Posted on 11/22/2014 6:54:00 AM PST by rktman
Bill Cosby played a sold-out comedy show on Friday in Florida, despite a wave of sexual assault allegations this week that prompted the cancellation of several upcoming shows and two major studios to halt projects involving the comedian.
Cosby, 77, took the stage to a standing ovation and gave the audience a thumbs up at the King Center in Melbourne. The 90-minute show concluded without incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
The bias showing is yours, as you reveal that you have a motive for protecting the liberal democrat’s image, you have even started on the personal attacks.
There are mountains of evidence in support of Cosby being a drugging rapist, a serial rapist. A lot more than on Clinton’s rape, the one that was revealed during the Paula Jones lawsuit, just as Constand’s lawsuit brought forth 13 Cosby accusers.
When you are finished with your lawsuit against the DA, then you can sue all of us freepers who believe the woman who claimed that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978.
You have A trial you shall have. You publicly defended a serial sexual predator, despite credible testimony from more than a dozen women, by smearing each and everyone of those women (" So Hillary tells her army of lying skanks to smear him." ). I wonder why a man would do that. It is an action, when practiced by Catholics in defense of sexual predator priests, that absolutely offends and inflames the hearts of any genuine Christians.
So by disagreeing with your railroading of Cosby and calling the women who accuse him without any evidence skanks after they admit they were voluntarily with him up to and including sexually in order to advance their acting careers, I’m now not a Christian and support priests molesting children?
I wish you were insane, because then I could call you crazy. But I think you’re just evil.
It is an honor to be cursed by you for defending more than a dozen victims of sexual assault while you take the side of their serial sexual predator.
There's your big lie, which you keep repeating ad nauseum. Not only aren't there "mountains" of evidence, there wasn't even enough evidence when a DA went after him.
What you have is a dozen or so accusations. Worse, they are all decades old. Worse, they are from women who blacked out while drinking with Cosby. Worse, they were with him to "advance their acting careers," which anyone with half a brain knows means have sex with him.
Let me tell you what happened, genius. Surprise, surprise, they screwed him and he didn't help their careers. So they felt like sluts and hated him for it, taking no responsibility for their own actions.
Yep, he apparently cheated on his wife and had an easy time with a lot of "aspiring actresses" who then hated him, but who were replaced by others.
So what? Was he moral? Nope. Is what he did common in Hollywood? Are you kidding?
So it's not enough for a smear job. So drugs and rape are added, and these hateful women say "fine with me."
Which theory sounds more reasonable? Which is easier for a famous person to enact? Which is FAR more common?
Grow up, you're being suckered by a Rat smear campaign against the ONE famous Hollywood Black Liberal who's telling Blacks to grow up.
It's BECAUSE he's a flaming liberal that the Rats are so afraid of him. They can't dismiss him as a conservative, and he was about to come back with a big show.
So they got Alinsky-level dirty and smeared him, to silence him with the Black vote they CANNOT afford to lose.
And you've been taken by it hook, line and sinker.
It is mountains of evidence, not hair samples and DNA, but a massive piling on of evidence as we start putting it together, what you deny as you rant and rave for reasons unknown.
How much evidence did we rely on for Clinton’s 1978 rape that surfaced in 1997 for Jones’s lawsuit?
The DA’s proclaiming that his investigation of the reported rape at the time convinced him of Clinton’s guilt?
The 13 women willing to testify to his rape techniques?
The Settlement before trial that Clinton made with Juanita Broaddrick about a year and half after the rape?
All these other women and near misses that are still emerging, and still reinforcing the claims that he used drugs on and raped women?
You must have been going insane to watch us become convinced of Bill Clinton’s guilt based on a single woman 19 years later.
The only remotely recent claim is the first one...Cosby’s a good actor and could be covering it all up, but nevertheless, something about all these accusations suddenly surfacing from incidents that allegedly occurred 20 to 30 years ago doesn’t seem to ring true?
Talk is cheap, on both sides. Evidence is required, otherwise we must in all fairness and justice presume innocence, mustn't we?!
FRiends! President Clinton’s behavior really has nothing to do with Bill Cosby’s case! The subject is the allegations and the evidence (or lack thereof) against Cosby. Best to wait and see, perhaps, what proves out...
For some reason Cosby’s defenders want to cling to this Clinton strategy.
It seems actual evidence would be required. Clinton was impeached for perjury, not anything else. On much more recent testimony, and whatever evidence there was, i.e. the infamous blue dress.
Cosby's case is completely different, and he certainly has been vilified in the press of late. This case needs to be presented in a court of some kind (NOT "kangaroo"!)...a chorus of accusations, no matter how passionate, does not equal a pile of substantiated and corrobative evidence...
“Slandering someone as a serial sexual predator without credible evidence, let alone proof, let alone a trial, let alone a conviction. “
You mean like Clintoon, who doesn’t have a conviction either?
Shouldn’t you be posting all this to the people who DO compare it to Clinton, rather than those of us who don’t?
Cosby’s 16 or so rape victims who came forth are far more evidence than we had for Clinton’s rape.
Cosby’s out of court settlement with the 2005 accuser in which 13 more victims were willing to testify, is pretty damning in itself.
Your man looks guilt as all get out.
Clinton did lose his law license. Never had a trial, fair or otherwise, other than over his perjurious grand jury testimony. He was impeached. Was it enough? NO, IMHO, but nothing to do with Bill Cosby, JUST saying!
Clinton was never tried for rape yet most of us here believe him guilty of it, you don’t?
Are you saying that both Clinton and Cosby are rapists? Or that Clinton was convicted of rape (not true) based on flimsier evidence than has been presented by Cosby's accusers?
I think you misunderstood my post. I am trying to say that there has to be actual evidence other than a self-described victim saying "this is what happened" to convict anyone of anything, and that the Clinton and Cosby cases are not relevant to each other...
Cosby is not "my man". I don't know what will transpire next, but so far, we can not be sure he isn't being unjustly accused, and I'll wait and see before I make any judgments. That's all!
You are just babbling and posting confused nonsense.
Just a "good old boy", everyone enjoys the trappings of power, it's taken care of legally, and nothing to see here. NOT.
However, our American justice system demands evidence. Cases were never brought successfully, if at all, against Clinton, except for perjury, and that was from action in the Congress.
The accusations against Bill Cosby are completely different, despite some similarity in the rape/assault allegations. I think it is far too soon to make any informed judgment about Cosby and his accusers. The case and supporting evidence needs to go before a court, and NOT the court of public opinion.
So far, I'm withholding my opinion on THAT one except to say, innocent until proven guilty. And in any case, my opinion doesn't count, except so far as Cosby is either vindicated or trashed. Remains to be seen.
Excuse me?!
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.