- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Because the media made Romney bringing his dog with him on vacation in 1983, in a carrier strapped to the roof of his car, the most important question of the 2012 campaign!
[...]
Then it was discovered Obama talked about "eating a dog" in his autobiography
And people like fail to understand the difference between the two things. To people who understand or experience normal human emotions this fact is quite apparent but I understand how it could be very confusing to someone who doesn't and I don't mean that as a put down to you - different people have different skill sets.
I will try to explain it to you again.
The family dog is usually viewed as a member of the family and people who have dogs assume that this means there is a personal relationship that Romney has with the dog. This is a relationship that people do not have with the animals that they eat. That Obama ate a food animal that happened to be a dog that was killed and prepared by someone else is "icky" to a lot of people but is emotionally not unlike eating a pig or steer or horse or snake or witchetty grub. It might be distasteful or "gross" to eat some of those things but it is not as loaded with emotion as the idea of strapping a family member to the roof of a car for a drive. That is the core of the issue as a character issue. If he can mistreat a family member then how can we expect him to care about the people of America. Obviously this is just an encapsulation of what he has already demonstrated in his business life. He has no compassion and is easily capable of destroying the lives of thousands of American workers to make his bank account a bit (a LOT) bigger. Mitt has shown that he doesn't care how many Americans suffer from his actions, just so long as he gets richer. That's troubling. He is power hungry and money grubbing and utterly corruptible which makes him a perfect servant for the elites - much better than Obama, in fact.