http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* There is no "right" to health care - 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* How can I keep deer out of garden. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8932179d88bf6665?hl=en
* How to get rid of a roommate? - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
* cheap property in WV,KY,NC,TN? DATA SITE - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3a7cd02ab7dfe59e?hl=en
* 2012 forcast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e6d8859d25e5ef7b?hl=en
* recover heat from clothes dryer? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b147b338ff73f881?hl=en
* remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders were
really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
* converting mm measurements to american standard - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/016cd728ee0594ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 6:27 pm
From: tmclone
> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> > In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
> > might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
> > doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
> > to stop providing them.
>
> > You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> > TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> > "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> > pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> > voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
> > That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
Wrong. In the USA, all people have the "right" to a free, publicly-
provided
education. Educating the population is considered "necessary", so it
is a
"right". How the hell is healthcare any different? That the USA
doesn't have
universal, free healthcare for all, funded by taxes is shameful. We
are
supposedly the "greatest country on earth" yet we can't provide
healthcare
to all our citizens. We rank behind Cuba on healthcare. Pathetic. The
idea
of "for profit" healthcare is insane. It ought to be illegal.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 6:55 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
Geopinion <walkmar@easystreet.net> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, John Q Public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-10 15:20:30 -0400, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> said:
>> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:50:01 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 9, 5:42 pm, Geopinion <walk...@easystreet.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> >>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>> >>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>> >>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>> >>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>> >>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> >>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> >>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>> >>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> >>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>> >>>>> poorly. That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>> >>>> There is a right to health care if we, the people, decide there is. We
>> >>>> aren't limited to rights specifically outlined in the Constitution,
>> >>>> but are assumed to possess a whole host of unenumerated rights. It is
>> >>>> also within our power to decide that there are rights and policies
>> >>>> that serve the greater good, and there is nothing in the constitution
>> >>>> that prohibits that.
>> >> Where is your "right" to force me to into your health care?
>> >> Try amendment 9, your rights don't supersede my rights.
>> > We have the right to protect ourselves from your ingrained stupidity and
>> > the damage it causes us.
>> Your a fucking idiot, your socialist policies you love are what got us
>> to this point, the free market
>> is the only solution, its not perfect and it doesn't provide your so
>> called social justice but in the
>> end it always be more efficient and fair than any other system- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>The free market assumes several things: that everyone has sufficient
>information to make a choice, that choices are not made under duress,
>and that choices are available. It also assumes that the consumer has
>the power to simply not make a choice at all - do without - as a way
>of forcing the market to respond.
Absolutely. The free market assumes these things and they're necessary
for it to work its magic, to keep prices as low as possible, to ensure
provision of the goods and services needed and in the proportion
necessary, and to provide the freedom to choose (a good in and of
itself). The problem is that no one empowers the consumer, forces the
providers to compete, and forces the consumer to find out about the
options available to him. Quite the contrary. Due (usually) to venal
and nannyistic considerations we have actually gone the other way and
stopped the consumer from performing his role in the system.
>No one knows which physicians or hospitals provide the best care for
>the least cost. That information is not available anywhere, so the
>free market provides no choices for the health-care consumer.
Someone does know, or at least can find out. However, the physicians
and hospitals don't want this to happen so they pressure and are
largely successful in preventing governments from collecting and
disseminating the information. As with all these areas there is some
truth to the (usual) accusation of the weakness of the information,
and as usual the concept that we can't achieve perfection is used to
avoid any action whatsoever.
>No one can afford to take the time and perform the research needed to
>determine where to get the most effective treatment for the least cost
>in the shadow of a potentially life-threatening illness. So the free
>market has no answers in that situation.
That's exactly when you want to do your homework and when the
government should be working to make the suppliers cough up the
relevant information. But maybe you mean "in an emergency situation"
instead of "in the shadow of a life-threatening illness." In that
case, true, you can't spend the time to find out which is the best
hospital to stabilize you. This is where we need trauma insurance, or
perhaps there's a place for 100% government control and operation,
much like the fire brigade.
>Rural areas and small towns may have only one source for health care,
>so there are no choices to be made among competing providers because
>there are no competing providers. The free market offers no solutions
>there.
Oh, come on. Under all systems the rural ill are going to be at a
significant disadvantage. If they want the choice they have to move to
a big city. In practice, just as in other sectors of the economy,
competition comes via mail order, the internet, and travel to the
appropriate competing supplier. We even have people going to India,
Thailand, and Mexico (and probably other countries) for lower cost
health care. There's the competition.
>The same limits exist with regard to insurers; most people have no
>choice but must use the insurer - and the participating physicians/
>hospitals - their employer selects. Those without employer-provided
>health care likewise have very limited choices and usually must simply
>obtain coverage they can afford. So, the free market hasn't performed
>for those people, either.
And that's because the free market hasn't been allowed/forced to
function. Several years ago I attempted to compare the reimbursement
levels between the (supposedly) competing plans my employer offered.
Big problem: the DRG's (Diagnostic Related Groups) are not the same
between plans and the actual coding is copyright (even Medicare's) so
you can't get a list of the DRG's (without paying megabucks for them)
and even if you do you can't compare them nor can anyone else and
publish the comparison. Obviously this is to prevent competition
something the free marketeers should have outlawed long ago. But they
don't / didn't. Further most insurance companies won't even talk to
you (the insured or potential insured). They make it as hard as
possible to find out what you're actually getting for your money. This
is like the restaurant telling you it won't tell you the price of your
food until after you've consumed it.
>And people in need of health care aren't really in a position to
>simply say, "Forget it, I'll go without," because sometimes that
>decision means death or permanent disability for oneself or one's
>child or spouse or parent. So, the consumer cannot influence the
>market by rejecting the available choices.
"Sometimes" doesn't mean "always" and it's all those "not always"
occurrences that will have a profound effect on the supplier.
In a free market however, it's not usually "go without" but rather
choose a cheaper supplier. Hopefully I'm not going to be too
long-winded here. Let's take an analogy: your can needs new brake pads
so you have several alternatives:
- buy the pads yourself and install them yourself. Not too difficult.
Cost: say $50
- get the gear-head teenager down the block to do the job. Cost: $50
plus $20 labor.
- get the local garage to do it. Cost: $50 plus $50 labor.
- get "Brakes 'r' Us" to do it. Cost $50 plus $75 labor.
- get the dealer to do it. Cost $50 plus $150 labor.
- or finally something that doesn't really exist: get the automotive
engineer with a degree from MIT to do it. He'll bring in a consulting
metallurgist and they'll X-ray the disks to find hairline fractures.
It'll probably take a couple of months and who knows how much it'll
cost because they won't tell you up front... "You don't want to put a
price on your car's safety, do you ?" Conservatively we're probably
talking a few thousand bucks.
In our wonderful health care system we have today we only have the
option of the automotive engineer and the thousands of dollars fees.
We can't do it ourselves because the powers-that-be have decided we
might make a mistake and we can't employ any of the other
"unqualified" people (in reality "Brakes 'r' Us", for example, are
probably vastly more qualified than anyone else in the group above)
because ... well, the real reason is that they (or ourselves) will
take business away from the equivalent of the automotive engineer. If
you want to break the current system you have to give the consumer
"skin in the game" and empower him to make his own choices.
>Free-market zealots think the market is a one-size-fits-all solution
>to everything - it's not. It works for commerce, only, and then only
>for things that aren't vital to life.
In all instances it has to be made to work usually by government force
applied to the suppliers in this (and most) cases. The problem is that
those suppliers have our elected officials in their back pockets and
have done so for so long that the current wasteful system has become
ingrained in the minds of the people.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 6:58 pm
From: Marsha
Geopinion wrote:
>> Marsha wrote:
Back then, Americans were reasonable, at least compared to now. If
>> Americans had any sense now, personal responsibility would be a part of
>> the requirement, especially if you expect others to pay the fare. I
>> work at a hospital and it really pisses me off when, for instance, a
>> relatively young man comes in with a heart attack and has a stent
>> placed. Two weeks later, he's back with another heart attack, because
>> he claims he couldn't afford the medication to keep the stent open. By
>> the way, he smokes two packs a day and drinks a case of beer every week.
>> We also have the mother of God knows how many children with different
>> last names, who decides the ER is her personal physician for runny noses
>> and such. She's been told to call the clinic for an appointment, but
>> she has decided this is too inconvenient for her. This kind of stuff is
>> way too common and needs to stop. I do not feel sorry for these people.
>> They are leaches.
>> Marsha
> There will always be leeches and there's nothing that can be done
> about that, no matter how much you or anyone else try to weed them
> out. And would you prefer not to treat that woman's children at all,
> just because of HER behavior?
I didn't say not to treat her children. I said she needs to make an
appointment with a doctor at the clinic, just like everyone else does.
