A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat rescue
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fences - Cats - DIY?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #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.

  #32  
Old August 26th 12, 02:43 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
Billy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Would you two mind awfully deleting rec.gardens from your conversation?

Julie Bove wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
...
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.


I am a liberal and although I dislike politics, if I had to choose a
party I guess libertarian would be the one I would identify with the
most. There are some things that they are for that I am not although
what it is now escapes me.

I think for the most part people should be allowed to do what they
want to do provided they are not hurting anyone, including
themselves. I do dislike guns. I personally know too many people
who have been permanently injured or even killed by them. Yes,
stupid accidents. But accidents that wouldn't have happened if there
were no gun. I do know some people are into hunting. I am not. I
guess that is their right. And I guess an exception would have to be
made there. Obviously police and military need weapons. I guess I
really just don't want to think about it. Things like this make my
brain hurt.


Well, as a libertarian, I have owned and carried a gun most of my life. To
be sure, gun accidents wouldn't happen were there no guns, but then, auto
accidents wouldn't happen were there no cars, either, and, like cars, guns
do have a purpose. I don't hunt, but I don't want to be killed by some
mugger or crazy person either, and carrying a gun gave me comfort and the
courage to go into some fairly dangerous places. If the world were chock
full of policemen so there was one on every corner 24-7, then guns would not
be necessary. But, unfortunately, the police can't prevent crime. There
aren't nearly enough of them for that. They can only hunt down the criminals
after the fact. So, if you want to prevent something bad from happening to
you, you have to do it yourself. When a crime is taking place there will, in
all likelihood be only two people there. You, and the criminal who is out to
harm you. So, you had better be able to defend yourself, and the only way I
know how to do this effectively is to carry a gun and know how to use it.


--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

  #33  
Old August 26th 12, 04:20 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,rec.gardens,misc.consumers.house
Julie Bove[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:10:22 -0700, "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.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area
and there is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and
her dog run free. The only car they might get hit by is by her, her
mom or a visitor. But there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car
or killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or
some wild animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of
the house on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to
let it out loose? And then come whining to me because it was
flattened by a car? Or eaten by a coyote? And yeah, that has
happened. That then is your own fault, IMO.



Those are the same imbeciles who let their four year old play in the
road.


That's true.


  #34  
Old August 26th 12, 06:02 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
Billy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

In article ,
"Julie Bove" wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:10:22 -0700, "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.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area
and there is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and
her dog run free. The only car they might get hit by is by her, her
mom or a visitor. But there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car
or killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or
some wild animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of
the house on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to
let it out loose? And then come whining to me because it was
flattened by a car? Or eaten by a coyote? And yeah, that has
happened. That then is your own fault, IMO.



Those are the same imbeciles who let their four year old play in the
road.


That's true.


So you are talking to the local troll Julie. I asked that this
conversation be taken elsewhere, out of rec.gardens, but the troll has
brought it back. Be advise that Brooklyn1, aka Sheldon, Shelly is an
verified asshole. Keep talking to him until he starts drinking again,
and he will tell you what he thinks of Christians, and women's anatomy.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

  #35  
Old August 26th 12, 07:27 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
Julie Bove[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?


"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Julie Bove" wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:10:22 -0700, "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.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area
and there is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and
her dog run free. The only car they might get hit by is by her, her
mom or a visitor. But there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car
or killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or
some wild animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of
the house on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to
let it out loose? And then come whining to me because it was
flattened by a car? Or eaten by a coyote? And yeah, that has
happened. That then is your own fault, IMO.


Those are the same imbeciles who let their four year old play in the
road.


That's true.


So you are talking to the local troll Julie. I asked that this
conversation be taken elsewhere, out of rec.gardens, but the troll has
brought it back. Be advise that Brooklyn1, aka Sheldon, Shelly is an
verified asshole. Keep talking to him until he starts drinking again,
and he will tell you what he thinks of Christians, and women's anatomy.


I do know Sheldon from another group. And I know what he thinks about my
hooters. I don't consider him to be a troll but maybe you do.


  #36  
Old August 27th 12, 12:28 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,rec.gardens,misc.consumers.house
Higgs Boson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

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
  #37  
Old August 27th 12, 01:06 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,rec.gardens,misc.consumers.house
Brooklyn1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:28:36 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

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


HB IS REALLY QUITE MENTALLY ILL... ITS ONLY REASON FOR BEING HERE IS
TO PICK ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT WHICH HE KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. TO
DATE HB HAS POSTED NOTHING OF VALUE... HAS ANYONE SEEN HIS GARDEN, OF
COURSE NOT, HB LIVES IN A ONE ROOM CELLAR APARTMENT FOR WHICH IT'S
LATE PAYING RENT. HB IS NO KIND OF GARDNER, IT'S HANDS HAVE NEVER
TOUCHED DIRT.
  #38  
Old August 27th 12, 03:54 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.cats.rescue,alt.pets.cats,rec.gardens,misc.consumers.house
Julie Bove[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Fences - Cats - DIY?


"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
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.


---------
Nope. I don't even like HMO's. After having studied insurance on the brink
of my husband getting a new job I can now say that a lot of it truly sucks.
To say that we all need health insurance or to make it available to everyone
is truly meaningless. As much as I have complained about the medical
insurance that I do have, apparently it is quite good. I consider myself
lucky.

---------

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.

---------

Actually I know pretty much about it seeing as how the brother of one of my
best friends was (not sure if he still is) a member of the Socialist
Worker's Party. I had to listen to him spout off about it far more than I
wanted to. Sounds pretty good on paper but when you think about it, doesn't
work out so well for a lot of people.

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.

-------

Okay... I am one of those people who doesn't really desire to be rich and
famous. As long as I have a roof over my head, enough money to get what I
need, enough to eat, etc., I'm okay. I do donate food to the food bank when
I can and I do give to animal charities when I can. *shrugs*


  #39  
Old August 27th 12, 11:58 PM 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?

Higgs Boson wrote:
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.



Yes. It is possible to put sheep's clothing on the wolf. The Brothers Grimm
taught us that many years ago. But that doesn't make it right. It just makes
it liberal....

  #40  
Old August 28th 12, 12:06 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:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
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.


---------
Nope. I don't even like HMO's. After having studied insurance on
the brink of my husband getting a new job I can now say that a lot of
it truly sucks. To say that we all need health insurance or to make
it available to everyone is truly meaningless. As much as I have
complained about the medical insurance that I do have, apparently it
is quite good. I consider myself lucky.

---------

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.

---------

Actually I know pretty much about it seeing as how the brother of one
of my best friends was (not sure if he still is) a member of the
Socialist Worker's Party. I had to listen to him spout off about it
far more than I wanted to. Sounds pretty good on paper but when you
think about it, doesn't work out so well for a lot of people.

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.

-------

Okay... I am one of those people who doesn't really desire to be
rich and famous. As long as I have a roof over my head, enough money
to get what I need, enough to eat, etc., I'm okay. I do donate food
to the food bank when I can and I do give to animal charities when I
can. *shrugs*


Capitalism has worked very well for over 250 years. Socialism, on the other
hand is definitely not working in Europe (many countries there are going
broke) and, it doesn't seem to be working very well here, either. (Those
bums who live down under the freeway overpass on welfare checks are
increasing in number) I think I'll stick with capitalism and our
Constitution, thanks.....

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fences - Cats - DIY Gas Bag Cat community 20 August 17th 12 02:18 PM
Underground radio type fences Zy Cat health & behaviour 10 December 1st 08 09:31 PM
Speaking of Fences (OT) jmcquown Cat anecdotes 18 July 27th 05 03:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.