For what it's worth, for future's sake, if Vick is picked up by ANY NFL franchise at ANY time after this, you'll get to know my wife real well. She'll be in the news leading the boycott against whatever team takes him on. I'll likely be right there with her.

I don't care what color the guy is - what he did was evil. I can no longer trust him to be a role model for children (of any age) - just the opposite. I trust he will NOT be. He did this to himself. Too bad, so sorry, but sometimes you only get one time at bat to prove your worth, and if you fuck up, you're done. He fucked up. He's done. Welcome to life, Michael - I don't think you're genuinely sorry with your pre-written lawyer responses to the press. But you will be. Oh yes. You will be.

Sounds like you got some real anger there Razor. I agree, that his career is probably over, certainly he won't be coming back to be a "rising star" in the NFL again I couldn't imagine.

I don't think any team really needs that kind of character on their team. He is no more a role model today than he was as a college player or before, again I make the point that people have a need to elevate these players to a the level of role model. You are a role model, for your children not these guys.

I do not believe he is genuinely sorry for the what he has done. Obviously the apology is an attempt to save whatever future might be waiting for him after jail and after the radioactive press coverage finally fades.

I don't care what color the guy is either, and the fact is it doesn't matter and is not at issue in at all, unless you make it. What is at issue is the actions and character of the person committing those actions.

He's already lost the bulk of his NFL contract, if not all of what was left on it, he's lost multi-million dollar endorsements, and the opportunity to spend that income how he sees fit, he also stands to lose his freedom, and right now he doesn't know for sure for how long. That's an awful position to be in but he put himself in it and nobody else is to blame.

"Why should he receive the minimum sentence, as some say? We aren't talking about some poor, ignorant, ghetto dweller who keeps a couple of pitbulls chained up in the backyard, occasionally fighting them to make a couple hundred bucks, we're talking about a multi-millionaire NFL star with everything in the world going for him, operating a multi-state business for the purpose of cruelty and gambling."

I found this little tid-bit on another thread on this topic, not yours of course, can't go spewing hypocrisy on your own thread. Did I really read you write,

"we aren't talking about some poor ignorant ghetto dweller,

when you were so apt to spew this here...

"Vicks is nothing more than another semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto negro who knew how to play ball. They're a dime a dozen in any inner city, and more easily replaced than many sports fanatics want to admit."

So seriously, which side of your contradictory and hypocritical opinionization of speech are we to take as your real opinion? Whatever you want to defend it as, it is not, it is as it appears, is it Whip?

You can package "shit as sugar" for your opinion, but if your opinions smell like shit and taste like it too, I don't think I'll be buying "sugar" from you anytime, Sugar

Actually, they ARE as African as I am.

See, part of my mixed ancestor is Berber. And the Berbers come from...north AFRICA!

I want my reparations, dammit! Pay up, you steenking honkies!

"Why didn't you post the ENTIRE comment, Dan?
Never mind, I'll answer that. Because quoting out of context is the name of your game."

Why do you bother asking questions and then answering them? Don't you want to know the answer? Maybe it is that you don't give a fuck and just like the drama, which I'm convinced is more true than false. Being right and drama, well here's a cookie Lil Whip.

I didn't need to post the entire comment to show you hypocritical and inconsistent commentary and nature, just the parts where you contradict yourself in a rather silly manner.

"~washes my hands of it, and you. enjoy your return to obscurity, jerk."

Don't let the swinging door hit you on the ass too hard on your way out; Graceful as always I'm sure, I was enjoying the obscurity just fine before you chose to write to me the first time about a year ago, and I was enjoying it no less the last time you decided to part company with my perspective. Rest assured, if you chose to stop posting on here, you will not be missed by me.

Do so on your own volition though for it is you who is weak and whiny, because you cannot tolerate being questioned on your own perspective or the way in which you pile on the insults against people who are "beneath" you.

"Uhhm, Dan, you can't tell the difference between someone who currently resides in the ghetto and who might engage in a little dogfighting to earn some sorely needed cash and someone whose talent has allowed them to escape the ghetto and now lives in the lap of luxury, removing even the motive of profit to justify such cruelty?"

I'm confused, was it not you who stated that Michael Vick was, to put it succinctly

"Vicks is nothing more than another semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto negro who knew how to play ball. They're a dime a dozen in any inner city, and more easily replaced than many sports fanatics want to admit."

So in this instance which is it? He is talented enough to escape the (supposed) ghetto of Newport News (LOL), but if so talented, would that not make him the opposite of "easily replaced", and opposite of the "dime a dozen" "ghetto" "negro" crowd as you stated earlier here? Perhaps you'd like to clear that up.

