Outdoor cat poisoning - report back

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:08:34 -0400, Mary said

I'm not afraid of Socialists. I keep pointing that
out because I find it hilarious. Key word: USSR.
Both communism and socialism are failed experiments.

Yes they are. Almost all critics agree they are
no longer a threat to the Western way of Life.
Howver, this cannot be a said about facism.

So perhaps you'd better find out what Chomsky is
*really* all about before you start squealing
he's out of date...and all the other mindless
parrot-isms used against him.


And if you are a "conservative" who likes
"socialists" you are really a liberal!

To be taken seriously, you need to drop
the kneejerk lables. Can we talk issues?

(Meanwhile, I rarely
talk about my own political stance outside
the political groups I participate in, and my
circle of friends and family, and I sure don't
do it in a cat group.

Zat so? Sure you just cant handle a differing POV?
Ya wanna squelch all opposition?

Whaz this?

=========insert:
7 Apr 2005 20:25:10 -0400, Mary said
Reagan and Papa Bush were Republicans, I do not believe they were
as radical right-wingers as Baby Bush, who is an avowed pawn of the
religious right and other oppressive groups. That is the big difference.
These loonies who do not want the separation of church and state,
a woman's right to choose, stem cell research, or even....snip
=========end insert

I rarely talk about my own political stance
...and I sure don't do it in a cat group.

Chuckle.

"Just Conservative" wrote in message
...

Marcia said
"Mary" wrote:

House. But then again, even three terms of them
(Reagan twice then Daddy Bush) did not keep
President Clinton from turning some things around
again. Example: the deficit.

What worries me is that a Democrat will not be able to (or will not
want to) turn things around again, I don't see how it can be undone.
I know I'm not in the US but as far as "Empire" building goes, I
really believe the US government is going to carry on with what
they've started.

Yes they will, or they won't get elected. Why?
see below:

both majoy parties are the same now, we don't have a left
wing party any more.

Yes. Nor is there a Conservative party in the U.S.
(Right wing, yes.)
This is an built in problem of 2-party systems where
a vote for a good guy is a vote for the opposite
mainstream party. The end result is the two parties
are the two wings of, in reality: one party.

It doesn't have to be that way.
For example see the Aussie's system,
or even the Sierra Club in the US.

Yeah, someone once explained to me how they hold elections in Australia and
I thought it was *very* clever!

Hugs,

CatNipped

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Just Conservative" wrote in message
...

Marcia said
"Mary" wrote:

House. But then again, even three terms of them
(Reagan twice then Daddy Bush) did not keep
President Clinton from turning some things around
again. Example: the deficit.

What worries me is that a Democrat will not be able to (or will not
want to) turn things around again, I don't see how it can be undone.
I know I'm not in the US but as far as "Empire" building goes, I
really believe the US government is going to carry on with what
they've started.

Yes they will, or they won't get elected. Why?
see below:

both majoy parties are the same now, we don't have a left
wing party any more.

Yes. Nor is there a Conservative party in the U.S.
(Right wing, yes.)
This is an built in problem of 2-party systems where
a vote for a good guy is a vote for the opposite
mainstream party. The end result is the two parties
are the two wings of, in reality: one party.

It doesn't have to be that way.
For example see the Aussie's system,
or even the Sierra Club in the US.

Yeah, someone once explained to me how they hold elections in Australia
and
I thought it was *very* clever!

Hugs,

CatNipped

I our next Provincial election (May 17), we will be voting on wether or not
to adopt the STV system. Single Transferrable Vote... Basicaly, it works
like this: Electoral reigons will get larger & elect multiple candidates,
the voter lists his/her choices, in order of priority on the ballot. Then
the top, 2 or 3 people chosen get the seats... Much greater chasnce for
smaller political parties to get representation... I hope it goes through.
--
Mathew
Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat
En Vino Veritas

"Mary" wrote in message
news:1112970751.abc420744704e90e9b845b492fb73930@t eranews...

hear Mary ? Them dang armadillo stews ain't gonna do ya any good!
Alison



Aww. Alison made a funny! Or tried, anyway. Very good, Alison!

A funny? Heck no . I'm just showing concern for your health!
Alison

"Alison" wrote in message
...

"Mary" wrote in message
news:1112970751.abc420744704e90e9b845b492fb73930@t eranews...

hear Mary ? Them dang armadillo stews ain't gonna do ya any good!
Alison



Aww. Alison made a funny! Or tried, anyway. Very good, Alison!

A funny? Heck no . I'm just showing concern for your health!


Well for your information we don't HAVE armadillos in NC,
so it's 'possums I'm scraping off the highway every morning.
Shows what you know, you nasty Limey.

"Mathew Kagis" wrote in message
news:GYA5e.13272$vt1.1407@edtnps90...



