fireflymedic Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Good Riddance to the world's most famous pervert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesph Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 News flash Micheal Jackson died of food poisoning. He swallowed a twelve yr. old nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 What I find to be so 'amazing' is this: The very same people that are snapping up anything even remotely associated with Michael Jackson were the SAME PEOPLE that couldn't be bothered to spend one thin dime to buy his music, memorabilia, paraphernalia, etc! Kind of like when the twin towers were brought down….those that screamed the loudest with ‘patriotic indignity’ were the very same people that couldn’t be bothered to serve a day in the U.S. military! It’s actually very disheartening to see just how hypocritical people in general really are! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island emt Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 lf he wasn't guilty ,then why did he pay 20 million to the little boy & his family to make it go away???? Another rich & famous drug addict dead! good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireflymedic Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Maybe because he was tired of the crotch shots? You guys remember that after the first incident? I really feel pity for that photographer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 lf he wasn't guilty ,then why did he pay 20 million to the little boy & his family to make it go away???? Do you always answer your own questions like that? When an innocent man employs a lawyer, isn't he paying to make it go away? What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 When an innocent man employs a lawyer, isn't he paying to make it go away? What's the difference? When someone employs a lawyer when charged with a crime, innocent or not, the jury (or in non jury trials, the judge) decides who is the better lawyer, the defense attorneys, or the prosecuting attorneys. I really don't know the "stats" on the number of guilty people still on the streets, and the innocent ones who are incarcerated, due to that type of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) What I find to be so 'amazing' is this: The very same people that are snapping up anything even remotely associated with Michael Jackson were the SAME PEOPLE that couldn't be bothered to spend one thin dime to buy his music, memorabilia, paraphernalia, etc! Kind of like when the twin towers were brought down….those that screamed the loudest with ‘patriotic indignity’ were the very same people that couldn’t be bothered to serve a day in the U.S. military! It’s actually very disheartening to see just how hypocritical people in general really are! Amen man. I guess that was my point before. It's discouraging to see the ignorance in the statements such as, "He must be guilty or he wouldn't have been arrested!" Or "He's obviously guilty because he paid the family off!" The complete lack of critical thinking, use of historical perspective, or even blind adherence to "Innocent until proven guilty" that leads to these comments is so far below the level of reasoning and fairness that we used to sponsor here that it's heartbreaking. But I'm exhausted from fighting that fight... Holy crap LS, what's it been, two years since we've agreed on something? You may be coming around! :-) Dwayne Edit to activate email notification, which isn't avail. on edit. No changes made. Edited June 27, 2009 by DwayneEMTP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyM83 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 The complete lack of critical thinking, use of historical perspective, or even blind adherence to "Innocent until proven guilty" that leads to these comments is so far below the level of reasoning and fairness that we used to sponsor here that it's heartbreaking. OR it's using a little higher reasoning than the simple logic of one always being innocent if found innocent in court. Like we said he has a lot of factors that make hims suspect and a history of this happening twice before. It's fine if you believe he's innocent, but it's not ridiculous at all for many to think he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Holy crap LS, what's it been, two years since we've agreed on something? You may be coming around! :-) Dwayne Edit to activate email notification, which isn't avail. on edit. No changes made. Must be all that time I've been spending, hanging around the local college campus! LS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts