Friday, September 30, 2016

Clinton Vs. Cosby

They're making a “big thing” about Bill Cosby's sex escapades in the distant past, because most of it seems to have been accomplished through the use of drugs. The fact that none of his “victims” have said a word until ONE comes forward, and NONE of them have any CONCRETE proof, makes no difference. Most of them just want a big payday. Cosby has been “convicted" by the media and his career is ruined, even if he is never successfully prosecuted. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had a similar history, maybe not by use of drugs, but he had sex with many women, some willingly, and others through forcible rape, and the media thinks he is “cute.” Similarly, not a peep out of any of them until ONE comes out and talks, again without any real evidence. That was destroyed the first time they took a shower after the rape His wife calls all his sex partners “bimbo eruptions” and is now running for president in her own right. If she wins, it will mean a “target rich” environment for Bill again. What's the difference between the two? One's name is Cosby and the other's name is Clinton. Nobody seriously “goes after” a Clinton, notwithstanding Bill lost his law license for five years and his campaign (us) paid a big fine for lying to Congress. Of course, that meant nothing to him, as he was making speeches for a LOT of money, not practicing law. The Clintons are “untouchable.” The fix is in. That has become obvious. (Just common sense)

No comments: