James Harrison is not a bright person

[DeToxRox]

It might not seem like that big a deal but where the hell has this guy been since he got into the league?

James Harrison Won’t Go To The White House
Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2009, 1:58 p.m.

When the Pittsburgh Steelers visit the White House next week, they’ll do it without one of the men primarily responsible for their sixth Super Bowl title: Linebacker James Harrison.

“This is how I feel — if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don’t win the Super Bowl,” Harrison said. “As far as I’m concerned, [Obama] would’ve invited Arizona if they had won.”

Um.

Um.

Um.

James, are you OK? Have you suffered any recent blunt trauma to the brain box?

It’s a ritual in this country that the major-league teams winning championships are invited to the White House for a visit.

So, yeah, the invitation applies only to the Super Bowl champs. It’s one of the things that make the accomplishment special.

And, no, the President doesn’t have the time or the desire to invite the 31 teams that didn’t win the Super Bowl to conduct seven-on-sevens in the Rose Garden. (After all, that might cut into the time he has allotted to work on his NCAA brackets.)

But, hey, at least we now have a better understanding of how the Steelers got Harrison to sign a long-term deal worth only $51 million.

[Danny]

I was going to post this, he's a great football player, but wow is he an idiot.

[jeff061]

He seems to think Pittsburgh should be recognized as a better team than the rest for reasons other than football.

Oh well, so he's an idiot. There are worse things to be. Like a Manning.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by jeff061

He seems to think Pittsburgh should be recognized as a better team than the rest for reasons other than football.

Oh well, so he's an idiot. There are worse things to be. Like a Man

Feminist!

[Chief Rum]

It seems to me his point is not about getting non-Super Bowl teams to be invited to the White House, it is because he thinks Obama wanted the Cardinals to win, so he's making a stand on that, that he doesn't want to go to the White House and meet a President that didn't pick his team.

Which I think is a silly reaction, considering, dude, it's a trip to the White House to meet the freakin' President, but at least somewhat more understandable.

I can't actually recall if Obama announced who he was rooting for, although he probably did.

[Danny]

BTW, while he is not the brightest bulb, I'm betting this attitude has helped him succeed in the NFL. Definitely seems like he has a constant chip on his shoulder.

[DaddyTorgo]

wow - what an idiot

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It seems to me his point is not about getting non-Super Bowl teams to be invited to the White House, it is because he thinks Obama wanted the Cardinals to win, so he's making a stand on that, that he doesn't want to go to the White House and meet a President that didn't pick his team.

Which I think is a silly reaction, considering, dude, it's a trip to the White House to meet the freakin' President, but at least somewhat more understandable.

I can't actually recall if Obama announced who he was rooting for, although he probably did.

Obama was rooting for the Steelers. Also considering his relationship with Rooney, I'm not sure your interpretation is correct.

Obama's Big Endorsement: Steelers Over Cardinals in Super Bowl - US News and World Report

[stevew]

He didn't go last time either. Silverback is the best outside linebacker I've seen play so I hope he stays pissed off. Now that he's rich.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by yacovfb

Obama was rooting for the Steelers. Also considering his relationship with Rooney, I'm not sure your interpretation is correct.

Obama's Big Endorsement: Steelers Over Cardinals in Super Bowl - US News and World Report

Then I don't know what's got his bug up his butt. He seems to think Obama wanted the Cards to win. Why he would think that, you tell me.

FWIW, I don't think Obama's relationship with Rooney or Tomlin has anything at all to do with whatever stance Harrison is trying to make.

[CU Tiger]

idk.....I guess I can kinda see where he is coming from. The President is no more a man than he is....why should he feel honored to be in his presence. Obama didnt invite him cause he likes them its like a meat show. If you win you can come here...seems a bit excessive but Ian kinda see his point I guess in a weird football mind sense.

[Logan]

It's a tradition, across all major sports (pro and college).

The second half of his quote shows what a fucking moron he is. Really, as far as you're concerned? Thanks for the revelation homes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

idk.....I guess I can kinda see where he is coming from. The President is no more a man than he is....why should he feel honored to be in his presence. Obama didnt invite him cause he likes them its like a meat show. If you win you can come here...seems a bit excessive but Ian kinda see his point I guess in a weird football mind sense.

