Jacko

[TrUe FlAmE]

who ere reckons that jacko is a peado and who don't?, i was bored put on da news and fag was on so i decided to make this topic, so lets tlk about him them aye hehehe, i reckon he is a peado, theres me opinion SO LETS GET ARGUING WITH JACKO FANS AND NON-JACKO FANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[imported_Aesir]

Jacko, hehehe lets see how far this goes

OR LETS NOT DICKHEAD!!! :steak:

[TrUe FlAmE]

d!ckhead i'll remember that 1 next time i'm climbing off ur mum

plus LMAO wot sad pr!ck would put a hate list on OMG get a life nobhead :loser: :loser: :loser: , lol, also r u so thick and queer that u can't even get ur own f**king avatar u just nick GoA's lol ur even thicker than moto.

[larry]

True Flamers never edit... :tweet:

[Alpha_Pasta]

True enough

[private diapers]

well back on topic. he *****ed those children.

[Alpha_Pasta]

What makes you so sure?

[imported_Aesir]

well back on topic. he *****ed those children.

What makes you so sure?

because he was one of those children.

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Bad topic. Jackson has virtually no support. A couple flaming liberals will force you to go through an ardous process of needless banter to decide if he is guilty alot. The fact of the matter is he gave alcohol to minors (Impartial sources confirm that) He SLEPT with the children (Common sense sometimes comes hard to libdems, but he slept with kids (which he admits) and a bunch of the kids he slept with claim he molested them, go figure. I mean, a grown man sleeps with kids and how can anyone reasonably say that he is innocent? Even if the kids didnt come out and make the accusation I would assume something was going on.

If he is found guilty: Pedifiles will not roam the countryside
If he is found innocent: Another landmark case of celebs being above the law.

[BritishBulldog1]

Truth is, we are not a party to the evidence presented in court and will not be aware of all the facts - the Jury will be.

However, based on what I have read and believe me, I'm no liberal do-gooder, I believe that MJ has the thought processes of a child. So think of it this way, If your 10 - 12 year old son says can he have a mate round, would you object to them sharing the same bed? If you have children, you would probably see nothing wrong and thats pretty much how I see the MJ affair. A number of parents have seen this as on opportunity to make a lot of money out of MJ, he should never have settled those cases out of court, it just opened the flood gates.

He may well have given alchohol to minors, that in itself means nothing. My parents allowed me to drink a little wine when I was a child and I have done the same with my children. I don't recall anyone claiming that the children were running around drunk!

There are those that he stood accused of molesting that have testified for him, refuting those allegations. Why would they do that if there was any truth in the matter?

No, as things stand, it's looking as though, "if you throw enough mud at the wall, eventually, some of it will stick."

The jury is out, they have not come back quickly, so there is an element of doubt. It will be very interesting to see what the final result is.

BB1

[Alpha_Pasta]

I don't really care. Yes, I think it is kinda sick, but then again, he is just another of the millions of perverts out there.

[private diapers]

Originally posted by pasta54@Jun 13 2005, 02:14 AM
What makes you so sure?
Quoted post



I saw him rapeing you

[Alpha_Pasta]

Well, you guys switch to the news channels - because the jury has decided and it will be announced in around half an hour.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Not guilty on all counts....interesting.

[BritishBulldog1]

As I posted in another forum where they were convicting him without all the facts;

"Well, I'm gonna rock the boat here and I'm no hand wringing liberal do-gooder, as many of you that have heard my opinions in TS will testify, but, I've always had my doubts about MJ being guilty.

In my opinion, he has the mind of a 10 year old and if your 10 year old son asked a friend to stay over, would you think it odd that they slept in the same bed, I doubt it. If you throw mud at the wall for long enough, some of it will stick.

None of us here were on the jury, therefore, none of us are party to all the facts laid before the court. The mother was shown to be a serial fraudster, who would lie to gain a percuniary advantage, that left a lot of room for reasonable doubt against his guilt. The boy in question had appeared to be groomed and rehearsed, but the two brothers couldn't come up with the same story.

No, my friends, as guilty as the MEDIA made him look, 12 just men and women sat and listened to the evidence presented and found him not guilty. Given how they even presented so-called evidence from other cases that didn't go to court, offences he was officially innocent of, I think this is the correct verdict. MJ should never have settled out of court on the previous charges.

Now, wether he is fit to have custody of his children is another story. I don't think any 10 year old should have custody of a child.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Sorry Bulldog, gotta disagree with you. You sound like a liberal do-gooder. The son of a bitch is a grown man. He is just lashing out from a troubles childhood. He dosent handle the media like a ten year old, he clearly understood his grim circumstances, as we saw him react, something a 10 year old mind is incapable of. OJ Simpson part two anyone? Juries usually give minors who testify lee-way, as they might not have understood an action that occured at the age of ten to be perverted, therfore not sticking in your mind. I can remember the time that I hit my hand with a hatchet and lost so much blood I almost passed out, but I cant even give you a date and I did it after I turned 20, so it was less than 5 years ago. You cant convict celebs, ecspecially in their communist stronghold in Cali.

Read this
Or maybe the problem is that any family crazy enough to get intimately entangled with Jackson—and intimate the relationships are, sex or no sex—is too crazy to be believed, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was a pervert who preyed on innocent boys and paid off their mothers, as evidence shown by the prosecution showed one of the victims mothers was put on the payroll for unexplainable reasons. Not only that, but and the maid who accepted $2 million from Jackson after bringing her son . Hell of a nice guy, 2 mil. for the maid... yea right. He wrote love notes to these poor kids, he tricks them into sleeping in his bed, he had homosexual paraphenalia in his room, had his own crew say he gave people other than his kids wine. Gimme a break BB1, you giving your kids a bit of wine here and there for celebatory or cultural reasons is one thing, a stranger handing out wine in a soda bottle and calling it "Jesus Juice" is a whole other story Not to mention mothers of other accusers backed down after hush money. Only a celeb could get away with this. Shoot em' all, let god sort them out is the way I am feeling about Celeb justice today :tongue:
On a final note, we dont know if the jury was totally impartial, they could all have record collections of him as far as we know, but in the end, i support the justice system now, but it needs to be changed. This is simply unacceptable.

America Agrees: Bull****. Do you think the Jackson verdict was fair? * * [B]463196[/B] responses *
YES: 41%
NO: 59%

[Alpha_Pasta]

Originally posted by COD-RIOT-STARTER@Jun 14 2005, 02:04 AM
Sorry Bulldog, gotta disagree with you. You sound like a liberal do-gooder. The son of a bitch is a grown man. He is just lashing out from a troubles childhood. He dosent handle the media like a ten year old, he clearly understood his grim circumstances, as we saw him react, something a 10 year old mind is incapable of. OJ Simpson part two anyone? Juries usually give minors who testify lee-way, as they might not have understood an action that occured at the age of ten to be perverted, therfore not sticking in your mind. I can remember the time that I hit my hand with a hatchet and lost so much blood I almost passed out, but I cant even give you a date and I did it after I turned 20, so it was less than 5 years ago. You cant convict celebs, ecspecially in their communist stronghold in Cali.

Read this
Or maybe the problem is that any family crazy enough to get intimately entangled with Jackson—and intimate the relationships are, sex or no sex—is too crazy to be believed, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was a pervert who preyed on innocent boys and paid off their mothers, as evidence shown by the prosecution showed one of the victims mothers was put on the payroll for unexplainable reasons. Not only that, but and the maid who accepted $2 million from Jackson after bringing her son . Hell of a nice guy, 2 mil. for the maid... yea right. He wrote love notes to these poor kids, he tricks them into sleeping in his bed, he had homosexual paraphenalia in his room, had his own crew say he gave people other than his kids wine. Gimme a break BB1, you giving your kids a bit of wine here and there for celebatory or cultural reasons is one thing, a stranger handing out wine in a soda bottle and calling it "Jesus Juice" is a whole other story Not to mention mothers of other accusers backed down after hush money. Only a celeb could get away with this. Shoot em' all, let god sort them out is the way I am feeling about Celeb justice today :tongue:
On a final note, we dont know if the jury was totally impartial, they could all have record collections of him as far as we know, but in the end, i support the justice system now, but it needs to be changed. This is simply unacceptable.

America Agrees: Bull****. Do you think the Jackson verdict was fair? * * [B]463196[/B] responses *
YES: 41%
NO: 59%
Quoted post





Nice post

[BritishBulldog1]

Well, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but this is a first for liberal do-gooder lol. I'm probably as nearly right wing as you COD, however, having suffered many an injustice as a child, I've grown up hating injustice. Yes, you are right, he did pay people off. Should he have done? NO! that was one huge mistake, it opened the flood gates for each and every one that followed, till he could no longer afford to keep doing it.

