I Hate Michael Vick

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:31 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I don't expect that mistakes I made come without consequences.


Nobody expects for someone to act in the way that I described, it's not normal because most people are entirely too selfish. It takes a level of selflessness that most people refuse to exhibit. It's a difficult thing to do but it's one of the best feelings in the world to give.

I've at times shown that trait and I've been extremely humbled and thankful to those who have shown it to me.


There are different levels of doing things. He was systematically over a long period of time incredibly cruel to intelligent, living beings. I just personally find it hard to believe he got over complete moral depravity that quickly and easily. Have you done anything nearly to that degree? I don't want to do to him what he did to his dogs, but I have a hard time thinking that a mea culpa and moving on has solved anything in his character and I don't think he belongs in the NFL getting rich and not dealing with the enormously horrible things he did.


Absolutely agree with your first sentence and his transgression was extreme. Also, is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer? In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution.

And to be honest, Mike Vick doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that he's a changed man, he only needs to be honest with himself. If he has changed and is sorry and can look himself in the mirror and know it to be true, to hell with anyone else, moronic dog lovers, PETA members, and moron supporters who blindly follow him included.

Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs? Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated. Since he's served his sentence and is in compliance with both his parole and bankruptcy plan, he has the exact same right to earn a living as anyone else. Given that Philly has chosen to hire and pay him, this normative determination that he doesn't "belong" in the NFL sounds petty, since very clearly he does belong.

Nevermind that you assume he's not, or is incapable of, simultaneously dealing with the enormously horrible things he did (note the lack of quotations, because I don't think there's any room to disagree with that, really) while collecting his paycheck, based on . . . what exactly? I've read and listened to folks write off his lobbying for stiffer penalties for those who spectate at dog fights and his anti-dog fighting work with the Humane Society (neither of which is a condition of his parole or is he getting paid for) and any other positive thing he's done or tried to do as solely a "PR" move; but I ask, precisely what is it he needs to do to pay his debt to public opinion, you know, other than the one he's already paid to society? So what IF he is only doing these things as a PR move? Hell that has to be evidence of dealing with his transgressions to some degree, right?

Or is this just simply the case of a human man, who bred, was entertained by fights to the death starring and killed, dogs, who will never be forgiven no matter what penalty he pays, acts of advocacy, contrition and charity he performs, or how much time passes? Is it really the case that his actions with BAd Newz Kennel preclude him from ever changing, making a living "playing a game", surviving one of the most brutal sports without "blowing out a knee," or whatever other pound of flesh "we" believe he ought to give "us"?
Last edited by emoses14 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:34 pm

Sorry, double post.

Thanks ATX for the heads up. :up:
Last edited by emoses14 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

ATX
Posts: 3383
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:59 am
Location: NOVA

Postby ATX_Skins » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:59 pm

I absolutely agree with your first post but your second was rather extreme :lol:
Support the troops, especially our snipers.

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:22 pm

The smugness the Eagles going into this season was unbearable. And while their pathetic losses have certainly humbled them, they haven't been humbled enough.

They are on their way, though. Just like the Cowboys — the media-proclaimed and self-proclaimed favorites to have the first ever home Super Bowl — had only one win at this time last year, and went to 1-7 before winning their next one. That's the level of embarrassment and shame the Eagles were risking, and asking for, by allowing and engaging in "dream team" talk.

Maybe they won't go to 1-7, but I really won't care so long as they are 1-5 a week from today. They deserve another heel in the neck and to be taken out of serious contention this year.

Please Skins, deliver! [-o<
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:14 pm

I want the eagles to lose more than I want the Redskins to win - I love the fact that the eagles franchise & fans are facing a massive crisis


sorry Kaz - Michael Vick is NOT the same person that he was - he's also a better QB than he was



we need to beat the eagles - the best way for that to happen is to limit Vick's time on the field

really feeling & expressing 'hate' for players is a waste of time - have at it :roll:

I say that I 'hate' the pukes but I really don't - I just don't like losing to the giants, the pukes & the eagles



HTTR
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

CKRGiii
Posts: 4034
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm
Location: 505 New Mexico repn

Postby cowboykillerzRGiii » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:49 am

I don't know Vick personally of course but the twisted mind that would enjoy the crap he took part in is a SICK sick individual. Itd take years of counseling if that. Changed man? How? By doing and saying what the lawyer he eventually paid tells him to? I can't hate the man certainly the crime- I do however not care for him and talk of his previous past time funtime disgusts me. On the field ya he is good, but as a person I wouldn't even try to get an autograph.
I happen to own a very expensive Pitbull (Razors edge Pitt crossed w American bulldog from over seas) and his actions stretch faaaaar beyond the lives of the dogs he didn't give two ishts about... Being a pitty owner I have fought the cliche stereotypical rap they get people like Vick further slander the breed and owners alike. I don't need to get in to how good of a dog mine is with kids other dogs cats etc etc I am a responsible owner and people like Vick make breeding if not illegal extremely tedious and expensive.
So ya I feel ya Chris forgiving is extremely powerful- he doesn't have to answer to me so I don't need to give him my forgiveness.. Can't say he worth my hate but I will say I feel bad for a guy with such gifts and total lack of morality integrity humanity etc etc etc. I don't support vick and although I myself wouldn't feed him to a pack of wolves I also won't bat a lash at him if he gets his knee Joe Theismanned
#21 forever in our hearts
...and yet ANOTHER record setting performance by "RG3 the third"!!!!
“I wanted to just… put his lights out ….because, you know, …Dallas sucks…” - Dexter Manley

kazoo
Online
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:19 am

SkinsJock wrote:sorry Kaz - Michael Vick is NOT the same person that he was


You know because sorry he's not?
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Online
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:26 am

emoses14 wrote:is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer?

Those are all serious crimes, but I don't understand the relevance of ranking them

emoses14 wrote:In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution

Actually it makes all the difference what I think since what I said was my opinion

emoses14 wrote:Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs?

My sentence doesn't say that, so I don't understand the relevance of the question

emoses14 wrote:Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated

This completely misses the point, but the NFL is an entertainment business. The people involved absolutely make all the difference.

As for the rest of your rant, wow, Government said the punishment fit the crime, who am I to question government? The Eagles hired him, who am I to have an opinion about that? Got it,
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:49 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:sorry Kaz - Michael Vick is NOT the same person that he was


You know because sorry he's not?


You may or may not remember how mad I was at what Vick did - I refused to hear any attempts to downplay his atrocities

Vick is playing in the NFL because Goodell and Dungy are satisfied that he is not the same person - that's not excusing anything but I'm ok with it

I have no problem with people not forgiving him for what he did

I do not like Vick but he's a VERY dangerous QB

thankfully, we're getting him at a time that the players around him are not playing well together AT ALL

HOPEFULLY our offense does not give their offense much time on the field

The Redskins defense will be OK - my concern is with Grossman and Kyle's play calling - run the ball & take time off the clock
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:22 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
emoses14 wrote:is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer?

Those are all serious crimes, but I don't understand the relevance of ranking them


Its not an issue of ranking them. The relevance has to do with your absolute statement that he was completely morally depraved. I am trying to figure out what your degree of differentiation is, because I don't view what he did as being COMPLETELY morally depraved. Or put another way, I don't view Michael Vick and a murderer or a serial murderer as the same, and I would be far more inclined to refer to the latter 2 as "completely morally depraved". His attrocious actions do not mean he has no morality at all. So, a simple yes or no, perhaps with a little explanation if you felt so inclined, to the question would have told me whether you actually believed the absoluteness of your statement, or if upon reflection, you didn't mean it to that degree.



