Science > Abortion > Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control...
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2004 12:03:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep" with
drug overdoses. The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty", while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Also, we should keep in mind that "health clinics" put human babies "to
sleep" on a daily basis, without ANY anesthetic, by burning their face out
with saline or chopping their arms and legs off with sharp knives or by
ramming scissors into their skull. Remember, all without ANY anesthetic.
Those stray babies slowly bleed to death. No charges of baby cruelty are
ever filed.
.
|
|
| User: "Croatoan" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 04:42:04 PM |
|
|
In article <WpXAd.2466$Cc.261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep" with
drug overdoses. The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty", while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Death is sanitary and controlled in a shelter.
Shelters do everything possible to not have to euthanize.
It is cruel in both ways, euthanizing or with a bullet.
Those "associates" could have called animal control.
The cat could have been owned by someone else.
The cat could have had found a home and lived.
The "associates" did not think for themselves.
Also, we should keep in mind that "health clinics" put human babies "to
sleep" on a daily basis, without ANY anesthetic, by burning their face out
with saline or chopping their arms and legs off with sharp knives or by
ramming scissors into their skull. Remember, all without ANY anesthetic.
Those stray babies slowly bleed to death. No charges of baby cruelty are
ever filed.
It is legal to euthanize cats in a humane way. So why are you upset
about euthanizing a fetus? (regardless they are not the same issue.)
But unfortunately we do not see animals as having any rights. I am glad
for this one federal law.
--
http://www.employees.org/~croatoan/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 04:50:38 PM |
|
|
"Croatoan" <croatoan@employees.org> wrote in message
news:0v%Ad.86$lN5.12506@twister.southeast.rr.com...
In article <WpXAd.2466$Cc.261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep" with
drug overdoses. The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty", while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Death is sanitary and controlled in a shelter.
Shooting a cat is also sanitary, and controlled.
Shelters do everything possible to not have to euthanize.
And the Wal*Mart did everything possible too, but finally it was time to get
rid of that particular cat.
It is cruel in both ways, euthanizing or with a bullet.
OK, at least THAT is a logically consistent assertion on your part!
Those "associates" could have called animal control.
Simpler yet to just shoot the beast.
The cat could have been owned by someone else.
No, because it was living on Wal*Mart property.
The cat could have had found a home and lived.
It had already done that. Unfortunately, it decided to move in, uninvited,
where it was not welcome. So it died.
The "associates" did not think for themselves.
Nor do the employees of your local animal "shelter" where hundreds of cats
are "put to sleep" each year. So we can hardly blame the Wal*Mart
employees, since the employees of your local animal "shelter" are guilty of
FAR more serious crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Croatoan" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 07:29:53 PM |
|
|
In article <2D%Ad.3792$JC2.3246@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"Croatoan" <croatoan@employees.org> wrote in message
news:0v%Ad.86$lN5.12506@twister.southeast.rr.com...
In article <WpXAd.2466$Cc.261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep" with
drug overdoses. The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty", while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Death is sanitary and controlled in a shelter.
Shooting a cat is also sanitary, and controlled.
If the cat lay dead it is not sanitary. And it is not controlled to try
and shoot a cat. did you read the other posts?
Shelters do everything possible to not have to euthanize.
And the Wal*Mart did everything possible too, but finally it was time to get
rid of that particular cat.
No, they did not. I will leave it up to you, what else could they have
done?
I have rescued nearly 10 feral cats. Some of which ended up being
killed. Most of which found homes. It is not that hard. When they went
from trying to coax it out to shooting it I cannot beleive they did all
they could. Animal control could have set a trap for it and it would be
gone in a day. What was needed was education.
It is cruel in both ways, euthanizing or with a bullet.
OK, at least THAT is a logically consistent assertion on your part!
Those "associates" could have called animal control.
Simpler yet to just shoot the beast.
Like bush says "It would be much simpler to be a dictator" and he is
right. But sometimes the right thing to do is difficult.
The cat could have been owned by someone else.
No, because it was living on Wal*Mart property.
How do you know? You make assumptions from such a short story.
The cat could have had found a home and lived.
It had already done that. Unfortunately, it decided to move in, uninvited,
where it was not welcome. So it died.
Please, you know what I mean about a home. And is that what the spanish
and english got when they moved in to this continent uninvited? HEHE!
nope!
The "associates" did not think for themselves.
Nor do the employees of your local animal "shelter" where hundreds of cats
are "put to sleep" each year.
Have you ever worked or volunteered in an animal shelter? Why do you
think they work there, cause they want to kill the animals?
So we can hardly blame the Wal*Mart
employees, since the employees of your local animal "shelter" are guilty of
FAR more serious crime.
There apparently is a federal law preventing what the "associates" at
wal mart did. Is there one against what the shelters did? Obviously most
in society think one is wrong and the other is not.
--
http://www.employees.org/~croatoan/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 07:08:08 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Death is sanitary and controlled in a shelter.
Shooting a cat is also sanitary, and controlled.
No, it's not. And only someone who has never so much as held a gun in
their hands would say such a thing. Take a few shooting lessons, go
hunting for squirrel, and get back to me.
Shelters do everything possible to not have to euthanize.
And the Wal*Mart did everything possible too,
Wrong. Calling animal control is the proper response in a civilized
society where we do not discharge firearms near shopping citizens,
highways, residential areas, etc.
It is cruel in both ways, euthanizing or with a bullet.
OK, at least THAT is a logically consistent assertion on your part!
Those "associates" could have called animal control.
Simpler yet to just shoot the beast.
How is that when a phone call is free, and a bullet costs money?
The cat could have been owned by someone else.
No, because it was living on Wal*Mart property.
Cats do not live on anyone's property. They stake out territories.
Probably someone in a nearby RESIDENTIAL AREA was feeding it, since
expecting a cat or any other creature to live out of Wal Mart's garbage
is asking a lot.
The cat could have had found a home and lived.
It had already done that.
Where in the article does it say that?
The "associates" did not think for themselves.
Nor do the employees of your local animal "shelter" where hundreds of
cats
are "put to sleep" each year.
I think it is preferable to euthanize a cat rather than shoot it WITH A
PELLET GUN as the article you referenced said. The cat didn't even die
until the next fricking day.
Frankly I think you are trolling and generally being an *****, since
it's apparent you didn't even read your own article.
--S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 12:33:05 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed
a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep"
with
drug overdoses.
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous. Especially when considering that
if you are a Wal-Mart employee who is too stupid to know that
discharging a firearm within city limits is usually illegal, I doubt
you'll be able to hit the poor small fast-moving creature effectively.
Hitting such a small target takes practice.
Also, we should keep in mind that "health clinics" put human babies
"to
sleep" on a daily basis, without ANY anesthetic, by burning their
face out
with saline or chopping their arms and legs off with sharp knives or
by
ramming scissors into their skull. Remember, all without ANY
anesthetic.
Those stray babies slowly bleed to death. No charges of baby
cruelty are
ever filed.
Can't argue with you there.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 12:45:16 PM |
|
|
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104431585.898290.323030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed
a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep"
with
drug overdoses.
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
And the animal "shelters" put HUNDREDS of them "to sleep" every day.
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30 seconds,
regardless of where the cat takes it.
Especially when considering that
if you are a Wal-Mart employee who is too stupid to know that
discharging a firearm within city limits is usually illegal, I doubt
you'll be able to hit the poor small fast-moving creature effectively.
Was it illegal in the city where they "put the cat to sleep"? If so, feel
free to charge them with "Illegally discharging a firearm with city limits".
But "animal cruelty" it was not, any more than the animal "shelters" commit
"animal cruelty" when they make cats slowly die by injection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 02:35:47 PM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
news:01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
I agree that its insane to charge someone with animal cruelty for
shooting a stray cat.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30
seconds, regardless of where the cat takes it.
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took quite a
few hits before going down using a .22
It had been run over and its lower jaw was hanging off -- was starving to
death (skin and bones) so I decided to kill it. Man that bugger was
tough -- eventually my buddy hit it with a 30 carbine and finally killed
it outright. You'd think a .22 was fine for cats, but maybe that
wallmart guy should have used something bigger.
-z
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 02:44:07 PM |
|
|
"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF802A7C085zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
news:01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
I agree that its insane to charge someone with animal cruelty for
shooting a stray cat.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30
seconds, regardless of where the cat takes it.
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took quite a
few hits before going down using a .22
OK, that might be true with a .22, so I should have been a bit clearer. I
was referring to something on the order of a 9mm, a .38, or a .45.
It had been run over and its lower jaw was hanging off -- was starving to
death (skin and bones) so I decided to kill it. Man that bugger was
tough -- eventually my buddy hit it with a 30 carbine and finally killed
it outright. You'd think a .22 was fine for cats, but maybe that
wallmart guy should have used something bigger.
OK, I hadn't heard what he used. I agree that a .22 can be a bit slow
sometime, especially if it's not a head or a heart shot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 02:44:56 PM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
news:rMZAd.12818$RH4.8389@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF802A7C085zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote
in news:01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal
cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
I agree that its insane to charge someone with animal cruelty for
shooting a stray cat.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30
seconds, regardless of where the cat takes it.
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took
quite a few hits before going down using a .22
OK, that might be true with a .22, so I should have been a bit
clearer. I was referring to something on the order of a 9mm, a .38,
or a .45.
It had been run over and its lower jaw was hanging off -- was
starving to death (skin and bones) so I decided to kill it. Man
that bugger was tough -- eventually my buddy hit it with a 30 carbine
and finally killed it outright. You'd think a .22 was fine for cats,
but maybe that wallmart guy should have used something bigger.
OK, I hadn't heard what he used. I agree that a .22 can be a bit
slow sometime, especially if it's not a head or a heart shot.
I'm only assuming a .22 -- that would be the first thing I'd reach for in
cases of small animals like cats. Boy I was surprised how tough they are
tho -- that nine lives thing may not be a myth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 02:49:26 PM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
news:rMZAd.12818$RH4.8389@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF802A7C085zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote
in news:01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal
cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
I agree that its insane to charge someone with animal cruelty for
shooting a stray cat.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30
seconds, regardless of where the cat takes it.
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took
quite a few hits before going down using a .22
OK, that might be true with a .22, so I should have been a bit
clearer. I was referring to something on the order of a 9mm, a .38,
or a .45.
I remmeber another time a buddy of mine ran over a stray cat, broke its
back. Man it was sad, the poor ***** was pulling himself along -- back
legs mangled. He pulled out a .38 pistol and put 2 into its head and the
cat went down -- I swear its head was pretty much opened up. Then about
5 mins later it woke up and started crawling around again. He finished
the rounds in the revolver and it finally died.
ok enough cat killing stories :)
-z
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF827A9C990zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131...
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took
quite a few hits before going down using a .22
OK, that might be true with a .22, so I should have been a bit
clearer. I was referring to something on the order of a 9mm, a .38,
or a .45.
I remmeber another time a buddy of mine ran over a stray cat, broke its
back. Man it was sad, the poor ***** was pulling himself along -- back
legs mangled. He pulled out a .38 pistol and put 2 into its head and the
cat went down -- I swear its head was pretty much opened up. Then about
5 mins later it woke up and started crawling around again.
LOL! I was believing you up until the part about "5 minutes later it woke
up". Sorry, but THAT wasn't even true for Vince Foster or JFK!
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 03:24:50 PM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
news:q7_Ad.12831$RH4.1423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF827A9C990zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131...
On the other hand they are tough bastards. Last cat I shot took
quite a few hits before going down using a .22
OK, that might be true with a .22, so I should have been a bit
clearer. I was referring to something on the order of a 9mm, a
.38, or a .45.
I remmeber another time a buddy of mine ran over a stray cat, broke
its back. Man it was sad, the poor ***** was pulling himself along
-- back legs mangled. He pulled out a .38 pistol and put 2 into its
head and the cat went down -- I swear its head was pretty much opened
up. Then about 5 mins later it woke up and started crawling around
again.
LOL! I was believing you up until the part about "5 minutes later it
woke up". Sorry, but THAT wasn't even true for Vince Foster or JFK!
I know it freaked us out. I was like Sheesh how many times do you need
to shoot a damn cat??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Croatoan" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 04:55:09 PM |
|
|
In article <01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104431585.898290.323030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed
a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep"
with
drug overdoses.
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
How do you know this? I have worked in a shelter. This is not true in
mine. People drop off cats only because they do not want them AND they
take strays.
And the animal "shelters" put HUNDREDS of them "to sleep" every day.
16,438 to 21,917 pets are euthanized each DAY. Is that an outrage to you?
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30 seconds,
regardless of where the cat takes it.
Why not catch it and have the shelter do it the right way? Besides you
assume the scenario of the death of this cat. You know nothing about it
so save your comments on the subject.
Especially when considering that
if you are a Wal-Mart employee who is too stupid to know that
discharging a firearm within city limits is usually illegal, I doubt
you'll be able to hit the poor small fast-moving creature effectively.
Was it illegal in the city where they "put the cat to sleep"? If so, feel
free to charge them with "Illegally discharging a firearm with city limits".
Then that would be two charges.
But "animal cruelty" it was not, any more than the animal "shelters" commit
"animal cruelty" when they make cats slowly die by injection.
The cats are not "slowly killed". How do I know? I have held them down
while they are put to sleep and then shoveled out the incinerator after
they were cremated. The vet injects a large overdose of an ansethetic
agent. The cat is dead within seconds. Yes, seconds. the cat most times
takes a tiny gasp and that's it.
I have to ask, even if this is unfair for the people the cat suffer
death. Why are you so upset for the kids?
--
http://www.employees.org/~croatoan/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 05:09:44 PM |
|
|
"Croatoan" <croatoan@employees.org> wrote in message
news:hH%Ad.93$lN5.13619@twister.southeast.rr.com...
In article <01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104431585.898290.323030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed
a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep"
with
drug overdoses.
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
How do you know this? I have worked in a shelter. This is not true in
mine. People drop off cats only because they do not want them AND they
take strays.
Exactly as I said - people drop off the cats only because they don't want
them, NOT because the cats are "suffering". And the "shelter" obligingly
kills them dead. HUNDREDS of them, every year. So I am NOT going to get
hysterical because somebody OUTSIDE of a "shelter" blows an unwanted cat's
brains out, you see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Croatoan" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 07:01:30 PM |
|
|
In article <YU%Ad.2768$Cc.1137@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"Croatoan" <croatoan@employees.org> wrote in message
news:hH%Ad.93$lN5.13619@twister.southeast.rr.com...
In article <01YAd.2493$Cc.1113@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104431585.898290.323030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p3e8t0hgei34a07g9lg3r6e3gvvb4qs2a6@4ax.com...
http://www.wftv.com/news/4035165/detail.html
Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders
POSTED: 7:26 am EST December 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:06 am EST December 30, 2004
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Two Wal-Mart employees who police say followed
a
manager's orders to shoot and kill a stray cat have been charged
with federal animal cruelty.
The various animal "shelters", on a DAILY basis, "put cats to sleep"
with
drug overdoses.
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
How do you know this? I have worked in a shelter. This is not true in
mine. People drop off cats only because they do not want them AND they
take strays.
Exactly as I said - people drop off the cats only because they don't want
them, NOT because the cats are "suffering".
If someone does not want a cat, that cat suffers.
And the "shelter" obligingly
kills them dead.
Not obligingly. If the local counties gave them more money they would
not have to. I knew of no vet that does that with glee.
HUNDREDS of them, every year.
More like tens of millions.
So I am NOT going to get
hysterical because somebody OUTSIDE of a "shelter" blows an unwanted cat's
brains out, you see.
Oh, I see. "well they are killing millions, what is one more?"
So I suppose if that one cat in a million was yours you would not care?
--
http://www.employees.org/~croatoan/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 06:56:21 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104431585.898290.323030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
I do not think strays should be euthanized OR shot at.
And the animal "shelters" put HUNDREDS of them "to sleep" every day.
I agree this is wrong when there are better ways to go about
controlling animal populations.
The cat slowly dies, over the span of maybe 30 seconds.
The cat is sedated, while the drug stops the heart.
Apparently our Nanny State has decided THAT isn't "animal
cruelty",
while
"putting a cat to sleep" instantaneously with a bullet is.
Bullets are not always instantaneous.
Two bullets into a cat will "put the cat to sleep" in less than 30
seconds,
regardless of where the cat takes it.
I'm guessing you aren't a firearms person.
Especially when considering that
if you are a Wal-Mart employee who is too stupid to know that
discharging a firearm within city limits is usually illegal, I
doubt
you'll be able to hit the poor small fast-moving creature
effectively.
Was it illegal in the city where they "put the cat to sleep"?
Check your local ordinances.
If so, feel
free to charge them with "Illegally discharging a firearm with city
limits".
If I hear someone shooting at animals anywhere near me, the police will
be called immediately.
But "animal cruelty" it was not,
Shooting at cats is cruel. It is also dangerous.
any more than the animal "shelters" commit
"animal cruelty" when they make cats slowly die by injection.
Look, I'm a kitty person too, and I find the idea of euthanizing stray
cats repellent.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
30 Dec 2004 07:48:22 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
I do not think strays should be euthanized OR shot at.
Unless they're muslims.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
31 Dec 2004 12:33:05 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
I do not think strays should be euthanized OR shot at.
Unless they're muslims.
Specifically, murderous Muslims who support OBL or are members of a
terrorist group.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
31 Dec 2004 04:10:33 PM |
|
|
<sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
I do not think strays should be euthanized OR shot at.
Unless they're muslims.
Specifically, murderous Muslims who support OBL or are members of a
terrorist group.
Smirk. Your rants against Muslims sound a lot like rants against Jews
from 60 years ago.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
02 Jan 2005 05:34:10 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
If a cat is suffering, no chance for recovery from
devastating
illness/disease, there isn't really anything else they can
do.
The cats aren't "suffering"; they are merely strays.
I do not think strays should be euthanized OR shot at.
Unless they're muslims.
Specifically, murderous Muslims who support OBL or are members of a
terrorist group.
Smirk. Your rants against Muslims sound a lot like rants against
Jews
from 60 years ago.
How so?
--S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: No, seriously, really, the FedGov is NOT Intrusively Out of Control... |
02 Jan 2005 10:53:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:03:34 GMT, "Mindless Drewling Libruls"
<LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<WpXAd.2466$Cc.261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
Also, we should keep in mind that "health clinics" put human babies "to
sleep" on a daily basis, without ANY anesthetic, by burning their face out
with saline or chopping their arms and legs off with sharp knives or by
ramming scissors into their skull. Remember, all without ANY anesthetic.
Those stray babies slowly bleed to death. No charges of baby cruelty are
ever filed.
No babies are involved in an abortion, usually details such as arms
and legs have not developed, and what happens to a fetus in an
abortion is a trivial and irrelevant side effect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
