About Michael J's true devotees....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5664339/The-true-believers-in-the-miracle-that-was-Michael-Jackson.html



Jackson's fans, as opposed to those who merely like his music, consider themselves to be different from the fans of other performers. The issues that consume them tend to have less to do with his talent than his meaning. Obsessive, wary, emotional, occasionally hostile to outsiders, they have come to see Michael as some kind of sui generis American miracle – part human, part spiritual – and themselves as the witnesses to its authenticity.

"They are unlike anyone else I've met," says Michael Joseph Gross, author of Starstruck, a recently published study of fan worship, "in that they consider they are performing a moral duty. They see themselves as the attendants of a holy innocent, representing what they perceive to be his values – generosity, humility and love in a world where goodness is persecuted." A conspicuously motley bunch, Jackson's fans were bound together by the belief that, for all his fame and money, Michael had had a rotten deal in life. Firstly, at the hands of his cosmically ruthless father, Joe, then from the media, and much of the entertainment industry itself which treated him as a freak show, and finally from the authorities who tried to put him in jail. It was painful to behold, and the only remedy was to love Michael more.

To the true believers, such sentiments are greater testament of character than Jacko's fondness for sleeping in oxygen tents, wearing other people's body parts or asking Steven Spielberg to bring back ET, "because I really miss that guy". In insisting that Michael represents nothing particularly outré, the fans are able to see their allegiance to him as a cause rather than an enthusiasm.

But it isn't quite as simple – or even as complicated – as that. Part of what made being a Jacko fan different was the possibility that you actually could know Michael. Behind the enigma was an intelligence that brought him closer relationships with his fan base than almost any other pop star. There were many times when the gates of Neverland, his ranch in California, would open and the footsore and hungry be invited in to look around, visit the funfair, and have lunch with the star. It didn't matter that he hadn't had a number one hit for 15 years, that his fortune had largely vanished, or that he was rumoured to be struggling with the pressures of his planned London comeback. To the fans he would always be the Bambi, not the Blanche du Bois, of pop.

The phrase "Get a life" comes to mind.

even though his fans are a little campy and over the top...they are not worshiping someone who paid millions of dollars to bad parents in order to spend nights alone with their children.

The man was a freak and his apologists are creepy.

when he married her but nice try.

She was fourteen when they MET--she was over twenty one when they married. He was still too old for her, but facts are facts, and you're misrepresenting facts with your post.


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001636/bio
Date of Birth
24 May 1945, Brooklyn, New York, USA

Mini Biography
Priscilla Presley's stepfather was an Air Force officer stationed in West Germany when as a teenager she met Elvis Presley in 1959, then four years into his meteoric career in rock and roll and serving with the U.S. Army. After an eight-year courtship, she married him on 1 May 1967.

We came to Elvis' defense at the same time! Thanks for repeating the true facts.

She lived with him long before they married.

Take that up with the ghosts of her parents. FWIW, I'm not "defending" Elvis. How many times do I have to keep saying that he was too old for her?

Elvis fucking a teen aged Priscilla (if he in fact did) doesn't make it "OK" for Jackson to rape or molest little boys. Or even have "sleep overs" with them.

There's no "equivalency" here. I'm astounded at those who are trying to suggest it.

She was born in 1945 and got a chance to meet him in Germany when she was 14 where her step-Father (officer), was serving in the military. After an EIGHT year courtship, she married Elvis on May 1 1967 when she was in her early twenties. Just to keep the record straight for those who try to slander The King.

biographer Suzanne Finstad Elvis and Priscilla slept together on their second date. I'm sure the biographer was wrong and Elvis never slept with anyone that wasn't legal.

us a falsehood. You said he was married. Now, you're trying to play the "Yeah, but" game. You can't though--once you've made shit up, and tried to pass it off as truth, everything you say is henceforth suspect. You've lost credibility, and it's your own fault.

No one disputes that Elvis was too old for Priscilla when she was fourteen. But she wasn't seven or eight, or even ten or eleven. Like Jackson's VICTIMS were.

And I rather doubt that Suzanne Finstad (who the fuck is she, never heard of her--I'd believe Kitty Kelley, but I don't know "biographer Suzanne Finstad" from a hole in the wall) was in the bed with them in 1959, taking notes, either. That assertion doesn't match anything that Priscilla has said, and I'd say she'd know better than a "biographer."

bed with Michael. Or does this rule of "not being a witness" only apply to Elvis?

Of course, you're ignoring that little bit of evidence, now, aren't you?

Elvis didn't pay anyone any hush money, now, did he?

all the time to avoid potential legal troubles or just embarrassing situations that is not a full-proof indication of guilt. So if your kid was molested you would take the money and tell your kid to shut-up and forget about it? Or would you have taken him to court and wanted him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

He paid out millions because he was guilty and he didn't want to go to jail. The family took the deal because the lawyers would have gotten most of the cash otherwise, and they didn't want their child to go through life as "The kid who got fucked by Michael Jackson."

Duh.

I hope your child is never violated take some hush hush money and walk away.

"The family took the deal because the lawyers would have gotten most of the cash otherwise, and they didn't want their child to go through life as "The kid who got fucked by Michael Jackson.""

You do realize that a victim doesn't have to the pay for their prosecution right? Molestation cases are handled by the local District Attorney DUH

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

since you apparently failed to grasp the first time around. CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE BROUGHT FORTH BY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS NOT CIVIL LITIGATORS. So again the whole point of the victims parents footing a bill for a court case is incredibly dumb argument.

