Bonds - Horrible human being. I hope he pulls his hammy and falls just two short... He may not have been found guilty, but he freakin' admitted to a grand jury that he used a cream that he later found out was a performance enhancer... "Hmm what's this? I should rub it on and see if it makes me less of an ass" Vick - Owns the house, has a pit bull breeding license, but knows nothing about what goes on? Don't be so dense. OJ - I don't know about you, but when I'm innocent of something, I dont get a gun, a good friend, and a crappy SUV and lead the cops on a slow paced joy ride. There is something to be said of innocent until proven guilty, but there's also somehting to be said for admitting to cheating (though he said it was accidental), slaughtering animals, and slaughtering your mother of your kids... And don't give me the "Well we all accused the Duke Kids" line... No we didn't accuse them, a stripper and a DA up for election did. Much of the media and most of the public saw through the farce. The only people who rushed to judgement had something to gain personally (DA, Sharpton, Jackson, etc...)
What about Kobe Bryant......among MANY others?? Let's see..........oh, here's one: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/248867/wrongly_accused_man_let_free_after.html How about this one: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2839/context/archive
BTW, I'm neither here nor there on Bonds, Vick........don't care much for professional sports. The myth of "Innocent til proven guilty" thingy is a pet peeve (Or is that pea??). As to how it came forth not making a difference.......To this I'd have to say three words: Ernest Arthur Miranda. Ya feelin me now?? :hihi: BTW, nice sig pic.
And yet it isn't. You can assume that I think Vick should not play, but I didn't actually say that, nor did I imply that. I did however say that I understood how the NFL could make a decision on his suspension. The post in it's entirety shows that. I clearly stated that he had not been proven guilty yet. Since it seems you see the dog fighting ring possibly sponsored by Vick and Bond's possible steroid use as the same, I would say that you are correct. My idea of apples and oranges are very different from your's.
There is a pretty interesting program on ESPN about all this right now. Points/counterpoints, and a pretty decent forum in front of an audience. Cool to hear all the points of view at the same time.
Right, you never did, because that would mean taking a hard stance on an issue, and not being able to flip-flop or spin your way around it when someone disagrees with you. Yes you did. In the eyes of just about everyone else on this forum, saying they are "setting themselves up for a fall", implies that playing Vick is not the safe bet here. This must be one of those times where we choose whether or not to allow due process. Oh wait, we are allowing due process now? The innocent until proven guilty thing in this country, isn't based on the severity of the crime. Whether you're accused of stealing your neighbor's newspaper, or hanging the President, you're still entitled to the same due process. I'll be nice, and not make a smartazz coment here. :hihi: As are most of your other ideas posted so far.
Is that any different than assuming.......oh.......let's say if I happened to post about inbreeding being done sucessfully in a thread about a bengal tiger- that had a post in it about a white tiger- that I meant it to be in reference to the white tiger, rather than a general statement about inbreeding/linebreeding (It is the same you know). :hihi: Or, when bayarea makes a statement- puts it out in print that he’s agreeing, it’s open to interpretation? Of what’s in bold above, you ask, in what’s below...... I’ll let you tell me, if someone says “Atlanta is setting themselves up if they do play Vick this year”, would it or would it not be safe to assume that whomever made the post thinks it’s not a good idea to play him?
