Vick's Bottle Tested Negative

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Comparing O.J. to Vick is not an opinion, it is ignorance. I come here to talk about football not to listen to someone who did nothing wrong get compared to O.J. Simpson (which wasn't the only ignorant comment about Vick in these threads).

Did you forget that OJ was found not guilty, even after he was basically convicted in the court of public opinion? How is that different from Vick in this situation?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Comparing O.J. to Vick is not an opinion, it is ignorance. I come here to talk about football not to listen to someone who did nothing wrong get compared to O.J. Simpson (which wasn't the only ignorant comment about Vick in these threads).

Obviously in your mind this forum does not talk about football properly. The main question is why do you keep coming here if it bothers you so much? Go to some other site, I am sure you will not be missed. Basically you just come on this site to find someones opinion that you feel you can bash, and somehow you derive utility out of that. It's not even like you are correcting peoples views in a positive manner.

And you aren't a Mod either so....

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

It's not his personal right to carry pot, or to smoke it. In almost every situation, it's against the law - although a claim of glaucoma would explain some passing accuracy questions I have.

The point isn't that the criminalization of marijuana use or possession is wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a consensus on this website that casual users of weed shouldn't be jailed. However, since it is illegal, understand that irresponsible use of marijuana - and carrying a secret compartment that has an odor of pot through the only place in the country where you are guaranteed a pat-down search is wildly irresponsible - is about as foolish as you can get without liquor and a chainsaw.

I don't smoke weed anymore. Have not done it since college in 92. Vick is a DUMBASS if he's getting on a plane with weed. But if he does it behind closed doors I don't give a damn. Athletes and the general public do things that are against the law everyday. When is the day going to come when the public stops holding athletes to a higher standard?

It's against the law to run a stop sign. It's against the law to use steriods. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean people are going to obey the law. What's the difference between drinking two vodka and cranberries and taking a few hits off a joint? There is no difference. It's just one is legal and one isn't even though both give you the same effect. Some of the laws in this country are stupid as shit IMO. But laws are laws.

A few years ago I saw Charles Woodson in a bar in DC smoking a cig. I thought, 'How could this guy smoke playing football?' The bottom line is these guys do things in everyday life that we do. The only difference is they are athletes and we are everyday working people.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Did you forget that OJ was found not guilty, even after he was basically convicted in the court of public opinion? How is that different from Vick in this situation?

The difference is the crime. OJ sliced off two peoples heads.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

A few years ago I saw Charles Woodson in a bar in DC smoking a cig. I thought, 'How could this guy smoke playing football?' The bottom line is these guys do things in everyday life that we do. The only difference is they are athletes and we are everyday working people.

When I was a kid and a big Mets fan it used to amaze me that Keith Hernandez would duck into the tunnel and smoke butts. But then again it is baseball we're talking about. We're talking about a "sport" where they pop kegs in the locker room.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

The difference is the crime. OJ sliced off two peoples heads.

My point, and I think sportscurmudgeon's, was that OJ was found not guilty and so was Vick (in a way). Grim was saying that you can't compare the two because OJ probably killed two people whereas Vick didn't acutally have pot on him, but of course you can. All the evidence seems to imply that they both committed a crime of some sort but they both ended up getting out of it. So Grim seems to think that OJ got away with doing something illegal while Vick never did anything illegal, so he's not contradicting himself.

I'm not trying to compare their crimes in the least, especially since I think pot should be decriminalized. I just have a problem with his arguement.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

OJ Simpson is innocent too - - right? That's what the law says so it has to be so.

There is a real difference between what someone does and what a prosecutor can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in court - - particularly if that someone had a boatload of cash and can get expensively lawyered up.

If - I said IF - Michael Vick or any other well known sports star or celebrity has a water bottle with a fake compartment in his/her possession and tries to sneak it onto an aircraft in 2007, then that person is a moron.

Not a thug; not a criminal; not a sociopath. But a M-O-R-O-N.

This is such a great post. I haven't said it yet, so I will now... It's nice to have you back, S.C.

[Pocket$ $traight]

[quote=hooskins;271936]Obviously in your mind this forum does not talk about football properly. The main question is why do you keep coming here if it bothers you so much? Go to some other site, I am sure you will not be missed. Basically you just come on this site to find someones opinion that you feel you can bash, and somehow you derive utility out of that. It's not even like you are correcting peoples views in a positive manner.

And you aren't a Mod either so....

Hooskins, how did you know that my goal was to be a mod on the Warpath?

Which picks up more chicks for you, the "No one likes you" T-shirt or your UVA 3 time NCAA field hockey and cross country champion T-s? Btw soccer players are still biaaaaatches except for that billy goat who played for France.

[hooskins]

[quote=Grim21Reaper;272026]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Obviously in your mind this forum does not talk about football properly. The main question is why do you keep coming here if it bothers you so much? Go to some other site, I am sure you will not be missed. Basically you just come on this site to find someones opinion that you feel you can bash, and somehow you derive utility out of that. It's not even like you are correcting peoples views in a positive manner.

And you aren't a Mod either so....

Hooskins, how did you know that my goal was to be a mod on the Warpath?

Which picks up more chicks for you, the "No one likes you" T-shirt or your UVA 3 time NCAA field hockey and cross country champion T-s? Btw soccer players are still biaaaaatches except for that billy goat who played for France.

Ok...
First of all, that isn't me or my shirt. And now you are just bringing up stuff that isnt relevant to the argument.

You still have not answered why you continue to post at this site if it bothers you so much. I personally think it is because you like to berate people and it satisfies you more than actually having a rational debate. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: You can continue with your ignorant insults, but sadly I must go do others things which are more important.

[Pocket$ $traight]

[quote=hooskins;272027]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Ok...
First of all, that isn't me or my shirt. And now you are just bringing up stuff that isnt relevant to the argument.

You still have not answered why you continue to post at this site if it bothers you so much. I personally think it is because you like to berate people and it satisfies you more than actually having a rational debate. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: You can continue with your ignorant insults, but sadly I must go do others things which are more important.

Lacrosse?

Generally, I enjoy the site. I makes me feel better that so many others are suffering with me every Sunday. However, when I see a thread which feeds off of ignorance and stereotypes, I am going to say something. If you don't believe me take a look at the body of both threads related to this topic.

[CanadianSkin]

See my whole arguement about Vick was that this latest installment just added the cherry to the top of the sundae of stupid things he has done. You are Micheal Freaking Vick!!! do you not think that being the number one overall pick, being always under the microscope and being known world wide as an eletricfying player may draw some attention to you...

He decided to pull the whole Ron Mexico thing, he flipped off the fans that pay their hard earned wages to see him play and added a nice F-off on top of it. Then he decides to try and keep a water bottle that has a comprtment in it. (Yes I know he is innocent now) but still these are no exactly things that a smart person would do.

[Defensewins]

There is a lot of hate out there for Vick.

Vick is a rich, dumb jock, not a PHD. What the hell do you guys expect? Look at his brother, do you think they came from a middle class, white bread suburb like most us did? Do think they had great role model or a great education? Not likely.
Vick is not a terrible person. He has done some stupid things, but he has only hurt himself. No need to hate.


To mention Vick and OJ in the same sentence should only be about great runners with great moves.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Grim21Reaper

If you were actually as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you'd go back and read what I wrote. I didn't compare Michael Vick to OJ Simpson. I compared the legal innocence of the two men. And surely someone of your intellectual prowess will recognize that their legal innocence is exactly the same. Thus, a comparison is pretty valid.

Now, what I asked rhetorically and obliquely was whether or not legal innocence makes you certain of actual innocence in a situation where a criminal offense may have been committed. See, that's called a hypotehtical situation, and so it calls for conjecture on the part of someone contemplating it. If you understood that sort of subtlety, you'd see that there's actually an interesting philosophical question in there. A tree fell in the forrest without anyone there to witness it and now the question isn't whether or not there was a noise; it's who felled the tree...

For the record, just so you know, I graduated from an Ivy League university and was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year. I then earned a PhD in chemistry. If you have educational/intellectual credentials that are superior to that, I'll be glad to acknowledge your superior intellect. Until then, please try to read the posts here a bit more carefully.

Now to set the record straight:

I don't hate Michael Vick; I don't know him; I have no reason to believe that he is a person who does evil things to his fellow man. I do think that many of his behaviors - while not ones that have caused him to become a convicted criminal - are less than intelligent ones given his stature in the community and in the sports world. So, because I think he behaves in ways that are not all that intelligent, I characterize him as a MORON.

My appologies for the tedious repetition to those Warpath readers who understood what I said in the first place...

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Grim21Reaper

If you were actually as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you'd go back and read what I wrote. I didn't compare Michael Vick to OJ Simpson. I compared the legal innocence of the two men. And surely someone of your intellectual prowess will recognize that their legal innocence is exactly the same. Thus, a comparison is pretty valid.

Now, what I asked rhetorically and obliquely was whether or not legal innocence makes you certain of actual innocence in a situation where a criminal offense may have been committed. See, that's called a hypotehtical situation, and so it calls for conjecture on the part of someone contemplating it. If you understood that sort of subtlety, you'd see that there's actually an interesting philosophical question in there. A tree fell in the forrest without anyone there to witness it and now the question isn't whether or not there was a noise; it's who felled the tree...

For the record, just so you know, I graduated from an Ivy League university and was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year. I then earned a PhD in chemistry. If you have educational/intellectual credentials that are superior to that, I'll be glad to acknowledge your superior intellect. Until then, please try to read the posts here a bit more carefully.

Now to set the record straight:

I don't hate Michael Vick; I don't know him; I have no reason to believe that he is a person who does evil things to his fellow man. I do think that many of his behaviors - while not ones that have caused him to become a convicted criminal - are less than intelligent ones given his stature in the community and in the sports world. So, because I think he behaves in ways that are not all that intelligent, I characterize him as a MORON.

My appologies for the tedious repetition to those Warpath readers who understood what I said in the first place...

this is considered ownage my friends....

[djnemo65]

I once got blazed with this dude in Blacksburg who looked like Mike Vick. Said his name was Ron Mexico though. Anyway, this guy had that skunk. It was a good weekend, from what I can remember.