She's not special just because her and her brood's care is free, but
costs every taxpayer an arm and a leg. Why should she get better
treatment than some poor working person who doesn't quality for welfare,
but their insurance wouldn't cover ER visits every time their kid gets a
snotty nose? I feel the same about food stamp recipients who buy junk
food and expensive convenience foods. If they're getting free food with
my taxes, there should be a separate store where they can buy only the
basic necessities of healthy food and no convenience foods. Make them
take classes on how to purchase the best healthy foods with their
monthly allotment and make them take cooking classes. If they can't deal
with that, too effing bad.
> And how do you judge whether someone's heart attack is directly a
> result of, say, smoking or drinking, and not other things like stress
> or genetics. Sure, there's a correlation between things like smoking
> and heart disease, but no one can determine whether any particular
> instance of heart disease is a direct consequence of an individual's
> smoking/drinking habits. Many people smoke and drink heavily and live
> to ripe old ages without experiencing any serious medical
> consequences. Many people who don't have any discernible bad habits
> have heart attacks or develop other diseases but may not be entirely
> blameless because they work in high-stress or high-toxin-exposure jobs
> or are extremeType A personalities, or maybe they live in areas with
> high levels of air or water pollution or are downwind from historical
> nuclear blasts; and those are situations that are within their power
> to correct. Shall we blame them for their illnesses, too?
>
> You think it's clear cut who deserves help and who doesn't - but that
> isn't really true.
>
> MLW
I cited clear-cut cases of who any sensible person wouldn't believe
deserves help. Stupid and stubbornness can't be fixed, no matter how
much you try to educate idiots. If you had ever worked in the health
care field, you would know that I wasn't talking about stress, such as
Takotsubo syndrome, or familial hyperlipidemia, both of which affect a
very minute portion of heart attacks. Almost everyone who is admitted
to the hospital with heart disease, or a lot of other problems for that
matter, can be traced to self-inflicted behavior (smoking, uncontrolled
hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled
hyperlipidemia, etc.) What about those who are non-compliant with
doctor's orders? A patient who comes back in with a heart attack, after
having a stent, because he "couldn't afford the medication"?
Marsha
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:08 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:22:56 -0700, tmclone wrote:
> On Oct 10, 3:22 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Ans when morons refuse to insure their bodies, we end up paying for
>> that negligence.
>>
>>
> Wow, are you clueless. I don't have insurance, and I can assure you, NO
> ONE
> else pays for my healthcare. I simply don't get any. Period. Full Stop.
> If I
> could find a premium that was less than 35% of my gross income which
> didn't
> also have a $2k yearly deductible, I would consider it. Good thing I'm
> healthy. The only "insurance" I can afford is a Planet Fitness
> membership
> which I use at least 6 times a week.
This is the typical young squirt response. I would suggest that young
people who have no assets do not feel they need medical insurance. When
young and healthy and assetless then there is no personal threat: If you
crack up on the freeway or a safe falls on you then you do a bankruptcy
and lose nothing, sticking the rest of the society with the bill. Are you
a member of the Young Republicans? DO you wear a coonskin cap?
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:38 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>
>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe health care is a right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if I believe Cookies are a right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do the same thing that people who believe health care is a
>>>>> right are attempting to do: convince a majority of your
>>>>> representatives to pass legislation. Each case sinks or swims on
>>>>> its own merits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're still saying that if people can convince a majority of the
>>>> legislature to do anything, that action is always acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I did not.
>>
>>
>> Of course you did. You made rights meaningless - you feel if the
>> majority wants something, they can do it.
>
> Why do you snip my argument and then lie about it?
I don't.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:42 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>Geopinion wrote:
>
>>> Marsha wrote:
>> There will always be leeches and there's nothing that can be done
>> about that, no matter how much you or anyone else try to weed them
>> out. And would you prefer not to treat that woman's children at all,
>> just because of HER behavior?
>I didn't say not to treat her children. I said she needs to make an
>appointment with a doctor at the clinic, just like everyone else does.
>She's not special just because her and her brood's care is free, but
>costs every taxpayer an arm and a leg. Why should she get better
>treatment than some poor working person who doesn't quality for welfare,
>but their insurance wouldn't cover ER visits every time their kid gets a
>snotty nose?
So? The fact remains that you have to treat HER kids no matter what
HER faults. Of course you could beat the living crap out of her when
she refuses to make that appointment <g>.
> I feel the same about food stamp recipients who buy junk
>food and expensive convenience foods. If they're getting free food with
>my taxes, there should be a separate store where they can buy only the
>basic necessities of healthy food and no convenience foods. Make them
>take classes on how to purchase the best healthy foods with their
>monthly allotment and make them take cooking classes. If they can't deal
>with that, too effing bad.
Food stamps exist to benefit agribusiness, not provide luxury for the
recipient. However we do have a program you'd like: WIC. What you
wouldn't like is to be behind someone paying with WIC checks.
Everything has to be sorted out and paid for specifically such as a
check just for one gallon of milk.
Separate store? That's a joke. Firstly it would cost a fortune and
secondly just how do you think the supermarkets would react?
Make them take cooking classes? You're really practical. Who's going
to pay to take care of the kids while she's at those cooking classes?
And who's going to pay for the classes? And what sanctions if she
doesn't pass/attend. Prison? Remember those kids!
>> And how do you judge whether someone's heart attack is directly a
>> result of, say, smoking or drinking, and not other things like stress
>> or genetics. Sure, there's a correlation between things like smoking
>> and heart disease, but no one can determine whether any particular
>> instance of heart disease is a direct consequence of an individual's
>> smoking/drinking habits. Many people smoke and drink heavily and live
>> to ripe old ages without experiencing any serious medical
>> consequences. Many people who don't have any discernible bad habits
>> have heart attacks or develop other diseases but may not be entirely
>> blameless because they work in high-stress or high-toxin-exposure jobs
>> or are extremeType A personalities, or maybe they live in areas with
>> high levels of air or water pollution or are downwind from historical
>> nuclear blasts; and those are situations that are within their power
>> to correct. Shall we blame them for their illnesses, too?
>> You think it's clear cut who deserves help and who doesn't - but that
>> isn't really true.
Absolutely!
>I cited clear-cut cases of who any sensible person wouldn't believe
>deserves help. Stupid and stubbornness can't be fixed, no matter how
>much you try to educate idiots. If you had ever worked in the health
>care field, you would know that I wasn't talking about stress, such as
>Takotsubo syndrome, or familial hyperlipidemia, both of which affect a
>very minute portion of heart attacks. Almost everyone who is admitted
>to the hospital with heart disease, or a lot of other problems for that
>matter, can be traced to self-inflicted behavior (smoking, uncontrolled
>hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled
>hyperlipidemia, etc.)
No they can't be traced to the "self-inflicted behavior." You can only
"trace" (if that's the right word) on the average. Read Geopinion's
comment again about many people smok...etc without having serious
medical consequences. Let's convict everyone of speeding because the
average was over 55mph.
> What about those who are non-compliant with
>doctor's orders?
Doubtless you consider "doctor's orders" as an edict from god. I
suggest you read some of the Cochrane reports as to how reliable
"doctor's orders" are.
> A patient who comes back in with a heart attack, after
>having a stent, because he "couldn't afford the medication"?
So, maybe he's telling the truth?
I think you're just another "we only help the deserving poor"
right-winger with slightly different criteria for deciding
"deserving".
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:40 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You think you're so clever, cunt - you figure it out.
>
> that's what I thought
Yeah, you're not very clever after all.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:45 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:15:01 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:52:27 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:22:46 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good
>>>>>>>>>>> or services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>>>>>>> representative,
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional democracy.
>>>>>>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>>>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's
>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? If everyone in your community except you votes to
>>>>>>>>>> make next Thursday "your day" to be chased through the streets
>>>>>>>>>> and beaten with iron bars, is that
>>>>>>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights
>>>>>>>>>> specify things that the government, and your fellow citizens,
>>>>>>>>>> may not lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want
>>>>>>>>>> to do it.
>>>>>>>>> So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on
>>>>>>>>> top of majority rule.
>>>>>>>> That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a
>>>>>>>> form of government.
>>>>>>> OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seizing value
>>>>>>>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats
>>>>>>>>>> *ought* to be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic
>>>>>>>>>> human rights. We don't need a welfare system or food stamps or
>>>>>>>>>> nationalized health care in order for unfortunate people to be
>>>>>>>>>> cared for. None of that existed in the 19th century, and no one
>>>>>>>>>> starved to death. People voluntarily will help those less
>>>>>>>>>> fortunate; they always have.
>>>>>>>>> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have
>>>>>>>>> a right to be free from taxation)
>>>>>>>> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property
>>>>>>>> merely to give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the
>>>>>>>> legitimate functions of government: police, national defense,
>>>>>>>> courts, and operation of the departments of government.
