If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Rom-ney (v). 1. to defecate in terror   (mediaite.com) divider line 232
    More: Amusing, Rachel Maddow, seat belt laws, American middle class, Clark Griswold, long campaign, Tagg Romney, South Carolina, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

4336 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2012 at 10:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-13 01:05:34 PM  
rom-ney (v). 1. to defecate in terror

Good. I was getting tired of 'san-tor-um (n) 1. That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex' anyway.
 
2012-01-13 01:12:26 PM  

stpauler: Gingrich: v. To cheat on your wife with an owl.


Who ?
 
2012-01-13 01:13:03 PM  

stpauler: Gingrich: v. To cheat on your wife with an owl.


I really think this one could catch on.
 
2012-01-13 01:18:40 PM  
Romney: n A selfish, uncompassionate person

/obvious
 
2012-01-13 01:19:30 PM  

sweetmelissa31: stpauler: Gingrich: v. To cheat on your wife with an owl.

I really think this one could catch on.


"We're just friends!"

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-01-13 01:20:07 PM  

madcan34: Well at least Rachel Maddow is reporting on an important story and not just pushing a liberal agenda..


You've never met a 'dog person'. They can hate people for doing something in a movie against an animal, let alone in real life. To them this story is a BIG DEAL.

Of course most dog persons I know that would vote conservative treat their dogs as utility animals vs. family animals (some, not all) and wouldn't think that big of a deal. Dog probably didn't shiat in fear, just more the fact that it was stuck in a box for hours would be the rationalization.

Me, I'm no fan of dogs and in the 80s when I was a kid we'd sit in the back of a truck free to fly out at highway speeds so this isn't too far of a stretch.

Though, Mitt Griswold has a nice ring to it.
 
2012-01-13 01:24:10 PM  
tboucher
That your parents either didn't care or treated you worse than most people treat their dogs doesn't make "dog people" the problem here
 
2012-01-13 01:33:07 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: sweetmelissa31: stpauler: Gingrich: v. To cheat on your wife with an owl.

I really think this one could catch on.

"We're just friends!"

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


She looks good in that pic. Must be in her younger years.
 
2012-01-13 01:52:02 PM  

gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: If you're feeding them the right food, no dogs sometimes don't randomly take sh*ts. They're pretty regular.

how long was he on the roof for?

[blogs.amctv.com image 560x332]

How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

will you elabradorate? Of course you won't. This is your schtick.

It's being pointed out to you that your argument somehow manages to be ignorant and circular at the same time. It's impossible to engage you in real discussion (see yesterday's discussion about Mitt Romney la Meheecahnoh), so I am pointing out that you are willfully putting up psychological barriers that block information from reaching you.


No. He's not. He's farking with you. All he's ever doing is farking with you.
 
2012-01-13 02:03:48 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: No. He's not. He's farking with you. All he's ever doing is farking with you.


I wouldn't say always
 
2012-01-13 02:07:21 PM  

historycat: Romney sounds more and more like a sociopath.


Well, he was a finance exec.
 
2012-01-13 02:10:24 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: If you're feeding them the right food, no dogs sometimes don't randomly take sh*ts. They're pretty regular.

how long was he on the roof for?

[blogs.amctv.com image 560x332]

How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

will you elabradorate? Of course you won't. This is your schtick.

It's being pointed out to you that your argument somehow manages to be ignorant and circular at the same time. It's impossible to engage you in real discussion (see yesterday's discussion about Mitt Romney la Meheecahnoh), so I am pointing out that you are willfully putting up psychological barriers that block information from reaching you.

No. He's not. He's farking with you. All he's ever doing is farking with you.


It depends on who's logged in
 
2012-01-13 02:10:26 PM  

CPennypacker: lennavan: It isnt often but I gotta disagree with Maddow on this one. Yeah, actually I do want a cold emotionless president making decisions, not someone who is going to make a stupid decision because he's following his/her emotions.

What's more, no, this story does not have legs. It actually sounded like a pretty reasonable thing to do, I'd venture the dog did not fit in the car and the family wanted to bring it with. It wasn't a cold calculated crisis management, he hosed the dog off. It's not like he just kept driving. Lots of reasons to attack Romney, this isn't one.

He hosed the dog off then he put him back in the crate and kept driving. He was wrong and so are you.


Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?
 
2012-01-13 02:12:31 PM  

CPennypacker: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: If you're feeding them the right food, no dogs sometimes don't randomly take sh*ts. They're pretty regular.

how long was he on the roof for?

[blogs.amctv.com image 560x332]

How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

will you elabradorate? Of course you won't. This is your schtick.

It's being pointed out to you that your argument somehow manages to be ignorant and circular at the same time. It's impossible to engage you in real discussion (see yesterday's discussion about Mitt Romney la Meheecahnoh), so I am pointing out that you are willfully putting up psychological barriers that block information from reaching you.

No. He's not. He's farking with you. All he's ever doing is farking with you.

It depends on who's logged in


yeah, keep repeating it. It will eventually become funny and/or true but probably not both... though maybe.
 
2012-01-13 02:12:52 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: lennavan: It isnt often but I gotta disagree with Maddow on this one. Yeah, actually I do want a cold emotionless president making decisions, not someone who is going to make a stupid decision because he's following his/her emotions.

What's more, no, this story does not have legs. It actually sounded like a pretty reasonable thing to do, I'd venture the dog did not fit in the car and the family wanted to bring it with. It wasn't a cold calculated crisis management, he hosed the dog off. It's not like he just kept driving. Lots of reasons to attack Romney, this isn't one.

He hosed the dog off then he put him back in the crate and kept driving. He was wrong and so are you.

Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?


Its nicer then pulling over and blowing the dog's brains out too. What's your point?
 
2012-01-13 02:13:03 PM  

CPennypacker: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: If you're feeding them the right food, no dogs sometimes don't randomly take sh*ts. They're pretty regular.

how long was he on the roof for?

[blogs.amctv.com image 560x332]

How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

will you elabradorate? Of course you won't. This is your schtick.

It's being pointed out to you that your argument somehow manages to be ignorant and circular at the same time. It's impossible to engage you in real discussion (see yesterday's discussion about Mitt Romney la Meheecahnoh), so I am pointing out that you are willfully putting up psychological barriers that block information from reaching you.

No. He's not. He's farking with you. All he's ever doing is farking with you.

It depends on who's logged in


Hey. Unfortunately, I'm me. Always. I take a very hard line on alts because those folks are not interested in sharing ideas in an honest manner.
 
2012-01-13 02:17:19 PM  

HeartBurnKid: WhoGAS: My dog has some pretty friggin' splattery shiats sometimes when I simply give him a can of dog food.

Give him some kibble too, then. That dog needs fiber.


Yeah. he's normally on solids but I give him a can every now and then when he's been especially good on a jog or a walk. He's half Australian Shepherd, half black lab so he loves to herd me when I jog or loves people so much that he tries to run right at them, tackle them and love them to death. Those are the two behaviors I'm trying to break right now. He's only four months old but has shown he's a lot smarter than I expected him to be.

Point being (just so it doesn't seem like I'm meaning to threadjack; I'm not but an exchange of ideas and suggestions should never be turned down IMO) is that dogs poop; sometimes liquidy. :o)
 
2012-01-13 02:23:14 PM  

madcan34: Well at least Rachel Maddow is reporting on an important story and not just pushing a liberal agenda..


It's an important story for what it reveals about the GOP front runner's character. It's not even just what Romney did, it's his total lack of emotion in dealing with the situation. He's weirdly incapable of empathy. That in turn suggests underlying personality disturbance.

Or, to put it in terms even Republican primary voters can understand:

WEIRDO ROMNEY DON'T LUV HIS DOG, THEN WEIRDO ROMNEY DON'T LUV PERIOD.
 
2012-01-13 02:24:24 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: lennavan: It isnt often but I gotta disagree with Maddow on this one. Yeah, actually I do want a cold emotionless president making decisions, not someone who is going to make a stupid decision because he's following his/her emotions.

What's more, no, this story does not have legs. It actually sounded like a pretty reasonable thing to do, I'd venture the dog did not fit in the car and the family wanted to bring it with. It wasn't a cold calculated crisis management, he hosed the dog off. It's not like he just kept driving. Lots of reasons to attack Romney, this isn't one.

He hosed the dog off then he put him back in the crate and kept driving. He was wrong and so are you.

never been a fan of dogs and don't know much about them. If we're not upset about him putting the dog in the crate in the first place, why are we upset about him putting the dog back in the crate after cleaning him off?

Well, his argument was that the dog loved to go up there. So when the dog shiats itself in terror shouldn't that be a clue that maybe he doesn't like it so much?


I don't actually remember saying the dog loved going up there. Perhaps you can highlight where I said that. Bold/Underline work great.

I said it was reasonable. My wife's cat hates the car carrier, first time in he peed himself, presumably in terror. Should I stop taking the cat to the vet? The cat does not love the carrier and I thought using the carrier anyway was a reasonable thing to do. But apparently you are the authority figure here and if the animal doesn't absolutely love it, it must be wrong or something.
 
2012-01-13 02:25:00 PM  

CPennypacker: Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?

Its nicer then pulling over and blowing the dog's brains out too. What's your point?


The article was about how Romney was emotionless. You just agreed Romney a nice thing. Whoa.
 
2012-01-13 02:27:29 PM  

lennavan: I don't actually remember saying the dog loved going up there. Perhaps you can highlight where I said that. Bold/Underline work great.

I said it was reasonable. My wife's cat hates the car carrier, first time in he peed himself, presumably in terror. Should I stop taking the cat to the vet? The cat does not love the carrier and I thought using the carrier anyway was a reasonable thing to do. But apparently you are the authority figure here and if the animal doesn't absolutely love it, it must be wrong or something.


No that was Romney's argument
 
2012-01-13 02:28:46 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?

Its nicer then pulling over and blowing the dog's brains out too. What's your point?

The article was about how Romney was emotionless. You just agreed Romney a nice thing. Whoa.


No. I was illustrating that just because you can think of worse things he could have done, it doesn't mean that what he did wasn't terrible.
 
2012-01-13 02:30:11 PM  

Psylence: Since you admittedly know little about dogs, I'll clue you in.
shiat from a terrified animal is going to be quite different in consistency than a dogs regular bowel movement. A scared, distressed dog is going to be vile and squirty. Anyone who has owned a dog is familiar with the toilet habits of their animals. So chances are, Romney was well aware of the dogs distressed state and simply didn't care. Also, dogs that are used to being kenneled, as he claims this one was, will not shiat or piss in their boxes unless its a dire emergency....


So you seem to know nothing about traveling, I'll clue you in. Anyone who has ever traveled anywhere is well aware that sometimes you do the best you can in a situation. While ideally yes, once noticing the dog shiat himself, Romney would have magically teleported his dog safely home, in reality on a road trip that might not be so possible as magic teleporters do not exist yet.

I get you want to be upset with Romney and you're willing to put all the effort required in order to score some points here. So let me help you out there. Take issue with putting him on top of the car in the first place. That's where you can say he farked up. But once he realized the dog shiat himself, what was he going to do?

1) Magically teleport the dog home
2) Tell the dog to suck it up and continue on?

These are the choices I would have seen on the road. Romney, being the emotionless bastard that he is, actually found an opportunity to clean the dog off before continuing so he wouldn't have to stay up there covered in his own shiat. Putting the dog up there in the first place may have been stupid. Hosing the dog off was actually a nice thing to do.
 
2012-01-13 02:32:09 PM  

lennavan: Psylence: Since you admittedly know little about dogs, I'll clue you in.
shiat from a terrified animal is going to be quite different in consistency than a dogs regular bowel movement. A scared, distressed dog is going to be vile and squirty. Anyone who has owned a dog is familiar with the toilet habits of their animals. So chances are, Romney was well aware of the dogs distressed state and simply didn't care. Also, dogs that are used to being kenneled, as he claims this one was, will not shiat or piss in their boxes unless its a dire emergency....