KazooSkinsFan wrote:
emoses14 wrote:In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution

Actually it makes all the difference what I think since what I said was my opinion


Ok, fine. Don't engage the larger point in the following paragraph that true forgiveness or absolution comes from within, regardless of what anyone's opinion is. Instead focus on the simple, though absolutely true point, that yes, what you think does matter to your opinion. I'll do it a different way. Kaz, do you think that the real measure of contrition and the ability to overcome moral shortcomings is best determined by what those of us without any personal interaction with the man think or what is actually in that man's heart?


KazooSkinsFan wrote:
emoses14 wrote:Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs?

My sentence doesn't say that, so I don't understand the relevance of the question


Yes it does. You say he doesn't belong in the NFL getting rich. His profession is Football, and the NFL is where the best are. Unless I misread the tone of your sentence, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean he does belong in the NFL, but not getting rich. Nor do I think you meant that he ought to be in the CFL, either getting rich or not getting rich. If you did, then my bad; please disregard that paragraph and skip to the next one.


KazooSkinsFan wrote:
emoses14 wrote:Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated

This completely misses the point, but the NFL is an entertainment business. The people involved absolutely make all the difference.


Kaz, the point behind my two examples was that in those business the people involved, and more to the point the customers, make a difference when dealing with an absolute abuser of dogs . There's a direct 1:1 relationship. So, in that instance, I think your point (the one I didn't miss)that he doesn't belong in his chosen profession getting rich would be right on. In the entertainment business of the NFL, that isn't the case. There the job requirements are many but 2 main ones, as to whether someone ought to be there, are, production on the field and contribution or detraction from the bottom line . There is also the chaser of the morality clause, which is presumably based on a reasonable person standard of some sort. The kind of reasonable person standard that allows for transgression, punishment, redemption and reinstatement. Vick couldn't survive in his profession if he wasn't any good, didn't put butts in the seats or was so "completely morally depraved" that the NFL couldn't in good conscience readmit him. Its not that your opinion is wrong just because of the NFL or Eagles' policy, its that since they are operating with a lot more information on the man than you and I are, their determination has got to carry at least a modicum more weight than ours.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:As for the rest of your rant, wow, Government said the punishment fit the crime, who am I to question government? The Eagles hired him, who am I to have an opinion about that? Got it,


I never said that because the government and a jury of his peers sentenced and convicted him, respectively, you should simply accept that. Nor did I even imply that, so, no, you didn't get it. Interesting that you pulled that out of my "rant". But that straw man doesn't exist in anything I said. I asked a number of questions, some sarcastically, that essentially boil down to "What more do you believe he owes, recognizing that he has already paid a price mandated by the only entity stepping up with an idea of what punishment and retribution ought to look like, or must do to satisfy popular public opinion? Or is there nothing he can do?" Since you opened this door re: government, my response is, rather than the typical arms crossed, foot stomping, contrarian position SIMPLY BECAUSE the government was involved in the punishment he's paid, how about exercising that opinion of yours to answer the question of what more you'd like to see from the man. Easy to naysay, harder to problem solve.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Dallas, Tx

Postby funsho2 » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:09 pm

markshark84 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I give him the benefit of the doubt. He was convicted and served his time. I do not care for him, but that is because he is an Eagle.

Let's not forget what Stallworth did...


Really??? You can't compare what Stallworth did to Vick. Totally different circumstances. Stallworth's was a one time thing and even admitted to drinking at the scene (totally dumb move, but honest). The dog fighting, on the other hand, occured multiple times over the course of multiple (some say close to 7) years. Vick's actions were premeditated in that he had time to contemplate what he was doing and the consequences of his actions -- and continued to do it. He killed and used the dogs lives as a form of entertainment and revenue with full knowledge of the outcome.

And honestly, the dog fighting isn't even the worst of it for Vick. Personally, I think that Vick (aka Ron Mexico) knowingly giving woman non-treatable STDs is just as bad. There are also the marijuana charges.


So a human life is less than a dog's? is that what you are saying...u must be one of those people that have sex with their dogs

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:20 pm

emoses14 wrote:Absolutely agree with your first sentence and his transgression was extreme. Also, is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer? In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution.


I know this was in response to kaz, but I'd like to add my commentary.

The crimes you are attempting to compare or summon comparison from others are not as disparate as you might choose to characterize them, since serial killers (of the human murdering type) often begin their careers in mass murder with the systematic torturing of animals. That we define murder as a human killing another human is the only distinction between a Serial Murderer, with the more oft used term "Serial Killers" which does describe Vick's treatment of those animals, no? He killed many ... in brutal fashion over an extended period of time. Sounds like Serial Killing to me.

Now, that's not to suggest that killing a dog is equal to killing a human, just that the mentality of someone capable of such acts against either is indicative of a similar lack of empathy and compassion witnessed in serial killers.

Furthermore, I cannot escape the impression that you just don't consider it a big deal, given the quote marks placed on "complete moral depravity". Perhaps you consider it "partial" moral depravity? Or is more like a little "oopsie" .... like not paying close enough attention, allowing the door to slip your grip, delivering a door ding to the car beside you? I think I know the answer already ... it was a rhetorical question.

emoses14 wrote:And to be honest, Mike Vick doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that he's a changed man, he only needs to be honest with himself. If he has changed and is sorry and can look himself in the mirror and know it to be true, to hell with anyone else, moronic dog lovers, PETA members, and moron supporters who blindly follow him included.


You're right, he doesn't ... nor does the rest of the world owe him forgiveness. But really .... "moronic dog lovers" ? So, loving a noble and loyal to a fault creature is a moronic act, but torturing and killing them in a most extreme and brutal manner such that Vick did, and apparently "enjoyed" while doing it, is just a minor transgression ... nothing to get all worked up about? Just a 5 yard penalty, not a 15 yarder?

emoses14 wrote:Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs? Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated.


I don't think you recognize where your real problem resides ... and I cannot speak for anyone else, but you seem to be missing the first point which is the extreme moral depravity part, and how that is inconsistent with the high code of moral conduct the NFL claims to embrace.

Clearly, an individual has no "god given right" to be a member of the NFL .. which is a true privilege that demands a certain level of character be maintained. And though some mistakes and transgressions which constitute violations of NFL conduct policy are ultimately forgivable offenses and constitute lapses of good judgment ... Vick's behavior demonstrated a total absence of even the most minimal level of morality. Purely disgusting in the extreme, and certainly not the role modal one would want their Son's to embrace ... save for the people who don't think it was a big deal.

emoses14 wrote:Since he's served his sentence and is in compliance with both his parole and bankruptcy plan, he has the exact same right to earn a living as anyone else. Given that Philly has chosen to hire and pay him, this normative determination that he doesn't "belong" in the NFL sounds petty, since very clearly he does belong.


Clearly, if Vick belongs in the NFL, he landed in the perfect spot ... a hooligan team with hooligan fans seems to be a perfect match for an ex-con sociopathic animal torturing hooligan QB.

emoses14 wrote:Nevermind that you assume he's not, or is incapable of, simultaneously dealing with the enormously horrible things he did (note the lack of quotations, because I don't think there's any room to disagree with that, really) while collecting his paycheck, based on . . . what exactly? I've read and listened to folks write off his lobbying for stiffer penalties for those who spectate at dog fights and his anti-dog fighting work with the Humane Society (neither of which is a condition of his parole or is he getting paid for) and any other positive thing he's done or tried to do as solely a "PR" move; but I ask, precisely what is it he needs to do to pay his debt to public opinion, you know, other than the one he's already paid to society? So what IF he is only doing these things as a PR move? Hell that has to be evidence of dealing with his transgressions to some degree, right?


No ... how could you view his efforts as PR motivated and confuse that with "dealing with his transgressions"? It's a selfish act of rehabilitating his image, for his benefit... not an act of sincere remorse for his atrocious behavior which was not a single act or momentary lapse of judgment, but repeated acts over the course of several years.

emoses14 wrote:Or is this just simply the case of a human man, who bred, was entertained by fights to the death starring and killed, dogs, who will never be forgiven no matter what penalty he pays, acts of advocacy, contrition and charity he performs, or how much time passes? Is it really the case that his actions with BAd Newz Kennel preclude him from ever changing, making a living "playing a game", surviving one of the most brutal sports without "blowing out a knee," or whatever other pound of flesh "we" believe he ought to give "us"?


Obviously you have forgiven him .. but it's much easier for you since you don't consider his actions as morally reprehensible as many others do. Those others find it more difficult, because 1) there has been no convincing display of sincere remorse .. he looks pretty phony and pretty coached up in his responses ... and 2) Some things are reserved for only Momma and God to seek forgiveness from ... since we the public are neither ... we don't owe that degenerate punk anything. And each of us has the right to determine who does and does not deserve our respect and forgiveness.

Personally, I don't wish bodily injury on anyone, though I'd feel no sadness if universal karma where to settle the debt. It's already happening to that team of misfits to a certain extent, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch up there in the City of brotherly love. The dream team are having nightmares, and they deserve them.

Go Redskins ... Ryan and Brian, have a good time in the Philthy backfield.

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:09 am

funsho2 wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I give him the benefit of the doubt. He was convicted and served his time. I do not care for him, but that is because he is an Eagle.

Let's not forget what Stallworth did...


Really??? You can't compare what Stallworth did to Vick. Totally different circumstances. Stallworth's was a one time thing and even admitted to drinking at the scene (totally dumb move, but honest). The dog fighting, on the other hand, occured multiple times over the course of multiple (some say close to 7) years. Vick's actions were premeditated in that he had time to contemplate what he was doing and the consequences of his actions -- and continued to do it. He killed and used the dogs lives as a form of entertainment and revenue with full knowledge of the outcome.

And honestly, the dog fighting isn't even the worst of it for Vick. Personally, I think that Vick (aka Ron Mexico) knowingly giving woman non-treatable STDs is just as bad. There are also the marijuana charges.


So a human life is less than a dog's? is that what you are saying...u must be one of those people that have sex with their dogs


Now that is purely a disgusting remark ... you must be a cowboy fan. But the issue has nothing to do with the value of human life compared to a dog ... the issue is intent. There is a significant difference between an accident and a continued and repeated inflicting of pain and suffering on many living creatures purposely and apparently with enjoyment.

It's a shame this isn't immediately apparent to everyone.

kazoo
Online
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:42 am

RayNAustin wrote:Now that is purely a disgusting remark ... you must be a cowboy fan. But the issue has nothing to do with the value of human life compared to a dog ... the issue is intent. There is a significant difference between an accident and a continued and repeated inflicting of pain and suffering on many living creatures purposely and apparently with enjoyment.

It's a shame this isn't immediately apparent to everyone.


Bam! That's it exactly Ray. This is what I was trying to argue, but hadn't figured out how to say as exactly as you did. No doubt a dog is less then a human life, but that's not the issue, it was his repeatedly and intentionally inflicting cruelty, not whether his victims were more or less important.

word
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:12 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:Now that is purely a disgusting remark ... you must be a cowboy fan. But the issue has nothing to do with the value of human life compared to a dog ... the issue is intent. There is a significant difference between an accident and a continued and repeated inflicting of pain and suffering on many living creatures purposely and apparently with enjoyment.

It's a shame this isn't immediately apparent to everyone.


Bam! That's it exactly Ray. This is what I was trying to argue, but hadn't figured out how to say as exactly as you did. No doubt a dog is less then a human life, but that's not the issue, it was his repeatedly and intentionally inflicting cruelty, not whether his victims were more or less important.


I'm fine with the hating and the 'reasoning'

I'm not concerned about Vick as a human being because that has nothing to do with the Redskins chances of winning this game

I don't like anyone that plays for a team that the Redskins are playing against


like I said - hating is a choice, have at it - there's lot of opportunities out there

I choose not to

I'm only interested in how our defense contains the offense that this 'hateful' QB is a part of
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

Return to The Lounge