Foxx defends Vick over dog fighting charges - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 08-26-2007, 12:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Foxx defends Vick over dog fighting charges

Actor says QB didnt read his handbook on what not to do as a black star



Quote:
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Access Hollywoods Shaun Robinson recently sat down with Jamie Foxx for a candid talk about Jamies new gig, and even a hot button topic from the world of sports: Michael Vicks dog fighting charges.



Foxx is busy doing his thing on The Foxxhole, his weekly show on Sirius Satellite Radio show. And although an incredible LG Beach House in Malibu provides a spectacular summer backdrop, no subject is off-limits with Jamie, as Robinson found out during her stay as a special guest.



Is he really going to jail? Foxx asked about Vick.



Yes, hes going to plea bargain, Robinson said.



Although Vick has been almost universally condemned since agreeing to plead guilty to dog fighting conspiracy, people should not be so quick to judge the NFL star, Foxx said.



Its a cultural thing, I think, Foxx said. Most brothers didnt know that, you know. I used to see dogs fighting in the neighborhood all the time. I didnt know that was Fed time. So, Mike probably just didnt read his handbook on what not to do as a black star.



URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20414907/
hollywoodveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 08-27-2007, 09:04 AM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
I used to be a fan of Foxx, but not anymore. I love how he plays the black card in this situation. He said he grew up and seeing dog fights was normal... does that make it right? Many people grew up in abusive homes and they saw horrible things... does that mean it's acceptable to continue the trend? And how could you NOT know that abusing animals was against the law... I know that Vick knew what he was doing was wrong. He's an adult, not an 8 year old.



Quote:
“I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and don’t get time,” Foxx said. “I think in this situation, he really didn’t know the extent of it, so I always give him the benefit of the doubt.”



Did he seriously say this? What Michael Vick wasn't a one time "I shot a dog" incident... he did horrific things to TORTURE dogs over and over. If Vick was white, I swear Foxx wouldn't have jumped in to defend him.



I have an open mind about this... animal abuse is animal abuse, no matter what color your skin in. It wouldn't matter if it was a rapper, NFL player, Weatherman, businessman (or woman), someone in Congress... dark, light, purple... doesn't matter. Everyone should be punished as harshly as possible.
danakscully64 is offline  
#3 Old 08-27-2007, 09:29 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

I used to be a fan of Foxx, but not anymore. I love how he plays the black card in this situation. He said he grew up and seeing dog fights was normal... does that make it right? Many people grew up in abusive homes and they saw horrible things... does that mean it's acceptable to continue the trend? And how could you NOT know that abusing animals was against the law... I know that Vick knew what he was doing was wrong. He's an adult, not an 8 year old.



Nowhere in the article did Jamie Foxx defend dog fighting. He said they happened in his neighborhood.



The specific federal law that Vick is pleading to (interstate transport of dogs for the purpose of dog fighting) is only a year old, signed into law by Bush.



Playing the black card seems only natural in this instance.



Quote:
Did he seriously say this? What Michael Vick wasn't a one time "I shot a dog" incident... he did horrific things to TORTURE dogs over and over. If Vick was white, I swear Foxx wouldn't have jumped in to defend him.



I seriously doubt that Foxx would have been asked about this case if Vick was white.
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 08-27-2007, 11:05 AM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

Nowhere in the article did Jamie Foxx defend dog fighting. He said they happened in his neighborhood.



He is using this as an excuse for Vick. Foxx said "I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and dont get time." That's not justifying anything? Does Foxx think Vick should just be let go even those he made tons of dogs suffer? As Dr. Phil says, when you use the word BUT, you're basically saying that everything that came before that was worthless info.



Quote:
The specific federal law that Vick is pleading to (interstate transport of dogs for the purpose of dog fighting) is only a year old, signed into law by Bush.



Playing the black card seems only natural in this instance.



I seriously doubt that Foxx would have been asked about this case if Vick was white.



He might be facing other charges though. I don't think his race had anything to do with his charges.



That's true, but if he was asked, he most likely wouldn't have defended a lighter skinned person. If he mentioned the race issue, he probably factors that in to his opinions of the situation. Remember the OJ Simpson trial? It was obviously a race issue because many people didn't care if he was guilty or innocent. Many black people were happy he got off (I watched tons of footage on this).
danakscully64 is offline  
#5 Old 08-27-2007, 11:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

Nowhere in the article did Jamie Foxx defend dog fighting.

The impression I got from the article, as a whole, was that he has a pretty neutral attitude to what Vick did.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#6 Old 08-27-2007, 11:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

As Dr. Phil says, when you use the word BUT, you're basically saying that everything that came before that was worthless info.

lol funny
gaya is offline  
#7 Old 08-27-2007, 11:36 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The impression I got from the article, as a whole, was that he has a pretty neutral attitude to what Vick did.



Agreed.
GhostUser is offline  
#8 Old 08-27-2007, 11:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
..and I find that (a neutral attitude about extreme cruelty) rather sad.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#9 Old 08-27-2007, 11:40 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post


That's true, but if he was asked, he most likely wouldn't have defended a lighter skinned person.



What on earth would lead you to surmise that?
GhostUser is offline  
#10 Old 08-27-2007, 11:41 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

..and I find that (a neutral attitude about extreme cruelty) rather sad.



Agreed.
GhostUser is offline  
#11 Old 08-27-2007, 01:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Quote:
I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and dont get time, Foxx said.



So if people kill other people and don't go to the clink that means people like Michael Vick who torture and kill animals shouldn't go either? I'm failing to follow his logic, and I've never been a fan but now I really can't stand him. I can't help but think that hanging out with Tom Cruise probably was a pretty big red flag.
hollywoodveg is offline  
#12 Old 08-27-2007, 11:30 PM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

What on earth would lead you to surmise that?



The fact that he brought up the race card. If it didn't matter, in his opinion, why would he bring it up?
danakscully64 is offline  
#13 Old 08-28-2007, 03:52 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

The fact that he brought up the race card. If it didn't matter, in his opinion, why would he bring it up?



He gave context to a circumstance. From that you put words in his mouth.
GhostUser is offline  
#14 Old 08-29-2007, 03:48 PM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

He gave context to a circumstance. From that you put words in his mouth.



That context that you speak of IS the race card. The context he gave was that because Michael Vick is a black man, with perhaps a similar background as Foxx (that he didn't know dogfighting was an illegal act), he is essentially saying it's more or less understandable that Michael Vick would not know that what he was doing is wrong. Furthermore, he's implying that black celebrities need to have a book of behavior in order to prevent situations that might cause them to receive more attention/flack/punishment than any other person might in a similar circumstance. He said basically that if Michael Vick had his "what not to do as a black star" book, then nothing bad would have happened. Why does black even need to be mentioned if he's concerned with the attention Michael Vick is receiving for the act he committed (unless Jamie Foxx feels that race has some role in this)? What am I improperly surmising, and what words am I putting into Foxx's implicative mouth? If anything, I'd say you're the one who is surmising (that is to say, inferring without strong evidence) that the conclusion I drew from Foxx's comments were faulty. After all, you only asked me "what on earth led you to surmise that?" The only other thing I wanted to say was that I agree with, and don't need to reiterate, what others have said about the role (or lack of role) that ignorance of the law plays here.
danakscully64 is offline  
#15 Old 08-30-2007, 04:10 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
This thread, the thread denouncing the NAACP, the thread about the Vick Protest, the thread denouncing Stephon Marbury, and the what is racism thread - to name a few - exemplify the sad state of race relations in this country.



Race does have a role in the response to the Vick case. That's what people aren't getting. To deny it is to deny the reality in America.
GhostUser is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off