Jussie Smollett thread comes to mind! Fucking morons there banned me twice now! 1st I can't remember why, possibly for going against everyone in a particular thread, then 2nd time they had no right to ban me but did it under the fact I had created another account, even though I was disagreeing with them in saying the Covington kids did nothing wrong...
Other than four or five of the kids making that dumb tomahawk hand gesture at one point after their group was approached, yeah, the kids did nothing wrong. At one point the kids boo the black Israelites for saying gay people [although they used a slur] shouldn't have rights. At another point, Nick Sandman tells another kid to not argue with a native american who is telling the kids to go back to Europe. Then there's that stupid smile, which was a result of confrontation, and didn't last very long either. For the most part, he just stood there trying to remain fairly expressionless.
I'd also like to stick up for the Native Americans who were there, because a lot of them didn't do anything wrong either, especially the ones seen earlier in the extended video.
And yeah, you'll get banned here for using a 2nd account while your 1st is banned as well. It's pretty common.
What kind of evidence was there against Cosby?
If I'm remembering correctly, he admitted on the stand that he gave drugs to women that would have knocked them out before he had sex with them. The thing is, he said this was consensual and done with their permission. My guess is they could prove he had the drugs, so he had to admit something.
Now imagine you're about to have sex with one of the biggest celebrities ever, and they said to you "do you mind if I give you something to knock you out, and then have sex with your near lifeless body?" Does that sound like a thing people would say yes to?
Between that and the number of accusers, I do feel comfortable making a judgement there.
Same with Harvey Weinstein. Between the number of accusers, and the audio of him pressuring women for sexual favors, I'm also good with making a judgement there.
How much evidence was there against OJ?
With OJ, if I remember right, the issue was the evidence that wasn't admissible in court. There was a fair amount of it, and the public heard about it, but the jury wasn't able to. I forgot the exact details, but I'm not one to make a judgement there. I think it's quite possible that he did it, but the man had his day in court, so I don't support others judging him beyond that. A lot of people might disagree with that, I'm aware. If I researched the details of the case, maybe I'd even change my mind.