Democrats losing it trying to attack Romney

My post is still there if you can state what you are specifically disputing let me know.

 

THEY HAD FIVE BOYS in the car and their dog LOVED to ride in his travel crate. And they aren't cages they are plastic houses. Did you even bother to listen to what the Romney's said about or are you just letting MSNBC tell you? He used plexiglass to block the wind on the front so the dog wasn't getting blasted. And have you ever notice how dogs love to have the window down so they can sniff all the new smells?

Give it up, they loved their dog, the dog loved to go on vacation with them and they didn't eat him.

You wanna bet the Democrats never bring it back up now that they know their guy ATE dog? Which has been entirely the point.

 

interesting side note... we went to a party last night after the symphony, and the topic of Romney's dog on the roof of the car was brought up in conversation by a canadian who had heard it. I just sat back and listened as every single expatriate at the party expressed their disapproval of Romney driving down the highway with his dog strapped to the roof. And there was an interesting cross section of folks there... some hard core US conservatives, brits, canadians.... some liberals like us... nobody thought that was any way to treat the family pet. nobody.

and then, I stepped in and merely asked, in light of those opinions, what people thought about Obama having eaten dog meat as a young boy in indonesia. People were genuinely confused that I had even tried to conflate those issues. They were a bunch of adventurous world travelers and all of them said that they had eaten some pretty strange stuff in foreign lands... the conversation quickly pivoted to people recounting some of the strange stuff they had eaten in their travels. camel tendons, grubs, monkey brains, goat's eyeballs... it was a fun party, and your sense of faux outrage over Obama eating dog as a child was shared by NO ONE... and your belief that a cage on the roof of a car hurtling down the highway is the perfect place for the family pet was also shared by NO ONE.

 

Except the dog was not strapped to the roof. He was in one of these which is strapped to the roof.

It is perfectly common and the dog loved it.

If the Democrats are going to attack Romney over the treatement of his dog the fact that Obama ate them and apparently without remores will be tossed right back at them.

I can well imagine with the way you are attempting to paint it. Would it have been better for the dog to spend weeks in a kennel in a cage? What exactly is it you are complaining about the manner in which the dog was being transported? They ride in the belly of jets all the time in such travel crates. Is it that you believe he was in the full force of the wind or something? Well if you had bothered to listen to the Romney's in the link I provide you would know that was not the case, he was protected from the wind.

 

who the f**k are you? the freakin' dog whisperer? How in the world do YOU know whether a dog you have never met or seen did or did not enjoy being strapped in a box on top of the roof of a car during a lengthy automobile trip? Here's how you think you know: Because the Romney's said so. What ELSE are they going to say? "MY Dad, who wants to be president, strapped our dog to the roof of the car and it traumatized the bejeezus out of poor Fido and he filled his little box with feces he was so scared... and I guess that might make dog loving voters not like my dad too much in this election year, but, I just GOTTA be honest about it!"

and if you read my last post, you would understand that, the people to whom I spoke to this about thought there was no rationality in this argument at all. How one treats the family pet is different than how one treats the family food source.

again... reread my post. I did not even actively join in the conversation about the dog on the roof of the car. And I told you my own personal choice when it came to pets and things on the roof of the car for long journeys. I personally have no problem with young Barack eating what his mom put before him on the table... and I DO have a problem with strapping the family PET to the roof of a car instead of letting the pet ride inside with the rest of the family. You can try to make Obama eating dog meat in Indonesia as a child as equivalent to Romney mistreating the family pet all you want. Folks that I talked with did not buy that argument whatsoever.

 

By that logic, eating say a hamburger is infinitely worse than strapping a dog to the car roof. Where's your outrage to that? In Indonesia, eating a dog is almost as normal as eating a hamburger. Are you going to judge a six year old based on eating a dog in Indonesia.

In India, eating a cow is forbidden and is almost like eating a dog is for an American. Should they be outraged that Americans eat cows?

Dog in Indonesia is food. Its supposed to be eaten. Any six year old who's given it as food would eat it just as any six year old given steak by his parents would happily eat it. Its a culture and you can't blame others for having a culture different from yours.

Mistreating your pet is a totally different matter. The dog was strapped on the roof sometimes for as many as 12 hours and even got sick once. And yet you claim he enjoyed it? In the culture or in any culture for that matter, mistreating an animal (unless of course you intend to kil it for food) is considered not the right thing. Even if you intend to eat it eventually, they are supposed to be well cared for as long as they are alive. So yes, what Romney did was cruel. What Obama did was eat an animal's meat. Which is what you also do unless of course you are a vegetarian. Just because you eat an animal's meat does not mean you can abuse it as much as you want while its alive.

 

You are aware of what "Nothing, because I don't know what you're talking about." means correct? That it's implying I'm asking you for the facts behind what you said, and not your interpetion of them.