>>>>>>>> Government may not legitimately tax you in order to hand the money
>>>>>>>> over to others. That's called looting.
>>>>>>> You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
>>>>>>> government. I would include health care for all
>>>>>> You are wrong. That's stealing wealth from people to give it to
>>>>>> others - not a legitimate function of government.
>>>>> But you believe that it _IS_ a legitimate function of government.
>>>> No.
>>> But it is you who believe that economic rent is not appropriated by
>>> government backed claims to ownership.
>> You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
>> you don't understand.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>
> I suggest that you first chase down all the on-line references for this
> articles to verify that the article is absolutely correct and in
> agreement with most economists both classical and neoclassical.
>
> Then you can take a look at who the primary author is.
>
>>> It is you who believe that oil
>>> found under the ranch of the Texas oil man is his property even though
>>> he has done absolutely nothing to _earn_ it
>> Irrelevant. Sports superstars don't do anything to "earn" their
>> incomparable talent, and people with extremely high IQs also don't do
>> anything to "earn" the immense reward that usually comes to them for
>> their brilliance. That doesn't change anything: it's theirs, and no
>> one may rightfully take it from them.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are dealing with, moron?
A pompous ass who doesn't know what the term means, that's who.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:46 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:05:46 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:54:03 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:17 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good
>>>>>>>>>>> or services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>>>>>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>>>>>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>>>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's
>>>>>>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down
>>>>>>>>> it is the law.
>>>>>>>> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>>>>>>> Then that would be "struck down", wouldn't it??????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next
>>>>>>>>>> Thursday "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten
>>>>>>>>>> with iron bars, is that acceptable?
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>>>>>>>> It does matter.
>>>>>>> Nice editing job,
>>>>>> No editing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>>>>>>>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>>>>>>>> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>>>>>>> Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rights specify
>>>>>>>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not
>>>>>>>>>> lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
>>>>>>>>> majority rule.
>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>>>>>> Yes.. It is.
>>>>>> It's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>>>>>>>>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart
>>>>>>>>> the good of the whole of the society
>>>>>>>> No such good.
>>>>>>> That is your opinion,
>>>>>> No, it's a fact. "Society" is not an organic entity. It doesn't
>>>>>> have a welfare. There can be no "good of the society". There can
>>>>>> only be things that are good for people.
>>>>> As I said: Your opinion.
>>>> No, what you said is false. It's not merely my opinion. It's a fact.
>>> It is your opinion.
>> No, it is a fact. It is a fact by definition.
>
> Ah yes.... In line definition.
No.
>>>> There is no such thing as "society" as an entity with a welfare.
>>>> People have welfare; society is just multiple people, each with their
>>>> own individual welfare. There is no societal welfare.
>>> The fact that there are a system of laws concerning property rights
>>> enforcement and fair and honest contractual trades and obligation
>>> utterly refutes your insane stupidity.
>> It doesn't. Those laws protect the interests and rights of individuals,
>> not of "society". "Society" doesn't have any interest or rights; only
>> individuals do.
>
> Mooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
No.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:50 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:16 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
>>> a national good, and they could do so constitutionally. There are
>>> limits to the American education system, but that doesn't mean
>>> Americans are inherently dim.
>> Lately, I am not so sure about that.
>>
>> Reasonable people know there is a
>>
>>> difference between providing for the health care of the nation and
>>> providing TVs for a nation. The writers of the constitution assumed
>>> Americans were somewhat reasonable and that's why so much of the
>>> constitution is vague, waiting for precedent and events to help shape
>>> the country's laws and policies.
>> Back then, Americans were reasonable, at least compared to now. If
>> Americans had any sense now, personal responsibility would be a part of
>> the requirement, especially if you expect others to pay the fare. I
>> work at a hospital and it really pisses me off when, for instance, a
>> relatively young man comes in with a heart attack and has a stent
>> placed. Two weeks later, he's back with another heart attack, because
>> he claims he couldn't afford the medication to keep the stent open. By
>> the way, he smokes two packs a day and drinks a case of beer every week.
>> We also have the mother of God knows how many children with different
>> last names, who decides the ER is her personal physician for runny noses
>> and such. She's been told to call the clinic for an appointment, but
>> she has decided this is too inconvenient for her. This kind of stuff is
>> way too common and needs to stop. I do not feel sorry for these people.
>> They are leaches.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is nothing in the constitution that says it must be interpreted
>>> based on the intent or likely mindset of its creators. The
>>> constitution is the starting point, not the end point.
