View Single Post
  #24  
Old August 25th 12, 07:34 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?

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.)