Over the years I had read various articles about Cosby in which people who knew him well spoke of what a jerk he was, that he had a huge, insufferable ego. I didn't really give them much thought at the time because most celebrities probably have pretty big egos, so what's the big deal, right? But now it appears that he didn't just have a big ego but a monstrous ego. Of course, that still is not proof that he sexually abused and drugged and raped those women, but it certainly adds credibility to the likelihood of it.
I say let the Duggars express their narrow-minded, bigoted views all they want. They serve as a good example of how people ought NOT to be. But their show should be taken off the air (it should never have made it to air in the first place) because they are lunatics and as such their rabbit-breeding life-style ought not to be celebrated in any way. Any couple who has 19 kids is seriously psycho. There is NOTHING virtuous or praiseworthy about that, and to make celebrities of them is disgusting.
Here is yet another nail in the coffin of Bill Cosby's phony public image:
But I imagine that your response will be that this 90 year-old gentleman who worked closely with Cosby for a number of years and knew him well is just wanting his 15 minutes of fame, too?
I'm not really sure what to take away from this article. We will probably never know the truth of what happened but it's really hard to discredit the stories of so many women coming forward. And these are women who did not know each other and yet their stories are so similar in so many ways. And they have very little, if anything, to gain from coming forward at this late date, knowing full well that there is no way of proving their allegations. Yet so many people seem to be in love with the polished public image of Bill Cosby that they refuse to even allow for the possibility, let alone the probability, that he committed such heinous acts against young, naïve, highly vulnerable women.
It is likely that Mr. Cosby was very generous and gracious in many ways besides the instance that Mr. Cook cites here. But it is also highly probable that he was manipulative,insidious and coercive when it came to satisfying his sexual appetites. And so how are we supposed to view such a man with such a split personality? Somehow I don't think that it's right to say, "Well, yeah, he drugged, raped, and sexually abused women, but then there is Mallen's story and what a great, sensitive guy he was, so what the hell"...and then everyone join in singing "He's a jolly good fellow!"
Yeah, those were the days, June G. The Christian fundie cretins still believed in witches, black people were considered to be 3/5 of a person, and women were relegated to home and hearth and in general looked upon as inferior. What an enlightened age that was! I wish it was possible to send every one of you fundamentalist half-wits back there to stay.
As for Thomas Jefferson, you do know, don't you, that the Bible of which you speak, that he had sent to the native Americans, was his own revised and highly condensed version? The only part of the Bible that he deemed to be true and morally uplifting was the New Testament, and even in the NT he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. He viewed him as no savior with supernatural powers but merely as a wise (and mortal) teacher. He omitted all the parts that portrayed him as divine, including the virgin birth and the resurrection, and left intact only those teachings of his that emphasized love, compassion, and understanding. He did not send the Bibles in order to evangelize or "save" them (the particular tribe he sent them to, the Kaskaskia, had already converted to Catholicism) but rather to simply provide some positive moral lessons for them to ponder.
Jefferson's religious/philosophical views were so unconventional for his day that he was considered by most of the fundamentalist Christians - your ilk, Ms. Griffin - to be an atheist. He was admittedly not an atheist but neither was he the sort of Christian that you and your fundie clan would recognize as a "true" Christian - you know, the kind that looks for reasons to hate those who live and believe differently than you and to worship a God that is more intent on punishing and judging than on loving and showing mercy.
Regarding the entire Jesus story: many of the more liberal or open-minded Christians today are quick to admit that the Old Testament is a composite of ancient myths and as such not to be taken literally. They readily acknowledge that the tall tales are so far beyond the realm of reason that anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense could not possibly accept them as actual history. Yet, they still cling to the Jesus story as actually happening - that a man of supernatural abilities was virgin-born, performed all manner of physically impossible "miracles" like walking on water, healing the blind and the deaf and the dumb, raising corpses from the dead, raising HIMSELF from the dead, and ascending bodily into heaven. But that tale is every bit as fantastical and absurd as any of the Old Testament tales. So why can they not look upon it with the same degree of objectivity and reason as they do the tales of the Old Testament? I find it interesting that their reasoning powers seem to be rendered useless when it comes to Jesus the "savior."
All, still waiting for you to explain to us how Obama's executive orders are lawless and unconstitutional while those of all the previous presidents were not. But you know what? Maybe you did already but we "brainless liberals," in our lack of brains and all, missed it. Sorry about that. But we're being careful to pay attention this time. So go ahead. Break it down for us in really simple terms so that we can understand.
BTW.... I'm sure you weren't name calling when you called us
"brainless liberals," were you? It's just us libs who do the name calling, isn't it? Shame on us.
Regarding librul's link to one of GWB's more eloquent moments:
Ah, the quick-wittedness and eloquence of George W. Bush! They don't come any more "presidential" than he. I really miss the glib-tongued old fart. Miss him like a canker sore.
Read my posts again, All. I challenge you to point out anywhere that I called you a name - other than All, that is. If you think that Republicans received some sort of mandate against the "liberal agenda" as the reason they won the mid-terms, then you certainly deserve to be called a name - something that denotes your utter ignorance and naivete. Republicans won because the Democrats stayed home, and they stayed home because they knew there were no Democrat politicians with the balls to stand up for them. Too many Democrats have sold out to the right-wing agenda and have become neo-liberals and corporate lackeys. Just try to repeal Obamacare. And try to cut and gut Social Security and Medicare. You will find out in a hurry where the people really stand.
BTW...you still haven't explained to us how Obama's executive orders are lawless and unconstitutional while those of all the previous presidents were not. I guess you forgot, huh?
Caddy, I think that your hedge must have been broken a long time ago and too many serpents have been loosed and smitten thee on the brain.