER been any just law based solely on any religious faith,
> never in the all the history of mankind. It is essential to peace that
> any church or organized faith seriously attempting to intervene in the
> laws of man be buried by the fury of those they would enslave.
> Christian, Muslim, Jew, all the same. Piety is only real when it is
> humble and hopeful. Real faith forever shuns worldly ambition, all else
> is corrupt and false.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment.
But those who would do these things, will never learn.
Sorry if I sound somewhat pessimistic, but this abortion issue was decided
fairly many years ago with roe v. wade and the religious wackos have been
trying to overturn it ever since. Hopefully they will continue to fail to
do so. Not that abortion is a good thing, but it must remain legal. I
remember the days when it wasn't. People died, did great damage to
themselves, took risks and worse, seeking illegal assistance for their
plight.
--
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(Our) enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship,
cupidity, hatred and discrimination, which lie within the heart of man." --
Thich Nhat Hanh
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 6:52 am
From: Daniel
On Nov 21, 5:51 pm, BE-VA <blackwater-evangal...@testland.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:57:39 -0800 (PST), Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 9:34 pm, BE-VA <blackwater-evangal...@testland.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:23:55 -0800 (PST), Daniel
>
> >> <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >> In <96c903fc-9181-4782-a256-6a80cc40e...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, on
> >> >> 11/18/2008
> >> >> at 01:32 PM, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >> >> >On Nov 18, 1:29 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >> >> You people need to do some homework. The so-called $73 ph, is not cash.
> >> >> >> it includes benefits and retirement costs.
> >> >> >Which is STILL too much money for an unskilled laborer that does nothing
> >> >> >more than hold a tool.
>
> >> >> Do your homework. Its not unskilled labor anymore.
>
> >> >Your job consists of holding a tool that does all the work for you.
> >> >That by itself is the definition of unskilled. If you don't like it,
> >> >tough.
>
> >> While I agree with you with regards to pay for work done I don't agree
> >> with your premise -- by your premise a military pilot flying a 25
> >> million dollar aircraft is unskilled labor since all he does is sit in
> >> the cockpit and pull levers and push buttons.
>
> >Except that pilot has a 4 year college education, and at least a year
> >of flight school to learn to fly said aircraft, and does it for far
> >less than the toothess goober that holds the machine to tighten lug
> >nuts.
>
> Never the less he is what you said is an unskilled worker because, in
> most modern day aircraft, the pilot is only there to make sure that
> the take-off and landing are performed properly. Everything else is
> done by the machine.
Never flown a fighter jet I see.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 6:53 am
From: Daniel
On Nov 21, 6:13 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> I read it goober. It did not state there $103K per year -- unskilled
> laborers -- causing the problem. And that point is what the thread is
> about.
Actually, It does. The unions are the problem, hence the unskilled
goobers like you, are the problem.
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 7:02 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Stop trolling goober. GM is not making cars that people want to buy.
Its common knowledge to everyone with a working brain.
In <36UVk.23959$9Z6.7793@newsfe01.iad>, on 11/22/2008
at 08:49 AM, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> said:
>TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>Get over the bullshit son. If the UAW was gone today, the big three
>>still would not have cars that people want to buy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Considering GM still has 25% of the US market, how can you say that?
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 7:25 am
From: clams_casino
TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>Stop trolling goober. GM is not making cars that people want to buy.
>Its common knowledge to everyone with a working brain.
>
>
>
>
>
While I will likely never again consider a GM product and probably not a
Chrysler or Ford product, GM is still outselling Toyota (albeit by a
slim and shrinking margin) in the US.
To say NO ONE wants a domestic manufacturer's car is ludicrous - about
40% of the trucks / cars sold in the US are made by Ford, Chrysler or GM.
Granted, it's a shrinking number, but it's still quite substantial.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 8:21 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Move along asshole. You have proven yourself incapable of learning or
thinking clearly. Its a trait common to right wingers.
In <2aa73730-98e3-44f4-ab35-cdfbee010e42@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, on
11/22/2008
at 06:53 AM, Daniel <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> said:
>On Nov 21, 6:13 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
>> I read it goober. It did not state there $103K per year -- unskilled
>> laborers -- causing the problem. And that point is what the thread is
>> about.
>Actually, It does. The unions are the problem, hence the unskilled
>goobers like you, are the problem.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 9:22 am
From: Daniel
On Nov 22, 11:21 am, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> Move along asshole. You have proven yourself incapable of learning or
> thinking clearly. Its a trait common to right wingers.
Translation: I have been beaten down by my betters, so now I will just
foam at the mouth.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 9:44 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Once again for the right wing asshole:
" Move along asshole. You have proven yourself incapable of learning or
thinking clearly. Its a trait common to right wingers."
-->You proved it when you deleated the text of the post!
The fact is, big 3 management is the source of the problem. That you are
too stupid to admit that, shows us that you here to troll and play stupid,
instead of learning -- which all you right wigners need to be doing after
the election results.
In <577ae01f-9118-4374-8fb9-28e44c6c07ca@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, on
11/22/2008
at 09:22 AM, Daniel <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> said:
>On Nov 22, 11:21 am, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Move along asshole. You have proven yourself incapable of learning or
>> thinking clearly. Its a trait common to right wingers.
>Translation: I have been beaten down by my betters, so now I will just
>foam at the mouth.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama gets it! Oil is FINITE, regardless of current price.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b131e99a30a9010?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 12:33 am
From: Michael Coburn
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:03:37 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:36 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:52:18 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
>> > On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> >> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during
>> >> >>>> a 60 Minutes interview:
>> >> >>>> [quote]
>> >> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there
>> >> >>>> were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were
>> >> >>>> held on energy independence. Now you've got the price of oil
>> >> >>>> under $60. Mr. Obama: Right.
>> >> >>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>> >> >> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you
>> >> >> actually are.
>>
>> >> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead
>> >> > as you actually are.
>>
>> >> Your mind is closed.
>>
>> > My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>>
>> >> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in oil prices.
>>
>> > Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>
>> > Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
>> > under $60," which is a blatant lie.
>>
>> And you and I an others also have the price of oil under $60. There is
>> no implication that we _caused_ it. But we HAVE it.
>>
>> > Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>> > You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
>> > that is a lie.
>>
>> > I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
>>
>> Sounds like a religious problem.
>>
>> >> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
>> >> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>> >> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>>
>> > Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
>> > why does O'bama agree?
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>> >> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more
>> >> than
>> >> $100,000.
>>
>> > Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
>> > subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
>>
>> Obama won the vote of just about all segments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such
>> >> >> implication
>> >> >> was made:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >> Kroft: Why?
>>
>> >> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from
>> >> >> shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the
>> >> >> pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then
>> >> >> the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not
>> >> >> important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.
>>
>> >> This is absolutely accurate.
>>
>> > Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
>> > credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but
>> > my tank is full before doing so.
>>
>> My debit card shuts off at $500. But I usually pay cash for the gas.
>> And the need for alternative fuels is more important that the soaring
>> and plunging price of gasoline.
>>
>> >> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of
>> >> >> the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time
>> >> >> to break it.
>>
>> >> >> [end quote]
>>
>> >> >> Jeff
>>
>> >> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>> >> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>
>> >> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>>
>> > I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
>> > it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
>>
>> George Bush can tell 2 contradictory lies in the same breath and
>> believe both of them.
>>
>> >> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>>
>> > He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
>> > it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
>>
>> Good point. It would be long because Bush and the Republicans need it
>> to be long.
>>
>> >> Was it the ownership society?
>> >> Was that we would get binLaden?
>> >> Was it that the economy is strong?
>> >> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>
>> >> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of
>> >> the
>> >> government.
>>
>> > In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
>> > won't try anything underhanded like that.
>>
>> > I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs
>> > back then. Do you?
>>
>> I remember those days and I did very well, thank you.
>
> I didn't do very well.
Were you part of the work force at that time? I'm 63.
>> Wages were
>> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
>> were a very small part of their living expenses.
>
> You're funny. My older sister and her husband bought a house and paid
> 14% mortgage interest.
That was 79 0r 80 as Volcker applied the screws to the economy, and more
than likely it was 1980.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
>> But the Republicans
>> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>
> It was a bad economy manifested by high unemployment, lask of jobs and
> high inflation.
High inflation yes.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
And the unemployment spike was caused by the troops coming home from
Vietnam. The impact from Iraq homecoming will be significantly less.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
> "It's the Economy, Stupid" and "It's theWorst Economy Ever!"
The 70's were very good think you.
> That is what sunk the first Bush. And they were lies.
>
> And your memory is faulty.
I do not just count on my memory. I have the data also. Maybe you
should take another look at that unemployment data.
>> >> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that
>> >> he is
>> >> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>>
>> > He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
>> > back for Hillary's gain?
>>
>> No.
>
> Their handler told them not to do that.
>
> Change my ass. We're going to get 8 more years of the Clinton
> administration.
Very, very unlikely. But it would be a vast improvement over the BUSH
years.
>> >> > I understand where you are coming from.
>>
>> >> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>
>> >> Jeff
>>
>> > I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly
>> > Curmudgeon, your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly
>> > categorize your misguided opinions as lies.
>>
>> I don't categorize yours as lies either.
>
> Squirrelly Curmudgeon does.
>
>> Where does that leave you.
>> Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
>
> Thank you. We also have Squirrelly Curmudgeon who doesn't engage in
> honest dialog, and Brock who will go against his core beliefs just to
> have an argument with me.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 4:29 am
From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com
On Nov 22, 3:33 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:03:37 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 11:36 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:52:18 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> >> > On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during
> >> >> >>>> a 60 Minutes interview:
> >> >> >>>> [quote]
> >> >> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there
> >> >> >>>> were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were
> >> >> >>>> held on energy independence. Now you've got the price of oil
> >> >> >>>> under $60. Mr. Obama: Right.
> >> >> >>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
> >> >> >> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you
> >> >> >> actually are.
>
> >> >> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead
> >> >> > as you actually are.
>
> >> >> Your mind is closed.
>
> >> > My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>
> >> >> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in oil prices.
>
> >> > Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> >> > Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
> >> > under $60," which is a blatant lie.
>
> >> And you and I an others also have the price of oil under $60. There is
> >> no implication that we _caused_ it. But we HAVE it.
>
> >> > Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
>
> >> You are an idiot.
>
> >> > You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
> >> > that is a lie.
>
> >> > I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
>
> >> Sounds like a religious problem.
>
> >> >> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
> >> >> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
> >> >> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>
> >> > Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
> >> > why does O'bama agree?
>
> >> You are an idiot.
>
> >> >> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more
> >> >> than
> >> >> $100,000.
>
> >> > Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
> >> > subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
>
> >> Obama won the vote of just about all segments.
>
> >> >> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such
> >> >> >> implication
> >> >> >> was made:
>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> Kroft: Why?
>
> >> >> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from
> >> >> >> shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the
> >> >> >> pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then
> >> >> >> the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not
> >> >> >> important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.
>
> >> >> This is absolutely accurate.
>
> >> > Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
> >> > credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but
> >> > my tank is full before doing so.
>
> >> My debit card shuts off at $500. But I usually pay cash for the gas.
> >> And the need for alternative fuels is more important that the soaring
> >> and plunging price of gasoline.
>
> >> >> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of
> >> >> >> the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time
> >> >> >> to break it.
>
> >> >> >> [end quote]
>
> >> >> >> Jeff
>
> >> >> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
> >> >> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>
> >> >> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>
> >> > I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
> >> > it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> >> George Bush can tell 2 contradictory lies in the same breath and
> >> believe both of them.
>
> >> >> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> >> > He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
> >> > it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
>
> >> Good point. It would be long because Bush and the Republicans need it
> >> to be long.
>
> >> >> Was it the ownership society?
> >> >> Was that we would get binLaden?
> >> >> Was it that the economy is strong?
> >> >> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>
> >> >> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of
> >> >> the
> >> >> government.
>
> >> > In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
> >> > won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> >> > I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs
> >> > back then. Do you?
>
> >> I remember those days and I did very well, thank you.
>
> > I didn't do very well.
>
> Were you part of the work force at that time? I'm 63.
Yes.
> >> Wages were
> >> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
> >> were a very small part of their living expenses.
>
> > You're funny. My older sister and her husband bought a house and paid
> > 14% mortgage interest.
>
> That was 79 0r 80 as Volcker applied the screws to the economy, and more
> than likely it was 1980.http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
Jimmy Carter came to visit me in Korea and they made us keep our M16s
locked in the armory. Years later the first Bush came to visit me in
Somalia and we were all armed to the teeth. Some presidents like the
military and trusted us. Others didn't.
> >> But the Republicans
> >> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>
> > It was a bad economy manifested by high unemployment, lask of jobs and
> > high inflation.
>
> High inflation yes.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
>
> And the unemployment spike was caused by the troops coming home from
> Vietnam. The impact from Iraq homecoming will be significantly less.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
I had an impossible time finding employment in Ohio after my first
enlistment.
> > "It's the Economy, Stupid" and "It's theWorst Economy Ever!"
>
> The 70's were very good think you.
I don't think that. It would be like me saying 2008 was a good year.
> > That is what sunk the first Bush. And they were lies.
>
> > And your memory is faulty.
>
> I do not just count on my memory. I have the data also. Maybe you
> should take another look at that unemployment data.
My personal experience is enough. It's like when Brock tells me I
didn't pay what I say I paid for just filling up my tank of gas.
Anyway, I went back to school and got a degree. By then the economy
was improved, but it was a rough go pulling out of the Carter
recession.
> >> >> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that
> >> >> he is
> >> >> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> >> > He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
> >> > back for Hillary's gain?
>
> >> No.
>
> > Their handler told them not to do that.
>
> > Change my ass. We're going to get 8 more years of the Clinton
> > administration.
>
> Very, very unlikely.
Barack isn't installing all the familiar faces in his cabinet?
> But it would be a vast improvement over the BUSH
> years.
Economically? Probably.
> >> >> > I understand where you are coming from.
>
> >> >> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>
> >> >> Jeff
>
> >> > I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly
> >> > Curmudgeon, your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly
> >> > categorize your misguided opinions as lies.
>
> >> I don't categorize yours as lies either.
>
> > Squirrelly Curmudgeon does.
>
> >> Where does that leave you.
> >> Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
>
> > Thank you. We also have Squirrelly Curmudgeon who doesn't engage in
> > honest dialog, and Brock who will go against his core beliefs just to
> > have an argument with me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Auto Insurance Center - Auto Insurance Quote
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7cfcd444e16ebe51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 4:15 am
From: DARPANA
Auto Insurance Center offers low rates on automobile insurance. The
auto insurance companies we represent have continually earned ...
http://www.autoinsurancequotesnews.blogspot.com
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:52 am
From: clams_casino
DARPANA wrote:
>Auto Insurance Center offers low rates on automobile insurance. The
>auto insurance companies we represent have continually earned ...
>http://www.autoinsurancequotesnews.scam.com
>
>
Hmm - insurance from India. I wonder how easy it will be to settle
claims via India?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doorbell always uses electricity!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 4:55 am
From: KLS
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:26:03 -0600, Jim Redelfs
<jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>In article <n8gei49665vdmgsfjo2vd7kqpcm21isl3c@4ax.com>,
> KLS <xymergy@suds.com> wrote:
>
>>> You could have saved yourself a lot of time, effort and money
>>> by simply turning-off the transformer and removing the
>>> doorbell button. Let 'em KNOCK.
>
>> Nice idea
>
>Thank-you.
>
>> but there are situations where that just won't
>> suffice: what about people who live up on the
>> third floor of a big house
>
>Post a sign: "Knock LOUDLY!"
>
>> or who are deaf
>
>Post a sign: "Knock REALLY LOUDLY!"
You must not know any deaf people personally. Your ignorance is
showing.
>> and need lights to flash when someone rings?
>
>That's a good question. How did these unfortunate people manage before
>electricity? After all, it's doing WITHOUT all these annoying and
>unnecessary conveniences that will save the planet.
They survived by being cut off from the world, basically, and
certainly not by choice.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 5:38 am
From: "hallerb@aol.com"
On Nov 22, 7:55�am, KLS <xyme...@suds.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:26:03 -0600, Jim Redelfs
>
>
>
>
>
> <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
> >In article <n8gei49665vdmgsfjo2vd7kqpcm21is...@4ax.com>,
> > KLS <xyme...@suds.com> wrote:
>
> >>> You could have saved yourself a lot of time, effort and money
> >>> by simply turning-off the transformer and removing the
> >>> doorbell button. �Let 'em KNOCK.
>
> >> Nice idea
>
> >Thank-you.
>
> >> but there are situations where that just won't
> >> suffice: what about people who live up on the
> >> third floor of a big house
>
> >Post a sign: �"Knock LOUDLY!"
>
> >> or who are deaf
>
> >Post a sign: �"Knock REALLY LOUDLY!"
>
> You must not know any deaf people personally. �Your ignorance is
> showing.
>
> >> and need lights to flash when someone rings? �
>
> >That's a good question. �How did these unfortunate people manage before
> >electricity? �After all, it's doing WITHOUT all these annoying and
> >unnecessary conveniences that will save the planet.
>
> They survived by being cut off from the world, basically, and
> certainly not by choice. �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sad.........
you could install a small crank generator, to power whatever
annuciator you want.
or get a dog, our bell rarely rings, dog knows somone is coming before
they are near the house.
dog helps keep my feet warm at night.
always happy to see me arrive home.
often nicer and friendlier than my wife:(
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Filling a reusable water bottle at fast food restaraunts
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bcc797f1909c12d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 7:11 am
From: "Daniel T."
