or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Ann Romney's birthday hosted by guy who barbecued a dog
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

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?

post #2 of 28
I think 1959 was a long time ago, and people shouldn't have thngs that happened 50 years ago held against them. If they've changed, anyway.

Plus, when you think about it, there's really no diffference between barbequeing a dog and barbequeing a pig, is there? :/
Edited by Willowy - 4/13/12 at 11:58am
post #3 of 28
According to Fred Malek, Then and Now , written by the same author in 2006, Malek's more recent past is unsavory, too.

In 2010, the story also came up on Slate,
What's the Matter With Virginia? Part 2: Fred Malek's anti-Semitic past makes him unfit to chair a state government panel

and in the New York Times,
Return of the Secret Donors

Nixon and his reelection campaign? My generation certainly hasn't forgotten Watergate.
post #4 of 28

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.

post #5 of 28

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.  

post #6 of 28

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

 

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

post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

 

 

Quote:

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

 

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

Well, that was already brought up during Obama's first campaign, as was everything in his closet - real and imagined.



 

post #8 of 28

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. 

post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

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.
 

 

post #10 of 28

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

post #11 of 28

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

post #12 of 28

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/

post #13 of 28
Since Mike mentioned fabricated stories, I guess this won't be too OT. It's a definite fabrication, nasty, but funny:
The Real Romney
Quote:
Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia and several other swing states. He emerged, hair first, believing in America, and especially its national parks. He was given the name Mitt, after the Roman god of mutual funds, and launched into the world with the lofty expectation that he would someday become the Arrow shirt man.

Romney was a precocious and gifted child. He uttered his first words (“I like to fire people”) at age 14 months, made his first gaffe at 15 months and purchased his first nursery school at 24 months. The school, highly leveraged, went under, but Romney made 24 million Jujubes on the deal.
...
After his mission, he attended Harvard, studying business, law, classics and philosophy, though intellectually his first love was always tax avoidance. After Harvard, he took his jawline to Bain Consulting, a firm with very smart people with excessive personal hygiene. While at Bain, he helped rescue many outstanding companies, like Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Atari and DeLorean.
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeevr View Post

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...

post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeevr View Post ...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?

post #16 of 28

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.


Edited by aeevr - 8/28/12 at 1:18pm
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeevr View Post

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.
Isn't it necessary for organizations to shield their members from personal liability of the actions of the organization? I would hate to be held personally liable for the actions of any organization I belong to/any company I own shares in. Now, the decision makers should have some personal liability. But not your average member/shareholder. I wouldn't join any organizations or buy any shares if I thought that would open me to personal liability.

A corporation can be any kind of entity. Non-profits are frequently corporations. It's a description of how they're operated, not what their intent is. I know 3 people who own a business together and have formed a corporation.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post


Isn't it necessary for organizations to shield their members from personal liability of the actions of the organization?
No. 
I would hate to be held personally liable for the actions of any organization I belong to/any company I own shares in.
Yes, wouldn't we all - Especially if we are not made aware of all the inner workings of said organization.
A corporation can be any kind of entity. Non-profits are frequently corporations. It's a description of how they're operated, not what their intent is. I know 3 people who own a business together and have formed a corporation.
I didn't say forming corporations should be made illegal (is that what you are implying? I'm not sure)
post #19 of 28
No, I didn't think anything about corporations being illegal. Just that they aren't always big evil profit factories tongue.gif.
post #20 of 28

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.

post #21 of 28

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?

post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeevr View Post
 ...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?

post #23 of 28
safety-5.gif
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsleysage View Post

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.

post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post

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. 

post #26 of 28

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

post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subvet642 View Post

. 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.

Citizens United, the case you are referring to, did not concern any ban on political speech by anyone. It concerned the validity of limits on just how much money corporations and unions can pour into political campaigns -- and in effect how much their messages dominate the political conversation, because more money means more airtime for their commercials. Citizens United removed all limits on that money, so now they can yell as loud as they want -- and because they generally have the most money, they will essentially drown out everyone else.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Ann Romney's birthday hosted by guy who barbecued a dog