>First off, this whole Cosby thing was revived because Woody
>Allen was in the news because his ex wife wrote an open letter
>discussing how he "molested and married his step daughter"
>(Mr. Nigga- Mos Def).

Cool. We got folks talking about this is all one gigantic conspiracy to take him down and/or being done as a "cover" for sinister plots. Case is over citing smoking laws as the sinister plot being covered up by the Bill Cosby takedown.

>Gawker or BuzzFeed then does a nice deflection of Woody Allen
>by asking us if we remember about Cosby. Funy enough, I'm
>pretty certain Case One posted a "what about Bill Cosby's
>dirt?" during this same time frame.

....that's amusing re: case. As far as Gawker or BF, it's pretty standard fare for a lot of people- media and otherwise- have a strong tendency toward the YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT_______?????? reaction.

>Now, Hannibal bringing it up in Philly. Is it really crazy to
>believe Hannibals agent or manager may have told him to go
>there?

This is where the wheels fall off. When the only evidence one can present is the "is it really crazy to believe....." argument, it's telling. The Cosby thing has bubbled for decades. Hell I learned about it years ago. I've seen it on OKP a handful of times prior to Hannibal. It was a matter of time, Hannibal or no Hannibal. That said, sure, it's not "crazy" to believe that it's possible that someone tapped him on the shoulder.

And here's yet another problem: That's not an actual trail to follow. There's zero evidence to support that notion. Sure, it's "believable", but definitely not a reasonable conclusion to draw. Then you consider the fact that he's nowhere near prominent enough for the resulting tidal wave to have been part of some master plan.

I suppose you could argue that it was a more effective tact to try and get the "underground buzz" going or whatever but again, we're talking 100% speculation.

>Didnt SNL try to get Eddie to shit on Cosby during
>there anniversary? Eddie didnt fall for it tho.

I dunno about that. It's a timely topic and EVERYONE is fair game in comedy so let's dead the notion that NBC/SNL was a part of the kill Cosby conspiracy through Eddie Murphy "shitting" on him.

>Now.. about trying to buy NBC. Why the fuck are people
>bringing up Bills bank balance when discussing this theory?
>Who the hell spends their own money to buy a TV station? A guy
>like Bill would get an investment group together to make that
>purchase.

I'm pretty sure he'd have to have a controlling stake to be the main buyer of such a massive network. Still, the notion that they'd take him down for trying to buy a network, something NBC shareholders would, you know, actually have to have signed off on.

Is there a clear and realistic motive for this to be the catalyst for this huge conspiracy, or is it just more loosely fitting "YEAH THINK ABOUT IT, ITS NOT CRAZY TO BELIEVE!!!" nonsense?

>Last but not least... the timing. Is it a distraction? Nah.
>The WH doesnt plant seeds 20 years earlier. However, the
>people who made tons of cash of Cosby and defended and
>protected him for 20 0r 30 years finally did a shoulder shrug
>and we have to wonder why. Did he piss them off? Age out? Stop
>making them money?

Is this a real question?

Once that wave hits, nobody in their right mind wants that association. This is such a common sense question that anyone asking it is just trying to find an out for Bill. People who "made tons of cash" off him when he was making them money hand over fist would now stand to LOSE TONS OF CASH if they stood by him. If you have to ask why people would shy away from a guy with ever increasing rape accusations you're just plain trying so hard to think outside the box you've forgotten all common sense.

>Its always funny when a scandal hits and we find out
>publications and the powers that be knew about it for 5 or 10
>years but never said a word because..... well, thays what we
>all want to know.

Publications? Powers that be? Seriously?

Bruh

That's just LIFE.

That's not confined to these high profile cases. That's life. Especially when you're dealing with people who may have something to lose and nothing to gain by turning someone in. Sure you may have the busy body old lady up the street ready and willing to snitch on any and everyone, but most people are just trying to live and mind their own business.

Again, there's such a sensible conclusion to draw from this question I'm kind of taken aback that it's even being asked.

>Now... I'm definitely on the fence with this Cosby shit
>because he was a positive Black icon and for some reason it
>seems like all our Black male icons either get killed or get
>called a rapist, pedo, womanizer, etc.

What does that have to do with the facts of the case? It's far easier to lump him into that "well all black men wind up this way" category than to look at HIM and evaluate whether or not there's fire feeding the smoke. There's just WAY too many allegations to ignore and say this is just another in a long line of Them coming after a successful black man. The "timing" of this blowing up is immaterial to whether or not the allegations are true, and/or to what degree.

>So... yeah, I'm one of those Black men who doesnt trust a
>bunch of white women who all claimed they were repeatedly
>raped and kept going back because they were under his spell.

On the flip, I think the nature of the claims and the sheer number makes it more likely than not a few of them are just trying to cash in on some class action shit. I have no evidence for that, so it's just an opinion and there's nothing I can point to to prove that thought, so I won't present it as anything more than a personal opinion. I'm guessing those are a minority though.