A friend of mine has one of these fences that's about 178cm (5'10")
tall:

http://stratco.com.au/products/fenci..._neighbour.asp

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting in. I
know full well that there are numerous commercially available products
that will stop cats (along with other animals) climbing fences. I'm
sure they do work, but they're all fairly pricey, particularly if
attempting to cover a significant length of fencing. I'm now thinking
about trying a home-rigged set up. I'm considering getting a whole
heap of empty 2 Litre plastic softdrink bottles (Soda bottles to any
USA readers), then cutting off the base and neck of the bottles, then
cutting them lengthwise, then siliconing them to the tops of the fence
so the sides of the bottles "curve downwards" from the top of the
fence. I'm thinking this curved plastic will be too smooth and
slippery for a cat to get any grip with it's claws. I have no problem
with spending some time getting this to work, but I want to keep the
cost down, so spending lots of $$$ isn't happening.

I was wondering if anyone has attempted anything like this, and if
they can offer any advice. Thanks.

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.

Gas Bag wrote:
A friend of mine has one of these fences that's about 178cm (5'10")
tall:

http://stratco.com.au/products/fenci..._neighbour.asp

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting in. I
know full well that there are numerous commercially available products
that will stop cats (along with other animals) climbing fences. I'm
sure they do work, but they're all fairly pricey, particularly if
attempting to cover a significant length of fencing. I'm now thinking
about trying a home-rigged set up. I'm considering getting a whole
heap of empty 2 Litre plastic softdrink bottles (Soda bottles to any
USA readers), then cutting off the base and neck of the bottles, then
cutting them lengthwise, then siliconing them to the tops of the fence
so the sides of the bottles "curve downwards" from the top of the
fence. I'm thinking this curved plastic will be too smooth and
slippery for a cat to get any grip with it's claws. I have no problem
with spending some time getting this to work, but I want to keep the
cost down, so spending lots of $$$ isn't happening.

I was wondering if anyone has attempted anything like this, and if
they can offer any advice. Thanks.

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.

I have a friend who built a, "cateo" for his cats, and covered it with
chicken wire fencing, which lets in the fresh air and sunshine, but keeps
the cats from getting out. This was fairly easy and inexpensive for him to
do. and his cats love spending time out there. He can also grow flowers out
there.....

On 8/15/2012 2:01 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:
A friend of mine has one of these fences that's about 178cm (5'10")
tall:

http://stratco.com.au/products/fenci..._neighbour.asp


She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting in. I
know full well that there are numerous commercially available products
that will stop cats (along with other animals) climbing fences. I'm
sure they do work, but they're all fairly pricey, particularly if
attempting to cover a significant length of fencing. I'm now thinking
about trying a home-rigged set up. I'm considering getting a whole
heap of empty 2 Litre plastic softdrink bottles (Soda bottles to any
USA readers), then cutting off the base and neck of the bottles, then
cutting them lengthwise, then siliconing them to the tops of the fence
so the sides of the bottles "curve downwards" from the top of the
fence. I'm thinking this curved plastic will be too smooth and
slippery for a cat to get any grip with it's claws. I have no problem
with spending some time getting this to work, but I want to keep the
cost down, so spending lots of $$$ isn't happening.

I was wondering if anyone has attempted anything like this, and if
they can offer any advice. Thanks.

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.

I have a friend who built a, "cateo" for his cats, and covered it with
chicken wire fencing, which lets in the fresh air and sunshine, but
keeps the cats from getting out. This was fairly easy and inexpensive
for him to do. and his cats love spending time out there. He can also
grow flowers out there.....

i built one of these too. 12x12x8' with lots of internal ramps. i had to
use thin plywood for the first couple of feet to keep the rattlesnakes
and coyote's out, and it had a chickenwire roof to keep the owls and
hawks out too.

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.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:59:00 -0400, Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 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.

Sometimes there is no option, like when you live in an apartment in a
city. But I rigged the fence in my little backyard so the cats can't
get out and I let them out whenever I'm able to - of course I must be
home.

Sure there is some risk. Maybe some critter left a hole in the fence -
raccoons and possums can do that. Maybe one will climb a tree and jump
into the next yard. I try to minimize that risk by putting Loc8tor
tags on their collars. But like any knowlegable cat owner I use
breakaway collars so even that isn't foolproof.

But they love lying on the cool earth under the evergreens, or eating
the grass or some bug. Or they just hang out on the deck and sniff the
air. Of course I don't use any pesticides or other poisons. Once or
twice a year one will catch a bird. Sometimes I'm quick enough to save
the bird. They are just so proud when they get one though. I make it
up to the birds by feeding them all winter and even putting up a
heated birdbath.

For me, the small risk that something will happen to them is more than
offset by the enjoyment they get by being "free" outside. I've had
eight cats during the 16 years that I've had this fenced in yard. Four
have died, but none because they were allowed to go out. Four are
still enjoying the yard and will do so today when I get home.

On Aug 17, 7:08*am, dgk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:59:00 -0400, Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 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.

Sometimes there is no option, like when you live in an apartment in a
city. But I rigged the fence in my little backyard so the cats can't
get out and I let them out whenever I'm able to - of course I must be
home.

Sure there is some risk. Maybe some critter left a hole in the fence -
raccoons and possums can do that. Maybe one will climb a tree and jump
into the next yard. I try to minimize that risk by putting Loc8tor
tags on their collars. But like any knowlegable cat owner I use
breakaway collars so even that isn't foolproof.

***My cat specializes in losing breakaway collars with the name tags I
paid to have made. I finally gave up. He's chipped, so if he's found
and the finders have enough sense to call the local shelter, he could
potentially be located.

One thing: I was warned a few years ago to KEEP HIM INDOORS on
Halloween; black cat. So I bring him in during the day, set up food
and toilet, and don't let him out till next day.-

But they love lying on the cool earth under the evergreens, or eating
the grass or some bug. Or they just hang out on the deck and sniff the
air. Of course I don't use any pesticides or other poisons. Once or
twice a year one will catch a bird. Sometimes I'm quick enough to save
the bird. They are just so proud when they get one though. I make it
up to the birds by feeding them all winter and even putting up a
heated birdbath.

***Hah! Me too! I saved a bird just the other day and confined it
briefly until it settled down enough to fly away. [Censored]
generations of mocking-birds have been teasing the cats all these
years, and some of them go too far!

For me, the small risk that something will happen to them is more than
offset by the enjoyment they get by being "free" outside. I've had
eight cats during the 16 years that I've had this fenced in yard. Four
have died, but none because they were allowed to go out. Four are
still enjoying the yard and will do so today when I get home.

FOUR CHEERS! I view with dismay the idea of cooping up an animal in
an unnatural environment just for the selfish enjoyment of the owner!
If that goes for cats, which I've had all my life, imagine how much
more it goes for dogs, especially HUGE dogs shut up in a small
apartment, and afforded only a daily walk by the perhaps conscientious
but normally busy owner, employed or not.

HB

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.

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
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.

I agree there. It saddens me to get the mail now. Every few days there is
a new poster of a missing cat on the mailbox. I constantly see cats roaming
the neighborhood and frequently we see them in our backyard at night. I
don't know who owned the black one with white paws but I saw it at the side
of the road. Looked pretty dead.

Not only do we have some wild drivers on this street but I think there are
also coyotes. Some were spotted not far from here.

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:59:00 -0400, Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 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.

Sometimes there is no option, like when you live in an apartment in a
city. But I rigged the fence in my little backyard so the cats can't
get out and I let them out whenever I'm able to - of course I must be
home.

Sure there is some risk. Maybe some critter left a hole in the fence -
raccoons and possums can do that. Maybe one will climb a tree and jump
into the next yard. I try to minimize that risk by putting Loc8tor
tags on their collars. But like any knowlegable cat owner I use
breakaway collars so even that isn't foolproof.

But they love lying on the cool earth under the evergreens, or eating
the grass or some bug. Or they just hang out on the deck and sniff the
air. Of course I don't use any pesticides or other poisons. Once or
twice a year one will catch a bird. Sometimes I'm quick enough to save
the bird. They are just so proud when they get one though. I make it
up to the birds by feeding them all winter and even putting up a
heated birdbath.

For me, the small risk that something will happen to them is more than
offset by the enjoyment they get by being "free" outside. I've had
eight cats during the 16 years that I've had this fenced in yard. Four
have died, but none because they were allowed to go out. Four are
still enjoying the yard and will do so today when I get home.

Cats do love that but... Unless I had the money to build a very specific
type of cat enclosure, I wouldn't let my cats outside. Would have to be
something to keep them very safe. But even with something like that, the
cat could get fleas or maybe eat a bird or a rodent and then maybe get
worms. Our baby cat has had two kinds of worms now. I don't know how she
got them. She lives indoors. She did have the lung worms when we got her.
Not sure about the round worms unless perhaps she got them from eating a
bug. She and mom did get a moth in here just prior.

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
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.

Yes. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "I'd rather be inside and fat
than outside and flat."

I am sure that my momma cat was probably outside at some point in her life.
She and her babies were found in an abandoned house and they had to get food
from somewhere. But now she never tries to get out. Never. She is
perfectly happy as a house cat.

Now the baby? Well she isn't actually a baby any more since she is over a
year old but... She is the one they named that phrase after about how
curiosity killed the cat. She is very interested in the garage for some
reason. I don't want her out there because there are all sorts of little
hidey holes and some are up high. She can jump up high. We did once have a
rat get in there during the winter and it died somewhere in the wall. Would
be horrible if she were to suffer the same fate. So I will walk her out
there in my arms and show her around. Nothing of interest to her, I
wouldn't think. Just some canned goods, soda pop, Christmas lights, a few
tools... But one day she came very close to getting to the outside!
Apparently I did not shut the door from the laundry room fully and she
pushed it open. She was walking very slowly and cautiously towards the
opening of the garage. Mom was in the laundry room looking very worried and
calling to her. Luckily I was able to pick her up and bring her back
inside.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:21:27 -0700, "Julie Bove"
wrote:


"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
.. .
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.

Yes. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "I'd rather be inside and fat
than outside and flat."

I am sure that my momma cat was probably outside at some point in her life.
She and her babies were found in an abandoned house and they had to get food
from somewhere. But now she never tries to get out. Never. She is
perfectly happy as a house cat.

Now the baby? Well she isn't actually a baby any more since she is over a
year old but... She is the one they named that phrase after about how
curiosity killed the cat. She is very interested in the garage for some
reason. I don't want her out there because there are all sorts of little
hidey holes and some are up high. She can jump up high. We did once have a
rat get in there during the winter and it died somewhere in the wall. Would
be horrible if she were to suffer the same fate. So I will walk her out
there in my arms and show her around. Nothing of interest to her, I
wouldn't think. Just some canned goods, soda pop, Christmas lights, a few
tools... But one day she came very close to getting to the outside!
Apparently I did not shut the door from the laundry room fully and she
pushed it open. She was walking very slowly and cautiously towards the
opening of the garage. Mom was in the laundry room looking very worried and
calling to her. Luckily I was able to pick her up and bring her back
inside.

Domestic cats live happily indoors, they do fine with a window but
mostly they need cat companionship so always have at least two,
preferably from the same litter. Contrary to what many believe cats
are not loners, they are very social, moreso then dogs. Cats live a
shortened life outdoors, they are more likely to become road kill than
wild animals as domestic cats don't possess nearly the same level of
survival skills. Feral cats have excellent survival skills outdoors
but they don't live long due to poor diet and disease. There are many
types of outdoor cat enclosures but none protect against deadly
parasites and poisonings (cats will catch and eat insects that contain
insectide), and outdoor animals of all kinds are very susceptible to
overspray from thoughtless gardeners, you won't know until it's too
late. I can go on but bottom line is giving a cat a good home means
keeping it indoors. The pinheads who put cats outdoors are simply too
lazy and cheap to deal with cat litter, with the low IQ rationalizing
about cats are happier outdoors, BULL****, the morons are happier with
cats outdoors because the cheap lazy *******s don't need to buy and
deal with cat litter. Cats are very happy indoors, even in a small
apartment, again all they need is a window and a playmate. Many of my
neighbors let their cats out, invaribly I'll see them flattened on the
road. My cats never go out... however I do have a feral cat living in
my barn, can't get close enough to know if Newt is a boy or a girl, I
bring it food and water every day and eventually plan on capturing and
bringing it to a Vet. This is Newt heading back home to his barn a
few minutes ago for breakfast, Newt runs off when I approach to put
out food, photographed at 600', a very good looking cat:
http://i48.tinypic.com/nwzmf9.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/o074ub.jpg
Earlier this morning, the twins:
http://i46.tinypic.com/zmqf4.jpg
http://www.vetinfo.com/indoor-outdoo...xpectancy.html

In article , "Julie Bove"
wrote:

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
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.

I agree there. It saddens me to get the mail now. Every few days there is
a new poster of a missing cat on the mailbox. I constantly see cats roaming
the neighborhood and frequently we see them in our backyard at night. I
don't know who owned the black one with white paws but I saw it at the side
of the road. Looked pretty dead.

Just like Julie to not check and see if it WASN'T dead but suffering. I pull all
dead cats off the road and sometimes bury them, but I always check them to make
sure they aren't suffering




Not only do we have some wild drivers on this street but I think there are
also coyotes. Some were spotted not far from here.

And here we have a self-proclaimed woman's rights advocate,
stalking and trolling a woman all over UseNet. This is somebody
who hates people in general, using its pretend love for some
absent entity (like cats) for venting hatred at those it is
currently in contact with.

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-bugged invalid.invalid wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net !news.solani.org!.POSTED!atlas-bugged
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-bugged invalid.invalid
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Fences - Cats - DIY?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:12:36 -0700
Organization: Serenity Search Squad
Lines: 28
Message-ID: atlas-bugged-533A79.12123618082012 news.solani.org
References: 30567e75-a4cf-4ad3-94ad-51b5c92ef142 iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com MpGdnRucHP2Ck7HNnZ2dnUVZ5hydnZ2d giganews.com k0j3q6$3qa$1 dont-email.me sk5r281qa6i0pc9c0rc47m0iq9sghpj7jv 4ax.com k0nf9g$9cu$1 dont-email.me
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: solani.org 1345317147 20278 eJwFwYEBwCAMArCXhhbQcza0/5+whFNQXKKKzdYqnSTkyb4w9c6+WZDsGjFGQVjGZvt7fhggEFc = (18 Aug 2012 19:12:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:12:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (PPC Mac OS X)
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXitAK5zgZ/59gQpfp7hAVHM4EAnfYiQRgUnqruj6L00fb10raX+XmnfkAArM P6A==
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3PxGfaKGDLPgRFWQFGMbBBpfN50=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwNyUkRADAIBDBLnAt2oBT/EtpnJq5gnDA4zNd3My8ND7Yq5eoPTkgPwqRpjCRPuH5sR8kDGs UQzA==
Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org misc.consumers.house:4003

In article k0nf9g$9cu$1 dont-email.me, "Julie Bove" juliebove frontier.com
wrote:

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
news:sk5r281qa6i0pc9c0rc47m0iq9sghpj7jv 4ax.com...
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.

I agree there. It saddens me to get the mail now. Every few days there is
a new poster of a missing cat on the mailbox. I constantly see cats roaming
the neighborhood and frequently we see them in our backyard at night. I
don't know who owned the black one with white paws but I saw it at the side
of the road. Looked pretty dead.

Just like Julie to not check and see if it WASN'T dead but suffering. I pull all
dead cats off the road and sometimes bury them, but I always check them to make
sure they aren't suffering




Not only do we have some wild drivers on this street but I think there are
also coyotes. Some were spotted not far from here.

dgk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:59:00 -0400, Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 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.

Sometimes there is no option, like when you live in an apartment in a
city. But I rigged the fence in my little backyard so the cats can't
get out and I let them out whenever I'm able to - of course I must be
home.

Sure there is some risk. Maybe some critter left a hole in the fence -
raccoons and possums can do that. Maybe one will climb a tree and jump
into the next yard. I try to minimize that risk by putting Loc8tor
tags on their collars. But like any knowlegable cat owner I use
breakaway collars so even that isn't foolproof.

But they love lying on the cool earth under the evergreens, or eating
the grass or some bug. Or they just hang out on the deck and sniff the
air. Of course I don't use any pesticides or other poisons. Once or
twice a year one will catch a bird. Sometimes I'm quick enough to save
the bird. They are just so proud when they get one though. I make it
up to the birds by feeding them all winter and even putting up a
heated birdbath.

For me, the small risk that something will happen to them is more than
offset by the enjoyment they get by being "free" outside. I've had
eight cats during the 16 years that I've had this fenced in yard. Four
have died, but none because they were allowed to go out. Four are
still enjoying the yard and will do so today when I get home.

Hear, hear! I agree with you 100%. I lost one outside cat in my entire life,
and even he enjoyed being outsidfe in the neighborhood so much, that if I
had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Some cats are just
naturally gregarious, and keeping them locked up inside a house would be a
crime.

There is more to life than just breathing, as Patrick Henry would tell you.
The joy and friendship my B-K gave to others in the neighborhood, (even the
dogs) made his freedom mandatory....

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......

Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:21:27 -0700, "Julie Bove"
wrote:


"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
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.

Yes. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "I'd rather be inside
and fat than outside and flat."

I am sure that my momma cat was probably outside at some point in
her life. She and her babies were found in an abandoned house and
they had to get food from somewhere. But now she never tries to get
out. Never. She is perfectly happy as a house cat.

Now the baby? Well she isn't actually a baby any more since she is
over a year old but... She is the one they named that phrase after
about how curiosity killed the cat. She is very interested in the
garage for some reason. I don't want her out there because there
are all sorts of little hidey holes and some are up high. She can
jump up high. We did once have a rat get in there during the winter
and it died somewhere in the wall. Would be horrible if she were to
suffer the same fate. So I will walk her out there in my arms and
show her around. Nothing of interest to her, I wouldn't think.
Just some canned goods, soda pop, Christmas lights, a few tools...
But one day she came very close to getting to the outside!
Apparently I did not shut the door from the laundry room fully and
she pushed it open. She was walking very slowly and cautiously
towards the opening of the garage. Mom was in the laundry room
looking very worried and calling to her. Luckily I was able to pick
her up and bring her back inside.

Domestic cats live happily indoors, they do fine with a window but
mostly they need cat companionship so always have at least two,
preferably from the same litter. Contrary to what many believe cats
are not loners, they are very social, moreso then dogs. Cats live a
shortened life outdoors, they are more likely to become road kill than
wild animals as domestic cats don't possess nearly the same level of
survival skills. Feral cats have excellent survival skills outdoors
but they don't live long due to poor diet and disease. There are many
types of outdoor cat enclosures but none protect against deadly
parasites and poisonings (cats will catch and eat insects that contain
insectide), and outdoor animals of all kinds are very susceptible to
overspray from thoughtless gardeners, you won't know until it's too
late. I can go on but bottom line is giving a cat a good home means
keeping it indoors. The pinheads who put cats outdoors are simply too
lazy and cheap to deal with cat litter, with the low IQ rationalizing
about cats are happier outdoors, BULL****, the morons are happier with
cats outdoors because the cheap lazy *******s don't need to buy and
deal with cat litter. Cats are very happy indoors, even in a small
apartment, again all they need is a window and a playmate. Many of my
neighbors let their cats out, invaribly I'll see them flattened on the
road. My cats never go out... however I do have a feral cat living in
my barn, can't get close enough to know if Newt is a boy or a girl, I
bring it food and water every day and eventually plan on capturing and
bringing it to a Vet. This is Newt heading back home to his barn a
few minutes ago for breakfast, Newt runs off when I approach to put
out food, photographed at 600', a very good looking cat:
http://i48.tinypic.com/nwzmf9.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/o074ub.jpg
Earlier this morning, the twins:
http://i46.tinypic.com/zmqf4.jpg
http://www.vetinfo.com/indoor-outdoo...xpectancy.html

If you live in a dangerous environment for cats, then either keep them
indoors, or don't keep them at all. But there are some other people in the
world (like me)that live in a very safe environment for cats, And these
people keep outside cats. I wouldn't presume to tell others how to keep
their cats, and I resent it when others tell me how to keep mine. All of my
cats were aquired by me as grown cats, who just wandered onto my property
and liked the cut of my jib, and decided to stay. I wouldn't lock them up
any more than our local police station makes a habit of apprehending people
on the street and locking them up.

I don't force feed my cats either. I offer them something to eat. They have
the option of eating it, or not.....

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:21:27 -0700, "Julie Bove"
wrote:


"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
. ..
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.

Yes. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "I'd rather be inside and
fat
than outside and flat."

I am sure that my momma cat was probably outside at some point in her
life.
She and her babies were found in an abandoned house and they had to get
food
from somewhere. But now she never tries to get out. Never. She is
perfectly happy as a house cat.

Now the baby? Well she isn't actually a baby any more since she is over a
year old but... She is the one they named that phrase after about how
curiosity killed the cat. She is very interested in the garage for some
reason. I don't want her out there because there are all sorts of little
hidey holes and some are up high. She can jump up high. We did once have
a
rat get in there during the winter and it died somewhere in the wall.
Would
be horrible if she were to suffer the same fate. So I will walk her out
there in my arms and show her around. Nothing of interest to her, I
wouldn't think. Just some canned goods, soda pop, Christmas lights, a few
tools... But one day she came very close to getting to the outside!
Apparently I did not shut the door from the laundry room fully and she
pushed it open. She was walking very slowly and cautiously towards the
opening of the garage. Mom was in the laundry room looking very worried
and
calling to her. Luckily I was able to pick her up and bring her back
inside.

Domestic cats live happily indoors, they do fine with a window but
mostly they need cat companionship so always have at least two,
preferably from the same litter. Contrary to what many believe cats
are not loners, they are very social, moreso then dogs. Cats live a
shortened life outdoors, they are more likely to become road kill than
wild animals as domestic cats don't possess nearly the same level of
survival skills. Feral cats have excellent survival skills outdoors
but they don't live long due to poor diet and disease. There are many
types of outdoor cat enclosures but none protect against deadly
parasites and poisonings (cats will catch and eat insects that contain
insectide), and outdoor animals of all kinds are very susceptible to
overspray from thoughtless gardeners, you won't know until it's too
late. I can go on but bottom line is giving a cat a good home means
keeping it indoors. The pinheads who put cats outdoors are simply too
lazy and cheap to deal with cat litter, with the low IQ rationalizing
about cats are happier outdoors, BULL****, the morons are happier with
cats outdoors because the cheap lazy *******s don't need to buy and
deal with cat litter. Cats are very happy indoors, even in a small
apartment, again all they need is a window and a playmate. Many of my
neighbors let their cats out, invaribly I'll see them flattened on the
road. My cats never go out... however I do have a feral cat living in
my barn, can't get close enough to know if Newt is a boy or a girl, I
bring it food and water every day and eventually plan on capturing and
bringing it to a Vet. This is Newt heading back home to his barn a
few minutes ago for breakfast, Newt runs off when I approach to put
out food, photographed at 600', a very good looking cat:
http://i48.tinypic.com/nwzmf9.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/o074ub.jpg
Earlier this morning, the twins:
http://i46.tinypic.com/zmqf4.jpg
http://www.vetinfo.com/indoor-outdoo...xpectancy.html

