Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[Medusa]

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

Tucker is an idiot... I remember when this all hit the news. My initial response to him and what he did...

Kill the FUCKER! Throw him to the most brutal inmates - strip him down and let them at him. But do it slow and be calculating about it.

Emotional response!

I am more offended he referred to himself as a Christian - as if he is a Supreme being. I am a Christian (yeah so) and I have made mistakes (yeah so).

Do I think he should have been executed? No, because I do not believe in the death penalty. However... What he did is unforgivable. I have no tolerance for those who pray on the weak. Be it animals, children, women, elderly. I have no tolerance and cannot think beyond my emotional self, which is why I try to stay out of these conversation! This replaces every single logical cell in my body.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by InfiniteFemme

Tucker is an idiot... I remember when this all hit the news. My initial response to him and what he did...

Kill the FUCKER! Throw him to the most brutal inmates - strip him down and let them at him. But do it slow and be calculating about it.

Emotional response!

I am more offended he referred to himself as a Christian - as if he is a Supreme being. I am a Christian (yeah so) and I have made mistakes (yeah so).

Do I think he should have been executed? No, because I do not believe in the death penalty. However... What he did is unforgivable. I have no tolerance for those who pray on the weak. Be it animals, children, women, elderly. I have no tolerance and cannot think beyond my emotional self, which is why I try to stay out of these conversation! This replaces every single logical cell in my body.

lol - oh girl you sound like me now!

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

[URL]

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Organicbutch

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

fuck the news. I mean really. Oh wait you mean the venue that feeds our mind a bunch of bullshit to condition and herd the human race? lol Oh hell thats a major derail! lol But I totally agree with you Organic.

I'm going back to work!

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Organicbutch

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

Actually, that's the difference between a news caster and a news analyst. Neither Fox, nor MSNBC are known for their newscasters. I can't name a single newscaster from either network. But they both have a plethora of news analysts. And those analysts are paid for their opinion and to apply it to what is making news that day.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

A conservative white guy calling for the death of a black man over a breach of the law? Say it ain't so, Medusa! Say it ain't so!

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE

In regards to the severity of Vick's crimes, I found the following part of the article to be particularily interesting:
"The ongoing nature of his conduct remains serious cause for concern and understandably contributes to the enduring distrust of his repeated public assertions of remorse and reformation. Some additional yet basic risk factors one should consider in assessing Mr. Vick’s case and the continuing threat convicted abusers present to society include:

1.The vulnerability of his victims;
2.The large number of his victims;
3.The number of victimizing incidents;
4.The severity of the injury and methods used to kill;
5.The duration of the abuse;
6.The degree of pre-planning or premeditation;
7.The existence of other criminal conduct at the scene of the animal abuse (e.g., drugs, gun law violations, gambling);
8.The fact that this offender served as an instigator of criminal acts involving multiple other perpetrators; and
9.The offender’s history of positive interactions with the victim animal(s) prior to the abuse.
In light of these factors, it is difficult to discern how Mr. Vick’s supporters could reasonably believe that he should be allowed to exercise control over another dog. The Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees with that view and recommends the longest possible ban on ownership be maintained. Whether his supporters are truly concerned about animal welfare or just too invested in Mr. Vick’s “comeback” to give a damn about the fate of the next dog who comes under Mr. Vick’s control—you will have to decide for yourself."

[dreadgeek]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Mr. Vick be allowed to own another dog. I just don't think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail, be completely unemployable or, as Mr. Carlson suggested on TV, be executed. That is a far cry from suggesting that the man should own pets.

While I know that some here might think I'm being hyperbolic about the employment, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Vick were banned from playing in the NFL for life and got a job coaching at, say, a high school the same people here who want to see him continually punished would then say "how can he be allowed to teach at a high school?!" If he got a job as a street sweeper, a hue and cry would be raised. Once you've decided that someone should pay and pay and pay there is very little that will be granted to that person in the future. If the best Mr. Vick could do was working the grill at McDonald's there would be people who would say that they would NEVER AGAIN patronize a McDonald's because of his employment there.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by suebee

Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE

In regards to the severity of Vick's crimes, I found the following part of the article to be particularily interesting:
"The ongoing nature of his conduct remains serious cause for concern and understandably contributes to the enduring distrust of his repeated public assertions of remorse and reformation. Some additional yet basic risk factors one should consider in assessing Mr. Vick’s case and the continuing threat convicted abusers present to society include:

1.The vulnerability of his victims;
2.The large number of his victims;
3.The number of victimizing incidents;
4.The severity of the injury and methods used to kill;
5.The duration of the abuse;
6.The degree of pre-planning or premeditation;
7.The existence of other criminal conduct at the scene of the animal abuse (e.g., drugs, gun law violations, gambling);
8.The fact that this offender served as an instigator of criminal acts involving multiple other perpetrators; and
9.The offender’s history of positive interactions with the victim animal(s) prior to the abuse.
In light of these factors, it is difficult to discern how Mr. Vick’s supporters could reasonably believe that he should be allowed to exercise control over another dog. The Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees with that view and recommends the longest possible ban on ownership be maintained. Whether his supporters are truly concerned about animal welfare or just too invested in Mr. Vick’s “comeback” to give a damn about the fate of the next dog who comes under Mr. Vick’s control—you will have to decide for yourself."

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Mr. Vick be allowed to own another dog. I just don't think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail, be completely unemployable or, as Mr. Carlson suggested on TV, be executed. That is a far cry from suggesting that the man should own pets.

While I know that some here might think I'm being hyperbolic about the employment, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Vick were banned from playing in the NFL for life and got a job coaching at, say, a high school the same people here who want to see him continually punished would then say "how can he be allowed to teach at a high school?!" If he got a job as a street sweeper, a hue and cry would be raised. Once you've decided that someone should pay and pay and pay there is very little that will be granted to that person in the future. If the best Mr. Vick could do was working the grill at McDonald's there would be people who would say that they would NEVER AGAIN patronize a McDonald's because of his employment there.

Cheers
Aj

I haven't seen anybody here propose that either. But believe it or not, (and I hope I've got the right organization here - I'll come back and correct myself if I find out otherwise) the ASPCA has spoken up as feeling that Vick is ready to own another dog. Obviously this greatly upsets many in the rescue community.

As for employment: the man CERTAINLY has a right to provide for himself and his family. Should social stigma follow him and perhaps prevent him from working in some jobs? It depends upon your personal values. The severity of his crimes were the reason why I posted the article. I abhor people who buy a dog and then tie it out in the back yard and throw food at it once a day. But THAT is negligence, and ignorance. Michael Vick tortured and killed HUNDREDS of dogs. He knew full well that it was illegal. He hid his crimes. In my world that makes him a dispicable human being. He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

ETA: Obviously there are many people who ARE ready to support him, or at least forget about his crimes, as I haven't heard anything about the Eagles stands being empty for their games.

[BullDog]

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

[Daywalker]

Actually there have been threads about that Bully.
But they were not specifically Football players.
ie~ Mike Tyson, etc.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

Because people are fucked up and have zero priorities.

Because animal rights are very en vogue right now.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

Feel free to start one.

Before our President calls an NFL team and congratulates them on hiring a player recently released from prison on a domestic abuse or rape conviction.



Meanwhile, here's something I didn't know about. Lip service?

NFL Players Association Joins Justice Department Effort to Raise Awareness Around Violence Against Women

February 4, 2010

The Justice Department today announced that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has joined its year-long campaign to commemorate the 15 year anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. The NFLPA has "Joined the List," a group of more than 100 celebrities including actors, musicians and athletes, who have lent their names to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.

[Just_G]

Originally Posted by suebee

He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

So if everyone quit supporting wherever criminals that have served time worked, there would be a LOT of people at that same place of employment that would feel the impact. Not just the one that was hired. (who could really have turned their life around after serving their time) So I am not one to say I will NEVER support a business that has hired someone because of their record or what they did....others are impacted by that.

What people don't realize is that there are people like Michael Vick working in places we shop and support on a daily basis....how can you pick and choose where to spend your money? You can't ask for EVERYONE'S criminal record and then decide not to shop there.

When 9/11 happened, MY family business was affected because of the terrorists. The ignorance of people never fails to amaze me. We sell oriental rugs from India....a peaceful country that had NOTHING to do with what happened that day. But, people decided not to support OUR business because we sold a product that "the terrorists made and our money would be going to support more terrorism." That affected MY livelihood...still does to this day.

I believe in the good of people and hope that he learned something from his stint in Leavenworth. I still watch the NFL, even if they did let him play again. I even watched the Eagles get their asses kicked last night. No harm, no foul in my opinion. If by chance he gets another dog, I am sure there will be so many eyes on him it won't even be funny! Hopefully he has changed and become a better person through all of this. It will haunt him for the rest of his life, no matter how many good things he does or tries to do. He has a life sentence in THAT alone.

Just my little opinion on this topic....

[suebee]

Originally Posted by Just_G

So if everyone quit supporting wherever criminals that have served time worked, there would be a LOT of people at that same place of employment that would feel the impact. Not just the one that was hired. (who could really have turned their life around after serving their time) So I am not one to say I will NEVER support a business that has hired someone because of their record or what they did....others are impacted by that.

What people don't realize is that there are people like Michael Vick working in places we shop and support on a daily basis....how can you pick and choose where to spend your money? You can't ask for EVERYONE'S criminal record and then decide not to shop there.

When 9/11 happened, MY family business was affected because of the terrorists. The ignorance of people never fails to amaze me. We sell oriental rugs from India....a peaceful country that had NOTHING to do with what happened that day. But, people decided not to support OUR business because we sold a product that "the terrorists made and our money would be going to support more terrorism." That affected MY livelihood...still does to this day.

I believe in the good of people and hope that he learned something from his stint in Leavenworth. I still watch the NFL, even if they did let him play again. I even watched the Eagles get their asses kicked last night. No harm, no foul in my opinion. If by chance he gets another dog, I am sure there will be so many eyes on him it won't even be funny! Hopefully he has changed and become a better person through all of this. It will haunt him for the rest of his life, no matter how many good things he does or tries to do. He has a life sentence in THAT alone.

Just my little opinion on this topic....

I'm not saying that I wouldn't support ANY business that hired ANYBODY who had a criminal record. I'm saying that this man - in what I have seen of HIS public statements, does not yet "get it". He doesn't get that animals are beings that have every right to a peaceful existance, without suffering beyond words at the hands of people like him and his cohorts.

Let's make a comparison. Bully has brought up the topic of abuse of women. Would you support a team that re-hired a quarterback that had beat up his wife or girlfriend? What about if he had beaten up HUNDREDS of women? What if he'd tortured them, had a "rape machine" so that they could be immobilized for sexual intercourse, electrocuted them, and then killed them when they were no longer of use to him? THIS is the magnitude of Vick's crimes. I don't use the same paint brush for everyone - I don't boycott every man who has a criminal record. But I'd be willing to make an exception for the likes of Mr. Vick.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

I haven't seen anybody here propose that either. But believe it or not, (and I hope I've got the right organization here - I'll come back and correct myself if I find out otherwise) the ASPCA has spoken up as feeling that Vick is ready to own another dog. Obviously this greatly upsets many in the rescue community.

As for employment: the man CERTAINLY has a right to provide for himself and his family. Should social stigma follow him and perhaps prevent him from working in some jobs? It depends upon your personal values. The severity of his crimes were the reason why I posted the article. I abhor people who buy a dog and then tie it out in the back yard and throw food at it once a day. But THAT is negligence, and ignorance. Michael Vick tortured and killed HUNDREDS of dogs. He knew full well that it was illegal. He hid his crimes. In my world that makes him a dispicable human being. He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

ETA: Obviously there are many people who ARE ready to support him, or at least forget about his crimes, as I haven't heard anything about the Eagles stands being empty for their games.

Certainly, that is freedom of expression but your expression, in this instance, actually demonstrates my point. I don't think that the uproar is about Mr. Vick being back in the NFL, I think it is Mr. Vick being *employed* full stop! I think that the only *possible* job that Mr. Vick could take that would not generate howls of protest is if he were to have to walk across a mine field and find--and detonate by stepping on one--buried mines. PERHAPS that might not generate a hue and cry but anything short of a job where his death was certain, I doubt would be acceptable.

I am, as I've said before, not defending Mr. Vick because I don't defend criminals who have been convicted. I am, however, interested in this situation as a cultural situation because--and I was talking with my nephew about this yesterday--I think that if it were a white man, the general societal consensus would be 'he did the crime, he did the time, let the man get his life back'. I think that part of why so many people are just SO intense that he shouldn't be able to lead something remotely resembling a normal life is the *same* social psychology that says that if a black man breaks into a home and kills a white family his life is forfeit and the only question is whether he is electrocuted or shot up with drugs while if a white man breaks into a home and kills a black family he's looking at the life behind bars with a possibility of parole in 15 or 20 years. I am NOT saying that this is your motivation nor am I saying that anyone here is consciously working off that idea. However, there is a psychology behind the legal reality I just described and that psychology is pre-existing to ANY courtroom experience of a lawyer, judge or juror.

It is simply the case that in the United States of America, the general gestalt is to view the actions of a black man more harshly than the actions of a white man. If, for instance, Mr. Obama were a white man people would be making comparisons with Washington at this point but he's not and so he's been written off as a failed President while Mr. Bush--who was, in fact, actually a real and true disaster for this nation--will be rehabilitated into an Eisenhower-esque figure long before I die of old age.

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Certainly, that is freedom of expression but your expression, in this instance, actually demonstrates my point. I don't think that the uproar is about Mr. Vick being back in the NFL, I think it is Mr. Vick being *employed* full stop! I think that the only *possible* job that Mr. Vick could take that would not generate howls of protest is if he were to have to walk across a mine field and find--and detonate by stepping on one--buried mines. PERHAPS that might not generate a hue and cry but anything short of a job where his death was certain, I doubt would be acceptable.

I am, as I've said before, not defending Mr. Vick because I don't defend criminals who have been convicted. I am, however, interested in this situation as a cultural situation because--and I was talking with my nephew about this yesterday--I think that if it were a white man, the general societal consensus would be 'he did the crime, he did the time, let the man get his life back'. I think that part of why so many people are just SO intense that he shouldn't be able to lead something remotely resembling a normal life is the *same* social psychology that says that if a black man breaks into a home and kills a white family his life is forfeit and the only question is whether he is electrocuted or shot up with drugs while if a white man breaks into a home and kills a black family he's looking at the life behind bars with a possibility of parole in 15 or 20 years. I am NOT saying that this is your motivation nor am I saying that anyone here is consciously working off that idea. However, there is a psychology behind the legal reality I just described and that psychology is pre-existing to ANY courtroom experience of a lawyer, judge or juror.

It is simply the case that in the United States of America, the general gestalt is to view the actions of a black man more harshly than the actions of a white man. If, for instance, Mr. Obama were a white man people would be making comparisons with Washington at this point but he's not and so he's been written off as a failed President while Mr. Bush--who was, in fact, actually a real and true disaster for this nation--will be rehabilitated into an Eisenhower-esque figure long before I die of old age.

Cheers
Aj

I can only speak to what I would do. Michael Vick isn't just employed - he's an American hero. I'm not a sports fan, nor am I an American, so I don't get that whole sports hero thing. But *I* would certainly not support him: and here's why - I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I do not think the man has "gotten" that animals have the right to NOT be abused. He's coming out with the right words to try and polish his image. HELL! He's got millions of dollars riding on him buffing up his tarnished image! But I have not yet heard anything indicating anything other than the man got caught and is now having to placate the masses. I know not everyone will agree with this, but when you are a celebrity in the U.S. you have a lot of influence. I think that WITH that influence comes a GREAT responsibility to be a good role model. IMO Vick accepted the responsibilty when he took on the role of professional athelete.