Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 132
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    ← Bay / Valley ↓
    Quote Originally Posted by billybreen View Post
    Wait, I did what to a filter?
    cocker spaniel is no longer censored

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by hc5duke View Post
    cocker spaniel is no longer censored
    Yeah, lav clued me in. Huzzah to the mods!

  3. #43
    I hope this doesn't get moved to the Public Policy Board. I don't venture over there seeing as how I don't know much about the public, or policy for that matter.

  4. #44

    uncoachable

    Vick was sentenced to 20 years in dog years.

    Don't feel sorry for Vick he should have gotten 12 months (10 dog years) but he lied to the investigators, he failed a drug test, his lawyer found out what his coaches in Atlanta had discovered...this guy is uncoachable. He did not take direction any better as a defendant than he did as a football player.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    REAL Georgia football

    Quote Originally Posted by ugadevil View Post
    I hope this doesn't get moved to the Public Policy Board. I don't venture over there seeing as how I don't know much about the public, or policy for that matter.
    But you sure know your dawgs!

    Sure beats the national tragedy that will be on ESPN tonight. I heard on the radio that Falcons' owner Arthur Blank will be interviewed on MNF.

    Cheers,
    Lavabe

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    Are you suggesting that given no strict langauge in the constitution, cruelty to animals shouldn't be a crime? Perhaps you could host a TV show where people beat dogs, cats, and horses to death. I'm sure there would be a market for it, and you seem to be making an argument that it should not be against the law.

    First your argument was that Vick didn't do it - it was those mean old feds just picking on him. Now you make an argment that it shouldn't be a crime at all.

    You don't sound like a Liberatarian or a Rebublican here. While I am clearly a liberal Democrat, I have many friends who are Republicans and Liberatarians - None of them would buy your arguments - Iinstead they would be sickened by them. There was a time not too long ago when children were considered to be property of parents, and as such parents could do pretty much as they chose - there was no power of the Sovereign to restrict a man's freedom to treat any animal (substitue child here)that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Folks were free to beat children with sticks until they couldn't walk, incest was never prosecuted, and sometimes children just "vanished". We made progress as a people, and we no longer believe that. Sometimes we move forward as a species.
    I have always maintained that the federal government has no business in any of this. I still believe that. On practical and philosophical grounds. I never said that I believe that Vick is innocent. NEVER. Find me a thread anywhere where I said that.

    What I have said is that this federal prosecution is POLITICAL, it is, and that the prosecution, if it thought it could prove its case, should have. I do not believe that they could have proven its case. I believe that that is why they upped the anti and threatened him with a RICO charge, which I believe is UNJUST.

    To summarize:

    1. The federal government has no interest warranting a criminal prosecution of someone who fights pit bulls. If locals want to make it a crime and prosecute folks, let them knock themselves out. If Vick is guilty, then those guys should have had to prove it. Then, the locals could have sent him to jail for as long as local law permits. By local, I am including the State of Va here too.

    2. I do not believe that the Feds had the goods on Vick. I believe that the use of a RICO charge threat was/is a perversion of the criminal justice system. In the context of the many other perversions of the criminal justice system on a Federal level which we have seen in the last 30 years and which is otherwise unprecedented in modern history, I am concerned about such matters. I have outlined some of those other perversions.

    3. As a public policy matter, there are many grounds upon which I am against this abuse of power by the Feds. On philosophical grounds as well.

    I see no benefit to the Republic that is served by this prosecution.

    I do not know whether Vick is guilty or not of a crime. Nor do I care.My principal beef here is that he should never have been prosecuted by the Feds, and, if he had to be, they should not have RICOed him.

    I do not care whether Vick plays in the NFL again.

    I enjoyed watching Vick play in college. I thought he was the most exciting football player on that level I have ever seen. Vick probably brought more money into the state university system in Virginia than anybody in the history of Virginia. Such people usually get cut a break when it comes to sentencing. Vick gets prosecuted twice. I think that that sucks.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Vick probably brought more money into the state university system in Virginia than anybody in the history of Virginia.
    I would argue in favor of one, Thomas Jefferson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    But you sure know your dawgs!

    Sure beats the national tragedy that will be on ESPN tonight. I heard on the radio that Falcons' owner Arthur Blank will be interviewed on MNF.

