>anyone who doesn't light up at the sight of a "breaking news
>ticker"
>& last time i checked time is of the essence when it comes to
>criminal justice proceedings. they have a whole show about it
>called 48 hours.

LOL you can’t be serious. You cited a crime show? The first 48? Are being obtuse in citing something so completely unrelated to the obvious context of my statement?

The timing of this blowing up is irrelevant to whether or not the allegations have merit. Your odd, out of context diversions do not change this simple fact. It’s telling that you cite such generalized situations where “time” matters while failing to address why the specific timing of these specific charges is of import to this specific case.

>yeah & i have EVERY reason to trust that the american justice
>system will get to the bottom of this million-dollar question.
>smh.

Uh..ok. Yet another nonsensical response. I cited the only question that matters in relation to your WHY NOW diversion. Your stance continues to be little more than “the fix is in!”. Further, you’ve addressed this “fix” with nothing more than rhetoric and “questions” to which you have no actual answers. Your lack of faith in the legal system has zero impact on the fundamental question at hand, which, again, is simply “Is Bill Cosby guilty of these accusations?”.

So, you (through sarcasm, please don’t play dumb anymore) state that you have no reason to trust our justice system to get to the bottom of this question. What does that mean exactly? That he’s an innocent man being railroaded? That he’s guilty but the way that he’ll be found guilty will be unjust? Please, actually explain something for once and try and use some actual facts to support your position, or, at a minimum, a reasonable set of dots to connect that doesn’t rely on the “THINK ABOUT IT!” logic you’re currently using as a crutch.

>>I assume there's a lot of dirt under the fingernails of
>many.
>
>so you agree, then. game, blouses.

Uh…. Ok. Do you not understand the issue there? Yeah, I believe a lot of people have dirt. But, you know, evidence matters far more than suspicion.


>there's a huge difference between a straw man and a group of
>accomplices with similar interests...
And yet you completely underscore my point with this statement.

Note how you say “accomplices with similar interests”.

You didn’t name names. You didn’t explain who, how, when, where, or why. Not even loosely. Just, you know, the ever mysterious “They”. Powers That Be. Them. You know, THE MAN.

Which makes it a strawman, just a vague thing to argue against that doesn’t really exist. Your argument amounts to “think about it!”. You HAVE NO ACTUAL NAMES. OR CRIMES. OR EVIDENCE. OR ANYTHING. To cite. Nothing. At all. Zero.

Which iis why you keep falling back on “They.” You know, “Accomplices with similar interests.”

Who are these accomplices? Give us some names.
What did they do, exactly? What proof do you have? What facts guide this conclusion?
How did they do whatever they did? Did they hide evidence? Did they bribe police officers? Judges? Did They pay off the victims? Whatever this is, do you have evidence to cite?

And that’s the problem: You can’t answer any of these questions with any degree of certainty and you certainly have no real evidence.

So, even if it “makes sense” that some other party had to do some fixing to keep things under control, unless you have specifics that implicate them ALONGSIDE Bill, not as some means of exonerating him, then it doesn’t matter. If/when “They” become known along with the specific nature of their involvement, then by all means… fry their ass(es) too. Until then you’re just another guy leaning on THINK ABOUT IT as a defense.

>>Until/unless there's evidence suggesting an a actual cover
>up-
>>not an implied cover up created under "think about it"
>logic-
>>then yeah, that's a worthwil thread to pull and that's only
>>because that person should be held responsible too. Not
>>because it will exonerate Bill Cosby and let's be clear,
>>that's the only reason you're bringing this up, as a hail
>Mary
>>to suggest bill should be allowed to waltz.
>
>if you really have to think about whether or not this info was
>known & covered up then, you're either white or just lying.


Where did I say I needed to “think about” whether there was a cover up?

There’s a distinct difference between suspecting there were people in power positions who either looked the other way or actually did some fixing and actually having substantial evidence and that’s what you continue to avoid.

Note how, as with EVERYTHING YOU’VE GOT TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT, you don’t actually argue my actual words. Just this broad, general, “well if you don’t think this way than you’re lying or white”, in response to something you’ve imagined I’ve said as opposed to actually tackling my actual issues head on. It’s telling how you avoid specifics like the plague and lean instead on broad generalizations.

>& i love how you ommitted my saying that cosby is guilty of at
>least some of the allegations. good job.

I love how you pretend that my tackling of all your half assed tin foil logic and immaterial questions was supposed to extend to the one statement you made that had some truth. I went in on all the things that were wrong with what you wrote and you question why I didn’t go in on the one factual sentiment expressed in your hilariously basic train of thought?

NO SHIT. I didn’t argue against something I agree with. What on earth was I thinking.

Still, you’re spending an awful lot of time and energy and words pointing at nameless faces and shadowy powers that be and avoiding anything remotely specific and then throwing out that he’s guilty anyways as an afterthought. For a guy who thinks he’s guilty you’re awfully concerned by these vague accomplices, especially considering that, you know, you don’t have any actual evidence or even a name to point your finger at.

Lol

Yeah