http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Electric razor? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/02da5c3281e711d8?hl=en
* Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
* Definitions of Frugality - 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4db20ff0fb8d6fd6?hl=en
* CHEAP Wholesale Brand Bags,walltes,sunglasses,T-Shirt,Jeans,hat,shoes,
jewelry,watch,sandals,belts(paypal payment) www.ebaychinaonline.com - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7756d8809e798ee4?hl=en
* No Swine Flu Sick Leave For Wal-Mart Slaves! No SURPRISE, Either! - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f7324c46ba4e89fe?hl=en
* most POWERFUL discount membership program business opportunity in the WORLD!
- 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3aec8bdb976cd9a4?hl=en
* Zircon Earring-JE0278 Fashion Jewelry,Wholesale Zircon Earring - 2 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7ccf0bd4dcded8a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electric razor?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/02da5c3281e711d8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 11:48 am
From: "Rod Speed"
KenK wrote
> I have a Braun series 1 190 electric razor and the foil screen has
> worn a hole on one side. Sure didn't last very long. From what I can
> find on- line the foil and cutter costs almost as much as a new razor
> in Walmart. Hard to pin down the right part. They don't seem to
> identify them the same as the razor markings.
> Anyhow, if I'm going to replace it might as well try to find a better
> one. The Braun is ok but far from outstanding. Not a very good shave.
> Previously I had a rotary Norelco. Unlike Norelcos I had when I was
> younger it was very bad. Very poor shave.
> Anyone have any suggestions for a good razor they bought recently?
> Maybe I should just grow a beard
Thats what I did. I do mow it back to stubble every couple
of weeks, basically because I dont like a large wet mass
after a shower, and that works very well indeed.
I initially used the beard trimmer on the side of the Braun to do that,
until eventually that died and I now use a beard trimmer most of the
time, tho sometimes I just use the hair cutter with the comb removed.
You do have to be a big careful around the lips with the hair cutter,
it can bite there, but you dont get a proper wound, its just uncomfortable.
> but I'm concerned about existing photo ids like driver's license.
No one has ever given a damn and I get 5 year drivers license renewals
so the last shaved one lasted quite a while when I gave up on shaving.
> I can easily visualize an arrogant cop giving me a hard time.
I've never had a problem.
> If I use a blade I bleed annoyingly.
Yeah, I bleed like a stuck pig now that I'm on blood thinners after the stent.
Never did bother with a blade tho.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:04 pm
From: Coffee's For Closers
In article <kvkef51fhk4mio56krftteolo54m51r7qh@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz says...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:24 -0800, Scott in SoCal
> <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net>
> >said:
> >>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
> >>be able to.
> >Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
> >there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
> Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now.
Try San Francisco.
Try Melbourne, Australia.
Plenty of other places have decent bus and train service,
although not necessarily streetcars.
Just because it is a bad idea for many people in Los Angeles, or
in Smallville, Montana, doesn't make it "nonsense" everywhere.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 2:42 pm
From: Opus
On Nov 10, 6:03 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> > So you come up with some fantasy about the cost of building roads,
>
> Taint a fantasy, plenty of roads are paid for by road use taxes like fuel taxes.
>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where they belong>
Judging by your name and facility with the English language I would
say you're from Jolly Olde. Just FYI there hasn't been a road tax
collected there in more than 50 years. The gas taxes are used to help
pay for the health costs of pollution, and to reduce gas consumption.
Roads are paid for with the Council Tax i.e. General Fund. There is a
pollution tax collected annually on cars and trucks called an excise
tax. Cars haven't paid their own way in the UK since WWII.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 2:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Opus wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Phil W Lee wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> So you come up with some fantasy about the cost of building roads,
>> Taint a fantasy, plenty of roads are paid for by road use taxes like fuel taxes.
> Judging by your name and facility with the English
> language I would say you're from Jolly Olde.
Guess again.
> Just FYI there hasn't been a road tax collected there in more than 50 years.
