[Talisker]

Defending a serial sexual predator is as disgusting as anything one can imagine.

Not at all - there's easily something far, far worse.

Slandering someone as a serial sexual predator without credible evidence, let alone proof, let alone a trial, let alone a conviction.

[af_vet_1981]

Not at all - there's easily something far, far worse.

Slandering someone as a serial sexual predator without credible evidence, let alone proof, let alone a trial, let alone a conviction.

Thu Nov 20 2014 05:52:17 GMT+0000 (GMT) · 19 of 35 Talisker to Empireoftheatom48 Liberals didn’t like his take on the black family People be hating on Obama, so the Rats need a stand-in for him. Hillary's running on Obama's platform, so she has to separate the platform from Obama hate. Cosby is the right color and already pissed off Blacks by telling them to grow up - so he's perfect. So Hillary tells her army of lying skanks to smear him. Result? White female Democrats be hating on Cosby instead of Obama, and so Cosby politics replace Obama politics, because the Black guy thing can't be acknowledged because that's racist. Therefore Hillary's politics becomes different from Obama's because Obama is now Cosby. The fact that Hillary creatures carried out the op indicates Hillary was the one behind it, so the calculation has to benefit her. And with Obama tanking over his policies, she's got to separate herself from them even though she shares them, so as not to lose her alarmed white female useful idiot voters. So, enter the mind op. Because projection ain't just a river in Egypt. In fact, it's charted on procedure diagrams on Huma's laptop.

Fri Nov 21 2014 06:31:04 GMT+0000 (GMT) · 61 of 66 Talisker to ansel12 The case is Cosby, not Clinton. TRY to stick to the subject. You have NO evidence. Zip.Zero.Nada. You only have he said - she said. Those ARE the facts.

You believe the women and the DA. I don’t. Fine. What’s your problem? You cannot prove it either way. Circumstances make me believe Cosby didn’t do it, and Clinton did. I could be wrong, but I’d need some FACTS to change my mind.

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.

[CodeToad]

“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?