Back in the day, there was a hope that the standard of judging a person would be the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. The NAACP doesn't appear to make a difference in that they have called for Vick to be allowed to play football and have generally been very supportive of him. Dog fighting has some noted companionship with the drug trade and criminal activity. Another athlete has defended Vick stating that dog fighting is a sport.

Questions for debate:

1.)In defending Vick, is the NAACP failing to acknowledge that judging a person based on the content of their character?

2.)When it comes to gang and criminal ties of the sport, why isn't the NAACP more critical of the "thug life" mentality exhibited by Vick and other athletes which is at odds with "content of character," which is a valid way of judging someone?

3.)Is the NAACP turning a blind eye to the real problems of the African-American community? Why do you feel this way?

Thanks for this. I read this the other day, but have been kinda busy (I know, some of y'all are grateful). Don't worry- I'll be out of town Mon/Tues next week, you get a reprieve! HA!

One answer- He's black. Oh, and he's rich. Turnea and NT... begin the ripping... Ok, I'm kidding.

I do think that's why the NAACP is supporting this, but I just read the article again. It mentions that he should come back AFTER his time in prison.

I agree. If a man serves his time, he should get a 2nd chance. What's he gonna do? Work at Kroger? He's one of the best QB's in the NFL.

The NAACP may have alterior motives, but whatever. I think they're probably right in this case.

First things first. Michael Vick is a terrible quarterback. A terrific athlete, but a horrible quarterback.

Okay, onto the questions:

If they are saying he should be able to re-enter the NFL after he gets out of jail, they aren't being hypocrites or failing to judge him by the content of his character. I disagree with them, I don't think Vick should be allowed to re-enter the NFL after he gets out of jail, but they aren't being hypocritical in this instance.

Because like all groups based solely on race, the NAACP has a racist element to it. It won't get on the case of athletes for their 'thug' mentality because somehow, that has become accepted.

I don't know. I currently live in one of the whitest towns on God's Earth, I do not pretend to fully know all of the problems of the 'African-American community'...With that said I also don't buy into the fact that a race/ethnic group has a monopoly on a set of problems.

CP

I agree with aevans176, but would word it just a little differently. Once a person - any person - has served all time, probation and parole, they have earned a second chance - voting rights, etc. I don't believe in extension of punishment in any form. Since there is no federal parole, Michael Vick will fall within this broad category of having satisfied his obligation to the state when he is released.

Vick is likely to serve about a year in prison. He would be only 28 when he is released. Let the football begin.

If there is a suspension from the NFL, it should be no more than a year and Commissioner Roger Goodell should make it run concurrently with his prison time.

Unfortunately as well- the NFL has a long history of allowing very bad behaviors, as well as other professional sports- to single him out for MORE than the average punishment meted out for felonius behavior is not just either. His punishment should be no higher than any other felon allowed to play.

Good point. At least Mr. Vick is going to do time and pay for this. What about the tons of other bad examples? (IE one Dallas ex-receiver who was caught with drugs in his car?... the dude who ran over a meter maid in Philly, etc)

I think it's time for the NFL to grab the reigns again.

The new Commissioner has been cracking down on bad behavior. A year's suspension for Pacman Jones who hasn't been convicted of a crime. Does a year concurrent with Vick's presumed jail sentence seem right in this light?

There are over 55 felons that have been allowed to play in the NFL, even after convictions- some don't though- cause they in jain (see the number one example below) - this is just a "quickie" list, some where active, some weren't, some were allowed to play some weren't- to be fair and balanced and all:

But here are the top ten

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/us_...icle1968632.ece

1. Rae Carruth (wide receiver, Carolina Panthers)
Carruth, nicknamed "Da Troof", organised the murder of Cherica Adams, his pregnant girlfriend, in 1999 because she refused to have an abortion. Carruth stopped his car in front of hers, blocking her escape route as the passenger in another car shot her four times. The child survived after an emergency delivery. Carruth was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and using an instrument to destroy an unborn child. In 2001, he was sentenced to 18 to 24 years in prison but found not guilty of first-degree murder and spared the death penalty.

2. Ray Lewis (linebacker, Baltimore Ravens)
The 2001 Super Bowl MVP, twice NFL defensive player of the year, and selected eight times for the Pro Bowl, Lewis is one of the greatest linebackers of all time. On January 31, 2000, he was arrested and charged with the murders of Jacinth Baker and Richard Lollar, both stabbed to death outside a nightclub during a fight. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of obstruction of justice and agreed to testify against two friends against whom murder charges remained. He settled - generously - out of court when civil suits were filed against him by the families of Baker and Lollar.

3. Eugene Robinson (safety, Atlanta Falcons and others)
On the morning before Super Bowl XXXIII in 1999, his third in succession, Robinson was awarded the Bart Starr Award from the Christian group Athletes in Action for his "high moral character". The same night he was arrested for offering a female undercover police officer $40 for sex. Not surprisingly, he didn't play very well in the game either, making two key errors as the Falcons lost 34-19. The charges were later dropped on condition that Robinson took an AIDS test and attended AIDA awareness classes. He also returned the award.

4. Lawrence Phillips (running back, St Louis Rams)
Phillips left a number of teams after disagreements with coaches. However, he has problems relating not only to authority, but also to women. While an NFL player, he pleaded no contest to assaulting a woman in a nightclub after she refused to dance with him. He was later acquitted of choking a former girlfriend to the point of unconsciousness, domestic abuse, child abuse and leaving the scene of an accident. In 2006 he was found guilty of seven counts of assault with a deadly weapon.

5. Lawrence Taylor (linebacker, New York Giants)
The Hall Of Fame defender failed drugs tests on several occasions and admitted in a televised interview that he had spent thousands of dollars a day on narcotics, becoming a regular cocaine user as early as his second professional season. He also claimed to have hired prostitutes to go to opponents' hotel rooms the night before games.

6. Darrell Russell (defensive lineman, Oakland Raiders)
Russell was suspended three times during his career for violating the league's substance abuse policy, including one ban for the use of Ecstasy. The third, and indefinite, suspension in July 2004 effectively ended his career. Charged with 25 felonies as an accomplice stemming from the videotaped rape of a woman by two of his friends, Russell was killed in a high-speed car crash in December 2005.

7. Alonzo Spellman (defensive lineman, Detroit Lions)
Spellman was charged with interfering with a flight crew after a disturbance on a flight from Cincinnati to Philadelphia, causing them to make an emergency landing. He had yelled about the possibility of a crash, insulted a female passenger and threatened to smash a flight attendant's head with the studs on his boots. He also told a pilot he was "about to rip your throat out," according to investigators. He was later committed to a psychiatric hospital.

8. Sebastian Janikowski (kicker, Oakland Raiders)
Kickers do not usually get involved in the most violent scenes in games, but the Polish kicker made up for it off the field. Convicted of drunk-driving and bar brawls, he was acquitted of charges of attempting to bribe an officer and possession of the date-rape drug GHB.

9. Mark Gastineau (defensive end, New York Jets)
Gastineau has admitted to steroid abuse while playing for the Jets, was convicted of domestic abuse of his second wife and spent 11 months in prison for repeated parole violation. Later found religion and became a boxer.

10. Tank Johnson (offensive lineman, Chicago Bears)
Arrested three times in 18 months, Johnson broke probation conditions arising from firearms charges to go to a nightclub. While he was there, an argument broke out and his bodyguard, a close friend, was shot and killed.

Yes. A years jail time is harder than a year out of jail.

If the suspension isn't concurrent with the jail term, Vick skills would further deteriorate and he might never play again.

I don't like shutting the door on someone's ability to make a living. I would prefer that Vick make the big bucks and pay the big taxes. We have to have money to pay for Bush's war and the mounting casulties that are coming home with missing limbs. We'll be paying for this for a generation or more and Vick might as well help. Why would we cut off our noses to spite our faces?

While I respect the need to punish people for wrong doing, I question what I see as a trend to max anyone and everyone out. Lindsay Lohan's day in jail might be a notable exception.

BOF... what on earth does this have to do with the war? Good Lord. Man, I swear, this is what sometimes makes me mad. Mike Vick has nothing to do with the war.

Ironically, him paying taxes on millions of dollars doesn't even make sense. There's a 99% chance that if he's not there, some other QB will be, and the revenue won't significantly fall from the industry due to his absence. Taxes will be paid regardless...

Lindsay Lohan is a different story, but I believe that in her case, sadly that the day in jail and fines are what most people would get. Again-that's deplorable considering her crimes.

You aevans176 and Michael Vick are of the same generation - since you like to lecture about generation so much. This war will mark your genereation and the costs will limit your generation more than mine.

Iraq will be like Vietnam - your generation - Michael Vick's generation - will be paying for it long after I'm gone. The costs of Iraq and how to pay for them will last at least 25 years, if not longer. It will overshadow everything else that happens in a generation. The ramifictions are huge. Get used to it.

My point was that it would be better to have Vick making the big bucks and paying the big taxes than the alternatives. Again, how are people, who want to max Vick out, not cutting off your noses to spite your faces?

1.)In defending Vick, is the NAACP failing to acknowledge that judging a person based on the content of their character?

Vick is an African American, and he stands to lose a lot if he cannot be reinstated after serving his sentence. That's why they're doing it.

But I think it is a valid point that character should enter into the decision.

2.)When it comes to gang and criminal ties of the sport, why isn't the NAACP more critical of the "thug life" mentality exhibited by Vick and other athletes which is at odds with "content of character," which is a valid way of judging someone?

You'd have to ask the NAACP.

I would like to know why Vick was even involved in dog fighting if it wasn't to gamble on the outcome of the fights. In other words, I think he's lying. It seems to me that if he just "got off" on seeing animals suffer and brutalize each other, the crime is even more reprehensible.

3.)Is the NAACP turning a blind eye to the real problems of the African-American community? Why do you feel this way?

It garners less press coverage when ordinary individuals are helped by any organization that is pledged to help them. This is a high profile case. Obviously, there are a lot of people more deserving of the help of the NAACP--people who, through no fault of their own, have been victimized by racial discrimination.

Michael Vick is in this predicament directly because of his own actions, actions that are illegal, unethical and immoral. I say he made his bed, and he should sleep in it.

But hey, I'm not part of the organization.

EDIT: I had a thought...What if Michael Vick were to serve his time in the army, considering that they let felons serve nowadays? He could serve his country that way, and then maybe it would sweeten the pot a little for the NFL to take him back. Whaddaya think, BoF?

The guy hasn't been honest about it from day one. He stated that he was not guilty and that family took advantage of him. The only admittance of guilt comes from his signed plea deal, not from his own mouth. He pulled the victim card when he said this recently:



Yes Michael, you're being persecuted and there is nothing wrong that you did.



Colbert I. King of WaPo has an excellent editorial from which I posted Vick's whiny quote. The Quarterback Who Won't Come Clean documents how the guy settled out of court with a woman over a matter that he was more than "guilty" of, not to mention the fact that he gave the finger to Atlanta Falcons fans. Yet more proof of the content of his character, or lack thereof.




Get him, Pacman Jones, and several others and we have the 21st century version of the dirty dozen right? Where's Lee Marvin when we need him?

On a different note, I don't believe the NAACP should interject in the whole deal of whether or not he should play football again. Yes, you do your time and you're done, but seriously- Wouldn't they better serve the African-American community in attacking the root problem that Vick and other men like him possess?. That being, the "thug life" mentality and the eschewing of character and hard work for a of life of guns, dogs, and gang glorification? Wouldn't that go further and help more people than trying to get Vick reinstated into the NFL? Michael Vick is in trouble for his actions and shouldn't be represented by the NAACP unless it was white people who built the kennel on his property without his knowledge.

I think military service as a substitution for jail as punishment for some crimes (not murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.) is a good idea, if it is voluntary and no participants are sent to Iraq – Afghanistan would be ok. I can't support sending anyone into the Iraqi quagmire.

In defending Vick, is the NAACP failing to acknowledge that judging a person based on the content of their character?

I would say so. To be involved in this type of criminal sport, he must have viewed animal abuse as acceptable. That is a huge flaw in his character. It cannot be overlooked. At least it should not. Pardon me, but I put this in the same category as child abuse. If Vick would have been doing this activity, only it was kids who were being abused in such a way, it would be the END of him.


When it comes to gang and criminal ties of the sport, why isn't the NAACP more critical of the "thug life" mentality exhibited by Vick and other athletes which is at odds with "content of character," which is a valid way of judging someone?

I can only guess, but I would say that the NAACP wants the support of black America. A percentage of that population embraces "thug life". So they don't want to rock the boat and also they would rather keep the finger pointing away from the black community in terms of criticism.


Is the NAACP turning a blind eye to the real problems of the African-American community? Why do you feel this way?

If the NAACP is not demanding that blacks take personal responsibility on all levels, then yes, they are turning a blind eye. The best way to help someone is to get them to be 100% accountable for the state of their existence. To rally people behind the idea that they are somehow not responsible for their lives only hurts them and keeps them down. In this case, they should fully acknowledge the severity of what Vick has done, and demand that he be held accountable.

Laugh all you want, it is a sport. A reprehensible, brutal, and horrendous one, but nonetheless it fits the sociological definition of "sport."

1.)In defending Vick, is the NAACP failing to acknowledge that judging a person based on the content of their character?
Yes, they are failing.

2.)When it comes to gang and criminal ties of the sport, why isn't the NAACP more critical of the "thug life" mentality exhibited by Vick and other athletes which is at odds with "content of character," which is a valid way of judging someone?
I think part of it was explained by others (playing to the black community, picking high profile "victims" to champion, etc), but I also think that there's another aspect. The aformentioned greater acceptance of the "gangsta" mentality within the black community. One reason is the idiotic worship by progressives of "authenticity". Gangsta culture is seen as "authentic", and as such is much more resistant to criticism by progressives, and make no mistake about it, the NAACP is steppin and fetchin for the progressives these days.

3.)Is the NAACP turning a blind eye to the real problems of the African-American community? Why do you feel this way?
Yes, I believe that they are. I feel this way because of some of the "victims" the NAACP chooses to champion, and more importantly, because the NAACP, at least on the national level, is always looking to the government as the font of solutions, and because, in general, the last place the NAACP looks for "root causes" is within the black communities.

This is just silly. These comments do not reflect the views of the national NAACP, they reflect the views of a local chapter, which is one of literally hundreds. The very next day, the national chapter responded. The interim president had this to say in regards to Vick and the Atlanta NAACP chapter:

"The NAACP does not condone dogfighting. This is a situation involving Mike Vick. I understand he has admitted wrongdoing. Michael Vick is not a victim in this situation. He was in control of his actions, and he's not a victim."

and this

"We would hope that our units, as we do, would be dealing with the larger issues of the day that surround things like jobs and tackle problems that go to the root cause of our affliction as a community, as families, whether it has to do with education or wages or poor health care. We try to deal with those over-arching problems."

I question why fox news doesn't present the other side of the story. (That is a rhetorical question, the reason is pretty clear). Here is a more "fair and balanced" account from USAToday

People don't realize that the NAACP has literally hundreds of local chapters that are all pretty autonomous. So the comments of one local chapter president should not be taken to represent the whole.

1) I see that you are trying to connect the Martin Luther King Jr. quote to the NAACP in some way and I'm not sure why. I don't understand what you are asking; I think maybe you worded your question the wrong way.

2) Your premise is flawed. They do. And that took all of 8 seconds to find

3) They actually do address a lot of problems affecting the African-American community, death penalty, subprime loans, health care, unemployment, etc. Just google NAACP + any of those phrases that I listed and you'll see what I mean.


The NAACP and its local branches are involved in a lot more than people give them credit for. It's just that the media, which highlights the sensational in its typical fashion, only chooses to focus on certain things.

I question why you are faulting Fox News for not presenting "the other side of the story" when the other side didn't speak out until the next day! The Fox piece clearly identifies the NAACP folks as local, and clearly indicates when its speaking of local and state NAACP officials, just as this AP piece, found on MyFox Atlanta clearly identifies that its the national officials speaking. Of course, we could wonder why YOU didn't present that side of the story regarding Fox. Ah, never mind, that's a rhetorical question, the reason is pretty clear.

In defending Bush's continuing interference in the middle east are the repugnants saying that a dog life is more important than those human beings that are being slaughtered - the Palestinians and the Iraqis?



When it comes to gang and criminal activities why aren't the repugnants more critical of the "thug life" mentality exhibited by the Department of INjustice and the so called federal judiciary in the matter of Jose Padilla?

You can say what you want about how clearly they identified that the naacp members were local. But that isn't the impression that people were taking from the article. Read the post that started this thread and the replies to it before mine. They all give the impression that it was the national NAACP that made the comments and not some 1 in several hundred local branch president. All of the replies operate within the context of a national scale, not a local one. The article may have used the words "local branch" several times, but it does not effectively put the whole thing into proper perspective.

I wrote my original reply 4 days after the national chapter responded. 4 days was more than enough time for Fox News to have done a followup story based on the national naacp president's comments. It certainly was enough time for the local myfox affiliate to do the followup, which you linked to. Yet for some reason Fox News left that part out. Why would they do that? What reason could they possibly have to do a story on the ill-conceived comments of a local, 1-in-several-hundred branch president yet fail to have any report on the comments of the national naacp president that effectively responded to those ignorant comments?

You are being disingenuous when you suggest that Fox News reported on the national naacp's comments. Their myfox, local atlanta affiliate reported on it but Fox News did not (at least I could not find it on their website). THAT is what I was referring to. The eagerness of Fox News to report on ignorant comments of an naacp local branch president while failing to report on the comments on the national naacp president that responded to put the smack down on the local president.

Again, you are faulting Fox unjustly. What you should be doing is faulting the respondents who extrapolated the local chapter's position as being representative of the national. Could be because they didn't read the article itself closely?

I have no idea, but you are assuming that Fox News didn't do it. My link to MyFox Atlanta was simply found on a trail of links from the original story, and the same story could just as easily have been on Fox News main site as it was on the Atlanta site. Incidentally, the original story is also on the Atlanta site... I'm currently on a crappy dial-up connection via NetZero (I've spent the better part of the last 10 years with, at worst, cable modem access, most with T1 or T3 access), so I don't have the luxury of wandering around sites. Furthermore, few of the news sites modify existing stories, they simply post new articles with updates, so the lack of change in the original story isn't in the least bit unusual.

Why do you persist in lumping the Atlanta chapter in with the Podunk chapter? Talk about disingenuous! Given the context of the story, that would be like treating the Mayor of Moorehead, MN's perspective on illegal immigration as equally weighty as the Mayor of San Diego's!

Additionally, does the disparity in responses between the Atlanta leadership and the national leadership of the NAACP somehow render all the responses faulting the NAACP as void? What's the logic in that? Simply because its the "National" AACP? Can we hereafter ignore any local chapter spokesfolk for a national liberal advocacy groups because they are local?

Looks like you'd better go back to search school. I found it with a single search, "Vick dog NAACP".


Contumacious, your rant contributes nothing to the topic save a randomized vector into the WingBat Nebula.

To me, whether or not a local or the national leaderhsip commented on it is relevant. Either one, or both backing this guy in any way is still bad in my opinion. It eschews the idea of personal responsibility and the fact that this guy from day one hasn't been honest about it. He's been coddled by society as an athlete and I'm sure it gave him more than a few free "passes" in this life. What is it about personal responsibility and judgment that the NAACP finds so disagreeable?

I am reminded of a quote from "The Green Mile" as Mr Bitterbuck was dead on a slab, while Percy continued to disrespect him after paying the ultimate price for his crimes-

"The man has paid his price to society, all debts are clean, he is even with the house"

Michael Vick is being punished far beyond neccesary for the crime, considering the evil that is done in this country, with far lessor sentences.

The NAACP's exact quote from the original post:

An NAACP leader said Michael Vick should be allowed to return to the NFL, preferably the Atlanta Falcons, after serving his sentence for his role in a dogfighting operation.

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the group's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."


We have far worse crimes going far less punished, by more prominent poeple. Why should we punish Vick, and offer no rehabilitation, if we are going to offer this for others?

He does his time, he has paid his debt- he doesn't do it again- as far as I am concerned, the NAACP is right- he is rehabilitated and his past should be left in his past.

Maybe I missed something, nebraska29, but I have yet to hear any responsible person (Clinton Portis and Stephon Marbury don't count) suggest Michael Vick shouldn't be punished for his crimes. Nor has anyone suggested his judgment hasn't been horrible. What I have heard (and agree with) is if he does his time, repays his debt to society, is contrite and honestly rehabilitated, then he should be allowed to pursue his livelihood as a football player again.

If this society desires the certainty of punishment does it not also believe in the possibility of redemption? Is Michael Vick somehow less worthy than any other criminal who comes out of prison and tries to put their life together?

It's not that the NAACP wants special treatment for Vick. Nobody's asking George Bush to pardon him. What the NAACP seems to be saying is his punishment should not be special either.

We are talking about dogs here right? Don't dogs eat their own poop? I know mine do. They eat their own vomit too. Michael Vick is going to spend time in jail because he killed an animal that society would rather pet than eat. That's selective punishment. I wonder if the judge will contemplate Vick's sentence while eating some Cow. Or maybe some Scrambled Chicken Babies. I just don't understand people that equate human life to animals. Who out there is a dog lover? Do you collar your dog? Do you restrict it to certain areas? Your yard? The garage? A back porch? Do you cage it when it's bad? Is your dog your pet, or your slave? Do you know what the benign government that saved these dogs is going to do to them? Feed them and give them a home? Nope. Bath them and care for them? No, sorry. The government is going to kill them. Just like Vick.

Actually no, this is the Race Issues forum, so we're talking about Michael Vick and the NAACP's defense of him and his activities. But, let's move on.....




I don't know. Mine don't.



Perhaps a change in the diet you're feeding them might be in order.




Well, I'd puke too if the best thing I had to eat was my own poop. Maybe they are eating it to try and help clean up after themselves?




In simplistic terms, yes. That's why there are laws against dog-fighting.




Yes it is. Had Vick engaged in lawful behavior like petting his dogs instead of killing them, he wouldn't be getting prosecuted for it. So, it's pretty selective alright. One thing is illegal, the other not. Go figure.....



He might, but that would be better than if he was eating his own poop or vomit doncha think?




I bet you mean eggs here. Right?



Who is doing that? Who is calling for Michael Vick to by punished as if he were a murderer? ANyone calling for Capital punishment here? Life without parole? Who is doing that?




Me!!! I love dogs.




Actually no, I use a harness when I take my dogs out for a walk.




I do try to keep them out of the oven and clothes dryer, yes.




They have free run of my back yard, and they love it back there, as do I.



They do visit me from time to time when I'm working in my garage, but it seems to bore them.




Patio count? They go there but only on the way to to the back yard. I do discourage them from pooping or peeing on the patio though. In my defense though I also discourage my kids from doing that as well.



No, I just show them a picture of Michael Vick and that pretty well makes the statement. (just kidding people) No, I don't "cage" my dogs.



I guess I'd say given these two choices I would go for pet. The lesser of two evils maybe because I don't know what "pet" means. My dogs are companions, friends. I enjoy being with them and they enjoy (near as I can tell) being with me.





No, not to my dogs, and not to any dogs. No "government", nor any organization that attempts to deal with the problem of an excess of stray dogs or cats does anything close to what Michael Vick did to those dogs. They don't drown them, or slam them to the ground or electrocute them. They don't do that because those dogs aren't good fighters like Michael Vick and the scumbags like him do. To equivocate what rescue agencies, governmental and private do to what Michael Vick did is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to make that argument.

Aquilla

His activities? You mean dog-fighting? Oh, so we are talking about dogs? Good, now let's move on.

Of course your dogs don't. They eat pasta, and sometimes they like a little wine and a cigar afterwards. Then they discuss the finer points of butt-sniffing.

So I should stop feeding dogs...dog food? Should I take them to a restaraunt with me and demand that they be served as I?

Are you making an excuse for a dog here? Rover eats his own poo because he likes to be neat.

Sorry Aquilla, the law is a tool used by the wealthy to keep the poor in poverty. Can't sell drugs it's against the law, unless those drugs are cigarettes and alcohol, then it's ok. Can't fight dogs it's against the law, but you can fight people, that's legal. The law means whatever the powerful want it to mean. GWB, Bill CLinton, Dick Cheney, and Ronald Reagan are perfect examples. Can't wiretap, it's against the law. So what. Can't lie under oath to a Grand Jury, it's against the law. So what. Can't drink and use firearms at the same time and then shoot someone in the face, that's against the law. So what. Can't sell weapons to Iranians and then funnel that money to Rebels in Nicaragua that's against the law. Again, so what. The law? LOL. The law is a joke.

Maybe if Vick was white and giving kickbacks to the Mob Boss, you know Uncle Sam, this behavior wouldn't be illegal.

A dismissive statement that does not address the fact that our society protects one animal while slaughtering and eating others because dogs can do tricks.

I know, it's silly to discuss our own hypocrisy. Let's just ignore it and it doesn't exist right? Roll your eyes to that.

Who is doing this? The people holding the signs calling for Vick to be castrated.

Yawn.

You use a harness to control your dog. Like a prisoner in a chain gang. Allowed to work in the field but not run in it. Does your dog try to run? If not, you must have broken its will.

So do you restict them from other places, not just the oven and dryer? How about your bed, or your couch? Can they go on the table and eat from a plate?

Like a prisoner walking the yard.

Because they would rather be free.

So are you saying your kids are like dogs?

Did you when they were puppies?

Companion by definition must be a person. I guess that's where you're getting confused. Dogs aren't people. So in response to my earlier statement about 'equating dogs to humans' you had said, "Who's doing that?" Well, you are. Because you don't know the difference between companion and pet. Or pet and slave.

I'm not ashamed. When my dog messes up, I kick it and then I slap it. And then I put it in it's corner. And then I don't feed it. And why are excessive dogs a problem? A dog lover claiming that too many dogs is a problem? Hmmm.

From one Libertarian to another :

Can you identify the act which from a Libertarian standpoint constituted a crime?

The law is on the books, whether or not it should be according to a minority segment of the political population has no bearing on the issue. It is wrong, the majority have decreed it as such, the laws were voted in place, that settles it.

I lean very far into the libertarian realm... and seriously- how can you not see this as a crime?
If he and his friends had a "fight club" for humans, and they willingly participated, that wouldn't be a crime by "Libertarian" standards. Men of free will beating each other to a pulp, and then electrocuting "THEMSELVES" if they were too beaten to live on... that would be ok I'd suppose. So long as it was done to themselves.

To poor domesticated animals that are taught and prodded to fight, there is a stark contrast. Dogs, like many domesticated animals, figure out acceptable behavior due to ques they get from their human counterparts. It's kinda like kids I'd suppose. If fighting is all they knew, and positive reward came from it, I'd suppose some kids would even engage in this horror.

It's sick. Someone should protect animals from disgusting acts of this nature.

I have said in previous posts that I thought the law was wrong- dogs are clearly property, and have no business outside the arena of using that property to harm another as a basis of law- but the REALITY is- the law exists, and Michaelf Vick has now pleaded guilty.

My point is- after serving his time, he should of course be allowed to play football again- if we are going to say that rehabilitation is the main concern of correctional facilities- if he does his time, doesn't do it again- why should he have a life sentence of no employment as well?

Thank you for you response. It reminded about a speech made around 200 hundred years ago:


"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320


So , I guess the Jews were wrong. Adolf Hitler, a duly elected Fuhrer was correct in enforcing the NAZI Law which mandated their extinction.

South African blacks were also wrong in challenging discriminatory but written laws.

You live and learn.

TaTa



I guess you don't lean far enough.

Individuals have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness. Those rights are unalienable.

I own 2 dogs which I consider family members . But that is irrelevant. Mr. Vick --- as a freeman ---- has a right to pursue happiness and use his property as he wishes. Mr. Vicks actions did not transgress upon my rights. I know he did not transgress upon yours either.

In your collectivist mentality you feel that the standing army - violence - should be use to compel your fellow citizens to accept your code of conduct.





"The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....."

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Then by all means, start your own professional football league and hire Michael Vick as your marquee player. Nothing to prevent you from doing that. The NFL is a private enterprise that depends strictly on public goodwill and support for it's very existence. If the NFL determines that allowing Michael Vick to play in their league again would cause a significant loss of that public support, they won't, and they shouldn't let him play in their league anymore. It's certainly their right to do that.

Aquilla

You are absolutely right as well Aquilla- if the public does not wish to watch him play- they the team that gets him will lose money. Somehow, in this day of outrage overload- like I said- I just can't get outraged about Micheal Vick's property transgressions when we have an administration doing far worse things and getting away with it- seriously- there are just far, far bigger things to be outraged about.

I think Vick is a dummy- not just for this transgression, but his marijuna/airport thang too. But, if he does a year in jail- far as I am concerned, he paid too far large a price already. I would go to a game he played after that, for sure. And, since controversy sells, I don't see him as being a liability any more than any other of the rogues gallery of sports "heroes" we have today.

I believe the NFL, as a private entity- living under anti-trust legislations rules as well- can ban Vick if they want to. I don't think they would take a financial hit really- it is a win/win for whoever gets him- he will have a greatly reduced salary, and won't be bargaining from a strong position, now will he? - so you get a super-bowl level player on the fire sale price.

I just can't be outraged when there are so many other, more worthwhile, things to be outraged about, where justice is NEVER seen.

A life time ban would not be for the dog fighting, it would be due to his gambling activities, an activity that if a player is guilty of it, earns them a life time ban. There isn't a "special" punishment when it comes to a life time ban, that is standard operating procedure. That is outlined a bit in this blog post. The NFL is just biding time for the dog issue to clear up before any talk about punishment for gambling is discussed.

The lifetime ban would be for a different matter, a fact lost on the NAACP evidently.

The larger point of a corrupt culture being behdin the deification of Vick and other men who choose to do wrong is not unduly lost among certain African Americans. A few snippets:



and



MSNBC article.

So when will the NAACP do likewise and acknowledge the larger problem? Or is there an elephant in the room?

Let the spin begin.

Why is gambling illegal? Because somebody not named Rich White Man or Uncle Sam is getting paid. The fear of all the sports leagues, NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB is that the games will be fixed and the fans that support those teams will now knowing that, will not support them. But there are many ways to fix a game. Take the Oakland Athletics for example, constantly getting rid of their best players. Johnny Damon, Miguel Tejada, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Jason Giambi. All the teams that these players have been traded to have won, or almost won a championship. Boston in 2004, Cardinals in 2006, the Yankees are competing for the series every year, yet where are the Athletics? Middle of the road, competing for their division, but never really winning anything. The fans are being bamboozled, just like if a player throws a game, yet organizations don't throw games, they throw seasons. But if they compete for the division title all year and finally fall out of contention in the last week, the organization still makes money. What if they came out and gave a press conference, "We're not trying to win this year, but we'd like your support anyway." How do you think that would fly?

The only reason gambling is wrong is because the wrong people make money off of it.