So do five black men.

Don't tell the cops.

yep. he said he has no reason to get back in shape since nobody wants to hire him anymore and they killed the stargate franchise with universe.

but he's alright though. i think i read somewhere that he owns a chain of restourants and makes a shit ton of money

I thought he retired from acting after the 8th season of stargate to spend time with his daughter. I could be wrong though.

His face looks like he is having an allergic reaction.

Not even watched universe knowing that it fucked the franchise right in the bum

yeah. but it was too little to late. they tried to copy battlestar galactica's style and story telling and people didn't care for it

You mean the newer Battlestar Galactica?

Lol. That was the problem with it. It wasn't necessarily bad, it just was nothing at all like Stargate.

The mom just wasted 60 bucks on something no one wanted. The son could be the nicest kid in the world, but he will still be disappointed when he doesn't get what he asked for. The mom will fell sad that she screwed up and now she learns she can't return it. It is a huge dick move and makes multiple people feel bad on Christmas. How dense can you and manofparody be?

But why would the mom buy 3 copies of the same game even if Gamestop was having a deal on it..... Also if they had a ton of copies in the back it leads me to believe that the game did not sell as well it was intended so i doubt it would be much $ even for a new copy of the game so how do you know that she paid a total of $60.00? Don't that the third copy was free and to the best of my knowledge no GameStop would operate like a grocery store and give you a "buy 2 get 1 free deal" regardless of what game it is because gamestop doesn't give ANYTHING for free, let alone give you a good value for your trade or whatever it is that you're selling.

If the mom brought the receipt back and the purchase was within 30 days i'm pretty sure gamestop would have given her either a refund or some compensation of "in-store credit"

If this green text is even real then the little shit should of said Call of Duty (what ever version he wanted at the time) and not fucking cod.

Ya And everyone should stop calling it GTA V and start spelling out Grand Theft Auto Five.

Shut the fuck up.

If he actually said it right then the mother wouldn't be tricked so easily. Why would you expect the mother to know what the child meant? The child should of at least had some idea that the mother Wouldn't know what he wanted.

Why would the employee purposely trick the mom? He knew what CoD meant. Blaming the kid or the mom is ridiculous.

I trust you have read many of a green text story in your life. Of course he is going to troll (its a fucking green text). If the child said Call of Duty the mother wouldn't of been tricked simple as that.

I'm assuming it is a real story. It probably isn't but if it is it's a dick move and is uncalled for.

It is a dick move and you should never take a green text seriously. ever.

You are retarted

Lets set up a scenario. The kid family is poor and little johnny is sad that he can't play COD online with his friends. His mom works extra hours all month so she can afford to buy him the game he wanted. Finally Christmas hits and the mom realizes that these are not the games he wanted. She can't even get her hard earned money back and the kid still can't play with his friends.

But you are right. That wouldn't ruin the mother's Christmas.

He's obviously a douchebag. Assuming this story is real in the first place, those games probably ran the woman about $100. The kid had to be utterly pissed off, the mom got ripped off and made to look like a retard in front of every member of her family present when the kid opened it, and then can't even get her money back. That scene would definitely be enough to fuck up a christmas morning pretty easily, all because of one retarded cashier who should lose his job.

Fuck you.

>fiveblackmen

I agree to the first thing. It's a tool used by guilty and innocent alike though so... eh, we both get the idea.

As for that second thing, I've not said anything contrary to that, heck, I agreed with it in comment #31, (I don't expect you to have read that, btw, just pointing it out) the issue here isn't to do with what is right/wrong, it's what happens when you indulge freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech is an extremist left-wing ideal, it means there is no regulation whatsoever on what people are legally allowed to say. That means those women can say whatever they want and y'know what? More power to them. They're just exercising that right. Similarly Cosby has the right to say whatever he wants to defend himself and others have the right to defend him.

We on the sidelines also have freedom of thought and we're allowed to make of the situation what we will and form an opinion from it. Right/Wrong doesn't apply to opinions unless they're statements of fact. "Cosby did it!" is a statement of fact and an unprovable one, "I think Cosby did it!" on the other hand is an opinion.

There's nothing wrong going on here by those ideals. If people form opinions on hear-say alone, fine, let them be. Let them protest and scream and believe what they want to. Similarly the same is true for those defending Cosby. The people defending/attacking Cosby might not have the most informed opinions around but that's not what matters. What matters is their right to hold those opinions.

