http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=40aee77a-ff06-433d-957b-8a6f25c026bd (http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=40aee77a-ff06-433d-957b-8a6f25c026bd)
DAMN
"...bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson?..."
For those of us at work who can't watch a video, do you have the Cliff's Notes?
Quote from: NAKID on July 06, 2009, 09:01:09 AM
For those of us at work who can't watch a video, do you have the Cliff's Notes?
here is a newslink about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/06/new-york-congressman-blasts-jackson-pervert-low-life/?loomia_ow=t0%3As0%3Aa16%3Ag2%3Ar1%3Ac0.131555%3Ab26218800%3Az0 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/06/new-york-congressman-blasts-jackson-pervert-low-life/?loomia_ow=t0%3As0%3Aa16%3Ag2%3Ar1%3Ac0.131555%3Ab26218800%3Az0)
I'd agree with him that the media disgraced itself, but that's nothing new.
Peter king is a horrible excuse for a human being.
everyone remembers the last MJ thread right? This one is currently heading that way fast. 'Tizz saved it one time already by deleting and starting over.
Devin, read your PM inbox please.
Hmm in the rules area it says no politics... Hmmmm I think my buddy cyrus needs to delete this negatve thread.. Oh cyrus my joy come use your magical moderator powers ...
Will do statler
There is no mention of politics in this thread now, it is just Peter King expressing his opinion about a 50 year old man who enjoyed slumber parties with pre-teen boys.
Said man was married at least once to a woman, never had any open homosexual proclivities and as such, it is irrelevant to bring that up. If he was gay, that's not relevant to the topic.
Staler I just emailed you on the ducati pm check it out
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on July 06, 2009, 09:11:41 AM
Hmm in the rules area it says no politics... Hmmmm I think my buddy cyrus needs to delete this negatve thread.. Oh cyrus my joy come use your magical moderator powers ...
Do you honestly think Statler or any of the other owners would allow me to be a mod, beck?
Statler despises me.
On Topic.......
wow, that is a bold statement coming from a public figure like that.
I wonder how that will play out for him.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 06, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
beck?
writing and typing styles are certainly very similar.
Quote from: Statler on July 06, 2009, 10:21:07 AM
writing and typing styles are certainly very similar.
Beck? I thought it might be Greg, but it is much to cheery for him.
Quote from: Little Monkey Toes on July 06, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Beck? I thought it might be Greg, but it is much to cheery for him.
Greg doesn't care about this board enough to take the effort to come up with a fake email, name, etc.
He is busy with his family, mountain biking, shooting, and blogging.
self moderated. Have a nice day.
ZLTFUL Not adding a damn thing to the DMF since 2005.
Quote from: ducatiz-e on July 06, 2009, 09:00:03 AM
[
"...bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson?..."
No, I wouldn't want anyone to be in the same room with MJ. At this point, I'm sure he's started to smell pretty bad. . .
Bottom line, he's dead. Whether he was the biggest perv on the planet, or the most creative person of the 20th century, or both, he's make the beast with two backsen dead.
If he was a perv, he's not anymore, he's dead.
If he was the greatest mind of his time, he's not anymore, he's dead.
Unless he comes back to life, It's enough already.
i think the main thing is this.
you have a politician publicaally saying someone is "a molester/pedophile" etc.
you have a person that was never convicted of such crimes, period.
that is wrong and should be punishable by a prison sentence and/or death. labels like that do not go away even if soeone fabricates the accusation your career/reputation as you know it is ruined forever. period.
if the person was a convicted felon that served time you can say that, if they did not and were aquitted or found not guilty or never brought to trial you cant just say inflamatory things like that an not expect consequences. its wrong and immoral, and quite frankly distgusting and the lowest form of a human.
maybe the world would listen if Peter Griffin said these things and not Peter King. :-\
I can understand why someone would think what he thinks. Many think that despite the facet he was never convicted, there is preponderance of evidence. Pedophilia is a highly provocative subject and people are liable to have very strong opinions.
I don't understand why a congressman would go out of his way to criticize how the media is covering the entertainment biz. Except to use this as a way to shamelessly pander to voters. I wonder if this kind of won't-someone-think-of-the-childrenism plays well to the:
90% White
70% Married
Median house value: $204,900
... voters in his area.
Quote from: Bun-bun on July 06, 2009, 10:42:30 AM
No, I wouldn't want anyone to be in the same room with MJ. At this point, I'm sure he's started to smell pretty bad. . .
Bottom line, he's dead. Whether he was the biggest perv on the planet, or the most creative person of the 20th century, or both, he's make the beast with two backsen dead.
If he was a perv, he's not anymore, he's dead.
If he was the greatest mind of his time, he's not anymore, he's dead.
Unless he comes back to life, It's enough already.
[clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]
Quote from: Statler on July 06, 2009, 10:21:07 AM
writing and typing styles are certainly very similar.
weekend plans, cars, and obsession with MJ as well. Definetly Beck. Clear violation of board guidelines. Time for suspension. [clap]
#1:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:19:10 PM
me in a sl 500 mercedes convertibleyou on a monster...
july 4th
was on sunset blvd
#1.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:34:32 PM
yea says its an 1.5 hours from santa clara id like to go if we can but we'll have a
convertible benz sl 500 no bikes lol unless i can rent bikes
#2:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:15:57 PM
hi guys my name is devin, I ride a ducati dark.
some guys i
met at the races today told me to go here so here i am
#2.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:26:25 PM
how far is moto gp from LA ro SF?
since im there maybe
i can make the race sunday
Quote from: hbliam on July 06, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
weekend plans, cars, and obsession with MJ as well. Definetly Beck. Clear violation of board guidelines. Time for suspension. [clap]
#1:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:19:10 PM
me in a sl 500 mercedes convertible
you on a monster...
july 4th
was on sunset blvd
#1.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:34:32 PM
yea says its an 1.5 hours from santa clara id like to go if we can but we'll have a convertible benz sl 500 no bikes lol unless i can rent bikes
#2:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:15:57 PM
hi guys my name is devin, I ride a ducati dark.
some guys i met at the races today told me to go here so here i am
#2.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:26:25 PM
how far is moto gp from LA ro SF?
since im there maybe i can make the race sunday
There's those detective skills working for ya!
Quote from: hbliam on July 06, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
weekend plans, cars, and obsession with MJ as well. Definetly Beck. Clear violation of board guidelines. Time for suspension. [clap]
#1:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:19:10 PM
me in a sl 500 mercedes convertible
you on a monster...
july 4th
was on sunset blvd
#1.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:34:32 PM
yea says its an 1.5 hours from santa clara id like to go if we can but we'll have a convertible benz sl 500 no bikes lol unless i can rent bikes
#2:
Quote from: Devin Loves His DARK,,, on Yesterday at 11:15:57 PM
hi guys my name is devin, I ride a ducati dark.
some guys i met at the races today told me to go here so here i am
#2.5:
Quote from: That Nice Guy Beck! on June 30, 2009, 04:26:25 PM
how far is moto gp from LA ro SF?
since im there maybe i can make the race sunday
Probably correct...
but circumstantial...
at best. ;D
Quote from: painter on July 06, 2009, 06:14:55 PM
Probably correct...
but circumstantial...
at best. ;D
time for the circumcision then [laugh]
Quote from: painter on July 06, 2009, 06:14:55 PM
Probably correct...
but circumstantial...
at best. ;D
After you take an evidence class you come back and say that.
Most cases are proven on so-called "circumstantial" evidence. Most juries are plenty happy with "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck" logic.
soooo...OJ is a duck?
Quote from: bobspapa on July 06, 2009, 06:32:23 PM
soooo...OJ is a duck?
I think he means M.J. is (was) a duck...
Quote from: NAKID on July 06, 2009, 06:36:25 PM
I think he means M.J. is (was) a duck...
the duck offense sounds better than the chewbacca defense
Quote from: bobspapa on July 06, 2009, 06:32:23 PM
soooo...OJ is a duck?
Nope, OJ is prisoner
1027820 (http://www.doc.nv.gov/notis/detail.php?offender_id=1027820)
no its the twinkie defence!!!
Quote from: il d00d on July 06, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
I can understand why someone would think what he thinks. Many think that despite the facet he was never convicted, there is preponderance of evidence. Pedophilia is a highly provocative subject and people are liable to have very strong opinions.
yeah but you just can't go around accusing people when a jury aquits the person.
here is the reason why.. even if you are proven innocent you are still labeled for life.
case in point: a teacher of my old high school was brought up on charges of molesting a high schooler.
he was immediately suspended and fired, it went to trial. During the trial it was PROVEN and the ACCUSER ADMITTED IN TESTIMONY LYING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!! NO MOLESTING OR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TOOK PLACE AT ALL!! THE KID DID IT BECAUSE HE GOT A BAD GRADE IN CLASS!! That teacher has not worked since then and its been 10 years, no school will take him even though the KID LIED ABOUT THE WHOLE THING AND FABRICATED THE ENTIRE INCIDENT!!
THE ACCUSED WAS 100% INNOCENT NOTHING HAPPENED AT ALL but the teacher has been blackballed for life and career ruined forever.
Now is that fair even in the slightest way? Should you be allowed to ruin a person's life on no evidence but because "you just dont' like the person or because you 'think' they did something"?
Now you tell me do you still think that someone that makes such imflamatory remarks should be allowed to do so?
I bet the guy wasn't accused by another kid a few years later.
Quote from: sbrguy on July 06, 2009, 07:45:33 PM
yeah but you just can't go around accusing people when a jury acquits the person.
Absolutely you can, but you probably shouldn't - that was part of my point. Someone who represents a district should show a little more decorum.
Quote from: sbrguy on July 06, 2009, 07:45:33 PM
here is the reason why.. even if you are proven innocent you are still labeled for life.
That sounds like a deeply shitty situation. If the part about the accuser lying was made clear to everyone involved, it seems to me I am missing some of the story though. I think false accusation being revealed is even more compelling in the court of public opinion than a really nasty accusation.
As for Jackson, I mentioned in another thread that I think there is a better chance that Jackson was the victim of greedy parents than the kids were a victim of him- but I still wouldn't have left my kids at Neverland for a sleep over. Not only because I have not completely ruled out the possibility that something happened, but also because he was weird and childlike.
There is a difference between being found not guilty, and never being accused at all. If a conviction is a black mark on your name, an accusation is a stain that you can (or have to) work hard to scrub away - Jackson had an accumulation of stains. Some people think this added up to a mark and have no problem saying so. All I am saying is that even though I don't share their fervor, and we didn't arrive at the same conclusions, we follow the same line of reasoning.
I didn't think Jackson deserved to be in jail based on the evidence, and he didn't deserve to be treated as though he was found guilty. But, I think he earned some suspicion.
Johnnie Cochran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18w6RLHiRMs#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
for once a random "troll" was not me..........
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
Thank you to everyone for all your PM's inquiring to if I am Devin, but sadly.........
I have gone legit.
Hahahahaha
Quote from: redxblack on July 06, 2009, 09:12:16 PM
I bet the guy wasn't accused by another kid a few years later.
and then another one..
And then paid all of them off to the tune of over 20 million, plus additional payments to the parents.
Yes, the jury acquitted Jackson. The accuser refused to testify. I might consider refusing to testify too if I got paid 20 million +. I am sure that would pay off the psychological treatment I'd need.
The difference in Jackson and John Wayne Gacy is that Gacy didn't have enough money to buy off his victims, so he had to silence them.,
sorry, sbrguy, either the person in question in your story has gotten truly bad legal advice for many many years and/or he didn't bother to pursue all avenues available to him, or you are missing large chunks of the story. Remember, there are administrative findings and other Court proceedings besides the criminal case. People cleared in administrative findings get their jobs back, with back pay, and expungement of anything that could even hint at a history people could find anywhere. So being in the field, I don't buy it. I'm by no means saying falsely accusing someone is ok, but that third party anecdotes are usually very very incomplete.
statler,
my only thing is this, you will have a certain percentage of people that no matter what won't trust anyone no matter how "not guilty" a person is. simple as that.
would you as a school administrator hire someone that was brought up on charges or falsy accused to watch over your kid? even if there was proof that it as false, would you 100% trust that person or would some part of you still say "maybe"? i think when push comes to shove, people do the simple cya routine because afteall if something goes wrong then its you that messed up, and people dont' take risks like that when its their kid..
I would never know if someone was falsely accused if they either followed the right steps or didn't have other findings. That was my point. A background check would be clear.
I'm not disagreeing with you...really...just pointing out that from my background there's something fishy with your anecdote.
false accusations of this nature are some of the worst false accusations that can be made.
"People who have made up their minds about a man do not like to have their opinions changed, to reverse their judgement on account of some new evidence or new arguments, and the man who tries to compel them to change their minds is at least wasting their time, and may be asking for trouble."
-John O'Hara
Quote from: ducatiz-e on July 06, 2009, 06:31:17 PM
After you take an evidence class you come back and say that.
Most cases are proven on so-called "circumstantial" evidence. Most juries are plenty happy with "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck" logic.
That's unfortunate.
Quote from: painter on July 08, 2009, 03:46:18 AM
That's unfortunate.
nahh, come sit in on a few criminal trials and see for yourself. it is pretty rare that a jury does something bizarre on the face of the evidence presented. and usually, so-called circumstantial evidence is not just a few things, it is dozens of elements, often culminating with a giant neon sign pointing at the defendant.