Bill Cosby abuse allegations

[NaturalMystik]

Some people may be curious/confused why Cosby would go through the trouble/risk of drugging the majority of his victims, a few who may even have even consented to sex later in the evening or at a later date?

A lot of good points mentioned as to the why. Certainly the ideas of power/control and narcissism are very valid. I've listened to the Spanish Fly comedy routine, and it's creepy as shit. "I wish I had a whole jug of spanish fly, I'd light that whole corner up over there..." I had wondered if his sickness could be due at least in part to a split personality kind of thing. How can the nice family man get down and dirty, thus knock his partners out so no one will see. It seems though that this pattern of behavior was established long before he was super family guy Cliff Huxtable. However, I remember back in the 70s he'd appear on a number of kids shows, so for a long time he's been in a very G Rated TV genre. I see it possibly as a need to hide what he is doing, maybe from himself, from his partners, and from everyone else. You wouldn't think being a serial philanderer, when you work in childrens entertainment, would go over well (although in retrospect it may well go hand in hand). Kind of a variation on the madonna/whore complex... Then I suppose, fueled by narcissism and paranoia, he'd go to further and further depths to see what he could get away with. Sick...

[Harvey]

Excellent and considered summary on the previous page Brekin, many thanks.

[divideandconquer]

Why now? To me it seems pretty straight forward. Cosby had Allen & Polanski co level allegations and whispering for years, but nothing criminal was ever determined at trial and was settled out of court as far as I recall, and then fairly recently one after another witness has come forward to where we are at 50, and counting. It wasn't like in the 70's, 50 women came forward and didn't get a public hearing for decades. Cosby was adept at blocking criminal pursuit and culturally the times were on his side.

You give Cosby way too much power. It wasn't Cosby who was adept at blocking criminal pursuit, it was his owners, those who had far more power, who didn't want to kill the profit-making machine that was Cosby. And you leave out the fact that many of these women were white, and Cosby was a black man. They could've taken him down any time they wanted but the timing wasn't right. They waited until Cosby was blind, old, basically had nothing more to give then Operation Shame on you, Mr. Black Father Figure of America went into action.

And, while countless women and children continue to suffer real trauma, the kind we can't even begin to imagine, the world will be focused on these once beautiful, privileged, mostly white, or almost white, star-fuckers who grace the cover of The New Yorker, finally getting the fame they've always wanted. Do traumatized rape victims really want their pictures plastered on the cover of a national magazine? Believe me, the New Yorker is just the beginning now that another "trial of the century" is in the works. Hopefully, Cosby dies before it starts.

If it was hard for America to even grok how widespread these things occurred on a daily basis, they definitely weren't ready to imagine cultural father figures of the 80's (which next to Reagan, Cosby was) capable of such things. Also, while we assume the 70's and 80's were more racist then today (and they no doubt were with institutional racism) popular culture wise there were many more positive african american images and references to and Cosby was hugely instrumental in that. Cosby did what in white peoples living rooms MLK had been trying to do from the pulpit and lectern. He was hugely influential and powerful, an Oprah before Oprah. I'd say he was even necessary as a symbol of african american success and prosperity that America wanted many to believe, even those of differing agendas. (Sidenote: And I'd say today it is more racist today popular culture wise. If you were watching CNN during the 80's and heard the N-word it would have a huge deal, today you go to CNN.com and it is a rare comments thread that doesn't have the N-word in it regardless of the topic. If you had a time machine and told the average white surburban teenager in the 80's (pre-NWA) that white teenagers in 2016 drop the N-word regularly they would have thought you out of your mind.)

The 1980s was as racist a decade as any other. Racism was at the heart of the Reagan presidency. The welfare queen was born in the 1980s. You are ignoring the the insidious, covert, disguised forms of racism that despite appearance, never ended and exists to this day.

But Cosby had reached Nero level excess. No one stands next to Nero when everything is exposed. Public figures whose wealth and influence depend on the public's support can't afford their persona to be exposed. Even Bill Clinton became a pariah when the Repubs changed the rules and used sexual improprieties as fuel. Think of the maneuvers he's gone through over Lewinsky, Flowers, Jones and Braddock. Only Braddock was non-consensual whereas all of the 50 of Cosby's are non-consensual. If you look at Oprah as a more contemporary equivalent, with her immense cross demographic popularity, supposedly progressive rep, and enormous wealth she could probably block and evade a few to a handful gross indiscretions but if she started going full on Countess Elizabeth Báthory and her victims started reaching the double digits her house is going to fall to.

Again, you are giving Cosby way too much power and Clinton, far too little. Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's friend Mr. Clinton probably makes Cosby look like a boyscout in comparison. But as we've seen, Clinton is protected, and victims might think twice about coming forward considering that protection. Yet, some have come forward.. tip of the iceberg? I know I'd think twice about coming forward against Clinton considering the Clinton body count.

Just a few accusations against Clinton, some swept under the rug or dismissed.

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;

From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."

Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

I think Cosby is just a sign of the shifting instant communication times, victims advocacy, and in many ways is a anachronism that shows flaws in the elite paradigm. I think when Cosby was getting started in his career he basically entered the school of celebrity crime just being social excess. The more successful one became in the entertainment business the more you could be insulated/free from social constraints. I mean William Shatner and Robert Wagner seemed to most likely killed their wives but as long no guns or knives are used you'd get a free ride. Probably the more one espoused liberal and traditional values provided an even greater level of protection. Cosby probably learned and received his tactics and date rape drugs from entertainment peers and mentors which he emulated and what he was doing was probably not completely out of the norm for his circle. I think he illustrates Colin Wilson's theory that some criminals don't operate out of desperation or lack but a variation of Maslow's actualization pyramid where once being freed from the struggle to fulfill basic needs have the liberty and bent to pursue criminality. The rich and powerful can normalize this where it seems like just rewards for their position in life. (Something similar seems to have operated with Polanski where he assumed he had another show biz mom offering up her teenage daughter for career advancement and that not being the case thought it more of "a misunderstanding" then a crime. As the judge seemed to at first, saying in court:

She does not forgive the shockingly erratic judge in the case, Laurence Rittenband. "It's just so outrageous what he did. He said about me and my mother, 'What do we have here -- a mother/daughter hooker team?' In open court!"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ase-636641

Just as Polanski was doing the same thing a lot of people in Hollywood was doing (because one assumes there were probably such Hollywood mother/daughter hooker teams operating at the time) he couldn't understand why he was being singled out. He thought it was anti-semitism just as some people think with Cosby it is racism. Cosby had been doing the same thing for years and had gotten away with it. To him it was normal, common, and in one of the few coherent responses I think he unintentionally eludes to this:

“It’s interesting. When I talk to people they will say, ‘This is a situation that’s unprecedented.’ I, my family, my friends, I have been in this business 52 years," he said. "I’ve never seen anything like this. And reality is the situation. And I can’t speak.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/exc ... d=31064187

Cosby is basically saying, hey this is the reality of what goes on and everybody in the business knows this. Its always been like this but because I've been so successful, I've also been so prolific, and I can't understand why I'm being punished now. To the rich and powerful these crimes are just excesses to them like speeding on the highway is for everyone else. I've been speeding for years, all my friends have, the cops have always smiled and waved as my ferrari sped by, what the fuck changed? But Polanski and Cosby just got caught in the media flypaper and that is the only real difference. (Or possibly not, seems like Polanksi is either the unluckiest/most unprotected elite in Hollywood or someone was definitely trying to destroy him in Hollywood.)

The rich used to control the machinery for the production of the news and its distribution. It was expensive to produce the news and no one wanted to piss off the rich and powerful who were a close knit group generally. Even recently, the writer doing a biography on Cosby apologized for not pursuing the claims of sexual misconduct by Cosby in his book, but it makes sense that he didn't because the large print publishing industry is still controlled by the rich and powerful that Cosby would have influence in or be able to hurt financially. Today though, for celebrities one can't visit a brothel like Bieber and not have pics of it on the internet posted by the prostitute in seconds or like Tarantino have a one night stand/foot ogling masturbatory session and it not be on the internet in the morning.

Used to control the machinery??? I would say they still do considering 5 mega corporations own all of media whereas back in the 1980s, I believe it was 50 corporations. And don't kid yourself, we only get to see a very small fraction of what really goes on...nothing's changed! If someone manages to catch a celebrity or political figure doing something they don't want to get out...it's confiscated or the media suppresses it.

For Cosby, one assumes his behavior grew out of the belief he was untouchable and his success allowed him to do so. But the days of a public figure being Nero in private are over, because the days of privacy are over. Its like the lowliest slave in Rome having the means to record and post online in seconds.

Being Nero in private is certainly not over. Only for those who either step out of line or their exposure forwards the agenda in some way. And, Polanski, after being convicted of rape...didn't he win an academy award? His work has not suffered one bit. Same goes for Bill Clinton, Woody Allen, etc. The same cannot be said for Cosby. Why? Because he's an uppity negro who didn't know his place...forgot he wasn't one of them and because they want the public to believe being Nero in private is over. Not buyin' it.

[Luther Blissett]

Another angle in all this is that most African Americans have come to heavily dislike Cosby in the past decade or so. All of my black friends hate Cosby, not only for being lascivious and a rapist but for being a condescending, elitist snob to them. Before this controversy, he was talking down to young guys about their pants and drugs and violent crime, in spite of contrary statistics and common knowledge. One of my friends who makes art that many people believe carries a message about Cosby recently penned a short statement about how much he hates Cosby. Jill Scott might have once defended Cosby but has since admitted she was wrong.

[seemslikeadream]

yea all the while he was telling black boys to pull up their pants ..he was pulling down unconscious women's down

[divideandconquer]

yea all the while he was telling black boys to pull up their pants ..he was pulling down unconscious women's down

He's a first-class hypocrite, a scoundrel, an egotist, as many "great" men are, but that's not a crime. He's still innocent until proven guilty. But, even more important is to understand the overall agenda. This is much bigger than Bill Cosby, the man, who, despite his personal failings and weakness, has also contributed to society, made some people's lives better. But then again, the same could be said for Hitler.

How do you judge a man, when all is said and done? Do you separate the man from his body of work? Has he hurt more people than he's helped? To what degree did he hurt people vs. help them? Fingering a sleeping or unconscious woman who has already consented to sex and drugs, to the casting couch, somehow doesn't seem as bad as forcing yourself on someone who has not consented to either. No matter how politically incorrect I sound, there is "rape" and then there is rape. I think it's doing real rape victims a disservice by claiming it's the same thing.

So, politically incorrect as it is, I do question the motivation of these women accusing him of rape, because something about this whole thing stinks.

[brekin]

Some people may be curious/confused why Cosby would go through the trouble/risk of drugging the majority of his victims, a few who may even have even consented to sex later in the evening or at a later date?

A lot of good points mentioned as to the why. Certainly the ideas of power/control and narcissism are very valid. I've listened to the Spanish Fly comedy routine, and it's creepy as shit. "I wish I had a whole jug of spanish fly, I'd light that whole corner up over there..." I had wondered if his sickness could be due at least in part to a split personality kind of thing. How can the nice family man get down and dirty, thus knock his partners out so no one will see. It seems though that this pattern of behavior was established long before he was super family guy Cliff Huxtable. However, I remember back in the 70s he'd appear on a number of kids shows, so for a long time he's been in a very G Rated TV genre. I see it possibly as a need to hide what he is doing, maybe from himself, from his partners, and from everyone else. You wouldn't think being a serial philanderer, when you work in childrens entertainment, would go over well (although in retrospect it may well go hand in hand). Kind of a variation on the madonna/whore complex... Then I suppose, fueled by narcissism and paranoia, he'd go to further and further depths to see what he could get away with. Sick...

Yes, the split personality/compartmentalization thing. I've often thought of how Cosby was always amazing at creating and imitating characters. I mean he just didn't do a voice and a few mannerisms he gave you a room full of people. I wouldn't be surprised if that ability didn't have a extreme downside or even came/originated from a dark place. Peter Sellers had the same ability and had quite a few demons and skeletons in the closet. He even said "If you ask me to play myself, I will not know what to do. I do not know who or what I am." There are some comics who seem like baskets of sunshine but are really extremely cold, evil motherfuckers. Paging Mr. Jerrry Lewis! Who I guess is the news last few days now for saying Syrian refugees should stay the hell where they are and are not part of the human condition. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/jerry-l ... condition/



Jeez...
brekin wrote:

Why now? To me it seems pretty straight forward. Cosby had Allen & Polanski co level allegations and whispering for years, but nothing criminal was ever determined at trial and was settled out of court as far as I recall, and then fairly recently one after another witness has come forward to where we are at 50, and counting. It wasn't like in the 70's, 50 women came forward and didn't get a public hearing for decades. Cosby was adept at blocking criminal pursuit and culturally the times were on his side.

DivideandConquer wrote:

You give Cosby way too much power. It wasn't Cosby who was adept at blocking criminal pursuit, it was his owners, those who had far more power, who didn't want to kill the profit-making machine that was Cosby. And you leave out the fact that many of these women were white, and Cosby was a black man. They could've taken him down any time they wanted but the timing wasn't right. They waited until Cosby was blind, old, basically had nothing more to give then Operation Shame on you, Mr. Black Father Figure of America went into action.

And you strangely don't give him enough power which is more than a littler paternalistic. Not believing a black man can attain great wealth and power through their own talent and hard work while also being capable of throwing it all away through scandal is also a form of racial thinking. I'm sure Cosby played the game a bit to further his career (during the Civil Rights movement he was conspicuously low profile) but why couldn't he amass enough money and power to become for all intents and purposes independent? Even in a fairly racist society wealth can trump much. You can't have it both ways. If he was such a threat to the ptb by being so independent that they decided to out him or fabricate all of this he can't also then be a tool of the ptb with "owners" (which cries out for some corroborating details). Cosby had so much power on the set of Leonard Part 6 he created a unwatchable movie, it wasn't until Mike Myers amassed so much power did a comic create their own echo chamber (The Love Guru = Leonard Part 7?) I think Cosby was a canny business man, self promoter as well as amazing comic to who is being brought down through his own vices and folly. I'm sure there are others like him, and maybe some white peers who are as bad or worse but your grand conspiracy strategy makes no sense, why take out Cosby as a black symbol, who basically was as relevant as an ancient black Bob Hope too most and to younger generations not well known at all? If the agenda really was Operation Shame on you, Mr. Black Father Figure of America we have a sitting president who is the Mr. Black Father Figure of America. He's been scandal free basically for the last 8 years except for his birth certificate. Cosby was already fading away and really more of the crotchety Black Great Grand Father of America.

DivideandConquer wrote:

And, while countless women and children continue to suffer real trauma, the kind we can't even begin to imagine, the world will be focused on these once beautiful, privileged, mostly white, or almost white, star-fuckers who grace the cover of The New Yorker, finally getting the fame they've always wanted. Do traumatized rape victims really want their pictures plastered on the cover of a national magazine? Believe me, the New Yorker is just the beginning now that another "trial of the century" is in the works. Hopefully, Cosby dies before it starts.

God, that is repugnant. You assume to know whether 50 women have been raped or not, know their motives are just fame, (rape victim fame?) and assume I guess traumatized rape victims should be hidden away and not in any national media because going public is evidence of a lack of trauma or the lack of crime. What? Are these not the victims you wanted? Too white, too upper class for you? To what? To suffer the real trauma? Fuck, that's fucked. Christ, I know him living long enough to go to trial will probably inconvenience the truth you would like to believe, but I for one hope he lives. Isn't that ironic? You believe him and hope he dies and I don't and hope he lives.

brekin wrote:

If it was hard for America to even grok how widespread these things occurred on a daily basis, they definitely weren't ready to imagine cultural father figures of the 80's (which next to Reagan, Cosby was) capable of such things. Also, while we assume the 70's and 80's were more racist then today (and they no doubt were with institutional racism) popular culture wise there were many more positive african american images and references to and Cosby was hugely instrumental in that. Cosby did what in white peoples living rooms MLK had been trying to do from the pulpit and lectern. He was hugely influential and powerful, an Oprah before Oprah. I'd say he was even necessary as a symbol of african american success and prosperity that America wanted many to believe, even those of differing agendas. (Sidenote: And I'd say today it is more racist today popular culture wise. If you were watching CNN during the 80's and heard the N-word it would have a huge deal, today you go to CNN.com and it is a rare comments thread that doesn't have the N-word in it regardless of the topic. If you had a time machine and told the average white surburban teenager in the 80's (pre-NWA) that white teenagers in 2016 drop the N-word regularly they would have thought you out of your mind.)

DivideandConquer wrote:

The 1980s was as racist a decade as any other. Racism was at the heart of the Reagan presidency. The welfare queen was born in the 1980s. You are ignoring the the insidious, covert, disguised forms of racism that despite appearance, never ended and exists to this day.

Do you read more than two sentences in? I said, "Also, while we assume the 70's and 80's were more racist then today (and they no doubt were with institutional racism) popular culture wise there were many more positive african american images and references to and Cosby was hugely instrumental in that."
Institutional racism wise the 80's were more racist than today, but popular culture wise it was less, if only because popular culture had less outlets.

brekin wrote:

But Cosby had reached Nero level excess. No one stands next to Nero when everything is exposed. Public figures whose wealth and influence depend on the public's support can't afford their persona to be exposed. Even Bill Clinton became a pariah when the Repubs changed the rules and used sexual improprieties as fuel. Think of the maneuvers he's gone through over Lewinsky, Flowers, Jones and Braddock. Only Braddock was non-consensual whereas all of the 50 of Cosby's are non-consensual. If you look at Oprah as a more contemporary equivalent, with her immense cross demographic popularity, supposedly progressive rep, and enormous wealth she could probably block and evade a few to a handful gross indiscretions but if she started going full on Countess Elizabeth Báthory and her victims started reaching the double digits her house is going to fall to.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Again, you are giving Cosby way too much power and Clinton, far too little. Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's friend Mr. Clinton probably makes Cosby look like a boyscout in comparison. But as we've seen, Clinton is protected, and victims might think twice about coming forward considering that protection. Yet, some have come forward.. tip of the iceberg? I know I'd think twice about coming forward against Clinton considering the Clinton body count.

