You seem to side with the rich city slicker carpetbaggers.
Your language gives you away. The use of the word "rich" as a pejorative implies that it is OK at least in your worldview to plunder him (and doesn't it bother you that this is EXACTLY the same attitude that Obama and his followers have?) Further your derogatory "city slicker carpetbagger" shows a distinct prejudice against the guy.
Hawn wasn't real neighborly.
Again you're defining "neighborly" the way Obama defines it take something from someone against their will and give it to someone else. Again not something I'd want to be tarred with.
It is intellectually dishonest, though a common tactic of the left and their Libertarian patsies, to take a position that you disagree with and try to associate it with something you can be assured which the other party to the debate opposes. This is the “If you are against high rise buildings you must be for Osama Bin Laden” argument; or in this case, “If you’re against killing stray livestock you’re for Barak Obama”.
I wouldn’t think that anyone like you, who so vocally supports the M.E.Ch.A./Aztlan movement and their bison hunting rights would be so negative toward anyone who supports Obama. You must know that your friends in M.E.Ch.A. have endorsed the Anointed One.
(See, it works both ways.)