Michael Vick and Job offer

[Senusret I]

Something tells me white men will be okay.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Something tells me white men will be okay.

I know, right?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No, dipshit, that is not what I said.

I said at some point, women chose to be in the company of their attacker - unless they were mugged on the street/raped at gunpoint. None of which we are talking about here. I did not say they chose to be raped or get AIDS or whatever or were "asking for it" or are responsible.

These animals never, ever chose to be in the company of Michael Vick or any of his equally sick asshole friends. This isn't Animal Farm where the animals can revolt, although it would have been the bomb diggity if it were.

Why do people freak out more over the rape of a baby than the rape of a grown woman? I mean, I'm sure that baby will forget all about it by the time it grows up. Babies don't know any better. (This is called SARCASM by the way.)

Clearly you missed the point. The woman is not more responsible (than the dog) because she may have chosen to spend time around her attacker. What is the point in saying that a woman consented to being around her attacker before being attacked? It is irrelevant. If the dogs chose to be around Vick or the others would that make what they (Vick & Friends) did any less criminal or vicious? No. Clearly you missed the SARCASM in my comment about the dogs leaving. Yeah, dipsh*t, funny.

Originally Posted by als463

Are you serious? How come everything has to turn into a race war when a minority commits a crime or does something wrong?
This isnt a race war. I dont understand why it is so scary for some people for race to be mentioned. My claim isnt that he was found guilty because he's black. He's guilty and was found such. I did say that his being black influenced how he was sentenced. In his sentencing the judge did not feel he was remorseful enough. Trying to guess whether or not a person is sorry enough is dificult to do. The person's public image will play a role in how he's viewed by others. The fact that he's black and a celebrity (who was portrayed as a hip-hop thug) IMO influenced his sentencing. Is that so farfetched? If Vick were a clean cut "wholesome" looking young white man he would seem more believeable to many people. Including those in the media, the court room, and the general public.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

He actually got a pretty good deal. The federal government was ready to press racketeering charges against him. If they convicted him, which I believe they would have been able to, he would have gotten a $250,000 fine and or 20 years in prison.

If he had been brought up on those charges and gotten 18 months then that would have been a very good deal. But on the funding the dog fighting I think he could have gotten less time.

[I.A.S.K.]

PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

And in VA no less. Shame.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

If he had been brought up on those charges and gotten 18 months then that would have been a very good deal. But on the funding the dog fighting I think he could have gotten less time.

He was facing 10 years and got 3. That seems to be a pretty sweet deal to me.

[als463]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

He was facing 10 years and got 3. That seems to be a pretty sweet deal to me.

Agreed...

[33girl]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Clearly you missed the point. The woman is not more responsible (than the dog) because she may have chosen to spend time around her attacker.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

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.

"Women have consented to spending time with their attackers and dogs can't consent to being around thier attackers therefore are assumed to have never consented" does not mean "you are comparing apples to oranges."
We are not comparing apples to oranges when saying there are NFL players who have committed more heinous crimes against PEOPLE who are still allowed to play and have gotten lesser punishments. Based on this fact Vick should not be villified and should be allowed to play. Fighting dogs is not as bad as driving drunk and killing a person. If that crime does not require getting kicked out then fighting dogs should not either.

[33girl]

Yes, it is comparing apples to oranges. Honestly honey, I don't think you understand what that phrase means.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

We are not comparing apples to oranges when saying there are NFL players who have committed more heinous crimes against PEOPLE who are still allowed to play and have gotten lesser punishments. Based on this fact Vick should not be villified and should be allowed to play. Fighting dogs is not as bad as driving drunk and killing a person. If that crime does not require getting kicked out then fighting dogs should not either.

I never said he should get kicked out. Read the posts. I said the Eagles are idiots for hiring him because they're going to be dealing with a nightmarish PR situation. The Falcons were smart and the Eagles are stupid. Period. Steelers got rid of Plaxico Burress for part of the same reasons - he was a pain in the ass and a PR nightmare. Putting the moral outrage aside, it is just an incredibly dumb business decision.

[KSig RC]

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

I was starting to think that I was going crazy in the whole apples to oranges discussion. You've basically made the points I was making. And I agree that it was not a bad business decision because they've gotten a good quarterback as a back up for McNab and if he does bring results people will not care about the dogs.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Agreed - I get the PR aspect of it (I worked in PR/media relations for a bit), but I honestly think that a good performance this year will erase a lot of the public outcry. That, and I think in time the majority of people will feel less strongly about what he did. This isn't going to start some longterm downturn in ticket sales or marketing opportunities for the team. At most, it will have a short-term negative effect on those areas.

It's a pretty low-risk for the Eagles; they're only tied to Vick for a year, it's at a reasonable cost, and it gives them time to decide if Vick (not Kolb) is their quarterback of the future. They can also see if his accuracy issues were a product of his lack of receiving help in Atlanta, or whether it's just his own issue.

On Vick's punishment - again, I think the prison sentence was reasonable, and I don't have a huge problem with a suspension to start the season (although I would have been more comfortable with 2-4 games).

Ideally, I agree that someone like Stallworth or Little should get longer prison sentences and longer suspensions than Vick; what they did was a lot higher on the moral/criminal scale. But, I have a couple of problems with some of the comparisons being used here.

1) Little's crimes happened while there was a different commissioner in office. I would imagine that he would have gotten a similar suspension to Stallworth if it happened when Goodell was commissioner. If you want to say that Stallworth's suspension should have been longer/shorter in comparison to Vick's I could understand that thought a bit more.

2) I see the point with comparing Vick's sentence to Little and Stallworth, but I come out of the comparison a bit differently. Just because Little and Stallworth should have gotten harsher sentences (which they probably should have) doesn't really mean anything as far as Vick's sentence. In comparing the three cases, I think the "system" got it correct in Vick's case, and got it completely incorrect in Little and Stallworth's cases.