The fact that we live in a society where people are so quick to jump to conclusions is to blame, not the women accusing Cosby. In a more level-headed society things would play out very differently, but that's not our society, so that's what we've got to contend with here. Right/Wrong doesn't matter. So long as people don't go over the line and start harassing him, shit's cool, and even if people do go over the line it's only those that cross the line that are to blame.

That's called finally digesting properly because you had some ruffage.

Yeah well, I don't like it. I'll stick with meat.

Aye, that's the case, though it is suspicious that previous charges have been levied against him and he settled them with money, don't you think? Of all the celebrities you could choose to make false charges against why would you choose someone so seemingly harmless (he's not, he's a total cunt with or without the rape) that so many people hold dear? It's not proof but it is suspicious.

And now so many are coming forwards... also suspicious, though this time it's suspicious for both sides.

However, to better understand this situation it's best to create a hypothetical scenario.

You are a woman. You have had your slick little cunny-lips parted by filthy cosby-cock and you are right-pissed about it. But you've got a career to think about! What would the neighbours think! It's the 70s, the 80s, people might just blame YOU for it. You would always be 'the girl Cosby raped', only you probably had no chance of winning in court because rape is, even at the time, so incredibly hard to prove!

So, you go through your life and realise you can't live with the shame anymore and decide to speak out. You know you've no more proof now than you had then but you've lived your life and you've less to lose now at least. You don't expect people to believe you but you can't abide the thought of Cosby, as old as he is now, dying without facing retribution for what he did to you, so you speak out.

Now, I'm not saying that's the case here, but it might be, or at least it might be close. It makes perfect sense and it's something we've seen many, many times before. Basically, we're at a stage where, no matter what happens, it just comes down to which party you choose to believe

Do you believe Cosby?
Do you believe the victims?

Ultimately it's up to Cosby to fight back against this. We like to say the burden of proof is on the accuser but we all know that's not the case. This is free speech and they're free to accuse him and he's free to fight back and we're free to think what we like

I'm not saying it isn't suspicious but sometimes it is just easier to make something go away with money than it is deal with it in court which could last for years.

Just because we have the right and freedom to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, when it comes to rape cases, there are groups who already decide that the accused party is guilty simply from the accusation and while there have been a number of cases in which the accused is declared innocent because of a lack of evidence, there are also cases in which this lack of evidence hasn't stopped an innocent man from serving time simply because the accuser received some form of payment for being a victim. As I have stated before, I don't know whether he did it or not, but judgement should be withheld until any evidence is made clear of which there seems to be none.

I agree to the first thing. It's a tool used by guilty and innocent alike though so... eh, we both get the idea.

As for that second thing, I've not said anything contrary to that, heck, I agreed with it in comment #31, (I don't expect you to have read that, btw, just pointing it out) the issue here isn't to do with what is right/wrong, it's what happens when you indulge freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech is an extremist left-wing ideal, it means there is no regulation whatsoever on what people are legally allowed to say. That means those women can say whatever they want and y'know what? More power to them. They're just exercising that right. Similarly Cosby has the right to say whatever he wants to defend himself and others have the right to defend him.

We on the sidelines also have freedom of thought and we're allowed to make of the situation what we will and form an opinion from it. Right/Wrong doesn't apply to opinions unless they're statements of fact. "Cosby did it!" is a statement of fact and an unprovable one, "I think Cosby did it!" on the other hand is an opinion.

There's nothing wrong going on here by those ideals. If people form opinions on hear-say alone, fine, let them be. Let them protest and scream and believe what they want to. Similarly the same is true for those defending Cosby. The people defending/attacking Cosby might not have the most informed opinions around but that's not what matters. What matters is their right to hold those opinions.

The fact that we live in a society where people are so quick to jump to conclusions is to blame, not the women accusing Cosby. In a more level-headed society things would play out very differently, but that's not our society, so that's what we've got to contend with here. Right/Wrong doesn't matter. So long as people don't go over the line and start harassing him, shit's cool, and even if people do go over the line it's only those that cross the line that are to blame.

on a larger level, sure it's not as big a deal. But even on a smaller level it can be hurtful. If you're arrested for some sort of local murder, and your name gets aired, even if you didn't do it and are found innocent, there's still people that will think you did it simply because the tv lady said so. In very few cases can airing information like this be helpful to anybody, even for the simple fact of creating bias for people so that it's hard to find a good jury.
And for people who depend on social approval, regardless of facts (like politicians), being accused of something alone can be a career killer.

This is more prominent in rape cases unfortunately. Even though you would expect people to abide by the concept of innocent until proven guilty, generally when a man is accused of rape serious events occur:

-If they work in any professional level job, anything blue collar or having to do with a union, etc. they will lose it. Once your name is cleared you can try to get it back but it's highly unlikely and then any job you try to get afterwards, you have to explain why when they google your name they get 50+ articles about a rape trial you were involved in.

-If you're divorced and have kids, you can fuckin say goodbye to them unless you have a shit ton of money. They will transfer parental rights to the other parent and it could take over a year just to get the judge to decide whether or not to change it to the previous setup. Highly unlikely if the other parent is atleast mildly suitable.

-Better hope the woman who accused you is rich, because otherwise it won't matter if you try for a defamation suit or some other, you'll be out a whole lot of money just to prove you did nothing wrong. Much harder to do nowadays when everyone immediately believes the victim going in and suddenly you have to prove your innocence.

etc etc.
Whether you did it or didn't do it, there is no winning on being accused of rape, only surviving if you didn't commit a crime. Then picking up the pieces of your life afterwards, hoping you'll finally just be left alone.

I honestly believe criminal cases should not be allowed in the media until after the outcome. The trial itself should be open to the public, but news reports should keep the names of any suspects anonymous, and allegations should be confidential to law enforcement and the relevant individuals in the justice system

For most cases, that isn't a problem. It only really becomes a problem if it is a controversial topic or if a celebrity is involved. That is the point at which it gets way too much coverage and you end up with a ton of uneducated/ill-informed celebrities spouting their opinions all over the place and there are way too many stupid people that let the loudest voice do their thinking for them.

on a larger level, sure it's not as big a deal. But even on a smaller level it can be hurtful. If you're arrested for some sort of local murder, and your name gets aired, even if you didn't do it and are found innocent, there's still people that will think you did it simply because the tv lady said so. In very few cases can airing information like this be helpful to anybody, even for the simple fact of creating bias for people so that it's hard to find a good jury.
And for people who depend on social approval, regardless of facts (like politicians), being accused of something alone can be a career killer.

This is more prominent in rape cases unfortunately. Even though you would expect people to abide by the concept of innocent until proven guilty, generally when a man is accused of rape serious events occur:

-If they work in any professional level job, anything blue collar or having to do with a union, etc. they will lose it. Once your name is cleared you can try to get it back but it's highly unlikely and then any job you try to get afterwards, you have to explain why when they google your name they get 50+ articles about a rape trial you were involved in.

-If you're divorced and have kids, you can fuckin say goodbye to them unless you have a shit ton of money. They will transfer parental rights to the other parent and it could take over a year just to get the judge to decide whether or not to change it to the previous setup. Highly unlikely if the other parent is atleast mildly suitable.

-Better hope the woman who accused you is rich, because otherwise it won't matter if you try for a defamation suit or some other, you'll be out a whole lot of money just to prove you did nothing wrong. Much harder to do nowadays when everyone immediately believes the victim going in and suddenly you have to prove your innocence.

etc etc.
Whether you did it or didn't do it, there is no winning on being accused of rape, only surviving if you didn't commit a crime. Then picking up the pieces of your life afterwards, hoping you'll finally just be left alone.

Are you saying a alleged victim is less of a victim if they wait 49 years to say anything !!!!!

They are not less of a victim, they are less of a CREDIBLE victim. Sorry but you have to provide evidence this crime occurred, it's hard for people to remember that when someone accuses another person of a crime, that persons life depends entirely on how the people viewing their case approach it. A victim is not granted an automatic win because they are a victim, they still need to provide evidence.

Taking 20+ years to report a rape isn't going to help me decide to ruin a mans life and lock him in prison.

What I am saying is that it is very suspicious that they waited so long to come forward and that there are suddenly so many of them claiming rape. It is well past the statute of limitations on most of these cases so they can't press charges and, even if there wasn't a statute of limitation, there is no evidence. My point is that you are innocent until proven guilty and there are a ton of people who have decided, without evidence, that he is guilty and that is wrong. This whole shitstorm has caused irreparable damage to his career and, if he is innocent, that is really fucked up. If he's guilty than he deserves far worse.

The numbers certainly don't help them, if it was 1 woman, I would say she is looking to get money. If it was 2 women, I would think it's possible something went down. It's like fuckin 30 women now, which leads me to believe most if not all are spouting bullshit.

Because with this many women we are left with 2 scenarios,

1.) The majority of these women are lying although I can't rule out if maybe 1 is telling the truth, however no evidence has been provided so we default to non-belief.

2.) Bill Cosby is a SERIAL RAPIST and over his entire life not a single woman he attacked came forward in a timely manner? I find it very strange that one of the only women who went to the police went over a year after the rape supposedly occurred and during that year she not only continued a professional relationship with Cosby but frequently visited his home for events and such. And she wonders why the police said he claim wasn't credible.

Option 1 is far more likely in my opinion.

I hope so. People have always been targeting celebrities for money. That's why I'm still skeptical.

it doesn't matter if he's proven innocent at this point anyway. The second some dumbass says a celebrity did something with absolutely no evidence, there's already a giant amount of garbage that believes it simply based on hearsay. It's Michael Jackson all over again, no matter what, there's always someone taking advantage of a celebrity who has done fuck all to anyone.

What I really hate about this case is that so many people have already decided that he is guilty without any proof or evidence of any kind. He is guilty simply because someone accused him of something and that is fucked up. If it goes to trial and he is found guilty than fine but at this point,if he did actually rape any of them, they waited far too long to come forward.

I honestly believe criminal cases should not be allowed in the media until after the outcome. The trial itself should be open to the public, but news reports should keep the names of any suspects anonymous, and allegations should be confidential to law enforcement and the relevant individuals in the justice system

For most cases, that isn't a problem. It only really becomes a problem if it is a controversial topic or if a celebrity is involved. That is the point at which it gets way too much coverage and you end up with a ton of uneducated/ill-informed celebrities spouting their opinions all over the place and there are way too many stupid people that let the loudest voice do their thinking for them.

on a larger level, sure it's not as big a deal. But even on a smaller level it can be hurtful. If you're arrested for some sort of local murder, and your name gets aired, even if you didn't do it and are found innocent, there's still people that will think you did it simply because the tv lady said so. In very few cases can airing information like this be helpful to anybody, even for the simple fact of creating bias for people so that it's hard to find a good jury.
And for people who depend on social approval, regardless of facts (like politicians), being accused of something alone can be a career killer.

This is more prominent in rape cases unfortunately. Even though you would expect people to abide by the concept of innocent until proven guilty, generally when a man is accused of rape serious events occur:

-If they work in any professional level job, anything blue collar or having to do with a union, etc. they will lose it. Once your name is cleared you can try to get it back but it's highly unlikely and then any job you try to get afterwards, you have to explain why when they google your name they get 50+ articles about a rape trial you were involved in.

-If you're divorced and have kids, you can fuckin say goodbye to them unless you have a shit ton of money. They will transfer parental rights to the other parent and it could take over a year just to get the judge to decide whether or not to change it to the previous setup. Highly unlikely if the other parent is atleast mildly suitable.

-Better hope the woman who accused you is rich, because otherwise it won't matter if you try for a defamation suit or some other, you'll be out a whole lot of money just to prove you did nothing wrong. Much harder to do nowadays when everyone immediately believes the victim going in and suddenly you have to prove your innocence.

etc etc.
Whether you did it or didn't do it, there is no winning on being accused of rape, only surviving if you didn't commit a crime. Then picking up the pieces of your life afterwards, hoping you'll finally just be left alone.

Are you saying a alleged victim is less of a victim if they wait 49 years to say anything !!!!!

They are not less of a victim, they are less of a CREDIBLE victim. Sorry but you have to provide evidence this crime occurred, it's hard for people to remember that when someone accuses another person of a crime, that persons life depends entirely on how the people viewing their case approach it. A victim is not granted an automatic win because they are a victim, they still need to provide evidence.

Taking 20+ years to report a rape isn't going to help me decide to ruin a mans life and lock him in prison.

What I am saying is that it is very suspicious that they waited so long to come forward and that there are suddenly so many of them claiming rape. It is well past the statute of limitations on most of these cases so they can't press charges and, even if there wasn't a statute of limitation, there is no evidence. My point is that you are innocent until proven guilty and there are a ton of people who have decided, without evidence, that he is guilty and that is wrong. This whole shitstorm has caused irreparable damage to his career and, if he is innocent, that is really fucked up. If he's guilty than he deserves far worse.