Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 8 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NONVIOLENCE: Why Jesus is a fake
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3449037952f7cd43?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 7 2010 11:14 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle

On Feb 8, 1:19 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> TheTibetanMonkey wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> >>>>>>> e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> taken for granted by who? you call pacifists weak do you? i
> >>>>>>>> dont want to beat the crap out of you, therefore i am weak?
> >>>>>>>> lol ... i can see why you consider yourself to be in a jungle.
> >>>>>>>> i presume your knuckles have evolved enough not to hurt too
> >>>>>>>> much from dragging them along concrete rather than the jungle
> >>>>>>>> floor? ;^-]
> >>>>>>> I'm sure that all the Christians that supported the war agree
> >>>>>>> with me: IN THE JUNGLE YOU MUST STRIKE FIRST.
> >>>>>> There is no jungle in Iraq, stupid.
> >>>>> Still ruled by the Law of the Jungle, isn't it not?
> >>>> Nope, ruled by the law of some rather swathy goat fucker/child molester, actually.
> >>>>> The little lion is being changed for the big ones.
> >>>> There are no lions in Iraq, stupid.
> >>>> And lions dont live in jungles either, stupid.
> >>>>>>> Where we disagree is that they are happy with the jungle,
> >>>>>>> and I'm not. But of course, I'm the Wise Tibetan Monkey.
> >>>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> >>>>> See, you are obsessed with drugs...
> >>>> Nope, you drug crazed loons stand out like dogs balls, child.
> >>>>> yet another stupid war.
> >>>> Indeed.
> >>> Well, at least you don't support another stupid war.
> >> Yeah, Afghanistan is never gunna fly.
> >>> But if you can't even understand of the value of a basic metaphor, how can
> >>> you even get the point that war --all wars-- feed some hungry predators?
> >> Not all wars do, WW2 didnt.
> > OK, I agree with that. Self defense.
> >>> You wouldn't believe that fairy tale of Adam and Eve being tempted by a serpent.
> >> Or that the goat fucker/child molester had some angel whisper in his ear either.
> >>> Yes, the West believes that an evil snake doomed mankind
> >>> to suffering and indifference --perhaps even martyrdom.
> >>> We are so different from the Muslim world!?
> >> Yeah, no 90 virgins for us, ours fuck around much too much for that.
> > I see there's no saints among us. Maybe not even the Pope.
>
> Certainly not even the pope. The current one used to run the
> Inquisition and it will be fascinating to see how many were
> child molesters, just like so many other roman catholic priests.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Laws that keep sexual predators away from the general population
doesn't seem effective for Catholic priests.

It would be a good question whether they would be willing to give up
their manhood upon vow of priesthood. It should be a simple
operation. ;)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 12:50 am
From: "Rod Speed"

TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> TheTibetanMonkey wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey
>>>>>>>> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>>>>>>>>> e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>> taken for granted by who? you call pacifists weak do you? i
>>>>>>>>>> dont want to beat the crap out of you, therefore i am weak?
>>>>>>>>>> lol ... i can see why you consider yourself to be in a
>>>>>>>>>> jungle. i presume your knuckles have evolved enough not to
>>>>>>>>>> hurt too much from dragging them along concrete rather than
>>>>>>>>>> the jungle floor? ;^-]

>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that all the Christians that supported the war agree
>>>>>>>>> with me: IN THE JUNGLE YOU MUST STRIKE FIRST.

>>>>>>>> There is no jungle in Iraq, stupid.

>>>>>>> Still ruled by the Law of the Jungle, isn't it not?

>>>>>> Nope, ruled by the law of some rather swathy goat fucker/child molester, actually.

>>>>>>> The little lion is being changed for the big ones.

>>>>>> There are no lions in Iraq, stupid.

>>>>>> And lions dont live in jungles either, stupid.

>>>>>>>>> Where we disagree is that they are happy with the jungle,
>>>>>>>>> and I'm not. But of course, I'm the Wise Tibetan Monkey.

>>>>>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

>>>>>>> See, you are obsessed with drugs...

>>>>>> Nope, you drug crazed loons stand out like dogs balls, child.

>>>>>>> yet another stupid war.

>>>>>> Indeed.

>>>>> Well, at least you don't support another stupid war.

>>>> Yeah, Afghanistan is never gunna fly.

>>>>> But if you can't even understand of the value of a basic metaphor, how can
>>>>> you even get the point that war --all wars-- feed some hungry predators?

>>>> Not all wars do, WW2 didnt.

>>> OK, I agree with that. Self defense.

>>>>> You wouldn't believe that fairy tale of Adam and Eve being tempted by a serpent.

>>>> Or that the goat fucker/child molester had some angel whisper in his ear either.

>>>>> Yes, the West believes that an evil snake doomed mankind
>>>>> to suffering and indifference --perhaps even martyrdom.

>>>>> We are so different from the Muslim world!?

>>>> Yeah, no 90 virgins for us, ours fuck around much too much for that.

>>> I see there's no saints among us. Maybe not even the Pope.

>> Certainly not even the pope. The current one used to run the
>> Inquisition and it will be fascinating to see how many were
>> child molesters, just like so many other roman catholic priests.

> Laws that keep sexual predators away from the general
> population doesn't seem effective for Catholic priests.

Yeah, presumably because most cops are roman catholics.

> It would be a good question whether they would be willing to give up
> their manhood upon vow of priesthood. It should be a simple operation. ;)

Makes a lot more sense to let them marry.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:15 am
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle

On Feb 8, 3:50 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> TheTibetanMonkey wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> >>>>>> wrote
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey
> >>>>>>>> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> >>>>>>>>> e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> taken for granted by who? you call pacifists weak do you? i
> >>>>>>>>>> dont want to beat the crap out of you, therefore i am weak?
> >>>>>>>>>> lol ... i can see why you consider yourself to be in a
> >>>>>>>>>> jungle. i presume your knuckles have evolved enough not to
> >>>>>>>>>> hurt too much from dragging them along concrete rather than
> >>>>>>>>>> the jungle floor? ;^-]
> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure that all the Christians that supported the war agree
> >>>>>>>>> with me: IN THE JUNGLE YOU MUST STRIKE FIRST.
> >>>>>>>> There is no jungle in Iraq, stupid.
> >>>>>>> Still ruled by the Law of the Jungle, isn't it not?
> >>>>>> Nope, ruled by the law of some rather swathy goat fucker/child molester, actually.
> >>>>>>> The little lion is being changed for the big ones.
> >>>>>> There are no lions in Iraq, stupid.
> >>>>>> And lions dont live in jungles either, stupid.
> >>>>>>>>> Where we disagree is that they are happy with the jungle,
> >>>>>>>>> and I'm not. But of course, I'm the Wise Tibetan Monkey.
> >>>>>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> >>>>>>> See, you are obsessed with drugs...
> >>>>>> Nope, you drug crazed loons stand out like dogs balls, child.
> >>>>>>> yet another stupid war.
> >>>>>> Indeed.
> >>>>> Well, at least you don't support another stupid war.
> >>>> Yeah, Afghanistan is never gunna fly.
> >>>>> But if you can't even understand of the value of a basic metaphor, how can
> >>>>> you even get the point that war --all wars-- feed some hungry predators?
> >>>> Not all wars do, WW2 didnt.
> >>> OK, I agree with that. Self defense.
> >>>>> You wouldn't believe that fairy tale of Adam and Eve being tempted by a serpent.
> >>>> Or that the goat fucker/child molester had some angel whisper in his ear either.
> >>>>> Yes, the West believes that an evil snake doomed mankind
> >>>>> to suffering and indifference --perhaps even martyrdom.
> >>>>> We are so different from the Muslim world!?
> >>>> Yeah, no 90 virgins for us, ours fuck around much too much for that.
> >>> I see there's no saints among us. Maybe not even the Pope.
> >> Certainly not even the pope. The current one used to run the
> >> Inquisition and it will be fascinating to see how many were
> >> child molesters, just like so many other roman catholic priests.
> > Laws that keep sexual predators away from the general
> > population doesn't seem effective for Catholic priests.
>
> Yeah, presumably because most cops are roman catholics.
>
> > It would be a good question whether they would be willing to give up
> > their manhood upon vow of priesthood. It should be a simple operation. ;)
>
> Makes a lot more sense to let them marry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh sure. At least they wouldn't have to live in the lie. I sincerely
doubt that a human being can suppress his sexual urges all the time.
Maybe someone like Gandhi could, but it happened later in his life.
Someone told me that he was fooling around though it's likely to be a
lie.

Anyway, I like to dedicate the topic to Gandhi's way, and how we may
adapt it today...

"The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhism

In this case we got neither one in Iraq. But I think most Christians
are just HAPPY to live in the lie.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:14 am
From: "Rod Speed"

TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>>>> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey
>>>>>>>> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>> taken for granted by who? you call pacifists weak do you? i
>>>>>>>>>>>> dont want to beat the crap out of you, therefore i am weak?
>>>>>>>>>>>> lol ... i can see why you consider yourself to be in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> jungle. i presume your knuckles have evolved enough not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> hurt too much from dragging them along concrete rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>> the jungle floor? ;^-]

>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that all the Christians that supported the war
>>>>>>>>>>> agree with me: IN THE JUNGLE YOU MUST STRIKE FIRST.

>>>>>>>>>> There is no jungle in Iraq, stupid.

>>>>>>>>> Still ruled by the Law of the Jungle, isn't it not?

>>>>>>>> Nope, ruled by the law of some rather swathy goat fucker/child molester, actually.

>>>>>>>>> The little lion is being changed for the big ones.

>>>>>>>> There are no lions in Iraq, stupid.
>>>>>>>> And lions dont live in jungles either, stupid.

>>>>>>>>>>> Where we disagree is that they are happy with the jungle,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm not. But of course, I'm the Wise Tibetan Monkey.

>>>>>>>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

>>>>>>>>> See, you are obsessed with drugs...

>>>>>>>> Nope, you drug crazed loons stand out like dogs balls, child.

>>>>>>>>> yet another stupid war.

>>>>>>>> Indeed.

>>>>>>> Well, at least you don't support another stupid war.

>>>>>> Yeah, Afghanistan is never gunna fly.

>>>>>>> But if you can't even understand of the value of a basic metaphor, how can
>>>>>>> you even get the point that war --all wars-- feed some hungry predators?

>>>>>> Not all wars do, WW2 didnt.

>>>>> OK, I agree with that. Self defense.

And that is what Afghanistan was initially too.

>>>>>>> You wouldn't believe that fairy tale of Adam and Eve being tempted by a serpent.

>>>>>> Or that the goat fucker/child molester had some angel whisper in his ear either.

>>>>>>> Yes, the West believes that an evil snake doomed mankind
>>>>>>> to suffering and indifference --perhaps even martyrdom.

>>>>>>> We are so different from the Muslim world!?

>>>>>> Yeah, no 90 virgins for us, ours fuck around much too much for that.

>>>>> I see there's no saints among us. Maybe not even the Pope.

>>>> Certainly not even the pope. The current one used to run the
>>>> Inquisition and it will be fascinating to see how many were
>>>> child molesters, just like so many other roman catholic priests.

>>> Laws that keep sexual predators away from the general
>>> population doesn't seem effective for Catholic priests.

>> Yeah, presumably because most cops are roman catholics.

>>> It would be a good question whether they would be willing to give up
>>> their manhood upon vow of priesthood. It should be a simple operation. ;)

>> Makes a lot more sense to let them marry.

They have enough problems with recruiting enough new ones without your 'solution'

> Oh sure. At least they wouldn't have to live in the lie.

Yeah, likely more of them fuck adult women than kids, tho there
is some evidence that the current rules do attract child molesters.

They dont get too many goat fuckers tho, presumably thats a shortage of goats.

> I sincerely doubt that a human being can suppress his sexual urges all the time.

Some can.

> Maybe someone like Gandhi could,

Thats very arguable indeed. He used to sleep naked with one of his female child close relatives.

> but it happened later in his life.

Yeah, he used to fuck around in africa.

> Someone told me that he was fooling around though it's likely to be a lie.

He didnt even deny sleeping naked with one of his female child close relatives.

Just maintained that there was nothing wrong with it.

> Anyway, I like to dedicate the topic to Gandhi's way, and how we may adapt it today...

I'm not into drinking my own piss.

And he produced a hell of a lot of corpses too.

> "The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction."

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhism

> In this case we got neither one in Iraq. But I think most Christians are just HAPPY to live in the lie.

Yeah, plenty of them are that stupid.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 'striker' extended promo
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/358387151c4c0fd3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 12:50 am
From: sai renuka

Invitation to join RupeeMail!

Hi ,

I have something interesting for you, RupeeMail!

It's really amazing! You get paid to open & read the contents of
RupeeMail. You receive promotional offers & special discounts in
RupeeMail.

