Spinoff: Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should have been executed for torturing dogs

[Anonymous]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/12/29/2010-12-29_tucker_carlson_michael_vick_should_have_been_executed_for_running_dogfighting_ri.html

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anything for a quick headline and to take a cheap shot at Obama.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe in capital punishment, and in any case, that would be an unthinkably extreme punishment for this crime.

Aside from that disagreement, though, I share Carlson's sentiments about what Vick did. The barbarity of it is incomprehensible to me. What kind of person does that? I'm a big time softie liberal, but I don't understand how someone capable of that crime could be rehabilitated.

I'm curious about what people who are close to Vick say about him now. Do they think he recognizes and feels real regret? Do they think his rehabilitation is authentic or just for PR? I mean, he's got a multi-million dollar incentive to appear sincere, so I could see a concerted and elaborate plan that would be all for show.

[Anonymous]

Tucker Carlson is upset tha this own show was axed and he is just trying to cling to being on TV.

Noticed after his show go tdumped he dumped the boq tie, he was trying to be like George Will

btw he is so gay

[jsteele]

Tucker Carlson supported the invasion of Iraq which led to the deaths of a hundred thousand or so people. The number of dogs killed has not been recorded. Carlson later reversed his position on the war, recognizing that is was wrong. Unless Carlson also supports the death penalty for former President Bush and refuses to accept rehabilitation for his own wrong-headed activities in supporting the war, Carlson is being awful hypocritical. But, I'd expect no less from him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in capital punishment, and in any case, that would be an unthinkably extreme punishment for this crime.

Aside from that disagreement, though, I share Carlson's sentiments about what Vick did. The barbarity of it is incomprehensible to me. What kind of person does that? I'm a big time softie liberal, but I don't understand how someone capable of that crime could be rehabilitated.

I'm curious about what people who are close to Vick say about him now. Do they think he recognizes and feels real regret? Do they think his rehabilitation is authentic or just for PR? I mean, he's got a multi-million dollar incentive to appear sincere, so I could see a concerted and elaborate plan that would be all for show.

What DID Vick do, exactly? Most of the evidence points to him bank rolling the operation but not really being involved in the day to day running of it. The government got all his co-defendants to roll on him because he was the big fish.

Our sense of "barbarism" is inherently relative. The root of the word barbarian simply meant "one who is not Greek". We still use it in this context. We vilify that which is different by calling is barbaric. Hunting, fishing, zoos... none of this is barbaric because it is what WE do. But dog fighting or cock fighting... that is barbaric... that is what THOSE PEOPLE do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tucker Carlson is upset tha this own show was axed and he is just trying to cling to being on TV.

Noticed after his show go tdumped he dumped the boq tie, he was trying to be like George Will

btw he is so gay

And, if he were gay (which would probably require a personal conversation with him as opposed to an assessment of his wardrobe)... what would that matter?

[Anonymous]

And Vick seems to be genuinely rehabilitated. If the Humane Society supports him having a pet, why should we continue to villify him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in capital punishment, and in any case, that would be an unthinkably extreme punishment for this crime.

Aside from that disagreement, though, I share Carlson's sentiments about what Vick did. The barbarity of it is incomprehensible to me. What kind of person does that? I'm a big time softie liberal, but I don't understand how someone capable of that crime could be rehabilitated.

I'm curious about what people who are close to Vick say about him now. Do they think he recognizes and feels real regret? Do they think his rehabilitation is authentic or just for PR? I mean, he's got a multi-million dollar incentive to appear sincere, so I could see a concerted and elaborate plan that would be all for show.

What DID Vick do, exactly? Most of the evidence points to him bank rolling the operation but not really being involved in the day to day running of it. The government got all his co-defendants to roll on him because he was the big fish.

Our sense of "barbarism" is inherently relative. The root of the word barbarian simply meant "one who is not Greek". We still use it in this context. We vilify that which is different by calling is barbaric. Hunting, fishing, zoos... none of this is barbaric because it is what WE do. But dog fighting or cock fighting... that is barbaric... that is what THOSE PEOPLE do.

Bull shit. Hunting and fishing provide food, so even when done in sport (which granted, I do not get the appeal), the animal does not die in vain. Moreover, hunters and fisherman attempt to kill swiftly, with the least amount of suffering for the animal. Zoos have a history of poor living conditions for wild animals but today, they do their best to provide satisfying habitats for their animals. Central to their mission is research and public education about wildlife/habitat to better protect animals in the wild. There are no redeeming aspects to dog fighting. Its intent is to entertain people with the brutal, painful, and protracted death of dogs.

And I have no idea who you mean by THOSE PEOPLE. From what I learned about dog fighting when the story first broke, it is everywhere-- affluent and poor neighborhoods, black, white and mixed neighborhoods, all across the United States.

Finally, while his primary role may have been financial, it wasn't like he had the distance of someone buying stock in a company that uses child labor overseas. It wasn't an investment opportunity. He kept those dogs on his property. He witnessed many of the fights and saw first hand what he was involved in. (And Jeff, this is why I think your comparison to the war in Iraq is not very compelling, either.)

Like I said, I'm a softie liberal. I'd love to believe he's rehabilitated and hope that this is so. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that someone could be so unmoved by this horror to participate in it, and then a couple of years later actually seem to have a soul.

But hey, I also believe there is real therapeutic power in caring for and developing a relationship with a dog, and perhaps this is what Vick has experienced. I know that caring for animals has been used successfully as a method in rehabilitating prisoners in other settings. I also read a year ago about the physiological effect of looking into a dogs eyes. Apparently, dogs are one of the few species who will look at length into human eyes and not view it as a form of aggression. Researchers have shown that doing so causes the human body to release oxytocin, the hormone that makes people more social and nurturing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in capital punishment, and in any case, that would be an unthinkably extreme punishment for this crime.

Aside from that disagreement, though, I share Carlson's sentiments about what Vick did. The barbarity of it is incomprehensible to me. What kind of person does that? I'm a big time softie liberal, but I don't understand how someone capable of that crime could be rehabilitated.

I'm curious about what people who are close to Vick say about him now. Do they think he recognizes and feels real regret? Do they think his rehabilitation is authentic or just for PR? I mean, he's got a multi-million dollar incentive to appear sincere, so I could see a concerted and elaborate plan that would be all for show.

What DID Vick do, exactly? Most of the evidence points to him bank rolling the operation but not really being involved in the day to day running of it. The government got all his co-defendants to roll on him because he was the big fish.

Our sense of "barbarism" is inherently relative. The root of the word barbarian simply meant "one who is not Greek". We still use it in this context. We vilify that which is different by calling is barbaric. Hunting, fishing, zoos... none of this is barbaric because it is what WE do. But dog fighting or cock fighting... that is barbaric... that is what THOSE PEOPLE do.

Bull shit. Hunting and fishing provide food, so even when done in sport (which granted, I do not get the appeal), the animal does not die in vain. Moreover, hunters and fisherman attempt to kill swiftly, with the least amount of suffering for the animal. Zoos have a history of poor living conditions for wild animals but today, they do their best to provide satisfying habitats for their animals. Central to their mission is research and public education about wildlife/habitat to better protect animals in the wild. There are no redeeming aspects to dog fighting. Its intent is to entertain people with the brutal, painful, and protracted death of dogs.

And I have no idea who you mean by THOSE PEOPLE. From what I learned about dog fighting when the story first broke, it is everywhere-- affluent and poor neighborhoods, black, white and mixed neighborhoods, all across the United States.

Finally, while his primary role may have been financial, it wasn't like he had the distance of someone buying stock in a company that uses child labor overseas. It wasn't an investment opportunity. He kept those dogs on his property. He witnessed many of the fights and saw first hand what he was involved in. (And Jeff, this is why I think your comparison to the war in Iraq is not very compelling, either.)

Like I said, I'm a softie liberal. I'd love to believe he's rehabilitated and hope that this is so. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that someone could be so unmoved by this horror to participate in it, and then a couple of years later actually seem to have a soul.

But hey, I also believe there is real therapeutic power in caring for and developing a relationship with a dog, and perhaps this is what Vick has experienced. I know that caring for animals has been used successfully as a method in rehabilitating prisoners in other settings. I also read a year ago about the physiological effect of looking into a dogs eyes. Apparently, dogs are one of the few species who will look at length into human eyes and not view it as a form of aggression. Researchers have shown that doing so causes the human body to release oxytocin, the hormone that makes people more social and nurturing.

fishing for marlin or sailfish provides food? news to me. hunting for fox provides food? news to me. it is all sport. dogs are no more important than any other animal, and I'd argue pit bulls the least importance of all. dogfighting is dog vs dog, not hunter with gun vs animal. just doesn't bother me at all.

[Anonymous]

Here are some highlights from the Vick case that you may not know:

1) Vick was betting huge amounts of money on his dogs. When his dogs did not perform well in the ring, they were killed. In one instance, one of his dogs was taken outside the ring and shot. In another case, one of his losing dogs was electrocuted.

2) Remains of eight dogs who were brutally killed were found on the property.

3) Dogs who would not fight were used as bait, killed or thrown out onto the streets.

4) Dogs who were chosen for breeding, had all of their teeth pulled so they would not injure other dogs during mating.

I find Michael Vick and others like him complete scum. He should have been banned from the NFL. You have to wonder what kind of sick MF would do this kind of stuff to a defenseless animal. Or why anyone would find sport in two animals viciously mauling each other to death.

[Anonymous]

Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

But they weren't torturing animals for pleasure. You are applying an outside perspective to something you didn't understand. They weren't thinking, "It's so fun to hurt something!" They were thinking, "We enjoy dog fighting and this is part of dog fighting." Were there unsavory elements to it? Yes. But let's check the sanctimony at the door and gain a little perspective.

[Anonymous]

ok. so when you fish for marlin (not to eat them, but to mount them on your wall), that is not torture for pleasure? What about hunting for foxes?

what about wearing a mink coat? or really, eating meat?

why focus on dogs? I had some rats killed last month, does that make me evil?

[Anonymous]

Jon Stewart was right, Tucker Carlson is a dick.