Dumb ass Cali fools. Jacko is found Not Guilty... WTF
 

That boy fondling freak got off again cause them dumb asses cant tell guilty from not.

Clearly, trial by jury is a farce. What the American public needs, nay deserves, is TRIAL BY METALLISTAR

the jury was from ca that is the problem. ca chose a meat head actoin star to be there governor based on fame and you are full of shit if you say it was based on his politics, hes a fucking republican why would they want him? of course they are going to let "the king of pop" do what ever the fuck he wants. if tried in the midwest hed be sleeping in a cell tonight.

and again, and again, hell, he probably started flipping through his little black book of boys as the convoy drove off, doin' a little heeheeeeee as he grabbed himself.

good argument, but there are certain states where he would be doomed to be found guilty as soon as the accusation arose just because he's a freak, and freaks are from the devil.

omg exactly, stupid guilty demonic freak.

it's safe to say that michael jackson a nutjob, but it seemed like it was tough to tell fact from fiction in that case. i didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it, but the accuser's mother seemed shifty. i heard that she had tried to exploit other celebrities for money before, so if that's true then i'm not really sure what to say.

at any rate, it's weird and most likely wrong for jackson to let kids sleep in his bed with him (even if all they're doing sleeping) and the dude needs to get some help.

excerpt from conversation with girlfriend last night:

her: he's innocent? so what's he going to do now?
me: i guess go back to his ranch and have a celebratory orgy with a new harem of little boys.
her: sweaty little boys?
me: oh, you know it.

DAMN RIGHT! And death is the only reasonable punishment. Death by bleaching in his case.

Micheal Jackson has never ever hidden the fact that hes a fucking freak. If you're gonna blame someone, blame the dumbass parents for letting their lil tyke sleep over micheals.

Jacko: um... mrs. hernandez? can billy sleep over tonite?

Mom: I dunno...

Jacko: c'mon, I'll buy you a new house...

Mom: He will be there in 20 minutes!


Poor billy

Jacko: Tickle party anyone? heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee

you know you wanna

i got some delicious jesus juice right here

Jeperel ... I agree with you! ::hell freezes::

Well, I mostly agree. I say to blame the molester and blame the mother.

Now, I'm the first to say that Michael Jackson is the most guilty man in America... and I have only a few doubts that he did what he was accused of. However, the jurors were right in this case... and I think that this is a case that should be lauded for its dedication to blindness rather than being criticized because Michael Jackson IS a freak (which he totally is). THere was not enough evidence to convict him, the prosecution had NO solid, reliable whitnessess. The "victims" weren't victims, they, and their parents, were as much criminals as Jackson is (assuming he did do what we all know he did). THe defense used every means that it could, and they had the stronger, more solid case.

Hex, you said that he'd be in prison in the midwest ... Well, that does no credit to the judicial system that you think you have in your state. If he was found guilty, it would be a greater judicial travesty than that he was found not-guilty. When we think of Michael Jackson, we think of the crazed idiot who went on Dateline, or whatever it was, climbing trees, talking about how he sleeps with his little boy friends ... We think of this lost lunatic who must be molesting children. The jury had to put that all aside ... it's nearly impossible. THe one guy who nearly every American (with the exception of the lunies outside the courtroom), over the last 12 years, has been convinced is crazy is Michael Jackson ... and these jurors had to put years of mostly true stereotypes and assumptions behind them and judge this case with what was presented to them.

What was presented to them was questionable testimony, unreliable whitnesses, and not a single shred of legitimate evidence indicting Michael Jackson. I think he did it, we all think he did many bad things, but the prosecution has to prove that in court. They did not prove it. Hence, Not-Guilty.

Now where's the rolling rally for the parents to throw them in the clinker?

Oh, and one last thing.

Jackson has always said that he sleeps with little boys, but does nothing sexual to them. He loves little boys, but is never sexually involved, and that's never even a possibility. If any man says this, that he sleeps with boys, you know he's molesting them. However, if there's one person who is not molesting them ... because of his shear insanity ... it's Michael Jackson.

Mike, I agree with your first post and disagree with the second.

In many cultures it is accaptable and encouraged to sleep with children, family members specifically. In his case these children probably were his family and he wanted to be close to them. I think it is very possible that he never molested them, in bed at least. However, when it comes to something this heinous it is best to err on the side of caution. If someone our age (back then) claimed to be molested it wouldn't be a huge deal, but children need protected. If there is even a sliver of solid evidence it should be a guilty charge. But like you said, the evidence in this case is not solid whatsoever.

California has a growing conservative following.

That's because liberals are everything conservatives say about them.
And conservatives are everything liberals say about them.

el oh el bigs, too true.

ladies and gentlemen I point to exhibit A.

::points to Prince on a table humping a crucifix::

Well, in our culture, the culture that Michael Jackson lives in, it is not encouraged or acceptable to sleep with children ... especially if it is not necessary (many of those cultures have those stigmas because of their living conditions). It is generally unnacceptable to sleep with children, even if you are not doing anything malicious to them ... it is not only a bad habit (many parental counselors instruct parents that the moment your young child gets into bed with you [say if they're afraid, or whatever], you have to pick them up and bring them back to their own bed), but it's also just plain weird. I had trouble wording my point from my second post ... I meant to point that ... everybody knows it's weird, and when MJ says "This is love," we all say that he's just saying that to avoid getting convicted ... but ... if there's one person who actually thinks sleeping with a child is love, it'd be Michael Jackson. That's what I meant to say, really.

And ... I disagree with the point that if there's one sliver of solid evidence a person should be convicted. There is rarely any perfect evidence, so you'd be judging "solid evidence" by something that isn't solid, and too many people would be convicted on circumstantial evidence and false eye whitness testimony. There has to be more than just evidence of guilty, there has to be proof of guilt.

It definitely is weird of MJ to be sleeping with children, but I just wanted to show that just because WE think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some psychologists say sleeping with children is wrong, but when has a psychologist been absolutely right? Never. Even Freud, Erikson, and Piaget's theories are "sometimes" cases.

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. This, is Chewbacca."

HAHAHA That is the greatest, I love south park

If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.

i really didnt doubt he would get out of this. he's famous, and no matter how much money he's allegedly lost, he can still afford the best lawyers. and it doesn't help that the prosecutors presented a story full of holes with testimony from people who changed their stories on more than one occasion.

Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be. How many people really think that MJ is innocent? Not many. But how many people think the people who are testifying are really truthful? Not many. So in this case there was no truth, no justice, only right and wrong. But the court had its hands tied just like in many other cases. Based on the evidence the courts made the right decision, but it certainly wasn't right or wrong.

My gripe is that the major public opinion is "Michael Jackson is a weirdo, so he just has to be guilty." This is what I dislike about much of this countries systems. A public opinion != the right opinion.

Well the illegal thing is sexual misconduct (in this case, any sexual conduct at all). Many will argue that the highest human pursuit is love, and humans are polyamorous, they are capable of loving anything. Pedophilia, simply a love for children, should not be considered a surprising phenomenon. Children (yes, i know many would disagree, and when you're stuck on a flight with one, you'll definitely disagree) are fantasic creatures, a often unnoticed oddity in the human phenomenon, unspoiled by experiences, not old enough for the many neuroses of the average adult to have formed. I could easily see myself being enchanted by children.
In this sense, we have no right to condemn someone for following their own spiritual calling. It seems the children loved Michael, too, and not just because he bribed them to be around. Now I'm not arguing that he's not weak, pathetic, lonely, fucked up, sad, and needy. He may well be all those things. And that's why the mixture of a genuine love of children with a weak or warped sense of self, and perhaps unresolved sexual issues (i'm bullshitting together a psychology here but i think it's not invalid) is dangerous because self satisfaction through children gets confused with any occaisional sexual impulses he gets.
I personally think it's likely that in moments of closeness with children, he has touched them inapropriately and irresponsibly. I believe the state has the right and the duty to protect and act responsibly on behalf of children. If the court had convicted him (had there been more solid evidence) I would not think it an ethnocentric outrage where he was being persecuted for loving children. Rather the court would be acting on a deeply valid social norm, that children should not be exploited as objects of pleasure.
However, in the case of the children being subjects of amazement, it's not impossible that you would want to sleep with them and they would be just fine with it. And violating this social norm is just too bad for those who hold it.

The courts don't decide guilt and innocence, they decide guilt only... either guilty or not guilty. "Not Guilty" is a verdict that can come from many things ... weak testimony, lying "victims", and a motive-laden prosecution. There is still truth, and there is still right and wrong. The jury decided that it is wrong to convict Jackson on such evidence... Evidence that, no matter how weak, is still evidence; it just doesn't act against Jackson, but for him.

I think that a lot of people are positive that he had done something before; something illegal. However, there was no evidence that showed that Jackson did those illegal things in this case. And ... I'm wondering, if public opinion does not make the right opinion, what does? (And I'm not trying to say "public opinion is the right opinion" in any way, I'm wondering what your answer is).

I think Neil hit a lot of points that I agree with. As far as public opinion goes, this is how I look at it: The majority can believe anything, but just because it's the majority does not mean it should be accepted. If the majority thought that molesting children was A-OK definitely does not mean it is right. In most cases the majority decision is fine, or at least acceptable. But there is always the possibility that the miniority has, in fact, the more valid opinion. It's all about stepping back and thinking, if only for a short amount of time, that your opinion could be wrong.

In order for something to be considered "wrong" or "right" there has to be some sort of opposite or reason for it. In this case, why is touching children wrong? Because you've been told that it is? Think about how touching children can be "right" and then you'll have a more valid answer. So in this perspective think about how simply sleeping with children is both "wrong" and "right". I don't really know much to prove either, but I've read about positives and negatives for both cases.

Another aspect is that nothing is absolutely wrong or right. If you had to molest a child to save five other children, would you? In this case should you be prosecuted if you choose to save the five children?

Granted, much of my ramblings have little to do with this specific case, but I think it's something extremely important for social and individual growth.

if nothing else, it makes for goood tv (i added an extra 'o' because it's so good):

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/267...&htv=12&htv=12

"If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion."

Sucks, doesn't it.

Yeah, raub, I didn't want to sound like I thought that public opinion determines right and wrong, because, as some have probably noticed, I'm an absolutist ... and ... an absolute right and wrong cannot be that of public opinion.

I do think, however, that our courts are dictated by the opinion of people... which is largely in tune with public opinion... though, judicial activism seems to undermine that for both good and bad.

word, i wish i could talke some morwe about this right now. meet me int he drunk thread in.. howebver long it take me to dint it!

I think our court system is more complex then being suck ass and biased towards public opinion.

While it is true, there are laws that protect everyone because occasionally, the public doesnt know its ass from a hole in the ground. Mikey took advantage of everything he could, this is not a shortcoming on his part, it just means our system isnt perfect. For instance, for every 2 latino or black people in jail for drug related crimes, theres 1 white person for the same crimes, and for every 2 latino and black person out actively doing drug related activities, there are 5 white people, free to do those same ones.

There IS a bias towards public opinion, but instead of being a part of the public, get in there and change it, thats the beauty of america, you can change shit, may cost you a lot, but it works.

A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...



african american, raub.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = innocent


some one got paied off you fuxorz

Biased towards public opinion? Don't you think that they should serve public opinion? If it doesn't reflect public opinion, at least somewhat, then it reflects something universal ... And ... I don't know if you, Pinko Communist, want to get into universality.

You want to show us the study on this? Preferably one that isn't from the NAACP or the ACLU, but a third party. If it is true though, which it very well could be, the drug users being arrested and convicted are usually drug users living in urban areas (suburban drug users are prosecuted less, one would have to assume), and because there is a higher population of Black people in urban areas than White people in urban areas, the numbers would reflect this. And, the 'sameness' of the crime can be questionable. There is a difference between doing a drug in your house and doing a drug in an alley way. Though they are both crimes, one is a lot easier to find and convict.

A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...

And it would be better in the long run if we could all fly, and had ice cream makers in our hands, with free electricity, and money making machines that magically did not cause inflation. We have civil rights, we have socialist policies, and we have democratic-republic law making. THere is zero evidence that a communist economy produces anything but starvation and mass murder, however.

--edit--

Good zing at the end, btw.

in my brief history of hanging out with black people at college, none of them liked being called 'african american'.

That was actually one of the better jokes that Jep has ever made, I think... Because the Black and White was referring to like "defined and undefined" "on / off" duality relationship thing ... and Jep was making a subtle joke about how people think the word "Black" is a swear.

Though, you're right. It's usually more Liberal White people and Leftist Jews who push the African American bull shit. I always say that I'll call a Black person African American when everybody else refers to me as European American... though I know that if any black person ever called me European American, I'd just call them a nigger.

-------

In other news, Ralph Nader used the word Nigger in an interview, and PC libs are all pissed at him saying how it's the destruction of the universe. They're only pissed because Nader pwned them in 2000 ... so it is the civic duty of every liberal democrat to smear him as much as possible (if this forum were more politically active, there'd be somebody replying to this about how much of a crazy person he is. He wasn't thought of as crazy until the Dems told us he was right before 2000).

mikes a crazy nigger

Some people are smart, most people are complete morons.

Its cuz theres more cops in fucking oakland and san hose than in sunnyvale.
Completely Official Study

its only been around for a short time compared to the 2000+ years that republicanism and democracy has been around.

I love bob dylan

Thank you, that undermines socialism. I completely agree.

Chicken ... egg ...

That still doesn't change that there is absolutely zero evidence that communism is a viable alternative to capitalism, and that a socialist 'government' is a viable alternative to a democratic republic. On the other hand, there is a host of evidence that capitalism and democratic republics are fine selections of government and economy. Though, in regards to your comment, you'd be hard pressed to find the republic anywhere outside the walls or Rome, despite the vastness of the empire. You'd also be hard pressed to find democracy anywhere outside of Athens, despite the vastness of that empire. Conversely, the entirety of the Soviet Union had the same structure... no part any better than the other. The same can be said for China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Juische Korea.