A new all time low for partisan politics

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

We've been in conflict since the inception excluding 30 or so years in total.

Nothing new under the Sun.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

You insulted me first. You responded to my comments with the rolled eyes like my comments were crazy. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me. But if you disagree with me, tell me what I was wrong about. I think that is the most civil and constructive way of having a conversation. If someone says something I disagree with, I will say, "I disagree with you. Here are the reasons I disagree with you....." I won't just say, "You are wrong", or "you are an idiot", are "you are crazy", or anything like that. That doesn't add anything to a conversation.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

I don't claim to be an expert on deer conservation. But just using common sense I'm sure it wouldn't always be possible to relocate deer. I'm sure it would depend on the size of the flock, the location, etc. However, I'm sure that in some cases it could be done, if it was a relatively small flock. I certainly don't think that every time there are too many deer (or any animal for that matter) that the first and only solution should just be to kill them all. I think that should be the last resort, if there is no other reasonable solution. It seem nowadays that any time there is a problem with overpopulation of any type of animal, they just want to kill them all. That may be the cheapest way but is that all that should matter?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't claim to be an expert on deer conservation. But just using common sense I'm sure it wouldn't always be possible to relocate deer. I'm sure it would depend on the size of the flock, the location, etc. However, I'm sure that in some cases it could be done, if it was a relatively small flock. I certainly don't think that every time there are too many deer (or any animal for that matter) that the first and only solution should just be to kill them all. I think that should be the last resort, if there is no other reasonable solution. It seem nowadays that any time there is a problem with overpopulation of any type of animal, they just want to kill them all. That may be the cheapest way but is that all that should matter?

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

[dellinger63]

Deer are large squirrels. In developed/semi developed areas they do nothing but destroy newly planted trees and landscape not to mention the hazard they present on the roads. Unless there is a wolf population present they have no natural predators other than man. I've seen as many as 2 dozen in my backyard at once because there are no wolves in Southern WI. They are and have been a huge nuisance. They arent cattle and without tranquilizing them they can't be herded up. Herding squirrels and relocating them would be absurd as is the deer. BTW the deer killed by DNR are given to various food pantries so are not wasted.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Forget the "I am not expert" part of it. It is irrelevant whether I am an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion on something. What did I say that you disagree with? You think I am crazy or I'm an idiot for not liking to see hundreds, or in some cases thousands of animals slaughtered every time there is an overpopulation problem in an area? I actually think you're a heartless a-hole if your first choice is to slaughter animals any time there are too many in an area. I understand that in many cases it is the only feasible option. But that shouldn't be the first choice without even considering whether there are feasible alternatives.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Forget the "I am not expert" part of it. It is irrelevant whether I am an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion on something. What did I say that you disagree with? You think I am crazy or I'm an idiot for not liking to see hundreds, or in some cases thousands of animals slaughtered every time there is an overpopulation problem in an area? I actually think you're a heartless a-hole if your first choice is to slaughter animals any time there are too many in an area. I understand that in many cases it is the only feasible option. But that shouldn't be the first choice without even considering whether there are feasible alternatives.

Game on! Best case scenario you are a closeted liberal wannabe tree hugger. And by closeted I don't mean it in a sexual way. The "Expert" part is your constant including that in your nonsensical post as it absolves you of the nonsense that follows. My issue is you insulting a poster by calling her a "brain surgeon". How anyone can think that a deer relocation program is even remotely feasible is infukingsane. But I guess if you include the "I'm not an Expert" line in your post you can babble whatever nonsense you so desire without ever feeling wrong when someone schools you.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Game on! Best case scenario you are a closeted liberal wannabe tree hugger. And by closeted I don't mean it in a sexual way. The "Expert" part is your constant including that in your nonsensical post as it absolves you of the nonsense that follows. My issue is you insulting a poster by calling her a "brain surgeon". How anyone can think that a deer relocation program is even remotely feasible is infukingsane. But I guess if you include the "I'm not an Expert" line in your post you can babble whatever nonsense you so desire without ever feeling wrong when someone schools you.

Just because I love animals, that doesn't make me a closet liberal. I'm not a tree-hugger but I do care about the environment. I think there should be fairly strict regulations when it comes to policing industries that are heavy polluters.

With regard to relocating deer, if it's not feasible then it's not feasible. I'm a reasonable person. If I was in charge, I wouldn't insist it be done if all the non-biased experts told me that it just couldn't be done. As I said before, it seems like any time there is an overpopulation problem with any type of animal, the powers that be want to immediately kill them all. And in some of these cases, there are other options. For example, because there were some caring people out there, they were able to save several hundred wild mustangs (I believe it was in Nevada. I think they were relocated to a neighboring state.).

Just to clarify, I didn't say that you were a heartless a-hole. I said that you were one only "if" your first choice is always to kill animals without at least considering alternative options. In other words, if you considered alternative options and decided that none of them were feasible, then I would respect that. I would not respect a viewpoint of automatically wanting to kill animals without considering other options, and having no feeling whatsoever for the animals.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Lol

Flock of deer....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Speaking of relocating animals, they are bringing bison back to Alaska. They should have probably consulted with a few of you first to make sure that it's a good idea and to make sure that they are doing it right. Does this plan have all of your approval?

"The first of 100 wood bison aimed at re-establishing a species that went extinct more than a century ago in Alaska were flown Sunday to a rural village."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fir...id=mailsignout

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Speaking of relocating animals, they are bringing bison back to Alaska. They should have probably consulted with a few of you first to make sure that it's a good idea and to make sure that they are doing it right. Does this plan have all of your approval?

"The first of 100 wood bison aimed at re-establishing a species that went extinct more than a century ago in Alaska were flown Sunday to a rural village."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fir...id=mailsignout

In your mind does flying in 100 Bison now make your deer relocation program viable?