Some people really do think this way. I work with a guy and him and his wife have no kids but they had a dog who was treated as such. When they would go out to eat they would bring back a plate for their dog, wherever she was able to go they took her, they even spent $17,000 trying to save her when she developed cancer. I don't think of dogs on that level, not even close, but I am not immune to the fact that there are those out there who do put them on such a level.
If Obummer loves him some Michael Vick so much, then maybe he should let Vick take home the presidential dog for a week.
Well, he probably won't seem like a changed man if you simply focus on all the incidences before his incarceration and don't look what has been done after. Everything he has done post release seems to indicate he is changed but they don't point out the weekly speeches given to school children which were NOT a condition of his release or sentence, his work and endorsement from the Humane Society (a much better organization than PETA in my opinion), his humbleness in getting a second chance, etc. Then again, this is PETA, the organization who got upset at the President for swatting a fly.
I'm guessing there are a lot of people today talking about Tucker Carlson who had no idea who he was as recently as yesterday. Spoiler
Prefacing a comment with "I'm a Christian" is the hypocritical religious version of "I'm not racist, but..."
You can argue the merits of hunting, but there is certainly a moral distinction between that and torturing. There may be some hunters who enjoy causing animals pain, but I'm guessing that isn't why most people do it. Most people can forgive or at least understand some moral failings (cheating, stealing). If the impulses (personal pleasure, wealth, etc.) make sense, we can understand why someone succumbs to them. But enjoying the torture of defenseless animals is impossible to empathize with. Whatever motive Vick had in doing it is not shared by most people. Which makes it harder to forgive.
Yep. Probably some company who specializes in monitoring what people talk on Facebook, forums, Twitter et al, is giving Fox News a big thumbs up in getting TC's name out there. They're already expecting new viewers to tune even if they hate what he said. Tucker Carlson became irrelevant in the early 00s after John Stewart verbally thrashed him on air. Here's the infamous video: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Wait. You don't think that this was their mission all along, do you? Surely this strategy is totally unprecedented in today's modern media, right? I mean, I just can't imagine that a cable news channel or talk radio station would stoop so low to get viewers or listeners.........
He should die for throwing a pick and robbing me of my fantasy football championship. /end rant. But to be executed for dog fighting and serving time? Eh, talk about being over dramatic.
With the last line in the article, I think the guy just wanted to throw a jab at our Presidente, obama. Other than that, I can understand where he is coming from. I love my dog. When the whole Vick and puppy killing came up in the hangout thread, I defended michael vick. I remember saying something like they're just dogs, but I had never owned a dog. I adopted one in 09. My anakin is part of the family. Still, execution is pretty harsh and was more than likely used for Dramatic Effect. Now supervised electrocution as a form of mild torture, I would be down with that.
What a ridculous statement. The only thing Fox News has going for them is Greg Guterfield and his show.