No, the power is already there, just to different degrees. Clinton was a president right? And Cosby was a comic right? They may even be pervs of the same caliber but Cosby is a multi-millionaire while Clinton made multi-millionaires. Political power trumps entertainment power. Obama and Seinfeld could be secret super-pervs but Seinfield would be much easier to take down than Obama. Obama feeds many more mouths and eats from many more hands. I think Clinton was targeted for some of his sexual indiscretions such as Lewinski, Jones, Flowers which weren't swept under the rug, daily headlines, near impeachment, etc while the other accusations were, because I would wager his opponents knew if he got too far out of line they could always pursue the bigger ones.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Just a few accusations against Clinton, some swept under the rug or dismissed.
Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Now why do you believe these claims but not Cosby's accusers? Why weren't these women just seeking some fame and were just part of a cabal to bring down a liberal president? The Clintons themselves claimed that there was a conspiracy to bring them down when Bill was in office. Why don't you believe that conspiracy? Doesn't make much sense to me why you dismiss (and disparage) 50 of Cosby's alleged victims but you quickly accept these. To me they seem to be both valid. Is it because Cosby's have used the national media that you so despise even though the many of them were ignored for years by the very same media? Or is it because Clinton's victims while bieng white to were mostly middle class?

brekin wrote:

I think Cosby is just a sign of the shifting instant communication times, victims advocacy, and in many ways is a anachronism that shows flaws in the elite paradigm. I think when Cosby was getting started in his career he basically entered the school of celebrity crime just being social excess. The more successful one became in the entertainment business the more you could be insulated/free from social constraints. I mean William Shatner and Robert Wagner seemed to most likely killed their wives but as long no guns or knives are used you'd get a free ride. Probably the more one espoused liberal and traditional values provided an even greater level of protection. Cosby probably learned and received his tactics and date rape drugs from entertainment peers and mentors which he emulated and what he was doing was probably not completely out of the norm for his circle. I think he illustrates Colin Wilson's theory that some criminals don't operate out of desperation or lack but a variation of Maslow's actualization pyramid where once being freed from the struggle to fulfill basic needs have the liberty and bent to pursue criminality. The rich and powerful can normalize this where it seems like just rewards for their position in life. (Something similar seems to have operated with Polanski where he assumed he had another show biz mom offering up her teenage daughter for career advancement and that not being the case thought it more of "a misunderstanding" then a crime. As the judge seemed to at first, saying in court:

She does not forgive the shockingly erratic judge in the case, Laurence Rittenband. "It's just so outrageous what he did. He said about me and my mother, 'What do we have here -- a mother/daughter hooker team?' In open court!"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ase-636641

Just as Polanski was doing the same thing a lot of people in Hollywood was doing (because one assumes there were probably such Hollywood mother/daughter hooker teams operating at the time) he couldn't understand why he was being singled out. He thought it was anti-semitism just as some people think with Cosby it is racism. Cosby had been doing the same thing for years and had gotten away with it. To him it was normal, common, and in one of the few coherent responses I think he unintentionally eludes to this:

“It’s interesting. When I talk to people they will say, ‘This is a situation that’s unprecedented.’ I, my family, my friends, I have been in this business 52 years," he said. "I’ve never seen anything like this. And reality is the situation. And I can’t speak.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/exc ... d=31064187

Cosby is basically saying, hey this is the reality of what goes on and everybody in the business knows this. Its always been like this but because I've been so successful, I've also been so prolific, and I can't understand why I'm being punished now. To the rich and powerful these crimes are just excesses to them like speeding on the highway is for everyone else. I've been speeding for years, all my friends have, the cops have always smiled and waved as my ferrari sped by, what the fuck changed? But Polanski and Cosby just got caught in the media flypaper and that is the only real difference. (Or possibly not, seems like Polanksi is either the unluckiest/most unprotected elite in Hollywood or someone was definitely trying to destroy him in Hollywood.)

The rich used to control the machinery for the production of the news and its distribution. It was expensive to produce the news and no one wanted to piss off the rich and powerful who were a close knit group generally. Even recently, the writer doing a biography on Cosby apologized for not pursuing the claims of sexual misconduct by Cosby in his book, but it makes sense that he didn't because the large print publishing industry is still controlled by the rich and powerful that Cosby would have influence in or be able to hurt financially. Today though, for celebrities one can't visit a brothel like Bieber and not have pics of it on the internet posted by the prostitute in seconds or like Tarantino have a one night stand/foot ogling masturbatory session and it not be on the internet in the morning.

Divideandconquer wrote:

Used to control the machinery??? I would say they still do considering 5 mega corporations own all of media whereas back in the 1980s, I believe it was 50 corporations. And don't kid yourself, we only get to see a very small fraction of what really goes on...nothing's changed! If someone manages to catch a celebrity or political figure doing something they don't want to get out...it's confiscated or the media suppresses it.

You do realize right now we are using the machinery to produce and distribute news? Which of the 5 mega corporations is editing and vetting your posts?

brekin wrote:

For Cosby, one assumes his behavior grew out of the belief he was untouchable and his success allowed him to do so. But the days of a public figure being Nero in private are over, because the days of privacy are over. Its like the lowliest slave in Rome having the means to record and post online in seconds.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Being Nero in private is certainly not over. Only for those who either step out of line or their exposure forwards the agenda in some way. And, Polanski, after being convicted of rape...didn't he win an academy award? His work has not suffered one bit. Same goes for Bill Clinton, Woody Allen, etc. The same cannot be said for Cosby. Why? Because he's an uppity negro who didn't know his place...forgot he wasn't one of them and because they want the public to believe being Nero in private is over. Not buyin' it.

Polanski isn't allowed in the country and his legal troubles even abroad will never end. And his work has definitely suffered. Have you seen The Ninth Gate? Allen has become marginalized and a pariah to many. I can't see many people feeling good about even going to see a new film of his. Cosby had the same types of accusations as Polanksi and Allen (with women, only one was with a minor) and was able to put them off and afford less controversy then either of them for a much longer time. No one is going to to give Allen or Polanski a honorary degree when Bill was collecting them like coupons after more than a handful allegations came out.

As for Teflon Bill Clinton, that jut points again to the political power differential, he's allowed to put a Kennedy wrapper over his Nero core which the ptb and public seem to be ok. Obama has been afforded the same Jedi mind trick. I think the only lesson in this discourse for Cosby is that he should have gone into politics. Then his 50 rape victims would have been consigned to the dustbin of history and you wouldn't be squirming now with the unfairness of a famous black serial rapist not being afforded the same unassailable immunity as other famous white serial rapists.

[divideandconquer]

Some people may be curious/confused why Cosby would go through the trouble/risk of drugging the majority of his victims, a few who may even have even consented to sex later in the evening or at a later date?

A lot of good points mentioned as to the why. Certainly the ideas of power/control and narcissism are very valid. I've listened to the Spanish Fly comedy routine, and it's creepy as shit. "I wish I had a whole jug of spanish fly, I'd light that whole corner up over there..." I had wondered if his sickness could be due at least in part to a split personality kind of thing. How can the nice family man get down and dirty, thus knock his partners out so no one will see. It seems though that this pattern of behavior was established long before he was super family guy Cliff Huxtable. However, I remember back in the 70s he'd appear on a number of kids shows, so for a long time he's been in a very G Rated TV genre. I see it possibly as a need to hide what he is doing, maybe from himself, from his partners, and from everyone else. You wouldn't think being a serial philanderer, when you work in childrens entertainment, would go over well (although in retrospect it may well go hand in hand). Kind of a variation on the madonna/whore complex... Then I suppose, fueled by narcissism and paranoia, he'd go to further and further depths to see what he could get away with. Sick...

Yes, the split personality/compartmentalization thing. I've often thought of how Cosby was always amazing at creating and imitating characters. I mean he just didn't do a voice and a few mannerisms he gave you a room full of people. I wouldn't be surprised if that ability didn't have a extreme downside or even came/originated from a dark place. Peter Sellers had the same ability and had quite a few demons and skeletons in the closet. He even said "If you ask me to play myself, I will not know what to do. I do not know who or what I am." There are some comics who seem like baskets of sunshine but are really extremely cold, evil motherfuckers. Paging Mr. Jerrry Lewis! Who I guess is the news last few days now for saying Syrian refugees should stay the hell where they are and are not part of the human condition. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/jerry-l ... condition/



Jeez...
brekin wrote:

Why now? To me it seems pretty straight forward. Cosby had Allen & Polanski co level allegations and whispering for years, but nothing criminal was ever determined at trial and was settled out of court as far as I recall, and then fairly recently one after another witness has come forward to where we are at 50, and counting. It wasn't like in the 70's, 50 women came forward and didn't get a public hearing for decades. Cosby was adept at blocking criminal pursuit and culturally the times were on his side.

DivideandConquer wrote:

You give Cosby way too much power. It wasn't Cosby who was adept at blocking criminal pursuit, it was his owners, those who had far more power, who didn't want to kill the profit-making machine that was Cosby. And you leave out the fact that many of these women were white, and Cosby was a black man. They could've taken him down any time they wanted but the timing wasn't right. They waited until Cosby was blind, old, basically had nothing more to give then Operation Shame on you, Mr. Black Father Figure of America went into action.

And you strangely don't give him enough power which is more than a littler paternalistic. Not believing a black man can attain great wealth and power through their own talent and hard work while also being capable of throwing it all away through scandal is also a form of racial thinking. I'm sure Cosby played the game a bit to further his career (during the Civil Rights movement he was conspicuously low profile) but why couldn't he amass enough money and power to become for all intents and purposes independent? Even in a fairly racist society wealth can trump much. You can't have it both ways. If he was such a threat to the ptb by being so independent that they decided to out him or fabricate all of this he can't also then be a tool of the ptb with "owners" (which cries out for some corroborating details). Cosby had so much power on the set of Leonard Part 6 he created a unwatchable movie, it wasn't until Mike Myers amassed so much power did a comic create their own echo chamber (The Love Guru = Leonard Part 7?) I think Cosby was a canny business man, self promoter as well as amazing comic to who is being brought down through his own vices and folly. I'm sure there are others like him, and maybe some white peers who are as bad or worse but your grand conspiracy strategy makes no sense, why take out Cosby as a black symbol, who basically was as relevant as an ancient black Bob Hope too most and to younger generations not well known at all? If the agenda really was Operation Shame on you, Mr. Black Father Figure of America we have a sitting president who is the Mr. Black Father Figure of America. He's been scandal free basically for the last 8 years except for his birth certificate. Cosby was already fading away and really more of the crotchety Black Great Grand Father of America.

DivideandConquer wrote:

And, while countless women and children continue to suffer real trauma, the kind we can't even begin to imagine, the world will be focused on these once beautiful, privileged, mostly white, or almost white, star-fuckers who grace the cover of The New Yorker, finally getting the fame they've always wanted. Do traumatized rape victims really want their pictures plastered on the cover of a national magazine? Believe me, the New Yorker is just the beginning now that another "trial of the century" is in the works. Hopefully, Cosby dies before it starts.

God, that is repugnant. You assume to know whether 50 women have been raped or not, know their motives are just fame, (rape victim fame?) and assume I guess traumatized rape victims should be hidden away and not in any national media because going public is evidence of a lack of trauma or the lack of crime. What? Are these not the victims you wanted? Too white, too upper class for you? To what? To suffer the real trauma? Fuck, that's fucked. Christ, I know him living long enough to go to trial will probably inconvenience the truth you would like to believe, but I for one hope he lives. Isn't that ironic? You believe him and hope he dies and I don't and hope he lives.

brekin wrote:

If it was hard for America to even grok how widespread these things occurred on a daily basis, they definitely weren't ready to imagine cultural father figures of the 80's (which next to Reagan, Cosby was) capable of such things. Also, while we assume the 70's and 80's were more racist then today (and they no doubt were with institutional racism) popular culture wise there were many more positive african american images and references to and Cosby was hugely instrumental in that. Cosby did what in white peoples living rooms MLK had been trying to do from the pulpit and lectern. He was hugely influential and powerful, an Oprah before Oprah. I'd say he was even necessary as a symbol of african american success and prosperity that America wanted many to believe, even those of differing agendas. (Sidenote: And I'd say today it is more racist today popular culture wise. If you were watching CNN during the 80's and heard the N-word it would have a huge deal, today you go to CNN.com and it is a rare comments thread that doesn't have the N-word in it regardless of the topic. If you had a time machine and told the average white surburban teenager in the 80's (pre-NWA) that white teenagers in 2016 drop the N-word regularly they would have thought you out of your mind.)

DivideandConquer wrote:

The 1980s was as racist a decade as any other. Racism was at the heart of the Reagan presidency. The welfare queen was born in the 1980s. You are ignoring the the insidious, covert, disguised forms of racism that despite appearance, never ended and exists to this day.

Do you read more than two sentences in? I said, "Also, while we assume the 70's and 80's were more racist then today (and they no doubt were with institutional racism) popular culture wise there were many more positive african american images and references to and Cosby was hugely instrumental in that."
Institutional racism wise the 80's were more racist than today, but popular culture wise it was less, if only because popular culture had less outlets.

brekin wrote:

But Cosby had reached Nero level excess. No one stands next to Nero when everything is exposed. Public figures whose wealth and influence depend on the public's support can't afford their persona to be exposed. Even Bill Clinton became a pariah when the Repubs changed the rules and used sexual improprieties as fuel. Think of the maneuvers he's gone through over Lewinsky, Flowers, Jones and Braddock. Only Braddock was non-consensual whereas all of the 50 of Cosby's are non-consensual. If you look at Oprah as a more contemporary equivalent, with her immense cross demographic popularity, supposedly progressive rep, and enormous wealth she could probably block and evade a few to a handful gross indiscretions but if she started going full on Countess Elizabeth Báthory and her victims started reaching the double digits her house is going to fall to.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Again, you are giving Cosby way too much power and Clinton, far too little. Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's friend Mr. Clinton probably makes Cosby look like a boyscout in comparison. But as we've seen, Clinton is protected, and victims might think twice about coming forward considering that protection. Yet, some have come forward.. tip of the iceberg? I know I'd think twice about coming forward against Clinton considering the Clinton body count.

No, the power is already there, just to different degrees. Clinton was a president right? And Cosby was a comic right? They may even be pervs of the same caliber but Cosby is a multi-millionaire while Clinton made multi-millionaires. Political power trumps entertainment power. Obama and Seinfeld could be secret super-pervs but Seinfield would be much easier to take down than Obama. Obama feeds many more mouths and eats from many more hands. I think Clinton was targeted for some of his sexual indiscretions such as Lewinski, Jones, Flowers which weren't swept under the rug, daily headlines, near impeachment, etc while the other accusations were, because I would wager his opponents knew if he got too far out of line they could always pursue the bigger ones.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Just a few accusations against Clinton, some swept under the rug or dismissed.
Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Now why do you believe these claims but not Cosby's accusers? Why weren't these women just seeking some fame and were just part of a cabal to bring down a liberal president? The Clintons themselves claimed that there was a conspiracy to bring them down when Bill was in office. Why don't you believe that conspiracy? Doesn't make much sense to me why you dismiss (and disparage) 50 of Cosby's alleged victims but you quickly accept these. To me they seem to be both valid. Is it because Cosby's have used the national media that you so despise even though the many of them were ignored for years by the very same media? Or is it because Clinton's victims while bieng white to were mostly middle class?

brekin wrote:

I think Cosby is just a sign of the shifting instant communication times, victims advocacy, and in many ways is a anachronism that shows flaws in the elite paradigm. I think when Cosby was getting started in his career he basically entered the school of celebrity crime just being social excess. The more successful one became in the entertainment business the more you could be insulated/free from social constraints. I mean William Shatner and Robert Wagner seemed to most likely killed their wives but as long no guns or knives are used you'd get a free ride. Probably the more one espoused liberal and traditional values provided an even greater level of protection. Cosby probably learned and received his tactics and date rape drugs from entertainment peers and mentors which he emulated and what he was doing was probably not completely out of the norm for his circle. I think he illustrates Colin Wilson's theory that some criminals don't operate out of desperation or lack but a variation of Maslow's actualization pyramid where once being freed from the struggle to fulfill basic needs have the liberty and bent to pursue criminality. The rich and powerful can normalize this where it seems like just rewards for their position in life. (Something similar seems to have operated with Polanski where he assumed he had another show biz mom offering up her teenage daughter for career advancement and that not being the case thought it more of "a misunderstanding" then a crime. As the judge seemed to at first, saying in court:

She does not forgive the shockingly erratic judge in the case, Laurence Rittenband. "It's just so outrageous what he did. He said about me and my mother, 'What do we have here -- a mother/daughter hooker team?' In open court!"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ase-636641

Just as Polanski was doing the same thing a lot of people in Hollywood was doing (because one assumes there were probably such Hollywood mother/daughter hooker teams operating at the time) he couldn't understand why he was being singled out. He thought it was anti-semitism just as some people think with Cosby it is racism. Cosby had been doing the same thing for years and had gotten away with it. To him it was normal, common, and in one of the few coherent responses I think he unintentionally eludes to this:

“It’s interesting. When I talk to people they will say, ‘This is a situation that’s unprecedented.’ I, my family, my friends, I have been in this business 52 years," he said. "I’ve never seen anything like this. And reality is the situation. And I can’t speak.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/exc ... d=31064187

Cosby is basically saying, hey this is the reality of what goes on and everybody in the business knows this. Its always been like this but because I've been so successful, I've also been so prolific, and I can't understand why I'm being punished now. To the rich and powerful these crimes are just excesses to them like speeding on the highway is for everyone else. I've been speeding for years, all my friends have, the cops have always smiled and waved as my ferrari sped by, what the fuck changed? But Polanski and Cosby just got caught in the media flypaper and that is the only real difference. (Or possibly not, seems like Polanksi is either the unluckiest/most unprotected elite in Hollywood or someone was definitely trying to destroy him in Hollywood.)

The rich used to control the machinery for the production of the news and its distribution. It was expensive to produce the news and no one wanted to piss off the rich and powerful who were a close knit group generally. Even recently, the writer doing a biography on Cosby apologized for not pursuing the claims of sexual misconduct by Cosby in his book, but it makes sense that he didn't because the large print publishing industry is still controlled by the rich and powerful that Cosby would have influence in or be able to hurt financially. Today though, for celebrities one can't visit a brothel like Bieber and not have pics of it on the internet posted by the prostitute in seconds or like Tarantino have a one night stand/foot ogling masturbatory session and it not be on the internet in the morning.

Divideandconquer wrote:

Used to control the machinery??? I would say they still do considering 5 mega corporations own all of media whereas back in the 1980s, I believe it was 50 corporations. And don't kid yourself, we only get to see a very small fraction of what really goes on...nothing's changed! If someone manages to catch a celebrity or political figure doing something they don't want to get out...it's confiscated or the media suppresses it.

You do realize right now we are using the machinery to produce and distribute news? Which of the 5 mega corporations is editing and vetting your posts?

brekin wrote:

For Cosby, one assumes his behavior grew out of the belief he was untouchable and his success allowed him to do so. But the days of a public figure being Nero in private are over, because the days of privacy are over. Its like the lowliest slave in Rome having the means to record and post online in seconds.

DivideandConquer wrote:

Being Nero in private is certainly not over. Only for those who either step out of line or their exposure forwards the agenda in some way. And, Polanski, after being convicted of rape...didn't he win an academy award? His work has not suffered one bit. Same goes for Bill Clinton, Woody Allen, etc. The same cannot be said for Cosby. Why? Because he's an uppity negro who didn't know his place...forgot he wasn't one of them and because they want the public to believe being Nero in private is over. Not buyin' it.

Polanski isn't allowed in the country and his legal troubles even abroad will never end. And his work has definitely suffered. Have you seen The Ninth Gate? Allen has become marginalized and a pariah to many. I can't see many people feeling good about even going to see a new film of his. Cosby had the same types of accusations as Polanksi and Allen (with women, only one was with a minor) and was able to put them off and afford less controversy then either of them for a much longer time. No one is going to to give Allen or Polanski a honorary degree when Bill was collecting them like coupons after more than a handful allegations came out.

As for Teflon Bill Clinton, that jut points again to the political power differential, he's allowed to put a Kennedy wrapper over his Nero core which the ptb and public seem to be ok. Obama has been afforded the same Jedi mind trick. I think the only lesson in this discourse for Cosby is that he should have gone into politics. Then his 50 rape victims would have been consigned to the dustbin of history and you wouldn't be squirming now with the unfairness of a famous black serial rapist not being afforded the same unassailable immunity as other famous white serial rapists.

Okay, we're never going to see eye to eye on this so, I guess, what...agree to disagree? Just a few points.

First, I don't trust the mainstream media at all, especially cable news and news networks. I refuse to watch and/or listen to any of it, even my once beloved NPR. So I don't care if they produce 5,000 women...I don't do trial by media.

Second, I think every celebrity is owned, not just African American celebrities/politicians. They are ALL tools of the establishment. Of course they're given a certain amount of freedom to make their own decisions, however they better stay within the boundaries or else. They're made and they can be unmade, and sometimes their unmaking has nothing to do with anything they did or didn't do...just that their status and skin color make for the kind of theater that will further their divide and conquer, distract the masses, blah, blah, blah strategy

Third, If Obama leaves this earth without one hell of a scandal warping his "legacy" I will be surprised. All of these idiotic rumors about him will somehow surface as "fact" after he's not useful anymore.

Fourth, Cosby's being charged with aggravated indecent assault. Is that the same as rape? It's bad, but I don't think it's rape, not to mention, he has yet to be convicted. I still say innocent until proven guilty. Ask someone who has been violently raped, unsure if she would even escape with her life, if being fingered in your sleep by a man who you previously consented to have sex with is the same thing as being forcibly raped.

Fifth, as far as the machinery that produces news go, just compare the DARPA designed Internet of ten years ago to the Internet of today. It's a gradual lock down process that's speeding up as of late. Gatekeepers and tolls galore. It's all being recorded, possibly to be used against us at some point down the line. RI is the only places that has not deleted any of my posts or kicked me out. However, it's intimidating to post here, even anonymously, because very articulate and intelligent people such as yourself make average people such as myself appear stupid. It wouldn't surprise me if a few here work for the establishment to ensure we don't stray too far. Not you--I find you very insightful and not at all gatekeeperish--but I do suspect a few people. The bottom line is the establishment employs a hell of a lot of gatekeepers to keep the masses in line, online.

And I fully agree regarding the compartmentalization. Who knows? Maybe the one thing all of these celebrities and politicians have in common is that they're all victims of trauma based mind control. I think that's especially true of A-list actors and some politicians . That hypnotized Bill Clinton video comes to mind.

[brekin]

DivideandConquer wrote:

Okay, we're never going to see eye to eye on this so, I guess, what...agree to disagree? Just a few points.
First, I don't trust the mainstream media at all, especially cable news and news networks. I refuse to watch and/or listen to any of it, even my once beloved NPR. So I don't care if they produce 5,000 women...I don't do trial by media.
Second, I think every celebrity is owned, not just African American celebrities/politicians. They are ALL tools of the establishment. Of course they're given a certain amount of freedom to make their own decisions, however they better stay within the boundaries or else. They're made and they can be unmade, and sometimes their unmaking has nothing to do with anything they did or didn't do...just that their status and skin color make for the kind of theater that will further their divide and conquer, distract the masses, blah, blah, blah strategy
Third, If Obama leaves this earth without one hell of a scandal warping his "legacy" I will be surprised. All of these idiotic rumors about him will somehow surface as "fact" after he's not useful anymore.
Fourth, Cosby's being charged with aggravated indecent assault. Is that the same as rape? It's bad, but I don't think it's rape, not to mention, he has yet to be convicted. I still say innocent until proven guilty. Ask someone who has been violently raped, unsure if she would even escape with her life, if being fingered in your sleep by a man who you previously consented to have sex with is the same thing as being forcibly raped.

Fifth, as far as the machinery that produces news go, just compare the DARPA designed Internet of ten years ago to the Internet of today. It's a gradual lock down process that's speeding up as of late. Gatekeepers and tolls galore. It's all being recorded, possibly to be used against us at some point down the line. RI is the only places that has not deleted any of my posts or kicked me out. However, it's intimidating to post here, even anonymously, because very articulate and intelligent people such as yourself make average people such as myself appear stupid. It wouldn't surprise me if a few here work for the establishment to ensure we don't stray too far. Not you--I find you very insightful and not at all gatekeeperish--but I do suspect a few people. The bottom line is the establishment employs a hell of a lot of gatekeepers to keep the masses in line, online.
And I fully agree regarding the compartmentalization. Who knows? Maybe the one thing all of these celebrities and politicians have in common is that they're all victims of trauma based mind control. I think that's especially true of A-list actors and some politicians . That hypnotized Bill Clinton video comes to mind.