It's his decision and I don't think people should make a big deal out of it. But personally, no matter who is in the White House, if you get an offer to go there and throw the pigskin around with the President, you do it. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many and I think it's foolish for anyone to skip an invite like that.

[Galaxy]

So Presidents aren't suppose to have favorite teams like the rest of the world?

[DeToxRox]

I just think he's an idiot because it's a tradition that the winners visit the White House. He acts like this is some new thing.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's his decision and I don't think people should make a big deal out of it. But personally, no matter who is in the White House, if you get an offer to go there and throw the pigskin around with the President, you do it. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many and I think it's foolish for anyone to skip an invite like that.

I don't know about that. Isaac Asimov turned down an invitation to the Reagan white house but at least he said it was for ideological reasons. I don't recall a backlash. Had Harrison had the same, or even a coherent reason, I doubt he'd get much flack.

I'm not criticizing his decision but instead his really weird explanation of his reason, which made no sense to me.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So Presidents aren't suppose to have favorite teams like the rest of the United States?

Fixed that for yah and if this was my weird azz view not Harrison's I'd likely say, sure, let him have a favorite and as soon as my team is the Prez's favorite, I'll show up at his crib. Otherwise, why bother?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't know about that. Isaac Asimov turned down an invitation to the Reagan white house but at least he said it was for ideological reasons. I don't recall a backlash. Had Harrison had the same, or even a coherent reason, I doubt he'd get much flack.

I'm not criticizing his decision but instead his really weird explanation of his reason, which made no sense to me.

I agree with his idiocy being the reason for the backlash. I still think you should visit the White House if you're invited. I don't know the reasons behind Asimov's rejection. If they wanted to use him for political reasons and he was against them, I understand it.

But when you get called to the White House because you are being honored for something, it's just stupid to not. I just hate when people use ideological arguments when the reason you are being invited and honored has nothing to do with politics or ideology.

I didn't like Bush as a President, but if he invited me to the White House, you bet your ass I'd be out there.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't know about that. Isaac Asimov turned down an invitation to the Reagan white house but at least he said it was for ideological reasons. I don't recall a backlash. Had Harrison had the same, or even a coherent reason, I doubt he'd get much flack.

I'm not criticizing his decision but instead his really weird explanation of his reason, which made no sense to me.

This is how I feel also. I think it would be stupid to turn down an opportunity like this. If you had different political views I guess there is at least some sort of principle being stood for. (Except Mark Chumura who has to be the biggest dumbass ever. Refuses to visit President Clinton because he had an affair and then cheats on his wife with a babysitter that is not even of age!!!)

But Harrison's reason seems to be that he thinks that the sitting president should invite their favorite teams to the White House and not the Super Bowl winner. And not only that but he sounds like he thinks 2009 is the first time this has ever happened. It would be like a revelation along the lines of "The president seems to be selecting cabinet members from his own political party." "The league really likes it when the big market teams make the Super Bowl" How does he not know of this tradition?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't know about that. Isaac Asimov turned down an invitation to the Reagan white house but at least he said it was for ideological reasons. I don't recall a backlash. Had Harrison had the same, or even a coherent reason, I doubt he'd get much flack.

I'm not criticizing his decision but instead his really weird explanation of his reason, which made no sense to me.

It's an honor based on the status of the office, not the person holding the office. Even an ideological reason would be a BS reason. If I ran into Bill Clinton at McDonald's, I would be respectful and think it was cool based on his status as a former President, and leave the ideological stuff for messageboards.

But this guy is clearly a moron.

[RainMaker]

He did invite his favorite basketball team earlier in the year. The Bulls spent a day at the White House when they were in D.C.

[Swaggs]

His agent and accountants had probably just gotten done telling him how much of that signing bonus was going to disappear to taxes.

[Drake]

Harrison is lucky the rest of America doesn't say, "Hey, those guys playing professional sports are just men like the rest of us...why should I pay to go watch them play when they don't pay to come watch me do *my* job?"

When you start feeling disrespected because someone is more popular/powerful than you, you've got serious self-esteem issues.

But as noted above, if having self-esteem issues and the consequent chip on his shoulder makes him a better football player, then I'm all for it.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I thought this was going to be about a different James Harrison, but apparently they all seem to have a dumbass level slightly above average. Good thing he can play football.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Wait, am I missing something here? It seems to me that Harrison is mad that they're only inviting the Steelers because the Steelers won, not because they're the Pittsburgh Steelers. Not seeing where it has anything to do with who Obama wanted to win or because Harrison has anything against Obama. But maybe I'm missing something.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by stevew

He didn't go last time either. Silverback is the best outside linebacker I've seen play so I hope he stays pissed off. Now that he's rich.

You must be a youngin'

Silver-dork doesn't hold Lawrence Taylor's jock when it comes to talent. Please.

[larrymcg421]

Is Harrison gonna give up his Superbowl ring? I mean, the NFL gave them to the Steelers because they scored more points than the Cardinals in the Superbowl, not because they're the Steelers. If the Cardinals scored more points, then I bet the NFL would've given the rings to them.

[Captain2711]

The Yankees went earlier this year too and we all know they haven't one jack in years. I'm not sure if the President was there at the time though

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's an honor based on the status of the office, not the person holding the office. Even an ideological reason would be a BS reason. If I ran into Bill Clinton at McDonald's, I would be respectful and think it was cool based on his status as a former President, and leave the ideological stuff for messageboards.

But this guy is clearly a moron.

What am I missing? The POTUS is a job, just like mine or yours. I am not bowing down for any President. If Obama, Bush, Bush Sr, Clinton or any other living President walked into my office he'd sit and wait until I was available... guess I'm not as star struck as I am supposed to be. You do realize he is a man, right? Whats status of the office? What did the POTUS do to deserve that status? Now show me an independent self made business man Ill show respect..... a figure head who was propped up by a political majority...no thanks.

[Karlifornia]

He may be a moron, but at least he's consistent.

[MikeVic]

Way to stick it to the man Harrison!

[Axxon]

Because I like Ike and because it still is a super read.

"The Reagan Doctrine" by Isaac Asimov
---

The Reagan Doctrine by Isaac Asimov
From The Austin American-Statesman, May 10, 1981

Some time ago, Ronald Reagan pointed out that one couldn't trust the Soviet government because the Soviets didn't believe in God or in an afterlife and therefore had no reason to behave honorably, but would be willing to lie and cheat and do all sorts of wicked things to aid their cause. Naturally, I firmly believe that the president of the United States knows what he is talking about, so I've done my very best to puzzle out the meaning of that statement.

Let me begin by presenting this "Reagan Doctrine" (using the term with all possible respect): "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." If this is true (and it must be if the president says so), then people are just naturally dishonest and crooked and downright rotten. In order to keep them from lying and cheating every time they open their mouths, they must be bribed or scared out of doing so. They have to be told and made to believe that if they tell the truth and do the right thing and behave themselves, they will go to heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos. They must also be told and made to believe that if they lie and steal and run around with the opposite sex, they are going to hell and will roast over a brimstone fire forever.

It's a little depressing, if you come to think of it. By the Reagan Doctrine, there is no such thing as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which decency exists.

Instead, according to the Reagan Doctrine, anytime we meet someone who pays his debts, or hands in a wallet he found in the street, or stops to help a blind man cross the road, or tells a casual truth -- he's just buying himself a ticket to heaven, or else canceling out a demerit that might send him to hell. It's all a matter of good, solid business practice; a matter of turning a spiritual profit and of responding prudently to spiritual blackmail.

Personally, I don't think that I -- or you -- or even president Reagan -- would knock down an old lady and snatch her purse the next time we're short a few bucks. If only we were sure of that heavenly choir, or if only we were certain we wouldn't get into that people-fry down in hell. But by the Reagan Doctrine, if we didn't believe in God and in an afterlife, there would be nothing to stop us, so l guess we all would.

But let's take the reverse of the Reagan Doctrine. If no one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted, it seems to follow that those who do believe in God and in an afterlife can be trusted. Since the American government consists of god-fearing people who believe in an afterlife, it seems pretty significant that the Soviet Union nevertheless would not trust us any farther than they can throw an ICBM. Since the Soviets are slaves to godless communism, they would naturally think everyone else is as evil as they are. Consequently, the Soviet Union's distrust of us is in accordance with the Reagan Doctrine.

