Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
Clearly YOU missed the point. As I said, it is comparing apples and oranges. (If you don't know what that means, check wikipedia) You and BP were the ones who brought up "well Joe Limpdick only got 3 days in jail for raping 3 women." What Joe Limpdick got has nothing to do with Michael Vick.
|
So the dogs didn't get a choice in the matter.
Did the dude "choose" to be hit by a drunk driver? By the logic you're leaning on, this becomes an apples-to-apples comparison, one in which Vick compares quite favorably to Stallworth, Little etc.
It's only a dumb business decision for the Eagles if it affects the bottom line - and "pain in the ass" or "PR nightmare" conjecture doesn't really indicate an automatic loss on the bottom line. However, winning a division, conference or (heaven forbid) Super Bowl title generally creates more than enough revenue to offset, well, anything - I'm not convinced this is even all that big of a deal from the Eagles' perspective. They can always walk away, and it's likely a one-year issue anyway. I don't see the risk/reward axis tilted as much as everyone else seems to.
Threaded Mode