Interestingly RupeeMails will reach you based on the preference list
you opted for.

Create your RupeeMail Account & refer your friends to earn launch
referral bonus on every new registration.

Try this... http://www.rupeemail.in/rupeemail/invite.do?in=NTU3NTk1JSMlYXZIOHJWMm0wcDFFTmg1T3N0VFFQZ0NJRw==

RupeeMail, It pays

{Insert your Name Here}

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: "Friend Request" on forums?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f928c09251a1cd63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 6:37 am
From: "Bill"

"Coffee's For Closers" wrote in message
> In article,
> billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com says...
>> I think this is probably something everybody else knows but me and a dumb
>> question (Hint: I am a bit older). Anyway...
>>
>> On web site discussion forums, every once and awhile I get a "Friend
>> Request" from someone I have never talked with. (These forums have to do
>> with finance, home improvement, technical advice, etc. Nothing to do with
>> anything personal.)
>>
>> When I get a "Friend Request", I have the option of "allowing" that
>> person
>> to be my "friend" or not allowing this...
>>
>> Then if I select OK, it shows on that person's information page that I am
>> their "friend".
>>
>> So what is this exactly?
>>
>> Am I supposed to write that person a thank you note for requesting this
>> or
>> something?
>>
>> Or just click ok (to be friends) and do nothing further?
>>
>> Why do people ask this? Are they more "cool" or something if they are
>> associated with certain people?
>
>
> Yes, some people may feel that they can gain pseudo-social status
> by pseudo-friendship with certain other online posters.
>
> Also, some people may feel that they can gain pseudo-social
> status simply having a large number of pseudo-friends displayed
> next to their name.
>
> It is exactly the same way many people view in-person physical
> friendship in real life.
>

I see... It is this "high school" being "popular" nonsense / gang
follow-the-leader and never think on your own outside the group mindset!

Too bad I can't be a real friend to these people and explain what friends in
life really are. And that these so called "friends" will vanish with a
quickness if you lose your good looks, fancy car, big house, impressive job,
or whatever else "qualifies" you to be a "friend"!

I knew one guy who had extremely good looks and lots of "friends". Then he
was in a bad accident and his face was terribly disfigured. Suddenly all
these "friends" disappeared! But nothing changed so far as I was concerned.
He said "You're still my friend?" I said "Of course! Why wouldn't I be?"

So far as I am concerned, explaining these things is not something you do
over the internet or "texting", it is a "sitting across the table at a
coffee shop" for many hours thing. I think in history they called this
"talking"?

FYI - These "friend requests" are not emails. It is a feature of "vbulletin"
internet discussion forums (web sites). Like here...
http://www.totallyfrugal.com/forums/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:21 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Bill wrote:
> "Coffee's For Closers" wrote in message
>> In article,
>> billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com says...
>>> I think this is probably something everybody else knows but me and
>>> a dumb question (Hint: I am a bit older). Anyway...
>>>
>>> On web site discussion forums, every once and awhile I get a "Friend
>>> Request" from someone I have never talked with. (These forums have
>>> to do with finance, home improvement, technical advice, etc.
>>> Nothing to do with anything personal.)
>>>
>>> When I get a "Friend Request", I have the option of "allowing" that
>>> person
>>> to be my "friend" or not allowing this...
>>>
>>> Then if I select OK, it shows on that person's information page
>>> that I am their "friend".
>>>
>>> So what is this exactly?
>>>
>>> Am I supposed to write that person a thank you note for requesting
>>> this or
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Or just click ok (to be friends) and do nothing further?
>>>
>>> Why do people ask this? Are they more "cool" or something if they
>>> are associated with certain people?
>>
>>
>> Yes, some people may feel that they can gain pseudo-social status
>> by pseudo-friendship with certain other online posters.
>>
>> Also, some people may feel that they can gain pseudo-social
>> status simply having a large number of pseudo-friends displayed
>> next to their name.
>>
>> It is exactly the same way many people view in-person physical
>> friendship in real life.
>>
>
> I see... It is this "high school" being "popular" nonsense / gang
> follow-the-leader and never think on your own outside the group
> mindset!
> Too bad I can't be a real friend to these people and explain what
> friends in life really are. And that these so called "friends" will
> vanish with a quickness if you lose your good looks, fancy car, big
> house, impressive job, or whatever else "qualifies" you to be a
> "friend"!
> I knew one guy who had extremely good looks and lots of "friends".
> Then he was in a bad accident and his face was terribly disfigured.
> Suddenly all these "friends" disappeared! But nothing changed so far
> as I was concerned. He said "You're still my friend?" I said "Of
> course! Why wouldn't I be?"

> So far as I am concerned, explaining these things is not something you do over the internet or "texting",

It can be done that way too.

> it is a "sitting across the table at a coffee shop" for many hours thing.

Dinosaur stuff. Its much more convenient to do it in other ways too.

> I think in history they called this "talking"?

Doesnt have to be done that way.

> FYI - These "friend requests" are not emails. It is a feature of
> "vbulletin" internet discussion forums (web sites). Like here...
> http://www.totallyfrugal.com/forums/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Everybody Uses Discounts, Let me show you how
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/95c136a8e8373f92?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 6:58 am
From: wyattm

First of all I want to say that I'm probably just like you. I work a
full-time job as a teacher, my wife works and I have 4 wonderful
kids. I have searched 4 years online for an opportunity to make money
online. I have lost over $800 trying several programs.

Finally, I connected with the only program that the average guy could
get to actually work. Your first question might be what makes this
"system" so great or different. The company is a membership to a
discount/coupon/cash back program. I will admit that to start you
must pay $50.00 and a renewable fee of $19.95 per month. But stay
with me just a minute….The savings you get from the discounts,
coupons, and cash back programs more than pay for the $19.95. The
average family can save anywhere from $30 to $100 or more per month.
So even if you do nothing other than use the savings, you actually
make a few dollars. Bottom line you will not LOSE money, and you have
the opportunity to make A LOT of money. Plus it's easy. I had a
check ready my first week.

Their unique powerline places people under you automatically. My
downline was at 80 after 8 days!

What type of places can you save money? Sonic, Burger King, Pizza
Hut, Dominoes, Movies, groceries, most major restaurant chains, many
national brands, hotels….there just so many!! Not to mention cash
back at 600 online merchants.

It costs you nothing to look and pre-enroll to test drive the system
all for free.

If you want to hear more, watch this video that gives more details

http://wyattm.MyWorldMovie.com

The following is a free pre-enrollee landing page:

http://wyattm.MWPTour.com

Best Wishes in your endeavor,

Mike

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wars sending U.S. into ruin
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53d1178083ad4819?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:08 am
From: mark

On Feb 8, 12:10 am, VFW <george...@toast.net> wrote:
> In article <qrkum5t6q73k4i009a137evulgt4lid...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> striker...@mail.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:40:37 -0800 (PST), Möbius Pretzel
> > <mobius_bb_pret...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >Wars sending U.S. into ruin
>
> > >U.S. President Barack Obama calls the $3.8-trillion US budget he just
> > >sent to Congress a major step in restoring America's economic health.
>
> > >In fact, it's another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply
> > >addicted to the dangerous drug — debt.
>
> > >More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion.
> > >The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin
> > >by buying tanks.
>
> > >http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/02/05...
> > >1-qmi.html
>
> > Good!! The faster this degenerate political state collapses the
> > better. Build anew. Bring it on!
>
> > striker
>
> monday. a Buddhist celebration;
> Nirvana
> --
> Hint; Enjoy the moment !- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing us with
it
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0a0ec86da3faf9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:21 am
From: jeff

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkmimr$p4o$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>
>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
>> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
>> Afghanistan.
>
> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.

Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war
that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the
drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to
track Iraq instead?

To his
> credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
> [...]

After languishing for years, because the eye was on Iraq.

Note that 2009 was a record year for killing alQaeda and Taliban. 2010
is well on the way to eclipsing that. The leader of Pak Taliban is dead.
But in additional much progress has been made in cutting off their
finances. The difference between a working government and one trying to
limp to the finish line. Attention is finally being paid to Yemen. You
did know that Bush had a bit of a tiff and halted efforts there?
>
>> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
>> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no plans
>> other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the economy.
>> You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you want to get
>> out. Historically money is put back during good times. W drained the pot.
>
> This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
> flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
> home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.

Yes. Reagan was wrong in that deficits don't matter. So was Bush 2.
Remember he was given near surpluses.

But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar
which had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates
are historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.

You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the
opposite. Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a
while. Trickle Down does not work.

There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
that had been in place?

>
> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
> conservative by any means.