It seems you want to describe him both ways here, and as well as when you say...

"we aren't talking about some poor ignorant ghetto dweller,"

When in fact you are saying

"Vicks is nothing more than another semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto negro who knew how to play ball. They're a dime a dozen in any inner city, and more easily replaced than many sports fanatics want to admit."

Moreover, Did we just read you type,

"someone who currently resides in the ghetto and who might engage in a little dogfighting to earn some sorely needed cash"

Are you saying that's justification for that type of conduct, being broke and in sore need of cash? I guess in my opinion, that's a pretty dirty assessment of the poor people who do live in ghettos, even the supposed one in Newport News. Perhaps you'd like to provide some statistics to back up your spew about dogfighting clearly thus far you've written like an expert on Vick, yet you don't have any chapters written on dogfighting.

"I want my reparations, dammit! Pay up, you steenking honkies!"

LOL. Yeah I got cousins from Africa, any chance I get some sort of tax break/incentive?

In the future of this thread, I want you all to take a little more care with what you post in here. In regards to me, I have never defended dogfighting or anyone involved with it. To make it clear, I think such actions are both deplorable as well as disgusting. I think that all life should be respected and though animals will act on instinct and engage in fighting for dominance, I do not believe it should be man's role to bring them into a situation where they do that. Certainly not in a way where they fight to the death or to the sustainment of an injury to one or both of the dogs.

Anybody who thinks I have advocated or defended Michael Vick has it flat wrong. I am not a Michael Vick supporter, nor was I a fan of his before this whole thing became an investigation. I'm a packer fan and only when they win LOL.

Nobody should feel like they are doing the world a favor here purporting the notion that I am supporting Michael Vick in any way by writing my original post. I only aimed to offer a perspective on how society elevates players to the level of a superhuman, and how as individuals we go along with that because it's accepted. I also wanted to point out the competitive mentality and win at all costs concept that is taught and glorified in schools, in sports, in society and in nature. There is a place for it in modern society but I fear it is drastically out of place in many ways.

These players, even at their best, are no more role models to our children then we are, when we get up and go to work and do our best in life and make good ethical choices everyday, because that's what productive members of society do. That point should be remembered.

Thanks for reading up this far. It's been an interesting discussion so far.

Anthropologists say we all have ancestors from Africa - so who is going to pay all of us?

Oh, wait, we can blame God! Let's make him pay!

But wait......The poor Atheists dont even have him to seek money from.

This is getting deliciously ironic.

You don't know me very well. What you see as anger I see as a statement of fact. Vick is done. He should be.



Unfortunately, there's not a response script submission form where we can submit our ideas for your pre-approval. Here's another fact. If you don't want people to write replies, turn off replies. If you leave it on, take what you get. You don't have to agree, but to suggest that we tailor our comments based on some notion of what YOU want us to say is impossible at best, since we aren't mind readers, and simply impertinent at worst.



I probably don't need to read your mind to know this won't please you. That's the most ignorant statement I've seen in this thread, yet. Children do aspire to be like people they see on TV - whether it be actors, sports figures, or musicians. Not all of them, certainly, but many. For this, these celebrities take on an added responsibility, if they care anything whatsoever for the world at large and not just themselves (as seems to be Vick's case).

"Unfortunately, there's not a response script submission form where we can submit our ideas for your pre-approval. Here's another fact. If you don't want people to write replies, turn off replies. If you leave it on, take what you get. You don't have to agree, but to suggest that we tailor our comments based on some notion of what YOU want us to say is impossible at best, since we aren't mind readers, and simply impertinent at worst."

I don't think you need to tailor your responses. I also don't think it's unfair for me to ask that people on the blog not, go bringing racial factors into a discussion where it doesn't belong, or start misrepresenting the things I've said about Vick or the stance. If I haven't been clear enough on how I feel or where I stand, or the point I make that's one thing but thats not what the bulk of the responses were about.

"I probably don't need to read your mind to know this won't please you. That's the most ignorant statement I've seen in this thread, yet. Children do aspire to be like people they see on TV - whether it be actors, sports figures, or musicians. Not all of them, certainly, but many. For this, these celebrities take on an added responsibility, if they care anything whatsoever for the world at large and not just themselves (as seems to be Vick's case)."

I think that's a valid point. I think if you turn off the television, and keep your children's lives balanced, they won't be looking at sports stars the way my generation does. It is a fact that my generation was the last to continuously increase our diet of television tot he point where it's "always on" always being an influence whether that influence is positive or not.

Television is crap. There are only two channels on cable in my neighborhood worth watching, Discovery channel, and History channel. If I could just those and trade all the rest back for even a $5 refund.

Kids today are already turning it off in favor of the internet and more interactive media. It may be an ignorant point, but equally ignorant would be expecting sports figures and actors, musicians, whatever, to be ethical or to not act on their impulses when able to do so. Everything step a parent takes to keep themselves the primary influence is one more that the people on tv cannot.

I think Michael Vick thought he could have it both ways, run this dogfighting enterprise, get all these endorsements, and be a spokesperson for charities and underprivileged kids.

I don't think the majority of minorities are looking for a hand out in our country. Maybe their PAC's are but I think people for the most part, just want to be treated equally, not overlooked when they are qualified, not singled out because they are a minority, and not discriminated against.

There are some, who feel that they are owed because of histories ills, but that's just a crutch and a poor one at that. The longer people hold onto that kind of idea, the longer they hold themselves back.

Do your best, no matter what your race or ethnicity, make each day of your life count for something, and never give up no matter what adversity you face. There are those like me, like you, who can imagine what it is like to walk in your shoes for 5 min, or who see you are struggling and need a break and if you are as qualified as the next person or more so you'll find yourself having success if you just stay committed and persistent.

"I do not see his NFL status as contributing to his behavior in any way, dogfighting is pervasive in Virginia, perpetuated by the above mentioned ghetto-dwellers and inbred, tobacco chewing hicks as well."

It's interesting I didn't see that comment for what it was earlier. I'll note now that, Vick's criminal dogfighting behavior and enterprise began in 2001, around the same time he was drafted #1 that year. As soon as he was able to finance it, and as soon as he was "top dog" he began his misadventure into dogfighting. I'm not saying he didn't dogfight before, enter dogs into competition, or sponsor, or attend. I'm saying the government has an extensive case against him and according them his "Bad Newz Kennelz" enterprise began in 2001.

Contrary to Whips perspective, I do believe that his NFL status directly contributed to his behavior in a big way.

Also contrary, Dog fighting is not "big" in Virginia. But then those who want to find their stereotypes, wherever they live, surely will.

Thought you would like this one Dan.

Is that Scooby Doo, Snoopy, forgive me if I can't name the rest, but lol.

"'disadvantaged neighborhood'"

Notice the retraction from "inner city" and "ghetto".

Little Whip you're attempts at intimidation isn't going to go unnoticed here.

By the way Dr. There was little to support her claim as well of a "pervasive" operation in Virginia. I did find this in my research.

"Today, North Carolina is said to be one of the nation’s most active dog fighting venues. Virginia, say those inside and outside the fighting game, gets the overflow."
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=126838&ran=241086

But considering the source of both statements I don't know if I'd take either as fact.

Another interesting point beside the treadmill training, which is akin to players working out on a treadmill or with weights...

"Trainers often try to gain advantages by injecting dogs with steroids or sharpening the animal s’ teeth."

Roids, are used by professional baseball players and other sports (football) to a lesser degree, to "enhance performance". Injecting your dog with Roids isn't a natural thing you do for a dog like feed it. But it is a behavior that's influenced by sports and competition, without a doubt!

Another article on the subject found here...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/27/dogfighting_case_casts_light_on_world_usually_in_shadows/

"Those who participate either as breeders of the pit bulls often used in the sport, gamblers, or spectators do not believe they are psychopaths or sadists who hate animals. Instead, they say they love their dogs but want to satisfy a competitive urge in themselves to prove which of two dogs will prove the tougher in combat."

Proving who is tougher in combat, competitive urge, and gambling on it, one could say the exact, EXACT same things about professional football. Professional football is dangerous, both injury wise and potentially lethal both in practice, and the physical exertion from the games can kill.

These were some more of the statements made in this one...
"At first I can remember vividly I was kind of scared because of the rush that you are actually seeing two dogs go at it,"

"But as I kept going I got used to it and it was fun to watch two strong, masculine dogs fighting,"

"The man who witnessed fights in Georgia said he had never heard of a dog being tortured or killed cruelly.

"If you fight and your dog loses and he is hurt pretty bad . . . nine times out of 10 you're going to put him to sleep. There are ways that you can do it. The simplest and quickest way is to shoot them," he said. "These guys love these animals but that's just what they do."

I would have to agree that putting an injured animal down after a fight if they are seriously injured and in pain is an ethical thing to do. However to not take part in this activity at all would be more ethical. It is not for "love of the game" or for the money that some do, but for love of "competition" and for the need for that "rush". It is perverse and disgusting that people cannot find another area to get the rush or exercise their competitive nature in areas of life that don't kill or injure animals.