Jackson was a very talented ......Freak........
Yeah, what's the point of the 'crotch' grabbing, can someone finally tell meI guess I'm too old to understand all the fuss about the death a "pop star" who abused everyone and everything around him. Michael Jackson earned(if that is the right word)over a billion dollars in his life. He brought home money by the wheelbarrow load. Unfortunately, he spent money with a pitch fork.
I could never watch Jackson for more than a minute or two. All the hip thrusting and crotch grabbing seemed obscene to me, not because of any religious or puritan objections but because I thought it was an insult to most of his fans who seemed to be teeny-boppers or young teens. There must be better things to do than mourn the passing of this jerk.
The globe has not come to any screeching stop. What contributions? The "moon walk"?
It's not a suggestion, it's a fact, he was never convicted. Neither is it true that where there's smoke there's fire, that's tantamount to presuming anyone accused must be guilty. Read any of the supermarket tabloids lately? Often there's just smoke. People do make stuff up you know, and over-react, and if they think it'll get them something from a wealthy and famously eccentric and reclusive man... Well, I'm sure you can figure that one out.PS - For those that suggest that he was never convicted of the assumptions of child molestation, I'll say this.... Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Further moreEvan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things,
"If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over"
Michael Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn official investigation began, with Jordan Chandler's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part.
The assumption must be, innocent until proven otherwise. We can't toss out so important a general principle on the basis of a few specific cases.
The assumption must be, innocent until proven otherwise. We can't toss out so important a general principle on the basis of a few specific cases.
Wrong choice of words, but the sentiment is the same... Personally, I am of the same mind as you on this issue - I just think that all of this hoopla is ridiculous in light of the guys despicable actions.
PS - For those that suggest that he was never convicted of the assumptions of child molestation, I'll say this.... Where there's smoke, there's fire.
It seems to be difficult to get a simple concept through people's thick skulls. We are talking two standards here, one for the courts in convicting a person and another entirely to be used in making decisions in our own personal lives. I don't give a rat's ass if I can prove he's a kiddy diddler- in my mind he is, so if there was a decision to made to let my grandkids sleep with him the answer is NO- but it's a mute point now. It's a strange, strange world when talent trumps common decency. (Funny we haven't heard a peep out of S,J. in all this, it would have been a good opportunity for him to demonstrate his tolerance) I know you are peeking S,J.
The big double standard here is that money trumps the law. Guilty or not, most people think he bought his way out of jail.
The big double standard here is that money trumps the law. Guilty or not, most people think he bought his way out of jail.
Like O.J. Simpson, who I think was guilty as hell, some defendants are guilty no matter what the jury says. I don't give much weight to the results of a celebrity court case. It's fine to say "Innocent until proven guilty", but if one has millions of dollars to pay expert witnesses to obfuscate the evidence and muddy the waters, the resulting decision, like the O.J. trial, is meaningless except that a killer has escaped justice.
There's one heck of a band in heaven