http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money. - 12 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
* best deal on pierogies? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc43036d45b8e16?hl=en
* US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/68e91027e48952d4?hl=en
* WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF STUCK GAS PEDAL Re: Motorists KILLED due to floor mat
jamming up gas pedal, including an odfficer and his family - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/beda867f55c92986?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 6:26 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
>>>>> murdering him.
>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>> my problem.
>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
>>>>> fully sink in.
>>>> It likely never will.
>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
>>>>> wrong.
>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
>>>> if you believe that.
>>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
>>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
>> You been eating moldy bread.....?
>>
>
> we have been thru this before. read the declaration, preamble, and
> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights to the people, not
> person, people.
>
>
>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>> the people.
>>
>
> correct, people, not person, but people. but the bill of rights is
> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
>
>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>
>
> that is a collective right, its a right for all. but that right has
> limits, such as liable, shouting fire, slander.
>
So it is for each person.
>
>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>> when we can just be one collective.
>
> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> rights, except if that right clash's with federal law, regulations, or
> treaties, then federal law trumps state law.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 6:48 pm
From: Buford Pusser
On Oct 7, 2:54 pm, "Fred B. Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Buford Pusser" <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c87e26bc-acfb-4707-bf2d-4d26110754ae@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 11:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> > Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> > tt
>
> Relax. It's just Obama fulfillng his promise to "spread the wealth for
> social justice". I need to head to Detroit with a truckload of MD
> 20/20,44ounce Shlitz malt likker,unfiltered Camel cigarettes,saturday
> night special throwdown pistols,ammunition,gold/rhinestone grilles,and
> fat ugly white ho's !! I could make a FORTUNE !!
>
> Need a partner? I'm looking to supplement my Social Security. <BFG>
Sure. Can you handle a shotgun?? We may have to shoot our way outta'
the place !!
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 6:51 pm
From: Buford Pusser
On Oct 7, 7:05 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > > On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> pal.
>
> > > You're not my pal.
>
> > I'm damned glad of that, "pal".
>
> > > Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
> > > humans.
>
> > It works just fine for humans.
>
> > Listen, "pal": you want to fork over what you can earn (if anything) to
> > deadbeats, that's your business. Just keep your grubby fucking mitts
> > off my wallet, got it? Stop trying to tell me what my moral obligations
> > are. You have no standing to tell me. Your moral views are fucked up,
> > but even if I thought they were acceptable, you *still* have no moral
> > standing to dictate to me morally. Got it, "pal"? Fuck off.
>
> but, if we decide, you still have to pay your taxes:)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unless you're Charlie Rangel.
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 7:04 pm
From: Marsha
Buford Pusser wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:05 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> pal.
>>>> You're not my pal.
>>> I'm damned glad of that, "pal".
>>>> Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
>>>> humans.
>>> It works just fine for humans.
>>> Listen, "pal": you want to fork over what you can earn (if anything) to
>>> deadbeats, that's your business. Just keep your grubby fucking mitts
>>> off my wallet, got it? Stop trying to tell me what my moral obligations
>>> are. You have no standing to tell me. Your moral views are fucked up,
>>> but even if I thought they were acceptable, you *still* have no moral
>>> standing to dictate to me morally. Got it, "pal"? Fuck off.
>> but, if we decide, you still have to pay your taxes:)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Unless you're Charlie Rangel.
Or just about anyone else Obama tried to get into his cabinet or czarness.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 7:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>
>> tt
>
> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> enough talk about Americans.
>
> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
Have fun explaining how come the participation rate peaked at an all time historic high
just before the fools completely imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
> when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
> Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
>
> Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
> It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
> move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
> places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
> of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
> post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
> Americans.
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 8:09 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
>>>> murdering him.
>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>>>
>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>>>
>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>> my problem.
>>>
>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
>>>> fully sink in.
>>> It likely never will.
>>>
>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
>>>> wrong.
>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
>>> if you believe that.
>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
>
>
>
> You been eating moldy bread.....?
>
> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> the people.
Of course. Collectives can't have rights.
> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>
> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> when we can just be one collective.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 8:16 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>> my problem.
>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
>> paramount. Deal with it.
>>
>>
>
> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
A union of individual states, not a collective.
>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
>>> rights.
>> A corporation is a legal person.
>>
>
> a corporation is a collective,
A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>
>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
>>> of others." You think?
>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>>
>
> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
> corporations to exist in the first place.
No, not the government.
>
>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
>>> grants from governments.
>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>>
>
> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
End the subsidy.
> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>
>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>>
>
> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
It's not stupid.
>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>>
>
> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>>> I don't have the right to
>>> clean air and water?
>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>>
>
> that is not what the constitution says.
It is.
> it says to promote and
> provide for the general welfare of americans.
That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>>> What are you saying?
>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>>
>
> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
or services. They *don't* have any such right.
"Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
>>> make it easier.
>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
>> that's too bad for them.
>
> yea, let the humans die.
Everyone dies.
> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>>
>>
>
>
> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
> authority,
No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
should be.
>
>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>>
>
> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
No.
>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
>>> increases,
>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
>> shoot him dead.
>>
>
> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
Not what I said.
>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>
> you can lack empathy,
I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
feel it.
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 8:20 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>> tt
>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
>>> ignorant.
>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>>
>
> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
You're just a liar.
>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
>> No.
>>
>
>
> yes.
No.
>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>>
>
>
> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
wage you might wish.
>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
>> everything else in their lives...
>>
>
>
> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
No.
>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
>> there.
>>
>
> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
Yes.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 8:23 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
>>>>> murdering him.
>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>> my problem.
>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
>>>>> fully sink in.
>>>> It likely never will.
>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
>>>>> wrong.
>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
>>>> if you believe that.
>>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
>>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
>> You been eating moldy bread.....?
>>
>
> we have been thru this before.
You got it wrong then, too.
> read the declaration, preamble, and
> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
> to the people, not
> person, people.
Individual persons.
>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>> the people.
>>
>
> correct, people, not person, but people.
Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
> but the bill of rights is
> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
>
>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>
>
> that is a collective right,
It is not.
>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>> when we can just be one collective.
>
> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> rights,
States do not have rights. States have powers. People - individual
persons - have rights.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 9:39 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 7, 7:54 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>> tt
> >>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>>>> enough talk about Americans.
> >>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
> >>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> >>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> >>> murdering him.
> >> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
> >> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
> >> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>
> >>> Collectivist bullshit?
> >> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
> >> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
> >> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
> >> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
> >> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
> >> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
> >> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>
> >>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> >>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> >>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> >>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
> >> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >> my problem.
>
> >>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> >>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> >>> fully sink in.
> >> It likely never will.
>
> >>> What I do know is the difference between right and
> >>> wrong.
> >> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
> >> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
> >> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
> >> if you believe that.
>
> > the founders were collectivists,
>
> Absolutely they were not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 9:40 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 7, 8:26 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>>>> tt
> >>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
> >>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
> >>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> >>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> >>>>> murdering him.
> >>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
> >>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
> >>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
> >>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
> >>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
> >>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
> >>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
> >>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
> >>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
> >>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
> >>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
> >>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> >>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> >>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> >>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
> >>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>> my problem.
> >>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> >>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> >>>>> fully sink in.
> >>>> It likely never will.
> >>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
> >>>>> wrong.
> >>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
> >>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
> >>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
> >>>> if you believe that.
> >>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
> >>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
> >> You been eating moldy bread.....?
>
> > we have been thru this before. read the declaration, preamble, and
> > the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights to the people, not
> > person, people.
>
> >> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> >> the people.
>
> > correct, people, not person, but people. but the bill of rights is
> > not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> > says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> > well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
> >> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> >> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>
> > that is a collective right, its a right for all. but that right has
> > limits, such as liable, shouting fire, slander.
>
> So it is for each person.
>
>
its for all citizens, it does not say persons, it says people. if it
says individual people, then that can be a limit on who gets its. its
stated people.
>
> >> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> >> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> >> when we can just be one collective.
>
> > i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> > rights, except if that right clash's with federal law, regulations, or
> > treaties, then federal law trumps state law.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 9:41 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 7, 8:51 pm, Buford Pusser <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:05 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > > > On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> pal.
>
> > > > You're not my pal.
>
> > > I'm damned glad of that, "pal".
>
> > > > Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
> > > > humans.
>
> > > It works just fine for humans.
>
> > > Listen, "pal": you want to fork over what you can earn (if anything) to
> > > deadbeats, that's your business. Just keep your grubby fucking mitts
> > > off my wallet, got it? Stop trying to tell me what my moral obligations
> > > are. You have no standing to tell me. Your moral views are fucked up,
> > > but even if I thought they were acceptable, you *still* have no moral
> > > standing to dictate to me morally. Got it, "pal"? Fuck off.
>
> > but, if we decide, you still have to pay your taxes:)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Unless you're Charlie Rangel.
i do not care who you are, if you owe, you owe.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: best deal on pierogies?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc43036d45b8e16?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 6:55 pm
From: "Lou"
I wouldn't characterize making them as easy - like anything, you get better
with practice, but making a batch big enough for a family meal with enough
left over for freezing can easily consume an afternoon. Homemade are far
better than any I've ever seen in a store, though.
The other point is that "pierogies" is a barbarism - I don't care how often
or from how many sources you see it. "Pierogi" is the plural - if you have
just one, it is a "pierog".
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 7:21 pm
From: barbie gee
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Lou wrote:
> I wouldn't characterize making them as easy - like anything, you get better
> with practice, but making a batch big enough for a family meal with enough
> left over for freezing can easily consume an afternoon. Homemade are far
> better than any I've ever seen in a store, though.
>
> The other point is that "pierogies" is a barbarism - I don't care how often
> or from how many sources you see it. "Pierogi" is the plural - if you have
> just one, it is a "pierog".
yup and yup.
Making pierogi is much like making tamales; best accomplished with many
hands in the kitchen, and takes an afternoon at least.
I've given up trying to educate people on the finer points of Polish food
names. Try to explain Golabki vs. golabek (and I can't find the "a with a
tail" character), or kolaczki vs. kolaczek.
In chicago, best bets are to get them from local Polish Deli's. We have a
few brands that come out of Chicago, as well. Kasia's are good, and they
have meat and kraut ones. Don't know if they've made it outside the
Chicago area, however. We pay anywhere from $2.99 to $3.99 a pound, at
least.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 7:44 pm
From: jeff
Azz Pizz wrote:
> "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in
> news:hX6zm.17902$ma7.416@newsfe04.iad:
>
>> Anyway, I LOVE pierogies, but I'm not sure what is considered a good
>> deal
>> on them any more, and would appreciate some pointers.
>
>
> Lol I just had some! My mom bakes them instead of frying, and somehow it's
> less fat. Doesn't taste that way though!
So does my girlfriend. Seemed a little odd at first, but they taste
fine. I do like the caramelized onions (which is not a byproduct of
baking), and some sour cream...
Jeff
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/68e91027e48952d4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 7:11 pm
From: "Sanders Kaufman"
"martin" <martin.secrest220@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c6c00f5-c08b-441b-b57f-bd0edf11d4dd@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 11:51 am, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk) wrote:
>> "be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
>> --sT. Augustine
>> to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
>
> Some are suggesting a DOW of 6,500 by late December.
Those are the same folks who predicted that Sarah Palin would win, and who
celebrated when the US lost the Olympics.
I wouldn't take their predictions too seriously.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF STUCK GAS PEDAL Re: Motorists KILLED due to floor
mat jamming up gas pedal, including an odfficer and his family
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/beda867f55c92986?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 10:31 pm
From: zeez
enough wrote:
> If this happens to you, the best thing to do is throw the car in
> NEUTRAL, so you keep your power brakes and steering, failing that,
> turn off the ignition (note, the Lexus with push button Start requires
> you to hold down the button for a few seconds to shut off the engine)
==============================================================================
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