Here kitty, kitty

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:33:54 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
...That you flamed newsgroups with obscenities?

When did I do that? Is that what you call disagreeing with anything I said?
"Flaming the newsgroup with obscenities"?

What is your (anybody's) legacy on this earth. It was not a personal
attack.

--

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:39:28 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

You liberals would have us all living in paqdded cells, so we couldn't do
anything dangerous that might shorten our lives a little bit, and
shortchange the rest of society a few dollars in income taxes.... Just the
increase3 in statistical longevity is excuse enough for you to give up any
quality of life that freedom might bring... What a sorry bunch of *******s
you are...... Wherever Patrick Henry went when he died... That's where I
want to go......

You can hang yourself, and I'll supply the rope, if that's what you
want to do. I don't know what you are rambling about.

--

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:30:44 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:21:58 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:08:19 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:38:34 GMT, walsingham
wrote:

grimshaw wrote in
news:f6a82381-90b1-45a2-8635-
:

On Feb 1, 11:51 pm, ConsЯcons wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_5K-MHjxMw

Karen

I have two cats.

I understand that they are both furry, cute Psycho Killers.

Did you know that the two most invasive species in North
America are as follows:

Flora: The Dandelion

Fauna: Cats.



The most invasive species in North merka and elsewhere, are
humans!!

Right you are.

Cows eat dandelions. - I eat cows. It ain't the length of life
that counts, but the quality of life for as long as you have it.
When you are ready to eat it, or can;t keep it any longer for
whatever reason, then sneak up on it and, when it doesn;t
suspect anything, kill it quickly, and don;t look back. But
either way, I would suffer, because I miss my buddies when they
are gone. Not for them, but for myself. I just wish that some
kind person would do the same for me.... Sneak up behind me and
when I least expect it, shoot me in the back of the head. What a
nice way to go!

The crux of the issue, though, is not "how" but "when".

But I disagree. That's what I am saying.... Its how, and not when.
The universe is many billions of years ole, and we are only here
for a few dozen years. A mere drop in the ocean of time. So its the
quality of life that counts, and not the quantity. What dies it
matter whether you live for 50 years or five? If you are happy
during those five, and don't suffer when you die, well, what more
could you want?

I don't know about you, but I want to live as long as I can. So
far, it's been one hell of a ride, and it ain't over yet. Who is
that says to others as a compliment, "May you live in interesting
times."?

A life that ends at five years old is a tragedy. Life will always
have its ups and downs, but facing and dealing with them in a
positive way is your gift to others and the next generation. What
is your legacy on this earth? That you flamed newsgroups with
obscenities? That you were a criminal? That you disregarded the
rights and feelings of others? Or that you at least tried to
spread harmony, peace and joy to others - especially those less
fortunate than you. It matters, and it matters a great deal.

In my own personal casse, I faught for the rights of others against
an opressive government that was fast taking their rights away, but
that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about life and
death, and why the quality of life is much more important that its
length. If you disagree, then you are free to live your life in
misery and slavery, without the opportunity to go where you please,
and live as you please. For me, I would rather have died at 5 than
lived in misery all of my life. But there are many who disagree with
me. I call thewse people, "liberals" They would rather enslave
everyone to there own particular life style, especially if it buys
everyone a few more days/months of life. they would rather live to
be 80 in misery than die at 60 with freedom. I would feel sorry for
these people, were it not for the fact that theirs is the life style
that they will sell to the society, and force everyone to live. They
are the omes who would sell out our freedoms for a few more days of
existence. Do you like candy? Well, its not good for you, so, bu
God, we should make a law against it so everyone lives an average of
three more months. Who cares whether Bill Graham would rather give
up those months in order to enjoy hiw candy? The society needs his
taxes, so they have the right to force hom to live three extra
months without candy. This is the mindset of the liberal. It would
be laughable, were it not so sad.

On every political scale instrument that I have taken, I'm about as
"liberal" as you can get, and I don't think this way. I don't care
what you put in your body, but don't stand in the way of having foods
sold to the public tested for purity, etc.

I'm not interested at all in enslaving you to my lifestyle, so I don't
know what you mean. You must be specific if you want me to address
issues.

I think you are zeroing in on a few left-wing nuts and their kinky
beliefs and projecting their eccentricities onto the entire Democratic
party.

Your words are cheap, but you still are happy with the drug laws that
prohibit individuals from buying and ingesting whatever they want. And the
Rx laws that give physicians the right to dictate to us by law what the
society thinks is, "good for us". You guys love authority. Certasinly you
love it a hell of a lot more than freedom. You are so quick to give up your
freedoms to it. You not only disrespect an individuals desire to stand on
his own two feet, but you actually make laws prohibiting him from doing so!
A pox on your liberalism. Slavery by any other name is still salvery.

Bill Graham wrote:
Mack A. Damia wrote:
...That you flamed newsgroups with obscenities?

When did I do that? Is that what you call disagreeing with anything I
said? "Flaming the newsgroup with obscenities"?

You liberals, and your insane desire to give up your liberties for the,
"good of the colony" are the real obcenity....

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:46:13 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:30:44 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:21:58 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:08:19 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:38:34 GMT, walsingham
wrote:

grimshaw wrote in
news:f6a82381-90b1-45a2-8635-
:

On Feb 1, 11:51 pm, ConsЯcons wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_5K-MHjxMw

Karen

I have two cats.

I understand that they are both furry, cute Psycho Killers.

Did you know that the two most invasive species in North
America are as follows:

Flora: The Dandelion

Fauna: Cats.



The most invasive species in North merka and elsewhere, are
humans!!

Right you are.

Cows eat dandelions. - I eat cows. It ain't the length of life
that counts, but the quality of life for as long as you have it.
When you are ready to eat it, or can;t keep it any longer for
whatever reason, then sneak up on it and, when it doesn;t
suspect anything, kill it quickly, and don;t look back. But
either way, I would suffer, because I miss my buddies when they
are gone. Not for them, but for myself. I just wish that some
kind person would do the same for me.... Sneak up behind me and
when I least expect it, shoot me in the back of the head. What a
nice way to go!

The crux of the issue, though, is not "how" but "when".

But I disagree. That's what I am saying.... Its how, and not when.
The universe is many billions of years ole, and we are only here
for a few dozen years. A mere drop in the ocean of time. So its the
quality of life that counts, and not the quantity. What dies it
matter whether you live for 50 years or five? If you are happy
during those five, and don't suffer when you die, well, what more
could you want?

I don't know about you, but I want to live as long as I can. So
far, it's been one hell of a ride, and it ain't over yet. Who is
that says to others as a compliment, "May you live in interesting
times."?

A life that ends at five years old is a tragedy. Life will always
have its ups and downs, but facing and dealing with them in a
positive way is your gift to others and the next generation. What
is your legacy on this earth? That you flamed newsgroups with
obscenities? That you were a criminal? That you disregarded the
rights and feelings of others? Or that you at least tried to
spread harmony, peace and joy to others - especially those less
fortunate than you. It matters, and it matters a great deal.

In my own personal casse, I faught for the rights of others against
an opressive government that was fast taking their rights away, but
that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about life and
death, and why the quality of life is much more important that its
length. If you disagree, then you are free to live your life in
misery and slavery, without the opportunity to go where you please,
and live as you please. For me, I would rather have died at 5 than
lived in misery all of my life. But there are many who disagree with
me. I call thewse people, "liberals" They would rather enslave
everyone to there own particular life style, especially if it buys
everyone a few more days/months of life. they would rather live to
be 80 in misery than die at 60 with freedom. I would feel sorry for
these people, were it not for the fact that theirs is the life style
that they will sell to the society, and force everyone to live. They
are the omes who would sell out our freedoms for a few more days of
existence. Do you like candy? Well, its not good for you, so, bu
God, we should make a law against it so everyone lives an average of
three more months. Who cares whether Bill Graham would rather give
up those months in order to enjoy hiw candy? The society needs his
taxes, so they have the right to force hom to live three extra
months without candy. This is the mindset of the liberal. It would
be laughable, were it not so sad.

On every political scale instrument that I have taken, I'm about as
"liberal" as you can get, and I don't think this way. I don't care
what you put in your body, but don't stand in the way of having foods
sold to the public tested for purity, etc.

I'm not interested at all in enslaving you to my lifestyle, so I don't
know what you mean. You must be specific if you want me to address
issues.

I think you are zeroing in on a few left-wing nuts and their kinky
beliefs and projecting their eccentricities onto the entire Democratic
party.

Your words are cheap, but you still are happy with the drug laws that
prohibit individuals from buying and ingesting whatever they want. And the
Rx laws that give physicians the right to dictate to us by law what the
society thinks is, "good for us". You guys love authority. Certasinly you
love it a hell of a lot more than freedom. You are so quick to give up your
freedoms to it. You not only disrespect an individuals desire to stand on
his own two feet, but you actually make laws prohibiting him from doing so!
A pox on your liberalism. Slavery by any other name is still salvery.

You know nothing about me or genuine Liberalism.

Empty vessels makes the most noise.

--

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:49:16 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Mack A. Damia wrote:
...That you flamed newsgroups with obscenities?

When did I do that? Is that what you call disagreeing with anything I
said? "Flaming the newsgroup with obscenities"?

You liberals, and your insane desire to give up your liberties for the,
"good of the colony" are the real obcenity....

You are brain-dead.

Somebody please pull the plug.

--

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:39:28 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

You liberals would have us all living in paqdded cells, so we
couldn't do anything dangerous that might shorten our lives a little
bit, and shortchange the rest of society a few dollars in income
taxes.... Just the increase3 in statistical longevity is excuse
enough for you to give up any quality of life that freedom might
bring... What a sorry bunch of *******s you are...... Wherever
Patrick Henry went when he died... That's where I want to go......

You can hang yourself, and I'll supply the rope, if that's what you
want to do. I don't know what you are rambling about.

Be careful. If you did supply me with the rope, they would prosecute you for
"aiding and abetting" in the commission of a crime. If you really don;t care
what I do with my own life, then why are you happy with some MD having the
right to dictate to you by lkaw what medicines you choose to ingest? But, in
fact, that's exactly the case. And why do you want the society to force me
to wear a helmey when I ride my cycle? If anything, you would be more in
peril were we to have an accident when I am wearing it than without it.
Especially since it restricts my peripheral vision swomewhat. But you just
love those laws, don't you?

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:55:14 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:39:28 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

You liberals would have us all living in paqdded cells, so we
couldn't do anything dangerous that might shorten our lives a little
bit, and shortchange the rest of society a few dollars in income
taxes.... Just the increase3 in statistical longevity is excuse
enough for you to give up any quality of life that freedom might
bring... What a sorry bunch of *******s you are...... Wherever
Patrick Henry went when he died... That's where I want to go......

You can hang yourself, and I'll supply the rope, if that's what you
want to do. I don't know what you are rambling about.

Be careful. If you did supply me with the rope, they would prosecute you for
"aiding and abetting" in the commission of a crime. If you really don;t care
what I do with my own life, then why are you happy with some MD having the
right to dictate to you by lkaw what medicines you choose to ingest? But, in
fact, that's exactly the case. And why do you want the society to force me
to wear a helmey when I ride my cycle? If anything, you would be more in
peril were we to have an accident when I am wearing it than without it.
Especially since it restricts my peripheral vision swomewhat. But you just
love those laws, don't you?

I don't ride a motorcycle, and I don't care if you wear a helmet or
not. However, if you are not wearing a helmet, and you get a severe
head injury, is it okay not to treat you at the local ER if you don't
have insurance? (Rhetorical question) Even if you do have insurance,
your accident and injuries are driving my premiums higher, so maybe
that's why a helmet is a good idea.

I would just leave a "liberal" amount of rope in a bag, and you could
pick it up by mistake. I'd even swear under oath that you didn't
steal it.

--

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:55:14 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:39:28 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

You liberals would have us all living in paqdded cells, so we
couldn't do anything dangerous that might shorten our lives a
little bit, and shortchange the rest of society a few dollars in
income taxes.... Just the increase3 in statistical longevity is
excuse enough for you to give up any quality of life that freedom
might bring... What a sorry bunch of *******s you are......
Wherever Patrick Henry went when he died... That's where I want to
go......

You can hang yourself, and I'll supply the rope, if that's what you
want to do. I don't know what you are rambling about.

Be careful. If you did supply me with the rope, they would prosecute
you for "aiding and abetting" in the commission of a crime. If you
really don;t care what I do with my own life, then why are you happy
with some MD having the right to dictate to you by lkaw what
medicines you choose to ingest? But, in fact, that's exactly the
case. And why do you want the society to force me to wear a helmey
when I ride my cycle? If anything, you would be more in peril were
we to have an accident when I am wearing it than without it.
Especially since it restricts my peripheral vision swomewhat. But
you just love those laws, don't you?

I don't ride a motorcycle, and I don't care if you wear a helmet or
not. However, if you are not wearing a helmet, and you get a severe
head injury, is it okay not to treat you at the local ER if you don't
have insurance? (Rhetorical question) Even if you do have insurance,
your accident and injuries are driving my premiums higher, so maybe
that's why a helmet is a good idea.

I would just leave a "liberal" amount of rope in a bag, and you could
pick it up by mistake. I'd even swear under oath that you didn't
steal it.

Yes, insurance premiums are the typical liberal excuse for their padded cell
laws. But I didn't make the law that says hospitals have to treat everyone
they get whether they are insured or not. I have carried a full boat of
medical insurance since I first began working back in 1960. Now, it turns
out that the whole medical industry is socialized, so it doesn't matter
whether people like me ever existed or not. Our tax dollars are going into
the pockets of those who never bought a dime's worth of medical insurance,
and the trailer courts on the outskirts of every city in the US are also
filled with people who never saved a dime for their own retirement and are
now forced to live off of their Social Security checks. And that, folks, is
the face of our, "Brave New World."

Bill Graham wrote:
But we have been paying a, "premium on our income tax forms" now for a
number of years. that is, unless you subscribe to the "Arbornomics"
theory that there exists a money tree in Washington DC that can be
plucked for money. Where do you think the money to treat all those
bums off the street comes from? the hospitals certainly can't print
it in their basements. Why, the staste pays them out of our tax
dollars, of course, and they also get federal money too. (also, of
course out of our tax dollars) So what's the difference?
In a true capitalistic system, there would be lots of medical
insurance companies all competing with each other to give the best
medical service for your dollars. People who couldn't afford medical
services would, (are you ready for this?) DIE!! And, knowing this,
they would (presumably) cut a little money out of their pay checks to
buy that insurance from one or more of many companies who were all
competing for their money. (what a concept!) The government would
have little or nothing to do with it. Why, with any luck, they would
only charge us about 10% of our pay in income taxes instead of the
nearly 50% they are currently charging. (Federal, state, property,
auto reg fees, and sales taxes all in that figure) IOW, we might
actually retreat from half socialized to 10 or 15% socialized! Why, I
might even be able to afford a couple of more cats!

At least, I would have the FREEDOM to buy whatever it is that I wanted with
that extra money, instead of having to accept whatever the government thinks
would be best for the society to give me.