"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Just Conservative" wrote in message
...

Marcia said
"Mary" wrote:

House. But then again, even three terms of them
(Reagan twice then Daddy Bush) did not keep
President Clinton from turning some things around
again. Example: the deficit.

What worries me is that a Democrat will not be able to (or will not
want to) turn things around again, I don't see how it can be undone.
I know I'm not in the US but as far as "Empire" building goes, I
really believe the US government is going to carry on with what
they've started.

Yes they will, or they won't get elected. Why?
see below:

both majoy parties are the same now, we don't have a left
wing party any more.

Yes. Nor is there a Conservative party in the U.S.
(Right wing, yes.)
This is an built in problem of 2-party systems where
a vote for a good guy is a vote for the opposite
mainstream party. The end result is the two parties
are the two wings of, in reality: one party.

It doesn't have to be that way.
For example see the Aussie's system,
or even the Sierra Club in the US.

Yeah, someone once explained to me how they hold elections in Australia
and
I thought it was *very* clever!

Hugs,

CatNipped

I our next Provincial election (May 17), we will be voting on wether or
not
to adopt the STV system. Single Transferrable Vote... Basicaly, it works
like this: Electoral reigons will get larger & elect multiple candidates,
the voter lists his/her choices, in order of priority on the ballot. Then
the top, 2 or 3 people chosen get the seats... Much greater chasnce for
smaller political parties to get representation... I hope it goes through.
--
Mathew
Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat
En Vino Veritas

That's how it was described to me how Australia conducts elections. It
sounds like a very clever method, I wish we could get in instituted in the
states.

Hugs,

CatNipped

"Steve G" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
(...)

Yep. I wasn't sure if you could afford an expensive shot. ;-)

Heh.

Appositely, I've had my expensive shot for the day - 500 of your Earth
dollars for a pair of rabies titres.


Rabies titers only cost about $15-$20! Wanna buy a "Rolex" or some
"waterfront' property" at half-price? ;-)

CatNipped said
"Marcia" wrote
"Mary" wrote
"Marcia":
"-L.":
Mathew Kagis wrote:

9/11 was horrible!!! But it should not be
used as a blanket excuse to turn
the freedom loving USA into a police state.

Take away Hitler, the swasikas and concentration camps.
Now, somebody define "facism."

Prolly 95% of Americans can not.
Now, somebody guess why.

Coincidence perhaps?

..........snip

But the American Sheeple are just too stupid
to understand and way to
apathetic to care, Mathew... -L.

As are (most) of the British.

The National GeographicRoper 2002 Global Geographic
Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds
in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, Sweden and the United States.
Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...perSurvey.html

=================National Geographic Literacy Survey
Survey conducted between May 24 and July 26 2002.durring the
height of the American bombing of Afghanistan?Taliban..

Sample question 1 of 20
Which of the following ranges contains the correct
population of the United States today?
Between 10 million and 50 million
Between 150 million and 350 million
Between 500 million and 750 million
Between 1 billion and 2 billion
I Don’t Know
The current population of the United States is between 150
million and 350 million.
USA - 25% - last place. Sweden best -55%.

.....................

http://geosurvey.nationalgeographic....uestion_3.html
Sample question 3 of 20
The Taliban and al Qaeda movements were both based in which
country?
Iraq
Pakistan
Israel
Albania
Afghanistan
I Don’t Know

http://geosurvey.nationalgeographic....wer_3_3_1.html
USA last place at 58%. Sweeden & G Britain tie for #1 at 84%.


Again, coincedence?
It's almost as if American ignorance is
being cultivated, isn't it?

Synopsis from World Book Encyclopedia, 1958:
Fascism's parts:
1) extreme nationalism, 2) police state, 3) cultivation
of ignorance, 4) suppression of labor, 5) militarism.

"Fascism should more properly be called
corporatism, since it is the merger
of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Think about it.
Words mean something.

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

Bush will be gone shortly and when he is a Democrat
will come in and undo what he has done. I know you've
seen it many times. It's a swinging pendulum. It is actually
one of the better things about the checks and balances
system in democratic governments.

Perhaps. But a "swing might last 50+ years, and it
is a logical fallacy to draw conclusions from historicism,
(past history does not guarentee the future).

Certainly few people would argue that the world
of 50 years ago is even close to today's conditions.

What is scary: if
the Democrats miscalculate the power of the religious
right and other strong Befublican backers, and we get
another right-wing extremist Republican in the White
House. But then again, even three terms of them
(Reagan twice then Daddy Bush) did not keep
President Clinton from turning some things around
again. Example: the deficit.

What worries me is that a Democrat will not be able to (or will not
want to) turn things around again, I don't see how it can be undone.
I know I'm not in the US but as far as "Empire" building goes, I
really believe the US government is going to carry on with what
they've started. We have a general election coming up and I'm not
voting, as both majoy parties are the same now, we don't have a left
wing party any more. My friend says (and no offence to Christians
it's a joke) - use your cross wisely, crucify a politician!

I know what you mean. I think the real reason the democrats lost the last
election was that they were trying to be as republican as the republicans
(most of us either voted *against* Kerry, or just reluctantly for Bush, and
a few of us reluctantly for Kerry).

In short, the Dems have lost their balls.
Nobody knows what they stand for.
Times have changed.
Dems see politics in terms of ideals, Repubs now
play politics in terms of war.

I don't know who it was who first got the idea that Americans where so
concerned with moral issues (and worrying about their neighbor's morals) to
the point of getting us to the brink of tyranny

That would be (most recently) Karl Rove. His
strategy is brillient.

- but whoever it was, they
were *WRONG*. I personally think that this is just another bandwagon
everyone has jumped on before they stopped to take a poll (or were polling
the wrong people).

No, Rove solidifies the religious right with key
whacko issues, and by election time, everybody
else has forgotten those issues, to everybody else,
they are now "so what?" issues.

It all sort of culminated with Janet Jackson's...

However, I think this too shall pass. America as always swung back and
forth from one extreme to the other. When it starts hitting us in the
pocket book as it is now, we sit up and take notice.

You think like an old school Dem.
You underestemate the powers of feelsgoodism
and the doggie instincts. Repubs do not.
(A lynch mob is the ultimate feelsgoodism.)

April 11, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_04_11/article.html

Does Freedom Prevent Terrorism?
by James L. Payne

Fighting terrorism has come to be the justification for much
of what government does these days, particularly in the Bush
administration’s campaign for freedom and democracy.
“The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny
and terror,” said President Bush in this year’s State of the
Union address,
“is the force of human freedom.” Last August, Bush explained
his thinking on how to fight terrorism: “I believe that democracy
can take hold in parts of the world that are now nondemocratic,
and I think it’s necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of
hate.”

In the abstract, a formulation that marries such positive
concepts is appealing. Freedom is a good thing,
democracy is a good thing, and putting an end to
terrorism would also be a good thing.
But empirically, does the relationship hold? Is it true
that in free and democratic countries terrorism doesn’t occur?

Let’s start with the United States. ...snip

Just about every other democracy has suffered from indigenous
terrorists: Britain has had the IRA and Ulster Freedom Fighters
(10,000 bombings, 3,000 killed); Basque terrorists in Spain were
killing over a hundred people a year in 1979 and 1980; the Red
Brigades in Italy have been responsible for thousands of
incidents, including the grisly kidnapping and murder of former
premier Aldo Moro; Germany had....snips

The theory that freedom prevents terrorism....

Does democracy really prevent the growth of “ideologies of hate,”
as the president alleges? When...Adolf Hitler. ...snip

One could say that in Iraq the president has contrived a direct
experiment of his theory. Iraq today is freer and more
democratic than it was under Saddam Hussein.
*** Are there fewer terrorists there now?

The idea, then, that freedom and democracy prevent the rise
of vicious political movements like fascism, communism, or
radical Islam goes against the evidence. It also goes against
political theory. If anything, freedom promotes or at least
enables the growth of violent partisan groups, because it
provides an opportunity for extremists to organize and
proselytize. The point was perhaps first made by founding
father James Madison over two centuries ago in Federalist number
10 in discussing the causes of “the violence of faction.” As he
put it, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment
without which it instantly expires.”

If spreading freedom and democracy won’t prevent terrorism,

what can we do that will have a useful effect?
It’s a difficult question;
the following is one possible, partial answer.

We can start with the observation that extremist movements all
seem to need a vivid enemy, a belief in a sinister force intent
on destroying all that is good and true. To the terrorist, the
extreme evil of this enemy justifies his use of extreme violence
to combat it. Much of terrorist ideology dwells on......snip

From:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_04_11/article.html

wrote:

Uh uh, which is why you couldn't help but reply to my post three
separate times. You're beyond pathetic.

Megan

Seriously, I think she either is a dual-personality and forgets that
she has already responded or is more ****ing nuts than anyone had ever
imagined. Take your pick.

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Uh uh, which is why you couldn't help but reply to my post three
separate times. You're beyond pathetic.

Megan

Seriously, I think she either is a dual-personality and forgets that
she has already responded or is more ****ing nuts than anyone had ever
imagined. Take your pick.


I have been diagnosed with a quadrupal personality, Lynnie. I've
taken a poll and all four of them think you are a flaming asshole.
A cow-patty in birkenstocks. A sad, rigid, aging, and unfulfilled
control freak.

No charge for that analysis. One of my four personalities does
a lot of gratis work. You know, community service for the
loons of the world. No, no, don't thank me. Really. 8)