Dr. Cliff Huxtable was a mega rapist

lurkingdirk · Dec 30, 2015

Maester Chuk_sl said:
i rape smiley faces for breakfast!

Finally. Someone who gets me.

Cad · Dec 30, 2015

Famm_sl said:
If this were the case it would happen all the fucking time. A guy with this kind of celebrity isn't hurting for pussy. Stars fuck naive bitches constantly with no repercussions. This dude had a fetish, or sick obsession whatever, with banging incapacitated women.

Some people online would rather defend an actual rapey fuckhead than perceive themselves as being in agreement with SJW's and that's the only thing going on here. Yeah he deserves his day in court like anyone, but where there's smoke there's fire. If his thing was little boys or girls like Jared, the court of online opinion would have long since condemned him by now. Because he's a face of patriarchal non consensual sex, he's a point to rally around in opposition to SJW's.

The problem with rape as a crime is proof. I'm more than willing to believe Cosby did what they're saying... if there's some proof. Right now there isn't. It's their 10-20-30-40 year old word against his.

Rape claims do happen all the time, especially against celebrities. E.g. Mike Tyson. Another no-proof rape conviction. He could have done it... but what proof is there of it other than she said so? Having seen many criminal trials I don't trust people's word for shit. People lie like its nothing.

Badabidi_sl · Dec 30, 2015

Can't cosby the Cosby.

And they should have let Mike Tyson rape that fucking bitch that got him incarcerated. He wouldn't have even been charged for it!!

Ritley · Dec 30, 2015

I wonder what kind of evidence there will be. Can't imagine much at this point. The whole thing is a shitshow.

Hoss · Dec 30, 2015

Only thing I can figger is that they hope to trip him up on how consensual it was and then bring in a parade of trained ponies to establish a pattern. Then just sit back and hope that the jury will decide the coz didn't prove he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and convict. If they demonize him enough the jury might decide he's just a rich fuckstick who needs to pay for everything every rich person has ever done wrong.

Chanur · Dec 30, 2015

Juries cannot be trusted to view evidence fairly so even with zero evidence there is still a chance of conviction. The number of accusations alone may get him convicted if this board is any kind of indicator.

Chukzombi · Dec 30, 2015

the news said there was "new evidence". whatever it is they waited til there was only hours left before the statute of limitations on the whole thing expired.

popsicledeath · Dec 31, 2015

Ritley_sl said:
I wonder what kind of evidence there will be.

He admitted to them having sex. He admitted to giving her some pills. He says it was just allergy medication to help her relax and the sex was consensual; she'll state the sex wasn't consensual and the pills were offered to take advantage of her. The new evidence is apparently that in the separate civil trial he admitted to giving women pills with the intention of sleeping with them (he later said he was confused and didn't understand the question, of course).

If it goes to trial they'll ask the jury to do the math. He has admitted under oath to giving women pills with the intent to have sex with them. He gave this woman pills and then had sex with her. She says it wasn't consensual but she was too drugged to stop it. The prosecutor will ask the jury to ask themselves why, of all the alleged incidents and Cosby himself admitting to giving women pills to have sex with them, the jury should believe/assume this particular incident was just a consensual misunderstanding?

Cosby may or may not be a perv, may or may not be guilty, etc. But guilt or not he's in a pretty tight spot at this point.

Cad · Dec 31, 2015

popsicledeath_sl said:
He admitted to them having sex. He admitted to giving her some pills. He says it was just allergy medication to help her relax and the sex was consensual; she'll state the sex wasn't consensual and the pills were offered to take advantage of her. The new evidence is apparently that in the separate civil trial he admitted to giving women pills with the intention of sleeping with them (he later said he was confused and didn't understand the question, of course).

If it goes to trial they'll ask the jury to do the math. He has admitted under oath to giving women pills with the intent to have sex with them. He gave this woman pills and then had sex with her. She says it wasn't consensual but she was too drugged to stop it. The prosecutor will ask the jury to ask themselves why, of all the alleged incidents and Cosby himself admitting to giving women pills to have sex with them, the jury should believe/assume this particular incident was just a consensual misunderstanding?

Cosby may or may not be a perv, may or may not be guilty, etc. But guilt or not he's in a pretty tight spot at this point.

Him saying he gave another woman a pill shouldn't be admissible in this trial. Just because someone did something before doesn't mean they did it this time. That whole line of questioning should be excluded. Its not evidence of what he did THIS time. It's just inadmissible character evidence.

Gavinmad · Dec 31, 2015

The charges are going to be thrown out.

Column_sl · Dec 31, 2015

Cad_sl said:
Him saying he gave another woman a pill shouldn't be admissible in this trial. Just because someone did something before doesn't mean they did it this time. That whole line of questioning should be excluded. Its not evidence of what he did THIS time. It's just inadmissible character evidence.

Uhh, its the same woman his lawyers settled the civil dispute with.

Big Phoenix · Dec 31, 2015

Badabidi_sl said:
She kind of looks like Howard Stern with the shades on.

She looks like a female version of this guy

Zitar · Dec 31, 2015

It's amusing how all these Hollywood SJWs are all up Cosby's ass and rightfully so. While at the same time working with, praising, and awarding Roman Polansiki. White privilege I guess.

Cybsled · Dec 31, 2015

A lot of it comes down to the persona of the person and public perception. Cosby was always perceived as a family-friendly actor, so people tend to feel more betrayed vs. a director that didn't produce family friendly products and was less visible. Polanski also gets the "my pregnant wife was murdered by the Manson cult" card to play to explain why he did a fucked up thing, whereas Cosby comes across as "I'm the king of media, time for me to claim my prize!", which obviously less people with empathize with.

There is also the time frames involved. To most people in their 30s or 40s, they were either small kids or not even born in the 70s. With the exception of super recent stuff, most of them aren't even familiar with Polanski's work I imagine, so it comes across as "obscure" director in the fucked up 70s did some fucked up thing. Whereas with Cosby, that same demographic grew up watching the Cosby Show and him sell Jello. He is more "real" to them and more likely to be part of their childhood, so the reaction is stronger.

Simas_sl · Dec 31, 2015

Cad_sl said:
Him saying he gave another woman a pill shouldn't be admissible in this trial. Just because someone did something before doesn't mean they did it this time. That whole line of questioning should be excluded. Its not evidence of what he did THIS time. It's just inadmissible character evidence.

M.O. or plan.

Badabidi_sl · Dec 31, 2015

Hahaha Rocky Dennis, that is probably more accurate. If Polanski's wife being murdered gives him a free pass for fucking a kid I don't see why Cosby's fame can't give him a free pass for fucking groupie whores looking for a one up. And didn't Polanski drug the kid too?

Zitar · Dec 31, 2015

The line in Hollywood seems to be how much money is to be made. Cosby is old and no longer able to earn or give people work so under the bus he goes. Look at Marky Mark. The guy beat an elderly Asian man with a stick while screaming racial slurs so severely he blinded him in one eye. However he still makes people money so he gets a pass from the liberal elite in Hollywood. Cosby simply no longer offered them any value so out he goes.

Chukzombi · Dec 31, 2015

Zitar_sl said:
The line in Hollywood seems to be how much money is to be made. Cosby is old and no longer able to earn or give people work so under the bus he goes. Look at Marky Mark. The guy beat an elderly Asian man with a stick while screaming racial slurs so severely he blinded him in one eye. However he still makes people money so he gets a pass from the liberal elite in Hollywood. Cosby simply no longer offered them any value so out he goes.

it goes further than that, he started scolding black people on how to talk and act and it put him right in the uncle tom category. he was no longer a hollywood elite because he was no longer "down with the struggle" and as you said, his earning days were over and they had no more use for him. Polanski is a piece of shit rapist and deserves his have his balls cut off.

Chanur · Dec 31, 2015

Cybsled_sl said:
A lot of it comes down to the persona of the person and public perception. Cosby was always perceived as a family-friendly actor, so people tend to feel more betrayed vs. a director that didn't produce family friendly products and was less visible. Polanski also gets the "my pregnant wife was murdered by the Manson cult" card to play to explain why he did a fucked up thing, whereas Cosby comes across as "I'm the king of media, time for me to claim my prize!", which obviously less people with empathize with.

There is also the time frames involved. To most people in their 30s or 40s, they were either small kids or not even born in the 70s. With the exception of super recent stuff, most of them aren't even familiar with Polanski's work I imagine, so it comes across as "obscure" director in the fucked up 70s did some fucked up thing. Whereas with Cosby, that same demographic grew up watching the Cosby Show and him sell Jello. He is more "real" to them and more likely to be part of their childhood, so the reaction is stronger.

It was not a one time thing with Polanski. The guy is a straight up pedo.

Hoss · Dec 31, 2015

Saw cosby's lawyer on the "news" this morning. She's saying that not only did he misunderstand the question, but that qualudes hadn't even been available for 30 years at the time this incident took place. I did not know that. I just assumed someone somewhere was still making ludes. I'm not sure he 'misunderstood' the question so much as it was stated poorly. I've read the question 20 times and a yes absolutely includes having the intention to trade sex for drugs.

She's also saying cosby and this lady had consensual encounters both before and after this alleged incident, so it makes no sense that he'd drug and rape her right in the middle of their relationship.

Dr. Cliff Huxtable was a mega rapist

AssHat Taint

scientia potentia est

shitlord

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

Shit Posting Professional

Millie's Staff Member

Potato del Grande

scientia potentia est

Mr. Poopybutthole

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Silver Knight of the Realm

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

shitlord

shitlord

Silver Knight of the Realm

Millie's Staff Member

Shit Posting Professional

Make America's Team Great Again