[troub]

<a href="http://animalwelfare.kucinich.us/" target="_blank">http://animalwelfare.kucinich.us/</a><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Our mission as human beings can truly be to elevate this world from a condition of suffering and cruelty to the planet's creatures, and towards a condition of compassion and inherent respect.</div>
</div>
<br>

 

[amaroque]

I do appreciate Kucinich's animal rights stance but I'm afraid he doesn't have a very high standing in Congress.

 

[Red]

I don't know that he's that much of an AR supporter, though:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1665&Itemid=48" target="_blank">http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=...1665&Itemid=48</a><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">My farm policy favors independent and family-owned farms. I support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock, and numerous new incentives for farmers to convert to sustainable and organic farming and ranching techniques. The vision of the meat that we consume coming from happy and healthy free-range animals can become more of a reality...</div>
</div>
<br>

 

[amaroque]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Red</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I don't know that he's that much of an AR supporter, though</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I'm about 99% sure, on a personal level, that he is a veg*n. I think his stance constitutes political reality that he would probably be unelectable if he called for a ban on meat. I'm guessing that he recognizes that he may be unable to prevent animal deaths but he can work to make their lives a little better.

 

[Mr. Sun]

From the link that Troub provided:<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">My farm policy favors independent and family-owned farms. I support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock, and numerous new incentives for farmers to convert to sustainable and organic farming and ranching techniques. The vision of the meat that we consume coming from happy and healthy free-range animals can become more of a reality, as opposed to the inhumane conditions that the often mutated chickens and cows and pigs are forced to sustain in our current system.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
As a member of Congress, I have cosponsored every piece of major animal protection legislation. In addition, I hold the distinction of being the only vegan in Congress. I made this lifestyle change many years ago, because I consider all life on our Earth to be sacred. As a vegan, I choose not to eat any animals or animal products. I strive to live my life in accordance with my convictions, and any other choice of diet would defy my ideals and, in my judgment, be hypocritical.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
There are differing views on how to best achieve the end of the needless slaughtering of animals. Some say one can only hold AR values and must reject all aspects of AW while others say one can hold AR values while realizing that AW is necessary in some circumstances for now.<br><br><br><br>
I think Kucinich is living in accordance with his principles.

 

[Eleven]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mr. Sun</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><br>
I think Kucinich is living in accordance with his principles.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I think so too and I have tremendous respect for him.

 

[peace]

He is a vegan. As far as I know, the only one in Congress.

 

[Treehugger267]

I love Dennis!<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/love.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">

 

[Doktormartini]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Red</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I don't know that he's that much of an AR supporter, though:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1665&Itemid=48" target="_blank">http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=...1665&Itemid=48</a></div>
</div>
<br>
He is a vegan and even if this happens it's a great step.

 

[veggiemeggie]

yay Kucinich! He makes me so happy <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">.

 

[Sevenseas]

in the present societal context, I think there can be no animal rights in congress. Only animal welfare regulations for animal exploitation.

 

[Fromper]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sevenseas</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
in the present societal context, I think there can be no animal rights in congress. Only animal welfare regulations for animal exploitation.</div>
</div>
<br>
AW is a stepping stone on the path to AR. Ease the general public slowly into seeing animals as something other than commodities. Jumping right into AR, and not accepting AW steps along the way, would just make the general public reject us all as a bunch of nutjobs. On the other hand, AW legislation actually stands a chance of getting passed, and of keeping animal issues in the news, which helps influence people's views and move society slowly in the right direction.<br><br><br><br>
This is the same approach used by Peta, and while I reject their juvenile approach to marketing campaigns, I think they've got the right idea towards how to approach the issues. Unlike many here, I truly believe that global veganism is a realistic long term goal, and that many of the baby steps towards reaching that goal in a few hundred years involve AW campaigns today.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">

 

[rainforests1]

From what I've read, he endorses illegal immigration. The human population is the biggest animal rights issue in the world today, so it amazes me that a person can be for more immigration and for animal rights. He does have good view points which makes him worth voting for(rare in today's politics), but there is negative as well.

 

[Fromper]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>rainforests1</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
From what I've read, he endorses illegal immigration. The human population is the biggest animal rights issue in the world today, so it amazes me that a person can be for more immigration and for animal rights. He does have good view points which makes him worth voting for(rare in today's politics), but there is negative as well.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I'm confused. What does immigration have to do with animal rights? Those people are going to eat animals regardless of which side of the border they're on. The fact that people are breeding too much really isn't impacted by whether or not they can get into the United States.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">

 

[troub]

He refers to them as "undocumented citizens," not "illegal immigrants." For this, I applaud him once again.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><span style="color:#696969;">The human population is the biggest animal rights issue in the world today, so it amazes me that a person can be for more immigration and for animal rights.</span></div>
</div>
<br><span style="color:#696969;"><br><br><br><br></span>What does the world's human population have to do with immigration?

 

[Red]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>troub</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
He refers to them as "undocumented citizens," not "illegal immigrants." For this, I applaud him once again.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
What in the world is an "undocumented" citizen?

 

[adam antichrist]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>amaroque</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm about 99% sure, on a personal level, that he is a veg*n. I think his stance constitutes political reality that he would probably be unelectable if he called for a ban on meat. I'm guessing that he recognizes that he may be unable to prevent animal deaths but he can work to make their lives a little better.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
banning meat or ending the use of animals are campaigns for activists, not politicians. The AR sympathetic politicians can only work at drawing the majority toward the position of the activists, not take on that position themselves.<br><br><br><br>
The reason for this is that activists represent the extreme, and unless his constituency consists of an overwhelming number of AR sympathetic or vegan individuals then he will just lose his seat next time he is up for re-election.<br><br><br><br>
So the only reasonable position anyone can take is to support a stepwise move towards abolition. They must support the deconstruction of intensive farming systems first, in order for politicians of the future to go further than that. If you want him (or anybody else) to be more radical you have to load their electorate with voters who are sympathetic to that particular cause or they won't be around long enough to affect even minor changes in policy.

 

[adam antichrist]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Fromper</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm confused. What does immigration have to do with animal rights? Those people are going to eat animals regardless of which side of the border they're on. The fact that people are breeding too much really isn't impacted by whether or not they can get into the United States.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:"></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
from the welfarist perspective it is, since they may migrate from a region with little factory farming into the US, Europe or here where these are the primary forms of meat production.

 

[rainforests1]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Fromper</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm confused. What does immigration have to do with animal rights? Those people are going to eat animals regardless of which side of the border they're on. The fact that people are breeding too much really isn't impacted by whether or not they can get into the United States.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:"></div>
</div>
<br>
The way I see it, as the human population gets bigger, the non-human world gets smaller. More people also means more meat is consumed. What we should be doing is working with other governments to try to decrease the human population peacefully, but illegal immigration is doing the exact opposite. A lot of people don't think it's related, but I feel otherwise.