I'm sick your the one that essentially admitted that you would take a pay-off from a man that had molested your child? I would think any decent parent would say fuck that and did everything in their power to make sure this man never touched another child again. But then again MJ would have never even touched my child because I ask what semi-intelligent parent would allow their child to spend the night at a adult's house unsupervised? I guess these questions all depends on one's upbringing and what their priorities are:

Because if any child of mine was hurt money would be the last thing on my mind. I most certainly would never put my child in a situation such as to allow another adult have unfettered access to my child.

Wait going to Thailand is your other irrefutable piece of evidence against Jackson you really are pathetic.

Just for the record I don't know without a doubt either way if MJ did anything illegal with children but I think it's ridiculous how people such as yourself act as Judge and Jury of people you have never interacted with nor even been in their presence. Furthermore, there was never even a criminal trial where all the evidence against him was fully vetted so no one can know what the really happened.

Oh but that's right because "YOU JUST KNOW THAT HE'S A PEDOPHILLA".

Maybe we all could join your world where everything is so black and white; if a person pays someone off then they are guilty and if they've been to Thailand then there DOUBLY GUILTY

Let's dissect your poorly written, un-spell checked, pile of crap:

First paragraph: Hey, pssst--that case he settled, one more time, the case I was talking about, was a "civil" case. The parents in that case "did" foot the bill for attorneys. Duh.

Try knowing your subject before you scold people authoritatively. It might help your arguments.

Second paragraph: Your first halfassed sentence/question is an insinuation of the vilest sort, and a flat out falsehood. That is where people with no arguments go. How sick of you to make such a suggestion. Keep telling us where your head is at--it's elucidative.

Third paragraph: Maybe your problem is that you cannot read, even a little bit. That's what it's starting to look like, because you're making suggestions about me that are untrue. So, either you can't read, or you like to make up falsehoods about people and repeat them incessantly, like a parrot. Which is it?

Fourth Paragraph: I look askance at a lot of people--if they fit other profiles, such as a profile suggestive of child endangerment--who go to Thailand. If someone who constantly hangs around little children, and says he likes to "sleep" with them, goes to Thailand, I fear for prepubescent boys in Thailand. Why? Because child prostitution is rampant in Thailand. If it walks like a duck....

The rest of your post is just misspelled rantings and crapola.

Call me overprotective, but that's just me. I think children are more important than a drug addled cretin who feeds Jesus Juice to little boys.

As for you last lame retort, I must say that I think "my world" is more reality based than yours is.

usual hatred spiel towards anyone that doesn't accept your opinion as fact in this case you failed to again distinguish the point I was making: Which these parents thought for one moment that MJ touched their child I would think semi-responsible parent would have contacted the police first and NOT a civil attorney. Besides that even if they still wanted money they could have gone forward with the criminal trial and then filed a Civil Lawsuit.

What are you rambling on about because just answer the question. Which I doubt you will since it will most likely contradict your entire argument. Assuming that besides being an asshole on the internet your probably a decent human being and as such there is no way you would ever consider taking a dime from a man that molested your child? Which leads me back to my point of considering this family's claims a bit dubious because they took the money and basically told their kid to shut up and forget about it (if Michael really did abuse him).

Besides insulting me I have absolutely no idea what particular part of my past statements your talking about. Because though you seem to be gifted in the art of insult/the art of respectful discourse is not something you seem capable of.

I know that Thailand is known for it's child prostitution but that's hardly evidence of a person being a molester.

I hope this is just an "internet schtick" because being this absolute certain about people being good and bad must be incredibly exhausting life.

I am not "rambling"--I'm on point.

Your buddy MJ was a pervert who molested kids. Is that clear enough for ya?

If you want to know why that kid's parents contacted a civil attorney (after telling me--DUH!!!!--that it wasn't a civil case) you'd better get off your ass and ask them.

You are engaging in classic, reprehensible "Blame The Victim" conduct. What the parents of that child did has very little to do with what Michael Jackson did to their prepubescent son.

But you're trying to change the subject, and accuse the parents of mendacity, because they made a decision based on a host of factors to take the route they took. I don't know why they took that path, and neither do you. But you're going to "blame" them, instead of blaming the pervert who couldn't keep his paws off the kid! How rich!

Here's the bottom line, that you plainly don't want to get--if Michael Jackson hadn't placed himself in a situation where he was plying young boys with booze, exposing his genitalia to them, showing them porn, and molesting them, he would have been at least twenty five million dollars richer in the nineties.

And being opposed to child abuse and molestation isn't "internet schtick," except perhaps to people who are so enamoured of a dead, doped up, has-been, musician/dancer/child molester that they can't see their way to having any empathy for an innocent child, his victim.

abundantly clear why don't you move along now. You hate Michael Jackson you know he's guilty congratulations! But what you continue to fail to understand is that your opinion means nothing in this world except to those poor souls who have to listen to it on a daily basis.

Just a little unsolicited advice you might go through life being a bit happier if you would except the facts that adults can completely disagree with each other without inject insults. Because if your remotely like this in real life I can't imagine too many people wanting to be in your presence.

Why am I unsurprised?

because I dared to disagree with you? Why am I unsurprised that you are unable to let an argument go and accept the fact that your opinion is still mostly irrelevant and remains so.

But I as a parent would NEVER EVER take hush money. I would fight tooth and nail to put a molester behind bars. Period. There is no price tag on my child. It says the same that they accepted the money as it does that he paid the money.

that Jackson molested.

You can't blame the victim because his parents chose the route they did (but you seem to be charging him with "guilt by association," at the very least).

Jackson didn't abuse the parents, after all. He abused a little boy. That fact shouldn't be forgotten, here.

Because there is no amount of money, NONE, that would allow me to let someone walk freely (and molest again) that hurt my child. EVER. EVER.

