HDR News Alert! Hitler Reacts to “Doggate”
HDR Readers…Special Breaking News! Der Fuhrer just learned that Barack Obama ate dogs. He is not happy. Was there a shortage of arugula? How about lobster? As you know, Mitt Romney has now been branded unable to empathize and to be…well…human because the family dog rode on the roof of the car (Gee – I sure remember this happening quite a lot back in the day, but I digress.) Anyhow, how can someone possibly be fit for public office if he’s done such a thing? Apparently, eating dog is OK though. But Hitler is upset.
Everyone should be required to drive his or her dog around like this!!!!! In a limo. 
Or at least a bullet-proof SUV. With a personal driver. And a police escort. And Secret Service protection. As David Axelrod wrote, “How loving owners transport their dogs.” Sure, David. Can you say “BACKFIRE“?????? How about “EPIC FAIL“?????
4 Responses to “HDR News Alert! Hitler Reacts to “Doggate””
Recent Comments
 | giliar on Honor the Fallen |
 | charlieboc on Honor the Fallen |
| giliar on London, Terrorism, and Crusadi… |
 | Carl on London, Terrorism, and Crusadi… |
| Carl on Teeter Totter |
HDR’s Creator – Gilia R
1. Der Fuehrer was indeed a dog lover–he has a famous German shepherd named “Blondie”–as well as a vegetarian.
2. The Nazis introduced some strong animal welfare laws in the Reich: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm
3. Despite his statement in the video about cats, that law forbade “set[ting] or test[ing] the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals” and required that “[e]xperiments on horses, dogs, cats, and apes can only be carried out when the intended goal may not be achieved through experiments on other animals”.
4. That said, the attack on Romney remains valid. Think about it, and think about it this way: If the species in question was a rabbit, pig, or bovine, no one would try to make anything of Obama’s action. Eating such animals is generally accepted, yet Romney doing something comparable to his actions with them would still be seen as a negative. Conservatives are being short-minded to seriously attempting this tack, the result in part of their inability to feel for other creatures even the sympathy felt by Nazis. So–though it’s “probably not the best analogy to use in this circumstance”–sorry, that dog won’t hunt.
FYI….it was common to travel with dogs this way. In current times, do you hear outcries condemning people for letting dogs ride in the beds of pick-up trucks when they could easily jump out? How about people who let their dogs hang out of car windows when vehicles are moving? In reality, this way is safer because the dog is in a kennel. Conservatives don’t feel for other creatures? Way off base here. The entire point of this post was to show yet again the hypocrisy of Obama and his supporters. And how they are grasping at any ridiculous story to divert attention from the real problems facing this country. This one backfired big-time. I guess Axelrod didn’t read Obama’s book.
Perhaps if I saw the exact setup, I’d have a different opinion. However, without further info, I cannot condone having a living creature ride in a slipstream like that.
That said, using Obama eating some Rover-roast as a counter is dumb. People do eat animals, even doggies (though I would ban this, along with eating cats and horses, as part of American hegemony in the world), and it’s not generally considered cruel. Say what you will about Romney’s action, Obama’s was at worst no worse in the eyes of an objective meat-eater. There is no hypocrisy in Axelrod’s shot. A bit of desperation, possibly, but no hypocrisy. The inconsistency lies with Obama’s opponents here, as my alternate-species scenario demonstrates.
My comment about conservatives tending to be less feeling is based on how defensive so many get when animal welfare is brought up. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the exceptions, yet I wonder how many conservatives would turn on him if they knew he received awards from HSUS and other explicitly “animal RIGHTS” groups. Too many conservatives look at such things only from the perspective of how it would affect themselves. That’s the “introspective” nature of conservatism. Because of this, they have trouble thinking about the effect of actions on others. They look at Romney’s actions and evaluate them based on, “What if that had been me in Romney’s place?” I, on the other hand, give at least a small consideration to, “What if that had been me on Romney’s car top?” Likewise a dog in the back of a pickup can hunker down to avoid the wind and act not to jump out, though I do appreciate a legitimate concern there.
BTW, just yesterday I transported a large doggy. A suitable carrier for it would not fit into the passenger compartment of the vehicle, thus she rode as a human passenger would. I had a window open, and she occasionally stuck her head out. It was her choice, as was bringing it back in after a few seconds. Romney’s dog had no choice, regardless of the effect the wind had on the animal. Again, I’d want to see the full setup before passing final judgment, but there is a major difference here, which becomes apparent when examining the issue beyond the immediate and the personal.
Some perspective: you are judging what happened with Romney’s dog by today’s standards. This happened in 1983. Heck, wearing seat belts wasn’t even mandatory until 1984. So picture a family of seven (5 kids plus parents) traveling in a car to Canada. Car….not SUV because they didn’t have those in 1983 either. The car was likely a station wagon but still, there were 7 people inside. Seamus the dog was an Irish Setter. Get the picture now? And as I said before, I remember people traveling like this with dogs frequently. It wasn’t viewed as out-of-the-ordinary or cruel. So I wonder what’s next…Axelrod tweeting how the kids weren’t wearing seat belts and claiming child abuse? Yet another sideshow from the Obama camp to take the focus away from real issues.