Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• Monday, August 17. 2009 Kenny wrote:
  Well well, where do I start? This was the first show that had me talking to the computer. I think it's a little frusterating to have to listen to comments that are directed at me and not be able to respond. You have a voice and can say whatever you want however you want to say it and I have to just sit here and listen and not be able to correct you or debate certain points. Anyway, I would love to be able to sit down with you Jody and talk logically about this Michael Vick thing, you are so illogical, in my opinion, that it's almost puzzling how you can see things from that perspective and not know that your comments are based soley on your emotions and hatred toward Michael Vick. Not to mention that some of your facts are wrong or some of those bullet points you were making were also just plain wrong. The funny thing is that I am more on your side emotionally than you know, I am not a Michael Vick fan and I am a dog lover. I HATE what he did and I thjink only a horribly cold person could do something like what he did and I even think that maybe he wasn't punished enough but this situation needs to be addressed from a logical and legal point of view, not a personal, emotional point of view which you seem to forget just about every other sentence Jody. Your arguement about this is like coloring outside of the lines and all I want you to do is concentrate and keep the coloring inside the lines. WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS HAVE LIVE CALLERS? Sean, you know I've got your back almost all of the time but I must be honest with you on this one. I still don't know what stand you have on this subject because you really didn't add much to the conversation. You said a few things that really didn't even make any sense or pertain to what Jody was saying and it seemed like you didn't want to engage her with a difference of opinion. It almost seemed like you wanted her to think you were agreeing with her just so you wouldn't have to debate the topic, very wishy washy. Anyway, for the record, I hate what Michael Vick did but it has nothing to do with him being employed by the NFL, period! If you want to be fair to your listeners and have an oposing opinion on your show, instead of the one sided, emotional point of view that you have now, let me know and I'll be happy to come in and debate the points with you or if you can set it up to where I call in and it can go out over the mics onto the podcast I would do that too. Normally I wouldn't think that you would be afraid of a different point of view but after those illogical opinions I heard today I'm not so sure. Just a disclaimer, being that it's hard to know the emotions in which people write sometimes I just want you to know that I am not mad or upset in anyway. I just love a good discussion and I totally disagree with your point of view on this subject so I'm just venting. I guess if you get a listener to write this much you're doing something right. Great show guys, now let me go take a cold shower to lower the BP,
  Reply to this
  1. Monday, August 17. 2009 The Ham and Legs Show wrote:
     Well, Kenny, we appreciate your disagreement.  And I can't speak for Sean, but we don't always disagree and when we do, he is quite spirited in our debating.  
     
     
     Since we don't do the show live, callers wouldn't quite work....should we ever go live and be able to afford the gear necessary to accept callers, we hope you will be one to call in the most.

     
     

     I heartily disagree that I'm being overly emotional...I thought I made a great point that Mr. Vick took away a job from another 2nd string QB who's done nothing wrong.  Also, after watching Mr. Vick's "60 Mins" interview last night, you are right on some of my facts, he did more abhorrent things than I brought up for a lot longer than I knew about (6 years!, that's a long time), which he admitted to James Brown.  So, I stand corrected.  

     
     

     And I found his interview to be less than sincere when talking about the dog fighting and his rebuking of it now...he seemed to smirk when talking about that.  But he seemed very sincere when talking about when he got caught and worrying about his career, the smirk disappeared and he got serious.  Granted, that is coming from my p.o.v.   He shook his head "no" when agreeing with James Brown about what he did was wrong....basic body language suggests he did not agree that what he did was wrong.   Even when Mr. Brown spoke about his reputation when he was playing before he got caught:  him showing up to practice late and being the first guy out, partying, the entourage always with him, etc....he seemed to find that amusing and nothing to be ashamed of, though his words suggested he was.  He was reminiscing...not looking for redemption.  Not that the partying or the entourage are anything necessarily to be seeking redemption for, but in the context of the conversation, he was attempting to show he'd changed, and I don't buy it.

     
     

     As always, we appreciate your input, Kenny.  I'll give my cousin your love.

     
     

     

     
     

     Ham
     
     Reply to this
     1. Monday, August 17. 2009 Kenny wrote:
        I must disagree that he didn't take any job away from anybody. If there were a more qualified person to be on the Eagles roster for that price they would already be on it! You can't blame Vick for being a talented athlete and accepting a contract. If someone wants to pay him for his services then why wouldn't he take the job. He has that job because he is the best qualified, not because he took the job from anybody. If you want to be mad at anybody you should be mad at the Eagles or any number of other teams, including the 49ers, that would pay him to play if you don't like that he is playing. What do you suggest he do when he gets out of prison and is trying to put his life back together and someone offers him a contract worth almost 7 million dollars? Should he say no, go hire the guy you didn't hire before I got out? I think you are just mad that the people who hired him don't see things the way you do and believe that he has paid his debt to society and that he has the right to work and that his talents can be had inexpensively at this point. These are businessmen and they got a fire sale on a very talented athlete and they jumped at it. None of this is Vicks fault, he didn't twist anyones arm to sign him, blame the people hiring him if you don't like him playing in the NFL. I didn't see the 60 minutes interview so I can't comment on that and as far as the phones go, if you can record your voices talking to each other it would be just like recording another voice, it wouldn't have to be live. The debate would happen over the phone and would be recorded as if I were in the studio and it would be recorded as part of the show just like your voices are recorded as the show. Sounds pretty simple to me but maybe you guys like the comfort of being able to give your opinions without and feedback from another point of view. Anyway, I think if you seperate your hatred for him as a person and what he did and the fact that he is entitled to work and playing football is what he does for work then it might be easier for you to understand that the two things have nothing to do with one another. Bye the way, in case you still think he took someone elses job, the NFL is all about competition and people are taking jobs from one another every day in the NFL, it's about your performance on the field and your ability to help the team win, not about what you did last night behind closed doors. If players were judged by what their personal lives were then there probably would be no NFL or any other sport for that matter. These are just people and you are not going to agree with how each of them conducts their life. Let's keep business and personal affairs seperate and we will be fine. Always a pleasure Jody and even though I don't agree with you here I do respect your opinion and your intelect. Relisten to the few minutes where Sean commented on what you were saying and tell me if he took a stance or even made any sense of your points. Unfortunately he did not. =)
        Reply to this
        1. Monday, August 17. 2009 The Ham and Legs Show wrote:
           Ok, first off, I'm not angry that Mr. Vick took the job.  You are correct that I am upset with the NFL and any team that would take him, (thankfully it wasn't my 9ers....that would've broken my heart).  I completely understand Mr. Vick taking the job.  That's a no brainer.   So, you misunderstood or I wasn't clear on my objections with his hiring.    He shouldn't have been offered the job.  Period.  It is completely the horrendous judgment of the Eagles and the NFL that bothers me.  I also blame the legal system for its inadequate laws on animal cruelty. They need to get much MUCH tougher.  Again, Mr. Vick getting the light sentence he did, not so much his fault as that of our legal system. 
           
           
           And our phone line thing would be great.  I'll price out the equipment we would need in order to have you sit on the phone with us every night we record and if you want to purchase that gear for us...we are all for it.  I'll get back to you when I have the pricing.  It's not as simple as Sean and me sitting her with two mics, a pre-amp, mixing board, computer and having someone on a phone talking to us.   We assume you'd want the other listeners to hear you.  So, I'll be happy to get you the info....probably tomorrow, cuz I had a long day at my day job and I'm sleepy.  And if you'll buy the gear, we'll set it up. 
           
           
           Nighty Night,
           Ham
           
           Reply to this
           1. Wednesday, August 19. 2009 Kenny wrote:
              I love that this topic stirred up so much fire. The bottom line is that as much of a douche bag Michael Vick is, as far as this countries law goes he has served his time and he has the right to work. He happens to work on the football field. I will just leave it as understanding that if you owned an NFL team you wouldn't hire him. Just because some owners do not agree with you or can seperate business from personal or just believe in second chances, doesn't mean that Vick shouldn't be on an NFL team. This is all I've been saying from the beginning. If everytime someone did something wrong they were comdemned for life this would be an interesting place to live. I'm with you that the laws should be different, the justice system is a joke to say the least. If Vick truely regrets what he has done and makes efforts to make up for his wrong doings I am for a second chance. If he isn't reformed or doesn't care about what he has done then he can suffer the same torture that he put those dogs through and I really wouldn't care. Unfortunately he still has the right to play in the NFL if someone is willing to give him a contract. Did you see seans comment to me, he found his voice again, I love it! Good night Jody, thanks for the conversation, I enjoyed it.
              Reply to this
        2. Monday, August 17. 2009 Legs wrote:
           Yes, I absolutely blame the game, not the player in regards to hiring Vick.
           
           Your argument has been regardless of what Vick did, it was okay. He served his time. And you're okay with that. All's forgiven.
           
           I'm confused as to your banter whether or not I stated an opinion. I did. I agreed with Jody on various statements. Regardless, isn't okay if I have not chosen a side to take. To be momentarily ambivalent, if you will. To not voice an opinion due to either not really caring, or that I haven't gathered enough information yet. Your centering on whether or not I made an opinion is rather curious.
           
           To keep business and personal affairs separate looks good on paper but it's not reality. Case in point, how do you feel about an inspirational speaker who has motivated thousands, donated his time as well as money to various charities and yet he's a convicted child abuser? Or a school teacher who inspires his students but goes home and abuses himself/his wife/his kids?
           
           -Legs
           Reply to this
           1. Wednesday, August 19. 2009 Kenny wrote:
              Now that's the Sean I know and love! If you would have had this fire and opinion on the show I wouldn't have commented on your lack of and opinion. You make some good points but the bottom line is that even though I don't agree with child abuse, animal abuse, etc, etc, unfortunately the law in the country we live in tells me that they have the right to make a living, this is my whole point with Vick. I love this opinionated firey Sean, keep it up!
              Reply to this
  2. Monday, August 17. 2009 Legs wrote:
     Hmm, perhaps we shouldn’t have referred to a comment, made by you, as well as others, from a social website.
     
     What exactly do you find illogical in what I, or Jody, had to say regarding the Michael Vick topic? Because you don’t state.
     
     What facts were misrepresented, or were just plain wrong? Because you don’t state.
     
     Now, I could give a rats-ass abut Michael Vick. To me he’s another wunderkind talent who hasn’t truly grasped his possible impact; on the game, in his community, or with his fans. He opted for other activities, which were not only illegal, but lacking any common sense. I don’t care if he was sincere in his “60 Minutes” interview, I don’t care if he loved dogs or not.
     
     Wishy-washy? I believe I stated that I agreed with Jody regarding her statements: “..he can be a productive member of society, but not in the public eye..” And, “..because the Eagles chose him, another talented player won’t get the chance..” I find it interesting that Vick was reestablished so quickly to his former status when Pete Rose has been trying for years to get into the Hall of Fame.
     
     To be clear, he didn’t get tagged for a DUI, or possession, he took part in an illegal activity that involved death and torture. Not betting, or taking steroids. Lawrence Phillips faces up to 25 years for choking his girlfriend, Rae Carruth, 24 years for conspiracy to murder, Cecil Collins, 15 years for burglary, Dwayne Goodrich, 7 ½ years for criminally negligent homicide, and Darren Hambrick, recently busted for rape, assault, and imprisonment. None of the men mentioned above, in my opinion, should be reinstated back into the NFL. Not because of the nature of the crimes committed, but the crime itself. I believe the same to be true with Michael Vick. Now that is speaking strictly from a legal point of view.
     
     Now if you agree that the above mention, aside form Vick, shouldn’t be reinstated, then what’s your reasoning?
     
     So far, what you’ve stated is no better than if I were to ask some random woman if she have sex with me for a million dollars. After she relies with a “yes”. I’d ask, how about a hundred dollars? And of course she’d say “no”. At which point I’d respond, so it’s not a matter of principle, it’s a matter of money.
     
     If he committed rape, murder, or kidnapping would you and others feel the same way about Vick. If not, then your argument isn’t based on principle, it semantics.
     
     Your response here isn’t based on principle.
     
     The phone lines will come when the money comes, until then we can post topics pre show and have yourself and others Tweet.
     
     Thanks for being such an avid listener and having my back. I could'a used you in the studio a few shows back.
     
     -Legs
     Reply to this
     1. Monday, August 24. 2009 Kenny wrote:
        What you are saying here is much clearer, maybe I wasn't listening close enough to the show because I didn't hear these comments during the podcast. You do make some very good, and interesting points. Really there are only a few things I don't quite agree with. First, I would like you or Jody to please name the player that didn't get a contract because Vick got signed, I would be very curious to know who you are talking about and please be specific. I don't know of any player that the Eagles were thinking of signing that didn't get signed because of Vicks contract. As far as comparing Vick situation ot Pete Roses I feel you are comparing apples to oranges. Football is not Baseball, Rose is not Vick and the crimes and the commisioners are different. Very hard to see the comparison there plus I think we both agree that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. As far as him taking part in an illegal activity this is true and as far as I know he paid his debt to society according to the laws we follow in this country. Now if you are saying that the laws are not consistant or need revamping I would completely agree. I think the justice system and government in general is corrupt and complete joke. The last part where we disagree is that if Rae Carruth, Cecil Collins, Lawrence Phillips, Dwayne Goodrich or Darren Hambrick served their time and the NFL wanted to reinstate them and a team wanted to sign them I would say that they have that right. I am not saying that I would agree with it morally but if it was within the guidlines of the law then they posess that right. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I personally don't think that Michael Vick or Rae Carruth or any of those scumbags should be reinstated but if they were then they would be within their rights to take advantage of the opportunity even if I didn't like it. My arguement is based on principle because regardless of the crime if they served their sentence and someone hired them after they got out how could I say anything, like it or not? This is not a moral difference of opinion we have it is a matter fo allowing people to have the rights that this country gives them weather I like them or not, which I don't but I abide by what is in place. If it were up to me things would be different, our punishments are not strict enough, but it is not and therefore my personal opinion doesn't really matter. I do have your back and I would love to come into the studio one day. Bye the way, don't sell yourself short, how do you know the random girl would say no to sex with you for $100.00? You never know.
        Reply to this
• Monday, August 17. 2009 Jen wrote:
  I just finished listening to your show and I loved it. You mentioned me TWICE. WOOHOO! (I assume that was me you were talking about being in The Army shooting guns). Your show was right on target on just about every issue you mentioned and as always, I enjoy the humourous parts. Like the guy who said "I want the government to keep their hands off my medicare". I loved what you said about The Sarah Palin Variety Show with the "you betcha" girls. Funny! I wish Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin would all just be vaporized into thin air. And Sean, I agree with you when people compare Obama to Hitler. It's just ridiculous. And as for the gun toting freak, I also saw him on The Chris Matthews Show and I was laughing so hard when Chris was talking to him. Good stuff. Keep up the good work! Luv ya, Cuz!
  Reply to this
  1. Tuesday, August 18. 2009 The Ham and Legs Show wrote:
     Thank you, Cuz!  Glad you are enjoying and yes, it was you who we spoke of.  
     We'll try to keep it up!
     Ham
     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment