|
Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick
I just read this article this morning.
Here is the link which was posted Mon Dec 27 09:26am EST: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shu...urn=nfl-300632 I don't know how it will look copied and pasted below until I submit so keep in mind this is my attempt to convenience you. :) *********** Begin Article ************ Obama calls Eagles owner to congratulate him for signing Vick By Chris Chase Michael Vick(notes) has been getting support from all sides during his road to redemption. He's now getting it from the leader of the free world. NBC's Peter King reports that Barack Obama called Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie earlier this week to congratulate him for giving Vick a second chance after his release from prison. According to King, the president said that released prisoners rarely receive a level playing field and that Vick's story could begin to change that. Forget your political allegiances or feelings about Michael Vick and take a step back to think about this. The sitting president of the United States went out of his way to publicly praise a man who, 3 1/2 years ago, many thought would never play again in the NFL. Even the most ardent believers in Vick couldn't have fathomed a turn-around like this. In retrospect it seems obvious that Vick would get a second chance in the NFL, but it wasn't so clear-cut back when he was lying to the commissioner, getting sternly admonished in federal court and serving out a sentence at Leavenworth. We tend to take for granted unbelievable events when they slowly unfold before our eyes. The step-by-step nature of these sorts of tales tend to minimize the shock when taken in over a long process. So though it now seems like it was all pre-destined to work out like this, it wasn't: Vick's rise and fall and rise is a truly stunning tale. He went from star to pariah to inmate to backup to MVP candidate to political prop for the leader of the free world all in a span of a couple years. [Related: Obama and Kobe Bryant talk trash] For Obama to praise Vick now shows a number of things, namely that uttering the quarterback's name is thought to be a safe political move. He's playing the best football of his life for a playoff team and was the second-leading vote getter for the Pro Bowl. At the moment, he's the model of redemption, someone worthy of praise. Because, if you think about it, Vick got that "second chance" from Lurie 16 months ago. There was no phone call from the president then. Praising Vick at that time would have been a political third rail. But now that Vick is playing great and most people seem to have either forgiven him or stopped caring about his transgressions, it's a shrewd political move. After what could be termed a rough two years in office, the president is looking for a second chance from the people who have turned against him over the past two years. Supporting a huge star like Vick could help with the president's recent image problems. It may not register much nationally, but it couldn't hurt in Pennsylvania. After all, it's a swing state and 2012 is just around the corner. *********** End Article *********** I want to know what others here at the BF Planet think about this. Here's my input: After reading this, Obama sealed his fate regarding my future vote. He will not get another vote from me this next time around. If he feels compelled to forgive Vick, he could have done so quietly in his heart. Obama's public support of Vick under his title as the United States of America's President not only sickens me but really infuriates me. |
still waiting for him to show some sort of remorse of his crime.... instead of smirking about it.
and maybe some serious animal rescue help and support / as in funding to the animal humane society would be nice. or has he done this already and I just missed it somehow? |
I would like to see Vick permanently out of the public eye but his jock stardom will continue lifting him up.
I am not hear to judge whether another a person is willing to forgive Vick or not. I am simply fucking sick to death of how this country generally excuses the horrendous behaviors of our athletes and embraces them in high status. Look at the history. I won't name other jocks. You know who they are. morningstar55, thanks for taking time to post your opinion. Will be late for work if I don't get a shower and scoot ... Wishing everyone a pleasant day! :) |
This is another of those tricky ones. I thought it was odd that a sitting President stuck his nose in this. Then again, I doubt he would have if it wasnt politically advantagous to do so. Vick is a hot commodity right now. A lot of people might want to jump on that bandwagon. On the other hand, regardless of how I feel about what Vick did, he was tried, convicted, and served his time. He paid his "debt to society". He has the right to resume his life and career. I dont think this is about special treatment to athletes or excusing horrendous behavior of athletes. It is about an ex-con having the right to pick up the pieces of his life. |
We are entitled to our opinions. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with what Obama did. The decision of Obama contacting the owner of the Eagles and giving his support will NOT sway my vote in the next election. I personally would not take this kind of thing into consideration when making my decision on who to vote for. In my own honest opinion, there are far more important things to consider when it comes to the elections.
|
are you fucking kidding me?
I think that ANY act of animal abuse on ANY level should have huge penalties ESPECIALLY if you're a public figure. I can't even believe so much media attention and money has been spent on a selfish idiot when all that money could have been put to use helping animals. The ignorance of people just blows my mind. |
I would rather have obama for president than someone else who wouldnt even consider giving us equal rights would you?
|
The Real Heros
Second Chance for the Michael Vick Dogs: Meet the Rescued Pit Bulls www.badrap.org/rescue/vick/
|
Quote:
|
Curious - For those who will not support President Obama, who has done more for Gay rights than any sitting President in the history of our nation, in the next election because he congratulated the Eagles coach on Vick: Do you feel that congratulating a football coach on gaining anothe player (no matter their history) negates President Obama's (in my opinion) stellar Gay Rights record?
|
Quote:
Even if you don't vote and the Republicans win you are complicit in their winning. |
*IMO* A phone call to congrat someone for giving someone a second chance is in no way going to sway me into voting for anyone other than Obama. Doesn't mean i don't cherish and love animals. It is so beyond that thought. The world is full of self perfect people. The world is full of people who screw up and continue to do so. The world is full of people who screw up and don't do it again. The world is not full of people who care about our rights. Obama has done so much good...imo and continues to get my vote. |
Somewhere in DC, a consultant for whomever will be the Republican nominee in 2012 is smiling at the thought. I get being angry or disappointed (although, quite honestly, I'm not) but to seriously base your vote on THIS issue? Really? I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't shut down the Guantanamo detention center. I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't stopped the indefinite detentions. I can even understand not voting for Obama because he's shown poor political judgement but to not vote for him because of THIS? I just don't understand the political calculus or rationality you are using. Perhaps you can explain it?
Let's say, for instance, that Sarah Palin is the nominee (please, please, let her be the nominee) are you going to tell me that between a woman who believes that shooting wolves from a plane is sport and a man who believes that an ex-convict deserves to get his life back (even an ex-con who abused animals) you would choose the former? If you say you wouldn't vote then *by default* you've voted for whoever wins the election. So you wake up the day after Election Day 2012 and find out that Palin is the next POTUS. Would you feel okay with that outcome given that it was based on this issue? Cheers Aj Quote:
|
I'd like to mention another thought I had regarding this:
I think that Michael Vick did wrong. Dog fighting is not not not ok on any level. I did wonder when this story first broke how the environment would have been different had it been a white person, another type of animal cruelty, etc. Because Im not a fan of dog racing or horse racing either. Horses and dogs are routinely kept in inhumane conditions, shot up with drugs that make them twitch and foam at the mouth and trained under stressful, painful circumstances so people can stand around and bet on who runs the fastest. Not trying to equate dog fighting with horse racing - they arent on the same level, but I do see some class stuff going on with how the mistreatment of animals is viewed when a black man does it and how it is viewed when white folks have been doing it for 100 years. |
Quote:
Quote:
As for the topic at hand, personally I don't think it's part of a politician's job to make public comments/show support on issues that have nothing to do with their role. It's been a few times now that I've heard of Obama lending support to issues that have little to nothing to do with his role as American president, and, imo, it makes him look more like a celebrity than a politician. Not a smart move on his part. |
Lots of interesting views. Thanks for your posts.
I will not be voting for Obama or Palin - that is for sure. I see myself as having a minimum of three choices. ;) Lunch hour is almost up - back to the office. Thanks again, everyone. |
I don't have to worry about who to vote for, being Canadian. But I agree with some here that NOT voting for Obama is the equivalent to voting Republican. THEY certainly are not working toward many causes I believe in.
As for animals, it's been expressed much better than I ever could: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being." Mahatma Ghandi An animal is not a human child, therefore it's life is worth less? Human arrogance. Look around and see what THAT'S done to our planet. Vick - I have no use for him. He tortured, killed and ruined the lives of a great many of our fellow creatures. Fucker! |
June, my comments weren't aimed at you personally. You may have been the only person to have made the comparison to a human child on this thread, but it's a comment I've heard again and again. OF COURSE you'd save your child first. My point is that humans have been comporting themselves in a far too arrogant manner for far too long. It's destroying our planet. It's used as an excuse to do absolutely HORRIFIC things to animals. It's time we stepped up to the plate and behaved like the itellectually and morally superior creatures we (as a race) make ourselves out to be.
|
Distractions from the real issues. That is all this story is.
|
I love animals, and I think dog-fighting is one of the most inhumane and disgusting things that people do (along with bull-fighting, cock-fighting, etc.)
Having said that, I do put human needs and human rights ahead of those of animals...including those of former prisoners who have paid their debt to society and who most often do not get a chance to rebuild their lives free of prejudice and judgment. Do I think Obama should have made that call, as the president? No. I think that was stupid. I also recognize that he's human...and that a whole lot of folks have an attachment or put a value on sports and athletes that I, frankly, don't understand. Maybe he's one of them. Maybe he was doing it for political points. I don't know...and honestly don't care, either. I think he's fallible. I also think he's done a great deal to try to make our society more equitable and just....not all successful, but the effort has been there, and I appreciate and respect that. |
The rationales people use for their voting or non-voting continue to amaze me. Whether people like it or not there are 2 major political parties in the United States- Democratic and Republican. So if you do not vote for a Democrat, either because you decide not to vote as a "protest," vote for a third political party (which has no chance in hell to win and I've never been convinced that having more than 2 parties would necessarily in and of itself make things better), or vote for Republican party- in any of those 3 scenarios you are voting Republican.