>>> MLW- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There will always be leeches and there's nothing that can be done
> about that,
That's bullshit. You can get rid of leftist policy that encourages the
proliferation of leeches, and you can cut off completely those that
exist now and let them fend for themselves.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:51 pm
From: Wilson Woods
tmclone, a looter, wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>>> to stop providing them.
>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> Wrong. In the USA, all people have the "right" to a free, publicly-
> provided education.
No, they do not
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I keep deer out of garden.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8932179d88bf6665?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 6:37 pm
From: The Real Bev
Rod Speed wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> The Real Bev wrote
>>>> g kay wrote
>
>>>>> the whole yard is pretty secure but some times they break thru the
>>>>> hedge row. They seem to remember the bird shot incidents. We are now
>>>>> trying mirrors at the vulnerable spots.
>
>>>>> any suggestion on NG/s?
>
>>>> Big cat poo from your local zoo.
>
>>> No big cat shit in my local zoo.
>
>> That's shocking. Maybe croc poo would work.
>
> Crocs dont poo in a way that you can collect it.
Try cleaning the restrooms more often so the crocs will be willing to use them.
You'll find a way if you really want to.
> And they dont have any crocs either. http://www.altinawildlife.com/
I assumed Europe from the "hedgerow" thing, and I was suggesting that YOU use
croc poo. There are obviously very few crocs in Europe.
A common way of getting rid of excess deer in the US is to wait until they
start to cross a road and then run them down with your car. Far more sporting
than shooting them, there's a chance that the driver and his passengers will
actually die in the encounter.
--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
--Gene Spafford (1992)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get rid of a roommate?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 6:55 am
From: "Dave C."
> >
> > Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is law. Let the cops enforce it.
>
> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
> problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
Ok, someone else suggested she should wait until he's out of the house, change the locks and leave his stuff on the lawn. I'd go a step further. Lock up the house tight and have sister move in with you for a few weeks. Your sister shouldn't have to be driven out of her own home. But, this might be the easiest way to get him to move on. If he's faced with an empty house that he can't get into, and nobody around to protest to?
>
> >> They have lived together
> >> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law,
> >> since she never divorced her husband in California,
> >
> > WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the usual way, one common law. Yikes.
> >
>
> Seriously?
Hey, you can only have one husband at a time. If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband. If you were already married before then, you'd have two husbands. That's a no-no.
>
>
> >> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems, but
> >> this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
> >
> > That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
>
> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
> been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
> recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's not new.
That figures. Frequent marijuana use causes certain mental conditions like bipolar disorders and schizophrenia. As I said before, he's got a self-induced chemical imbalance. Marijuana is not safe. It may be safer than certain other drugs, but it's still dangerous.
>
> If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call the
> cops. He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so I was a
> bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will probably keep harassing
> her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
> restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may even
> give in and let him move back in, but she says she won't.
>
> Marsha
If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:03 pm
From: Marsha
Dave C. wrote:
> If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
That makes sense - just let him hang himself, which he would. He
doesn't respect authority, so I can picture him yelling at the cops and
making no sense at all. I just hope she can follow through and break
free from this jackass.
Marsha
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:16 pm
From: phil scott
On Oct 11, 1:14 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
> Marsha
unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
locks and leave
his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
potential issues, and have
someone stay with her until the dust settles.
Phil scott I am not an attorney
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:20 pm
From: phil scott
On Oct 11, 2:54 pm, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:14 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>
> > My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> > does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> > (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> > plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> > improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> > never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> > may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> > probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
> > Marsha
>
> Seems like a legal tenancy has been created and a formal eviction will
> be needed to do it legally.
> Your sister might find a replacement boyfriend that is not a milk
> toast and he could be more persuasive.
> Why not try this question on one of the legal groups? Mentioning the
> state and city would also be a big help.
the dirt bag would have to sue if there is any question, if there is
not a signed lease
agreement, chances he'd win approach zero... and he probably wouldnt
invest the money
to sue.... and for what 'damages' Id just change the locks, put his
stuff on the front lawn in plastic bags and rent a rotweiler, borrow a
shot gun and invite a friend or two to stay for a while
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:22 pm
From: phil scott
On Oct 11, 3:31 am, "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:14:54 -0400
>
> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> > My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> > does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> > (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright.
>
> Has she asked him to leave? If she's asked him to leave and he refuses to leave, then he is a trespasser. Depending on how long they've been living together though, she might have a bigger problem. That is, she might have to formally file for divorce before she can ever get married to someone else. Check common law marriage statutes for the state she's living in.
