He's a reliable conservative apologist.

Personally, I don't like dogs but I would never stand on one, and I definitely wouldn't post a picture of a family member (especially if I were the parent, and hence, the one responsible for bring up said family member) standing on a dog. I don't really care about PETA in this case. I'm disgusted just hearing about this photo.

At least normal sized ones. Guess what? A child can stand on an adult human. An adult human can stand on an adult human. A child can also stand on a normal sized dog and the dog will not care. If the dog does care, guess what? It moves. All these supposed dog lovers who have never owned dogs claim faux outrage joining with a nut group like PETA.

Palin was applauding the action of her son using a lesser creature as a "stepping stone" to get what he wanted. In her world view, and as with the majority of RWers and all Ayn Rand disciples, climbing on the backs of those they consider beneath them in order to achieve their goals is not only accepted but encouraged.

While I understand the outrage that many feel in viewing this as inhumane treatment of the dog, the fact is that the physical treatment of dog is really seconday in this story to the message Palin was attempting to convey to her followers.

They are using "a lesser creature" to get what they want. The metaphor is silly.

She was the one who was attempting to wax poetic about "stepping stones" and ostensibly about individual self determination, but by using her son and the animal as a prop in the manner she did it just illustrates her RW mindset that anyone is fair game to be used in any manner to achieve ones objectives.

Horses and donkeys have been bred for centuries to do the various tasks that humans utilize them for, and unless they are being mistreated in some way I do not see anything wrong with their partnership status in the tasks they do. Dogs on the other hand have not been bred to be used as step stools, so your attempt at justifying this particular scenario is a failure.

If the dog in he Palin picture or the dog in the Ellen Degeneres picture felt uncomfortable they would have moved. Another poster here claimed the dog's ribs would be broken. Dogs are not dumb. They are not going to just sit there and have their ribs broken. Ridiculous.

I will take a moment though to address your concern.

Nobody is claiming that dogs are too dumb to extricate themselves from a situation where they are in pain or discomfort. Having cared for many dogs in my lifetime including a female Rottweiler that my kids grew up with and was a significant playmate for them, I can attest to the fact that dogs will put up with a lot but only so much. We never let our kids stand on the dog though for two reasons. First is the risk of injury to the animal if child stepped in the wrong area. Second, and more importantly is that dogs are prone to fight or flight tactics when subjected to pain and either scenario is a danger to the child.

So go on about how innocent and appropriate it is for Palin to allow her son to jump about on their dog's body and completely miss what she was actually saying in her message.

One from Palin and one from Ellen DeGeneres. In neither picture did anyone "jump about on their dog's body". You are totally creating new "facts" to fit your argument. Second I don't care what Palin's message is. I have not listened to her since 2008 and will not start now. Why some people are so fascinated with her that they post every little comment by her, I don't know. She has been totally irrelevant to this country's politics for 6 years now.

It's informative as to their mindset and what motivates them.

Apparently you think enough of her to defend her use of animal mistreatment to make a philosophical point, but I suppose we all gravitate toward what is most important to us.

BTW, Ellen didn't post that viewer's photo trying to make a statement, President Obama was a child in Indonesia, and Mayor De Blasio didn't murder a ground hog regardless of what sources you get your information from say to the contrary.

Why are you trying to attribute things to me that I have not said? Are you trying to influence other posters and hope they don't notice?

BTW, although you are trying to speak for Ellen, you don't. Neither you or I have any idea why she posted the picture. You are not in her head.

Funny that.

And seeing how Palin's defensive remarks started with equating what she did with what Ellen did (no comparison really), and continued with Palin taking shots at President Obama and Mayor De Blasio, and seeing how you were following the same path, I preemptively addressed the two additional citations that Palin used in the off chance that you would follow suit.

Now in regard to "trying to speak for Ellen", I don't have to as she posted a viewer supplied photo and simply commented that it was cute. No additional editorializing about how it showed great intestinal fortitude and strength of character to climb up on the dog's back, just that it was a cute photo. She caught flak for it at the time, but as far as I know she didn't run around saying how bad the republicans were for things they had done.

As for "trying to influence other posters", I'm just debating a topic with you. Other posters will glean from the responses you make that which seems logical to them.

BTW, what seems odd to me is that throughout this discussion I have repeatedly gone back to the real reason Palin posted the photo in the first place. You being the insightful person you are must surely have read her original post instigating all of this and have formed your own opinion regarding her message. I know you mentioned that she's irrelevant and that you don't listen to what she says, but seeing as how you've gone to great lengths to defend her choices in animal welfare, I thought perhaps you would have some thought provoking ideas on that subject. Just in case you haven't had a chance to read it, and can't find it, here it is:

Now that you are caught you run away. Other posters can see what you tried to do. Other posters posted the dog in Ellen's page commented on it. It has been mixed in with these discussions even if you ignore that.

And based on all of your previous comments, I felt it incumbent upon me to do so. Nobody in this discussion mentioned Ellen's post until you.

I'm not running away from anything, I've responded to all of your posts and I'll keep going as long as you want. You on the other hand want to continue focusing on why you believe Palin is faultless in posting the photo of her dog being at the very minimum mishandled, yet steadfastly evade commenting on Palin's true reason for posting this in the first place. Why is that?

I don't care why Ellen posted or commented on the picture. If you want to hang on Palin's every word go for it.

Have a nice evening.

Another attempt by you to put words in my mouth. I guess that says it all. You are right there.

Anyone can scroll through the twelve posts you've made so far and see your defense of Palin on the issue of whether it's animal abuse or not. What they won't see of course is you commenting on what her actual message was. You refuse to do that. Why?

Or the life of anyone else significant. If she is in yours then comment away. Yes, the posters can see how you tried to put false words in my mouth.

You do an excellent job all by your lonesome.

Save that for someone who is, if you can find any.

You should try it.

Not fake people on the internet. You should try it.

brag about it. I have no desire to deal with my dog having broken ribs, or moving dumping the kid off. I also will not join Peta as they seldom represent how I feel.

Sarah was wrong. She risked both the dog and Trig's safety.

The kids are not allowed to stand on the dogs. If they did stand on the dogs, I certainly wouldn't take a picture of it and post it on facebook like it was some cute thing - I'd make them get off the dog. If you really want an informed opinion, ask a vet to look at the picture and tell you how much could go wrong, and why adults are supposed to be the smart ones in the room.

PETA is irrelevant to the whole argument.

My 100 pound black lab will turn 17 next month and has never needed to see a vet for anything that entire time. I don't need to ask a vet anything.

wow

You certainly do pretend to speak for many people...

I have never seen you make that post about all the other posters here who claim to speak for all Democrats or all the people in NYC or all poor people or all women or all AAs. How come you are not busy making this post hundreds of times a day on DU?

Growing up it was Great Danes, in my adulthood Akitas (in my family we never had anything smaller than a standard Snauzer but mostly Great Danes).

I like big dogs (and I cannot lie) but I would never ever allow my child to stand on a dog (or a human) and take a picture then create a motivational message from it. I have more respect for living beings than apparently Palin or others have.

Here's the "nut group" response:

You're right, it's really out there.

that is nuts.

If a child got on top of my large dog I would tell them to get off. Not because I thought the dog would be injured but children need to be taught to respect animals. I would not take pictures of it and post crap on FB because I don't do that shit. I am not someone who puts every moment of my life on FB.

But the Palin picture was not "animal cruelty" as some are charging. That is ridiculous.

That's not to say other animal rights activists haven't but it's not been a PETA specific campaign. What PETA does do with fur coats that are donated to them is turn around and give them to the homeless or uses the donated fur coats during protests, which are painted with red paint.

Source: I used to work for PETA (I'm not a PETA supporter by the way but I can't stand misinformation).

happen. Clearly, you're the one who doesn't know anything about dogs.

succeeded at were, once again, dragging Pres. O into a totally unrelated topic (when she said "at least our family doesn't eat dogs", referencing O's childhood in Indonesia) and giving PETA more publicity.
Both sides can have at it as far as I'm concerned. I'm nowhere close to being a fan of PETA nor Palin.

She has the momentum, she has the power, she should do it!

Only kind of kidding. I'd love to see her toss her hat in in 2016, just because she does nothing but help our side in a national race and it's always entertaining. Sadly, I think even she knows how pitifully she'd be trounced in a national race now. Ah, but I can dream.

Then when you crush its liver the kid is sad. Lets not encourage animal cruelty.

I hope not, although it's crappy enough to host him. NAVARRETTE is what media call a "non-traditional" opinionast, meaning that he does not represent his home ethnic group. It's another media gimmick like false equivalency to dig up turds who do NOT represent their group, like it's a sign of "originality."

He's of the Clarence THOMAS/Ben CARSON school of benefitting from "White Liberal males" whom he says he hates, those "White Liberal males" who conceived Affirmative Action and whatever other hand-up programs. Funny how the elite schools that wingnuts detest did not manage to indoctrinate these a-holes into being Libs but instead turned out these wingnut a-holes.

We used to have a great DUer, "Maestro," who personally knew and debated NAVARRETTE, Linda CHAVEZ, and whatever other such sell-outs.

She is a loudmouth with a big following, she likes to thing she is important so she continually puts herself out there to be laughed at.

No one won or lost anything, except maybe some IQ points, and hopefully for CNN some viewers.

like her or hate her but how can one politically attack a person that isn't in politics and hasn't been for years and years.

She has some kind of following. I wouldn't let someone stand on a dog. I've owned dogs for 60 years. I have 5 big dogs now. I would not let a kid stand on any of them. I wouldn't want to teach a kid it was ok to stand on a dog.