Bronco Billy Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Listen - the NFL can do whatever it likes. I understand that and have no issue with it. My issue was with people saying that Vick shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL (i.e., that the NFL and/or its teams shouldn't be allowed to offer him employment). If you can't see the difference between these two concepts, I apologize. I'm not going to explain my points and where I'm coming from all over again. What people say have no bearing - unless they are part of the NFL's decision making process. But people also have a right to their opinion. If you are implying that someone or something should have forced the NFL to bar Vick, then I would be on your side - but I don't think that is the argument being presented by anyone other than yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Please explain to me how not being barred and making employment by a specific entity a right are different. They both remove the choice from the employer as to making decisions on hiring of people. You are playing at semantics, but the end result is identical. I'm not playing at semantics - they are 2 different things. I don't understand your wording above, so I'll explain what I was talking about using my own words again: 1. someone should not be barred from something = he should have the ability to do something if given the opportunity (i.e., if given the opportunity, they aren't barred from taking it); and 2. someone has the right to do something = someone has to give them the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I believe he is making quite a bit more than the league minimum is he not and think that still puts him into an executive position ... more along the lines of middle management rather than top executive. Either way much more than any normal ex-con can expect. Not sure what league minimum has to do with this. Point is that, comparatively speaking, he's in a much worse situation than he was when he went in - same situation with most/all convicts. It's just a matter of relativity. No ... it doesn't "make sense that he is on a higher economic scale" when he comes out. When you go to prison this dramatically changes EVERYTHING in your life ... you don't get to pick up where you left off when you get out. I never said Vick doesn't have a right to try to find a job in football, in fact I said quite the opposite. However, just because he has the right to try to find a job in football doesn't mean that NFL teams are required to even give him a try out let alone hire him. What I said was that I was disappointed that there was an NFL team that was willing to hire a player with his lack of moral character especially given his poor qualities as a QB - but I did not dispute the right of the Eagles to do so. He's not picking up where he left off. He's using the talent that he still has to get the best job he could get - same as anyone else would do. It just so happens that his talents can get him paid a hell of a lot more than your average Joe . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 What people say have no bearing - unless they are part of the NFL's decision making process. But people also have a right to their opinion. If you are implying that someone or something should have forced the NFL to bar Vick, then I would be on your side - but I don't think that is the argument being presented by anyone other than yourself. Go back and look at the posts I responded to and you'll see that certain people here absolutely said they don't think he should be allowed to play in the NFL. I have no idea if you were one of the people who said it and I'm not going to check (lot of posts here) but it was certainly said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I think he's a great addition for the Eagles. Do I like him? No. Do I support what he did? No. Do I think he did his time? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I think he's a great addition for the Eagles. Do I like him? No. Do I support what he did? No. Do I think he did his time? Yes. You were much more concise than I was . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Go back and look at the posts I responded to and you'll see that certain people here absolutely said they don't think he should be allowed to play in the NFL. I have no idea if you were one of the people who said it and I'm not going to check (lot of posts here) but it was certainly said. As you are wont to point out, there is a distinct difference between not wanting someone to be able to play in the NFL and wanting an outside entity to prevent the NFL from allowing him to play. I think the opinions your are referring to belong in the former and not the latter case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Just a quick poll... For those who say he "served his time" and "paid his debt", are you referring to the everything that he did (animal torture, bank rolling the dogfighting ring, etc.) or only to the racketeering charges he was actually sentenced for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Just a quick poll... For those who say he "served his time" and "paid his debt", are you referring to the everything that he did (animal torture, bank rolling the dogfighting ring, etc.) or only to the racketeering charges he was actually sentenced for? I am an animal love - especially a dog lover. I cannot begin to understand what he did or how somebody can do that. But I also know that its a cultural issue and people get desensitized to it. but to answer your question - I think he paid his debt for his entire envolvement in it and he will continue to pay his debt by making a lot less money in the NFL and losing advertising dollars. I believe people need to give folk who have done their time a shot - otherwise the temptation to fall back on their old ways becomes pretty strong. Now this holds true in other cases more than Vicks - but people need a clean slaight so they can work to become productive members of society again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 As you are wont to point out, there is a distinct difference between not wanting someone to be able to play in the NFL and wanting an outside entity to prevent the NFL from allowing him to play. I think the opinions your are referring to belong in the former and not the latter case. Not really. If you don't want someone to be able to play in the NFL, you have to bar him in order to get your wish. This is different than saying "I don't think teams should give him a chance". Anyway, we're really going in circles here - I've grown tired and the gym calls . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Just a quick poll... For those who say he "served his time" and "paid his debt", are you referring to the everything that he did (animal torture, bank rolling the dogfighting ring, etc.) or only to the racketeering charges he was actually sentenced for? Excellent question oh and I think you left out the part about gambling too Edited September 3, 2009 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I think he's a great addition for the Eagles. Do I like him? No. Do I support what he did? No. Do I think he did his time he was sentenced for? Yes. Do I think he did enough time? No Do I think he got off easy? Yes Do I think he is actually remorseful? No Do I think he said what he needed to say to be reinstated? Yes Do I like him on my team? NO!!!! Do I think Plax deserved to get a longer sentence then Vick? No. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) I agee - all things equal - Plax got screwed compaired to Vick. Edited September 3, 2009 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Just a quick poll... For those who say he "served his time" and "paid his debt", are you referring to the everything that he did (animal torture, bank rolling the dogfighting ring, etc.) or only to the racketeering charges he was actually sentenced for? That was all part of the RICO charges - there's no RICO violation if there are no actual crimes going on. It was all in his plea (the torture, the bankrolling, etc.) so, yes - he paid his debt when he served the sentence he got for that. What he did was reprehensible and asinine and, to me, completely mind-boggling. The fact that criminals can plea and get lesser penalties, while it seems unjust on its face, is a necessity in any legal system. If this option wasn't available to people, our courts would be even more backed up than they are and we'd be shoveling even more tax dollars on prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Just a quick poll... For those who say he "served his time" and "paid his debt", are you referring to the everything that he did (animal torture, bank rolling the dogfighting ring, etc.) or only to the racketeering charges he was actually sentenced for? I'd be interested to see how many individuals have been prosecuted for being involved in a dogfighting ring and gotten more than a 2 year prison sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I agee - all thing equal - Plax got screwed compaired to Vick. Plax brought a cocked, loaded and unregistered weapon into a bar in NYC - he's lucky nobody got killed (what if some drunk stumbled into him and knocked him over and the gun went of on a horizontal plane instead of into his fool leg?). I'm not shedding any tears for him. Right or wrong, our value system values human lives a lot more than canine lives - that's the difference here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplehays Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 What was the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Bottom line for me is this, there is something seriously wrong with Vick's head in order for him to do the things he did to those dogs. You have to be a pretty sick individual to be able to do the things he did and be that cruel to anything living and breathing on this earth. I treat fish better as I don't like them chocking on hooks and I wack em on the head quick so they don't suffer. I mean inflicting pain and suffering on an animal while laughing and watching it stuggle to survive and slowly die is just plain sick. Bullet to the head ok. Whack over the head OK. What he did, Sick. So do I think he spent enough time in Jail. NO Right after jail he should have been remanded to a psych ward for a year to find out what is wrong with a the guy and could he be that careless and cruel to any human being? Not go to jail, get even HARDER there and then come out sign a million dollar contract to play football for an NFL franchise and travel from city to city in America free to ingage in anything he wants to again without councelling and intense at that. You all need to read the court docs which discribe what Vick actually did to dogs and image what went unfound or undiscovered or unproveable. Then it makes you wonder what kind of guy is walking around our streets and under center on Sundays in front of our faces. Edited September 3, 2009 by Cowboyz1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 More importantly, if he was that sick and cruel BEFORE he went to prison, I can't image prison time producing a more kinder and gentler Vick. I don't recall prison time making men softer, and more compassionate individuals who acclimate well to society and are kinder to their fellow dogs. I know there are exceptions but I would sure want to be sure he came out and spent some quality time on the couch prior to just handing him a football and saying welcome back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Plax brought a cocked, loaded and unregistered weapon into a bar in NYC - he's lucky nobody got killed (what if some drunk stumbled into him and knocked him over and the gun went of on a horizontal plane instead of into his fool leg?). I'm not shedding any tears for him. Right or wrong, our value system values human lives a lot more than canine lives - that's the difference here. It was not an unregistered weapon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 It was not an unregistered weapon True, but I have to agree that plax should be screwed on the stupitiy clause alone. Gun goes off in crowded club down your leg. Come on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 It was not an unregistered weapon I'm not sure what you mean by "registered." But Burress was illegally carrying a weapon in New york City - a city with draconian gun laws. Not to mention that he discharged his pistol in a public place. Different crimes. Different laws. Different levels of discretion on the part of the prosecutors. You cant fairly compare Vick's sentence to Burress'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 More importantly, if he was that sick and cruel BEFORE he went to prison, I can't image prison time producing a more kinder and gentler Vick. I don't recall prison time making men softer, and more compassionate individuals who acclimate well to society and are kinder to their fellow dogs. I know there are exceptions but I would sure want to be sure he came out and spent some quality time on the couch prior to just handing him a football and saying welcome back. Why do we send them to prison at all if it only makes them worse? What a bunch of idiots we are . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 True, but I have to agree that plax should be screwed on the stupitiy clause alone. Gun goes off in crowded club down your leg. Come on i just breezed thru this thread and i think it was balzac that was using semantics so that is why I only stated what I did. I'm not sure what you mean by "registered." But Burress was illegally carrying a weapon in New york City - a city with draconian gun laws. Not to mention that he discharged his pistol in a public place. Different crimes. Different laws. Different levels of discretion on the part of the prosecutors. You cant fairly compare Vick's sentence to Burress'. see above about registered...his gun was registered, just not in NYC...and while I agree with you they are different I can still compare them if I want (right or wrong) :oldrazz: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You all need to read the court docs which discribe what Vick actually did to dogs and image what went unfound or undiscovered or unproveable. Then it makes you wonder what kind of guy is walking around our streets and under center on Sundays in front of our faces. This is why he was sentenced to 2 years in prison. What you need to understand is that in certain cultural areas, people simply don't care that much about dogs - in Vick's idiot mind, I don't think he fully appreciated the gravity of what he was doing because they were "just dogs". I think that's a horribly wrong mentality but the fact remains that different people have different sets of values. There are countries in this world where they wouldn't have batted an eye at what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.