>
> But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy try to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :) -Dave
good advice.
those types though are camelions. pro's at being so nice you wouldnt
believe it when its in their interests... Id just change the locks
myself.... he'd have to win in court if he fights it... with 5 or 10k
to lose in attorney fees, and damn little to gain,
Phil scott
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:27 pm
From: "holarchy"
Dave C. wrote:
>>> Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is
>>> law. Let the cops enforce it.
>>
>> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
>> problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
>
> Ok, someone else suggested she should wait until he's out of the
> house, change the locks and leave his stuff on the lawn. I'd go a
> step further. Lock up the house tight and have sister move in with
> you for a few weeks. Your sister shouldn't have to be driven out of
> her own home. But, this might be the easiest way to get him to move
> on. If he's faced with an empty house that he can't get into,
Very unlikely that he cant get into it with no one around to call the cops when he trys.
> and nobody around to protest to?
>>>> They have lived together
>>>> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common
>>>> law, since she never divorced her husband in California,
>>>
>>> WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the
>>> usual way, one common law. Yikes.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously?
> Hey, you can only have one husband at a time.
Yes, but that is marraige. Not illegal to fuck around with more than one at a time.
> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
Yes.
> If you were already married before then, you'd have two husbands.
Nope, you're separated from the first one.
It isnt even illegal to have someone else move in with a married couple
and to have them fuck one of the married couple in that house.
> That's a no-no.
Wrong. Its only illegal to marry more than one at a time.
>>>> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems,
>>>> but this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
>>>
>>> That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced
>>> chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs
>>> recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
>>
>> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
>> been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
>> recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's
>> not new.
> That figures. Frequent marijuana use causes certain mental
> conditions like bipolar disorders and schizophrenia.
Another pig ignorant lie. It does produce mental illness in a small subset of individuals.
> As I said before, he's got a self-induced chemical imbalance.
You don't now that.
> Marijuana is not safe. It may be safer than certain other drugs, but it's still dangerous.
So is alcohol and caffiene.
>> If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call
>> the cops. He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so
>> I was a bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will probably keep
>> harassing
>> her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
>> restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may
>> even give in and let him move back in, but she says she won't.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That
> will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn.
In spades when she admits she shacked up with him and is now sick of him.
> Just complain that he's trespassing.
And he will say that he's not.
> KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she
> wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing.
Wrong when she chose to shack up with him.
> Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic
> issue and more of a black/white legal issue.
Only until he mentions that she chose to shack up with him.
> He's breaking the law,
Like hell he is.
> the cops will handle it.
Bet they dont.
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:32 am
From: "Dave C."
>
> unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
> locks and leave
> his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
> potential issues, and have
> someone stay with her until the dust settles.
>
>
> Phil scott I am not an attorney
I like your approach. But as I wrote earlier, I'd modify it a bit. Instead of having friends stay with her, I think she should stay with friends. Leave the house empty and locked up tight for a while. The advantage of this approach is that she doesn't have to put up with the ex-boyfriend's crap for a while. I think it would be better if he didn't have access to her AT ALL for a while. Friends in the house might be able to keep the guy out or modify his behavior so that it isn't so bad. But he'll still find a way to abuse her probably. At the very least, there will still be drama and head games to deal with.
That's why I think you deny the ex-bf access to the house AND the girl, by locking up the house tight and having the girl stay with friends or the sister for a while. -Dave
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 8:37 am
From: "Dave C."
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:03:27 -0400
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
> Dave C. wrote:
> > If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
>
> That makes sense - just let him hang himself, which he would. He
> doesn't respect authority, so I can picture him yelling at the cops and
> making no sense at all. I just hope she can follow through and break
> free from this jackass.
>
> Marsha
Y'know, I shouldn't mention this, but someone should probably speak up and say something.
This situation, as you describe it, has all the earmarks of a future headline news story. You know, the kind where the reporters talk to the neighbors, who invariably remark, "She was such a nice person...I just don't understand how anybody could DO that to her..." (wiping tears away)
I wish I was joking. -Dave
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 9:59 pm
From: Balvenieman
"Dave C." <noway@nohow.never> wrote:
>Depending on how long they've been living together though, she might have a bigger
> problem. That is, she might have to formally file for divorce before she can ever get married to someone
> else. Check common law marriage statutes for the state she's living in.
Baloney. That's just another of the lies that ignorant fathers in
patriarchal societies tell their daughters in hopes they'll keep their
panties on. sheesh!
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
==============================================================================
TOPIC: cheap property in WV,KY,NC,TN? DATA SITE
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3a7cd02ab7dfe59e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:44 pm
From: "sr"
Ran into a site that gives profile :states cities and towns plus a forum
for questions
http://www.city-data.com/
">>> must have unrestriced property
>>> anyone know of cheap property that does not flood? Sandy in Maine
>>
>> Instead of building, have you considered an existing structure, priced
>> right? Some of the less desirable HUD repos are dirt cheap. In some
>> cases,
>> where I live (Louisville KY) way under $20,000. I've seen some houses go
>> for less than $10,000.
>>
>> The good things about HUD repos compared to bank repos are that you do
>> not
>> compete with house flippers and investors. HUD gives preference to owner
>> occupants. Second, although there is no warranty, HUD will not
>> intentionally hide defects regarding the property.
>>
>> http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/hud_homes
>>
>> --
>> Tony Sivori
>> Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2012 forcast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e6d8859d25e5ef7b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:45 pm
From: phil scott
On Oct 11, 1:36 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoNoThanks.Org> wrote:
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> >> I dont think we are looking at armageddon in the faintest.... we are
> >> looking at vast changes, and for many individuals it will be nasty to
> >> the core, as it is now. but the larger world and national culture
> >> will advance.... thinking individuals will be able to dodge most of
> >> those bullets, enough at least to have food and shelter.
>
> > Agree
>
> Me too.
>
> > These are fundamental changes coming that would come
> > regardless of who is in power or how much we wish they
> > would NOT change
>
> > Agree on brick and mortar being dead.... already do
> > most of my shopping online
>
> > Agree on housing being ridiculous over capacity!
> Yep. I'm waay over-housed.
real estate should tank another 50% or more within a year or two max.
and not rebound because 80 m baby boomers are retiring, then dying
off. meantime desperate local govts are taxing it heavily.
depending on your situation, it may or may not pay to stay put or sell
==============================================================================
TOPIC: recover heat from clothes dryer?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b147b338ff73f881?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:47 pm
From: "sr"
For Lint. I've used a nylon stocking, you know , those panty hose things
over the duct
"Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hato4p$56l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "RickMerrill" <Rick0.merrill@gmail.lessspam.com> wrote in message
> news:hate03$f5c$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Has anyone found a way to recover the heat without
>> too much humidity and lint?
>
> Most of the heat generated by a clothes dryer is used to evaporate the
> water
> contained in the clothes - to get it back, you'd have to condense the
> vapor
> back to liquid water. Such machines exist - they're called condensing
> dryers. They're not cheap.
>
> If you just direct the vent from a normal dryer inside, the amount of
> humidity is the same as you'd get if you hung the clothes up to dry
> inside,
> though it probably gets dumped into the room in a shorter amount of time.
>
> I'd worry more about lint - breathing it in.
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders
were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without
the support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it
back to society
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 7:49 pm
From: phil scott
On Oct 11, 6:23 pm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:32 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 10:05 am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 11, 11:31 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 11, 7:36 am, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Oct 10, 8:40 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians> that the founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued
> > > > >>> that no-one could produce riches without the support of society,
> > > > >>> so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
> > > > >>> to society for social programs
> > > > >> >http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
>
> > > > >>> Philosopher of the Month
> > > > >> > December 2000 - Thomas Paine> Robin Harwood
>
> > > > Paine was a minor player in the American Revolution. He was useful for
> > > > garnering support for independence, but he played no role whatever in
> > > > the formulation of the American republic.
>
> > > liar.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > woods is a troll, of the trasher/ basher/ idiot class... many
> > pseudonyms
>
> Most folks that read her posts come to the conclusion that she is
> quite insane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
it sure as hell wouldnt be the first
==============================================================================
TOPIC: converting mm measurements to american standard
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/016cd728ee0594ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 9:59 pm
From: Balvenieman
Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>noel888 <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in
news:dfa710d7-f6eb-46d5-a13c-30cf3afc5c09@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> mystified ....468 is 18 inches, but what is 4251? .. and the other
>> 0.2165 is what? if its a fraction, what is it?
>
>0.4251 is a bit less than half an inch.
>
>0.216 is a bit less than 1 quater inch.
Holy Cow, the poor guy must really believe " (inch-tick) to be
quotation mark.
==============================================================================
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