As for handling the media, he doesn't period. He has flunkeys that do that for him and they tell him what to say. Why do you think he didn't give any evidence himself. He genuinely thinks that sleeping in the same bed as children is ok (what 10 - 12 year old wouldn't) and would probably have said so and that would have hurt his case. Yes, I think he understood he was in deep trouble, that would have been made very clear to him by his defence counsel, but a 10 year old can understand when they are in trouble, even if they don't fully understand why. I remember as a 10/11 year old getting the hiding of my life because I was caught by my father watching my 13/14 year old brother commit a sexual act on a neighbours daughter (she was a willing participant). My younger brother, wasn't punished and when I asked why he wasn't, I was told he was too young to understand - well, so was I! I also have 5 daughters, my youngest is 16 next month, so I have some experiance in these matters. (that in itself does not make me right, but it makes me qualified to form an educated opinion.)

From what I read, it wasn't just homosexual paraphernalia, there was hetrosexual too and many adults have that stuff. There was no incontrovertable evidence that he sat with the children showing them this stuff.

Remember, you were NOT on the jury, you have only read what the media WANTED you to read. The jury had ALL the facts and there was not enough to show beyond reasonable doubt. The media effectively had him hung, drawn and quartered without any real evidence other than heresay.

Your comment about giving leeway to a minor is true, but don't forget that youngsters can be manipulated, especially by their parents and don't forget that the two brothers also gave differing accounts. Then you have Macauley Calkin, someone who it had been stated had been molested, yet he appeared for the defence to totally refute those claims. MJ's ex wife, called by the prosecution, yet turned out to defend MJ.

On the subject of "Jesus juice." Well, the story goes that Jesus turned water into wine and that he drank wine. Children do things like that, call something normally prohibited by a name associated with a "real life" event. MJ drank from these cans himself, it's not like he had his in a glass while giving the children theirs in a coke can, not from what I read anyway.

As for mothers backing down after being paid "hush-money," perhaps they shut up because they had got what they wanted and they knew they would lose a court case and if they lost a court case, they may be prosecuted themselves for perjury. I mean, come on now. If you knew your child had been delibrately assaulted, would you accept "hush money," I sure as hell wouldn't. In fact I would probably be doing time myself for the revenge I would exact. (I might take the money then hire a hit-man with it. :D )

No, you have to accept the jury's verdict on this one. It is no where near as clear cut as OJ, but then again, I wasn't privy to the jury's information on that one either.

Now, would I let a child of mine stay over night? - YES. Would I let them stay without me? - NO. Would I let them share his bed? - NO. Do I think he is mentally disturbed? - YES. Do I think he is fit to have custody of his children? - NO (I don't think any 10 year old should have custody of a child.)

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Why would the eternally liberal media EVER go against Jackson? They made Scott Peterson look like a real sweetheart on CNN. All you ever saw was images of his supporters making statements about his innocence and kindness. Prosecuters were shown as being "part poopers". The Jury member, most alive when Jackson was in his hayday, claimed they heard nothing about the 1993 case.. sure...
Media who attended the trial, many completley impartial, said the case was stacked against him. And the Homosexual stuff was exposed by the kids, and all accused him of showing it to them. He admits that, claiming he was "educating" them.
BB1, I am not here to judge your fathering skills, I mean, who is a unresponsible college aged kid to tell you how you parent, but I can sure as hell say my Kids in the future would not be within 200 yards of his property. Consider the fact that people were held there against their will so they would not let the story out.
BB1, your case has merits, but after all the things Jackson has been through, his albums, his completley sane meeting with Pres. Reagan, and his justification of his acts all are testimony to the fact he is not a ten year old. His mind has no doubt detoriated, he is uncommonly immature, and he is very weird, but weirdness, immaturaty, and general zanyness DO NOT JUSTIFY CRIME.
You said you hated injustice BB1, let me tell ya something, we have just witnessed it in the ruling of this case.
RioT

[BritishBulldog1]

Don't know where you are COD, but all I've really seen here in England, has been slanted against MJ. Go and read some of the jurors statements, some of them state that they believe he may have molested children in the past, but NOT on this occasion. Now, think about it. He has never before been in court, let alone found guilty of ANY crime, yet, they introduce to the court, testimony from the past on cases where he has not been charged, let alone convicted. Therefore, that amounts to heresay, not fact, yet these jurors state he may have been guilty in the past. Sorry? That so-called evidence should never have been allowed.

With respect to kidnap and holding them there against their will, there was a specific charge relating to that and he was found NOT GUILTY. Therefore he is innocent of the charge.

I don't think you are right about the jurors stating that they had not heard about the 1993 incident, it was more a case of stating that they would treat him the same as anyone else. Remember, there was a juror or two who had had a child/children molested. Do you really think that they would vote FOR him, knowing how their own child/children suffered.

Not all the children accused him of showing homosexual material, three boys (Macauley Caulkin being one) who were said to have been molested by him, ALL stood in court and stated it didn't happen.

His mind has no doubt detoriated, he is uncommonly immature, and he is very weird

That I agree with!

Media who attended the trial, many completley impartial, said the case was stacked against him

Thats what I mean when I say "throw enough mud at the wall and some will eventually stick. The fact that he was found not guilty proves that the evidence was NOT stacked against him, quite the opposite.

Wether or not his meeting with President Reagon showed him to be normal or not, I don't know, I wasn't there. One thing is for sure, someone who has so much plastic surgery and disfigures their face in the way that he has down, is not right in the head. You do not have to run around shouting and making stupid noises to be considered mentally ill.

weirdness, immaturaty, and general zanyness DO NOT JUSTIFY CRIME

Again, I agree with you, but, if you have a young mind or think like a 10 year old, thats a different story.

At the end of the day, 12 men and women sat in judgement. They were accepted by the prosecution as well as the defence. With that in mind, we should all accept their judgement. They are the ones that sat and listened to all the evidence. We didn't and it would seem that the press were a little selective on their reporting. I didn't even know about the other two boys that testified for MJ until today.

There has been an injustice, but now justice has been served (in my opinion).

BB1

[dkmk]

Guilty? Not guilty? Who gives a s***! People starving, homeless, abused, wars (ethnic, religious, and otherwise), Failing economies. Environmental issues. The list is endless, and this is the crap the media outlets throw at us as front page news? Just seems a little insane to me. My two cents.

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

This has far deeper implication I fear DKMK, another instance where you cant accuse celebrities, particulary African American Ones, of anything unless you are either a cash whore or a rascist (Both accusations have been thrown out by the Jacko camp).
The 12 people are not certain to be impartial, though there lies our judicial system and its the best way to do it, and I think a little Cancer patient is punished and vacant of justice, wondering how the jury could forsake him for this pervert. Jackos record is too long and colorful to be ignored. The Son of a bitch is another example, following in the foot steps of Kobi, OJ, and Blake, showing the American people and the world that they are above the common peoples laws. If anything, hopefully Jacko wont be preying on innocent kids. This is all i care to say in the matter Bulldog, as a recent poll states, 70% of Americans think he'll do it again. Me included. We know its bs, and Jackson will forever be known as a predator, and hopefully no parents will be wooed into sending another one of their kids to that *****ers house.
Just as a devilish little sidenote, the courts have no problem kicking the ***** out of corporations, or people that want to have little ten commandments monuments outside of their office, or a little boy who wants to bring a bible into school, or corrupting our morals, or generally undermining the will of the American people. But when it comes to celebs they are real sweathearts.
America is in a similiar situation as Israel, overzealous courts are running the country, while the voter has no say with these communist "lifers".We must End the Left-Wing Bias in American Courts!!!

[TrUe FlAmE]

lol, sounds like americas in the middle of the sh!t just like us wayyyyyyy were not alone!, plus communists r gayyyyyyyyy, just thought i'd say that cos there ideal is weak and feable.

[BritishBulldog1]

Just as a devilish little sidenote, the courts have no problem kicking the ***** out of corporations, or people that want to have little ten commandments monuments outside of their office, or a little boy who wants to bring a bible into school, or corrupting our morals, or generally undermining the will of the American people.

Unfortunately, you could say the same thing about the UK and a whole lot more!

But on Wacko, we will have to agree to disagree. I will just say, that when all of this first started, pre 93, I felt the same as you. My opinion has changed over the years, having read all the differing news reports as each so-called case surfaced. So I do understand your sentiments.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Yes, this really dosent matter a whole lot to me, this particular issue, just another creep getting scared off Sleeping with kids, but what it draws attention on, court abuse, we agree, so thats good enough for me.