chromeboomerang
Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,073
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 7
|
I was in Ohio few yrs back & I saw a stat posted after hunting season. 70 tons of meat was donated to the homeless from the hunters during the season. & 90% of the money used to maintain wildlife comes from hunters.
|
|
| 08-12-2007 03:46 AM |
|
mabewa
Wish You Were Here
Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 11
|
Quote:Interesting, A liberal who agrees with Ted Nugent.
Well, I don't agree with a lot of Nugent's views ("speak English or get out of the USA"--tell that to a Navajo or Yupik elder, or to the majority of hardworking, honest people in Puerto Rico!). But, Nugent eats what he shoots, and I have no problem with that at all.
The problem with (some) conservatives is that they spend so much time demonizing "liberals" (reading all those trash books written by Ann Coulter and ilk that try to paint us as "traitors" that should be rounded up) that most of the time they have no idea whatsover of how we actually think (hint: we don't all think the same). It's not that people like me are uncommon, it's just that (some) conservatives have swallowed a line of utter BS about their fellow Americans--brainwashed up the yin-yang. Do you REALLY think I'm unusual? If so, you're either really isolated, or someone's been taking you for a major ride, because there's a lot more where I come from. Go to places like the Puget Sound area or Vermont or Northern California or Hispanic parts of Northern New Mexico, just to give you a few examples, and you'll meet a lot of proud, working-class American left-wing rural people, and most of us have no problem with hunting, as long as it's done for food and not for rich people's idiot and cowardly sport.
Where I come from, it's all of the yuppie Republicans from Bellevue with their big weekend houses who have a problem with hunting--they think the deer look nice walking around in their big yards. Hey, we think the deer look nice too, just not when they're starving. Plus, they taste good, and if we're going to eat meat at all, it's a heck of a lot more humane and healthy than McDonalds.
Edited By mabewa on 1186938461
|
|
| 08-12-2007 09:06 AM |
|
mabewa
Wish You Were Here
Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 11
|
Quote:Along these lines, a new book has come out which contains a study that shows that Conservatives give 30% more on average to charities, ( non religious ones). Even poor Conservative families the percentage remains constant.
Heard the cat on the radio, he said; If it weren't for church going Conservatives, there would be no PTA, no Boy Scouts etc. A sad vision it paints if the larger percentage of American society were Liberal.
Yeah, they say stuff like that on the radio, don't they? The whole attitude there seems to be "if the facts don't fit, just make s##t up." You'll hear a lot of pretty funny stuff on the radio.
Put it this way: it's a well-known fact that the poor and middle class actually donate a greater percentage of their income than the rich do. Everybody oohs and ahhs about how much Bill Gates donates to charity, but the ironic thing is, the average working stiff donates more, percentage-wise.
Now, it's also a well-known fact that people who vote Democrat (who you'd probably classify as "liberal") are, on average, significantly lower-income than those who vote Republican (who you'd probably classify as "conservative"). That would appear to contradict this new book you're writing about (this new book wouldn't happen to be written by someone like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and ilk, now would it?)
In the words of Chuck D: don't believe the hype!
|
|
| 08-12-2007 09:23 AM |
|
Sharky
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Posts: 50
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
|
Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US) main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting. I'm not saying that all liberals want this, but the two groups I mention ARE far left groups and they are the most dangerous to the hunting way of life that many cherish. They do not advertise these views to the general public because they will alienate some of their members AND much of the public who won't agree with them. BUT, if you dig just a little, it is very clear what their goals are. They just are taking it one small step at a time.
Edited By Sharky on 1187022612
|
|
| 08-13-2007 08:22 AM |
|
Narrow Way
More
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 1
|
^ rightwing fascist propoganda.
OOHHHH. The "liberals" want my guns.
Tired argument full of holes.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 11:59 AM |
|
Sharky
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Posts: 50
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
|
Tell me, what is so full of holes about that?
Its not even an argumant, its a fact.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 12:02 PM |
|
Narrow Way
More
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 1
|
Look man, I'm not gonna argue with "fact". If that's your slant, so be it. I submit you should dig deeper and get out of the NRA spin cycle.
No argument here.
I just think hunters who aren't hungry are killers. Not sportsmen. Pre-meditated killers.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 04:12 PM |
|
Sharky
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Posts: 50
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
|
Can you tell me which one of the facts I mention are slanted?
I didn't think so. Go back in your hole.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 05:24 PM |
|
Narrow Way
More
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 1
|
"Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US)"
Obviously slanted.
"main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting."
Bull. Lets see some documentation to prove it. Not Limbaugh law, documentation.
"They do not advertise these views to the general public because they will alienate some of their members AND much of the public who won't agree with them."
fact? Paranoid delusion maybe.
"BUT, if you dig just a little, it is very clear what their goals are. "
Propoganda. facts please.
" Go back in your hole."
Typical conservative. Gets combative when a shaky foundation is rattled.
:) Have a nice day.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 05:48 PM |
|
mabewa
Wish You Were Here
Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 11
|
Quote:Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US) main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting. I'm not saying that all liberals want this, but the two groups I mention ARE far left groups and they are the most dangerous to the hunting way of life that many cherish.
Dude, this is another example of how too much talk-show radio warps your brain and gets you confused. PETA is indeed a radical organization, but it's not a "radical-left" organization, let alone "liberal." In some societies and some periods of history, it's actually been the radical RIGHT that has embraced animal-rights. "Radical-left" generally means "leftist" (communist) and communism views animals as resources to be used by humans, which is totally the opposite of animal-rights. PETA's agenda simply doesn't fit on the left-right spectrum at all (not everything does, you know).
The vast majority of "liberals" don't support groups like PETA--in fact, many liberals are environmentalists, and environmentalism and animal-rights generally mix like oil and water: environmentalism requires that animal populations be sharply controlled to protect the environment (for example, rabbits in Australia, pigs on Pacific islands), while animal-rights people totally oppose such measures.
Anyway, even if you can argue that PETA is somehow left-wing, then that doesn't mean you can blame it on liberals. I mean, the Aryan Nations IS (radical) right-wing, but I don't hold you responsible for it.
The whole problem with the right-wing hysteric media in the US is that it doesn't make the basic kind of distinctions that I'm making above: "everybody we don't agree with is a "liberal," so "liberals" are to blame for everything bad."
No wonder y'all are so confused.
|
|
| 08-13-2007 05:48 PM |
|
Home
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