He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
still defend and admire him.

Jeff
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:26 am
From: jeff

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "tmclone" <tmclone@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
> news:ae1a388a-292e-4fbb-b91d-096beca4a3a0@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 9:52 am, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>>> Why do you waste your breath on these guys? It's not as if
> rightwingnuts are capable of actual thought. They can only parrot what
> they hear on faux news. It's sad, but hopeless. Move on.
>
> What a laugh! Bill Sornson constantly posts links which refute every liberal
> myth as to what constitutes the facts.

Repost one. Go ahead. I have a close friend who is a Tea Partier and I
hear all kinds of things. I always look into them and it always comes up
all opinion and little to no facts.

But there are none so blind as those
> who will not see, i.e., liberals.

You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says
it's so, does not make it so.

I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like
they do. Exactly.

Jeff
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:31 am
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle

On Feb 8, 10:21 am, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > "jeff" <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:hkmimr$p4o$1@news.albasani.net...
> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>
> >> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
> >> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
> >> Afghanistan.
>
> > Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
> > terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>
> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
> watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war
> that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the
> drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to
> track Iraq instead?

I think he will also go down as the president that marks the
"beginning of the end." Because he invaded Iraq precisely because it
had NO WMDs, Iran and N. Korea decided to get the real thing. WELCOME
TO THE JUNGLE.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 7:48 am
From: jeff

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkmk8b$rro$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkl1la$883$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>>>>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>>>>> several hundred years.
>>>> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>>> Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially
>>> the liberal Dems in Congress.
>> Who gutted the regulatory departments? It was W.
>
> It was both Repubs and Dems who wanted everyone to own their own houses.
> Bush tried to reign it in, but Congress wanted everyone to have a mortgage,
> whether you could afford it or not. Barney Frank, a liberal Dem, was one of
> the main villains in all of this.

You guys are always looking for villains. The problem was not in
wanting more mortgages, the problem was that they didn't follow proper
procedures. It was not the government sponsored loans that failed, they
perform at average to above average rates. It was all those mortgages
based on fiction, none of which followed government standards.
>
>> And Democrats come in all flavors. Republicans only come in one flavor
>> and all vote in lock step. Who is behind your curtain?
> r
> Repubs have better party discipline than do the Dems.
> [...]

Absolutely. Which is why we are where we are today.
>
>> Your side cares not a whit about controlling debt, all they care about is
>> taxes. Why then did the non partisan commission to make recommendations
>> get no support from Republicans?
>
> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we have
> got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not taxes.
> [...]

Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did
you look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
difference?

Would you take the wars off budget again so the numbers look better?
>
>> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they ever
>> caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government and
> less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be for it.

Sarah is a woman with much ambition, but little ability. She has
little clue of what is going on. She has narrow dogmatic beliefs. It is
not just liberals that believe that.

Sarah ran a state where the average citizen received far more from
the government dole than the lower 48. Indeed while she was mayor of
Wasilla she lobbied heavily and got government dollars. And she quit the
Governership in shambles, she treated the office like it was for family
and personal benefit. What a messy family life she leads.

But she think like you, which is to say, not deeply.

