View Single Post
  #31  
Old August 26th 12, 01:42 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,rec.gardens,misc.consumers.house
Bill Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,065
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

Julie Bove wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
dgk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats
getting in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't
getting rid of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of
the cats in her suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy
being outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want
them to be happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying
what little time you have. This is true for me, and also true
for my cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a
longer life, and then have the gall to impose their poor choice
on the rest of the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body.
You want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on
it. No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the
attack on government as increasing corporate power.


In my experience, I find that liberals will choose government over
individuals or corporate entities. For example, if a corporate entity
bribes a government official, the liberal is most likely to
immediately blame the corporate entity, whereas, I will find the
government official to be most despicable. After all, corporations
have to compete, and if they suspect their competition of bribing
the government, then they are forced to do likewise. But our
representatives are expected (by me) to be not corrupted. They have
the public's trust, and are most culpable in my mind...


Oh bah! I don't choose either one. Yes, I know that we need both for
various reasons. I know there are corrupt people out there all over
the place. I also know there isn't a danged thing I can do about it.
So mostly I just stay out of it. I try to take care of myself.


Perhaps, but be aware that what others do can directly affect you. Its kind
of like being an isolationist. You can turn your back on the rest of the
world, and say. "what they do in other countries just isn't my business."
And, in 1912 this might have been a pretty good policy, but today, any two
bit dictator could build an atom bomb, and deploy it in the center of New
York City, and kill perhaps a million people, so we can no longer turn our
backs on the rest of the world.