Wrong. Everywhere has at least fuel taxes and car registration taxes.
Plenty have other road taxes too like congestion taxes and toll roads etc.
> The gas taxes are used to help pay for the health costs of pollution,
Wrong.
> and to reduce gas consumption. Roads are paid for with the Council Tax i.e. General Fund.
Wrong again.
> There is a pollution tax collected annually on cars and trucks called an excise tax.
Its still a road tax regardless of what you call it.
> Cars haven't paid their own way in the UK since WWII.
Wrong, as always.
And we aint just talking about that soggy little island anyway.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 6:14 pm
From: aemeijers
SMS wrote:
> aemeijers wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>>> altogether.
>>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
>> deficits.
>
> And you would be wrong. It was reducing revenue while at the same time
> increasing spending. No one actually believed that Reaganomics had any
> basis in reality, but enough people wanted to party for a few years with
> the realization that they wouldn't be the ones having to pay the bill
> when it came due.
What part of 'it's not the governments money in the first place' do you
not understand? Reducing tax rates is not some kingly lagresse they
bestowed on the people who got to keep a little more of their own money.
They just decided to steal a little less from them, for awhile. The
higher the tax rates, the more of the economy goes offshore or
underground. It certainly doesn't go into creating companies or jobs. If
they jack tax rates to the levels that would be required to pay for all
the proposed give-aways, ain't NOTHING new gonna be starting up in this
country, because anyone with liquid cash will be taking it elsewhere.
Look at what happened in UK during their high-tax era. We got some good
musicians out of it, though.
--
aem sends...
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 6:17 pm
From: aemeijers
Coffee's For Closers wrote:
> In article <kvkef51fhk4mio56krftteolo54m51r7qh@4ax.com>,
> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz says...
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:24 -0800, Scott in SoCal
>> <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net>
>>> said:
>
>
>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>> be able to.
>
>
>>> Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
>>> there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
>
>
>> Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now.
>
>
> Try San Francisco.
>
> Try Melbourne, Australia.
>
> Plenty of other places have decent bus and train service,
> although not necessarily streetcars.
>
> Just because it is a bad idea for many people in Los Angeles, or
> in Smallville, Montana, doesn't make it "nonsense" everywhere.
>
>
Preaching to the choir, dude. High-density urban areas, especially
geographically constrained areas, are one of the few areas where mass
transit does make sense and works.
--
aem sends...
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 8:43 pm
From: krw
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:07:07 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on misc.consumers, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> said:
>
>>>>>>He's no different than any of the little
>>>>>>leftist who want to own your soul.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, I'm not interested in owning your soul. I have enough junk
>>>>>around here as it is. :)
>>>>
>>>>You're a damned liar, too.
>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>>Your own words work for me.
>
>Whatever.
Indeed. Whatever you say is used against you, by all.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Definitions of Frugality
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4db20ff0fb8d6fd6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:22 pm
From: Coffee's For Closers
In article <etqef5983tu9a9nltleus744nvqpqbi2hh@4ax.com>,
anarch@666yes.net says...
> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children,
I've encountered some mothers who should have had jobs. Staying
home with the kids created a toxic fantasy world for them. They
(the mothers) never really matured, because they didn't have to
deal with other adults, and could engage in constant bullying
without consequences. They also lacked any understanding of the
connection between labour and money.
Those women were in deep trouble when middle-aged divorce forced
them to go out into the big, bad world and get jobs. Absolutely
flipping out, with the anger and self-pity off the scale.
The ones who remained married, simply remained immature and
ignorant, and very, very, boring.
The now-grown kids ended up permanently damaged, too.
> and it usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never
> understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income.
I could never understand why any adult should be enslaved to
support another adult who just doesn't feel like working. I've
never felt entitled to leech off of anyone.
> Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have
> ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless?
I find the freedom of NOT having kids to be priceless. And the
freedom of NOT being dependent upon a husband is also priceless.
> Two parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money
> that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car
> repairs, taxes, etc.
Kids simply aren't frugal, in any situation.
> People never think about that. I believe most
> people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange,
> because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by
> strangers?
Because, when they decided to have the kids - or, rather, when
the kids just "happened" without serious consideration or
decision-making... the parents didn't know how annoying those
kids would be.
> >I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and needing to
> >work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time to enjoy the extras
> >purchased with that income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really
> >_need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot
of this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those
things having "happened" without serious consideration or
decision-making.
> Imagine if America had socialized
> medicine, maybe, just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the
> kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
Using one's kids as a meal-ticket to avoid employment is selfish.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:27 pm
From: Coffee's For Closers
In article <7a6gf5pi473mfh8n47sftvtchbh5du30hr@4ax.com>,
anarch@666yes.net says...
> I don't believe so. My father made it on less than that with 5 kids
> (and it wasn't that long ago). Of course my mom didn't work, and we
> had one car. We had a small house, never ate out,and never had alot
> of amenities.
>
> Of course I will say that he had good health insurance through his
> unionized work (did not pay a cent for his insurance coverage, until
> right at the end before he died and then retired).
He died and THEN retired?
> See, it's the
> fucking health insurance premiums that make MOST people have to work.
> Socialize the medicine and you no longer pay the 1000 month premiums.
> Imagine! if you save a 1000 per month, one spouse could EASILY stay
> home.
Except for the single people.
And the responsible married adults who don't wish to leech off of
their spouse. Or whose spouse refuses to allow leeching.
> But...but...but the taxes! I will be taxed to death. Hogwash. No you
> won't. The tax code is set up for married couples with one spouse
> staying home or making alot less money than the other spouse (run the
> numbers if you don't believe me). So even when the taxes go up under
> socialized medicine, if one spouse stays home, they will still come
> out ahead than if both spouses worked to pay off the current insurance
> companies' extortions.
So, you would prefer that the single people be extorted by the
taxman to subsidise the non-working half of married couples?
So, instead of just leeching off of her husband, the housewife is
also entitled to leech off of single working women?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:32 pm
From: Coffee's For Closers
In article <ZsOdnbCqpNIpKmXXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@posted.hiwaay2>,
gheston@hiwaay.net says...
> Money to pay for all that health care has to come from somewhere, and
> the only source of money the government has is taxpayers.
As long as it some other taxpayor being extorted, then the
gimmie-gimmie types are convinced that that health care is
"free."
> That's also assuming there are any doctors left to provide
> the care.
Let's all just whine and guilt-trip them, and I am sure they will
stick around.
> The quickest way to reduce the cost of health care is tort reform--
> which does not appear in the House-passed monstrosity based on all
> reports.
Another great way to reduce the cost of health care is for people
to put down the doughnut, and get off the couch. Which does not
appear in the legislation. And also does not appear in the minds
of many people who feel entitled to "free" health care.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 2:37 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Coffee's For Closers wrote
> anarch@666yes.net says...
>> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children,
> I've encountered some mothers who should have had jobs. Staying
> home with the kids created a toxic fantasy world for them. They
> (the mothers) never really matured, because they didn't have to
> deal with other adults, and could engage in constant bullying
> without consequences. They also lacked any understanding of the
> connection between labour and money.
> Those women were in deep trouble when middle-aged divorce forced
> them to go out into the big, bad world and get jobs. Absolutely
> flipping out, with the anger and self-pity off the scale.
> The ones who remained married, simply remained immature and
> ignorant, and very, very, boring.
> The now-grown kids ended up permanently damaged, too.
>> and it usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could
>> never understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income.
> I could never understand why any adult should be enslaved
> to support another adult who just doesn't feel like working.
> I've never felt entitled to leech off of anyone.
True. But they arent leeching if they have kids, particularly till the kids finish school.
>> Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to
>> have ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless?
> I find the freedom of NOT having kids to be priceless. And the
> freedom of NOT being dependent upon a husband is also priceless.
>> Two parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra
>> money that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food,
>> gas, car repairs, taxes, etc.
> Kids simply aren't frugal, in any situation.
That is just plain wrong. In a society that has no decent
welfare system, and you can make the kids work, they
can be quite frugal, particularly in your old age etc.
>> People never think about that. I believe most people want
>> to work to get away from their kids, which is strange, because
>> why have kids in the first place if they're raised by strangers?
> Because, when they decided to have the kids - or, rather, when
> the kids just "happened" without serious consideration or decision-
> making... the parents didn't know how annoying those kids would be.
>>> I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and
>>> needing to work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time
>>> to enjoy the extras purchased with that income if you are working
>>> two jobs? Does the family really _need_ that boat or four wheeler
>>> or expensive car?
> There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot of
> this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those things
> having "happened" without serious consideration or decision-making.
Nope, its mostly not envy, they really do prefer that
situation and cant comprehend that some dont like it.
>> Imagine if America had socialized medicine, maybe,
>> just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the
>> kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
> Using one's kids as a meal-ticket to avoid employment is selfish.
Thats very arguable. Its much better 'work' than most of the unskilled can otherwise manage.
We have a completely stupid system where the govt pays quite
a bit of money to those who have kids, and some howl about some
having quite a few kids and living on the govt handout for them.
Its a pretty decent lifestyle in some ways. Someone else looks after them
for a decent chunk of the day while they are in school etc. Our system is
actually stupid enough to pay the woman more than she will get paid
running say a checkout in the supermarket and you're your own boss
and can do what you like and you even get to enjoy the fucking as well.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 4:02 pm
From: "h"
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87e5f21f-f473-4883-b4a8-ac89932838fa@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be
>passed before one could have children.
Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog, but any moron can
breed. I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
something to cause fertility. We should just toss birth control in the
water. No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink water...how about putting
it in Budweiser? If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera"
hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a license first,
you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see
who already has too many children (like more than one).
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 4:11 pm
From: tmclone
On Nov 10, 4:22 pm, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2...@THE-DOMAIN-
IN.SIG> wrote:
>
> There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot
> of this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those
> things having "happened" without serious consideration or
> decision-making.
>
I find the phrase, "And then the children came along" very funny.
What, were there small proto-humans just walking down the street and
you were stupid enough to invite them in? Most people spend more time
deciding where to vacation than they do deciding whether OR NOT they
want to breed. I actually had someone tell me, "But, but, you CAN'T
not have children!" Oh, really? Just watch me. My tubal turns 28 this
month!
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:51 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
h wrote
> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com> wrote
>> I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be passed before one could have children.
> Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog,
Not in the sense that you need to pass any fitness test to get one, just pay the fee.
> but any moron can breed.
And they will keep doing that even if you do have to pass
a parenting fitness test before its legal to have children.
> I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do something to cause fertility.
Soorree, we didnt evolve like that.
> We should just toss birth control in the water.
Those who want to breed would just stop drinking the tap water.
> No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink
> water...how about putting it in Budweiser?
Plenty of them dont drink that either.
> If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera" hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a
> license first, you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see who already has too many
> children (like more than one).
Been having those pathetic little fantasys long ?
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:58 pm
From: Les Cargill
h wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:87e5f21f-f473-4883-b4a8-ac89932838fa@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be
>> passed before one could have children.
>
> Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog, but any moron can
> breed. I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
> something to cause fertility.
Well... you *do*, you know... :) No storks involved. I have a child who
is actually involved in research ( peripherally - pretty much data entry
duty at the undergrad level ) on rigorous experiments concerning sexual
selection, and... it just works. Almost all species have
evolved hybrid strategies.
> We should just toss birth control in the
> water. No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink water...how about putting
> it in Budweiser? If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera"
> hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a license first,
> you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see
> who already has too many children (like more than one).
>
>
"Well, man, that's like... your *opinion*, man... " - The Dude, "Big
Lebowski".
--
Les Cargill
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:58 pm
From: Balvenieman
me@privacy.net wrote:
>do something
Reagan, Bush, and Bush tried to address medical malpractice reform
as well as more general tort reform but Congress would have none of it.
Republicans tried to bring it up in the '90's but Bubba and the
Hillbilly would have none of it. Get Real: Beyond dismantling Medicare,
there essentially is no "something" that government can do regarding
health care that is not detrimental to the long-term prosperity and
fiscal wellbeing of the nation. Some of us dinosaurs believe that there
is no "something" about medical care that is legitimately within the
purview of the national government. Ultimately, there is no difference
between medical care and food: Ethically, nobody has a "right" to either
and, ultimately, both are subject to the same supply-demand laws that
govern availability and price. I don't mind stating that I am absolutely
opposed to having any proportion of my taxes used to subsidize medical
care to any total stranger with whom I have absolutely no relationship.
The "something", in this discussion, though, being "tort reform":
While some argue that limits on jury awards would substantially reduce
(by 10-15%) hidden costs of medical care, others argue that when
compared to total medical costs, costs of malpractice litigation are
insignificant (1-1½%). OF COURSE each side can produce data, surveys and
"studies" that support its position.
In my view, tort reform is a dead puppy among the national
political class regardless of whether left or right. All are too
dependent on the ABA money, the distribution of influence, etc. etc. The
greater issue, though, is that "reform" at the national level, even if
restricted to medical malpractice, would transfer to the national
government yet another body of law that the Constitution reserves to the
states. To those who would like to preserve the Republic or, at least,
to forestall its demise this is a serious issue. Some portion of the
argument is presented here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5549&type=0&sequence=2
http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16217
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:58 pm
From: Balvenieman
"h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
>something to cause fertility
I couldn't agree more, in principal: New issues should first be
sterilized and then, at maturity (certainly no younger than 30-35),
required to follow some procedure to get unsterilized. Which begs the
question: Who determines the standards and the procedure? It could be
argued that each couple should be limited to two progeny, thereby
replacing each parent and maintaining stable population. The World, as
we all know, being perfect premature deaths would compensate for
accidental pregnancies and births. The irony of voluntary population
control is that those citizens who are willing, voluntarily, to limit
their progeny, for the sake of the planet's wellbeing AWA that of future
generations, are likely to be the very ones that society most needs.
That is to say, they are those who are intellectually more capable of
perceiving and addressing a problem with some expectation of resolving
it and, implicitly, the ones more capable of raising competent children.
Unfortunately, while those enlightened citizens conscienciously eschew
reproduction, the less capable and/or insightful will continue to breed
like field mice resulting in a population topheavy with carjackers,
viewers of "The View", and Golgafrinchians. So: Waddayagonnadoo? You
can't just shoot the bastards....
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 9:02 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Balvenieman wrote
> me@privacy.net wrote
>> do something
> Reagan, Bush, and Bush tried to address medical malpractice reform
> as well as more general tort reform but Congress would have none of
> it. Republicans tried to bring it up in the '90's but Bubba and the
> Hillbilly would have none of it.
> Get Real: Beyond dismantling Medicare, there essentially is no "something"
> that government can do regarding health care that is not detrimental to the
> long-term prosperity and fiscal wellbeing of the nation.
Mindlessly silly. Everyone else gets health care for HALF the
percentage of GDP that the US does and does better on any
sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
> Some of us dinosaurs believe that there is no "something" about medical
> care that is legitimately within the purview of the national government.
Who cares ? What matters is that hardly anyone agrees with you fools on that.
> Ultimately, there is no difference between medical care and food:
Wrong, as always. You are never ever in the situation where
the cost of the food you need to keep you alive will bankrupt
you and if you are desperate for food, there are always
some charitys that will hand out free food.
> Ethically, nobody has a "right" to either
Irrelevant to whether it makes sense for there to be decent arrangements
for the provision of medical services to those who will die without them
and to those who will have a much worse quality of life without them.
> and, ultimately, both are subject to the same
> supply-demand laws that govern availability and price.
Even more utterly mindlessly silly.
You can always grow your own food, you cant do your own heart bypass etc.
> I don't mind stating that I am absolutely opposed to having
> any proportion of my taxes used to subsidize medical care to
> any total stranger with whom I have absolutely no relationship.
Who cares ? Basically there arent enough fools as stupid as you to matter.
> The "something", in this discussion, though, being "tort reform":
Wrong, as always.
> While some argue that limits on jury awards would substantially
> reduce (by 10-15%) hidden costs of medical care, others argue
> that when compared to total medical costs, costs of malpractice
> litigation are insignificant (1-1½%). OF COURSE each side can
> produce data, surveys and "studies" that support its position.
There is no data that substantiates the first claim.
> In my view, tort reform is a dead puppy among the national
> political class regardless of whether left or right. All are too
> dependent on the ABA money, the distribution of influence, etc. etc.
The real reason is that its just too hard and too many of the politicians are lawyers.
> The greater issue, though, is that "reform" at the national
> level, even if restricted to medical malpractice, would
> transfer to the national government yet another body
> of law that the Constitution reserves to the states.
Wrong, as always.
> To those who would like to preserve the Republic or,
> at least, to forestall its demise this is a serious issue.
There arent enough fools that stupid to matter a damn.
> Some portion of the argument is presented here:
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5549&type=0&sequence=2
> http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16217
Just another couple of completely mindless steaming turds.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHEAP Wholesale Brand Bags,walltes,sunglasses,T-Shirt,Jeans,hat,shoes,
jewelry,watch,sandals,belts(paypal payment) www.ebaychinaonline.com
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7756d8809e798ee4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:15 pm
From: shoesclothes
For more information,please contact Sophie,Yahoo:
globaltrader2009@yahoo.com.cn
Minimum order is one,factory price also!Paypal payment free
shipping,ship time will take 4-7 working days.
Welcome to our corporation. http://www.ebaychinaonline.com
We can supply many kinds of brand
shoes,jeans,handbags,clothes,watch,mobile phones,etc
Our products are popular with High Quality,Competitive price,Best
Service and Safe Delivery.
We hope to build mutual benefits and long term business with you
Shoes: www.ebaychinaonline.com
Nike,Jordan,dunk,shox,max,air force one nike
james,dunk.gucci,prada,Adidas,rift,Puma,
Timberland.Ice,D&G,Adio,Armani,DC,ES,
4US,Converse,bape.chanel,hongan,tods,rich mond,eneruie,
dsquared,diesel.armant,dior,ice cream,kids shoes,women shoes.
Jeans : www.ebaychinaonline.com
bape,Diesel,Rock&Republic,Seven,red monkey,Evisu,lee,D&G,True
religion,bape,antik,
jack
jones,armani,kepasa,apple,bbc,levi's,guess,cocobongo,only,replay,on
line,MNG hoodies,
polo,red monkey,evsiu,Richmond.
Clothes : www.ebaychinaonline.com
lrg hoodies,face coat,ed hardy,prada
jackets,bbc,a&f,akademiks,burberry,d&g,polo,rock rupblic,bape,NFL NHL
MLB jersey.NBA jersey,shirts,sweater,jacket hat,new are
caps,glasses,and ipod,MP4,LV,GUCCI,fendi,bags.
If you want to order more newer products,Any question please feel free
Pls check our website to view more products
==============================================================================
TOPIC: No Swine Flu Sick Leave For Wal-Mart Slaves! No SURPRISE, Either!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f7324c46ba4e89fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 6:00 pm
From: Les Cargill
sr wrote:
> It is the employee's choice to work there, if not happy, there are plenty
> that will take the job. Plenty of workers without jobs at this time. Stop
> the sniveling for G sake!
