What A Compassionate President

[blas87]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2010/12/obama_calls_eagles_owner_with.html

I know I get a lock of flack for being a No-Bama hater, but I cannot even fathom how others can't be upset over something like this.

The owner of the Eagles gets a pat on the back for giving Vick a second chance by no other than our commander in chief. Awww, how nice.

Michael Vick may without a doubt be a great athlete, but what he did is morally disgusting and cruel. He is among just the many pro athletes who get off lightly for crimes they commit, then put on a pedastol when they make a return, as if the sun just returned after months of dark clouds and rain.

This is a new low in my opinion. A pat on the back for giving a second chance to criminals, especially high profile athletes. How about a pat on the back for people that continue to fight the fight to keep food on the table, keep their job, and keep themselves out of trouble? How about a pat on the back for the soldiers who are still in the line of fire every day? How about a pat on the back for the families of those soldiers, or wounded veterans? How about a pat on the back for people who have overcame true adversity and true trying times in life, not suffered meager consequences for animal cruelty?

He doesn't even deserve to be spit upon. That'd be a waste of good saliva.

[Rapscallion]

On the purely practical side, I have a feeling that Obama's going to regret this. If Vick goes back to his old ways, this is going to reflect back onto him. If not, he's going to get flak for apparent support for an animal torturer.

I can see where he's coming from. Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Fine, if he's actually rehabilitated, and I have my doubts. On the grounds of rehabilitation, Obama did right. He's backing the system and trying to encourage good behaviour. I relly think he's going to end up with mud on himself not of his own doing, though.

Rapscallion

[blas87]

I would think it rightfully so if he gets a lock of flack and mud for it.

If he wanted to make an example of the good of prison or rehabilitation of criminals, he could have picked any Tom, Dick or Harry who overcame a life of crime or dirty business. Instead he picked a famous athlete notorious for committing cruelty to animals.

Perhaps I listen to too much talk radio, but I have to agree with the personalities that it just instills the opinion that the average American means nothing to him.

[Rapscallion]

I'll point out right now that I have no investment in this topic as the guy's not my president. It's intellectual only.

Instead he picked a famous athlete notorious for committing cruelty to animals.

The US is notoriously christian, and with that comes the baggage of forgiveness. Where does that start and end?

Is it a worse crime because it involved animals? Bernie Madoff - it was only money, right? Not that money is time out of peoples' lives and their futures gone. Which of them was worse?

What other crime would you rank in what order? Which crime is worthy of forgiveness whereas this one isn't? I'm genuinely interested.

Should Vick face more punishment than someone who isn't that well known just because of his fame and infamy? From what I can tell, he received a fairly similar sentence to what others did for the same offence, and then went back into his chosen field for employment. Is he being treated any differently? Does punishment end after the jail term ends, or should it continue after?

I'm not on Vick's side. There's no reason a civilised society should have dog fighting in it. Did he receive sufficient punishment for his crimes? I don't know. That's a matter of opinion, and society has had to come up with a body of people trained and paid to deal with such things in as impartial a manner as possible - politicians to decide on what is a crime and what an acceptable punishment is, and the judiciary to enact those laws. The court of public opinion is fickle and vicious.

I'm not a pet owner, but I'd be quite happy to spend some time alone with a chained up Vick and a cattle prod. That's why we need the judiciary etc.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

That's it exactly: as far as I can tell, he did serve about the same sentence that is normal for that offense. Once served, it's over with.... or ought to be. And I've never understood the "put on a pedestal" mentality, either: is it really so difficult for people to admire some aspects of a person and not others?

[Greenday]

Since when is prison considered special treatment? He got what any other douchebag would who torture dogs and made them fight.

I mean, I don't think picking up a superb athlete and starting him deserves a pat on the back. But in all reality, I couldn't care less. Other than making me say, "Okay, I don't give a shit..." life continues on as normal. Not like he's hooking up all his friends with huge contracts and making them filthy rich and helping the rich get richer like the other side.

[Hyena Dandy]

I mean, I don't think picking up a superb athlete and starting him deserves a pat on the back

Not to nitpick the issue, but Vick wasn't started until after Kolb was injured. He picked a guy who nobody thought would be worth anything, and gave him a second chance, even though (it seems obviou now) it was a hell of a risk. It does deserve congratulations

[Greenday]

Not to nitpick the issue, but Vick wasn't started until after Kolb was injured. He picked a guy who nobody thought would be worth anything, and gave him a second chance, even though (it seems obviou now) it was a hell of a risk. It does deserve congratulations

Nobody wanted to take the publicity hit. No one wanted a person with that kind of character on their team. It was just bad press.

Vick wasn't started because Andy Reid is borderline retarded as far as coaching goes. He's a terrible coach who should be fired if the Eagles' owner ever wants to win a Super Bowl. It won't happen while Reid coaches. Everyone know Kolb would suck and Vick would be so much better. Nothing that has happened surprises anybody.

[Skunkle]

Why didn't Obama pick any Tom, Dick or Harry? Even though the public sometimes acts as though politicians pointing out 'ordinary joes' makes them seem more personable, as of late this has seemed more and more false and patronizing. I have a feeling the general public would have taken "Look how well Joe Blow is doing now that he's out of prison for <crime>" as "Who the fuck is Joe Blow, and why do I fucking care about some random idiot who got nailed for something?" I.e. he may have wanted to point out someone the public thinks about. Unfortunately, who do the public seem to care to hear about more than any 'regular' person? Celebrities. In any field. The American public is OBSESSED with celebrities.

I think this was calculated to point out a hope for rehabilitation, but involving a name your average American will know - and, further, a real hope, as many of us DO hope that people get rehabilitated and change. Yes, it might blow back on him, but just about everything a politician does has a risk.

I don't LOVE Obama, incidentally. I do like him, but I don't agree with everything he does. But then, there is no politician I've ever liked 100%, and I think it's nigh-impossible. Even the most steadfast Bush supporter, I think, can probably say there were a few things he said and/or did that they didn't agree with.

[blas87]

Why is it every time you insut a Messiah supporter, they always have to bring up Dumbya (oh, that right there should sum up what I thought of our last president)? I mean really, the guy was an absolute fucking retard.

Just because I'm a conservative doesn't mean I voted for Bush (I was too young to vote in '04) or that I even supported him, nor does it mean I voted for McCain nor does it mean I support that bobble-headed moron Palin.

My mother has some real liberal tendencies and supports most of what Obama stands for, and even she thought this was a stupid act on his part.

My argument about the average Joe is that if he were to commit a heinous crime, would he be allowed to just go right back to the old job he had with open arms and a pat on the back for over-coming "adversity" and all the negatives that come with being a criminal? There are crimes that can get you fired from your job or demoted, and with a certain spectrum or two of crimes, once you come back, you're never looked at the same again. The Average Joe would have to overcome a lot more adversity than a famous athlete and would most likely have a much harder time in jail/prison than a famous athlete.

[Rapscallion]

There are people who have gone on to employment after jail without being famous. Admittedly, I couldn't name one. However, how about the points I raised above?

What do you imagine to be an acceptable punishment?

Should there be some form of rehabilitation for criminals? If not, then why should they try to rehabilitate?

Rapscallion

[blas87]

I wouldn't consider myself anti-rehabilitation, and much to people's surprise, I don't think every criminal should be executed or tortured.

I am against celebrities and pro athletes getting off easier than the average person just because they have more money and a big name.

This hits hard with me because I am an animal lover and I cannot fathom why someone would do such a horrible thing to dogs.

An acceptable punishment would have been several years in prison and probably community service involving working (supervised!) with animals to learn a little respect and compassion for those who cannot speak for themselves. Not isolated in a special cell because of being famous and with privileges that come with being a celebrity and having money, but in prison with average people who have to rely on their own will power to get through every day of their sentence and to have to protect themselves from attacks and bullies and have to obey rules for bedtime/cell time and chow time.

Forgiveness? Let's not pull the "Good Christian" thing. Anyone is allowed to hold a grudge. If he were really sorry, he would have opened up that fat pocket book of his and given millions of dollars to the Humane Association or the ASPCA and made public appearances admitting what he did was wrong. He doesn't deserve to play professional football so soon. Think of how entitled most famous people are, being given such a pat on the back is just going to over inflate his ego and before you know it, he'll be up to something else.

[Cat]

I voted for Obama, and usually like him, but this support of Vick made bile rise in my throat. *hiss, growl*


An acceptable punishment would have been several years in prison and probably community service involving working (supervised!) with animals to learn a little respect and compassion for those who cannot speak for themselves. Not isolated in a special cell because of being famous and with privileges that come with being a celebrity and having money, but in prison with average people who have to rely on their own will power to get through every day of their sentence and to have to protect themselves from attacks and bullies and have to obey rules for bedtime/cell time and chow time.


I really like this idea. I hear his trying to get a dog now for his family *shudder*

[Rapscallion]

Heh - not sure I'd want him anywhere near animals given his record.

Forgiveness? Let's not pull the "Good Christian" thing. Anyone is allowed to hold a grudge. If he were really sorry, he would have opened up that fat pocket book of his and given millions of dollars to the Humane Association or the ASPCA and made public appearances admitting what he did was wrong. He doesn't deserve to play professional football so soon. Think of how entitled most famous people are, being given such a pat on the back is just going to over inflate his ego and before you know it, he'll be up to something else.

I'm no christian, but I accept that it's the basis for the current legal system.

Wold you have believed it to have been a genuine gesture had he made those public statements and the donations? I'd have viewed it as public relations.

What is an acceptable period to be banned from playing sports? Effectively you're saying he should be banned from his income. Would this length of time be the same period of unemployment for average people offending? Effectively this is saying that punishment should go on longer than the jail sentence given out by the court, so I have a problem with it.

What would be an acceptable amount to give to the humane societies? Preferably something within reach of the average offender, of course, since there's equality before the law. A percentage of your wealth instead? I don't think that's part of the current system, but I'm actually all for the idea of letting the punishment fit the crime. Get hold of your local lawmaker and let them know you want this system in place.

It's a bit Gilbert and Sullivan, but I actually approve to a fair degree.

Rapscallion

[blas87]

I didn't say he could never play again, I think it's too soon and it's just a big boost to his ego, everyone who is fawning over him and Nobama. As I said before, celebrities and pro athletes have lots of entitlement issues. It would be easy to make another mistake all over again.

In all honesty, it'd be best if he layed low for several years and didn't get some giant pat on the back from the president.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm a steadfast Obama supporter, and I'm scratching my head a bit over this one.

As far as Vick goes - If Pete Rose can't be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, then Vick doesn't deserve to play football.

[blas87]

I'm afraid I don't know of this athlete or what that's about, Pete Rose?

[Rapscallion]

IIn all honesty, it'd be best if he layed low for several years

By which point his career as an athlete would be over anyway. Athletes have to get their money in while young.

Oh, were I in his position I'd be damn well ashamed of myself, but if he were ashamed of himself for that reason he wouldn't have been in a position to end up in jail first.

and didn't get some giant pat on the back from the president.

He didn't. The coach or manager who allowed him back in did.

So, when's too soon? When does punishment end?

I'd be quite happy if the fans of that team deserted them in droves for the act of bringing the guy back. That's the true measure of public discontent with the situation. The law can only give out the punishments it's allowed to give out. He was treated about the same as anyone else found guilty of the same crime. There's no court-mandated enforced unemployment after commiting a certain crime that I'm aware of.

If there should be, how long should it be for?

Talking heads make some valid points, but they're trying to rouse people to their side without giving voice to all sides of the debate. Were I a fan of his team, I'd be discontinuing my membership of the fan club and disaffiliating myself from them. That's where it's going to hurt the club in question. That's when they look for alternatives.

However, there's no moral requirement to playing the game. Can you get the ball past those players and over the line? That's his job. Some people may get bad press for some acts, but it has no bearing on their ability to punt a ball around.

So, how long must his punishment continue? How long should someone guilty of his crime be forced into unemployment? Please, think about it. Numbers would be good. If any country goes down this route, they've got to look at applying that sanction to other crimes as well. What numbers for other crimes?

For most criminals, the prospect of guaranteed unemployment would enforce a life of crime, which is certainly not in society's interests.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

I'm afraid I don't know of this athlete or what that's about, Pete Rose?

One of the greatest baseball players who walked the planet. Unfortunately, he became a manager and got caught betting against his own team. He was kicked out of the game permanently and will never be admitted into the Hall of Fame. So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity, whereas Vick broke the law, hurting innocent animals in the process, and gets his job back and a pat on the back from the President.

It's confuzzling.

Then again, I don't know what the hell's going on with Obama lately. I think he forgot who his voter base is, and we aren't people who take kindly to kissing Republican asses.

[Greenday]

One messed with the integrity of the game (Rose).

One did something completely unrelated to his sport (Vick).

It's quite obvious why Rose cannot be a part of baseball and why Vick should be allowed to play football.

[Fire_on_High]

What is an acceptable period to be banned from playing sports? Effectively you're saying he should be banned from his income. Would this length of time be the same period of unemployment for average people offending? Effectively this is saying that punishment should go on longer than the jail sentence given out by the court, so I have a problem with it.

What would be an acceptable amount to give to the humane societies? Preferably something within reach of the average offender, of course, since there's equality before the law. A percentage of your wealth instead? I don't think that's part of the current system, but I'm actually all for the idea of letting the punishment fit the crime. Get hold of your local lawmaker and let them know you want this system in place.


Honestly? I'm all for going medieval on him. We're not allowed to break him on the wheel (one of the times I sorely regret having hands tied by the Constitution) but we can sure break him in court. He should be *grindingly* poor for the rest of his days.

Regardless of how much he makes or how he potentially acquires it, the fining should be punitive to the point he's deciding if he wants to be warm or fed, and shivering his ass off in winter for lack of a coat.

I've said for a long time I'll buy the jersey of whatever player fucks him up good, and I don't even like football.

[Rapscallion]

Honestly? I'm all for going medieval on him. We're not allowed to break him on the wheel (one of the times I sorely regret having hands tied by the Constitution) but we can sure break him in court. He should be *grindingly* poor for the rest of his days.

Good answer.

So, how much should we increase the fines for speeding tickets to make them in ratio? After all, speeding statistically makes drivers more likely to kill others.

Bag snatchers - what is their current punishment and what should it be made to?

Pickpockets? Generally they're already poor - rich people usually don't need to do that sort of thing. Grinding poverty? They're not far from that anyway, and then you're talking about forcing them to continue.

Prostitution - well, considering the above already happens (having to continue to pay fines etc) then it's already in practice.

Insurance fraud. What level of punishment is fit there?

Think about it, everyone. The talking heads don't want you to. There's more at stake here than the court of public opinion.

Another day, another crime will be the worst thing since the bread slicer broke down.

So, why should he be grindingly poor for the rest of his life? Fine, the current established punishment is one thing, but we're effectively saying he should face more punishment.

Is that just because he's famous? Should all people commiting that particular crime face more punishment? Should people commiting any crime face more?

Why is that crime more deserving of stringent punishment than others? Should the penalties for all crime be increased?

Think about it.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Kill them all Raps. They all make the world a worse place so we should slit all their throats, those criminals.

[Andara Bledin]

My argument about the average Joe is that if he were to commit a heinous crime, would he be allowed to just go right back to the old job he had with open arms and a pat on the back for over-coming "adversity" and all the negatives that come with being a criminal?
I voted for Obama, and usually like him, but this support of Vick made bile rise in my throat. *hiss, growl*
I think a lot of people are losing sight that it's not about the douchebag dogfighter; it's about someone else being willing to give an ex-con a chance to be more than just an ex-con for the rest of his life. He just went with the guy that re-hired the douchebag dogfighter because that makes it newsworthy, and otherwise, nobody would have taken any notice.

If Pete Rose can't be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, then Vick doesn't deserve to play football.
I think Pete Rose not being in the BHoF is bullshit, btw. I don't care what else he may have done; he was still a damn fine baseball player.

So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity...
The why of that has to do with the regulations within baseball as relates to his activities. What Vick did bore no relation to his livelihood, and thus didn't have any long-term effect other than his punishment for it.

The BHoF thing is still bullshit.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I am against celebrities and pro athletes getting off easier than the average person just because they have more money and a big name.

Unfortunately, with the type of capitalism we currently promote in the USA, this is inevitable. We'd actually have to change our values system to something other than wealth in order for that to be different.

One of the greatest baseball players who walked the planet. Unfortunately, he became a manager and got caught betting against his own team. He was kicked out of the game permanently and will never be admitted into the Hall of Fame. So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity, whereas Vick broke the law, hurting innocent animals in the process, and gets his job back and a pat on the back from the President.

It's confuzzling.


It's about money.

In American society for the past 150 years, we have celebrated and promoted the idea that getting wealthy makes you morally superior, despite muckraking to the contrary. Thus, an insanely wealthy guy murdering an Olympic athlete (the Dupont heir) gets much less in the way of headlines and press than a guy who bilked others out of their wealth (Madoff).

Thus, Vick's crimes on a mass societal level in the USA become a whole lot of "Who gives a shit?" after the initial outrage. The money is much more important. Pete Rose was a money issue; thus he gets much more censure than Vick, who after all, just kicked around some damn dogs, amirite? (Note: the last part of that sentence was a whole lotta sarcasm).

[FArchivist]

Kill them all Raps. They all make the world a worse place so we should slit all their throats, those criminals.

Reminds me of a comedy sketch about the first Emperor of China, who was an extreme legalist.

"Hey, what's the penalty for a revolution?"
"Death by impalement."
"What's the penalty for being late to work?"
"Death by impalement."
"Guess what? We're late."

[Gravekeeper]

I know I get a lock of flack for being a No-Bama hater, but I cannot even fathom how others can't be upset over something like this.

Stop using "Nobama", that would help. Its hard to take seriously since its childish, and it and other variants are wildly dribbled by the more feeble minded online. My brain shuts out any debate the moment I see any of the silly school yard names everyone seems to throw around down there for politicians. Yes that goes for both sides. I'm not likely to listen if you start a serious discussion with "Chimpy Mcflightsuit" either.

That said, this is a hard one. I'm working from the same perspective as Raps, not my president, I'm just watching the train wreck that is American politics from the side lines <cough>. I'm sure Obama meant well with this, but really, bad idea to be blunt. Simply because, as this thread has demonstrated, anything involving animals is immediately polarizing. Beyond all reason.

We tend to demand far more vicious revenge on anyone that's harmed an animal over a human. Odd as it is. Looking at responses in this thread alone demonstrates that in spades. Some of you want to destroy him and by extension apparently want to throat slit several other people as well. Which is abhorrent, I might add.

I respect what Obama is trying to say, but it was a stupid decision to pick this particular individual. If he had found himself a nice murderer no one would have batted much of an eyelash, ironically.

Granted, as was mentioned, American society and American politics are shaped by money. Vick is worth money. So this is but a fart in the wind in his career. Regardless of how utterly despicable someone is, if they make someone somewhere money, the American public's opinion can really go fuck itself it seems. >.>

[Greenday]

and by extension apparently want to throat slit several other people as well.

And here I thought I had done some witty extremist sarcasm to prove a point. Guess the sarcasm was missed.

[blas87]

I don't want his throat slit. Do I wish a bunch of pitbulls to be let loose on him? Sure. At least I can admit how I feel or what I wish and I don't feel shame or guilt and I don't really care if it shocks or upsets people. Oh shame, shame on me, that pitchfork toting conservative and her barbaric and uncivilized way of thinking. Shame shame.

And while I understand that a lot of people are neutral and don't care for nicknames, in all honesty, it was sport for almost every American to poke fun at Bush. It's only fair to poke fun at Obama, without having to worry about everyone's jaw agape. I wonder what the real reason is. Is it because he's black that it's not as acceptable to poke fun at him, or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

[AdminAssistant]

or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

That.

Obama has his faults, but at least he's intelligent and well-spoken. I don't feel ashamed to have him as a President. I did with Bush. Besides, a lot of the problems that people are blaming Obama for are really the fault of Congress.

[blas87]

At least I have my answer. And I will agree that he is a million times better at overall presenting himself and speaking than Bush.

If he want to go back further, even people who liked Bill Clinton called him Slick Willy (although I guess that had more to do with his personal life than his job) and I'm sure before I was even old enough to watch the news or know what's going, there were special nicknames for every president. But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

[FArchivist]

But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

I think it's more because of the Birther crowd, who inveigled so much against Obama with the whole "He's a Muslin Socialist Nazi Communist who works for Bin Laden and IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!eleventy-one!!!" frothing-at-the-mouth bit. When you get a small and vocal faction that is that loud and offensive, you generally get a counter-reaction. Personally, I blame Orly Taitz and Breitbart; they were the most offensive about it and people took lots of exception.

There have been similar backlashes like that engendered by the Birthers. The previous one in US history was due to the Catholic bashers during Kennedy's presidency. In the decades afterward, Kennnedy was idolized in response. It's only now that some 40-50 years have passed that we're able to re-examine and show that his presidency was only average at best.

[the_std]

If he want to go back further, even people who liked Bill Clinton called him Slick Willy (although I guess that had more to do with his personal life than his job) and I'm sure before I was even old enough to watch the news or know what's going, there were special nicknames for every president. But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

So the entirety of your argument here is that, because people have used immature names in the past, it's okay for you to use immature names in the present? As Gravekeeper pointed out, most people are likely to ignore you if you can't address someone by their proper name, no matter if that person is the current president (Nobama) or the previous incumbent (Dubya) or the one before him (Slick Willy), etcetera. You invalidate a large part of your argument by showing that you're willing to go to school-yard levels of name-calling rather than picking apart what it is you actually don't like about that person.

Silly names will get you attention from people who have already sunk to your level. Presenting reasoned arguments is far more likely to get you taken seriously.

[Gravekeeper]

And here I thought I had done some witty extremist sarcasm to prove a point. Guess the sarcasm was missed.

This is Fratching, you need to use a congressionally approved emoticon such as "=p". This place can be much more....rabid than CS. Its harder to tell. Especially if puppies are involved. =p


At least I can admit how I feel or what I wish and I don't feel shame or guilt and I don't really care if it shocks or upsets people. Oh shame, shame on me, that pitchfork toting conservative and her barbaric and uncivilized way of thinking. Shame shame.

Shame, guilt and political stance has nothing to do with universal compassion. I'm not speaking in terms of left and right. Its America that's polarized so badly between liberal and conservative. Not Canadialand where I am.


And while I understand that a lot of people are neutral and don't care for nicknames, in all honesty, it was sport for almost every American to poke fun at Bush. It's only fair to poke fun at Obama, without having to worry about everyone's jaw agape. I wonder what the real reason is. Is it because he's black that it's not as acceptable to poke fun at him, or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

Option B. Bush was practically a carictature of himself by the end of his term and tended to do or say something that invited ridicule at least once a month. Not politically either, but just personal gaffes. Obama on the other hand, has not invited personal ridicule, only political ridicule by those opposed to his policies. Yet the names being used for him are ridiculously childish and appeared almost the instant he took office before he even did anything.

Him being half black does play a part in it, even though no one will admit it ( and on the other side of the spectrum, some people are too fast to whip that card out. ). Which does make some of what has been said about him unacceptable yes, as some of it has been based on race.

America admittedly has a very very short political memory as well and many Americans don't pay enough attention to politics, only listen to one side of politics or don't even know how their own politics operate. They won't understand that most of the problems are in congress right now. Nor do they grasp that the economy isn't something that magically switches on and off. If things are bad, people will blame the person in charge, end of story. It doesn't matter if all of the problems occured before he even sat down at the desk. And by god whomever was in last is going to make sure to point the finger anywhere but themselves.


When you get a small and vocal faction that is that loud and offensive, you generally get a counter-reaction. Personally, I blame Orly Taitz and Breitbart; they were the most offensive about it and people took lots of exception.

That too. Not to mention when you're watching from the side lines like I am and not tunnel visioned on one news source because it agrees with you, it all looks like a ridiculous circus. I don't want to hear Nobama or Fartbongo or Chimpy or Bubble Boy or Slicky Willy whatever else in the middle of a political discussion. Though I'll admit Bush didn't help much by using similar nicknames for his own staff.


Silly names will get you attention from people who have already sunk to your level. Presenting reasoned arguments is far more likely to get you taken seriously.

This.

[Andara Bledin]

Pretty much everything Gravekeeper just said.

And I still think that everybody's focusing on the wrong side of this.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'll be honest, I understand how you can say it seems obvious they'd give Vick the starting position. But honestly, I may be the only one, but I don't think eh was worth being a starter in the old days. But maybe that's me.

As for his return to the sport, I'm glad for him. Obviously I'm not saying that torturing animals is alright if you become a better person for it. I don't think that's true, and if it is, that's a debate for another day. But I think that Vick DID become a better person as a result of what was pretty much a grand slap in the face. What he did was inexcusable, and I'm not trying to excuse it. But to me, that's in the past. I believe we should live in the present.

Of course he deserves to be punished for what he did. And he was. He was fired. He missed three years in the sport. He, you know, went to jail, and when he came out, he worked as a construction worker. What he did was wrong, but I don't think he needs more punishment.

After all, the point of the justice system (with the exception of life imprisonment) is to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and punish those who can't be. I think he's been rehabilitated. He honestly seems like a better man now than he was years ago. And he shouldn't continue to be punished. I think he's rehabilitated.

As for Obama congratulating the coach (and note, despite what people seem to think, the point wasn't that he was congratulating Vick, it was that he was congratulating the man who gave Vick a second chance) I don't think that's important. It seems to me that, unlike some presidents, Obama doesn't intend to be a larger than life figure. That's not a knock at our previous president, or any other president, current or future. There are some men who are best fit to be larger than life, symbols of strength and authority. There is nothing wrong with men like that. Some people use the office of president similarly to a monarchy. Not in that they make decrees and order people around, but rather that when they say something, they're basically declaring the official position of the United States of America.

But I don't think Obama is like that. I think he's just a guy. Which is good too. And I don't think he was saying "The United States of America is pleased that you gave Michael Vick a second chance." I think he was just saying that he, as a person who happens to hold elected office, that he was pleased. After all, it wasn't like he held a press conference and said "The coach who hired Vick back should be an exemplar to all Americans."

He just said that he was pleased that Vick got a second chance. I think someone said being President was like making love in a fishbowl. Everyone's watching and criticizing your technique.

Also, its kinda cramped, and you're constantly surrounded by confused fish.

Er... May have gotten carried away with that one.

But what I was saying was I don't think it was President Obama saying that its his position that it was a good move. I think its more that he wanted Vick to have a second chance all along, he would have been pleased that Vick got a second chance anyway.

The whole incident seems more like Obama basically writing fan mail.


As for the whole "An average joe wouldn't have been given such a second chance" I think that you're right. A famous athlete does have an advantage over the 'average joe' in this respect. But I think that's simply because famous athletes are famous. They can reach more people. If you found out someone was an ex-con, you probably would be upset, and for something especially heinous like this, you might think they're a terrible person. But, if you got to know them, and they turned out to be reformed, then you'd forgive them.

Vick wasn't welcomed back and congratulated for overcoming adversity. He was brought back, tenuously, as a back-up. He wasn't congratulated for overcoming adversity until we had reason to suspect he'd actually overcome it.

If we want to argue about whether or not athletes (or movie actors, or singers, etc.) deserve the fame and congratulations they've been given, that's fine. I don't think that athletes deserve to be household names and make millions of dollars, no matter how good they are at it. But they are, and they do. Its a hell of a fucked up double-standard, but there it is. We shouldn't hold something more against them than we would someone else, because that's just reversing the double-standard, and its even more fucked up than the original Think of it this way. We give them unnecessarily huge amounts of praise for something trivial very well, but at least its something. If we make things harder on them, then we're essentially PUNISHING them for doing something trivial very well, and that's even worse.

I don't understand why people are so angry over Vick. A man committed a crime, was sent to prison, served his time with good behavior, came out, and was (to the best of anyone's ability to gauge) reformed, and committed to improving himself. He returned to his old job, twice as good at it as when he left, and was successful. I don't see how that is a BAD thing at all. I can understand being angry about the crime, and thinking he doesn't deserve a second chance for what he did. But I don't understand being angry that he's been praised for taking that second chance and using it to improve himself.

My sister is dating a young man who was arrested for breaking and entering, as well as other charges. Whether he was guilty or not, I don't know. The official position of the State of Massachusetts, after his trial, was that he is guilty. I didn't like him at first, but I've seen a marked change in his behavior from before. He's served his time, he's on parole. Now, at least, he is respectful, honest, and basically a model citizen. He's dedicated to improving himself. He's found work, and is, evidently, a model employee as well.

He is, in other words, the average Joe who committed a crime. He has recovered. I see his story as essentially the same as Michael Vick's, with the exception that he isn't famous. It would be dishonest of me to forgive him, and not Michael Vick, because Vick had it easier.

Yes, he's famous. Yes, it was probably easier for him to do than it would be for you or me. But that doesn't mean, at least to me, that its any less of something to celebrate. We have to raise a culture of forgiveness in this country, and around the world. This is as good a place, and a time, to start as any. If we can teach people to forgive the famous ones, or at least give them a second chance, then we can foster that forgiveness and give it to those who aren't as famous.

And I'll add one thing, blas. If there's been any confusion, I did not intend to give you flack hating Obama. I am hardly his biggest fan myself. I can't think of the last time I voted for a Democrat for any national office.

But I will give you 'flack' for being disrespectful to him. And, to be fair, to the last president as well. Presidents, and other politicians, do not always deserve our admiration. Or our congratulations. But they deserve the basic respect we would give to anyone else who is doing their best to help their fellow man.

We're all in this together. In the US, and in the rest of the world, we're all in it together. If we don't give each-other respect, we make it harder on everyone. We must, as Ghandi said, be the change we want to see in the world. I want to be treated with respect and dignity, despite my sexuality, and personality flaws. Therefore, I treat everyone else with respect and dignity. If we want the average Joe to have a second shot, we have to give everyone a second shot.

But, I'll add, if we want to have better politicians, well... There's a reason its called public office.

Anyway, this post has meandered, and is nowhere near the position it started at. Its practically on a different continent. So I'll stop my vaguely-egalitarian soapboxing before I sound like I'm suffering from Jerusalem Syndrome, and finish by trying to sum up my points in bullet form.


1) Obama wasn't acting as President when he congratulated the Eagles coach, he was acting as himself.

2) Vick did what anyone else should do.

3) If we think anyone deserves forgiveness, we should show Vick forgiveness, and not hold it against him that he had it easier.

4) If we want to be given a second chance, we should be giving second-chances to others.

5) Politicians, and other celebrities, deserve our respect, not for what they do, but for what they are. That is, human beings.

6) My sister's boyfriend is a nice guy. Also, kinda hot. I'd do him. But, you know, he's straight.

[Hyena Dandy]

There have been similar backlashes like that engendered by the Birthers. The previous one in US history was due to the Catholic bashers during Kennedy's presidency. In the decades afterward, Kennnedy was idolized in response. It's only now that some 40-50 years have passed that we're able to re-examine and show that his presidency was only average at best.

Oh, and one last thing, that may be immature, but I think I have been intelligent enough today.

The Kennedy White House may not have been exceptionally successful, but I think we can all agree it was exceptionally sexy. ;)

[blas87]

Don't be ashamed of being called immature.

Heck, if I haven't ruffled feathers in real life or haven't pissed off a few people on Fratch enough to call me barbaric or outdated or immature (or whatever else I've been called in the past years), then it really hasn't been a true day.

By the way, I do not have to respect the President. I don't have to respect anybody if I don't want to. Just wanted to clear that up.

The glorious thing about America is that it's perfectly ok to disrespect the President, to mock him, to disagree with him, to make Tshirts or bumper stickers and TV shows about him. Remember "That's My Bush" and "Lil Bush"? I wonder if there will ever be an Obama cartoon or TV show. I can't remember far enough back if people really made a bunch of paraphernelia (sp?) about Clinton, but that kind of stuff was a cash cow with Bush, and probably will be (if it already hasn't started yet) with Obama.

[Hyena Dandy]

Blas, I never said you had the legal duty to respect the president. But you do have a moral duty to respect him, as you would respect anyone else. The defense that Bush was being constantly mocked doesn't mean that doing that was GOOD. I'm as disgusted with 'Lil Bush as I am with people who refuse to use the President's real name.

There are some immature things you shouldn't be ashamed of. I play Pokemon, and I recently played Duck Duck Goose in the town center with a bunch of my friends, despite being twenty years old. But there are some things where being called immature should be a mark of shame. And when it comes to this, being unable to have a civil discussion of politics without name-calling, yes, that is something to be ashamed of.

[protege]

The glorious thing about America is that it's perfectly ok to disrespect the President, to mock him, to disagree with him, to make Tshirts or bumper stickers and TV shows about him. Remember "That's My Bush" and "Lil Bush"? I wonder if there will ever be an Obama cartoon or TV show.

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK. Not all countries are so lucky. Try that shit in Iran, and they'll hang you. BTW, the Bush stuff was going on long before he was elected. The media, and his detractors, had all sorts of names for him. These people, had no problem throwing those names around. But, if someone does the same thing to Obama, they get upset? Gotta love the double standards :rolleyes: That's the problem I have with them--either that shit is OK, or it isn't.

[Greenday]

Blas, I never said you had the legal duty to respect the president. But you do have a moral duty to respect him, as you would respect anyone else.

If she feels the only people she has to respect are those who have earned respect, she doesn't have any moral duty whatsoever to respect him.

[blas87]

Thank you, Greenday. That's what I meant. You are far more eloquent and mature than I am.

And by that, I don't mean that no one deserves respect. If you want to have no respect for anyone, then you are in for some tough times in life in general. But in my opinion, no one deserves respect just because of who they are. Period.

I choose who I respect and I don't. There are people I have no respect for (my grandfather for instance) but I don't speak harshly to them or make fun of them or talk trash (other than vent about grandpa on here).

[the_std]

I don't think Gravekeeper or myself said anything about having to respect anybody, nor like anybody, nor even pretend to do any of those things. We're just pointing out that you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone except those who use the same language as you if you keep using infantile names to describe serious matters or people.

[Hyena Dandy]

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK. Not all countries are so lucky. Try that shit in Iran, and they'll hang you. BTW, the Bush stuff was going on long before he was elected. The media, and his detractors, had all sorts of names for him. These people, had no problem throwing those names around. But, if someone does the same thing to Obama, they get upset? Gotta love the double standards :rolleyes: That's the problem I have with them--either that shit is OK, or it isn't.

And I was stating my position. Simply, it isn't. It wasn't for Bush. It isn't for Obama. And it won't be for whoever comes next.

[blas87]

I wasn't saying that you in particular said I have to respect anyone, std, and as far as I'm concerned, if you or Gravekeeper don't take me seriously or I come across as immature, why do you take the time to respond to things I post about? It's quite obvious neither of us are ever going to agree or change our opinions, so why not skim over instead of trying to tell me how I should be or how I should act to be taken seriously?

[the_std]

Honestly, why not? I get no anger or frustration from responding to you, I take no negative emotion from our debates. I simply wish to see if I can, through reason and presentation of my arguments, convince you of my side, as is the entire point of debate. I've not yet succeeded, but I'm not willing to write it off so long as you keep presenting your opinions as the fodder for debate.

[Gravekeeper]

I wasn't saying that you in particular said I have to respect anyone, std, and as far as I'm concerned, if you or Gravekeeper don't take me seriously or I come across as immature, why do you take the time to respond to things I post about? It's quite obvious neither of us are ever going to agree or change our opinions, so why not skim over instead of trying to tell me how I should be or how I should act to be taken seriously?

Because this is a debate which you are taking part in and while I may think name calling a president is silly and undermines your position, I still respect you and think you're a reasonable person. Hence I offered my opinion. I'm not trying to change your opinion on Obama or any such thing. I'm just saying if you're going to take part in a debate, it would help your position to be taken under more consideration if you dropped the name calling.

It seems more reasonable then "Well just ignore me, talking to me is pointless anyway.".

[blas87]

I haven't personal issue with you two, either. I just figure it's a debate, that's your side, this is my side.

Sometimes I post here and learn something new in the process. Never hurts to learn. However, I don't post here to learn something that will change the way I think or believe things. That's not my purpose.

So while having a different opinion is certainly your right and your right to post about it, sometimes I feel it's just wasted words with trying to engrain in into a person. I get the hint at times people (not pointing fingers at you guys) want to change me and my views is all, and I don't like that, so I naturally get a little defensive, if not a tad hostile.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, others might, but I don't expect you to like Obama. I don't like him myself.

[Andara Bledin]

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK.
No. We live in a society where such things are allowed.

Whether or not they're OK, is obviously up for debate.

I'm with Gravekeeper. Resorting to name-calling is like resorting to swearing. It undermines your whole position, no matter how reasonable it might otherwise be.

^-.-^

[guywithashovel]

I have a question to all of you complaining about how it was okay to tear into Bush but not okay to do the same thing to Obama.

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

People were called unpatriotic for not supporting his wars or merely disagreeing with the way wars were waged. In even worse case scenarios, people were called terrorists if they didn't like something about the war on terror. I'm talking about the whole "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist" idea of the right wing.

[KnitShoni]

I have a question to all of you complaining about how it was okay to tear into Bush but not okay to do the same thing to Obama.

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

People were called unpatriotic for not supporting his wars or merely disagreeing with the way wars were waged. In even worse case scenarios, people were called terrorists if they didn't like something about the war on terror. I'm talking about the whole "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist" idea of the right wing.

Thank you. It goes back to what GK mentioned about the political attention span of a lot of Americans.

[protege]

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...

Still, it doesn't justify the constant name-calling, cartoons, etc. that were produced during his term in office. The point is, why is that sort of thing OK, but as soon as someone starts on Obama, they get branded a racist, or worst? It's actually pretty rare to hear *anything* bad about Obama. Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

[AdminAssistant]

Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

Um, have you watched CNN lately? Even though it leans a *bit* left, they've been ripping Obama a new one since the mid-terms.

[protege]

Um, have you watched CNN lately? Even though it leans a *bit* left, they've been ripping Obama a new one since the mid-terms.

They're starting to, but most newspapers are annoyingly polite about any Obama mistakes.

[guywithashovel]

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...

Still, it doesn't justify the constant name-calling, cartoons, etc. that were produced during his term in office. The point is, why is that sort of thing OK, but as soon as someone starts on Obama, they get branded a racist, or worst? It's actually pretty rare to hear *anything* bad about Obama. Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

Actually, it wasn't okay back then to do that stuff to Bush, not until his last few years when his ratings got really low. It probably all boils down to people being okay with people tearing into a president they don't like, but against people ripping a president they do like. Many die hard Republicans castigate Obama mercilessly, but act like Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Christ.

It makes me think of a question. Is being called racist better or worse than being called a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer, or unpatriotic?

[blas87]

Um, I wasn't even born when Reagan was president.

[Andara Bledin]

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...
They did. You may not understand how, but the entire world is feeling the effects of the most recent Bush administration.

^-.-^

[ZedOmega]

...er... is it safe to step into this?

Now, I respect Obama. I'm neutral when it comes to liking him (I don't flat-out hate him, but I'm giving him a chance), but I respect him. But him thanking the Eagles' owner for letting Vick play again may just be political suicide for him. Vick is one of those people who I saw on the news and wanted some degree of serious, debilitating pain delivered onto him, but unfortunately for the rest of us, he had the money to buy his way out of trouble. The fact that Obama thanked the owner of the Eagles for even letting him play is just asking for trouble, I think; I can already think of how groups like PETA are reacting to this.

As far as how someone's speech patterns affect their argument, I'm the absolute last person who needs to say anything about this, but here goes: opinions are opinions. However the debater chooses to phrase their opinions is honestly irrelevant compared to what that opinion is. I'll admit that there's some opinions in general that I think should just be kept inside, like arguments focusing on someone's race instead of their actions, but as long as the meat of the argument is perfectly thought out, what difference does it really make if the garnish looks a little off?

And yes, this is coming from the guy who gave his only other political commentary a healthy dose of the word 'fuck'.

[Mytical]

Where in the heck to start...if there is a place to start. I think a lot of people give the president either too much credit, or too much blame. While I have used generalized counters before when somebody bashes on Obama like..

"You realize that the 'golden parachute' everybody hates Obama for was first started, debated, and talked about under Bush right?" I am neither a fan of Obama..or Bush. Or Clinton, etc. I think Obama is INEFFECTUAL, but then again..I also think that the deck was stacked against him when he got into office. An already crumbling economy was just ONE of the problems he faced.

People pretty much had already made up their minds six months in, and nothing Obama could have done would have changed it.

Thing is, that the president (either of them) can't do much without the senate and house. Neither Bush nor Obama. People are acting like it was SOLELY these two, when the President is not much more then a figure head. Guess it is handy to have a scapegoat. *shrugs*

[ZedOmega]

Where in the heck to start...if there is a place to start. I think a lot of people give the president either too much credit, or too much blame. While I have used generalized counters before when somebody bashes on Obama like..

"You realize that the 'golden parachute' everybody hates Obama for was first started, debated, and talked about under Bush right?" I am neither a fan of Obama..or Bush. Or Clinton, etc. I think Obama is INEFFECTUAL, but then again..I also think that the deck was stacked against him when he got into office. An already crumbling economy was just ONE of the problems he faced.

People pretty much had already made up their minds six months in, and nothing Obama could have done would have changed it.

Thing is, that the president (either of them) can't do much without the senate and house. Neither Bush nor Obama. People are acting like it was SOLELY these two, when the President is not much more then a figure head. Guess it is handy to have a scapegoat. *shrugs*

Very true, but praising Lurie for letting Vick play despite Vick's criminal record is just giving the anti-Obama crowd ammunition. Most of the comments in the article blas linked in her OP are along the lines of 'what the hell is he thinking?!' Setting laws and policies into action is one thing, but the president doesn't need a House vote to make a phone call.

[Hyena Dandy]

Zed, could you possibly explain how Vick bought his way out of trouble for me? I don't feel he did, but perhaps you have information I don't.

[ZedOmega]

It wasn't just the dogfighting circuit they had set up, it was also the illegal gambling aspects of it. His pleading guilty to the dogfighting charges were part of a plea bargain to avoid the penalties the RICO act would've hit him with (besides the gambling, there was also minor drug-related activities going on during the fights); he'd still be in jail and would be for at least 20 years otherwise.

Here's the facts summary that Vick submitted to the court. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf) The court would've ravaged him and his cohorts without the plea bargain.

[HYHYBT]

That only shows that he *could* have been charged with more and gotten a tougher sentence. You claim that he *bought* his way out of trouble, specifically with money. What evidence do you have *for the very serious claim you actually made,* as opposed to its being an ordinary, common, everyday plea bargain arrangement?

edit to clarify: hiring a competent lawyer does *not* qualify as "buying your way out" of anything.

[KnitShoni]

That only shows that he *could* have been charged with more and gotten a tougher sentence. You claim that he *bought* his way out of trouble, specifically with money. What evidence do you have *for the very serious claim you actually made,* as opposed to its being an ordinary, common, everyday plea bargain arrangement?

edit to clarify: hiring a competent lawyer does *not* qualify as "buying your way out" of anything.

This.

I'm not seeing where the deal he got would have been all that different if he weren't a pro-athlete. This happens all the time.

[ZedOmega]

How much do you think a legal team that could get a sentence reduced from a possible 25 years to two would cost? The average person wouldn't be able to afford a team who could pull that off, and state-assigned lawyers would just give enough of an effort to justify their license.

Oh, and just to let you know, had I meant that he bribed his way out, which is what you're implying I said, I'd have said it flat-out.

[Andara Bledin]

How much do you think a legal team that could get a sentence reduced from a possible 25 years to two would cost? The average person wouldn't be able to afford a team who could pull that off, and state-assigned lawyers would just give enough of an effort to justify their license.
The maximum possible sentence length is really not a good indicator, since most people don't get hit with the max punishment.

Also, how much rolling over did he do to bargain his time down?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm not completely familiar with case law, but isn't it relatively uncommon for sentences to not be maximum? I mean, most of what I've seen of the justice system is on law and order, where lawyers tend to try to get the maximum possible sentence because that makes a better story.

I'll have to talk to some of my lawyer relatives about this. They might know more.

It also looks to me like the facts Vick submitted were submitted as part of his plea bargain. If it had gone to trial, those facts might not have been made aware to the court. I think that's how plea bargains usually work, although that may just be Law and Order bias... I mean, "I don't think you can convict on X, so we'll plead guilty to Y."

Or in this case, it looks more like, "You may not be able to convict on X, so I'll plead guilty on Y, and throw my associates under the bus as well."

That sounds like a deal that you don't need a multi-million dollar lawyer team for.

[ZedOmega]

Sorry I took so long with the response. CivIII PTW has been eating my soul lately.

The maximum possible sentence length is really not a good indicator, since most people don't get hit with the max punishment.

Also, how much rolling over did he do to bargain his time down?

^-.-^

That's information I honestly wish I had.

Getting back to the point I was trying to make, though, I still think Obama's taking a huge risk with that phone call. The only thing that could make it worse for him is if, once Plaxico Burress is released from prison and if he's allowed back into the NFL, Obama gives whatever coach signs him on the same phone call.

[Greenday]

Getting back to the point I was trying to make, though, I still think Obama's taking a huge risk with that phone call. The only thing that could make it worse for him is if, once Plaxico Burress is released from prison and if he's allowed back into the NFL, Obama gives whatever coach signs him on the same phone call.

What risk? Those who hate Obama will continue to hate Obama. Those who like Obama will continue to like Obama. If Palin runs against him, he will still win. I'd wager tons of money on that.

[Andara Bledin]

I mean, most of what I've seen of the justice system is on law and order, where lawyers tend to try to get the maximum possible sentence because that makes a better story.
The L&O stuff really doesn't make up the bulk of what we see in the courts. Plus, the prosecution is always going to play for the maximum being deserved so they have a starting point when it gets to the bargaining table, like it did for Vick. For things where they're either not sure of the outcome or they want more than just the person on trial right there, they'll go to the table to put a deal together.

Remember the "being famous" is a double edged sword in court. On one hand, you have the resources to get a really good lawyer to represent you. On the other hand, your name is in the papers, so the other side will try to use you as an opportunity to set an example.

Also, don't confuse being able to afford really good representation with somehow gaming the system.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

What risk? Those who hate Obama will continue to hate Obama. Those who like Obama will continue to like Obama. If Palin runs against him, he will still win. I'd wager tons of money on that.

The problem comes with swing voters. There are large swathes of the population who will vote for one of the two main parties in the US, but there's a significant chunk of the population who swing from side to side depending on factors that are important to them.

Swing voters won't necessarily remember exact events and reasons for them, but they'll often remember that they're not keen on a certain person for some reason or other.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

The problem comes with swing voters. There are large swathes of the population who will vote for one of the two main parties in the US, but there's a significant chunk of the population who swing from side to side depending on factors that are important to them.

Swing voters won't necessarily remember exact events and reasons for them, but they'll often remember that they're not keen on a certain person for some reason or other.

Rapscallion

Congratulating a football coach for taking a chance with a guy who just got out of prison won't swing many people. Especially when your other option is a complete moron who is a disgrace to women everywhere. I'd sooner vote for one of my dogs than Palin. If anything, that phone call will increase the amount of votes from people in Eastern PA and South Jersey.

[Rapscallion]

Congratulating a football coach for taking a chance with a guy who just got out of prison won't swing many people. Especially when your other option is a complete moron who is a disgrace to women everywhere. I'd sooner vote for one of my dogs than Palin. If anything, that phone call will increase the amount of votes from people in Eastern PA and South Jersey.

Plenty of outraged pet owners out there, mate. This thread proves it.

It depends how much research past the headlines people do as to whether or not this particular event makes swing voters turn. There was a memorable quote from a fictional play about the printed press industry along the lines of only checking the spelling on the headline and first paragraph, because many people don't read further than that. I saw research a while back (and I read most of it, for the record) that confirms this.

The politicians on either side aren't really trying to preach to their confirmed allies - they're after the swing voters. They know they can gain some political capital out of events like thisl.

Rapscallion

[blas87]

And now thanks to the Packers :), that animal abusing loser gets some time now that he could really use to lay low and stay the hell out of the spotlight.

[BigGiant]

Okay. I have a few things to say about Vick.

#1- He did not go to prison for killing dogs. He went to federal prison for operating an illegal multi-state gambling ring.

#2- He got basically 'timed served' for killing dogs.

#3- Either way, our system decided the punishment, and he served his sentence.

But-

One messed with the integrity of the game (Rose).

One did something completely unrelated to his sport (Vick).

It's quite obvious why Rose cannot be a part of baseball and why Vick should be allowed to play football.

I would argue that I wouldn't want Michael Vick anywhere near the NFL because of the integrity issue.

The gambling ring reportedly moved millions of dollars a year. Now you tell me, when you think of millions of dollars of illegal gambling, what institution (not legal) generally comes to mind?

Combine that with the fact that he has declared bankruptcy and reportedly owes over $500,000 to debtors. How much money does he owe other folks 'off the books'?

If I'm in charge of the NFL, or the owner of a team, I don't take the chance that he's still got ties to...those folks.

Let's also add in that a co-defendant (that testified against Vick) was shot at a night club this past summer, during Vick's birthday party. (Vick had reportedly left a few minutes earlier).

So.....he was involved in multi-million dollar illegal gambling ring, is out of money and in debt, may still be associating with those folks, yet you're going to risk letting him play the most influential position on the field in your League.

I'd say that's a little more than just a 'PR' risk, and is one that I wouldn't take. It is also a lot worse than a manager or coach betting on his sport.

There's a reason Rose got a lifetime ban. It is because a professional sports league cannot have even the hint of a game or player 'on the take'.

Luckily for the NFL, folks completely ignore the gambling charges because they are so fired up about the dog killing.

[BigGiant]

I'll add one more thing in response to this:

As for the whole "An average joe wouldn't have been given such a second chance" I think that you're right. A famous athlete does have an advantage over the 'average joe' in this respect.

Guys like Michael Vick are not 'average joes'. This isn't because of the celebrity or their money. It is because of the skills and talent that they posses. It isn't like some guy like me working behind a desk at some company in middle America, USA.

He is one of the top's at his profession that is already elite. There are only 32 guys good enough to be starting Quarterbacks in the NFL, and not only is he one of them, his skill set is so unique, we haven't seen anything like it in over 100 years of NFL football.

If you think that's fair or not is besides the point. The guy has something that millions of people don't, and gets treated differently because of it.

People in general, that are the absolute tops or elite at their professions get the same treatment. In that sense, he is like everyone else. But to compare him to the average joe is silly, because he is anything but.

[Greenday]

The gambling ring reportedly moved millions of dollars a year. Now you tell me, when you think of millions of dollars of illegal gambling, what institution (not legal) generally comes to mind?

Combine that with the fact that he has declared bankruptcy and reportedly owes over $500,000 to debtors. How much money does he owe other folks 'off the books'?

If I'm in charge of the NFL, or the owner of a team, I don't take the chance that he's still got ties to...those folks.

Let's also add in that a co-defendant (that testified against Vick) was shot at a night club this past summer, during Vick's birthday party. (Vick had reportedly left a few minutes earlier).

So.....he was involved in multi-million dollar illegal gambling ring, is out of money and in debt, may still be associating with those folks, yet you're going to risk letting him play the most influential position on the field in your League.

I'd say that's a little more than just a 'PR' risk, and is one that I wouldn't take. It is also a lot worse than a manager or coach betting on his sport.

There's a reason Rose got a lifetime ban. It is because a professional sports league cannot have even the hint of a game or player 'on the take'.

Luckily for the NFL, folks completely ignore the gambling charges because they are so fired up about the dog killing.

So, if I'm reading this right, your reasoning against Vick being able to have integrity with football is complete circumstantial evidence you have zero proof of.

Until he does something that involves him losing integrity for football, there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to play.

[BigGiant]

Yes.

I don't think there can be even the slightest hint. But I'm not saying they shouldn't let him in. I'm saying that I wouldn't let him in.

I'm not against him playing, but because of the circumstantial evidence, I wouldn't hire him.

[blas87]

Michael Vick is nowhere near the best quarterback in the NFL, don't even play the "but he's so good at his game" card. There are lots of talented men in the NFL. He isn't special. He's a good player, but he's far from the best.

[BigGiant]

He isn't special. He's a good player, but he's far from the best.

Did not say he was the best. I said, one of the best.

And also pointed to his unique skill set (amazing speed and agility that NO qb has ever had, combined with an incredible arm.)

His accuracy and decision making keep him from being the best.

To suggest that he is "nowhere near the best" reeks of personal bias.

I really do not like the guy, and he plays for my team's biggest rival. But you really can't say he isn't one of the best.

And even if he isn't a top 15-20 QB in your mind, that's petty much beside the point of my post. He's certainly top 32 at his profession.

Any lawyer, accountant, actor, scientist, whatever that is in the top 32 at what they do (in the entire country, if not the world) isn't going to be treated like an "average joe", because they are not "average".

[BigGiant]

Again- to add a little perspective to my point.

There are around 11,500 Division IA college football players in the US. Of those, only around 500 make it to the NFL per year. Of those, most don't actually even see any playing time, and most don't last for longer than one season.

There are 1696 players in the NFL (not counting practice squad).

So, being even top 50 out of arguably 13,000 in his profession is anything but "ok" or "good". (yes I counted college players as part of the pool...arguing about whether or not they can be considered professional is a topic for another thread). :)

Just getting into the NFL makes you elite. To actually excel and be a top ten at your position makes you that much more elite.

[Sleepwalker]

Hehe. The Obama thing "Why don't they hate Obama as much as they hated our guy? Not allowed to bring in any actual events as explanation!" thing is pretty amusing. It must be because he's black, there's no other reason why people would attack him less than Dubya.

As for Vick, really. You want to punish him more for being famous. Animals are tortured and killed everyday without the perpetrators losing their jobs- that's up to their employers. You are aware of Vick, and therefore want to punish him specifically outside the law. Animal abuse bother you? Change the laws so that everyone gets punished more for it rather than fixating on a celebrity who you think is way to bad a guy to be... a celebrity.

[Greenday]

Michael Vick is nowhere near the best quarterback in the NFL, don't even play the "but he's so good at his game" card. There are lots of talented men in the NFL. He isn't special. He's a good player, but he's far from the best.

Pick five QBs better.

[blas87]

Present or past?

I would imagine after last week's game, Aaron Rodgers would be an obvious pick.

I wonder if Vick got his skills the same way Randy Moss did.....running from the cops.

Yes, I went there. Sue me.

[AdminAssistant]

Pick five QBs better.

Better players or better people?

[Greenday]

Present or past?

I would imagine after last week's game, Aaron Rodgers would be an obvious pick.

Better players or better people?

Present. And yes, I'd put Rodgers over Vick. That leaves you to pick four more who are better.

Better players. When it comes to football, I don't give a crap if the person is a gentleman or not.

[AdminAssistant]

Better players. When it comes to football, I don't give a crap if the person is a gentleman or not.

If someone's getting paid that kind of money, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to not be an asshole. Or break laws. But whatevs.

Fiance was watching a college game (Auburn/Oregon, maybe?), and someone got a personal foul. The commentators said that player was known as a "dirty player." Well, then why are they still playing? Especially with college ball, there's no reason for it.

[Greenday]

If someone's getting paid that kind of money, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to not be an asshole. Or break laws. But whatevs.

Fiance was watching a college game (Auburn/Oregon, maybe?), and someone got a personal foul. The commentators said that player was known as a "dirty player." Well, then why are they still playing? Especially with college ball, there's no reason for it.

Has Vick broken any laws or been an asshole since his comeback?

Being a dirty player doesn't mean you are out there to kill people. It just means that you tend to grab too much of the jersey while blocking or you grab receivers a lot when you get beat. It can also mean that you make completely legitimate blocks and the only reason they are considered dirty is because you weren't blocking right at the spot of the play.

[BigGiant]

Id you want to include Rodgers(which I would), that leaves Brady, Peyton, Breez, and maybe Rivers.

I don't think I'd rate anyone else higher (including Eli, ATM).


So there's an argument that Vick is #5. I don't know who else you could rate higher...as much as I hate to admit it.

Either way, even if he is just top 20, he's much better at his profession than any of us are....which was my original point.

[Greenday]

Rivers is a choke artist. Vick outplayed Brees this year. #4 in passing yards. 676 rushing yards which is absolutely insane for a QB.

And Eli Manning just plain sucks.

[blas87]

I wouldn't underestimate Rodgers. He is a new MVP in the making. He is living proof that the Packers don't need Favre the Diva to win games and even make it to the playoffs.

[Greenday]

I love Rodgers. He's so young but it's clear in five years he will probably be the best 1;.