Yet there are puzzles. Consider Iran. The Iranians are a god-fearing people and believe in an afterlife, and this is certainly true of the mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise their government. And yet we are reluctant to trust them for some reason. President Reagan himself has referred to the Iranian leaders as "barbarians."

Oddly enough, the Iranians are reluctant to trust us, either. They referred to the ex-president (I forget his name for he is never mentioned in the media anymore) as the "Great Satan" and yet we all know that the ex- president was a born-again Christian.

There's something wrong here. god-fearing Americans and god-fearing Iranians don't trust each other and call each other terrible names. How does that square with the Reagan Doctrine?

To be sure, the God in whom the Iranians believe is not quite the God in whom we believe, and the afterlife they believe in is a little different from ours. There are no houris, alas, in our heaven. We call our system of belief Christianity and they call theirs Islam, and come to think of it, for something like twelve centuries, good Christians believed Islam was an invention of the devil and believers in Islam ("Moslems") courteously returned the compliment so that there was almost continuous war between them. Both sides considered it a holy war and felt that the surest way of going to heaven was to clobber an infidel. What's more, you didn't have to do it in a fair and honorable way, either. Tickets of admission just said, "Clobber!"

This bothers me a little. The Reagan Doctrine doesn't mention the variety of god or afterlife that is concerned. It doesn't indicate that it matters what you call God -- Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Zeus, Ishtar. I don't think that president Reagan meant to imply a Moslem couldn't trust a Shintoist or that a Buddhist couldn't trust a Parsee. I think it was just the godless Soviets he was after.

Yet perhaps he was just being cautious in not mentioning the fact that the variety of deity counted. But even if that were so there are problems.

For instance, the Iranians are Moslems and the Iraqi are Moslems. Both are certain that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet and believe it with all their hearts. And yet, at the moment, Iraq doesn't trust Iran worth a damn, and Iran trusts Iraq even less than that. If fact, Iran is convinced that Iraq is in the pay of the Great Satan (that's god-fearing America, in case you've forgotten) and Iraq counters with the accusation that it is Iran who is in the pay of the great Satan. Neither side is accusing the godless Soviets of anything, which is a puzzle.

But then, you know, they are Moslems and perhaps we can't just go along with any old god. I can see why Reagan might not like to specify, since it might not be good presidential business to offend the billions of people who are sincerely religious but lack the good taste to be Christians. Still, just among ourselves, and in a whisper, perhaps the only people you can really trust are good Christians.

Yet even that raises difficulties. For instance, I doubt that anyone can seriously maintain that the Irish people are anything but god-fearing, and certainly they don't have the slightest doubts concerning the existence of an afterlife. Some are Catholics and some are Protestants, but both of these Christian varieties believe in the Bible and in God and in Jesus and in heaven and in hell. Therefore, by the Reagan Doctrine, the people of Ireland should trust each other.

Oddly enough, they don't. In Northern Ireland there has been a two-sided terrorism that has existed for years and shows no sign of ever abating. Catholics and Protestants blow each other up every chance they get and there seems to be no indication of either side trusting the other even a little bit.

But then, come to think of it, Catholics and Protestants have had a thing about each other for centuries. They have fought each other, massacred each other, and burned each other at the stake. And at no time was this conflict fought in a gentlemanly, let's-fight-fair manner. Any time you caught a heretic or an idolater (or whatever nasty name you wanted to use) looking the other way, you sneaked up behind him and bopped him and collected your ticket to heaven.

We can't even make the Reagan Doctrine show complete sense here in the United States. Consider the Ku Klux Klan. They don't like the Jews or the Catholics, but then, the Jews don't accept Jesus and the Catholics do accept the Pope, and these fine religious distinctions undoubtedly justify distrust by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine. The protestant Ku Klux Klan can only cotton to Protestants.

Blacks, however, are predominantly protestant, and of southern varieties, too, for that is where their immediate ancestors learned their religion. Ku Kluxers and Blacks have very similar religions and therefore even by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine should trust each other. It is difficult to see why they don't.

What about the Moral Majority? They're absolute professionals when it comes to putting a lot of stock in God and in an afterlife. They practice it all day, apparently. Naturally, they're a little picky. One of them said that God didn't listen to the prayers of a Jew. Another refused to share a platform with Phyllis Schlafly, the moral majority's very own sweetheart, because she was a Catholic. Some of them don't even require religious disagreements, just political ones. They have said that one can't be a liberal and a good Christian at one and the same time so that if you don't vote right, you are going straight to hell whatever your religious beliefs are. Fortunately, at every election they will tell you what the right vote is so that you don't go to hell by accident.

Perhaps we shouldn't get into the small details, though. The main thing is that the Soviet Union is Godless and, therefore, sneaky, tricky, crooked, untrustworthy, and willing to stop at nothing to advance their cause. The United States is god-fearing and therefore forthright, candid, honest, trustworthy, and willing to let their cause lose sooner than behave in anything but the most decent possible way.

It bothers the heck out of me therefore that there's probably not a country in the world that doesn't think the United States, through the agency of the CIA and its supposedly underhanded methods, has upset governments in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran (among others), has tried to overthrow the Cuban government by a variety of economic, political, and even military methods, and so on. In every country, you'll find large numbers who claim that the United States fought a cruel and unjust war in Vietnam and that it is the most violent and crime-ridden nation in the world.

They don't seem to be impressed by the fact that we're god-fearing.

Next they'll be saying that Ronald Reagan (our very own president) doesn't know what he's talking about.

hxxp://www.skeptictank.org/isaac.htm

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Now show me an independent self made business man Ill show respect..... a figure head who was propped up by a political majority...no thanks.

That seems insanely naive and short sighted. What if I said "Show me a leader willing to shoulder the problems and decisions of the nation out of a love of service to his country and I'll show respect... but a self made businessman certainly indicates someone willing to scam his own grandmother for a buck... no thanks"


I think they are similarly silly statements.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's an honor based on the status of the office, not the person holding the office. Even an ideological reason would be a BS reason. If I ran into Bill Clinton at McDonald's, I would be respectful and think it was cool based on his status as a former President, and leave the ideological stuff for messageboards.

But this guy is clearly a moron.

Isaac didn't travel much as he was afraid to fly. He only flew twice in his life. He turned down countless invitations to attend events unless they were very close to home. To visit the White House he'd have had to miss several days of work which was the one thing he enjoyed doing. . He certainly wasn't going to travel by train to the white house to visit someone whom he vehemently disagreed ideologically with when there were causes he did agree with that he didn't make that exception for.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Radii

That seems insanely naive and short sighted. What if I said "Show me a leader willing to shoulder the problems and decisions of the nation out of a love of service to his country and I'll show respect... but a self made businessman certainly indicates someone willing to scam his own grandmother for a buck... no thanks"


I think they are similarly silly statements.

Well, since the first part of your statement doesn't exist in nature I'd say this was a more silly statement which in no way should infer that I think that the other statement wasn't silly, just less so than this one.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Is Harrison gonna give up his Superbowl ring? I mean, the NFL gave them to the Steelers because they scored more points than the Cardinals in the Superbowl, not because they're the Steelers. If the Cardinals scored more points, then I bet the NFL would've given the rings to them.

Would love a reporter to point that little nugget out to him.

Great player, but he seems like a colossal jerk that's not that bright. Yeah, I can see how someone thinks how a Manning is worse than that.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Great player, but he seems like a colossal jerk that's not that bright. Yeah, I can see how someone thinks how a Manning is worse than that.

Patriots fans :shrug:

[Lathum]

It's his house, he can invite whoever he wants over.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Patriots fans :shrug:

Yes. And the Manning comment was meant to be taken dead seriously!

[JonInMiddleGA]

This warrants a two page thread?

Seems to me that Harrison is just saying "he doesn't give a rat's ass about us, why the hell would I go?"

If you aren't into the whole novelty aspect of going to the WH or you're an Obama fan then it does seem kind of pointless.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This warrants a two page thread?

Seems to me that Harrison is just saying "he doesn't give a rat's ass about us, why the hell would I go?"

If you aren't into the whole novelty aspect of going to the WH or you're an Obama fan then it does seem kind of pointless.

I'll revisit this post when the thread actually hits two pages.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This warrants a two page thread?

Seems to me that Harrison is just saying "he doesn't give a rat's ass about us, why the hell would I go?"