    Cheers,
    Lavabe
    Why can't that game be on the NFL Network? I'm happy to say that I won't be tuning in because I'm studying for Final Exams, not sure which will be more boring. I heard Mike Tirico on his radio show last week talk about how much he wasn't looking forward to covering this game and having to talk about Vick all night.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    But you sure know your dawgs!

    Sure beats the national tragedy that will be on ESPN tonight. I heard on the radio that Falcons' owner Arthur Blank will be interviewed on MNF.

    Cheers,
    Lavabe
    Blank better watch out, Tony K is a dog lover. His pooch Maggie rules (you'd know that if you caught his radio show).

    T is going to demand that Blank take all the money the Falcon's ever made on selling No. 7 jerseys, all the extra seats Vick filled (just measure tonight's game against attendance in previous years) and donate it to dogs (probably Maggie).

    Only problem is, nobody will be watching because the only reason that they would have been watching is sitting in jail.
    Last edited by greybeard; 12-10-2007 at 07:14 PM. Reason: make explicit who "he" and T are; take out stuff.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by ugadevil View Post
    I would argue in favor of one, Thomas Jefferson.
    Lucky for him that he lived way back then: he didn't need to beat no pit bulls; he owned slaves. In the words of Mick, "Hear him whip the women, just around, midnight."

    Okay, I give.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina

    Greybeard

    On a philosophical level, I agree with you that the criminalization of the sport of dog fighting is best left to the states. IIRC, the regulation of PEOPLE fighting (i.e., boxing) is in fact left to the states. Do we care more about the health and welfare of animals than of people?

    As a purely Constitutional matter, though, I fail to see where the outlawing of dog fighting by Congress is beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Congress could likewise outlaw boxing, but has not chosen to do so.

    This is one of those areas in which people may reasonably disagree, I think. Criminal law is generally thought of as being the province of the states. A simple murder or assault will not normally be vindicated under Federal law. But a conspiracy that reaches across state lines to commit murder or assault is correctly the province of the Federal government. How does this apply to dog fighting? Congress has banned the trade and made it criminal. It's not difficult to see this as permitted interstate regulation under the Commerce Clause even if you disagree with it on the basis of Federalism.

    I actually agree with you personally, as a matter of political philosophy: the Federal courts have better things to do with their time than protect dogs. Virginia is the proper jurisdiction to try Vick from that perspective.
    Last edited by Johnboy; 12-10-2007 at 07:24 PM. Reason: To simplify

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    "There was a time not too long ago when children were considered to be property of parents, and as such parents could do pretty much as they chose - there was no power of the Sovereign to restrict a man's freedom to treat any animal (substitue child here)that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Folks were free to beat children with sticks until they couldn't walk, incest was never prosecuted, and sometimes children just "vanished". We made progress as a people, and we no longer believe that. Sometimes we move forward as a species."

    All I can say is, wow, allenmurray, you go boy!

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy View Post
    On a philosophical level, I agree with you that the criminalization of the sport of dog fighting is best left to the states. IIRC, the regulation of PEOPLE fighting (i.e., boxing) is in fact left to the states. Do we care more about the health and welfare of animals than of people?

    As a purely Constitutional matter, though, I fail to see where the outlawing of dog fighting by Congress is beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Congress could likewise outlaw boxing, but has not chosen to do so.

    This is one of those areas in which people may reasonably disagree, I think. Criminal law is generally thought of as being the province of the states. A simple murder or assault will not normally be vindicated under Federal law. But a conspiracy that reaches across state lines to commit murder or assault, or acts to deny people of their Federal rights (under the 14th amendment as it applies to the first ten) are correctly the province of the Federal government. How does this apply to dog fighting? Congress has banned the trade and made it criminal. It's not difficult to see this as permitted interstate regulation under the Commerce Clause even if you disagree with it on the basis of Federalism.

    I actually agree with you personally, as a matter of political philosophy: the Federal courts have better things to do with their time than protect dogs. Virginia is the proper jurisdiction to try Vick from that perspective.
    Well done! I was just playing with my scant knowledge of political thought and constitutional law. Having some fun with the concepts.

    My recollection about the latter is that the Republican appointees to the Court struck down all Roosvelt's New Deal legislation predicated on the Commerce Clause as being Constitutionally infirm. He promised to pack the court, went out and got him some new Justices, and voilla. Now, there is a creeping back among some so-called strict constructionalists on the court on this whole Commerce Clause basis for Federal Regulation.