That is why we got two. When I had Maui, she would not tolerate any other
cats and really most other humans. She was taken from her mom at too young
of an age but I didn't know this until I took her to the vet. The person
who sold her to me said she was older than she was. So she became overly
fond of me and also my husband and then to my daughter once she was born.
But she wasn't very kind to most other humans.

On Aug 18, 5:27*pm, "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......

Amazing how they can drag their Neanderthal politics into everything--
even a discussion about cats.

HB

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.

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Aug 18, 5:27 pm, "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......

Amazing how they can drag their Neanderthal politics into everything--
even a discussion about cats.


Both cats and people (including Neanderthals) deserve freedom.... Or, at
least, the choice....

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.

In article , John Doe
wrote:

And here we have a self-proclaimed woman's rights advocate,


oh dull one, show were I have "proclaimed" I am a womans rights advocate?


stalking and trolling a woman all over UseNet.

really. seems like you are stalking and trolling me all over usenet



This is somebody who hates people in general,

Just because I've trashed your position on a woman and her horse, you find it
soothing to make absurd unprovable assertions while stalking me?



using its pretend love for some absent entity (like cats) for venting hatred
at those it is currently in contact with.

I see, not only do you hate women, blacks and mexicans, you advocate animal
cruelty

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 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.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-pe...build-the-amer
ican-dream/

--
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

On Aug 24, 5:51*am, 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.

****In the immortal words of Samuel Goldwyn:

INCLUDE ME OUT!!! (apocriphyl - apocryphil - apocryphal) I am a
thinking adult, not a whining overgrown child.

At the slightest whiff of Libertarianism, I take a long hot shower.

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.

****Uh...since the government is pretty much sold out to Our Corporate
Masters anyway, the only ones getting hurt are the most vulnerable.
You know who they are...unless you exist in a separate universe like
Mitt.

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...

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.)

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

Julie Bove wrote:


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.


I have lived in both kinds of environments. Ones that are dangerous to
outside cats and ones that aren't. Right now, I live on a dead end street,
and next to a huge Christmas tree farm, and all of my cats are free to go
and come as they please. I wouldn't recommend that everyone do this, but I
know that there are some circumstancews where it is OK, so I wouldn't try to
tell everyone to do one or the other. If you lived on a farm, I think you
would let your cats go free to chase the chickens.... If there were no free
cats, then I probably wouldn't own any cats. All of my cats were free
roaming animals when I got them. They just happened to wander in one day,
liked the cut of my jib, and decided to stay. I never trapped them, and I
feel that their freedom isn't my business to prevent. If they want to leave,
they can go at any time. But hey! I am a libertarian, so what can you
expect?

If it makes you feel any better, I have found that almost all of my cats
never leave the property. They are quite content to sun themselves out on my
rear deck and are quite safe there. I have never seen a coyote or other
predatory animal on my property, although there was an incident many years
ago where I heard a loud bang, and when I looked outside, there was a large
bird of prey, (like an eagle or osprey) out on the deck, and our cat had
skeedadled through the cat door into the bedroom...
The bird was stunned, but recovered in a few seconds and flew away. I
presume that it had seen our cat (Missy) and tried to take her. But this is
very unusual, and I haven't heard of any of the neighborhood cats getting
into trouble, and the block has about ten of them, and they are all outside
cats.....

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

In article , "Julie Bove"
wrote:


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.

and this is why we get the govt that we get

In article
,
Billy wrote:


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.

to be fair, you could just set the follow-up to misc.consumers.house and that
would get it out of rec.gardens