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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:31 PM |
Speaking of Fences (OT) | jmcquown | Cat anecdotes | 18 | July 27th 05 03:20 AM |