What A Compassionate President

[AdminAssistant]

I'm a steadfast Obama supporter, and I'm scratching my head a bit over this one.

As far as Vick goes - If Pete Rose can't be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, then Vick doesn't deserve to play football.

[blas87]

I'm afraid I don't know of this athlete or what that's about, Pete Rose?

[Rapscallion]

IIn all honesty, it'd be best if he layed low for several years

By which point his career as an athlete would be over anyway. Athletes have to get their money in while young.

Oh, were I in his position I'd be damn well ashamed of myself, but if he were ashamed of himself for that reason he wouldn't have been in a position to end up in jail first.

and didn't get some giant pat on the back from the president.

He didn't. The coach or manager who allowed him back in did.

So, when's too soon? When does punishment end?

I'd be quite happy if the fans of that team deserted them in droves for the act of bringing the guy back. That's the true measure of public discontent with the situation. The law can only give out the punishments it's allowed to give out. He was treated about the same as anyone else found guilty of the same crime. There's no court-mandated enforced unemployment after commiting a certain crime that I'm aware of.

If there should be, how long should it be for?

Talking heads make some valid points, but they're trying to rouse people to their side without giving voice to all sides of the debate. Were I a fan of his team, I'd be discontinuing my membership of the fan club and disaffiliating myself from them. That's where it's going to hurt the club in question. That's when they look for alternatives.

However, there's no moral requirement to playing the game. Can you get the ball past those players and over the line? That's his job. Some people may get bad press for some acts, but it has no bearing on their ability to punt a ball around.

So, how long must his punishment continue? How long should someone guilty of his crime be forced into unemployment? Please, think about it. Numbers would be good. If any country goes down this route, they've got to look at applying that sanction to other crimes as well. What numbers for other crimes?

For most criminals, the prospect of guaranteed unemployment would enforce a life of crime, which is certainly not in society's interests.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

I'm afraid I don't know of this athlete or what that's about, Pete Rose?

One of the greatest baseball players who walked the planet. Unfortunately, he became a manager and got caught betting against his own team. He was kicked out of the game permanently and will never be admitted into the Hall of Fame. So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity, whereas Vick broke the law, hurting innocent animals in the process, and gets his job back and a pat on the back from the President.

It's confuzzling.

Then again, I don't know what the hell's going on with Obama lately. I think he forgot who his voter base is, and we aren't people who take kindly to kissing Republican asses.

[Greenday]

One messed with the integrity of the game (Rose).

One did something completely unrelated to his sport (Vick).

It's quite obvious why Rose cannot be a part of baseball and why Vick should be allowed to play football.

[Fire_on_High]

What is an acceptable period to be banned from playing sports? Effectively you're saying he should be banned from his income. Would this length of time be the same period of unemployment for average people offending? Effectively this is saying that punishment should go on longer than the jail sentence given out by the court, so I have a problem with it.

What would be an acceptable amount to give to the humane societies? Preferably something within reach of the average offender, of course, since there's equality before the law. A percentage of your wealth instead? I don't think that's part of the current system, but I'm actually all for the idea of letting the punishment fit the crime. Get hold of your local lawmaker and let them know you want this system in place.

Honestly? I'm all for going medieval on him. We're not allowed to break him on the wheel (one of the times I sorely regret having hands tied by the Constitution) but we can sure break him in court. He should be *grindingly* poor for the rest of his days.

Regardless of how much he makes or how he potentially acquires it, the fining should be punitive to the point he's deciding if he wants to be warm or fed, and shivering his ass off in winter for lack of a coat.

I've said for a long time I'll buy the jersey of whatever player fucks him up good, and I don't even like football.

[Rapscallion]

Honestly? I'm all for going medieval on him. We're not allowed to break him on the wheel (one of the times I sorely regret having hands tied by the Constitution) but we can sure break him in court. He should be *grindingly* poor for the rest of his days.

Good answer.

So, how much should we increase the fines for speeding tickets to make them in ratio? After all, speeding statistically makes drivers more likely to kill others.

Bag snatchers - what is their current punishment and what should it be made to?

Pickpockets? Generally they're already poor - rich people usually don't need to do that sort of thing. Grinding poverty? They're not far from that anyway, and then you're talking about forcing them to continue.

Prostitution - well, considering the above already happens (having to continue to pay fines etc) then it's already in practice.

Insurance fraud. What level of punishment is fit there?

Think about it, everyone. The talking heads don't want you to. There's more at stake here than the court of public opinion.

Another day, another crime will be the worst thing since the bread slicer broke down.

So, why should he be grindingly poor for the rest of his life? Fine, the current established punishment is one thing, but we're effectively saying he should face more punishment.

Is that just because he's famous? Should all people commiting that particular crime face more punishment? Should people commiting any crime face more?

Why is that crime more deserving of stringent punishment than others? Should the penalties for all crime be increased?

Think about it.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Kill them all Raps. They all make the world a worse place so we should slit all their throats, those criminals.

[Andara Bledin]

My argument about the average Joe is that if he were to commit a heinous crime, would he be allowed to just go right back to the old job he had with open arms and a pat on the back for over-coming "adversity" and all the negatives that come with being a criminal?

I voted for Obama, and usually like him, but this support of Vick made bile rise in my throat. *hiss, growl*

I think a lot of people are losing sight that it's not about the douchebag dogfighter; it's about someone else being willing to give an ex-con a chance to be more than just an ex-con for the rest of his life. He just went with the guy that re-hired the douchebag dogfighter because that makes it newsworthy, and otherwise, nobody would have taken any notice.

If Pete Rose can't be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, then Vick doesn't deserve to play football.

I think Pete Rose not being in the BHoF is bullshit, btw. I don't care what else he may have done; he was still a damn fine baseball player.

So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity...

The why of that has to do with the regulations within baseball as relates to his activities. What Vick did bore no relation to his livelihood, and thus didn't have any long-term effect other than his punishment for it.

The BHoF thing is still bullshit.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I am against celebrities and pro athletes getting off easier than the average person just because they have more money and a big name.

Unfortunately, with the type of capitalism we currently promote in the USA, this is inevitable. We'd actually have to change our values system to something other than wealth in order for that to be different.

One of the greatest baseball players who walked the planet. Unfortunately, he became a manager and got caught betting against his own team. He was kicked out of the game permanently and will never be admitted into the Hall of Fame. So, I don't understand how he gets permanently punished for doing something that only hurts his own integrity, whereas Vick broke the law, hurting innocent animals in the process, and gets his job back and a pat on the back from the President.

It's confuzzling.

It's about money.

In American society for the past 150 years, we have celebrated and promoted the idea that getting wealthy makes you morally superior, despite muckraking to the contrary. Thus, an insanely wealthy guy murdering an Olympic athlete (the Dupont heir) gets much less in the way of headlines and press than a guy who bilked others out of their wealth (Madoff).

Thus, Vick's crimes on a mass societal level in the USA become a whole lot of "Who gives a shit?" after the initial outrage. The money is much more important. Pete Rose was a money issue; thus he gets much more censure than Vick, who after all, just kicked around some damn dogs, amirite? (Note: the last part of that sentence was a whole lotta sarcasm).

[FArchivist]

Kill them all Raps. They all make the world a worse place so we should slit all their throats, those criminals.

Reminds me of a comedy sketch about the first Emperor of China, who was an extreme legalist.

"Hey, what's the penalty for a revolution?"
"Death by impalement."
"What's the penalty for being late to work?"
"Death by impalement."
"Guess what? We're late."

[Gravekeeper]

I know I get a lock of flack for being a No-Bama hater, but I cannot even fathom how others can't be upset over something like this.

Stop using "Nobama", that would help. Its hard to take seriously since its childish, and it and other variants are wildly dribbled by the more feeble minded online. My brain shuts out any debate the moment I see any of the silly school yard names everyone seems to throw around down there for politicians. Yes that goes for both sides. I'm not likely to listen if you start a serious discussion with "Chimpy Mcflightsuit" either.

That said, this is a hard one. I'm working from the same perspective as Raps, not my president, I'm just watching the train wreck that is American politics from the side lines <cough>. I'm sure Obama meant well with this, but really, bad idea to be blunt. Simply because, as this thread has demonstrated, anything involving animals is immediately polarizing. Beyond all reason.

We tend to demand far more vicious revenge on anyone that's harmed an animal over a human. Odd as it is. Looking at responses in this thread alone demonstrates that in spades. Some of you want to destroy him and by extension apparently want to throat slit several other people as well. Which is abhorrent, I might add.

I respect what Obama is trying to say, but it was a stupid decision to pick this particular individual. If he had found himself a nice murderer no one would have batted much of an eyelash, ironically.

Granted, as was mentioned, American society and American politics are shaped by money. Vick is worth money. So this is but a fart in the wind in his career. Regardless of how utterly despicable someone is, if they make someone somewhere money, the American public's opinion can really go fuck itself it seems. >.>

[Greenday]

and by extension apparently want to throat slit several other people as well.

And here I thought I had done some witty extremist sarcasm to prove a point. Guess the sarcasm was missed.

[blas87]

I don't want his throat slit. Do I wish a bunch of pitbulls to be let loose on him? Sure. At least I can admit how I feel or what I wish and I don't feel shame or guilt and I don't really care if it shocks or upsets people. Oh shame, shame on me, that pitchfork toting conservative and her barbaric and uncivilized way of thinking. Shame shame.

And while I understand that a lot of people are neutral and don't care for nicknames, in all honesty, it was sport for almost every American to poke fun at Bush. It's only fair to poke fun at Obama, without having to worry about everyone's jaw agape. I wonder what the real reason is. Is it because he's black that it's not as acceptable to poke fun at him, or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

[AdminAssistant]

or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

That.

Obama has his faults, but at least he's intelligent and well-spoken. I don't feel ashamed to have him as a President. I did with Bush. Besides, a lot of the problems that people are blaming Obama for are really the fault of Congress.