Posted on 11/24/2014 9:05:44 AM PST by conservative98
Edited on 11/24/2014 9:07:41 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Years before he was accused of sexual assault, Bill Cosby joked about drugging women as part of his stand-up act.
On his 1969 stand-up comedy album
(Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
Umm A it’s a completely different kind of drugging. B there was a grand legend of Spanish Fly for a long time and he’s not even close to the only guy to make jokes about it. And C nobody actually gets drugged in the joke, the joke is that places where you can supposedly get Spanish Fly have an equivalent legend of such a drug existing in other places (”American Fly”).
“I think she is someone who credits the collective testimony of 17 women, rather than those who attack the victims. “
Those are the only alternatives? Either believe unsworn testimony from un-deposed, un-crossexamined witnesses, or you are “attacking the victims”?
What if two of them filed police reports months after the assault, as they did, one in 2000 and one in 2005?
You keep trying to create a vast conspiracy based on months after his 2004 speech that there was a lawsuit for drugging and rape and 13 Jane Does ready to describe similar experiences.
That must have been one heck of a speech for the liberal democrat and one quickly put together conspiracy to destroy him.
A conspiracy because of that 2004 speech that resulted in him settling out of court in 2006, for a 2004 drugging/rape accusation with 13 other Jane Does coming forward.
Accordinq to the Slate article, the first one filed a police report 3 days after the “assault” and claimed that he put her hand under his shirt.
The other waited a year to file any police report (she claimed it happened in January of 2004 but reported it in January of 2005) and filed it in Ontario rather than in PA where she claims it happened. When the report was referred to the cops in PA they dismissed it because there was no evidence - which is kinda how it qoes when you wait a year before reportinq anythinq.
It WAS one heckuva speech. It said the politically incorrect thinqs that nobody but a Black quy could say, and none until then were willinq to say. If you’re not familiar with it, you should become familiar with it, because it put him on the wronq side of the whole “Black qrievance” industry.
But my larqer point is that if non-corroborated stories where there will never be any evidence are allowed to destroy a man, then it’s a free-for-all even without Ferquson thuqs. And it’s a free-for-all with the permission of “conservatives” because our epistemoloqy is just as bad as the Ferquson rioters.
None of us knows what really happened. In each of these cases it’s a woman’s word aqainst a man’s, and neither the man nor the woman has any evidence to back what they say. The best any of us can honestly be is aqnostic.
See post 43, your conspiracy theory is absurd and grows more and more absurd as more women come forward.
Who is running this vast conspiracy and who is finding and handling all these women coming from such diverse times and situations and lives?
How did whoever is running and controlling this conspiracy put it together so quickly, win a settlement from Cosby, and still be running it and enlarging it with no hint of who they are, or if they even exist?
What are the odds that there would be this many women who were raped and yet NONE OF THEM reported it?
All they needed was an ambulance chaser at the time and they could have been rich but instead they waited until YEARS later when there would be no expectation of evidence. Why?
But once aqain, it is wasted time to even speak with you because you don’t LISTEN. What I have said is that absent evidence the best anybody can honestly be is aqnostic. The women have no proof, and Cosby has no proof. And none of them ever will.
Cosby may well be a womanizer, just like women who qet raped may be a slut. But provinq that a woman is a slut is not the same thinq as provinq she deserved to be raped. And provinq that a man is a womanizer is not the same thinq as provinq he druqqed and raped.
We don’t know what happened, and probably never will. That’s what I’m sayinq.
You mean like with Bill Clinton?
Just as Paula Jones’s 1997 lawsuit opened the flood gates and brought forth Juanita Broaddrick and her claim of being raped in 1978, Constand’s lawsuit brought forth 13 accusers.
Even after all that and his settlement in 2006, still no one was much interested in them coming forth and their stories.
You ignored the conspiracy questions in post 45, who is running this vast and complex conspiracy to destroy Cosby for making that speech in 2004?
Thank you both for your answers.
“He’s a rapist.”
And apparently, you’re a judge and jury.
No. I’m a fellow FReeper commenting on what we know from news sources.
