NEWS:Micheal Jackson search warrant.

[jon_hill987]

It wasn't a bribe because they blackmailed him.

 

"pay up or we file a lawsuit" that sort'a thing.

[CapNColostomy]

It doesn't matter what you want to call it, or who came up with the idea of solving it with the almighty dollar. The fact is, were that anyone else, the state would've picked up the charges, like I already said. If only I had piles of money...I'd rape one of your kids, or you kids as it were, and buy my way out of it, to prove a point. Just for a goof.

 

And is it just me or did he turn loose of that money awefully easy? If he was so farkin' innocent, why not stand his ground? Say "**** no! I ain't about to pay! I didn't do anything wrong, you greedy bastids! See you in court, ****wits! Prove I did something there!" The money spent keeping his witness quiet could've paid for a badass lawyer two or three times, and he might have came out looking like something other than the weird child molestor pervert most everyone thinks he is. Giving up the money as easy as he did, in my opinion, did not help his reputation whatsoever. Made it seem shady. Like a way to sweep it under the rug and get it out of public eye ASAFP.

 

And even if he didn't do anything wrong, I hope he's found guilty, jailed, and raped whilst incarcerated if for no other reason than helping along this feeble minded "pop" music that people can't seem to get enough of. Seriously. Enough with that crap.

[idle]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Personaly, police should have done this long ago. remember in Pinochio, they used a theme park to draw in kids to turn them into donkeys?

 

Micheal Jacskon uses a theme park to draw in kids for his own unspeackable pleasures.

 

That is the most amazing thing I've ever heard. I think you just put the anal in analogy!

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Giving up the money as easy as he did, in my opinion, did not help his reputation whatsoever. Made it seem shady. Like a way to sweep it under the rug and get it out of public eye ASAFP.

 

Oh yeah, that is true in a sense. But then maybe, just maybe his lawyers would have advised him spending a fraction of the money in an out-of-court settlement with the idea that people would have some faith in humankind, in fatherhood and motherhood. What kind of parent would take a wad of cash instead of putting their child's abuser away for a long time anyway? My optimistic side says no-one, which means they were in it for the money and Jacko was an easy target my pessimistic? Well, I hope both sides are happy with themselves.

 

As for the current case, I'm sick of it. Jacko is an easy target and it comes off to me as more of a way for Rupert Murdoch and the media to make more money. Sickening.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy And even if he didn't do anything wrong, I hope he's found guilty, jailed, and raped whilst incarcerated if for no other reason than helping along this feeble minded "pop" music that people can't seem to get enough of. Seriously. Enough with that crap.

 

You rebel you.

[El Sitherino]

My guess though would be that the state had a large lack of evidence so it would've been futile to further the case. And with noone willing to testify, short of forcing a witness to show they couldn't really do anything.

 

I personally don't care anymore. Anyone willing to let their kid still go there after the accusations is an idiot. Why would you let your kid go there if you think MJ is a child molestor? Would you willingly let your child go to an accused child molestors house? Of course not.

[idle]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

My guess though would be that the state had a large lack of evidence so it would've been futile to further the case. And with noone willing to testify, short of forcing a witness to show they couldn't really do anything.

 

I personally don't care anymore. Anyone willing to let their kid still go there after the accusations is an idiot. Why would you let your kid go there if you think MJ is a child molestor? Would you willingly let your child go to an accused child molestors house? Of course not.

 

Unless you were facked in the head and were banking on a huge out-of-court settlement deal from the easiest most obvious multi-millionaire of course.

[El Sitherino]

Nah, I don't have that much motivation. Too much effort.

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by idel

Unless you were facked in the head and were banking on a huge out-of-court settlement deal from the easiest most obvious multi-millionaire of course.

 

Finally some one with the same opinion as me, when i said that, no one believed me.

 

there is no other reason why these people would let their kids go to "Jacko's".

[kipperthefrog]

Here is humor pictures to cheer us all up:

 

Miceal Jackson 1:

 

Mikeal Jackson 2:

 

there is a third one, it is my favorie.

 

...however, i'm afraid i'll get banned for that one. It is a parody of the "Bad" album.

 

You can also go Google for more Mike humor.

 

Edit

originally posted by idel:

That is the most amazing thing I've ever heard. I think you just put the anal in analogy!

 

Thanks! I see you also honor me by puting that quote in your signature as well! My Dad made that parabe!

[kipperthefrog]

Okay, there is the latest news:

 

Click

 

He could have molested other kids.

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

He could have molested other kids.

 

And you know this... how...

[ET Warrior]

The Irony is...you have this thread....but then you also made THIS thread.

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

The Irony is...you have this thread....but then you also made THIS thread.

 

*giggles*

 

Oh ET, you slay me

 

 

 

As for the Michael Jackson hubbub, I'll wait till they decide if he's guilty or not. I think he's guilty, but there's a small chance that he might not be, so I can't pass judgement until there is enough evidence to do so.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Here is humor pictures to cheer us all up:

 

Miceal Jackson 1:

 

Mikeal Jackson 2:

 

First of all, there is nothing funny or humorous about child molesting, molesters or something like that. Funny pictures is one thing, having those in here is like I'm telling jokes about how your dead father is being analised by earthworms.

 

Also, if he likes to pay tons of money to completely change his look into whatever he wants, FINE. Noone is hurt by that. Maybe he's strange, a freak, a punk and eats cornflakes without milk, all that is completely fine and irrelevant even if he is 'a molester'. The only question is: molester or not.

 

Third, like said before, I cannot imagine another reason why those parents let their kids 'go there', knowing about the 'rumours', then that to gain some money out of it. But this also does in no way clearify he he did something or not.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I don't see what's so wrong about sleeping in the same bed as a kid anyhow. As long as you don't touch the kid or anything, where's the harm:confused:?

[kipperthefrog]

You guys cant post nothin nice don't post nothin at all. im tired of you people putting me down.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by RayJones

First of all, there is nothing funny or humorous about child molesting, molesters or something like that. Funny pictures is one thing, having those in here is like I'm telling jokes about how your dead father is being analised by earthworms.

 

First, I have to disagree with you. You're comment above is a clear example of a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that Kipper was saying that child molestation was funny by posting funny pictures of Michael Jackson. Nor does posting funny pictures about Michael Jackson (they were funny, btw) equate to you telling jokes about his "dead father being analised by earthworms."

 

Second, Michael Jackson is a freak of the celebrity world. His actions (whether they be illegal or not) are largely in public and deserve criticism, ridicule and to be poked fun at. Whether or not he actually molested children is yet to be proved, and I don't see how it can be done. But the guy is still a freak.

 

Third, whether or not he's guilty, isn't the news. The news is how and why the media has decided to make a circus out of the issue with so many other, deserving subjects that potentially mean far more to the American public. But in the end, we all have a choice in the matter: turn the channel; turn the page; refuse to dwell on the issue around the watercooler; and don't click on threads related to the issue (unless they include some humerous photos poking fun at the whole nonsense and the idiot masquerading as an "important" person)

 

I think your comment to Kipper, as I quoted above, was out of line.

 

But ET does have a point about the irony of your two threads, Kipper

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

First, I have to disagree with you. You're comment above is a clear example of a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that Kipper was saying that child molestation was funny by posting funny pictures of Michael Jackson.

I did not say he said it would be funny. Actually I don't think he even thinks it is fun.

And I'm completely fine with those artworks, I'm not a fan of those, but maybe others, I just think they belong in some kind of [jacko-the-wacko -- attention 56kers! -- or something] thread.

This thread is about donkeys, a theme park, a potential molester, potential greedy parents, the media and if rich people of public interest get easy away with the almighty dollar. Potentially serious enough to get through it without funny pictures of the main person in question.

 

His actions (whether they be illegal or not) are largely in public and deserve criticism, ridicule and to be poked fun at.

Yes, the aspect that he is infact a 'role model' implies that he can't just do what he want - in public. On the other hand, he has the right for a (legal) private life, and it's not always his (or our) choice that we know it. It's his right to be a 'white freak'.

 

Nor does posting funny pictures about Michael Jackson equate to you telling jokes about his "dead father being analised by earthworms."

I think your comment to Kipper, as I quoted above, was out of line.

Hm. Maybe it was a bit too much/harsh/unappropriate/personal.

I'd rephrase as follows:

If someone posts funny pictures in a thread concerning the possible commitment of a crime and how rich people can escape being charged by paying money, I'd see no clear difference if someone draws an metaphorical analogy to the analysing character of earthworms in a [somebody died :///] thread. I'd be careful with doing so.

 

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

You guys cant post nothin nice don't post nothin at all. im tired of you people putting me down.

I apologise if you felt kind of personal offended because of my post. I just wanted to point out that this topic (of your thread) should be treated seriously. Maybe I just should say exactly this, the potential next time. ;]

Err.. peace!

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

He could have molested other kids.

He could have done a lot of things.

[kipperthefrog]

I have to explain my two threads.

 

it may sound self contradicting, but there are two things wrong about society I was poining out:

 

-people pay more attention to the private lives of celebs than thngs that really matter. such as our dependance on oil.

 

-I don't like celebs getting away with whatever they want either. When It comes to commiting crimes, that would be dangerus for society too, for they can kick us around all they want. no one is or should be above law.

 

does that make any sense?

 

Err.. peace!

 

sure:) peace.

[El Sitherino]

But we don't know if he did anything. So... yeah.

[toms]

I haven't been following the court case much, but the odd snippets i've heard seem to imply that the prosecution is doing a pretty lousy job of proving he molested anyone... i don't think the main witness came off as particularly consistent... other witnesses have mostly denied anything happening.

I have a feeling that, unless the prosecution has something big up it's sleeve, he won't be found guilty.

 

That said, if he was innocent he should have never settled the first case as it left an impression of guilt, and set him up for further law suits.

 

You would also think that, givent he earlier lawsuit, he would have been rather careful since then. Either always having reputable thrid parties around, or limiting his contact with kids entirely. (especially in the bedroom).

 

YOu would also think that parents would have been slightly reluctant to let kids stay at the ranch alone after the earlier allegations. Unless they were hoping to get money out of it later.

[Spider AL]

It's his right to be a 'white freak'.

If it's his right to turn himself into a freak, it's everyone else's right to react however they wish, with ridicule, humour, admonishment or outrage.

 

Potentially serious enough to get through it without funny pictures of the main person in question.

Ahh, the eternal quest of some people to edit/censor the posts of others.

 

I don't see what's so wrong about sleeping in the same bed as a kid anyhow. As long as you don't touch the kid or anything, where's the harm?

Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. You might as well ask "where's the harm in Jackson taking a kid on a romantic four-week luxury cruise?.."

 

As for the Michael Jackson hubbub, I'll wait till they decide if he's guilty or not. I think he's guilty, but there's a small chance that he might not be, so I can't pass judgement until there is enough evidence to do so.

Uh-huh. Don't forget though that a jury deciding his guilt or innocence doesn't make him guilty or innocent. The legal system, adverserial representation in general and trial by one's "peers" are all deeply flawed as methods of dealing justice. Twelve random morons shouting "U R TEH GILTY" isn't "evidence" of anything in my view.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. You might as well ask "where's the harm in Jackson taking a kid on a romantic four-week luxury cruise?.."

Sex is only one thing a bed is used for. I share my bed with my cat (my avatar, by the way) perfectly well without any "sexual connotations".

 

Whereas all romantic (emphasis added) cruises are about love and affection.

 

Spending time together at a ranch can have sexual connotations, too, but surely that alone doesn't make it wrong for Michael Jackson to invite kids there?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Beds have sexual connotations.

Only if you're a perverted fool.

 

By that same mindset so do cars, backend stadium seats, movie theatres, and the kitchen table.

[Spider AL]

Sex is only one thing a bed is used for. I share my bed with my cat (my avatar, by the way) perfectly well without any "sexual connotations".

It's YOUR CAT. If you started inviting each of the neighborhood cats to sleep with you in your bed, that would be as suspect as Jackson's behaviour is.

 

Whereas all romantic (emphasis added) cruises are about love and affection.

Are you seriously suggesting that taking someone to bed with you has LESS sexual connotations than taking them on a romantic cruise? Frankly I consider that to be nonsense.

 

Spending time together at a ranch can have sexual connotations, too, but surely that alone doesn't make it wrong for Michael Jackson to invite kids there?

Inviting individual kids to his ranch and sleeping with them... Yes, that's wrong.

 

If he'd stuck to inviting large groups of kids for afternoon tours, well that wouldn't be suspicious.

 

Only if you're a perverted fool.

Well that's insulting.

 

It's also incorrect. Beds are the traditional location in which romantic relationships are consummated sexually. If you truly believe that "taking someone to bed with you" has no sexual overtones, then you're naive.

 

By that same mindset so do cars, backend stadium seats, movie theatres, and the kitchen table.

Back seats of theatres do indeed have a history of sexual experimentation. As do the back seats of cars.

 

Kitchen tables on the other hand, are notable for the infrequency with which they are used for shaggage. Such locations are used by couples with UNUSUALLY adventurous sex lives.