On Nov 21, 8:47 pm, piclist...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am on the road often and rely on bottled water that I keep in my
> car.
> I have had enough with the cost and environmental impact. I plan on
> getting one of those 32-oz nalgene bottles. I would like to fill it up
> at the soda machines with water at fast food places I visit for lunch.
> 32oz should last me all day and allow me to save on bottled water. I
> often skip a drink anyway at lunch places and ask for a paper cup for
> free water.
>
> For some reason I think I would feel strange bringing in my own
> Nalgene bottles and filling it with water from the tap on the soda
> machine. Concerned that they may think I am taking soda without paying
> for it.
> Do any of you bring your own water bottle to fast food places?
Sure, it's no big deal. If you feel strange about it though, you can
refill your bottle in the bathroom from the sink. It's the same water
after all.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 7:37 am
From: George
piclistguy@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am on the road often and rely on bottled water that I keep in my
> car.
> I have had enough with the cost and environmental impact. I plan on
> getting one of those 32-oz nalgene bottles. I would like to fill it up
> at the soda machines with water at fast food places I visit for lunch.
> 32oz should last me all day and allow me to save on bottled water. I
> often skip a drink anyway at lunch places and ask for a paper cup for
> free water.
>
> For some reason I think I would feel strange bringing in my own
> Nalgene bottles and filling it with water from the tap on the soda
> machine. Concerned that they may think I am taking soda without paying
> for it.
> Do any of you bring your own water bottle to fast food places?
> Thanks
Maybe do what I do. I have large insulated jugs that I fill with water.
In warmer weather I add ice. Then I fill the smaller bottles as
necessary. I started doing this to fill the water bottles on our bikes
and just do it as a matter of habit when leaving the house. I have two
large jugs. I use the larger of the two when multiple people will need it.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 8:32 am
From: "www.Queensbridge.us"
On Nov 21, 8:47 pm, piclist...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am on the road often and rely on bottled water that I keep in my
> car.
> I have had enough with the cost and environmental impact. I plan on
> getting one of those 32-oz nalgene bottles. I would like to fill it up
> at the soda machines with water at fast food places I visit for lunch.
> 32oz should last me all day and allow me to save on bottled water. I
> often skip a drink anyway at lunch places and ask for a paper cup for
> free water.
>
> For some reason I think I would feel strange bringing in my own
> Nalgene bottles and filling it with water from the tap on the soda
> machine. Concerned that they may think I am taking soda without paying
> for it.
> Do any of you bring your own water bottle to fast food places?
> Thanks
In the summer when we leave apartment here in NYC,
we take a bottle out of the freezer that is 3/4 ice.
We top off with water.
During the day as we use washroom at various places we refill in the
washroom.
If there is a water cooler, we refill there.
-
Want to set up many photo albums, with many levels of security?
http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=jyt6FA46W3kDo
link will save you $5 on Smugmug.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 9:09 am
From: Dennis
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:37:46 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
> I have two
>large jugs. I use the larger of the two when multiple people will need it.
Must...control...quip...of...death...
Phew, that was close!
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Get Cash Back At Ebay
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3a6533836f4916c2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 8:20 am
From: "eforce.ws"
Just wanted to let you know about a FREE website that pays us cash
back every time we buy something on eBay.
BigCrumbs has been around for over 2 years and eBay members have
earned cash back on millions of dollars in purchases.
We can also get cash back at other top retailers and earn extra cash
when other people shop.
Just use the link below to check it out and let me know what you
think.
http://www.bigcrumbs.com/crumbs/frontpage.jsp?r=tr8dergal
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 9:15 am
From: clams_casino
eforce.ws wrote:
>
>Just use the link below to check it out and let me know what you
>think.
>
>
>
>
I think you are a scummy scammer.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53568b9fdc824ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2008 8:41 am
From: ed wolf
On 20 Nov., 21:07, George wrote:
> And we should give a shit about this why?
Why indeed,
but I think it is very interesting to see what different
perspectives and attitudes do to the same test results.
If say Mattell Inc wants to know which model Barbie
will be next they might find parents want the brown one,
and kids the pink. If you are interested what is considered
"cute" in which group of people, it might be a hint.
Maybe lighter skin is a signal like physical proportions of
babies, or pups, and triggers that smile- and cuddle- response.
Nothing more behind it, probably, but in a society dominated
by whites impossible to find out what exactly causes it.
If any racist wants to use these old result again, so what.
You cant stop them by reasoning, anyway.
ed
==============================================================================
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