We "get" that you would never compromise your child, even if their name were dragged through the mud and a PR machine the size of Mount Olympus geared up to call your little child everything from a Lolita to a Jezebel to a prostitute acting on your instructions and behalf. We get that. We get that "no amount of money" would stop you from seeking prosecution.

You don't have to keep repeating it for it to be believed.

Again, the point you are not addressing is still out there--there is a "victim" here. The victim is not the parents, be they greedy, protective, or something else entirely.

The victim is a little boy. Not his parents. It's not his "fault" that he has what you view as bad parents. He shouldn't be punished for that, either.

The "blame" belongs to the guy who lit the fire in the first place--the molester. That's the guy way too many people are bending over backwards to excuse.

My point is that motives are in question. And a desperate person will do desperate things. People have put their children in these positions for more than just money. Some divorces in this country that involve children show what some people will do even if it means their children will suffer.

I am not saying the Michael Jackson case was one of these or not, but I don't know. I know he had issues. Serious issues. Including children, surgery, and so much more.

The methodology of the parents may be a subject for debate, but the ultimate "motive" was, I believe, to achieve some sort of justice for the victim.

molested those boys. But part of me feels like he had mental issues that never took him past a certain age. Every time I think he did it, he just did it, another part of me thinks of his upbringing. I wonder if he ever fully matured. That is what I am conflicted on. I almost feel that he was a different age in his own head. :shrug: I do not know where to stand. Too scared to put guilt on an innocent person, but too scared to let a molester go free.

Maybe it is bias of some sort. Not really sure. I did grow up in the 80's when he was HUGE. Maybe that gives me a bias towards him and clouds my mind. Which is a shame if so, either way.

the parents pushed to get the civil case and the $$$ up front. very very odd.
who knows what happened? not us.

"There is no price tag on my child. It says the same that they accepted the money as it does that he paid the money."

some here will led you to believe that Elvis never slept with Priscilla until they got married...
:rofl:

she had been living with him for YEARS before they married.

A great singer and a total weirdo, just like MJ.

No one, except you, is suggesting that Elvis's dating a much younger girl was appropriate. And no one is saying that they "know" when Elvis finally fucked his girlfriend and eventual wife, except YOU.

You are trying to create an equivalency that does not exist.

Jackson abused prepubescent boys. Elvis didn't. That much is true.

Jacko - oh, dear god, NO! Not a GIRL!

Elvis's daughter looks just like him.

Big difference, I'd say.

I don't recall Elvis ever being accused of molesting little boys, either ....................

Her whole house was littered with stuff.

Huge velvet portraits and paintings. It was kind of scary to go to her house.

lol

Millions are like me - you really should watch the broadbrush style statements you make. You may not care what people think of you, but at least think before you jump.

once. We all had a blast, maybe even a better time than the little boy. It was a great way to spend a Saturday morning that we all had off together. It's just like any flea market or swap meet except there's a theme and usually, a couple of celebrity guests.

If I "stumbled" upon a convention, I'm sure it'd be an interesting and fun experience.

lol. The things you do in your 20s.

There were a whole bunch of people dressed up and just looking at them was fascinating. A bunch of stuff for sale, a couple of speakers. It was that rare American experience where you're just out with friends having a good time. I don't think there was even any liquor there. :wow:

We all worked for a security company at the time and became the friends that stood in line for 12 hours for Star Wars tickets together. I blame it on Reagan. :)

:rofl:

:)

Watching the outpourings, I couldn't figure out what was going on. I mean, the guy did two albums in the last fourteen years, so what was there about all of it?

Cult behavior. He wasn't a pop star to these people - he was divine. Literally.

That makes sense.

I wonder what all these people will do when it calms down, say, a year from now. Where will their devotion go?

Who will be their new Chosen One?

when the 'Pray for Michael' stuff was all over DU, and I, honestly confused, asked "Pray for what? A washed-up pop star who hadn't done anything new in almost 20 years, a guy who enjoyed having naked little boys for sleepovers at his house, who paid off the kids he molested to buy their silence, who got a sperm donor to impregnate his 'wife' and then a surrogate mother, and now has those poor kids cooped up in places, running from country to country, not living any kind of normal life, and he's a strung-out junkie besides? Pray for what?"

Oh, man, you'd have thought I'd set fire to Obama's hair or something. It was phenomenal. One DUer wished me a painful death, and that was one of the nicest things said to me.

Yeah (in a soft, high-pitched voice), peace and love, children. That's what it's all about.

Right .............................

But all the naysayers would have shut their traps because it was John Lennon. John Lennon didn't live the life of a saint either, but you wouldn't know it from the hero worship he gets here.
I have nothing against Lennon, but don't disparage those of us who like one celebrity when there are others who are considered the Holy of Holies and get a pass.

Yeah, all that naked in the bed stuff was perfectly normal and had absolutely nothing to do with attention seeking. My god, talk about a man with drug and interpersonal relationship problems. Have you read how badly he treated Julian? Good lord. Nobody's perfect and the people who appreciate great talent know it. There's no "cult".

and would attack anyone who said anything disparaging about him.

Clearly, you don't.

It was an anti-war protest, drawing publicity to what the US was doing in Vietnam.

Learn some history before you spout off. Otherwise, you look the fool...................

and record. lol

:hi:

But Michael Jackson and Elvis are free-for-alls - and John Lennon would have been the first to find the attacks on them appalling. He was inspired by Elvis, do they forget this?

I loved all 3 of them by the way, I was just pointing out the irony of the different standards. And Frank too, can't forget Frank.

all of those guys. The whole, extended family. We were not "hysterical" or "motley", we were mourning something we loved that meant as much to us as our checkbook balance. Sinatra died on the same day that my dear, favorite uncle did. We mourned them both.

