Romney strapped dog carrier to top of his car

[jonny]

So what? I didn't say if you don't love animals you shouldn't have pets. I said if you think it's ok to strap a dog in a carrying cage to the top of car and then drive on the highway for 12 hours you should not have pets.

Fair enough. Do you have the same feeling about horse trailers and other trailers that they transport chickents, sheep, cows, etc. in? Unless the dog was in a wire cage up on the car, I can't imagine that the wind was much worse.

The dog crapped all over the car. It was clearly scared $hitless. Do you think that when an animal is in your care the only consideration is danger?? And if there were no potential danger at all in that situation, I'd like to see you ride in that position yourself.

First off, there's a reason why the forum edits out curse words from posts. Trying to get around the word filter by using alternate characters for words probably goes against the spirit of these filters.

Second, I've already said that I drive a Jeep and prefer to have the top off. Could you explain the difference to me?

You don't understand, Jonny. I would have far preferred it if you were just defending him on anything.

Sorry to disappoint you. I try not to drink the political koolaid.

I'm gonna assume that Mitt realizes now that what he did was wrong, and wouldn't do it again. The fact that you and others in this thread can't seem to see what's wrong with it is what is freaking me out.

That's an attitude I can respect. What I can't respect are the opinions of people who claim that this incident is enough for him to lose their vote. It doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose a lot of things don't make sense in the political world.


I guess the reason why I don't think this is a huge deal is because I've done a lot of research on Mitt Romney. I don't think it's in his character to be purposely cruel to animals. Maybe he was different in his younger years, but if what he did was cruel I can't see him doing it again today. I guess I think he's got enough good judgement to not do what was done if he though that the dog would be in danger or traumatized by the incident.

 

[Nanda]

I'm sure that Guiliani's estranged children would be right there with you. :sarcastic

And I'm sure every case is exactly like Guiliani's - no shades of grey at all.

 

[jonny]

And I'm sure every case is exactly like Guiliani's - no shades of grey at all.

Isn't that the incident that we are comparing this to or did another presidential candidate have an affair?

 

[Nanda]

Isn't that the incident that we are comparing this to or did another presidential candidate have an affair?

I made no comparison. I simply said that an affair bothered me (personally) less than animal cruelty.

I'm not voting for Guiliani, either.

 

[Mathematician]

You're obviously not from the West. I love riding in the back of trucks. I own a Jeep and love driving it with the top down. I suppose that if I took the top off my Jeep and drove around with a dog in the car that you would consider it animal abuse.

Speaking of animal abuse, my great aunt was chairwoman of the Democratic Party (the position that Howard Dean holds now) and she was a mink farmer. It funny how much things change in just 30 or 40 years. Could you imagine a democratic leadership full of mink ranchers today?!?

Anyway, this is a great example of why I would never want to run for president. All of the candidates are pretty decent people with great leadership qualities, but you open yourself up to moronic nitpicking from partisan hacks if you aspire to any leadership position in this country. I think there are a lot more Americans who would be excellent leaders, but who are prevented from doing so because of they don't want to submit themselves and their families to the juvenile political debate that we have going on in our country.

Screw debating issues like illegal immigration and global terrorism - I want to know if my president wears boxers or briefs, how much his haircut costs, and how he transports his dog on vacation. :help:

I live in the South-West. I see workers packed in pick-up beds all the time. I have friends who cram themselves in trunks not fit for a full cart of groceries just to get out of school early. In fact, I've had my own experiences with both previous to getting a clue about the dangers [and realizing how remarkably uncomfortable a trunk is]. Those two circumstance should be illegal; I know you're a stark libertarian and don't care for regulation, but I believe humans should be legally required to wear a seatbelt and animals should be legally required to be inside a car. Fun doesn't constitute a reason to legalize something. The chinese fire drill is fun. At least then you're not putting others' lives at stake. Edit- After re-reading your post, I realized you were talking about a jeep. In which case I echo the response below mine by lilithu.

Romney is wrong on almost ever issue; I won't argue against that. I just happen to think he should have taken a lot better care of his pet. My little brother likes to put his hand out the window to feel the wind blow. There's a big difference between that and strapping him to the roof of the car, windshield or not. Would anyone put their kid in that situation, even if you tested the home-mad contraption yourself? I'd hope not!

I don't see the mainstream media picking up this story, so I'm wondering how Romney is being treated unfairly. Edwards' hair cut, Dean's scream, and Alan's "makaka" moment all got more attention than this, and in all three circumstances no life was put in danger.

 

[lilithu]

Fair enough. Do you have the same feeling about horse trailers and other trailers that they transport chickents, sheep, cows, etc. in? Unless the dog was in a wire cage up on the car, I can't imagine that the wind was much worse.

I have seen horse trailers and other animal transports and they are NOT the same as a dog carrier. Most carriers are plastic, with many "breathing" holes. The thing was STRAPPED on to the top of a car. It was not designed for that kind of use. I really can't believe we're arguing about this. Is it your belief that the ASPCA is criticizing this merely for political reasons?

First off, there's a reason why the forum edits out curse words from posts. Trying to get around the word filter by using alternate characters for words probably goes against the spirit of these filters.

So report me if you want to. I am not one who swears much in the first place, as I find swearing to be unimaginative, but in this case I thought it was the most appropriate word.

Second, I've already said that I drive a Jeep and prefer to have the top off. Could you explain the difference to me?

I think there's a huge difference. I would have no problem with you driving around with the top down with a dog in the passenger seat. I understand that it may not be the safest position to put the dog in but as far as I'm concerned, if it's good enough for you then it's good enough for the dog.

I guess the reason why I don't think this is a huge deal is because I've done a lot of research on Mitt Romney. I don't think it's in his character to be purposely cruel to animals. Maybe he was different in his younger years, but if what he did was cruel I can't see him doing it again today. I guess I think he's got enough good judgement to not do what was done if he though that the dog would be in danger or traumatized by the incident.

I think it's poor consolation to say that he wasn't being purposely cruel to the animal. There are only a few people in the world who are intentionally cruel. Most suffering is caused by people who think that what they're doing is justified. I find it just as if not more distressing to think that he would think this is ok. Just as I find it incredibly distressing that any of you would think this is ok.

 

[Papersock]

I think there's a huge difference. I would have no problem with you driving around with the top down with a dog in the passenger seat. I understand that it may not be the safest position to put the dog in but as far as I'm concerned, if it's good enough for you then it's good enough for the dog.

Would the dog need to be wearing a seat belt? Just curious.

 

[Mathematician]

We wouldn't be making a big deal out of this if it weren't for the fact others are actually trying to defend his decision! A stupid mistake is one thing. Romney can be forgiven. But saying this is perfectly acceptable behavior -- it makes me worry what people think is acceptable for their pets.

 

[Callmepaul]

I can't imagine that anyone who was seriously considering him as a candidate would give a rats behind about this. It is about as relevant as John Edward's haircut. Come on people. Let's discuss SERIOUS issues.

What could possibly be more serious than a candidate's character? What does this say about the man's love, empathy, tolerance etc? I think this says a lot and it says it in a very serious manner.

 

[Polaris]

I simply said that an affair bothered me (personally) less than animal cruelty.

Are you serious? How do you reconcile that?

Mitt Romney's "animal abuse":
- The Romney's wanted their dog to join them on their family vacation.
- Mitt went to the effort to, among other things, build a special windsheild for the dog so it could safely and confortably ride on top of the family station wagon because there was no room for it in the car.
- The dog probably endured a little discomfort during the ride, but so did all the kids packed in the station wagon with their luggage.
- Once the family arrived, the dog was free to spend the week sharing in the family vacation.

An Affair:
- destroys the trust between husband and wife
- often destroy families
- often leaves children with emotional scars

It's not even close.

 

[jonny]

We wouldn't be making a big deal out of this if it weren't for the fact others are actually trying to defend his decision! A stupid mistake is one thing. Romney can be forgiven. But saying this is perfectly acceptable behavior -- it makes me worry what people think is acceptable for their pets.

Actually, we wouldn't be making a big deal out of this if you hadn't started the thread and everyone started tearing Romney apart. I think this thread is a demonstration that people will try to critisize others for anything and everything.

 

[lilithu]

Would the dog need to be wearing a seat belt? Just curious.

Are you asking about my opinion or what the law says? Legally, it's probably a no-no to have the dog loose in the car with the top down. Because he or she could get spooked and jump or fall out. But I personally would not consider it cruel to be driving around with a dog in the passenger seat with the top down, assuming that the dog is ok with it.

 

[jonny]

Is it your belief that the ASPCA is criticizing this merely for political reasons?

Yes, that is my belief.

 

[jonny]

What could possibly be more serious than a candidate's character? What does this say about the man's love, empathy, tolerance etc? I think this says a lot and it says it in a very serious manner.

Since you've done so much research, go ahead and tell me about Romney's character.

I've already said that I've done a lot of research on Romney and this is out of character from what I've read.

 

[Mathematician]

Actually, we wouldn't be making a big deal out of this if you hadn't started the thread and everyone started tearing Romney apart. I think this thread is a demonstration that people will try to critisize others for anything and everything.

I think this thread is a demonstration that people don't care enough for animals, but we can always agree to disagree.

 

[lilithu]

Actually, we wouldn't be making a big deal out of this if you hadn't started the thread and everyone started tearing Romney apart. I think this thread is a demonstration that people will try to critisize others for anything and everything.

So you're still basically saying that what he did is no big deal.

THAT is what worries me.

 

[jonny]

Are you asking about my opinion or what the law says? Legally, it's probably a no-no to have the dog loose in the car with the top down. Because he or she could get spooked and jump or fall out. But I personally would not consider it cruel to be driving around with a dog in the passenger seat with the top down, assuming that the dog is ok with it.

Dogs are in the back of pickup trucks all the time. Is this against the law also? I've always assumed that it wasn't because I've never heard of anyone getting pulled over for it.

 

[jonny]

So you're still basically saying that what he did is no big deal.

THAT is what worries me.

I'm saying that people are inserting assumptions and facts into the story that we don't know are there.

I don't care if this opinion worries you. I'm certain that you couldn't possibly think any less of me than you already do.

 

[FFH]

An affair should not be accepted in any circumstance. :no:

and it's interesting to note that Mitt is the only Rebublican or Democratic candidate that has only been married to one woman...

Guess they won't be able to throw polygamy into the mix/dirt dug up on him....

 

[Nanda]

Are you serious? How do you reconcile that?

Mitt Romney's "animal abuse":
- The Romney's wanted their dog to join them on their family vacation.
- Mitt went to the effort to, among other things, build a special windsheild for the dog so it could safely and confortably ride on top of the family station wagon because there was no room for it in the car.
- The dog probably endured a little discomfort during the ride, but so did all the kids packed in the station wagon with their luggage.
- Once the family arrived, the dog was free to spend the week sharing in the family vacation.

An Affair:
- destroys the trust between husband and wife
- often destroy families
- often leaves children with emotional scars

It's not even close.

I'm not asking you to step out of your black-and-white world, I was just stating my opinion. Debating this with you would be off topic anyway, and I doubt we'd get anywhere.