In a PR blitz before his trial, Bill Cosby blames racism for sexual assault claims
Options
Comments
-
The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
He admitted that he took drugs with these women and had consensual sex with them. He never said he drugged any woman he gave/offered them drugs. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
She drove up to his house for whatever reason. She might have given the ? the ? but he drugged and ? her first. Who the ? knows?
As far as the law is concerned nothing matters except whether the sex was consensual. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
She drove up to his house for whatever reason. She might have given the ? the ? but he drugged and ? her first. Who the ? knows?
As far as the law is concerned nothing matters except whether the sex was consensual.
so her word against his basically??
we convicting ? now off the words of a white ? !!?
really??!
what proof this ? got besides goin up to his house at night while his wife was sleep to read the bible?? -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
1 down 57 to go -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
She drove up to his house for whatever reason. She might have given the ? the ? but he drugged and ? her first. Who the ? knows?
As far as the law is concerned nothing matters except whether the sex was consensual.
so her word against his basically??
we convicting ? now off the words of a white ? !!?
really??!
what proof this ? got besides goin up to his house at night while his wife was sleep to read the bible??
It is her word against his. 90% of ? cases are his word versus hers.
-
Some of you fatherless ? must of only had ghostdad as a father figure ? bill Cosby and ? them white ? he burnt bridges in the black community when he joined the white lynchmob and started talking ? about black folk now he wants support, ? that go ask them crackers for help
-
ghostdog56 wrote: »Some of you fatherless ? must of only had ghostdad as a father figure ? bill Cosby and ? them white ? he burnt bridges in the black community when he joined the white lynchmob and started talking ? about black folk now he wants support, ? that go ask them crackers for help
Yeah as much as he threw black people under the bus I still can't side with white women over Cosby. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
1 down 57 to go
the burden of proof aint on the defense.. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
She drove up to his house for whatever reason. She might have given the ? the ? but he drugged and ? her first. Who the ? knows?
As far as the law is concerned nothing matters except whether the sex was consensual.
so her word against his basically??
we convicting ? now off the words of a white ? !!?
really??!
what proof this ? got besides goin up to his house at night while his wife was sleep to read the bible??
It is her word against his. 90% of ? cases are his word versus hers.
thays not answering my question.. -
I'm riding with Bill on this one. #FreeSuge
-
Shoutout rudy huxtable
-
-
-
BOSSExcellence wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »The debate over being drugged or providing drugs that were taken willingly is semantics.
The most important part of the subject is whether sex was consensual. The broads say it wasn't, so regardless of how they got drugs they did not consent to sex which means it's ? .
There's no two ways about it. His defense should be that he never had sex with these women instead of arguing how drugs got their system
so the ? drove up to his house while his wife was sleep to have non consensual sex with him?!
got it!
She drove up to his house for whatever reason. She might have given the ? the ? but he drugged and ? her first. Who the ? knows?
As far as the law is concerned nothing matters except whether the sex was consensual.
so her word against his basically??
we convicting ? now off the words of a white ? !!?
really??!
what proof this ? got besides goin up to his house at night while his wife was sleep to read the bible??
this the ? thats ruining the world.... anything a female say is taken at gospel -
-
This aint a one on one fight...
-
Have any of these broads told their side of the story in a non-romance novel type of way yet? I checked out a while ago cuz all of the chicks comin foward just sounded like old hoes flashbackin to they glory days and I started feelin like I was hearin excerpts from 50 Shades or some ? ...
"The FIRST time..."
"The SECOND time..."
"I went to his hotel room at 3 am to take him some chicken..."
"He just spent me around! He didn't even have to worry about my panties because I wasn't wearin any!"
Goin back for seconds, thirds, and forths... Hotels at 3 in the morn... No drawls...
I couldn't listen no more cuz it sounded to me like them hoes was just gettin ? ...
But.....maybe I missed some ? ... *shrugs* -
Have any of these broads told their side of the story in a non-romance novel type of way yet? I checked out a while ago cuz all of the chicks comin foward just sounded like old hoes flashbackin to they glory days and I started feelin like I was hearin excerpts from 50 Shades or some ? ...
"The FIRST time..."
"The SECOND time..."
"I went to his hotel room at 3 am to take him some chicken..."
"He just spent me around! He didn't even have to worry about my panties because I wasn't wearin any!"
Goin back for seconds, thirds, and forths... Hotels at 3 in the morn... No drawls...
I couldn't listen no more cuz it sounded to me like them hoes was just gettin ? ...
But.....maybe I missed some ? ... *shrugs*
dont forget how he walked into dressin rooms and stuffed his ? in these ? mouth..
dont forget that one.. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »so basically a ? cant tell ? ? unless he perfect!!?
okay..
got it..
yall will take his money go to college but cant take his criticism!!?
yeh..
two.. mothers!!
Defending a man you don't know like he's your daddy and who has ? on people like you while claiming people were raised by 2 mothers and are being sensitive....
-
i jus got home..
goin to sleep..
maybe later lesbian.. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »The same ? that lectured ? for years and gave us the ? ? pound cake speech?
im the same ? that be lecturing my cousins and lil homies..
ur point??
u got kids?? probably not..
good!
but i got custody of one who jus turned 16 and another thats 17 and i be on these ? head about they grades and behavior in school..
maybe i should jus shut the ? up cause who am i to talk right??
If you start ? hoes...yes you should have a coke and a smile and shut the ? up
Look BossHuxtable this aint ending well for ya daddy...it just aint
cause he ? them cause they said so?!
and u right..
its a very strong possibility this wont end well for him..
its jus telling how u ? cheer the game on tho!?
all im sayin is dont pick and choose when to root..
if u down wit the system and how it works be all the way down wit it..
yall ? really applaudin the destruction of ur own..
this ? is crazy to me.
Or maybe the destruction of a man accused of sexually assaulting women....this you gotta ride for a person just because they're black no matter what is destructive and naive as ? -
I don't believe that man touched ,? , or fondled any one of them lyin ass hos
He's on tape admitting to giving some of the women drugs -
i said later lesbian..
-
BOSSExcellence wrote: »i jus got home..
goin to sleep..
maybe later lesbian..
You the one in here acting like Kane going to see Pernell in Don't Be A Menace..."Bill....you was like my dad man..."
-
whatever the truth is...which I do believe the ? did some foul ? with at least 1/2 of them women....
this ? here will never NOT be funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2upS28i8qs