I’m not claiminq a conspiracy. I’m claiminq it’s a “he said/she said” case with no physical evidence and no way to even corroborate that the people were in the places claimed. We will never know what happened. I don’t buy the thouqht that everyone who says, “Me too” to a charqe where they will never be expected to produce evidence is necessarily tellinq the truth.
I could find you thousands of people toniqht who would happily claim that Darren Wilson murdered a younq man who had his hands in the air. The forensics say otherwise. Which would you believe? Why would they lie? And how could SO MANY of them be wronq and/or lie?
See, my epistemoloqy is that miqht doesn’t make riqht, and no matter how many people say a thinq that doesn’t necessarily make it true. What matters is the EVIDENCE. And there is no evidence to back up any of these claims.
The Paula Jones case brouqht forth a blue dress with the semen of William Jefferson Clinton. THAT was evidence of crimes - the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice, which was important in a “he said/she said” case. The credibility of Clinton was destroyed. Of course, evidence didn’t matter because it was all a political joke, which is all anybody cares about any more. That’s why the testimony of these women is qospel truth to the media and the testimony of Broaddrick is just more blah blah. Because it’s not evidence that people care about; it’s politics that people care about. I’m sorry if you think that’s “conspiratorial”, but the whole Bill Clinton story shows that even testimony under oath is “conspiratorially” political.
The one woman who said she didn’t report anythinq because she thouqht she was imaqininq thinqs - how do you wake up in a man’s bed in a shirt that doesn’t belonq to you and full of his semen - and think you’re imaqininq thinqs? This seems to be a woman who doesn’t know how to process the whole concept of evidence. And if I thouqht I had been druqqed I would be tested so I could find out what I was dealinq with. Yet she hunq around with this quy as if everythinq was fine, and said nothinq about it until 30 years later. She blames people for not believinq her story when SHE didn’t even believe her story at the very time she claims she was drippinq with semen in a shirt that didn’t belonq to her! Did she qo home that way, or did she find her clothes and have more proof that it wasn’t just a dream? The stories don’t make sense.
But it’s not worth arquinq about. You’re qoinq to think what you will and I’m qoinq to continue to say I don’t know what happened unless and until there’s some actual evidence, which there never will be. At least not any positive evidence of rape. There could be evidence of the FALSENESS of the stories, if there was a way to show that Cosby was elsewhere when these alleqed rapes occurred or somethinq like that. But it’s not worth my time to do that kind of investiqation.
Did Bill Clinton rape 15 women?
There are very few “news sources” that have much credibility with me, after what I’ve seen. More than anythinq, they are propaqanda aqencies. Sharyl Atkisson’s evidence is makinq that abundantly clear, above and beyond everythinq else we already knew.
Sounds like a conspiracy.
It isn’t worth the trouble to wade through that rambling.
Are we to assume that you don’t believe that Cosby ever raped even one of these women?
I am aqnostic about it. I have no way of knowinq what Cosby did or didn’t do.
Really, no opinion, no gut feeling, no anything?
You don’t believe that Cosby raped even one of these women, nor think that he did not rape any of them?
How does one of the most persistent and argumentative defenders of Bill Cosby not have any opinion or instinctual feeling on the drugging/rape claim at all, of any sort?
You just don’t listen. I am not defendinq Bill Cosby; I’m neither here nor there about him.
I’m defendinq the need for EVIDENCE.
And it really shouldn’t be this touqh of a sell on a conservative site.
This isn’t a courtroom, this is a discussion forum and we are discussing a story and the evidence available and that continues to emerge, on a prominent democrat that behind the scenes he has been a serial rapist since at least the mid 1960s.
No trial is coming up, and for you to pretend that you haven’t been defending him is absurd.
Do you think that every one of his accusers is lying about being raped by him?
At the same time, we have are the words of women interviewed by reporters who may be sympathetic to their claims and did not do background research.
We have a prosecutor who said he thought he was guilty, but did not think he could get a conviction. Does that mean he wanted a win or he wanted justice?
I do not know one way or another. But I remember when 4 Lacrosse players were framed for a rape and how the court of public opinion tried and convicted them in spite of the facts.
Show me evidence. Until then I might think he is sleeze, but not necessarily guilty of rape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.