I think we know where each other stands and neither seem to be moving so, yes, I think we should just agree to disagree. I'm in line with some of your points, lukewarm about others and deeply, deeply opposed to a few. But, fwiw, I would not agree that you are average, (who is?) or should consider yourself as so, and I don't want anyone feeling intimidated about posting here. I'm sure some people have thoughts similar to you and while I don't agree with some of them you are probably just putting some of them in rotation. Peace.

[Nordic]

Hypnotized Bill Clinton video ...??

[Iamwhomiam]

What I found perhaps most astounding in DNC's posting was his judgment of Obama, while condemning judgment by others of Cosby. Whether you realize it or not, you judged his character and found it lacking. Your judgment feeds your suspicions.

The smell is something rotting away, Cosby's legacy and his dying, half-blind body.

Camille has had the delay she requested for her deposition approved by a federal judge.

Judge agrees to delay Camille Cosby's deposition in lawsuit

Published January 05, 2016

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. – A federal judge has agreed to postpone the deposition of Bill Cosby's wife in a Massachusetts lawsuit that accuses the comedian of defaming several women.

Camille Cosby had been scheduled to be deposed Wednesday by lawyers for the women who said Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them decades ago.

Last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge David Hennessey denied a motion by Camille Cosby's lawyers to throw out the subpoena.

She appealed and on Monday asked Hennessey to delay the deposition until the appeal is heard.

The judge agreed Tuesday to the postponement, saying it would be unfair to deny Camille Cosby her right to appeal. He says if the appeal is denied, the deposition should be rescheduled quickly.

The women's lawyer says he expects he will eventually be allowed to question her.


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/01/05/judge-agrees-to-delay-camille-cosby-deposition-in-lawsuit/

DNC, Please read Cosby's own word in the depositions he tried to keep buried. Search: Cosby deposition

So we'll have to wait awhile longer to learn if she throws him under the bus.

Sometimes the end truly is bitter.

[divideandconquer]

What I found perhaps most astounding in DNC's posting was his judgment of Obama, while condemning judgment by others of Cosby. Whether you realize it or not, you judged his character and found it lacking. Your judgment feeds your suspicions.

The smell is something rotting away, Cosby's legacy and his dying, half-blind body.

Camille has had the delay she requested for her deposition approved by a federal judge.

Judge agrees to delay Camille Cosby's deposition in lawsuit

Published January 05, 2016

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. – A federal judge has agreed to postpone the deposition of Bill Cosby's wife in a Massachusetts lawsuit that accuses the comedian of defaming several women.

Camille Cosby had been scheduled to be deposed Wednesday by lawyers for the women who said Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them decades ago.

Last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge David Hennessey denied a motion by Camille Cosby's lawyers to throw out the subpoena.

She appealed and on Monday asked Hennessey to delay the deposition until the appeal is heard.

The judge agreed Tuesday to the postponement, saying it would be unfair to deny Camille Cosby her right to appeal. He says if the appeal is denied, the deposition should be rescheduled quickly.

The women's lawyer says he expects he will eventually be allowed to question her.


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/01/05/judge-agrees-to-delay-camille-cosby-deposition-in-lawsuit/

DNC, Please read Cosby's own word in the depositions he tried to keep buried. Search: Cosby deposition

So we'll have to wait awhile longer to learn if she throws him under the bus.

Sometimes the end truly is bitter.

I think Obama is a fraud insofar as he has supported everything he claimed he was going to fight against. He's a politician, first and foremost. However, I'm not saying the rumors about him are true. All I'm saying is the same thing that's happening to Cosby will probably happen to him...because he's a black man. My suspicion is that they will use the sexuality issue in some way. Maybe not even accuse him of a crime, but try to diminish his legacy by getting 50 men to admit he's on the down low, or something stupid like that. If he is either publicly prosecuted or ridiculed/humiliated, despite my feelings for him, I will be the first to point out it's because he's a black man. I really hope I'm wrong.

I did read Cosby's own words. He never admitted to rape. He admitted to buying drugs in hopes of getting sex, like 90% of the male population who have bought liquor/drugs in hopes of getting sex. Most men like sex and they're much more likely to get if if their partner is relaxed. Other than that, he claimed everything was consensual. I KNOW Cosby is a hypocrite, a philanderer, and probably not a very nice guy but I need to see this play out before I'm ready to convict him of rape.

However, my point is, even if he is a rapist, he's certainly not alone, but because he's black he's going to get the OJ treatment. Based on the mainstream media, I used to think OJ did murder two white people...not anymore. The man was found not guilty and 20 years later they won't let us forget that a a black man, who once appealed to whites and blacks, alike--like Cosby-- murdered two white people.

[divideandconquer]

Hypnotized Bill Clinton video ...??

Appears to be hypnotized. Could be another explanation...who knows?

[IanEye]

This film's spy tactics are at their most merciless in using the warm-up material that precedes live broadcasts. President Bush is seen sitting looking vacant for a very long time; Gov. Bill Clinton coughs badly and curses himself for getting teary-eyed; Ross Perot tells what he thinks is a corker of a racy story. Anyone, it might be argued, could be made to look foolish in such a context, and the glimpses seen here appear deliberately unkind. They are riveting in spite of that, and so are the film's campaign sequences, which are fairer since most of them take place in public. One quality worth studying is how a candidate responds to endless petty ambushes along the campaign trail.

Skill in parrying hostile questioners is most apparent when the candidates are seen at close range with inquisitive strangers, as they often are here. Paul Tsongas, who remains good-humored and self-possessed each time he is seen, must field a hostile questioner who wonders if the candidate knows the price of a gallon of milk. At this, the candidate compliments his antagonist for having asked a good question and gives a low estimate, at which the man in the audience wants to know where the Senator does his shopping. Mr. Tsongas' quick reflexes are even better demonstrated by the stir created when Sam Donaldson of ABC shows up in the small auditorium where the candidate is being grilled by voters. "Just remember one thing," he tells this small, star-struck crowd. "I came to see you. He came to see me."

[IanEye]