Posted on 12/10/2007 7:46:54 AM PST by thefactor
Well first I'd say that your inane stupid comment about being in the majority giving you some justification would be hard to top, but I guess that you'd rather flame than discuss. That's what all of those who have bought into the "dogs are people" mentality do anyway.
So, because I find what Vick and his drug dealing friends did to these poor animals I’m lumped into the “dogs are people” group huh? Sorry, nice try at another red herring. Since you don’t know a damned thing about me it’s pretty presumptuous of you to make such assumptions. But, you know what they say about those who make assumptions, don’t you? By the way, dogs, cats, hamsters, snakes, mice, pigs, or any other animal which is kept in a person’s home is a PET not a human being. Just figured you should know where I stand on that issue since you seem to want to just through out your assumptions (gee, it’s true what they say about assumptions). (Oh, just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, those who view pets as people are actually in the minority, not the majority).
“...brainwashed by Leftists to believe that Animals have legal rights beyond their status as property of Humans.”
So far as I know I can kill someone that tries to steal or harm my property. I certainly do not know all of the facts of this case, but I do recall hearing something about the theft of peoples dogs for “training” purposes.
The sentence sounds about right to me. And I would say that Mr. Vick is damned fortunate that he did not try to steal my dog(property).
Greg
your point is just as valid as any other because that is how you feel.
i agree dogs are property. dogfighting alone, 2 years might have been too much. but this jerk lied at every chance he could have to numerous federal authorities and smoked weed the night before a hearing! he took no responsibility and showed no remorse.
Flame away flame boy. You don’t have any logic, just feelings - obviously
Oh, and your just full of logic there, aren’t you. seems to me it’s you who has been flaming, not me. You’re putting people down for their opinions that Vick got off easy without any actual facts to support your position other than your own feelings. Hey, guess what. Vick was sentenced by a court of law, for breaking the law, and I guess that’s all the facts I need to support my position, isn’t it? Seems to me that if Vick was being so unjustly treated by the system then he should have fought it, shouldn’t he have? He’s guilty. He admitted he’s guilty. What more is needed? The judge could have sentenced him to five years, but he only got 23 months. Harsh? BS.
Sorry flame boy, my "opinion" was based on the original plea deal of 12 - 18 months, not some absolute value. If the original plea deal were for 23 months I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Much as I hate to quote an obnoxious loudmouthed ignorant jackass, I have this comment for you "Since you don’t know a damned thing about me it’s pretty presumptuous of you to make such assumptions"
Remember though the deal you make with prosecutors is just for their recommendation, they made their recommendation.
Here’s some play by play from the actual hearing:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3148826
When you look at the meat of it it’s clear Vick screwed up. Here’s some money quotes:
Hudson demanded to know how Vick, sitting at a table in the courtroom in a black-and-white-striped chain-gang jail jumpsuit, could have denied a personal role in the execution of seven dogs in April 2007 and how he could have lied to an FBI agent about his marijuana use.
Martin tried to explain, suggesting that Vick merely handed a dog to a cohort for hanging and that the disgraced NFL star was smoking dope as “self-medication for clinical depression.”
Martin described the false statements as “hiccups” and “bumps on the road to redemption.”
The judge quickly responded that Vick’s story on executions was contradicted by two of Vick’s cohorts, and that Vick had tested positive for marijuana.
“These were false statements to federal agents,” the judge observed, closing the discussion.
But Hudson refused to give Vick any credit for acceptance of responsibility, asserting that Vick made “false denials” to government agents about executing the dogs and “was less than candid about his drug use.”
In addition to the deception on drugs and executions, federal prosecutor Michael Gill explained that Vick “had made a calculated effort to hide the truth” on four other issues in interviews with federal agents.
Vick’s lawyers made no effort to deny Gill’s assertion, and when Gill offered to support his claim with testimony from an FBI agent, attorney Martin quickly told Hudson that would not be necessary.
Now, here’s where you are wrong. Your willingness to put on blinders when it comes to someone killing dogs for sport and money is enough to base an opinion on you. You made an assumption whereby you lumped me in with a group of people who have a view that dogs are just the same as humans based on zero evidence against me. Much different situation. Sorry, but thanks for playing anyway.
whatever
LOL. The response I get from my kids. LOL.
maybe that the only response you deserve, since from your behavior on this forum you are obviously a jerk. I guess your kids realise this too.
“Dogs and horses occupy a special niche in their symbiosis with humans, and have played integral roles in the development and expansion of civilization. They have assisted in our agrarian endeavors, played critical roles in commerce, the transportation and protection of our goods and homesteads. They have accompanied us to war, and aided in the exploration of uncharted territories. Although wanton cruelty to any animal is wrong, cruelty to a dog or horse is especially repulsive as they have an inextricable link to who and what we are today.”
Exactly right. And they used to hang horsethieves! Dogs and horses occupy a elevated position in our society because our society wants it that way, not because of the efforts of the left and PETA.
Greg
I’m a jerk because I have a dim view of people who use and abuse animals for their own sick pleasure, and for believing that this animal abuser received too light of a sentence? Wow. Far better for me to be a jerk then as opposed to whatever you seem to be. Just FYI, all of my children hold the same dim view of this individual as what I hold. Just a pity that someone with his talent would be willing to throw it all away just so that he can be a “jerk” to animals. It is my ferverent hope that the NFL doesn’t cave in to his talents and allow him back. He deserves the bed that he has made for himself. Seems that you might be lying next to him with respect to your views regarding the treatment of animals. How I pity you.
You're not a jerk because of your beliefs (nice try), but because of your rude and obnoxious behavior. You're a jerk because you immediately go to personal attacks on those who disagree with you rather than argue with their ideas. Your type is unfortunately very common of FR these days.
Ah, I see. I called your comment stupid, which makes me rude and obnoxious. The fact that your comment WAS stupid bears no meaning in the debate here? Did you not resort to name calling and innuendo when you couldn’t win with logic (sorely lacking on your part throughout this discussion)? So, from your perspective, it’s okay for you to be rude and obnoxious, but if I am then I’m a jerk. Disagree? No, you are spinning your wheels being an apolgist for Michael Vick!!! You, by your position, are okay with his brutish and barbaric treatment of those animals, and with using them for sport/entertainment, and profit. I’m the jerk? Sorry. There will be no common ground on this issue I’m afraid. Since I side with most of the rest of out nation, and with the presiding Federal Judge, I guess you are out in the cold. Now, flame away. That’s all you have left.
WOW you figured it out. Every time you post you make it ever more obvious just what a jerk you are - endless personal attacks. Well you've bored me long enough; go hump someone else's leg. You can have the last word if you want - it isn't like you say anything of value.
Tangent?
Apparently I gave you more credit than you deserved in our previous correspondence. And that’s starting to shine through in some of your new posts today which are rude and insulting.
I’ll pose the same question to you that I posed to someone else here last night...
“Instead, please try and explain to me the logical coherence of treating certain Animals as quasi-Humans and other Animals as food sources and Chattel. You can BELIEVE your position and you can FEEL your position, but you cannot logically prove the inherent intellectual consistency of your position. My position is intellectually consistent, it is merely politically incorrect.
Hence my contention that “Animals Rights Conservatives” are “thinking like” Liberals even if they do not realize it. You can disagree all you want, but my position is essentially like saying 2+2=4 and your position is basically like saying 2+2=4 sometimes, but in certain occasions it equals 5.”
This is how Liberals think, and you are demonstrating the same thought process in this thread. And since I know from your other posts that you are FAR from a Liberal, then I need you to explain your intellectual consistency. You cannot of course, but that won’t prevent you from lobbing a few more insults at myself and the other advocates of “sane dog policy” in this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.