Gay-Bashing Bully for Prez 2012!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Ibs

it's still illegal to put a pet, in a crate, on top of a vehicle, in the state of Massachusetts.

Currently, you are correct. I still can't see if it was 20 years ago.
Hell, seat belts weren't even required for HUMANS until 1984.

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the legality
of Romney's actions, but noted that it is currently illegal in Massachusetts to transport a dog "in a way that endangers it."

I can only assume this would be deemed unsafe even though the crate was mounted onto the roof.

*Additionally, there were 7 passengers in the car. Mitt, Ann and 5 kids.*

There are many things that bring Romney as the President into question. This just isn't one of them.

[Ibby]

And this is again a situation where, we fundamentally disagree what should be considered in a candidate. I think policy should be the MAIN issue, but I believe character counts. I think both the issues show a deep, deep lack of character.

[DanaC]

He put the dog crate on top of the car? Wtf was he thinking?

I think the biggest danger here is the man is clearly a fucking moron.*


*:p

[DanaC]

Any youse ever read the Book of Mormon? Fucking hysterical. I laughed so much I damn near pissed.

[classicman]

@ Ibs -
I NEVER said otherwise. I did however dispute your interpretation. With actual facts.

@ Dana - pretty much. He certainly isn't the guy I have caring for my pets while I went away.

[Ibby]

Let me narrow it down for you then. I wouldn't support a man who would put a dog on top of a car to have any iota of responsibility over any single human being. I don't believe for a second that Seamus, whether or not he sometimes enjoyed short trips, would in any way have taken to twelve hours in a crate on a highway. I don't find it likely that he would have shat all down the back of the car unless it was in terror or severe discomfort. I think the kind of man who uses that story as a humorous anecdote, especially in the context of so many other incidents, is severely unfit to be president. You can dispute all of that, if you like, but that is my position on the relevance of the Seamus anecdote.

[classicman]

I got that the first 5 times... you still missed my point.

[Ibby]

what the fuck point have i not responded to in full, yet?

[classicman]

The point that you get all worked up because you seem to buy into the extremist slant/emotional drama from your "news" sources.
Take their BS out (Which I did) and look at JUST the facts.

During a road trip to Canada, Mitt put the family dog in his mounted kennel atop their car.
(How often did they stop? Was this unusual, for them?)
After Seamus defecated, Mitt pulled over into a gas station, cleaned eveything up and carried on.
(What do you suggest he do? Keep in mind there were seven people in the car.)

- illegally, as was later pointed out - CITE
Was it illegal in 1983? I have already shown otherwise.

-in apparent terror,-
Prove that. Seems like nothing more than assumption.

-Then he bragged about it later as proof he's good at dealing with crises. -
Utter Bullshit. Media created crap. Cite the "bragging"

How did he get home? Did the dog ride in the crate again?
Was there a problem on the way home?
Did the dog continue to willingly travel in this fashion the next week, month?

never mind. I really don't want to argue with you.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

No, you just misunderstood my point, or I didnt make it clearly enough. I absolutely would advise any woman to leave a man who hit her, because the chances are he will do it again. the only circumstances in which I can see staying being even remotely a good prospect is if the guy has sought help (or in the case of some men who've been convicted of spousal abuse, been offered) to better understand why he abuses and how to stop.

What I was saying is that it is not inevitable that people won't change. But more importantly, I think change is likely when we're talking about youngsters.

I was especially cynical today. In my more relaxed mood I'm willing to concede this point. I've said many times that you hear the stories about the kid who made it out of the worst circumstances, rose above, worked hard, and succeeded. I believe those stories happen because someone or something made them see things in a new llight. I can't say that Rom might not have had something similar happen to make him see a different way. I hope so, but honestly I'm hanging my hat of hate on this. Not a right thing to do, though.

[DanaC]

Ah that's probably fair enough. The man's clearly a complete twat.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He put the dog crate on top of the car? Wtf was he thinking?

And then posted was this reasoning. It was legal. Therefore it is OK.

So it is legal for Wall Street to subvert the nation's and world's economy. That is also OK?

Regulations need not exist for industries, persons, etc who are responsible. Heavy regulations are created after and because that industry or person is irresponsible. The reasoning: "it was legal and therefore acceptable". Therefore some, using that logic, loved the financial corruption of the 2000s and even Mission Accomplished. Legal was to hide costs ($billions) of Mission Accomplished outside of the federal budget. Yes it was good to not show those expenses in the budget. Therefore the people would not know its real costs. 'Legal' says that lie was also good and acceptable.

It was legal to put the dog on top of a speeding car? Being responsible is about lying - as long as no law exists to ban the lie? That was the reasoning. And not just Romney's. Others here are using the same reasoning.

We have a serious problem. Many assume that because something is legal, it is quite acceptable. Legal was to lie about Mission Accomplished. Legal was to deregulate financial corruption. Legal was to put a dog on top of the car. That proves all were good and acceptable.

A president was not impeached for massacring almost 5000 troops uselessly in Mission Accomplished. He was not impeached. That also proves it was a good thing? It was legal. Therefore it was good?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

And then posted was this reasoning. It was legal.

Correct.

Originally Posted by tw

Therefore it is OK.

Incorrect. That was never said. The rest of your post is just the same old tired, "mission accomplished" rant again which
you've done over 1000 times in OVER 200 threads.

[BigV]

Yeah.. you ignore (not miss, just disregard) his larger point that you, I, and the majority of Americans frequently make that *since* something is legal, it is OK. That is his point, I'm sure you saw that, and I know for a fact you understand the idea. Even by refuting it, you make his point. Sometimes something can be LEGAL and NOT OK.

You're absolutely dead right about his consistency and persistence regarding his "mission accomplished" broken record M.O. It's a bit tiresome.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Yeah.. you ignore (not miss, just disregard) his larger point...

Not at all. That was NOT THE POINT. You mustn't have read all that transpired.
I questioned Ibs **version** of the truth. (and still do) The tangent we were on was one of reading facts versus conjecture and assumption. He claimed several things, quite forcefully, as *facts* One of which was that it was illegal. I countered with "prove it" I even went so far as to show where he was most likely incorrect.
tommyboy and you both missed that point.

You're absolutely dead right about his consistency and persistence regarding his "mission accomplished" broken record M.O. It's a bit tiresome.

A **bit** ??? That is the understatement of the year.
Retort on how he'll have to repeat it a 1000 more times for some to learn...
blah blah blah ... extremists .... blah blah blah...