And to the question you asked me - and to my point below I didn't read the whole article. I was so disgusted by the headline and premise I just chalked it up to more of the same BS from you and put it down. Had it been positioned as the article you are claiming it was I would have read it in it's entirety.
But I also still asked you two questions you have never chosen to answer. First, do you feel that he should be allowed back in given that he led and financed a gambling operation? Second, did you in fact support our commander in chief Bill Clinton while our men were in harms way in Serbia, as you feel everyone should be doing now for Bush? --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are missing my point. I am not disagreeing with some of the > points you make. However unlike the article below you focus your > headline on Vick rather than the issues below. And when called on > it you pretend like you didn't do it, like all of the burried issues > within the article are there and the POV on Vick is not front and > center. > > Jack's whole point is that your desire to sensationalize things > often eliminates any ability to focus on the good points you > sometimes make. But you could never admit that. Because you can > never admit anything beyond your own perfection. That's certainly > what I've observed over time. > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright" > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > AsburyCouple, did you RTFA? I said quite clearly I love dogs and > > abhor dog fighting. If you above me are the animal lover, where > is > > your outrage at the rest of the world's animal killing? That's > what > > I'm pointing out in the column, that hypocrisy. > > > > Apparantly the column isn't about me; it seems to be about you. > > > > Below I print the column in the Press today. The writer makes > many > > of the same points about the hypocricy I did. > > > > How about you Jack and Mario call her and tell her how terrible > she > > is like you've tried to do to me today? > > > > By the way, she referes to my view as a "far left wing" view, > > proving once again that you Jack and Mario have a limited world > view > > (you call me neocon after reading the same view): > > > > > > Vick case stirs debate over value of dogs versus people > > > > Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/2/07 > > BY SUSAN RUSSELL > > > > For five seconds, the horrors of the Michael Vick dogfighting > > scandal seemed crystal clear. Americans know an atrocity when they > > see one. > > > > Then the competition began. It's people versus animals, went the > > refrain. Compassion must be rationed. It's either/or. > > > > Hot air from conservatives? Not really. More like a cold wind from > > the left. > > > > Kindness is a vanishing American virtue at least for the > > chattering classes. It seems the more interest groups there are, > the > > less genuine kindness there is. Perhaps acute specialization > breeds > > selfishness only we matter! hardening the heart to everyone > and > > everything else. > > > > And so it was that a cadre of liberal talking heads and columnists > > belittled widespread outrage over dogfighting. Each touted his or > > her own cause and species as more deserving of the outrage. A > > few appeared more outraged by public compassion for dogs than by > > dogfighting itself. "Mere dogs," they sniffed. "What about people?" > > > > Sandy Kobrin is a regular contributor to Women's eNews, and, > > presumably, a feminist. Deeply offended, Kobrin wrote: "Beat a > > woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You're gone. What could possibly > account > > for this bizarre situation? The anti-animal-abuse lobby, > meanwhile, > > is going after Vick with all four paws." > > > > When the least powerful among us are viewed as competitors for > > attention, for compassion, for funds we've become very small > > indeed. > > > > One would think that in a nation that slaughters nearly 10 billion > > animals a year for food, kills another 30 million a year for > > amusement and destroys untold millions of unwanted dogs and cats > > every year, it shouldn't be too trying to give brutalized dogs > their > > day. > > > > Shouldn't the progressive mantra of respect apply not only to > chosen > > groups of people, but also to persecuted animals and the human > > beings who work to protect them? > > > > If any of the commentators so morbidly offended by the outpouring > of > > sympathy for dogs over people didn't take a sustained stand > against > > athletes beating women, they are hypocrites squared. > > > > Likewise, interests who are usually judgmental and quick to assign > > blame looked the other way. Dogs? What dogs? According to Vick's > > apologists, he made a vague "mistake." One columnist wrote > > that "Michael Vick was crucified" even after the football player > > pleaded guilty. All forgot to mention the tortured dogs. > > > > Such stilted ethics are light years behind humanity's greatest > > thinkers and philosophers. Pythagoras, Seneca, Plutarch, Da Vinci, > > Voltaire, Paine, Montaigne, Twain, Tolstoy, Locke, Darwin, Hugo, > > Zola, Schopenhauer, Einstein and so many others were impassioned > > advocates for animals, as well as for humans. > > > > "The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of > > man," wrote Charles Darwin. Thomas Edison said, "Nonviolence leads > > to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until > we > > stop harming all other living beings, we are savages." "I am in > > favor of animal rights as well as human rights," wrote Abraham > > Lincoln. "That is the way of a whole human being." > > > > What children, men, women and thousands of pit bulls have in > common > > is that they are daily victims of insensate, burgeoning violence. > > Given the documented link between violence against animals and > > violence against humans, is there any clearer sign that the circle > > of compassion, as Albert Schweitzer called it, must include both? > > > > Humanitarians of all stripes, for all species, must make education > > inculcating nonviolence and kindness toward humans and animals a > > priority, in cities where violence against humans, dogfighting and > > cockfighting flourish, and in rural areas where animal fighting is > > entrenched. > > > > Authorities say crimes of cruelty are nearing a crisis stage. > Behind > > a Tallahassee, Fla., home last month, police found dozens of > > starving, wounded pit bulls feared too far gone to be helped. Days > > before, deputy sheriffs uncovered a mass grave of 28 roosters, > > cockfighting weapons and $25,000 in cash. In New Jersey, Trenton, > > parts of Salem County, Paterson and other areas are on the grid. > > > > Until the Vick case, enforcement of animal fighting laws was rare. > > Now, cruelty enforcement is on the upswing, with new cases > breaking > > every week. > > > > The venality of dogfighting isn't limited to gansta rap or to > famous > > football stars. It cuts across racial lines. A 1998 undercover > > investigation of dogfighting in the U.S. found that the > participants > > were generally poor, usually rural and "overwhelmingly white." > > > > We know and love dogs. It is their proximity to us that makes them > > lovable. We don't know the panicked animals forced to endure > killing > > and bleeding floors in slaughterhouses. They are the untouchables, > > deliberately kept out of sight, out of mind. How many kind, well- > > meaning people condemned dogfighting, then sat down to a fat, > juicy > > steak from a steer who, given the odds, was skinned alive, and > who, > > to paraphrase Thoreau, held his life by the same tenure we do? > > > > The bottom line: If breeding "man's best friends" to rip each > other > > apart to cheers and jeers then drowning and electrocuting the > > broken, bleeding "underperformers" didn't shock the conscience of > > most, albeit not all, Americans, we'd be in trouble. > > > > Fortunately, most Americans and the media got this one right. The > > bean counters might ponder the lesson. > > > > Susan Russell, Little Silver, is a lobbyist, researcher and writer > > on animal issues. > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <asburycouple@> > > wrote: > > > > > > So the fact that he was running a gambling ring and financing > the > > > entire operation doesn't bother you at all? > > > > > > The fact that he enjoyed engaging in torture doesn't bother you > > (oh > > > sorry, you're a neocon so that one probably doesn't bother you) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright" > > > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The AP Press ran a column today that raised the same issue > about > > > how > > > > we treat humans and animals in association with the Vick > > > > controversey. > > > > > > > > Yes, I say let him play football, since the rule in the NFL is > > > that > > > > there is no lifetime ban for killing people (see Little and > > Lewis). > > > > > > > > Imagine how their victim's families will feel if Vick gets a > > > > lifetime ban while those 2 guys didn't. > > > > > > > > Aren't you offended by that hypocrisy? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Hinge" <hinge98@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No Tommy, the columns title is about Vick. You say let him > > play > > > > football. End of story. > > > > > Somehow, you managed to forget that fact. Yes, you did write > > > about > > > > hypocrisy, and it's > > > > > remotely possible that you raised some actual points, but > you > > > > still hooked people in with > > > > > the headline about letting Vick play football. End of story > in > > > my > > > > opinion. Everything else > > > > > you wrote just made it more laughable and deplorable at the > > same > > > > time. Just like you did > > > > > about Clearwater. I'm sure your Vick article won't have the > > > effect > > > > you desired, and it'll > > > > > probably help to shrink your fan base (if you think you have > > one) > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright" > > > > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > AsburyCouple I'm really at a loss as to how the Vick > column > > > > could be > > > > > > about me, or how it could even be controversial at all, > let > > > > alone > > > > > > the controversy being the plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > All the column points out (as animal rights advocates have > > > > pointed > > > > > > out for years) is that in this world, we treat animals > > > > as "special" > > > > > > or "not special" or "protected" or "not protected" based > on > > > our > > > > own > > > > > > needs of the animals, not based upon anything inherent in > > the > > > > animal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Like it or not, that creates a hypocrisy. When Vick kills > > his > > > > dogs, > > > > > > we are offended. Are we offended for the animal? If so, > > why > > > > not be > > > > > > offended at killing other dogs or other animals, which > > > happends > > > > all > > > > > > the time? > > > > > > > > > > > > If humans thought of dogs as special, we would abhor the > > > killing > > > > of > > > > > > any dog, as we would the killing of any human, but we > > don't. > > > > Our > > > > > > reactions seem to be based upon our view of the killing, > not > > > the > > > > > > animal's view of it. If our sympathy truly was with the > > > animal, > > > > we > > > > > > would hate all killing of animals, hunting included. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes that dove-tails into the argument of who possesses a > > > soul. > > > > Yes > > > > > > it dove-tails into the abortion argument, since a fetus is > a > > > > > > vertebrate mammal in the animal kingdom, and in some > > people's > > > a > > > > > > opinion, more important than a dog. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see how pointing out the hypocrisy makes the > column > > > > about > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" > > > > <asburycouple@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because an article about real issues with a reasonable > > point > > > > of > > > > > > view > > > > > > > will spark a debate but not make him the center of > > > attention. > > > > By > > > > > > > taking such an extreme and ridiculous argument as his > Vick > > > > > > article - > > > > > > > or for that matter insert most of his POV's - Tom > himself > > > > becomes > > > > > > > the focal point and the argument becomes about him > rather > > > than > > > > > > about > > > > > > > the issue. That's just how he likes it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, MarioAPNJ@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 9/2/2007 11:54:23 A.M. Eastern > > Daylight > > > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > asburycouple@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly I don't even thing Tommy believes half of > > > > > > > > what he writes here or in the TCN. I think he just > > gets > > > > off on > > > > > > > > saying things he knows will piss people off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why not put that column to more responsible use, > > > > especially > > > > > > > for AP. > > > > > > > > Weeks ago, he was so hot to join the surveillance > > system > > > > > > > bandwagon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak > peek > > of > > > > the > > > > > > all- > > > > > > > new AOL at > > > > > > > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