 

I dont know why democrats spend anytime trying to up irrelevant shiat about windsock Mitt. All they have to do is let him talk. Once the debates start face to face ... Mitt will crumble... it was all he could do to survive the circus clowns he had to run against in the Republican primaries. I personally would love to see him answer questions on how he will reduce the deficit by cutting 500 billion here and spending 700 billion over there. I would love to hear him explain how he will reduce the price of crude when he becomes President... short of nationalizing the oil industry in the U.S. I would love to hear his healthcare plan for the U.S since he is going to repeal HR3200... but has nothing to replace it with.

Obama is corrupt doubke talking corporate stooge and a Israelie lapdog.... but he will talk and think circles around a spoonfed out of touch Romney.

 

You underestimate the right's refusal to look at logic. Even after all the flip flops Romney has commited, they will never admit him to be a flip flopper. romney could commit murder on national television and they would still somehow find a way to deny it.

 

If by "never" you mean just a few days ago, then I'd agree. Why would an extremely young Obama being fed dog in a country where the animal is a delicacy be a worthy point? As silly as Seamus-Gate is... why would the instance you describe be anything but sillier?

 

You have just made it obvious you have not even bother to listen to the Romney's on this matter, and it was linked to you. Therefore it is pointless to even try to have a discussion with you on the matter as you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Again proving your ignorance of the matter.

I don't need to read your utter conjecture.

And again, the Democrats tried to attack him on this, they won't do it again now that we know that Obama was eating the dogs at the time the Romney's were taking them on vacation with them and treating to the fun with the family he so loved.

 

Exactly the point, something which continues to fly above expatriates head, and why the Democrats got egg on their face for not doing their research about Obama's history with the canine species. Same with the attempts to attack Romney over a "family history" of bigamy.

 

Once again exactly what are you disputing in the OP?

 

The logic is before the Democrats bring up such silly allegations about Romney they better check the background of their own candidate else it will come back to bite them and make them look silly.

 

from what I have read, nobody actually interviewed Seamus to get his opinion of travel on the rooftop...and nothing in your link said anything about any plexiglass shield.... my point was: the press found out about a long dead dog who Romney stuck on the roof of the car for vacation travel... the press found out about how doggie diarrhea was oozing down the windshield and Mitt just got out, hosed the dog and the car down - stuck Seamus back up on the roof and off they went... and people were outraged by such treatment, and now, Ann Romney comes up with this "Seamus LOVED riding on the roof of the car!" line and nobody - certainly not the long dead dog - can dispute her account. You buy it, of course, because sugar wouldn't melt in that sweet gal's mouth.
.

my guess is, as I have experienced, most normal people residing somewhere other than at the far right fringes of the bell curve don't have a problem with indonesian children eating dog meat... but they DO have a problem with sticking dogs in cages on the roofs of cars flying down the highway and summarily hosing them down when they defecate all over themselves and then sticking them back up in the cage so that the human occupants can get on with their vacation.

But we already know that folks that philosophically reside where you do don't think that way. Given your bent, your attitude is perfectly understandable.

 

Are you just ignoring what I'm saying now?

 

Why would his history matter? It's practically irrelevant to thinking people.

 

Do you think its ok to mistreat a cow or a chicken just because in the end they are going to be eaten anyway and that's infinitely worse?

 

And now just the inane. The dog was not mistreated and certainly not eaten, he enjoyed the vacation with his family as he always did.

If the Democrats don't do more research on their own candidate before they engage in such silly attacks, as you have been trying to engage in, they will once again get egg on their face and made to look the fools.

 

Since there was no mistreatment of the dog.............do I think it better to take your dog on vacation rather than eat it.............yes.

 

So putting the dog on the roof even when it goe sick is not mistreatment? You are dodging the question.

 

I like the Romney dog on the roof story. And eating dog in a culture where that is acceptable doesn't bother me. Between the two, I can relate to the Romney scenario. I think it's sorta funny and cute. The polygamy/bigamy comparison is likewise a wash, but with Romney coming out clean, and Obama with egg on his face. As for those who say that women prefer Obama, I don't believe that. Giving girls and women abortions, condoms and birth control pills is hardly indicative of having womanhoods best interests at heart. It is however default conduct in a brothel. The compassionate pimp? pfft!

 

again...how in the H*LL do YOU know whether the dog ENJOYED riding in a cage on the roof of a car? Because an embarrassed presidential candidate said so whilst doing damage control, that's how. I notice you haven't come up with any links about that supposed plexiglass, not that it makes much of a difference, in any case.

And as plenty of people have said... being a young boy and eating the food of the culture where you are living is one thing. Being an adult and caging a dog on the roof of a moving car for hours on end... and stopping only to hose the diarrhea off the poor animal and then cramming him back in the cage for more highway terror is another thing entirely.

 

Source: Reuters/Ipsos

Source: ABC/Washington Post

Source: Politico​

He hasn't supported giving them anything but the choice to do so if they wish...

 

I've noticed that Romney responds to Obama within the same news cycle. That's what is called alacrity.