Romney strapped dog carrier to top of his car

[Mister_T]

Could someone please clarify exactly what Mitt Romney did here that was so cruel?

It is possible for a dog to ride comfortably and safely on the top of a station wagon.

If it's such an uncruel, safe and comfortable thing to do, why don't we strap our children to the tops of our cars?

If it is possible for a dog to ride comfortably and safely on the top of a station wagon, then strapping your toddler on top should be no problem.

 

[lilithu]

the nit-picking and background checks are coming out -- every anything anyone ever did in their life will be held against them to the fullest extent -- i feel awful for the poor guys dog but still that was over 20 years ago -- it was in 1983 -- not 2007 -- even though Romney is a good guy he will never ever be president -- that Mormon stigma will never allow it

I don't buy that. That's what they said about Catholics and we got over that. What's so weird about Mormons anyway? So their theology differs a little from mainstream Protestantism, so what? The fact is that mainline Protestantism is shrinking while the LDS church is growing. And in all other respects, they're about as "American" as one can get. I really don't believe that his being Mormon is that big a deal, except to the media and a few crazies. And of course it's a big deal to the Mormons, which I can understand that sense of pride.

And I do NOT think that objecting to strapping a dog to the roof of a car for a 12 hour road trip is a "nit-picking." What has become evident to me in this thread is that there is a HUGE difference of opinion over what constitutes humane behavior for how one treats animals. Having been a biologist and a non-vegetarian for many years, I've never thought of myself as an "animal-rightsish" kind of person. I certainly don't think that non-primates have the same rights as we do. But there is a certain minimum level of compassion and respect for animals that I *thought* was widely held. Apparently not.

 

[Polaris]

If it's such an uncruel, safe and comfortable thing to do, why don't we strap our children to the tops of our cars?

For the same reason we don't make our children sleep outside and eat dog food.

You still failed to explain what is so cruel about what the Romney's did.

 

[Mister_T]

For the same reason we don't make our children sleep outside and eat dog food.

Many pet owners don't leave their pets outside and people food is bad for dogs....which is why they make dog food.

You still failed to explain what is so cruel about what the Romney's did.

Or you're just choosing to remain in the dark.

The same reason you don't strap your kid to the roof of a car is the same reason you don't do it to animals.

 

[Mister_T]

But there is a certain minimum level of compassion and respect for animals that I *thought* was widely held. Apparently not.

I thought that as well. Guess we were wrong.

 

[Polaris]

Many pet owners don't leave their pets outside and people food is bad for dogs....which is why they make dog food.

Many dog owners do leave their dogs outside, are they cruel too?

Or you're just choosing to remain in the dark.

Or you can't come up with any reasonable explanation.

The same reason you don't strap your kid to the roof of a car is the same reason you don't do it to animals.

I would have no problem riding on the top of a car. Give me a windshield and a securely fastened banana chair with a seat belt and it would be quite fun. I think my kids would even enjoy that.

Hey that would kind of resemble riding in a convertible wouldn't it. Is it cruel for dogs to ride in convertibles?

 

[Nanda]

Many dog owners do leave their dogs outside, are they cruel too?

Depends on the conditions outside and if the animal has proper outdoor shelter. In some states, leaving your dog outside in extreme conditions for prolonged periods of time is an finable/arrestable offense.

I would have no problem riding on the top of a car. Give me a windshield and a securely fastened banana chair with a seat belt and it would be quite fun. I think my kids would even enjoy that.

Have fun in prison...

 

[lilithu]

Many dog owners do leave their dogs outside, are they cruel too?

Or you can't come up with any reasonable explanation.

I would have no problem riding on the top of a car. Give me a windshield and a securely fastened banana chair with a seat belt and it would be quite fun. I think my kids would even enjoy that.

Hey that would kind of resemble riding in a convertible wouldn't it. Is it cruel for dogs to ride in convertibles?

So I suppose it means nothing to to you that the Mass SPCA and the ASPCA both objected to what Mitt did. I suppose you think it's all a vast anti-Mormon conspiracy. :sarcastic

 

[Polaris]

Have fun in prison...

You're right, it's against the law and that's why I wouldn't do it. But to say it is cruel and causes a dog to suffer is unfounded.

In the early 80's it wasn't against the law to transport your dog like that. I'm sure Mitt wouldn't do that today because now there are laws against it. That doesn't mean that what he did was cruel. I'm sure the dog was just fine.

 

[Nanda]

You're right, it's against the law and that's why I wouldn't do it. But to say it is cruel and causes a dog to suffer is unfounded.

In the early 80's it wasn't against the law to transport your dog like that. I'm sure Mitt wouldn't do that today because now there are laws against it. That doesn't mean that what he did was cruel. I'm sure the dog was just fine.

And why do you suppose they changed the law?

 

[Mister_T]

Many dog owners do leave their dogs outside, are they cruel too

I would say yes in some instances.

Or you can't come up with any reasonable explanation.

I rebuttaled you question. Your refusal to accept it as an "answer" is your problem. The dog's life was put in danger and the dog crapped himself, probably due to fright.

I would have no problem riding on the top of a car. Give me a windshield and a securely fastened banana chair with a seat belt and it would be quite fun. I think my kids would even enjoy that.

Why do you need the seat belt and the windshield with a securely fastened chair? Why don't you just strap yourself to the roof with some rope and a matress?

....the same reason why you wouldn't do that to a dog.

Hey that would kind of resemble riding in a convertible wouldn't it. Is it cruel for dogs to ride in convertibles?

Why do you need a covertable with a wind shield and secured seats? Strap yourself on the hood or the trunk.

If you don't know the difference between riding in a convertable and strapping yourself to the roof of a car, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[Polaris]

And why do you suppose they changed the law?

Maybe because some people weren't as careful as Mitt and failed to provide a safe traveling compartment. From what the article described, it sounded like Mitt's dog was basically riding in convertible-like conditions, only safer because the dog's cage was actually secured to the vehicle.

 

[Polaris]

and the dog crapped himself, probably due to fright.

Or the more logical reason... the dog had a full bladder. Dogs ride in the back of trucks all the time, and most quite enjoy it.

Why do you need the seat belt and the windshield with a securely fastened chair? Why don't you just strap yourself to the roof with some rope and a matress?

....the same reason why you wouldn't do that to a dog.


Why do you need a covertable with a wind shield and secured seats? Strap yourself on the hood or the trunk.

You don't know how Mitt secured the dog's cage to the vehicle so don't pretend like you do.

If you don't know the difference between riding in a convertable and strapping yourself to the roof of a car, I really don't know what to tell you.

For a dog I would argue the convertible to be more dangerous, he could easily bail out and seriously injure himself.

 

[Nanda]

Or the more logical reason... the dog had a full bladder. Dogs ride in the back of trucks all the time, and most quite enjoy it.

That's another thing I remember from the article - Mitt's son talking about how, in a 12 hour trip, they'd make one bathroom break. I wonder if it occurred to them to let the dog out during that stop.

You don't know how Mitt secured the dog's cage to the vehicle so don't pretend like you do.

Neither do you, yet I've noticed that you keep protesting the lengths that Mitt went to to ensure the dogs safety and comfort, and how happy the dog probably was up there, when you really have no idea yourself.

 

[Polaris]

Neither do you, yet I've noticed that you keep protesting the lengths that Mitt went to to ensure the dogs safety and comfort, and how happy the dog probably was up there, when you really have no idea yourself.

Here's what we know:
- Mitt built the dog a windshield
- the dog was joining the family on their annual family vacation

All signs point to the high probability that Mitt actually cared for his dog and was concerned for its happiness and comfort.

Yet you insist that he was cruel and caused his dog to suffer. You have absolutely no evidence to support that. All you have is your distaste for Mitt and your overzealous plight for animal sufferage.

 

[Mister_T]

Or the more logical reason... the dog had a full bladder. Dogs ride in the back of trucks all the time, and most quite enjoy it.

Even if that's the case, leaving a dog in his cage full of excriment for a long period of time is also cruel.

You don't know how Mitt secured the dog's cage to the vehicle so don't pretend like you do.

And I suppose you do?

Tell me, how exactly do you safely secure a dog cage to the roof of a car.

For a dog I would argue the convertible to be more dangerous, he could easily bail out and seriously injure himself

And the dog cage could fall of the roof of the car. I wouldn't bring my pet into a covertable or the back of a truck to begin with for the reason you mentioned.....not to mention those type of things are illegal....and they're illegal for a reason.

 

[Nanda]

Here's what we know:
- Mitt built the dog a windshield
- the dog was joining the family on their annual family vacation

All signs point to the high probability that Mitt actually cared for his dog and was concerned for its happiness and comfort.

I'm not arguing that he didn't care for his dog, I'm arguing that he did something incredibly stupid. A windshield + loving the dog does not necessarily = happiness and comfort, unless the love was made of magical pixie dust.

Yet you insist that he was cruel and caused his dog to suffer. You have absolutely no evidence to support that.

How about the fact that the dog crapped itself? That's not normal. Yet you insist that he wasn't cruel and didn't cause his dog to suffer when you have absolutely no evidence to support that.

All you have is your distaste for Mitt and your overzealous plight for animal sufferage.

I don't care one way or the other about Mitt Romney, so you can drop the idea that I have an agenda right now. I just think what he did was incredibly stupid.

 

[lilithu]

Or the more logical reason... the dog had a full bladder. Dogs ride in the back of trucks all the time, and most quite enjoy it.

A bladder holds urine, not feces. Dogs ride in the back of trucks all the time and do NOT crap all over it. What does that tell you?

It sounds like you've never been in contact with a real live dog. Unless there's something wrong, a dog can wait for hours and hours to take a dump. They're quite good about it. And when they do it would not be of such volume or of such a consistency so as to end up all over the top and sides of the car. If the dog voided its bowels, it's because it was terrified.

 

[Mister_T]

Mitt built the dog a windshield

Can you provide proof for that? That's not in the article listed.

 

[Nanda]

Can you provide proof for that? That's not in the article listed.

I did read that in another article, actually.