Jeff
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 8:19 am
From: jeff

jeff wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkjups$cu6$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:hkhemt$e6b$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Liberals are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to
>>>>>> comprehend, much less deal with, the simplest facts. Folks, there
>>>>>> is nothing dumber in this world than a liberal. I give you Mr.
>>>>>> Sherman as a prime example of the species.
>>>>> Lets look at these remarks as it explains a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> People, tend to think that others would do the same thing as they
>>>>> do. Hence, if you are an ideologue, you think your opponent must be
>>>>> also.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact, he has instead
>>>>> engaged in the most typical conservative line of personal attack.
>>>>> That gets around those pesky facts which are so hard to explain.
>>>> Bill Sornson gives anyone all the facts they would ever need.
>>> Which is none.
>>>
>>> I go to the
>>>> heart of the matter which is the ideology of liberals. It is
>>>> wrongheaded.
>>> I
>>>> have never known a liberal whom didn't deserve to be executed for
>>>> crimes against humanity. A liberal is a socialist is a communist.
>>>> They are kin to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Leftists all!
>>> These are all strawman arguments. You make your opponent out to be
>>> something of your own creation, so you can attack it. To actually
>>> believe that Obama is a communist is bereft of any real understanding
>>> and delusional. You don't have a clue.
>>
>> That is the ultimate destination of all liberals. After all, communism
>> is nothing but liberalism perfected. Marxism is basic to all Leftists.
>>
>>> BTW, I assume that you will be giving up up your Social Security
>>> and Medicare. Send us proof.
>>
>> I am one of the few persons in this country my age who does not have
>> Social Security and Medicare. As you can see, I marched to a different
>> drummer than the common man.
>>
>>> I'm reminded of what Col Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powels longtime
>>> aid, has said about George W Bush, he should be tried for treason.
>>
>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>> several hundred years.
>
> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>
> Did you miss that this is widely referred to as the worst recession
> since the Great Depression?
>
> Did you miss that growth has returned and the unemployment rate (which
> you seem to like) is heading down.
>
> Did you miss that the Deficit nearly tripled under Bush?
>
> Bush was twiddling his thumbs when all this was going down. Did you
> not notice how much of the initial reaction was waste?
>
> Jeff
>
>>
>> Colin Powell in fact is guilty of treason himself. He was never loyal
>> to Bush. Why did he not resign if he did not agree with Bush on the
>> Iraq war? He was nothing but an opportunist and owed everything he was
>> to the Repubs. Fuck that cowardly general - who never met a war that
>> he liked.

I missed this before.

They were all loyal, and they all came to understand the facts were
being manipulated. It is not just Colin Powell but George Tenet, Paul
O'Neill, Scott McClellan, Richard Clarke...

Powell was a typical army general, not wanting to get out ahead, and
being faithful. The UN speech is what gave the Iraq war it's rationale.
It was all misinformation made up by the OVP (Cheney).

Jeff
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:17 am
From: "Rod Speed"

TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote
> jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote
>> Edward Dolan wrote
>>> jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote

>>>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

>>>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now, because
>>>> Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished Afghanistan.

>>> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
>>> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.

>> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
>> watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a
>> war that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that
>> the drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of
>> Afghanistan to track Iraq instead?

> I think he will also go down as the president that marks the "beginning of the end."

I dont. Bet he ends up being seen like that fool Hoover or Spiro Agnew.

> Because he invaded Iraq precisely because it had NO
> WMDs, Iran and N. Korea decided to get the real thing.

They did indeed.

> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.

There's no jungle in North Korea either.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:57 am
From: "Edward Dolan"

"jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
news:hkpa5q$lcu$1@news.albasani.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkmimr$p4o$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>>
>>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
>>> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
>>> Afghanistan.
>>
>> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
>> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>
> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose watch
> 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war that
> had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the drones
> that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to track Iraq
> instead?

Compared to Clinton, Bush did indeed do a lot. We shall have to effect
regime change in Iran too sooner or later.

> To his
>> credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
>> [...]
>
> After languishing for years, because the eye was on Iraq.
>
> Note that 2009 was a record year for killing alQaeda and Taliban. 2010 is
> well on the way to eclipsing that. The leader of Pak Taliban is dead. But
> in additional much progress has been made in cutting off their finances.
> The difference between a working government and one trying to limp to the
> finish line. Attention is finally being paid to Yemen. You did know that
> Bush had a bit of a tiff and halted efforts there?

Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
extremists agreed with that. What difference does it make whether we kill
them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
thing is to kill them wherever they are.

>>> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>>>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>>>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>>> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
>>> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no
>>> plans other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the
>>> economy. You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you
>>> want to get out. Historically money is put back during good times. W
>>> drained the pot.
>>
>> This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
>> flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
>> home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.
>
> Yes. Reagan was wrong in that deficits don't matter. So was Bush 2.
> Remember he was given near surpluses.

Their means of fighting a recession was to lower taxes, especially on the
rich. It seemed to have worked rather well. So far, Obama is making a mess
of everything.

> But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar which
> had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates are
> historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
>
> You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the opposite.
> Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a while. Trickle
> Down does not work.

Trickle down works in the short term, but not in the long term. We all
believe in the progressive income tax, don't we?

> There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
> refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
> privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
> that had been in place?

Agree with you on the above.

>> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
>> conservative by any means.
>
> He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
> still defend and admire him.

I admire Bush for taking on the Islamic extremists, something Clinton never
did. The invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius. Bravo Bush!

>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>> aka
>>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 11:05 am
From: "Edward Dolan"

"jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message news:4B702D1D.80406@att.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
> But there are none so blind as those
>> who will not see, i.e., liberals.
>
> You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says it's
> so, does not make it so.

I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I supply
ideology. I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.

> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like they
> do. Exactly.

Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may or
may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are discussed.
She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.

>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 11:25 am
From: "Edward Dolan"

"jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
news:hkpbno$nuq$1@news.albasani.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we
>> have got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not
>> taxes.
>> [...]
>
> Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did you
> look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
> difference?

ALL spending - you dolt!

> Would you take the wars off budget again so the numbers look better?

There is one main reason why we have a federal government, to protect the
people. Why do the Dems always want to cut defense spending?

>>> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they
>>> ever caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>
>> The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government
>> and less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be
>> for it.
>
> Sarah is a woman with much ambition, but little ability. She has little
> clue of what is going on. She has narrow dogmatic beliefs. It is not just
> liberals that believe that.

Just keep believing that and you will soon get the surprise of your life.
McCain was dead until he got hold of Sarah.

> Sarah ran a state where the average citizen received far more from the
> government dole than the lower 48. Indeed while she was mayor of Wasilla
> she lobbied heavily and got government dollars. And she quit the
> Governership in shambles, she treated the office like it was for family
> and personal benefit. What a messy family life she leads.

Who cares about any of the above. Alaska has always been fucked up. So what
else is new?

Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).

> But she think like you, which is to say, not deeply.

We deep thinkers are alike in that we hate liberals. But Mass. gives us
hope. Imagine people so stupid as to keep voting for Kennedy even though he
was a murderer (Chappaquiddick) and a craven coward. But that is a liberal
for you!

>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>> aka
>>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 11:32 am
From: jeff

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "jeff" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message news:4B702D1D.80406@att.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>> But there are none so blind as those
>>> who will not see, i.e., liberals.
>> You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says it's
>> so, does not make it so.
>
> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I supply
> ideology.

Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because
they do.

I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
> 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.

An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
wars?
>
>> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like they
>> do. Exactly.
>
> Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may or
> may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are discussed.
> She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.

She is incompetent. She flaked out on the big Republican fund raiser,
and she hit this one to get the 100K. You did know that, didn't you?

Jeff
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pay mortage payment before due date?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 9:04 am
From: "Bill"

If a mortgage payment is due on the 30th of each month, is there any
advantage to paying it on the 1st of each month?

(Pay earlier than the due date each month)

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 9:10 am
From: jeff

Bill wrote:
> If a mortgage payment is due on the 30th of each month, is there any
> advantage to paying it on the 1st of each month?
>
> (Pay earlier than the due date each month)

That all depends on how your mortgage is written!

Jeff
>
>

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 9:13 am
From: "h"

"Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7taugmFnu8U1@mid.individual.net...
> If a mortgage payment is due on the 30th of each month, is there any
> advantage to paying it on the 1st of each month?
>
> (Pay earlier than the due date each month)
>

Yes, depending on how your loan is set up, you'll be saving some interest
money by paying early. Very likely that you'll save a whole payment or two
by the end of the term. Maybe a lot more - depends on how the loan is set
up.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:18 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Bill wrote:

> If a mortgage payment is due on the 30th of each month, is there any advantage to paying it on the 1st of each month?

> (Pay earlier than the due date each month)

Depends on how the interest is calculated, there is with some loans.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 11:02 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7taugmFnu8U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> If a mortgage payment is due on the 30th of each month, is there any
> advantage to paying it on the 1st of each month?
>
> (Pay earlier than the due date each month)

The best that can happen is that over
the term of the mortgage you would save
approximately 29 days of interest. The
rest of the time you will still be
paying about 30 days of interest every
month.

If you want to save money and the
mortgage will allow it, pay half your
monthly payment every 2 weeks which will
be the equiv of 13 monthly payments
which can amount to a significant
earlier payoff.

Or just pay an additional sum each month
to "principal only"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dell Studio 17 laptop in India
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/706ac892e77f6408?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 8 2010 9:40 am
From: Elango

Dell Studio 17 is the multimedia laptop that is meant to replace your
desktop systems. Notebook is packed with Intel Core2 Duo processors,
17.3-inch Hi-Def display, 1GB graphics card and JBL with SRS premium
sound effect to turn your notebook into a multimedia powerhouse.

For More Details

http://www.shoppingreps.com?SourceId=1120

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, February 8, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: