Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Read this, give me your thoughts.


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's a bit rich to say Watson is the victim based on this affidavit created by the defense team. You have to realize a couple things.  A) In this kind of he said, she said case, particularly when the "he" is a super rich and powerful guy with tons more resources, the women rarely get justice. They know that. If you are that woman and everyone is saying that and it gets floated "Well look we know you won't win in court but we can make him hurt with his checkbook and at least then you can get a little payback. Better than nothing, right?" Would you be a money grubbing hussy for even listening to that line of thought? That's effectively what a couple of those are suggesting. 

B) This lists a small number of the 22 people in the case. Is there a chance 2 or 3 of them heard about the case, gladly did whatever Watson wanted for extra money and thought, "Hell yeah, I'll jump in for an extra payday." It's equally stupid to think there wouldn't be at least one person trying to take advantage of the situation as thinking that a couple people doing it for money means inevitably all 22 were. 

At the end of the day, it's pretty much accepted that Watson seeks out women he's paying for legal services with the hopes of getting sex out of them. That's wrong no matter how you spin it and his position of power over them makes it incredibly unethical. The only question is whether he did anything bad enough to be criminal and that's where the he said, she said comes in. But even in the best case scenario, treating him like some poor pariah who deserves our profuse apologies is kind of pathetic if you ask me.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 2
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

At the end of the day, it's pretty much accepted that Watson seeks out women he's paying for legal services with the hopes of getting sex out of them.

I disagree. I think he seeks out women who are ok giving illegal services under the title of "massage therapist". Instagram is full of them. 

  • Pie 8
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zod said:

I disagree. I think he seeks out women who are ok giving illegal services under the title of "massage therapist". Instagram is full of them. 

Instagram is full of a lot of well, interesting women. 

This still makes me chuckle. 

Edited by NCTHFL0567
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mike in Raleigh said:

If he wanted consensual, he could have gone to any number of rub and tug joints. He didn't.

Yeah, because one of the most famous men in Houston can just stroll into one of those places. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

The defense's statement. What did you think it was gonna say? "He wuz a gud boy that never tyied to sex those wimmins."

Grand jury with females and a female district attorney decided not even to pursue charges. That's the only fact that we know. All the rest is story telling.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zod said:

Lol, straw man. Sign of a lost argument.

I get it. You've got a hard on for this guy. Nothing is going to change your your mind. Like the most famous guy in Houston didn't have any other options to get laid. JFC. It's a pathetic argument to start with. You do you. You asked for thoughts but don't like any that disagree with you.

Edited by Mike in Raleigh
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike in Raleigh said:

I get it. You've got a hard on for this guy. Nothing is going to change your your mind. Like the most famous guy in Houston didn't have any other options to get laid. JFC. It's a pathetic argument to start with. You do you. You asked for thoughts but don't like any that disagree with you.

Probably cuz you're wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...