So you seem to know nothing about traveling, I'll clue you in. Anyone who has ever traveled anywhere is well aware that sometimes you do the best you can in a situation. While ideally yes, once noticing the dog shiat himself, Romney would have magically teleported his dog safely home, in reality on a road trip that might not be so possible as magic teleporters do not exist yet.

I get you want to be upset with Romney and you're willing to put all the effort required in order to score some points here. So let me help you out there. Take issue with putting him on top of the car in the first place. That's where you can say he farked up. But once he realized the dog shiat himself, what was he going to do?

1) Magically teleport the dog home
2) Tell the dog to suck it up and continue on?

These are the choices I would have seen on the road. Romney, being the emotionless bastard that he is, actually found an opportunity to clean the dog off before continuing so he wouldn't have to stay up there covered in his own shiat. Putting the dog up there in the first place may have been stupid. Hosing the dog off was actually a nice thing to do.


So what you're saying is that Romney is a poor planner, he doesn't understand the real-world effects of his decisions and his compromises are half-assed and unsatisfactory. I agree!
 
2012-01-13 02:32:11 PM  

CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?

Its nicer then pulling over and blowing the dog's brains out too. What's your point?

The article was about how Romney was emotionless. You just agreed Romney a nice thing. Whoa.

No. I was illustrating that just because you can think of worse things he could have done, it doesn't mean that what he did wasn't terrible.


Well sure but I brought up a possibility another reasonable person might do, that is continue on down the road and take care of it when you get there. You just pulled some irrelevant B.S. example out of your ass for comparison to score internet points.

So there's always that.
 
2012-01-13 02:32:13 PM  

lennavan: Psylence: Since you admittedly know little about dogs, I'll clue you in.
shiat from a terrified animal is going to be quite different in consistency than a dogs regular bowel movement. A scared, distressed dog is going to be vile and squirty. Anyone who has owned a dog is familiar with the toilet habits of their animals. So chances are, Romney was well aware of the dogs distressed state and simply didn't care. Also, dogs that are used to being kenneled, as he claims this one was, will not shiat or piss in their boxes unless its a dire emergency....

So you seem to know nothing about traveling, I'll clue you in. Anyone who has ever traveled anywhere is well aware that sometimes you do the best you can in a situation. While ideally yes, once noticing the dog shiat himself, Romney would have magically teleported his dog safely home, in reality on a road trip that might not be so possible as magic teleporters do not exist yet.

I get you want to be upset with Romney and you're willing to put all the effort required in order to score some points here. So let me help you out there. Take issue with putting him on top of the car in the first place. That's where you can say he farked up. But once he realized the dog shiat himself, what was he going to do?

1) Magically teleport the dog home
2) Tell the dog to suck it up and continue on?

These are the choices I would have seen on the road. Romney, being the emotionless bastard that he is, actually found an opportunity to clean the dog off before continuing so he wouldn't have to stay up there covered in his own shiat. Putting the dog up there in the first place may have been stupid. Hosing the dog off was actually a nice thing to do.


3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?
 
2012-01-13 02:32:57 PM  

CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?


Was there room for the dog in the car?
 
2012-01-13 02:33:38 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?


A human being would make room
 
2012-01-13 02:34:17 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: Which is nicer than ignoring the dog and continuing on driving, right?

Its nicer then pulling over and blowing the dog's brains out too. What's your point?

The article was about how Romney was emotionless. You just agreed Romney a nice thing. Whoa.

No. I was illustrating that just because you can think of worse things he could have done, it doesn't mean that what he did wasn't terrible.

Well sure but I brought up a possibility another reasonable person might do, that is continue on down the road and take care of it when you get there. You just pulled some irrelevant B.S. example out of your ass for comparison to score internet points.

So there's always that.


Actually, it was to show that your logical conclusion was bad. I'll take the internet points though.
 
2012-01-13 02:35:27 PM  

CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room


especially if that human being were a wizard
 
2012-01-13 02:36:17 PM  

lennavan: Psylence: Since you admittedly know little about dogs, I'll clue you in.
shiat from a terrified animal is going to be quite different in consistency than a dogs regular bowel movement. A scared, distressed dog is going to be vile and squirty. Anyone who has owned a dog is familiar with the toilet habits of their animals. So chances are, Romney was well aware of the dogs distressed state and simply didn't care. Also, dogs that are used to being kenneled, as he claims this one was, will not shiat or piss in their boxes unless its a dire emergency....

So you seem to know nothing about traveling, I'll clue you in. Anyone who has ever traveled anywhere is well aware that sometimes you do the best you can in a situation. While ideally yes, once noticing the dog shiat himself, Romney would have magically teleported his dog safely home, in reality on a road trip that might not be so possible as magic teleporters do not exist yet.

I get you want to be upset with Romney and you're willing to put all the effort required in order to score some points here. So let me help you out there. Take issue with putting him on top of the car in the first place. That's where you can say he farked up. But once he realized the dog shiat himself, what was he going to do?

1) Magically teleport the dog home
2) Tell the dog to suck it up and continue on?

These are the choices I would have seen on the road. Romney, being the emotionless bastard that he is, actually found an opportunity to clean the dog off before continuing so he wouldn't have to stay up there covered in his own shiat. Putting the dog up there in the first place may have been stupid. Hosing the dog off was actually a nice thing to do.


Partially misses the point. Most people get upset when their dog is sick, because they love their dog. Romney didn't.
 
2012-01-13 02:38:34 PM  

gimmegimme: So what you're saying is that Romney is a poor planner, he doesn't understand the real-world effects of his decisions and his compromises are half-assed and unsatisfactory. I agree!


Now you're onto something. If the media would go with something solid like you mention, it'd be more real. As it is, the MSM only cares about emotional pleas because they know that most of the voting populace couldn't care less about real issues.
 
2012-01-13 02:38:43 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room

especially if that human being were a wizard


Lap?
 
2012-01-13 02:39:21 PM  

CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room


2 points:
1) Irish Setters are not exactly lap dogs so it's possible that it could have been an impossibility.
2) If it isn't possible DON'T TAKE YOUR DOG ON A TWELVE HOUR DRIVE. Kennel it.

/Not a pet owner, but that seems like the common sense thing to me.
 
2012-01-13 02:42:48 PM  

BeesNuts: CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room

2 points:
1) Irish Setters are not exactly lap dogs so it's possible that it could have been an impossibility.
2) If it isn't possible DON'T TAKE YOUR DOG ON A TWELVE HOUR DRIVE. Kennel it.

/Not a pet owner, but that seems like the common sense thing to me.


And there are other things he could have done to at least ameliorate the situation. How taking a break from the road to give the dog a little time to recover?
 
2012-01-13 02:51:42 PM  

CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room


So you have no idea. Cool.

bugontherug: Partially misses the point. Most people get upset when their dog is sick, because they love their dog. Romney didn't.


Romney didn't get upset when his dog was sick. Even if that is true, which you don't actually know, who gives a fark? From that, you make the incorrect leap to therefore that means he does not love his dog. Not everyone gets upset so easily, not everyone cries at girlie movies. Crying is what happens when you can't handle the situation. What Romney did was better than being upset, Romney actually did something about it.

It seems you all would prefer to have a president making decisions based on emotions rather than facts and logic. It's farking scary. You all promised not to forget the lessons of 9/11. Wasn't one lesson we should probably relax and cool the fark off before engaging in major military conflicts? You want our next president to make that decision while upset?

Ridiculous.
 
2012-01-13 02:54:02 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room

So you have no idea. Cool.

bugontherug: Partially misses the point. Most people get upset when their dog is sick, because they love their dog. Romney didn't.

Romney didn't get upset when his dog was sick. Even if that is true, which you don't actually know, who gives a fark? From that, you make the incorrect leap to therefore that means he does not love his dog. Not everyone gets upset so easily, not everyone cries at girlie movies. Crying is what happens when you can't handle the situation. What Romney did was better than being upset, Romney actually did something about it.
It seems you all would prefer to have a president making decisions based on emotions rather than facts and logic. It's farking scary. You all promised not to forget the lessons of 9/11. Wasn't one lesson we should probably relax and cool the fark off before engaging in major military conflicts? You want our next president to make that decision while upset?

Ridiculous.


When in doubt, break the law. Cool. I'm calling you if I ever need representation.
 
2012-01-13 02:55:19 PM  

bugontherug: And there are other things he could have done to at least ameliorate the situation. How taking a break from the road to give the dog a little time to recover?


Who's to say he didn't?

Here:

"I went to the store and then went to bed."

Although one can assume that I went to bed immediately after the store trip, it's not a given. Why would a writer not fill in the gaps between the two actions? Possibly because it's nothing the author though the reader would want to see, contained unnecessary details to the story, etc. Heck, the author here may have purposefully left out the "Hosed him down then the family went inside to do some shopping for food/snacks, used the bathroom themselves and, after a couple of hours, finally continued their trip."

Those details would only come out if there was a person telling the story who knew ahead of time that this would become a talking point in a presidential campaign.

Like I mentioned, however, the other person brought up the only salient points from this: lack of compassion, etc. But even then, does that show a history of behavior or was a dad just so tired from driving 12 hours that he just wanted to get home?

Have you ever been so exhausted? Have you ever done something out of anger? Do you want that one single moment to be the defining moment of your life?

I'm just saying, I can't judge the man no matter how much of a freak I think he is. I'm no better than him, you or anyone else and I don't have the facts or intentions of all their actions to tell him he's an ass or not.
 
2012-01-13 02:57:10 PM  

gimmegimme: lennavan: CPennypacker: lennavan: CPennypacker: 3) Put the dog in the car instead of back in his crate on the roof?

Was there room for the dog in the car?

A human being would make room

So you have no idea. Cool.

bugontherug: Partially misses the point. Most people get upset when their dog is sick, because they love their dog. Romney didn't.

Romney didn't get upset when his dog was sick. Even if that is true, which you don't actually know, who gives a fark? From that, you make the incorrect leap to therefore that means he does not love his dog. Not everyone gets upset so easily, not everyone cries at girlie movies. Crying is what happens when you can't handle the situation. What Romney did was better than being upset, Romney actually did something about it.
It seems you all would prefer to have a president making decisions based on emotions rather than facts and logic. It's farking scary. You all promised not to forget the lessons of 9/11. Wasn't one lesson we should probably relax and cool the fark off before engaging in major military conflicts? You want our next president to make that decision while upset?

Ridiculous.

When in doubt, break the law. Cool. I'm calling you if I ever need representation.


Hosing down your dog is against the law? Yikes.
 
2012-01-13 02:58:50 PM  
Can we get skullcrusher back in here? It actually got stupider after he left. At least he was arguing about why the dog shiat and not trying to give Romney a medal for not abandoning the dog on the side of the road.
 
2012-01-13 03:04:53 PM  

lennavan: Romney didn't get upset when his dog was sick. Even if that is true, which you don't actually know, who gives a fark? From that, you make the incorrect leap to therefore that means he does not love his dog. Not everyone gets upset so easily, not everyone cries at girlie movies. Crying is what happens when you can't handle the situation. What Romney did was better than being upset, Romney actually did something about it.


I didn't say anything about "crying." The story praises Romney for "emotion free crisis management." Normal people would have empathized with the dog a little, and tried to make some accommodation to make him more comfortable. In addition to his poor planning, this story bothers people because the lack of emotion in his response to his pet's illness is just kind of weird.
 
2012-01-13 03:04:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Can we get skullcrusher back in here? It actually got stupider after he left. At least he was arguing about why the dog shiat and not trying to give Romney a medal for not abandoning the dog on the side of the road.


I know, right? Would you believe how many people think building a custom windshield so your dog can come with on the family vacation and then hours later after realizing it was a bad idea and the dog was upset you make a special stop to clean him up is an example of Romney hating the dog? The partisan hackery here is truly astounding.
 
2012-01-13 03:13:02 PM  

WhoGAS: bugontherug: And there are other things he could have done to at least ameliorate the situation. How taking a break from the road to give the dog a little time to recover?

Who's to say he didn't?

Here:

"I went to the store and then went to bed."

Although one can assume that I went to bed immediately after the store trip, it's not a given. Why would a writer not fill in the gaps between the two actions? Possibly because it's nothing the author though the reader would want to see, contained unnecessary details to the story, etc. Heck, the author here may have purposefully left out the "Hosed him down then the family went inside to do some shopping for food/snacks, used the bathroom themselves and, after a couple of hours, finally continued their trip."

Those details would only come out if there was a person telling the story who knew ahead of time that this would become a talking point in a presidential campaign.

Like I mentioned, however, the other person brought up the only salient points from this: lack of compassion, etc. But even then, does that show a history of behavior or was a dad just so tired from driving 12 hours that he just wanted to get home?

Have you ever been so exhausted? Have you ever done something out of anger? Do you want that one single moment to be the defining moment of your life?

I'm just saying, I can't judge the man no matter how much of a freak I think he is. I'm no better than him, you or anyone else and I don't have the facts or intentions of all their actions to tell him he's an ass or not.


The article describes his handling of the situation as "emotion free." He wasn't angry, or upset. He was "emotion free."

"Emotion free" is an admirable trait when you're deciding how many people to unemploy to pay for your million dollar consulting fee. "Emotion free" is less admirable when dealing with people or things you care about. Romney as president might treat the American people in the same emotion free manner he treats workers he's laying off, and the family dog when he's sick.

Conservatives might find that character trait admirable, so it's surprising Gingrich is making it an issue. It just makes normal people a little uncomfortable is all.
 
2012-01-13 03:15:05 PM  

bugontherug: "Emotion free" is an admirable trait when you're deciding how many people to unemploy to pay for your million dollar consulting fee. "Emotion free" is less admirable when dealing with people or things you purportedly care about. Romney as president might treat the American people in the same emotion free manner he treats workers he's laying off, and the family dog when he's sick.


FTFM.
 
2012-01-13 03:15:06 PM  

bugontherug: The story praises Romney for "emotion free crisis management."


It sure does.

bugontherug: Normal people would have empathized with the dog a little


I agree. Maybe even thought about putting the dog in the car until they realized the story says "was overstuffed with suitcases." So what would he do?

bugontherug: tried to make some accommodation to make him more comfortable


Such as cleaning the dog off? Or building a custom windshield?

bugontherug: this story bothers people because the lack of emotion in his response to his pet's illness is just kind of weird.


This story does indeed point out a lack of emotion. Did you even bother asking why you believe there was a lack of emotion in the story? Did you even bother questioning its reliability?

"Sometime during a 12-hour drive from Boston to Canada in 1983"

1983. The story was written what, 24 years later? So at best, it's a story recounting how he acted 24 years ago. How accurate are the details?

After all, the first version of the story I'd heard from the family friend-who hadn't been an eyewitness-improbably had Mitt driving the station wagon right through a carwash

He heard it from a friend who wasn't there and the friend said Mitt went through a carwash to clean the dog. That seems reliable? And look, he has a pre-drawn narrative:

it's always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion.

By the way, the things people used to do back in 1983 was a bit different than now. Context is relevant.
 
2012-01-13 03:18:09 PM  

lennavan: bugontherug: The story praises Romney for "emotion free crisis management."

It sure does.

bugontherug: Normal people would have empathized with the dog a little

I agree. Maybe even thought about putting the dog in the car until they realized the story says "was overstuffed with suitcases." So what would he do?

bugontherug: tried to make some accommodation to make him more comfortable

Such as cleaning the dog off? Or building a custom windshield?

bugontherug: this story bothers people because the lack of emotion in his response to his pet's illness is just kind of weird.

This story does indeed point out a lack of emotion. Did you even bother asking why you believe there was a lack of emotion in the story? Did you even bother questioning its reliability?

"Sometime during a 12-hour drive from Boston to Canada in 1983"

1983. The story was written what, 24 years later? So at best, it's a story recounting how he acted 24 years ago. How accurate are the details?

After all, the first version of the story I'd heard from the family friend-who hadn't been an eyewitness-improbably had Mitt driving the station wagon right through a carwash

He heard it from a friend who wasn't there and the friend said Mitt went through a carwash to clean the dog. That seems reliable? And look, he has a pre-drawn narrative:

it's always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion.

By the way, the things people used to do back in 1983 was a bit different than now. Context is relevant.


I guess it doesn't matter to you then that it was illegal for him to strap the dog up there in the first place.

If you want to give him th eplus for making the "logical" decision to hose down the dog and put it back up there, you still have to deal with his "logical" decision to put the dog up there in the first place.
 
2012-01-13 03:28:38 PM  

CPennypacker: I guess it doesn't matter to you then that it was illegal for him to strap the dog up there in the first place.


Was it? I forget where it was established that in 1983 this was a cruel way to transport dogs. But no, to be quite honest whether or not something is illegal doesn't matter to me when determining right or wrong. There's a correlation but it's not perfect.

I got no beef with pot smokers, I think they are good people.

CPennypacker: you still have to deal with his "logical" decision to put the dog up there in the first place.


I think that was a stupid idea in the first place. I also think I have the benefit of hindsight and a 2012 context so it's fully possible to think it was a reasonable thing to do back then.
 
2012-01-13 03:28:46 PM  

lennavan: Did you even bother asking why you believe there was a lack of emotion in the story?


I did not. Though now that you raise the question, it could be because the story said he was emotion free.


I agree. Maybe even thought about putting the dog in the car until they realized the story says "was overstuffed with suitcases." So what would he do?


Tie the suitcases on the roof, and let the dog ride in the car. Take a long break. Pet the dog a little, and say in a silly voice "is my precious puppy sick?" Anything. There were options available to him. Putting the dog on the roof in the first place was just kind of weird. His lack of emotion in dealing with the situation is weirder still.


Such as cleaning the dog off? Or building a custom windshield?


The story leads me to believe he did those things not out of empathy, but out of utility.

Did you even bother questioning its reliability?

Yes. The story is praising Romney highly. So the author's bias is in favor of Romney, not against him. It's only by reading between the lines that the story is a little weird.


He heard it from a friend who wasn't there and the friend said Mitt went through a carwash to clean the dog.


I'm sorry, but the perception that a candidate doesn't love his pet dog is probably fatal to a presidential campaign. It is now being used against him by his own party in South Carolina, and with good reason. If the Romney campaign found fault with the story, it would have disputed it by now. It's been public at least five years:

Link (new window)

The author's pro-Romney bias, and Romney's lack of protest before now give rise to the inference that the story is credible.
 
2012-01-13 03:31:49 PM  

lennavan: CPennypacker: I guess it doesn't matter to you then that it was illegal for him to strap the dog up there in the first place.

Was it? I forget where it was established that in 1983 this was a cruel way to transport dogs. But no, to be quite honest whether or not something is illegal doesn't matter to me when determining right or wrong. There's a correlation but it's not perfect.

I got no beef with pot smokers, I think they are good people.

CPennypacker: you still have to deal with his "logical" decision to put the dog up there in the first place.

I think that was a stupid idea in the first place. I also think I have the benefit of hindsight and a 2012 context so it's fully possible to think it was a reasonable thing to do back then.


Back then? It was 1983 not ancient egypt.
 
2012-01-13 03:34:34 PM  

bugontherug: I did not. Though now that you raise the question, it could be because the story said he was emotion free.


Do you believe everything you read on the internet as established truth?

bugontherug: His lack of emotion in dealing with the situation is weirder still.


Was there a lack of emotion?

bugontherug: The story leads me


Funny, in reading the follow-up, that's exactly what the author wanted you to get out of the story. I wonder how that worked out.

bugontherug: Yes. The story is praising Romney highly. So the author's bias is in favor of Romney, not against him. It's only by reading between the lines that the story is a little weird.


This is just completely false. From the author himself - "Seeking to penetrate the stock image of the air-brushed family."

bugontherug: The author's pro-Romney bias, and Romney's lack of protest before now give rise to the inference that the story is credible.


Brutal. Just brutal. Not only are you wrong but you just absolutely know you're right, making it impossible to see how wrong you are. I can't help you man. You've already built a false narrative to help you support your ill conceived conclusions. I cannot argue against the things you've fabricated to support your beliefs.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report