Ann Romney's birthday hosted by guy who barbecued a dog

Mitt Romney isn't known for making wise choices and this is just another example. It does make you wonder about the choices he would make as president.

As unsavory as this fellow sounds, I look at it in exactly the same way as the "terrorist", who was never, ever proven to be a terrorist associate of Obama's.  Charges dismissed.  Not guilty, no foul.  

I see the opposition research machine is up and running at full speed.

Of course, associating with bombers and terrorists should be considered, right?

And it had a lot of effect on his candidacy, didn't it?  Well, no, it didn't.  And this little kerfuffle is even less important than that, AND it attacks Romney's wife, which Mr. Obama has clearly said is out of bounds. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrblanche 

And it had a lot of effect on his candidacy, didn't it?  Well, no, it didn't.  And this little kerfuffle is even less important than that, AND it attacks Romney's wife, which Mr. Obama has clearly said is out of bounds. 

I agree it's not important. I'm still getting emails that are fabricated stories about Obama. Do they have an effect? Of course they do. The people sending them believe them.

I don't see how it attacks Ann Romney.
 

I agree, case dismissed.  How important is it anyway.

Just ask yourself  "Would I allow any of these people cat-sit for me?"  I think NOT.

I think it is wise to focus on behavior in office and not be seduced by the lurid.

And boy does this guy have a lot of disturbing stuff to focus on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Malek

I guarantee both sides have all sorts of wealthy sociopaths supporting them. This is why we need to get corporate $$ out of politics. Step one is amending the constitution such that corporations are no longer afforded the rights of humans.

http://movetoamend.org/

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeevr 

I think it is wise to focus on behavior in office and not be seduced by the lurid.

And boy does this guy have a lot of disturbing stuff to focus on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Malek

 

I guarantee both sides have all sorts of wealthy sociopaths supporting them. This is why we need to get corporate $$ out of politics. Step one is amending the constitution such that corporations are no longer afforded the rights of humans.

http://movetoamend.org/

  And that needs to be for unions, as well. A corporation may well have tons of money, but so do unions, and they have voters they can muster, as well. That being said, Constitutional amendments are some of the most difficult things to pass:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeevr  ...Step one is amending the constitution such that corporations are no longer afforded the rights of humans...

 

  What about civic organizations like the Knights of Columbus? Do they have rights?

Any organization that shields its members/shareholders from personal liability of the actions of the organization is of grave concern.

Corporations are the most worrisome because they are formed solely for profit.

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that corporations shouldn't have the same free speech rights as individuals do; as the Supreme Court recently ruled they do. If corporations are collections of people, do those people lose their rights by virtue of belonging to a corporation? I don't think so. The unions have been pouring tons of money into elections for almost 100 years and they're corporations. If the Supreme Court decision is overturned by way of Constitutional Amendment, just think of all the other entities that will fall under that ban: AARP, various wildlife and environmental groups and other groups that advocate for the things we care about. Any Constitutional Amendment would, of necessity, have to carefully and painstakingly define just what constitutes a corporation under the Amendment. Once that's done, it will, in effect, be carved in stone. Any mistakes or oversights would have to be corrected by yet another Amendment; an extremely difficult process.

I'm not the OP.

Your voice can be represented in government by your individual donation to political parties/campaigns and your vote. You can join any organization you want (union, AARP, whatever) and heed their advice with regards to your political decisions. Organizations are free to espouse any ideas that they want. "Free speech" would not be impaired.

Money in politics is a complex problem blurred by years of enmeshment and deliberate suppression of facts. There are no easy answers and no single solution. Is this why you are pointing out how difficult the process is? Or to inspire apathy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeevr 
 ...There are no easy answers and no single solution. Is this why you are pointing out how difficult the process is? Or to inspire apathy?

  I'm not here for a fight, I'm just a history geek. What have I written to offend you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsleysage 

Note: This may be really disturbing to those who aren't aware of it.

 

I learned today that Women for Romney is hosting a fundraiser cum birthday party for Ann Romney in conjunction with a guy named Fred Malek.  Malek was arrested in 1959 for cruelty to animals because he and four other men killed, skinned, and barbecued a dog.  They were stopped by park police because their car and clothing was covered in animal blood.  The charges against Fred Malek were later dismissed because one of the guys confessed to it and Malek said he was drunk, and therefore wasn't "involved" or "in a position to stop it." Here is a Washington Post article with more information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001843.html

 

Do you think that at the very least it's unwise for a man who has already had to answer to accusations of animal neglect (due to the whole dog in a crate on the roof thing) to be fundraising with this type of person? 

 

Do you think it makes him unfit, ethically, for the office of President?

 

 

No more than it makes Mr. Obama's references in his autobiography to eating dog meat as a child makes him unfit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 

No more than it makes Mr. Obama's references in his autobiography to eating dog meat as a child makes him unfit.

I don't think that being fed dog meat as a child in Indonesia is in any way the same as a grown man driving with his dog on the roof for 12 hours. 

I agree, it is not the same.  I think that everybody who lives and breathes has something undesirable in their past. Those things don't necessarily make an unethical person and someone unfit for public offce, even the presidency.  The story I read said that Malek and his friends were drunk and that was in 1959, fifty three years ago.  IMHO, it needs to be left in the past and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not people should associate with him.  As for Mr. Romney putting his dog on the car, I don't like that either.  I don't even like to see people drive around in pickup trucks with their dog loose in the back. But if I associate with somebody who does either one, I don't think it makes me unethical. In my past I have done some stupid stuff too, but it didn't involve dogs or cats. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 

I agree, it is not the same.  I think that everybody who lives and breathes has something undesirable in their past. Those things don't necessarily make an unethical person and someone unfit for public offce, even the presidency.  The story I read said that Malek and his friends were drunk and that was in 1959, fifty three years ago.  IMHO, it needs to be left in the past and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not people should associate with him.  As for Mr. Romney putting his dog on the car, I don't like that either.  I don't even like to see people drive around in pickup trucks with their dog loose in the back. But if I associate with somebody who does either one, I don't think it makes me unethical. In my past I have done some stupid stuff too, but it didn't involve dogs or cats. LOL

So we agree. LOL! I wasn't disputing any of what you just said, just that being fed dog as a child doesn't compare to something one does on purpose as an adult.