> ===
But all things being equal, WalMart's cost of labor has declined
dramatically since about 1980. Thing about WalMart is that they
generally pass the savings on to the end customer.
They run this thing on CNBC more than once a week. It's not
bad, lots of info.
--
Les Cargill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: most POWERFUL discount membership program business opportunity in the
WORLD!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3aec8bdb976cd9a4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 8:35 pm
From: clg21cafe
Hi,
Find Out How You Can Get
Paid Over and Over Again!
http://adjix.com/vwhw OR http://adjix.com/mjj2 (100% FREE online Go
here http://adjix.com/nbft)
Getting started in the most POWERFUL discount membership program and
home based business opportunity in the WORLD!
During your FIRST TWO WEEKS of becoming a member, you have the
opportunity to qualify for our ACCELERATED FAST START BONUS and
maximize your earnings right out of the gate!
Urgently Go Here:http:adjix.com/mjj2
OR
http://adjix.com/vwhw
P/s : 100% FREE Business online Worldwide http://adjix.com/nbft
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Zircon Earring-JE0278 Fashion Jewelry,Wholesale Zircon Earring
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7ccf0bd4dcded8a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 11:20 pm
From: zhineng chen
Zircon Earring-JE0278 Fashion Jewelry,Wholesale Zircon Earring
Fashion and High Quality There are many product in here http://shop.steeljewelry.org/
Please loading our website(http://www.steeljewelry.org/) if you want
to get some
best replicas clothing,Shoes,handbags and Fashion Watches. If you are
looking
for Zircon Earring, you can click the link:http://
shop.steeljewelry.org/zircon-earring-product-3483.html to order. that
also have all items of our company. as fashion jewelry,pearl
jewelry,jewelry wholesales and so on.
Stainless Steel Earring: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/stainless-steel-earring.html
, We are a stainless steel jewelry wholesale company. There are many
kinds of steel earring styles on our website. Our business is
wholesale stainless steel earring, such as laser earring,line
earring,plating earring,cutting earring,casting earring,zircon earring
【Name】: Zircon Earring
【Model】: JE0278
【Type】: Stainless Steel Earring
【Market Price】: US $15.00
【Wholesale Price】: US $2.80
The Similar Products:
Plating Earring -JE0001: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1445.html
Plating Earring -JE0004: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1446.html
Zircon Earring -JE0107: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1777.html
Zircon Earring -JE0113: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1778.html
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 11:20 pm
From: zhineng chen
Zircon Earring-JE0278 Fashion Jewelry,Wholesale Zircon Earring
Fashion and High Quality There are many product in here http://shop.steeljewelry.org/
Please loading our website(http://www.steeljewelry.org/) if you want
to get some
best replicas clothing,Shoes,handbags and Fashion Watches. If you are
looking
for Zircon Earring, you can click the link:http://
shop.steeljewelry.org/zircon-earring-product-3483.html to order. that
also have all items of our company. as fashion jewelry,pearl
jewelry,jewelry wholesales and so on.
Stainless Steel Earring: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/stainless-steel-earring.html
, We are a stainless steel jewelry wholesale company. There are many
kinds of steel earring styles on our website. Our business is
wholesale stainless steel earring, such as laser earring,line
earring,plating earring,cutting earring,casting earring,zircon earring
【Name】: Zircon Earring
【Model】: JE0278
【Type】: Stainless Steel Earring
【Market Price】: US $15.00
【Wholesale Price】: US $2.80
The Similar Products:
Plating Earring -JE0001: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1445.html
Plating Earring -JE0004: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1446.html
Zircon Earring -JE0107: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1777.html
Zircon Earring -JE0113: http://shop.steeljewelry.org/wholesale-jewelry-1778.html
==============================================================================
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
