• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Boycott Phill Eagles Games After They Signed Vick?

Would you boycott Eagles games because they signed Michael Vick?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • No. They have a right to sign anyone thery want.

    Votes: 44 77.2%
  • Total voters
    57
pro-bipartisan said:
You aren't a very educated person when it comes to sports if you think he's at the top of the sport. He is going to be a back up quarterback and will make 1 million dollars his first year. What's wrong with paying him to do something he's good at?
Click to expand...

By top of his sport I meant playing in the NFL. If football is all he knows (which would be a sad commentary on Virginia Tech), he could still earn a living as an assistant coach at some junior college, as a player in semi-pro ball or even as the guy who hands out the towels to the players who have not been convicted of violent crimes. I don't think he should automatically be allowed to step back into one of only 1700 slots in the NFL until he has proven what a changed man he is.
 
Carole said:
By top of his sport I meant playing in the NFL. If football is all he knows (which would be a sad commentary on Virginia Tech), he could still earn a living as an assistant coach at some junior college, as a player in semi-pro ball or even as the guy who hands out the towels to the players who have not been convicted of violent crimes. I don't think he should automatically be allowed to step back into one of only 1700 slots in the NFL until he has proven what a changed man he is.
Click to expand...
He does not deserve a second chance. He, nor anynoe else, deserves a first chance. They have to earn any chance they get. :roll:

He did not automatically step back in. The Phill Eagles, a private party, have decided it is in their best interest to have him playing for them. I highly doubt what he deserved was much of a factor for them. ;)

.
 
SicSemperTyrannis said:
Yes! Donte Stallworth killed a man, while doing the most irresponsible, reckless activity you can do. And he got 30 days in jail!!!! Apparently pit bulls' safety >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human life. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Totally different case with a total different set of facts. Here you go:

1. Vick's criminal acts were numerous, intentional, on-going and pre-meditated.
2. Stallworth committed a single criminal act. It was clearly stupid, but it was not intentional.
3. Vick's victims were 100% innocent. Yes, they were dogs, but 100% innocent just the same.
4. Stallworth's victim ran into the street and in front of Stallworth's car to catch a bus. People who run into the street are generally seen as contributing to their injuries, regardless of whether the person who hit them is drunk (i.e. if he was not in the street he would not have gotten hit).

To make your silly comparison work Donte would have had to string an innocent person up and electrocute him, then get a 30-day sentence. Do you imagine he would get 30 days or do you think his sentence would have been worse than Vick's? Thanks for playing.
 
Vick served his time and apologized for his actions, so who cares about it anymore besides PETA?
 
Redress said:
Apparently, based on the poll results, quite a few people.
Click to expand...

Because someone like Devil05 logged out and voted numerous times, please.
 
Redress said:
Apparently, based on the poll results, quite a few people.
Click to expand...
They are racists. They just hate him because he is black. ;)


.
 
stekim said:
Totally different case with a total different set of facts. Here you go:

1. Vick's criminal acts were numerous, intentional, on-going and pre-meditated.
2. Stallworth committed a single criminal act. It was clearly stupid, but it was not intentional.
3. Vick's victims were 100% innocent. Yes, they were dogs, but 100% innocent just the same.
4. Stallworth's victim ran into the street and in front of Stallworth's car to catch a bus. People who run into the street are generally seen as contributing to their injuries, regardless of whether the person who hit them is drunk (i.e. if he was not in the street he would not have gotten hit).

To make your silly comparison work Donte would have had to string an innocent person up and electrocute him, then get a 30-day sentence. Do you imagine he would get 30 days or do you think his sentence would have been worse than Vick's? Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


I don't care. Stallworth ran over guy while drunk, and killed him. He got 30 DAYS IN JAIL. Michael Vick killed pit bulls and got a year in jail. I'm not condoning dog fighting, I'm just saying how can we value a dog's life over that of a human being. Thousands of people die every year due to DUI related incidents but I don't see the same type of public backlash against Stallworth or Jim Leyritz or the thousands of people who kill every year by driving drunk that Vick has been getting. CA is finally getting it right by charging the clown who killed Nick Adenhart (22 year old Angels pitcher killed in April) with first-degree murder and the possibility of life in jail. I understand they are two different sets of circumstances, but how you can say killing dogs is worse than driving drunk and killing a man because the guy was running to get a bus is beyond me. What kind of sick human being (or PETA member) are you????? I'm sorry buddy, but killing a person is worse than killing a dog in this country. So, enjoy you're little PETA-educated, nonsense filled world, while I live in sane-ville. Thanks for playing!!!!!:lol:
 
Blackdog said:
Because someone like Devil05 logged out and voted numerous times, please.
Click to expand...

What a sick puppy you are. (worst thing is you probably believe it.......& that ACORN stole the election....& the Obama wants to kill old people ..& that he Pals around with terrorists......& that the GOP will ever regain power in your lifetime ...&.......
 
SicSemperTyrannis said:
I don't care. Stallworth ran over guy while drunk, and killed him. He got 30 DAYS IN JAIL.
Click to expand...

Which I explained. Not sure what's so complicated about it. The law, quite rightly, recognizes both intentionality and the actions of the victim when determining charges and punishment. Had Stallworth gotten drunk, then aimed his vehicle at the guy standing on the sidewalk, run him down, then flee, he would not have gotten 30 days. He'd be in jail for a long time.

Michael Vick killed pit bulls and got a year in jail. I'm not condoning dog fighting, I'm just saying how can we value a dog's life over that of a human being.
Click to expand...

That's what you have wrong. We don't. Not even close. Had Stallworth done the EXACT SAME THING that Vick did with a person he'd be in jail for life. So you are as factually wrong as is possible here. Unless you would like to argue that stringing a person up and killing him would lead to a lesser sentence than doing it to a dog, you need to think about deleting your post so you don't sound so stupid. Or, in the alternative, maybe you could show how getting drunk and running over a dog would lead to 30 days. You really make this too easy.

CA is finally getting it right by charging the clown who killed Nick Adenhart (22 year old Angels pitcher killed in April) with first-degree murder and the possibility of life in jail. I understand they are two different sets of circumstances, but how you can say killing dogs is worse than driving drunk and killing a man because the guy was running to get a bus is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "which is worse". You invented that position out of thin air. I was merely making a factual statement regarding how the law treats the actions of defendants and pointing out, quite correctly, that the two incidents are not related in any way and making the comparison is logically stupid. Which I'm learning is your M.O.

What kind of sick human being (or PETA member) are you????? I'm sorry buddy, but killing a person is worse than killing a dog in this country.
Click to expand...

We already went over that.

So, enjoy you're little PETA-educated, nonsense filled world, while I live in sane-ville. Thanks for playing!!!!!:lol:
Click to expand...

And totally pwning you.... Like fish in a barrel.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the typo, didn't think that it would make you unable to understand what I was talking about. Let's test your integrity now that we know your reading comprehension is apparently zero.

Are you going to boycott the Cleveland Browns?
 
stekim said:
Which I explained. Not sure what's so complicated about it. The law, quite rightly, recognizes both intentionality and the actions of the victim when determining charges and punishment. Had Stallworth gotten drunk, then aimed his vehicle at the guy standing on the sidewalk, run him down, then flee, he would not have gotten 30 days. He'd be in jail for a long time.

That's what you have wrong. We don't. Not even close. Had Stallworth done the EXACT SAME THING that Vick did with a person he'd be in jail for life. So you are as factually wrong as is possible here. Unless you would like to argue that stringing a person up and killing them would lead to a lesser sentence than doing it to a dog, you need to think about deleting your post so you don't sound so stupid. Or, in the alternative, maybe you could show how getting drunk and running over a dog would lead to 30 days. You really make this too easy.

I didn't say anything about "which is worse". You invented that position out of thin air. I was merely making a factual statement regarding how the law treats the actions of defendants and pointing out, quite correctly, that the two incidents are not related in any way and making the comparison is logically stupid. Which I learning is your M.O.

We already went over that.

And getting totally pwned....
Click to expand...

Ok I understand the law is different for DUI and animal cruelty cases, I'm saying that DUI murder/manslaughter should carry a much much more severe penalty than animal cruelty cases. Yes, stringing up people and electrocuting them would get you at least life in prison. But aside from Jeffrey Dahmer, not sure too many people in this country are doing that. According to MADD, 18,000 people died in alcohol realted auto-accidents in 2008. And, since alcohol inhibits judgement, if somebody were to argue intentionality of action about someone under the influence of alcohol, a good defense could have a field day making an argument about inability to make sound judgement while under the influence. It shouldn't matter if you aimed at a person or not, if you kill someone while driving under the influence you should get a hell of a lot more than 30 days in jail. So please, don't lecture me or make condescending remarks about how I don't know that the situations are different and the law says blah blah....because the comparison is not "logically stupid"(what?? ok oxyMORON), it actually makes quite a bit of sense if you actually paid attention to what I'm saying instead of trying to pick about my argument with irrelevant points. I'm sorry, who got pwned????
 
SicSemperTyrannis said:
Ok I understand the law is different for DUI and animal cruelty cases, I'm saying that DUI murder/manslaughter should carry a much much more severe penalty than animal cruelty cases.
Click to expand...

It does. Vick was not charged with animal cruelty. Regardless, DUI manslaughter does carry a higher maximum penalty than dog fighting, so I don't know what you are upset about. The Stallworth case had a MAJOR mitigating factor legally. The dude ran in front of his car. So the prosecution was rightly concerned with reasonable doubt. Who caused the death? Was it the drunk guy driving in the proper lane, but speeding? Or was it the guy who ran out in front of his car? The mere fact he was DUI does not mean it was his fault the guy died. Not quite so cut and dried, is it? Vick's case was as cut and dried as any could be. He did it. He did it on purpose. All the time. Like I said, they are not even close.

Yes, stringing up people and electrocuting them would get you at least life in prison. But aside from Jeffrey Dahmer, not sure too many people in this country are doing that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You said we "valued a dog's life more". That is factually incorrect. We clearly do not.

According to MADD, 18,000 people died in alcohol realted auto-accidents in 2008. And, since alcohol inhibits judgement, if somebody were to argue intentionality of action about someone under the influence of alcohol, a good defense could have a field day making an argument about inability to make sound judgement while under the influence. It shouldn't matter if you aimed at a person or not, if you kill someone while driving under the influence you should get a hell of a lot more than 30 days in jail.
Click to expand...

See above. Who caused the death? Witnesses said the guy ran out in front of Stallworth's car. Had he not done that he'd be alive, no matter how drunk Stallworth was.

So please, don't lecture me or make condescending remarks about how I don't know that the situations are different and the law says blah blah....because the comparison is not "logically stupid"(what?? ok oxyMORON), it actually makes quite a bit of sense if you actually paid attention to what I'm saying instead of trying to pick about my argument with irrelevant points. I'm sorry, who got pwned????
Click to expand...

Actually, of the two of us I was only one who made any sense at all. If you don't want your irrelevant points picked apart, then don't make them.
 
Ikari said:
Broncos WR was accused of domestic violence but not convicted, what about that one?
Click to expand...

Dunno, not enough information and not caring enough to look it up.
 
Redress said:
Dunno, not enough information and not caring enough to look it up.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to find the parameters of protest because it may be very likely that we'll have to boycott the vast majority of the NFL. But in the end, I think some people have their panties in a knot over some doggies and because of that will act in a way they normally wouldn't towards football players which get in trouble with the law. Tank Johnson got in trouble for gun registration with Chicago, boycott Bears/Cowboys? Plexico shot himself in the leg and is in trouble in NY for gun charges, boycott the Giants? Well they did release him, so it makes that one easily. Ray Lewis stabbed someone, Urlacher has child support issues (though it was mostly his ex-girlfriend being a bitch). How many DUIs have there been throughout the league, drug charges, battery charges, etc. But now we have to hold one guy who probably more than anyone else actually served his time, why? Because dogs were involved.
 
Ikari said:
I'm just trying to find the parameters of protest because it may be very likely that we'll have to boycott the vast majority of the NFL. But in the end, I think some people have their panties in a knot over some doggies and because of that will act in a way they normally wouldn't towards football players which get in trouble with the law. Tank Johnson got in trouble for gun registration with Chicago, boycott Bears/Cowboys? Plexico shot himself in the leg and is in trouble in NY for gun charges, boycott the Giants? Well they did release him, so it makes that one easily. Ray Lewis stabbed someone, Urlacher has child support issues (though it was mostly his ex-girlfriend being a bitch). How many DUIs have there been throughout the league, drug charges, battery charges, etc. But now we have to hold one guy who probably more than anyone else actually served his time, why? Because dogs were involved.
Click to expand...

I personally would prefer if all pro sports leagues kicked out any one convicted of a felony for life. There is no right to play pro sports, it's a privilege, and you give up that privilege when you commit a felony would be how I would like to see it.

Course, I think us law and order liberals make law and order conservatives look soft on crime.
 
Boycotts rarely do anything, anyway. Other methods are far more effective.
 
Redress said:
I personally would prefer if all pro sports leagues kicked out any one convicted of a felony for life. There is no right to play pro sports, it's a privilege, and you give up that privilege when you commit a felony would be how I would like to see it.

Course, I think us law and order liberals make law and order conservatives look soft on crime.
Click to expand...

Then the NBA is ****ed.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sure.

I don't watch football anyway.
Click to expand...

This make no sense, unless there is hated aboil for something else.

I doubt if his attitude has changed.. Did he do any of my type of community service ??.
ie -work for 5 years at an animal shelter....for little pay..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom