Does owning a gun, eating meat, and hunting disqualify one from...

[devilgrrl]

being liberal or progressive?

That's what I'm getting from people who don't like Ed Schultz.

[jedr]

1. I don't know?

I do all of the above ,and am a screaming liberal

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Ditto except for the liberal part.

I'm an unrepentant 60's radical who returned to the boonies when RayGun got in in '80.

[yardwork]

2. No. That would eliminate most of the country.

I love your sig line sign! Is it yours? Can I link it?

[devilgrrl]

8. If you'd like, go right ahead.

:-)

[gorbal]

51. Yeah and how would we explain Vermont?

:wtf:

[Downtown Hound]

3. I don't think so

If it does we're in real trouble. That's a huge base out there that could be tapped.

[kazoo35]

4. Hardly.

Why would those things keep you away from being liberal or progressive?

[ultraist]

12. Because...

Eatting meat is not environmentally or animal rights friendly. Hunting is not animal rights friendly and people assume that in order to be a liberal, you must be in 100% agreement with all liberal issues. That's just not true.

Someone may be very liberal on social issues, but not very liberal on environmental issues (ie they eat meat, drive a SUV, use products that pollute, etc).

[HereSince1628]

25. Set-place agriculture and civilization are not environmentally friendly

Drinking coffee in a Starbucks puts it all together and it isn't really much more environmentally friendly than eating meat.

[ultraist]

38. Possibly, coffee is a luxury as is meat

Meat puts more stress on the ecosystem than does non meat food items. It's not necessary to eat meat, but it is necessary to eat, thus have vegetable crops. Vegetables do not stress nature in the way that consumed meat does.

If we didn't have agriculture, the country would starve. Not everyone owns their own land or has the room to grow their own food.

BTW, I don't drink Starbucks, I think their coffee sucks.

[The Magistrate]

45. Coffee, Ma'am, Is The First Essential Of Life

The thing is just impossible without the stuff....

[forgethell]

55. Well, no, not

impossible, but definitely coffee adds immensely to the pleasure of living.

[forgethell]

47. I guess that depends

on the definition of "necessary". I find it necessary to eat meat.

[Lucky Luciano]

52. me too

It is indeed necessary to eat meat. I never buy it in the supermarket though because I despise cooking and cleaning - plus I don't really have the time for it. Come to think of it, I do have a lot of work to do right now actually! The evil DU website has reduced my productivity today!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!


I usually have meat out once a day for lunch or dinner. I need my protein and I like it to come in many forms.

[HereSince1628]

56. The average American's coffee consumption requires lots of land

On edit: changed my title because I couldn't point to a website source for the average acres required for coffee.

The idea that vegetarianism is environmentally friendly doesn't work for me.

By definition, having a "top" omnivore (like humans) eating on the lowest level of the food pyramid energy is diverted that could support the top of the food pyramid. There are not other consumers eating us, at least in significcant numbers.

Just considering vegetarianism, expanding human population would still require increased diversion of energy flow out of natural systems and habitat destruction which dooms higher order consumers and herbivore competitors.

Civilization requires fixed place agriculture, fixed place agriculture isn't environmentally friendly particularly when it is support 5-7 billion people.

[ArkDem]

28. LOL!

[Melodybe]

5. That's silly

I'm for the death penalty, does that mean that I'm not liberal?

[4morewars]

13. The death penalty is not progressive

So, no, you are not a liberal.

[Kerrytravelers]

33. Whew! Kerry supports the Death Penalty.

There are libs on both sides of this issue. It's a pretty heavy and emotional issue, just like abortion. I personaly do not feel like one issue alone makes someone Lib or Con- unless we're talking the KKK here.


P.S. I admantly oppose the death penalty with a passion, but I'd be willing to listen to why someone supports it. That's part of what makes me a lib. And, I bet the poster who supports the death penatly would listen to my reasons for opposing it. That's why they are a lib.


Edited for spelling because I've had too many fermented ciders to spell correctly, kinda like "our leader."

[imenja]

41. Kerry does not support the death penalty

remember the much replayed debate with Weld?
In typical Kerry fashion, he waffled a bit during the presidential campaign, saying he would not support it for terrorists only.

[forgethell]

44. But Clinton

supported it in a very big way, including signing death warrants.

[imenja]

46. it's still barbaric

regardless of who supports it, it's immoral and symptomatic of a violent society. When the state institutionalizes murder, whether at home or in Iraq, is it really surprising that we have the highest violent crime rate in the developed world?

[forgethell]

53. What makes it

immoral? Who has the authority to decide?

[imenja]

58. what makes child molestation, rape, or murder immoral?

There are standards of right and wrong. Murder is not acceptable. It's a fundamental value, not only in the Ten Commandments but among virtually all nations on earth. If violence and death is something you want to promote, than maintain a death penalty. If you want to create a society that values life and human dignity, the death penalty is fundamentally incompatible.

That Americans condone the death penalty doesn't make it right. Our nation also condones war and foreign occupation, while our government engages in torture of prisoners. These problems are all connected. They are evidence of a widespread culture of violence.

The death penalty is also fundamentally racist in it's implementation. It was part of a state apparatus of violence used to maintain slavery, and that it continues to target principally African-American men is an ongoing violent legacy of slavery.

The forms of punishment a society implements reveal its values. It's sickness in what it does to us as a people. Institutionalizing violence makes us a nation of murderers at home and abroad.

[forgethell]

64. Why isn't murder acceptable?

Why not child rape? What makes racism wrong? Do you know why you have that opinion?

But on a less rarefied level:

If you want to create a society that values life and human dignity, the death penalty is fundamentally incompatible.

I think not. This is a question of policy aimed toward a certain result. As such, it should be empirically tested, not just stated.

As for this The death penalty is also fundamentally racist in it's implementation. It was part of a state apparatus of violence used to maintain slavery, and that it continues to target principally African-American men is an ongoing violent legacy of slavery

Yes slaves were punished with the death penalty, but so were many white men. In fact, it was prevalent in England long before black men were. That is a bull shit statement.

I'm just asking what makes your opinion so much better than anybody else's. I don't think you know.

[imenja]

65. mine is not better than everyone else's

Only criminals think murder and rape is acceptable. If you do, as soon as you act on it, you belong in prison. I really have no interest in engaging in a debate about basic moral concepts. Moral relativism in this context is unacceptable. The entire world, with a few exceptions, have denounced the death penalty. The Hague refuses to impose it, as do nations throughout Europe and Latin America. The United States is one of a few nations that maintain it, but we also are a highly militarized and violent society. If you think murder is acceptable, I imagine you have no problem with killing Iraqi civilians, Arabs, Vietnamese, or even the use of nuclear weapons. Such attitudes threaten the lives of all of us.

Of course white people received and receive the death penalty, but your penchant for empiricism should be satisfied by the statistics that demonstrate it's application is inexcusably racist. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5) We as a nation know that it targets African-American men in far larger numbers than their incidence in the population or in the criminal justice system, but we continue to implement it anyway. The state institutionalization of violence creates citizens like yourself who see murder as an acceptable. That you could even question the immorality of rape, murder, or child molestation frankly turns my stomach. I suggest you examine your own values rather than interrogating mine.

[forgethell]

66. You understand nothing.

The question was rhetorical. I do not question the immorality of rape, murder, etc. I question the morality of refusing to implement the death penalty for those guilty of it.

It is you, in fact, who are the moral relativist. I do not think that we need to model our laws or society upon Europe or Latin America. We are different societies.

There are some crimes for which the death penalty is the only acceptable and just punishment. It doesn't matter who commits them.

By the way, an interesting link. Thank you.

[ultraist]

42. Kerry supports it in a very limited way

He does not support it as it stands, he supports it only for terrorists and extremely heinous crimes, like child serial murders. That's what he said in the NYC primary debate.

[Kerrytravelers]

48. It's far more than I would support it.

I would never support the death penalty for any reason.

[HereSince1628]

50. Why are you defining a liberal via a test of progressivism?

I'd like to read that if you don't mind sharing.

I don't see liberalism as a subset of progressivism. Consequently the logic of "all liberals are progressive--you are not a progressive--so you are not a liberal" escapes me.

[Jack_DeLeon]

61. Ah, so please list all the litmus tests there are for being liberal...

fwiw, I too support the death penalty, and am pro-gun.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. No,

just unenlightened.

:-)

[Bluebear]

31. I wouldn't call you a liberal

Not a flame or anything, but no, I don't think pro-death penalty qualifies you as liberal. Democratic yes, liberal no.

Hey, at least the right won't label you as an evil lib lol.

[imenja]

6. there are a lot of gun owners on DU

I don't agree with their politics on the issue, but I'm not going to disqualify them from progressive status over it. I like Ed Schultz.

[BikeWriter]

34. (142 votes, 43%) of us as of now have guns in our homes, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2605390

[prodigal_green]

7. nope

Hitler was a vegetarian. So am I, but that doesn't make me a nazi.

[devilgrrl]

17. Oh? Are sure about that????

:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:
:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:
:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:
:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:

[prodigal_green]

22. Hmmm...

I do like Wagner...

[devilgrrl]

39. you know that I was just being...

:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:
:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:
:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:

don't you?

[prodigal_green]

59. yes

I assumed that's what :silly: meant. So am I.

[bearfan454]

9. No.

I do all 3 and consider myself a liberal Democrat. A proud one too.

[The Magistrate]

10. Not To My View, Ma'am

"Vegetables are interesting, but lack a sense of purpose when unaccompanied by a good cut of meat."

[MASSAFRA]

11. I hope not

Then again I do not hunt so I only fulfill 2 of 3.

[Kerrytravelers]

24. The beautiful thing about being a lib is that the tent is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jdj]

14. who?

[Dhalgren]

15. When the revolution/civil war starts

all true Progressives will own guns...

[Lucky Luciano]

16. I heard Ed Schultz once

I didn't really like him though....The way he spoke reminded me so much of Rush except that the guy was a liberal instead of a conservative. I like it when radio talk show hosts speak in a more refined way I guess - it makes them sound more intelligent and credible.

[Psephos]

21. Not my style, either

I agree, a loudmouth is a loudmouth, regardless of which lever they pull in the voting booth.

[Drifter]

18. The right has misled America ...

into thinking that Liberals are a bunch of Tufo eating whiners whose only purpose in life is to take your guns away.

That is the only way they can get some folks to listen to them.

I personally do not consider myself a Liberal. I am more of a hybrid. I'm more described as a left leaning (former) conservative. I can relate to Ed.

I don't like guns. I don't care if you have one (as long as it is registered and legal), but I don't want anything to do with it.

Cheers
Drifter

[ultraist]

29. LMAO!!! "tofu eatting whiners..." hehehe...

I had tofu last night, Thai panaang curry tofu and vegetables. It was really goooood!

I don't own a gun nor do I hunt but I do eat meat occassionally. But I am really BAD on environmental issues. For instance, I drive an SUV and don't recycle all of the time.

[Kerrytravelers]

43. I'm kinda bad, too.

I have a CRV (with my Kerry sticker still in place) and I always forget to empty the bins on my back porch to be recycled.



P.S. To ultraist:

I'm sorry if I have offended you in the past. I still think of the the Halle Barry thread, so you have educated me far more than I realized at the time.

Thank you.

[glitch]

20. Nope - liberal means tolerant. nt

[Redneck Socialist]

23. Nope n/t

[farmbo]

27. Hell no. Being a self-indulgent, chicken hawk, greed monger does.

It has nothing to do with guns, meat or hunting.

Progressives support Big Picture ideas and freedoms...We don't keep score on peoples'personel habits.

[Baclava]

30. Depends.

How far back in the woods do you live?

[NAO]

32. No. Meat eating is very common, gun ownership somewhat common among progs

Many progressives and liberals eat meat.

Quite a few progressives and liberals own firearms. Some own firearms for self-defense; some own them for hunting; some for marksmanship; or some combinations of the above.

Sometimes the social context and upbringing that leads people to be into firearms and hunting also tends to stress the Republican world view, and that's where the stereotype comes from.

But sometimes people pick up hobbies (such as marksmanship) as an adult or they discount some but not all of their parents lifestyle choices (eg, they may not be politically conservative but may still enjoy hunting.)

My parents had a unique perspective. They were Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who were RABID Democrats. They grew up in a rural community during the Great Depression, and so they had all the "Red State" values and lifestyles...but they lived thru the Depression and saw what FDR did for masses of destitute people, hence they were lifelong Democrats. They told me that the two greatest things to happen to the human race were the New Testament and the New Deal.

My father was a hunter, and I owned guns as a kid. My mother was a teetotaler, and thought that the repeal of prohibition was the beginning of the end of civilization.

I eat meat, but I don't own any guns and I don't really like the idea of hunting, although I do respect it as a long tradition among some people.

