If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I can tell that the Mexican Goat-Blood-Sucking-Reptile-Rodent is on the side of uninformed opinions. Whether that's the Pro or Anti Vick side, I don't know.
All I've been saying is that Vick is no worse of a criminal than many players who have been in the NFL currently (Stallworth, Burress, and Marshall primarily). If we're going to say that Vick should have a lifetime ban, that's fine. I could get behind that. But only if we ban all four of them.
Who is that?
"I think people should be allowed to do anything they want. We haven't tried that for a while. Maybe this time it'll work. " - George Carlin
I am the only one who can't tell who's on whose side here?
Haha, well I'm against the eagle's signing the dog-killer... I was joking around and commented on someone's name (Blazed) and he got irritated and said that chimps were now using computers...
Has that solved any confusion?
Vick served his time....another suspension was unnecessary. And he'll soon be out of the league as people come to the realization that he actually sucks as a player in the first place. This is all moot.
What Vick did is cruel, no question, but I can't fault him any more than the gross negligence of a player like Plax, Stallworth, or Leonard Little. I understand where Walt's coming from though. Debating whether cruelty or gross indifference is a worse crime is, again, moot. (maybe it's been said already, I couldn't scroll through all four pages)
Cars aren't specifically designed/created to shoot projectiles, for the purpose of inflicting death, at other living things. I'm not a gun control nut, but that comparison that I've heard made before is friggin' absurd.