Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) Now I like Waterman, but I'd agree some of his posts are somewhat senseless. Water Turd is an epic idiot. And I imagine that he's currently hiding under the same rock that he hid under when Peyton was hoisting the Lombardi Trophy back in February. I feel as if I have done absolutely nothing wrong in my "defense" of Michael Vick. You're certainly free to look like a fool. Edited July 18, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Anyone want to make bank that Vick doesn't show but just sends his lawyer instead? Falcons TC reporting date is July 25. Bronc, let me explain something to you. If this was an "indictment" from a local or state law source, then yes, some skeptisim. However, this is a "federal" indictment, and when the feds issue these, the case is 99.9% airtight before thay indict and individual. So, in essence, a "federal" indictment usually just means it's only a matter of "due process", but most likely it's airtight and a done deal.....also, the "feds" don't usually get into alot of "continues" when it come to a case. Well said. But I still have the skeptism with some of the topics in the indictment. Holy crap, I can't believe that you're still propping up this POS. God bless you. And I forgive you. Schools out, then? Anyway, your position here as a kind of devil's advocate reminds me of Spain and the tripe he posts sometimes just to see who gets caught. I'm not saying you're in his piscatorial league but it does look like you're taking these positions as part of a fishing expedition since any normal person would have bowed out of this by now and let it take it's course. Devil's advocate. Except the opposite. broncos "The Devil's Advocate" n05. I like it Ursa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) As he should. Vick has said to Goodell, Blank, and McKay that he has no idea. Thus far they haven't proved that he has. And until it is he won't be touched, IMO of course. That doesn't matter. If it happened on his property, he's still may incur criminal liability. And if you're naive enough to believe that Ron Mexico "had no clue" what was going on, there are apparently several witnesses willing to testify that he's full of crap. Edited July 18, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Water Turd is an epic idiot. And I imagine that he's currently hiding under the same rock that he hid under when Peyton was hoisting the Lombardi Trophy back in February.You're certainly free to look like a fool. Quit being so crazy. If you want to argue, let's argue. But this is just senseless back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) That doesn't matter. If it happened on his property, he's still may incur criminal liability. And if you're naive enough to believe that Ron Mexico "had no clue" what was going on, there are apparently several witnesses willing to testify that he's full of crap. Vick only owning the property is best case scenario for him. It makes no sense. Why would this multi-millionaire be a part of an activity that over it's history probably has amounted to the amount of money Vick makes with one commercial. Like I've said either he's a one dumb POS and/or ignorant and irresponsible. edit- flip flopped the last sentence. Edited July 18, 2007 by broncosn05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Vick only owning the property is best case scenario for him. It makes no sense. Why would this multi-millionaire be a part of an activity that over it's history probably has amounted to the amount of money Vick makes with one commercial. For the same reason that Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and Tank Johnson have engaged in repeated criminal activity: THEY'RE IDIOTS!!! Like I've said either he's ignorant and irresponsible and/or a one dumb POS. And unless Mike Nifong is heading the prosecution, you can add "criminal" to that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Al Sharpton is now getting in on the action. Vick is really screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 For the same reason that Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and Tank Johnson have engaged in repeated criminal activity: THEY'RE IDIOTS!!! From Don Banks' column on Si.com: • Why? That's the question that could be easily overlooked in Vick's current situation. Why would a guy making the millions he's making need to sponsor a dog-fighting ring that could jeopardize his career and personal freedom in order to gamble for mere thousands? One source close to Vick, who I talked to this spring for the story I wrote about the Falcons quarterback's recent slide from grace in Atlanta, gave me a rather blunt rationale for Vick's involvement in dog fighting: "He's not very bright at all,'' the source said of Vick. "And that's a big part of his problems. He's a very unintelligent person and he makes poor decisions because of it. It's not a white or black thing. Paris Hilton is an idiot, too. Mike Tyson was totally dumb, but for a long time his trainer kept him protected from his worst mistakes. You have to have someone around you who can protect you from yourself at times.'' Another league source I talked to had a slightly different take. He too watched Vick up close for years and came to this conclusion: "I've seen what he's truly about, and now, the rest of the world sees what he's truly about,'' the source said. "He's not dumb, and he's not a bad guy. He's just selfish. He's an extremely selfish human being. He doesn't care about his team or his teammates. He says he does, but he doesn't.'' Harsh words to be sure. But these are some of the same sources who, more than two months ago, assured me Vick -- despite his proclamation of innocence -- was heavily involved in the dog-fighting operation in Virginia, from its earliest stages on. With Tuesday's indictments becoming public, the assessment of those sources has been echoed by federal investigators and a grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 From Don Banks' column on Si.com: • Why? That's the question that could be easily overlooked in Vick's current situation. Why would a guy making the millions he's making need to sponsor a dog-fighting ring that could jeopardize his career and personal freedom in order to gamble for mere thousands? One source close to Vick, who I talked to this spring for the story I wrote about the Falcons quarterback's recent slide from grace in Atlanta, gave me a rather blunt rationale for Vick's involvement in dog fighting: "He's not very bright at all,'' the source said of Vick. "And that's a big part of his problems. He's a very unintelligent person and he makes poor decisions because of it. It's not a white or black thing. Paris Hilton is an idiot, too. Mike Tyson was totally dumb, but for a long time his trainer kept him protected from his worst mistakes. You have to have someone around you who can protect you from yourself at times.'' Another league source I talked to had a slightly different take. He too watched Vick up close for years and came to this conclusion: "I've seen what he's truly about, and now, the rest of the world sees what he's truly about,'' the source said. "He's not dumb, and he's not a bad guy. He's just selfish. He's an extremely selfish human being. He doesn't care about his team or his teammates. He says he does, but he doesn't.'' Harsh words to be sure. But these are some of the same sources who, more than two months ago, assured me Vick -- despite his proclamation of innocence -- was heavily involved in the dog-fighting operation in Virginia, from its earliest stages on. With Tuesday's indictments becoming public, the assessment of those sources has been echoed by federal investigators and a grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Didn't you just say that Vick was "one dumb POS and/or ignorant and irresponsible" a few posts ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Didn't you just say that Vick was "one dumb POS and/or ignorant and irresponsible" a few posts ago? This guy tries to prove that Vick is guilty of this "horrendous" crime but having two sources comparing Vick to Mike Tyson and saying he is selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 This guy tries to prove that Vick is guilty of this "horrendous" crime but having two sources comparing Vick to Mike Tyson and saying he is selfish. He didn't try to prove anything. He was SPECULATING as to why Vick MAY have been involved in these criminal activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 He was SPECULATING as to why Vick MAY have been involved in these criminal activities. Your best sentence ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Didn't you just say that Vick was "one dumb POS and/or ignorant and irresponsible" a few posts ago? I haven't gone through the threads again, but what I remember as reading through all of these posts was that he was all those things, IF he INDEED did do the things that he is accused of.... If K9 Vick is found guilty, my guess is the Broncos will be ONE of the first people to stand up and post on the board to denouce his actions over these years. Give Broncos a break... The guy is entitled to his opinion like everyone else on this board and everyone is blasting him from every side because he is presenting an opinion opposite of the HUGH majority of people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Give Broncos a break... The guy is entitled to his opinion like everyone else on this board and everyone is blasting him from every side because he is presenting an opinion opposite of the HUGH majority of people here. And if his opinion is completely biased and illogical, he'll continue to get blasted by everyone. Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I haven't gone through the threads again, but what I remember as reading through all of these posts was that he was all those things, IF he INDEED did do the things that he is accused of.... Considering 95% of Federal indictments result in prosecution, and 90% of those accused in federal indictments agree to a plea bargain before a trial happens I'd say its probably safe to drop the IF INDEED scenario. I know this is hard to accept for some. But it is OVER for Vick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 And if his opinion is completely biased and illogical, he'll continue to get blasted by everyone. Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from criticism. I love the critics. It's what keeps me coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Considering 95% of Federal indictments result in prosecution, and 90% of those accused in federal indictments agree to a plea bargain before a trial happens I'd say its probably safe to drop the IF INDEED scenario. I know this is hard to accept for some. But it is OVER for Vick. Just want to make sure that you saw my response to your post. Click the arrow to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Considering 95% of Federal indictments result in prosecution, and 90% of those accused in federal indictments agree to a plea bargain before a trial happens I'd say its probably safe to drop the IF INDEED scenario. I agree with you on that point, as I was involved in a VERY high profile case several years ago and got to see first hand what the long hand of the Federal government can do... I agree that it looks bleak for him, but who knows.... maybe we all could be wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I agree with you on that point, as I was involved in a VERY high profile case several years ago and got to see first hand what the long hand of the Federal government can do... I agree that it looks bleak for him, but who knows.... maybe we all could be wrong... Except for me and Jamie Dukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Dang it Swerski you blocked me. No need for that. Here was my next PM- Turned out better than expected. Now answer this. Why don't you ever attack any of my actual arguments? You call them illogical and stupid, but never provide any logic to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) Why train dogs to fight each other in this way? Why not something more interesting...like, say....BABIES! Yeah...1-2 year old babies with knife blades attached to their hands and feet going at it head-to-head in one-time-only, no holds barred, fight-to-the-death steel cage events! Winner takes the pot of HUNDREDS...maybe even THOUSANDS! of dollars! Now THAT'S what I want to see! Sorry...I'm one sick, twisted, evil The preceeding does not represent the views nor opinions of my shrink. Edited July 19, 2007 by DMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Looks like Swerski is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I know,first hand, that in order to get an AUSA to indict, the case better be a slam dunk. If not, they keep sending the agents away for more. When they have what they need, then they still ask for more on top of what you have given them. Then they indict AND have a hammer that makes them plea to a "lesser". TOAST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I know,first hand, that in order to get an AUSA to indict, the case better be a slam dunk. If not, they keep sending the agents away for more. When they have what they need, then they still ask for more on top of what you have given them. Then they indict AND have a hammer that makes them plea to a "lesser". TOAST It's definetely going to be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts