On Aug 25, 12:10*am, "Julie Bove" wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

...









Billy wrote:
In article ,
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.

Well, what do you think about the following: The government socializes
medicine, and makes laws forcing hospitals to take care of anyone whether
they are insured or not. - Then after a while, they say, "Since we are
giving medical care at the taxpayer's expense to all who need it, we
insist that you don't enguage in any activities that are dangerous to your
health, such as driving without a seat belt, riding your cycle without a
helmit, or smoking/eating the wrong foods that may incur health problems
that we will have to take care of." IOW, they first socialize something,
and then use their socialization as an excuse to control it.
Suppose, for example they were to finance eternary clinics with the
taxpayers money. Then, after letting that saettle in for a while, they
say, "You may no longer let your cats roam free, because they may become
injured by the dangers of freedom and this will impoact the tax funds.
Therefore we are drafting a law that demands that everyone keep their cats
locked up at all times."

I think that if you could poll people on this, all the one3s who agreed
with such a law would be liberals. (At least, that's where my money would
go.)

I am against socialized medicine because I know people who live in countries
that have it and I do not think and they do not think they are getting good
care. *Yes, some have no problems. *But I have one friend who has had such
problems that she could write a novel on it. *Of course one doesn't have to
have socialized medicine to have problems. *I have had enough here in the
USA.

[...]

Your data base is on the smallish side, for a country with over
300,000,000 population.

Suggestion -- to you and others (you know who you are). Simply remove
the term "socialized medicine" and substitute
""universal health care", and see how much that simple change of words
will soothe your savage breasts.

To be blunt, I doubt if 99% of the respondents have a CLUE as to the
history of socialism. You just ingest and regurgitate the bilge that
is fed to you throujgh the corporate media. Their funders -- Koch et
al -- poop their pants at the thought that giving workers decent
conditions and refraining from manufacturing harmful products could --
heaven forfend -- send the stock price down even a point or two. Yet
all objective research shows that treating employees well, thus
lessening turnover and concomitant need for re-training, and selling
good products actually HELPS the bottom line.

This comes from a card-carrying capitalist, who is sure capitalism can
be made to work profitably for the sellers and compassionately for the
buyers. It's only massive greed, arrogance, and lust for power that
screws up a viable system.

HB

HB