If you aren't into the whole novelty aspect of going to the WH or you're an Obama fan then it does seem kind of pointless.

That's the closest thing to what I assume he's trying to say. I don't think this makes him stupid, I think it just makes him sound like an egomaniac -- as if he felt he was worthy of being invited to the White House already and didn't need to win the Super Bowl to justify it.

I don't have a problem with someone turning down an invitation to the White House for whatever reason they have. I'm not offended. I do think he sounds pretty full of himself.

[larrymcg421]

“As far as I’m concerned, [Obama] would’ve invited Arizona if they had won.”

This is the part that makes him sound stupid, like he doesn't know it's a tradition and Obama is just trying to be self-serving by having the champs at the White House. He sure would have had the Cardinals if they had won, James. No shit.

[BYU 14]

To add to his ability to verbalize, he is also now a stupid, irresponsible Pet owner as ESPN radio is reporting one of his Pit Bulls attacked his young son.

I don't get this mentality with Pit Bulls, which are very good Dogs if you put the required training and care into them. Obviously too many people, athletes and otherwise get them just for the "tough" persona and have no clue how to raise them.

I sure hope his son is OK, but he looks like a bigger idiot every day.

[molson]

If Obama was really committed to change, he should invite random teams to the White House.

Next week, he can bring in the Florida Panthers.

Then the week after that, he can invite the surviving members of the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by molson

If Obama was really committed to change, he should invite random teams to the White House.

Next week, he can bring in the Florida Panthers.

Then the week after that, he can invite the surviving members of the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA.

In keeping with your fine WCCW dynasty I think the last surviving Von Erich should get an invite as well!

[stevew]

Football was not big around the house when I grew up.

Originally Posted by RendeR

You must be a youngin'

Silver-dork doesn't hold Lawrence Taylor's jock when it comes to talent. Please.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

To add to his ability to verbalize, he is also now a stupid, irresponsible Pet owner as ESPN radio is reporting one of his Pit Bulls attacked his young son.

I don't get this mentality with Pit Bulls, which are very good Dogs if you put the required training and care into them. Obviously too many people, athletes and otherwise get them just for the "tough" persona and have no clue how to raise them.

I sure hope his son is OK, but he looks like a bigger idiot every day.

I'm not sure that's a fair statement.

While I am by no means a pit bull fan, we have on in out building and I refuse to let my dog near it, but there are a lot of kids that get bit by dogs. If the dog was a golden retriever would it be a big deal?

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not sure that's a fair statement.

While I am by no means a pit bull fan, we have on in out building and I refuse to let my dog near it, but there are a lot of kids that get bit by dogs. If the dog was a golden retriever would it be a big deal?

Under normal circumstances, probably not, but I'd wager it would be at the moment regardless of breed simply because of the closeness in timing to his rejecting visiting Obama. Instead of the seriousness of it, though, it'd probably be played somewhat comically as a "cosmic justice" angle of some sort.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not sure that's a fair statement.

While I am by no means a pit bull fan, we have on in out building and I refuse to let my dog near it, but there are a lot of kids that get bit by dogs. If the dog was a golden retriever would it be a big deal?

It may not be based on the circumstances, which I don't know. But Pitbulls are involved in some of the more vicious attacks you hear of and often times it has to do with how they are raised. Other Dogs may bite, but aren't as aggressive in these situations. I don't think I have ever heard of a Golden Retriever or similar breeds mauling anyone.

Pitbulls are given an unfair reputation because of the way so many people raise them. Like a lot of breeds they have quirks that need to be basically "altered" by the way you train them and they can actually be very sweet, docile Dogs.

Along these lines we have two Min Pins and while they will not exactly inspire fear in anyone over the age of 3 they can be quite vicious because of their breeding history if not broke of instinctive habits as Puppies. At one point in time they were basically feral, kept in Barns as Ratting Dogs, with little human contact and they need exposure to strangers and other animals early to alter undesireable behavior patterns.

Again, probably not fair to comment, since I don't know how he raised his Dog, but I certainly think given his opinions and attitudes on the WH and other things it is within reason to speculate that his Dog(s) may not have been handled properly.

The main thing here is that his son is OK and wasn't physically injured too badly.