I don't understand the concept of "protest" votes and non-votes. The Republicans are happy to pocket them. They also happily take the votes from the Republican Log Cabin people and at the same time ban them from their national conventions and actively work against gay rights. The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to queer rights, womens rights, people of color, animal rights- and the list goes on- couldn't be any more stark. I've posted the 2 party platforms numerous times. You could put the differences on flashing billboards across the country and I swear it still wouldn't compute. I seriously don't get it. So don't vote for Obama. It's your choice. You won't be getting a more animal friendlier political party in power. That I can assure you of. p.s I agree with Organic- it's just a distraction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no. As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting. We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do). The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts). Quote:
You may have no use for him but Mr. Vick is still a human being, he still needs to eat, and he still deserves to be able to make some kind of a decent living doing something he is, I presume, competent at. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
I think Vick is a fucker. That's my opinion. It's got nothing to do with redemption (which I don't happen to believe he has achieved, btw). It's got more to do with what he actually did. His self-serving statement a few weeks ago saying that he'd like to have another dog - and I'm paraphrasing here - so that people could see that he's changed - didn't impress me at all. He said it was hard to explain to his child why they couldn't have a dog. He said he misses having a dog. He didn't say anything to make me believe he's learned anything about the value of another creature's life. |
I'm curious, is there anything he could have said that would convince you that he was truly repentant? if so, what?
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't condone what Michael Vick has done, but I do find it interesting what people choose to focus on. I don't see a lot of protest over Ben Roethlisberger who was suspended by the NFL. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence against him. I don't know. He is of course a white quarterback.
Here's a list of players who have been suspended by the NFL since 2006. Many of them have to do with domestic violence. Again, I don't hear a lot of hue and cry about them. If you were to go back earlier than 2006 you will find even more news stories about football players assaulting and beating up women- wives, girl friends, women met in bars, etc. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614 NFL Conduct Violation Suspensions The 16 players suspended under the personal conduct policy by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell since he took office in 2006: Rocky Bernard (assault, 1 game) Michael Boley (domestic abuse, 1 game) Fred Evans (fight with police, 2 games) Chris Henry (various arrests, 8 games) Larry Johnson (simple assault, 1 game) Tank Johnson (2-month jail term, 8 games) Pacman Jones (various arrests, 16 games, 6 games) Marshawn Lynch (weapons violation, 3 games) Ricky Manning (felony assault, 1 game) Brandon Marshall (various, including assaulting girlfriend, 1 game) Bryant McKinnie (street fight, 4 games) Rob Reynolds (domestic disturbance, 16 games) Ben Roethlisberger (misconduct-no charges/arrests, 6 games) Donte' Stallworth (DUI-vehicular homicide, 16 games) Fabian Washington (domestic violence, 1 game) Michael Vick (dogfighting, 2 games) |
I say give the man a nice cat. |
June mentioned that not everyone is raised the same or has the same perception. This is very true. Living in the south it blows my mind what people deem as acceptable treatment of animals. It was only this year they passed a law forbidding dogs to be tied. I keep flyers in my van and won't think twice about knocking on a door or raising hell in the defense of a helpless animal. I wouldn't even leave my pig without an insulated stall, plenty of hay and heat lamp in 30 degree weather but you have a whole lot of people who think an old dog house is just fine.
I board dogs. Most of you know this and on one of my forms is a release for emergency treatment. Some people put 1500.00 others 100.00. There is no amount of money when it comes to my dogs. I can't support breeding and have lots of friends who spend thousands of dollars on dogs when there are so many homeless animals. I'm not passing judgement just proving that we all have a different mindset, HOWEVER in the case of Mr. Vick it was clearly abuse no matter how you slice that pie. Now this makes me think of a very good vegan friend who wants to breed race horses. She doesnt eat animals because morally thinks its cruel. This rattled the fuck out of me. I asked her if she ever did any research on animal abuse in horse breed/racing. Also why she felt it was ok to train an animal for a sport that supports an even bigger problem "gambling". People should be allowed to do what they want but is it ok to allow an animal to be used in a sport for gambling? Is it ok to train a work animal to be a service dog or herd animals? These are all clearly questions someone needs to ask and rather then choosing an answer that suits your agenda people should be more conscious when it comes to animals. Once my friend did her research she was floored. She had no idea but honestly she turned a blind eye, saw what suited her interest and not in the best interest of the whole picture involving horses. The passion i'm displaying right now is not about Obama. Medusa is right... he;s the first one that actually did anything and it wasn't all lipservice. He walked into a major mess and still actually did something. I admit I was skeptical. BUT as someone else put- I want to see a democrat in office no matter what. My agenda here right now is fueled by yet another Michael Vick media show and that enough is enough. He should be punished. Laws should be tightened in the case of animal rights. Plain and simple. instead homeowners are having insurance canceled or must get rid of a beloved pet. Dog boarding facilities (not mine) won't take pit bulls or the insurance to take them or any aggressive breed is too high. So let's have another dose of this M.Vick media parade. don't forgive him. put all these mother fuckers in jail. lol seriously. maybe then it will stop |
Quote:
|
Forgiveness is essential in all our lives. :praying: If we are to place any faith whatsoever in the importance of this in our own lives, then we must acknowledge that it is essential in other peoples' lives. With that said, if Prison time did not send any messages to Mr. Vick about how wrong it was to use animals for wicked icky sport, then the Support being offered up cannot possibly be genuine...as his remorse would not be genuine. Other than that, without being up close and personal in Mr. Vicks life, I cannot make any further assessment of this article with great faith. :coffee: :daywalker: |
I think what Vick did was awful. But I also think if you eat meat you are most likely supporting animal cruelty. Anybody who chooses not to spay/neuter their animals is participating in behavior that leads to the killing of animals who end up at the pound.
I don't understand Obama's motivations but that extends beyond this decision. I do support the re-employment of those who have received criminal convictions and who have served their time. As vile as Michael Vick's actions were, the inhumanity other football players have shown towards other humans (see bulldog's post) is also vile. The white racist reactions to Vick were also vile. Most people in the US live in glass houses and have no business throwing stones when it comes to animal cruelty. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
Bear with me, because I'm on cold meds and my brain isn't cooperating fully.
The OP was framed around Obama's endorsement of the notion that the Philadelphia Eagles gave an ex-con a "second chance" and that in some way perhaps Michael Vick has turned his life around. Tangential dialog has revolved around whether or not Vick is repentant and whether redemption is possible. Because the issue involves dogs, it is one fraught with emotion, in addition to the political ramifications. I am passionate about dogs. I have worked in rescue, including the recent fostering of a pit bull terrier. I agree with Organic, from a political standpoint, this is a sideshow meant to distract us. As far as whether Vick truly regrets what he did, outside of how it sidelined his life and career, how can we ever really know? I don't believe we can. I also agree that he deserves a chance to work, to support his family, pay off his attorneys, but not in a job where men are so often elevated to hero status. Not many ex-cons get out of prison and make millions. Not many can afford to pay their outstanding legal fees. Not many could have afforded lawyers like Vick's. These discussions about Vick always leave me thinking the same thing, which is that while Vick's crimes were heinous, the larger issue is the mentality - the psychopathy behind them. What people seem to not understand is that the kind of brutality Vick sanctioned and actively participated in is the thing of which we should be wary. He is more than a criminal, he is an abuser. I feel the same is true of the players Bulldog listed, including Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback of my beloved Steelers. This type of behavior is rarely a one time incident. Whether culturally formed or otherwise, it speaks of a mind wired to accept brutal behavior as possible and perhaps even necessary. It's beyond simply the issue of animal cruelty to me. I wish Obama hadn't said it, but he did, so fuck the politics. Vick didn't hold up a convenience store, he's not simply an ex-con. He engaged in systematic abuse, of which he took a hands on role. I simply do not hold to the belief that abusers change. |
Maybe football is a sport where being an abuser is advantageous to the game.
Maybe subjecting yourself and your own body to injury and ritualized violence as a career - and for the entertainment of others - makes life seem cheap. Reading about what he did - I tend to think he's wrong in the head. But maybe America is wrong in the head for deifying sports figures in the first place. Sacrificing your body for money is a strange trade - why is it glorious when a man does it? |
sorry typing one-handing lol
yes I agree with animals that work and treated properly. and I also think you're right that he was punished and it should be enough, right? I agree with this but I am just exhausted at the media on this. I'm overly sensitive and had a knee jerk reaction. He did his time and we, even the president can move on. I have not done the research so forgive but I'd like to see Vick and Obama working together on setting a strong example. Now that would get a hell yeah from me but honestly I doubt I will ever be able to forgive him for what he allowed to happen to helpless animals. No ever. Quote:
|
While I have no use for Vick and am NOT a fan of his, what the President did, I wish he would do for perhaps the woman (generic) who lost her job and has kids to take care of, a mortgage and is in debit up to her arm pits. Vick has celebrity, the woman doesn't. It is PR pure and simple and I'm not falling for it. I see that he is trying to prop up a young man and give him a new start, but the woman, where is her new start.
|
Here is an update on some of the dogs from Vicks property who were lucky enough to end up at Best Friends.
http://www.bestfriends.org/vickdogs/ Obama still has my vote. I don't though understand what would drive him to use this case to highlight the issues ex-cons face when coming out of prison. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 AM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018