Heaven forbid that anyone in this country love music or great talent just for itself. :crazy:

/oops

:hi:

that's what 'weird' is.

That's what Michael Jackson's antics were for - weird acts to draw attention to him.

John and Yoko were concerned about events beyond themselves. That's a great big difference you don't seem to grasp.

If you don't get that, then you don't get anything.

Him building a Neverland for children was no more weird than John & Yoko in that bed.

I can't count the number of times my children and grandchildren slept in my bed, didn't yours?

was pretty much his deal. And Lionel Richie's. Listen to Man in the Mirror. He was as much an advocate as Lennon. Just on different issues.

"Serial murders aside, Charlie Manson was a really good songwriter."

So, it really isn't like that. Manson was convicted and is in prison. Jackson wasn't convicted and died at home.


And Manson was no humanitarian, so again, not at all the same.

that's the point. Drawing attention to a hideous war that needed to be stopped.

It was about a cause outside themselves, and they caught all kinds of crap for it, including a very memorable attack - in person - by the venerable rightwingnut, Al Capp, who demonstrated that he hadn't a clue about what free speech meant - but, hey, the war ended, and we got our boys home, which was what mattered.....................

That mattered and still does.

funny to think of that, because I heard that song yesterday, and realized it was something like 25 years ago.

And we still have hunger all over the world.

We really need to shape up..........................

look not everyone is like you or has the same tastes as you. Okay you think MJ was a freak of nature who absued children okay congratulations why get yourself all worked-up over people who do not view him in the light?

or indulged in inappropriate relationships with children (that we know of, anyway).

His worst "crimes" were that he said his group was bigger than Jesus Christ, he dumped his wife, hooked up with a woman who didn't achieve a "typical standard of beauty," and whose voice sounded like a cat being mangled in a garbage disposal, did a publicized protest in a bed,and was crappy to at least one of his children.

The "weirdness factor" just wasn't there with Lennon. No snakes, no monkeys, no burkahs in Bahrain, no plastic surgery to turn himself into Liz Taylor In Her Youth, no putting veils on children or dangling them over balconies....

So no, I don't think we would have "heard the same thing." Jackson was creepily WEIRD at best--Lennon was not.

Those of us who weren't and aren't into the hippy thing think the "Bed Peace, Hair Peace" stuff with Yoko was might strange.

I didn't even go into the fact that some asshole jumped out and SHOT John Lennon, while he was living quietly.

Jackson's death will likely be put down to drug abuse. He quite probably brought his death on himself, as a consequence of his own addictive behaviors and unwillingness to return to treatment for them, while Lennon didn't ask for his.

That's the big difference, right there, weirdness aside.

on the anniversary of Lennon's death every year, meets with a group of like-minded goofballs, and they stand somewhere holding lighted candles and do something to honor their hero.

John Lennon, from what I've read of him, would have thought that sort of stuff utter rubbish. I've told my friend more than once that he's nuts.

But, cult members play by different rules........................

This thread started out to be about FANS not celebrities. Anyone who was or is a mega-celebrity has fans who do things out of the ordinary for love of their star. It didn't start with MJ fans nor will it end with them.

whose fandom is just a bit over-the-top.

I'm a fan of Lennon's music. I listen to it and enjoy it a lot.

I do not attend memorial services on the anniversary of his death.

You're absolutely right - Jacko's fans have no monopoly on the behavior that was discussed in the article. They're part of a large and well-defined group. The dynamic is always interesting.......................

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

something you don't agree with, what gives you the right to insinuate to them
that their stay would be short. I would have thought all opinions are welcome
here, or is it those that you like can stay and the ones you don't....can be
tomb stoned.

How hypocritical of you.

Who the fuck spends their FIRST post griping about Michael Jackson? And then every one thereafter doing the same? On a thread that's not the most obvious in this forum?

Many people were born at night, but most of us weren't born last night. I'm not insinuating. I'm saying it straight up.

Get real. And oh, get one of those lives--looks like you could use one.

The real hypocrite is someone who comes on a "discussion" board and whines about any opinion save the one that they favor, and calls people out in a childishly scolding fashion because they don't agree with a halfassed, fucked up, idiotic view of a washed up, pathetic, deceased creep who enjoyed a period of fame as somehow an "idol" or an icon, a view that only an obsessed, empty-lifed, pathetic loser with no focus or direction in their own life could possibly hold.

The man was a sick train wreck, not an object of adoration or emulation.

Now, if that big old shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it. But if it does, you might want to check yourself.

And while you're at it, stop telling other people what to do. It doesn't work.

:hi:

I am not out here defending Michael Jackson, you know why? I have no clue as to what he did
and did not do for the simple fact that I am not part of his inner circle.

What I will not do is to project and conclude on someone else's opinion as to what went on
in the Michael Jacksons' household and use it as a vendetta toward Michael, which IMO is what
you are doing.

In the mean time you may continue your hyperventilation about what Michael did that tripped you
so badly.

Your use of the word "vendetta" kind of gives your agenda away.

The only one "hyperventilating" here (in all caps with periods following each word, as you did above) is y-o-u. You might want to put on that MJ tune "Man in the Mirror" and have a look at your own frantic behavior here.

There's a miasma in the air, certainly...

is this the best you have to offer??

Now you're confusing me with another poster because I don't remember using all
caps on hyperventilate, you seemed to be all over the place with your argument.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish? :shrug:

You don't remember writing this?



in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5939585&mesg_id=5939891

Do you suffer a split personality, and that's why you don't remember what you've written moments before? I'm not the one "all over the place" here--you are.

That's your post, isn't it? With the angry little all caps/periods after each word, and toxic overuse of the question mark?

:rofl:

:wow: just so you know, I was making sure you get the point....if you don't understand
that I'll tell you, it's called 'emphasis' I had to emphasize my point of him (Michael)
not being convicted in the court of law....get it.

:think:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THIS is a finger, child:

The peace, love and children schtick. Sortal like a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage....

Except he wanted a child in every bedroom?

I'm sorry--I think he was certainly talented (but he got many of his moves from James Brown, who was also VERY talented, who had a hard, hard childhood and a tumultuous life, but who lasted longer because he did a slightly better job of managing his out-of-control excesses) and Fred Astaire, and he had help in crafting a lot of "his" music. He had a superb management and marketing team when he was at his peak, and his eccentricities were "fun" when they were just oddball attention-seeking efforts. It's when he got STRANGE that he started looking like a warped sicko, and his support structure fell away.

When he was running around Bahrain in a burkah it was pretty plain that he wasn't just off the rails, but over the cliff as well.

I, for one, think he had some issues with children. Boys. But, many don't think it was proven. And, let's face it, he had a messed up childhood. Many do, and they don't molest children, but I think a lot of people believed him to be completely misunderstood because he was very very different.

If a hard life were an excuse for being a child molester, they'd be thick as thieves in this world.

An innocent man doesn't pay out twenty million to shut a little boy up (who knows what their dick looks like). Just sayin'.....

accept money for that. A good mom wouldn't anyway.

Celebs paying off people to keep their name clean is no new thing. It actually sounds worse to me for the mother to have accepted that money. And don't say it was to not drag her child through it. We all saw plenty. That child, whether or not his face was blurred on tv or not, was definitely put out there.

I do appreciate Michael's music. I do think he had some major demons, and people suffered for it. I hate it for the children he may have messed up. I am really unsure where I stand on him, to be honest.

clean" exercise. It's a "Stay out of JAIL" exercise.

Some people are sleazy and want money. Others want to keep their kid's name out of the paper (didn't work with the twenty million dollar kid because Jackson went on TV and called the kid out, and his parents responded). You'd have to ask those parents why they chose to take money for the victim instead of taking down the Jesus Juicer.

It's not a question of my passing judgment on those parents or "excusing" them in any way--I'm not in the habit of excoriating victims, anyway. Put the fucking blame where it belongs--on the guy doing the abusing.

You are confusing the many kids MJ molested. The "cancer kid" was the one with the blurred face on the Martin Beshir footage. The kid who got the twenty or twenty five million (and whose parents you're griping about) was not on film with his face blurred. The Big Money Kid was the one who did the accurate drawings of the Gloved One's penis, who engaged in a litany of offensive and abusive behaviors with that pervert that included porn, booze and decidedly inappropriate--no--molesting--contact, and who apparently had enough of a case that it was worth The King of "Pop" throwing a shit load of money at him.

Since parts of the case are sealed, we don't know what the kid had on the guy--it might have been video, it might have been DNA, who knows?

I see things that make me think that he surely molested those children, but I also see things that make me think people wanted some $$$. Regardless, I think it was evident that he had boundary issues with children. He has many people who have his back that had experiences with him as a child. Macaulay Culkin is the only one that comes to mind though.

I just don't know. What I do know is that a mother, father, brother, sister, son and daughter will have to put a loved one in the ground. And it is sad for them. Unconditional love. I don't hurt so much for Michael Jackson. I quit hurting for him years ago. But I do hurt for the people that loved him. And that goes for ALL people who are dying or have died.

I also hurt for any child he may have hurt or messed up for life. I feel sadness all around.

Or are you still confused?

Still confused about what, precisely? Your interjecting yourself into the conversation with a cryptic and meaningless comment?

You do realize, don't you, that you and in OP are not in a soundproof room?
Or are you still confused?



I meant what I said--the guy is a deceased pervert who copied a number of artists in formulating his act, and who was musically molded by Quincy Jones and a few others. He's not original--he's derivative.

It's a shame he had a hard life, but so have lots of people. They don't end up molesting little kids, paying millions and millions in hush money to shut them up, bankrupting himself to purchase the best lawyers in town to "beat the rap" in court, running off to Bahrain and wearing burkahs in the bazzars and abusing drugs to the Nth degree.

Or are you "still confused" about that?

What a trajectory statement.




:rofl:

Or maybe you don't.

Do you dress up in "Michael" costumes, too?

:eyes:

and please no more strawman argument from you, WAS.HE.EVER.CONVICTED????????
in the court of law.

“Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
— Michael Jackson, defending his practice of letting boys share his bed in a Feb. 3, 2003, interview with BBC/Granada’s Martin Bashir.

Did he? Hmmmmm? Did he? Why, son of a gun, he sure as hell did! MILLIONS, too!!!

Here's where the use of that ROFL icon is appropriate...

:rofl:

George Bush and Dick Cheney haven't been CONVICTED (!!!!!) in one of those courts of law either. By your standard, then, they're innocent as little lambs!

are all your arguments based on projections(?)

Bush and Cheney can be criminals or they might not, we don't know that, for whats its worth,
the President has not said they are criminals and they committed a crime, until he does I will
reserve my judgement....why(?) because I am not privy to what the President is looking at and
the reason behind him holding on and letting DOJ do it's job, until then I'll just be
patient and rely on the judgment of a very eloquent President who knows whats right.

I know what I would liked to see done to both of them, but I am not going to let my
emotion overcome my thinking process which is what you tend to do with each and every
subject you discuss.

My hope is that this can help clear your thought process.

I am using your pisspoor, lameass arguments against you. That's not "projection."

See, simply put (I suspect that's best in this case), you failed to prove your point. I'm simply pointing that out using a rather obvious example.

Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they're not guilty of the crime.

That point, plainly, whooshed right over your head!

I did not address your pisspoor (your phrase) anecdote as to what YOU think went
on within the Michael Jackson household and you ranting on about how he went to
Bahrain etc.....that is all part of him being guilty of molesting a child(?)....imagine
that, and you want me to address that, whereas you also tried to make comparison as to
the reason why Bush and Cheney are guilty, sounds to me more like a Rush Limbaugh
logical thinking than a sane being.

Your example is a poor example and the two are not even close to being in the same
category; one had a child molestation case brought to court and the other is not
even pending but is based on speculation, go back and redirect your thinking process.


What I'm trying to get you to see is how some here tend to frame their argument against
Obama, which is taking some 'put together narrative' about how the President has made a
decision on issues and how he is not the change that they voted for....and so on....and so
on....this is exactly what you've done, believing that Michael Jackson is a child molester
even though he was found not guilty....oh! that don't count because news outlet says he is
a child molester sooo...he has to be - look at his weired persona, he dresses funny, he has
a monkey for pets, he acts like a child, all these are proof that he is a child molester and
thats enough for me......see how stupid that broad brush sounds. Thats your argument against
the late Michael.

Jeeze!!! This is the type of thinking that has manifested itself on DU.

on trial for molestation.

There's nothing wrong with my example. Your ardent defense of an oddball, drug-addled, spendthrift, pathetic pervert is a bit over the top, though.

And Obama doesn't have jackshit to do with this. Where the hell you pulled that out of, I have no idea. Don't even try to bring him into this discussion.

You've never lived in the Middle East, obviously. Children are not protected over there to the (not good enough) degree that they are here. Child abuse, to include child sexual abuse, is rampant, and unpunished. A great place for someone who likes that kind of shit and is willing to pay some bad parent or guardian big money to be an abusive cretin.

My arguments are sound. Yours aren't--they're the rantings of an uncritical and unthinking idol-worshipper.

There's no excuse or possible mitigation for child endangerment. And that's a lot of what your hero was about.

I'll agree with you on this point, which is, I have never lived in the middle East.

I just wished you've stopped there, but you came back with another scandalous statement, which is,
Middle East is rampant with child molestation, seems to me you enjoy making these profound statement.
See how you've just jump to another subject frivolously with your broad brush....thanks for playing
it's been fun.


:hi:

Here, don't believe me, educate yourself--that way, next time the topic is raised, you won't be regarded as uneducated or whistling past the graveyard. My statement wasn't at all "profound"--it was an obvious one, or at least obvious to anyone who isn't in outright denial or complete and total ignorance as to this difficult subject. Unless, of course, you think the Department of State has a bias on this matter:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/88062.pdf

Trafficking in people for prostitution and forced labor is one of the most prolific
areas of international criminal activity and is of significant concern to the United
States and the international community. The overwhelming majority of those
trafficked are women and children.....

....The high demand, worldwide, for women and children to work as
sex workers, sweatshop labor, and domestic servants. Traffickers are
encouraged by large tax-free profits and continuing income from the
same victims, until recently, at least, at very low risk....

...The largest number of victims trafficked internationally are believed to come
from Asia. Many women and children trafficked to work in the commercial sex
industry also originate from the former Soviet Union and southeastern Europe. In
recent years, Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa have also become major
source regions. Most victims are sent to Asia, the Middle East, Western Europe and
North America. Victims have traditionally ended up in large cities, vacation and
tourist areas, or near military bases, where the demand for sex workers is highest,
but, more recently, are also ending up in smaller cities and even rural areas. In
addition to the sex industry, victims are trafficked to work in seasonal agriculture,
manufacturing, particularly the garment industry, and domestic service....

The State Department issued its seventh congressionally mandated Trafficking
in Persons (TIP) Report on June 12, 2007. Each report categorized countries into four
groups according to the efforts they were making to combat trafficking. Those
countries (Tier Three) that do not cooperate in the fight against trafficking have been
made subject to U.S. sanctions since 2003. The group named in 2007 includes a
total of sixteen countries. They are: Algeria, Bahrain, Burma, Cuba, Equatorial
Guinea, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Syria, Uzbekistan and Venezuela. The President must make a determination by mid-
September on whether to impose sanctions on any or all of these countries.

Tell me the sky isn't blue or the grass isn't green, now! I'm sure you'd regard it as a "scandalous statement" if I were to say otherwise, hmmmm?

it would mainly have been a case of 'kids word vs Michael's word in which case Michael would likely have lost just due to his eccentricities which makes him an easy target for speculation

It would not surprise me if his lawyer basically told him 'i would advice you to settle, if that kid gets on the stand he is likely going to gain the sympathy of the jurors even if there is no proof that it happened, and considering the added damages they might add on its the better/safer option'

And considering how rich Michael was at the time, i don't think he really considered 15m to be a fortune, seems more like small change when he was at his peak.

another simple alternative is that Michael or more likely one of his handlers decided that paying the 15m would be the lesser evil in regards to saving the 'brand' since a prolonged trial could do serious damage to its value.

Finally, atleast one kid has stepped forward and stated that his parents put him up to it, and after Michael actually stood his ground and went thrue a full trial and was found not guilty, no further lawsuits happened that i am aware of(my guess is that he was no longer seen as an easy mark for getting some cash)


the majority of the above is ofcouse speculation, but its just as 'factual' as your claims

That's a fact. No one is so "rich" that they pay that kind of hush money. That kind of hush money has an implication associated with it to anyone who is not willfully and deliberately suspending reality because they have an immature need-to-believe. And the implication is that Michael "Jesus Juice" Jackson was a fucked up pervert.

A lawyer who tells a client to groundlessly toss twenty million over the side (plus lawyer fees) is a lousy lawyer. I doubt this guy had lousy lawyers--they managed to keep him out of jail on the second go round.

Links for your claims always help, you know. That wouldn't be the kid who's mom was paid three hundred grand and they were relocated to Argentina, now, would it be?

when the boy - Jordie Chandler - did drawings of Jackson's genitalia, the case against Jackson was so strong, his attorneys quickly urged him to pay the kid and buy his silence, which is exactly what was done.

That was when - I know you remember - Jackson filmed that "infomercial" that was shown on network TV, him with lipstick, eyeliner, and false eyelashes, proclaiming his innocence, and decrying the fact that his genitals had been photographed by the police.

In fact, Jackson had some very distinctive marks on his penis, and the boy drew them perfectly.

That was the end of it for Jackson. And Jordie Chandler got something like $25 million, and his mother got a nice chunk of change, too, a bit over a million, as I recall.

So, no, there was plenty of proof in that case.............................

I mean, I wasn't anything close to a devotee, not even a "fan" per se, but this person was a part of my world growing up and when I hear certain songs I can remember me during that period of my life. The unprovoked anger displayed by some is making me sick to my stomach and I may not be able to see them as decent people ever again.

for others, not okay.

...and it's in character for many of the most bitter. It makes me wonder why they can't allow others to "have their moment" as you stated. :(

all over the things someone cares about. Yeah, it happens, but that's not what this forum is really about.

Yuck.

You can knock, knock, knock on that one's door but nobody's home and hasn't been for a looooong time...

Not a full one but maybe, it's just hiding. lol

I think there is a rule against sending people to other threads to pile on.

I love those who insist on links for everything. So cute. Someone posts a personal opinion or original essay and they gotta have a link? :wtf: My guess is they don't have a rebuttal so they think they are throwing down the notion by demanding a link.

Makes me think they are a bit silly. There is an awful lot of human history that went on before there were links. It's like nothing without a link can be real.

is accurate and verifiable, so if you see it in a link, you know it's true.

Are you reading all these posts? Isn't this something?

It must be sort of awful to have to ridicule other people instead of talk to them.

Methinks there is WAY too much protesting and not enough thinking.

MJ dangling his offspring out a window seems indicative of his callous disregard for youngsters. But hey, he wasn't CONVICTED of that either! Just caught on camera for the world to see. ;)

By the way, were you in my area? That 'dawg' looks like he could be from around here and tired of being shot at!

Edited to add: goofed, meant to reply to La Bamba in orange

Wouldn't we be in trouble for being non-believers? Shades of Galileo!

That "dawg" is a Michael Jackson fan, so watch it.

Did you ever see the film AFTER that baby-dangling episode? He had that poor child on his lap, all swathed in a big blanket, and he was bottled-feeding the baby, jiggling him on his lap, a thousand nervous jiggles a second. The baby - there was a quick close-up - was just trying to latch onto the nipple, and then, whew! a nanny appeared and took the infant away.

It was distressing, very troubling, to witness. Jackson hadn't any clue, poor guy. Stunted in every human way.....................

LOL

Objecting to incivility now = torture.

Oh, my.

That oughta do it, if they use the right search terms.

Something like a discussion on a plain and obvious subject like MJ ought to return a zillion hits with no issue.

**

I found it perplexing, too.

By the way, I must congratulate you-- you put up a good fight when burnt at the stake. :p

to our posts. Hysteria at its purest.

"If you didn't think Michael was a GOD, then SHUT UP! Because you are NOT allowed to speak ill of him, EVER! And now that he's dead, you are supposed to be DOUBLY QUIET!" or something like that.

It's fascinating, this behavior. They have taken him as their deity, seeing him as something well beyond human, and anyone who dares to say the emperor is buck naked is roundly assaulted.

See? Told ya..........................

:hi:

"This behavior" is not hysteria. It's other posters objecting to your passive aggressive rudeness.

You say you have no dog in this fight - but you are RABID. I don't get it at all. What do you care? How does it possibly hurt you? I was very sad when Ed McMahon died too, thought he should have gotten a little bit more love from the media. And I thought it was pathetic when people were helping him out with his house when there are homeless children a mile away. But still, he brought a lot of joy so why would we not celebrate it?

My daughter has a great appreciation for Justin Timberlake. I don't see it, but it's not for me to judge. It's their generation, their artists.

Give It A Rest.

Now you're interjecting yourself into threads that aren't even addressed to you, but, hell, that's nothing. I might have missed this, and the laughter it brings me.

Adore whomever you want, and the right to comment on it remains a viable option. That you cannot tolerate anyone expressing an opinion different from yours is a fundamental sign of intolerance and weakness, but I'm not going to exploit that, because, like the whole phenomenon, it's unfortunate.

And your perception of RABID (love the caps) wonderful.

Hope this helps you:

and then 20 posts later, claim to live and let live.

lol

The Elvis fans didn't find a new god. Elvis is still their god.

If they could deify a man like Michael Jackson when he was alive, surely they can do it even better when he's dead. I doubt there'd be nearly as many Elvis cultists today if the man was still playing Vegas.

"Like Jackson, his career was falling apart, his looks were shot, and his talents lost in the haze of ridicule and kitschy condescension."

And was still 100 times more than these pathetic nobody writers and wannabes and they can't stand it. That's what drives the hatred. I get it now.

Oh, no, he was a mess. Even financially. If it weren't for the heroic efforts of his ex-wife, who was Lisa Marie's legal guardian, and who took over the financial management of the Elvis estate, he'd have left almost nothing to his daughter. Plowed through his money just as Jacko did, and had very bad financial advisors.

His voice was gone, he was a blimp, a junkie, and remained the same kind of recluse as Jacko was until the day he died. Jacko went the anorexia route, but, otherwise, Lisa Marie's ex-husband and her father were pretty much the same person........................

at his worst, than most people ever hope to be. That's what you can't stand.

:hi:

You seem to think I have some kind of dog in this fight. I don't care about celebrity entertainers at all. They're dead, they're dead. Saying one was more talented than the other is a rather hysterical assessment, but if it is a comfort to you, go with it and be happy.

They're dead, they're dead.

As far as I'm concerned:

or damage the affection somehow. They can't stand it.

They couldn't stand to see how loved he was.

if they dodn;t know it love it already, well then it must be th suck.
i mean he only made like two abums in the last ten years and that;s what matters right? you can;t make up dumb shit like that!

So much for that theory. LOL

to a larger-than-life figure. I say, let 'em grieve. It's not hurting the rest of us at all.

:hug:

Shit, a bunch of people still get together on the anniversary of Rudolph Valentino's death every year to remember him. Not one of them was alive when he died in 1926, but they all gather at Hollywood Forever cemetery for a memorial. There is even a new Woman in Black.
So for those who try and say Jackson's fans are different, I say, BULLSHIT!

People, 99.9 of them anyway, idealize their relationships. Some people just do it a whole lot more than others. It's like those friends who fall so deeply in love they are a little removed from their surroundings. It can become para-social because what they're relating to isn't the other person but to their idealization.

So it's not about Jackson or Elvis fans. It's how people relate in their long distance "lovesickness" or while being devotees. People do this with candidates, too, with any public figure. Hell, there are people in town who do it with local comedians.

And yeah, we've definitely seen it done with candidates!

and stop worshipping at the altar of the now-deceased, sad, dysfunctional, allegedly perverted, pathetic pop singer and dancer.

Cretinous things. Explains how moron cults get started though--there are incredibly dumb people everywhere.

I'd be somewhat upset if anyone trashed Ray Charles in my presence.

this has nothing to do with Jackson at all.

all dipping in one bowl....no surprises there.


:eyes:

That "lumping" shit is unattractive. People are entitled to their opinions, and this is a discussion board, not a "Me, Too!" cult worship site.

:eyes:

here....but you are on your own.

MJ had a tremendous impact on the world. It's no wonder his fans get a little snotty when he gets trashed.

Thriller sold more copies than any album ever. The next closest albums are more than 50 million copies behind, and I suspect a lot more copies of Thriller will be sold in the near future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

People who want to pretend MJ was not a musical and worldwide colossus have some agenda that I do not understand.

:dem:

-Laelth

fans from a lot of renowned bands, singers, artists, etc. hsve people like this. The Dead is a perfect example.

so the cartoonist wants to be an ass towards white fans of Jackson only.

But it's still a stupid exploitation both of Jackson and of the people who care about him.

but it is true none the less. Attacking people who post truth is a rather odd thing to do here.

to talk truth with them.

one runs out of cheeks to turn.

Don't assume much about me. If you pay attention, you will find I am not given to following herds.

edited to add: I know the Tangerine can be uncivil as hell if desired, but I saw nothing uncivil in the post showing what Jackson did to himself.

I feel very strongly that the many who attack those who do not deify MJ as being racist are not only uncivil, but border on the same asinine behavior wingers engage in when they decide anyone who doesn't agree with their views hates America. It is pretty damned weird to see the same tactics used here on DU. If I mention that Jackson was not the chaperon of the year, it has NOTHING to do with race.

Maybe that was a mistake. :)

ETA:

Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jun-27-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. You would have loved it here the other night,

when the 'Pray for Michael' stuff was all over DU, and I, honestly confused, asked "Pray for what? A washed-up pop star who hadn't done anything new in almost 20 years, a guy who enjoyed having naked little boys for sleepovers at his house, who paid off the kids he molested to buy their silence, who got a sperm donor to impregnate his 'wife' and then a surrogate mother, and now has those poor kids cooped up in places, running from country to country, not living any kind of normal life, and he's a strung-out junkie besides? Pray for what?"

Oh, man, you'd have thought I'd set fire to Obama's hair or something. It was phenomenal. One DUer wished me a painful death, and that was one of the nicest things said to me.

Yeah (in a soft, high-pitched voice), peace and love, children. That's what it's all about.

Right .............................

may not be the mother of all assumptions, but it is an assumption just the same.

I commented on the post regarding pictures of MJ in the original black and the new off white.

And I mentioned that when attacks keep coming, one runs out of cheeks to turn. My momma told us to turn the other cheek but to remember, we only had four. I have noted many people, La Bamba included have been rather uncivilly attacked personally for voicing opinions which are not approved of by

the right wing fundies MJ cult members.

Edit: typo

isn't a good conduit for truth?

And now you up the ante, lol, and compare us Jackson fans to right wing fundies? Stay classy!

lol

The poster started the ugliness in this thread. Maybe she can't find her cheeks to oount them. :)

Sorry, you won't convince me that people telling the rest of us what we can and can't post are being civil or conduits for truth. Attempts to intimidate dissent is naught but crap propaganda, and that is very much like the M.O. of wingers.

But when you speak over the heads of posters to a thread and call them out, it is a call out. And that's what the poster did.

I've talked to a bunch of people over the last few days that don't agree with me. Fine. This is DU. But careful confusing objecting to incivility with objections to opinions. Two entirely different things.

You certainly can have it.

:)

lol

Sorta slow to learn about assumptions?

My mistake.

How ghastly-funny!

I always thought MJ was going for the "young Elizabeth Taylor" look, myself. After all, they were friends.

delusional. :crazy:

I saw her on the news once among the fans gathered at the courthouse, I think. I don't get it.

by kicking your own thread.