Never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Unfortunately, we can't call our annual "get together" a Christmas party anymore. The non-tolerant left has spoken.

Well, it sure makes your job easier when you use hypothetical "LeeWards," or even the real Lee Ward over at the dysfunctional Blue side of this site, as your paradigmatic liberal.

Culling animals is something that is done by many wildlife experts--and it's not something that is either pretty, or uncontroversial. But this kind of thing happens with many species, wolves and elephants among them. Humans have been managing animals populations--in one form or another--for a long long time.

So the liberal's reaction to Palin shooting at wolves is pretty laughable. Much like the real Lee Ward, it's just a case of grabbing on to any issue in order to deface the character of Palin (or whoever the popular person of the week is).

And you had good reason to challenge the guy. But then you decided to add another issue into the mix, abortion. That's fine and all, but it represents a completely different set of issues. Your introduction of the subject was particularly shallow:

"I told him that I find it perplexing that a person would get so offended at the killing of a wolf, no matter by whose hand it was done, but he could at the same time be devoutly in favor of abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion."

Basically, you had a chance to make a good point, and you resorted to a political/rhetorical cheap shot. Sure, it made you feel good because the guy could not come back with anything right off the cuff. And I am sure that it made you feel morally superior or something. But don't get too proud of yourself.

Let me give you some information. There are plenty of highly intelligent liberals out there, just as there plenty of highly intelligent conservatives out there. Each side, whether you want to admit it or not, has its strong points, and has valid contributions to make to our contemporary society here in the US. Pretending that all liberals are simply stupid because they disagree with you isn't going to get you anywhere.

I know that you're on here trying to land a position as one of the new writers, and I think that's great. In fact, I really like one phrase that you wrote in another post:

"I believe that is the ultimate purpose of a blog: To make the reader think, open their minds to other ways of thought and possibilities, other realities and opinions, and to enable people to cultivate their intellectual curiosity."

Now that is well stated. I hope that it's something you really believe, because this site could use a little more of a mixed viewpoint--and having "Lee Ward" here as the arbiter of liberal ideas is a joke. The point here, as you pointed out in your other post, is not simply to WIN, but to open up to different points of view. To THINK. This post, which is about your small victory is nothing but a step in the wrong direction. Instead of encouraging dialog or conversation or even real intellectual debate, you're on here resorting to the usual low-level BS that excites the political echo chamber here--which isn't all that difficult.

In the end, if you are going to be talking about competing in the "arena of ideas," you're going to have to do a little better than this kind of grade school rhetorical wordplay.

RA:
I thought liberals loved "hypotheticals".

In particular, "LeeWard", who bares a spooky resemblance to "Boo Radley", offered up his disgust for Governor Palin's supposed involvement in the aerial shooting of wolves in Alaska, a practice sanctioned not by hunters, but by biologists to help keep predation of caribou calves down to sustainable levels.

I challenge you to find one reputable biologists that supports the practice. In fact 124 biologists signed a letter stating that the practice is not based on sound scientific evidence and urged the process be banned.

"I thought liberals loved "hypotheticals"."

All hypothetical liberals LOVE hypotheticals, just as much as all hypothetical conservatives LOVE war.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

;)

Smiles:

http://wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_1665.html - State of Alaska seeks aerial wolf hunt to save caribou.

http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=control.sap - Overview of Predator Management

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3801700 - Wolf Predation on Caribou

JLawson: Took you but eight minutes to spank the troll. Nice job!

That's great.

Rampant inconsistency among the left needs pointed out as often as possible! The liberal illuminati aren't used to being challenged - just recall how they responded to anonymous guy on the street, Joe the Plumber!

Sounds like LeeWard is a DickHead.

In the end, if you are going to be talking about competing in the "arena of ideas," you're going to have to do a little better than this kind of grade school rhetorical wordplay.

JLawson,

Did you read the link that you posted:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3801700

The article you posted proves my point. The finding of the article is that attempts to control the wolf population did not have a significant affect on the caribou population. Read the following quote from the article.

"It is unlikely that gray wolf (Canis lupus) control triggered the eruption, nor did wolf predation significantly reduce calf survival at the herd's peak."

You still have not provided a biologist that supports Alaska's aerial wolf hunting that is not tainted by contibutions from lobbyist related to the hunting industry.

"All hypothetical liberals LOVE hypotheticals, just as much as all hypothetical conservatives LOVE war."

Woodrow Wilson - WWI
Roosevelt - WWII
Truman - Korea
Kennedy/Johnson - Vietnam

That was a joke, GarandFan.

Yes sir, besting some guy who had had too much to drink at an office party TOTALLY validates conservative philosophy. You the man.
Color me convinced.

Smiles- The subject is the Left Wing and their inability to respond to the question. Instead they avoid the topic or change the subject.

Admit nothing
Deny Everything
Make counter accusations

Thats what liberals do.

For my part. I abhor wolf hunting, but I still don't understand why so many liberals get into a lather about the killing of animals, but not innocent unborn children.

*Searching for the relevance of Bruce's post......searching...searching.....searching..* Oh!.. the "Mean Ol" Conservation to advantage of the Drunken Lib? Ya think?.. LOL

I own a company w/ 27 employees, 4 of which are on the 'leeward' aka downwind side of the planet.

(There was a 5th, but she was quite radical, and easily offended. She quit last year when she had to work 12/25/07 which I though was a great day to backup up all of the computers, re-arrange year end files, and clean/dust/vacuum anything electronic in the office since the likelihood of calls, etc was low.)

These 4 were up in arms last year when they were instructed to answer every call Merry Christmas, and by odd coincidence, didnt get a 07 Christmas bonus. I chose this year to not have a party, but, to award that $$ to the person I feel is a combination of the best performer, and the best teammate-coworker.

Can you imagine my surprise when this years winner threw a party at a local high end restaurant/hotel, and rented rooms for the night for all of his coworkers that were invited? I was shocked when I found out the 'leeward' people werent invited, but, it was a private party.

Sometimes the boss is the last to know....

I still don't understand why so many liberals get into a lather about the killing of animals, but not innocent unborn children.

The fact that you wrote "innocent unborn children" and not "embryonic cells" indicates that either a) you very clearly understand that which you profess to not, or b) you are so shockingly unaware of the fundamental basis of the beliefs on the two sides of the abortion issue that any attempt to explain your conundrum to you would be an exercise in futility.

Others have made this point quite well so far, but I would like to add my comment:

Shawn,

To turn Tyree's adage on its head: Congratulations on winning a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. The chivalrous thing to do when you find your opponent is hopelessly outmatched is to stand down.

But then again that argumment was a Christmas morsel to feed your far too easily satisfied ego and your facile generalizations about people you disagree with.

I have to agree with you. How liberals can be so offended by hunting-in this instance killing wolves-but care not one bit for an unborn child is a mystery.

There's nothing wrong with asking this question to liberals who are going off the deep end like that man did. It's an honest question and what it proves is that the liberal only wanted to hear himself talk, not discuss Palin, wolf hunting or any of the surrounding topics.

It's pretty sickening that many value a wild animal more than they do a human unborn child.

Maybe we can just shoot all these wolves with tranquilizer darts, take them into Planned Parenthood clinics and give them abortions. Would all the "LeeWards" feel better then?

Brian's "embryonic cells".

What a classy guy guest poster is. While attending his wife's office party he manages to insult her co-workers. You must be a real wimpy guy. Why don't you do that at your own office party? Maybe because you know you will only have to face her co-workers at the annual party instead of everyday.

I told him that I find it perplexing that a person would get so offended at the killing of a wolf, no matter by whose hand it was done, but he could at the same time be devoutly in favor of abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion.

I can answer that for you.

1. No one supports abortion because they enjoy aborting a fetus.

2. Aerial hunting of wolves is done for sport and enjoyment. It is not being done by employees of Wildlife Management but by people that pay to be flown by helicopter for the purpose of aerial hunting. A practice most hunters find repulsive.

Both are disturbing, but it is when members of society gain gratification from the inflicting of suffering on people or animals that it becomes an attrociety.

P.S.
I am not opposed to hunting, a good friend of mine is a hunting guide.

What Norton said.
I'd have had the same comment to "Guest Poster" if the ideological roles had been reversed. Just because some windbag is running off at the mouth doesn't mean you HAVE to embarrass the poor drunken fool. In other words, just because something pops into your head doesn't mean you have to express it.
Maybe it's just a Southern thing, but I'd have just said, "Bless his heart," and moved to a different corner of the room.

Smiles, I must correct one error you made in your comment:

2. Aerial hunting of wolves is done for sport and enjoyment. It is not being done by employees of Wildlife Management but by people that pay to be flown by helicopter for the purpose of aerial hunting. A practice most hunters find repulsive.

The culling of wolves from the air is not being done for sport. It is carried out by officers of Alaska's Fish and Game Department, or by professional hunters contracted by the state. Period.

Oyster's innocent child.

Hey, I have an idea... let's make our laws based on who can produce the most emotion-invoking photo!

Brian, you are also avoiding the issue. Why all the empathy for animals but so little for humans?

Norton and Bruce show a lack of reading comprehension. Shawn never said that the guy was a coworker of his wife. He said merely that he was a guy at the party. Second, I disagree that you give a guy like that a clear floor. Too often, we are too nice to challenge guys like that and they begin to think they are actually right just because they are unchallenged.

Rick

Man, I love Christmas parties. The poster must have been awfully good this year for Santa to leave a big-mouthed liberal douchebag to play with!

Shame is, as soon as you talk back to it the string won't pull out anymore.

Norton and Bruce show a lack of reading comprehension. Shawn never said that the guy was a coworker of his wife. He said merely that he was a guy at the party.

Rick Caird,

Makes no difference if it was the husband or friend of one of his wife's coworkers. Either way Guest Poster's wife, not he, will have to deal with any fallout out after the party. Guest Poster is still a classless wimp.

Norton: word.
Rick, please point out where I said the windbag was a co-worker. It might be you that has a comprehension problem, because reading words that were never written is a sure sign.

Brian, you are also avoiding the issue.

Of course. Since I already pointed out that you either already understand that which you claim to not be able to understand, or that you are incapable of understanding. All of which you confirmed by repeating your "why so little for empathy for humans?" loaded question logical fallacy. So regardless of whether your are just pretending to be clueless, or you actually are, responding to your "issue" serves no purpose.

Hey, you know what would be even more fun, Brian? If you actually quoted me.