[porphyrian]

35. Nope.

However, the gun, meat and hunting establishments are largely conservative, so most who would associate with them are suspect. True liberals accept everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as they don't interfere with others' right to the same. True progressives would work to get beyond bickering about inclusive/exclusivity and towards real change for the better.

[forgethell]

36. Only for

fools. There are lots of other progressive positions one can take to establish his credentials. If they put all the vegans in one county, they might be able to elect a dog-catcher, except that none of them would run.

[solinvictus]

37. Nope...

Because we're going to need the guns when the Reds try to move against us.

[number6]

40. no

..

[McKenzie]

49. banning things is illiberal imo

there are certain things that are just outrageously offensive and there should be a consensus on preventing them from happening.

However, the issues you cite are only bannable (does that word exist?) if the majority impose their will on the minority, irrespective of how slim the majority in favour of a ban. and numbers do not always equal "right". The Sun is the biggest selling tabloid in the UK but it's a sexist rag. Based upon democracy though that's what the majority of people want so it must be the optimum choice. Rhetoric on my part. It doesn't mean they are right or that the paper in question has any quality. "Beware the tyranny of the majority" and all that.

A philosophical minefield the subject of whether we should allow things to continue unless they are harmful to society or just offensive. The latter include killing people for whatever reason, racism, sexism and exploitation. Once we move into the realm of personal choice the waters get very muddy indeed.

[TomClash]

54. Absoultely Positively

NOT!

[bush_is_wacko]

57. Funny! I hear this a lot too!

Their perception is we all want to dictate what they eat, and how they live. The truth is, we just don't want THEM to do it to us! They seem unable to understand that their lifestyle is RESTRICTIVE despite their attempts to minimize the government. Their rules are civil rights violations, we just want corporations to make sure they don't ruin the world in order to make money.

I know many liberals that own guns, hunt, smoke, drink, and make LOTS of money. They just do so in a manner that won't harm others. I never smoke near to someone that doesn't. I can go many hours, really even days without a cigarette if need be. I would never OVER hunt, in fact I don't ever actually shoot at any living thing I just go for the view and peace and quiet. The outdoors are my church now despite the fact I was raised a Catholic. I have always been unable to drink great amounts, but many liberals are wine lovers and beer lovers. I think it is in my best interest to consult BOTH medical doctors and naturopaths. The combination of the two is usually quite successful. My naturopath and my doctor are CONSTANTLY harping on my smoking habits.

Conservatives don't have a clue what liberals represent. They are stuck on a picture of us as pagan, vegan, health-nuts, who won't allow them to immunize our children. Those would be the children we ALL decided we'd keep, AFTER we had all those abortions we love so much, and who all think wearing fur is a sin greater than "Thou shalt not kill."

I actually believe that is to our benefit at times. The shock value alone of a liberal hunter sitting on a rock with a shotgun in hand, meditating, while smoking a cigarette and eating beef jerky is worth it's weight in gold.

Another thing I think shocks the hell out of them is hearing a liberal agree with them that partial birth abortion is murder and then telling them early term abortion is not and explaining to them that an early term spontaneous abortion is called a "miscarriage" ( a woman mis-carries something not someone) and a late term spontaneous birth is either called a "miracle" if the infant survives or a "stillbirth" if it does not. (the implication is that an early birth has occurred not that the woman couldn't carry a thing that was unable to survive)

Early births survive at an astounding rate because of medical technology. When Roe V Wade was decided those same babies all died. When medical technology advances to a point where something humans believed was impossible at the time a law, bill, or amendment, was written, we must change that law to take that into account.

The same applies to stem cell research. I have no doubt many Republican's are still living with the VERY mistaken belief that stem cells come from aborted fetus' and donated fertilized eggs. The fact is, THAT is no longer true. We have known for many many years that stem cells from cord blood and now adult bone marrow can produce stem cells that may be of MORE use to us than what the aforementioned sources ever could be.

These two issues should be grounds for bringing liberals at heart over to the good side. Instead our propaganda masters are using it repeatedly to divide us.

[porphyrian]

60. Right on.

I always think of the abortion debate - keeping abortion legal does not make people go out and get abortions, it just allows people who are going to do it anyway a safe and legal means to do so. For some reason, they can't wrap their closed little minds around that.

[tx_dem41]

62. No, no, and no. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

63. Absolutely not.