    I'd have to think that Scalia and Thomas, not to mention the newbies, would be aghast that Congress seized on the Commerce Clause as a basis for interfering a man's fundamental property rights by passing the law we are discussing. I mean, those guys have to believe that, if a man does not have the right to kick his dog, what does freedom mean.

    PS I am not for cutting back on the reach of the Commerce Clause, just so we are clear. Nor am I for beating children, or incest. Glad I could make that clear.
    Last edited by greybeard; 12-10-2007 at 07:31 PM. Reason: add sentence to paragraph one.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    I, for one, find it hard to believe that our founding fathers saw in this commerce clause the power of the Sovereign to restrict a man's freedom to treat any animal that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Am I alone in this, or do you guys see it otherwise.
    They also didn't see fit to pass any laws against owning slaves.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    They also didn't see fit to pass any laws against owning slaves.
    At least it didn't take the Civil War to get them to protect us all from those who would kill their own dogs. For if they can, they can beat and rape their children, and if they can do that, what will stop a son from killing his father and sleeping with his mother (Aristophonies the Birds or the Clouds, I don't remember which; the logical conclusion of a son's refusal to help his father get out of debt is that there is no reason he shouldn't or couldn't at least do the latter).

    Come on Wilson, lighten up. The guy is in jail. Do you need also to be right, 100 percent?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    I was merely echoing the sentiment that the laws are meant, in part, to express the will of the people. The argument that "the founding fathers didn't want it so" doesn't hold water, because as I intimated, they didn't pass laws on a lot of things that we've subsequently decided were a good idea. Moreover, plenty of people would submit that laws against cruelty to animals jibe with one of your three rubrics for legal reasoning by serving the Aristotelian "good."

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    Attention All OTB'ers

    At this point, I, as a resident of the Atlanta metroplex, would like to offer my sincerest apologies to everyone on this thread. The apologies are for y'all having to put up with the Vick-less Falcons. That's right, while constitutional/Aristotle/RICO law is being discussed on this thread, the Atlanta football franchise is disgracing the ESPN MNF telecast.

    THIS GAME STINKS!

    The Falcons stink.

    Please do not avoid these facts in your discussions of Mike/Michael/"the artist formerly known as Ron Mexico" Vick. The Falcons stink ... and they are stinking it up on national TV.

    Can I state it more clearly?

    *Thank you. You may now return to the Vick thread.
    Cheers,
    Lavabe

    *EarlJam: Please proceed with Thread-Hijack attempt #1. Red-rum!!

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    ...the Atlanta football franchise is disgracing the ESPN MNF telecast.

    THIS GAME STINKS!

    The Falcons stink.

    Please do not avoid these facts in your discussions of Mike/Michael/"the artist formerly known as Ron Mexico" Vick. The Falcons stink ... and they are stinking it up on national TV.

    Can I state it more clearly?

    *Thank you. You may now return to the Vick thread.
    Cheers,
    Lavabe
    That's why it's the perfect game to keep on in the next room while I write a paper...that way I don't have to watch this crap.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    Question WHAT did Arthur Blank just say?

    Did he just say (in re the possibility of Vick making it back to the NFL):
    It in part depends on what kind of shape he keeps himself in, ... whether he eats fried chicken and fries ...

    PUHLEASE tell me I was dreaming that!

    No ... just erase the Falcons from any more national TV games. Where's the commish?

    Fortunately, there are no Dukies on the Falcons... right?

    Cheers,
    Lavabe

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    Did he just say (in re the possibility of Vick making it back to the NFL):
    It in part depends on what kind of shape he keeps himself in, ... whether he eats fried chicken and fries ...

    PUHLEASE tell me I was dreaming that!

    No ... just erase the Falcons from any more national TV games. Where's the commish?

    Fortunately, there are no Dukies on the Falcons... right?

    Cheers,
    Lavabe
    oh jeez - please tell me he did not say that.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Quote Originally Posted by steven52682 View Post
    oh jeez - please tell me he did not say that.
    I'm hoping it was a grading-induced migraine. I could SWEAR I heard the phrase "fried chicken" in there.

    Man ... here I was waiting for Blank's interview, and I'm in a foul mood, dead tired, and dreaming of food.

    Maybe that's it? Looking for some clarification here.

    Thanks,
    Lavabe

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 04:04 PM
  2. Vick Cartoon
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 09:49 AM
  3. Vick is done
    By JDSBlueDevl in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 01:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •