Well, at least (thankfully) MJ's body is now Santa Barbara County's problem and not L.A. County. All the groupies are headed to Neverland to never forget. SmileWavy

Though that doesn't mean traffic is any better. :rolleyes:

You also believe that Mr Polanski should be given a pass on the child he was convicted of raping, and that his flight out of the country to avoid serving his sentence was okie dokie too. Your opinion on matters of child abuse/molestation should be discounted out of hand.

he wasn't convicted. he wasn't even tried.

get a grip.

Conservatives like him are not real big on facts.

Polanski's accuser has also forgiven him - that is if he committed rape from the outset. It's the prosecutors who have issue with him. I'm not sure if he is as well known for this alleged molestation as he is for his wife, Sharon Tate, who was slit open by Charles Manson.

Polanski's victim has a major case of Stockholm Syndrome.

He and MJ are both a couple of mentally disturbed evil baby-rapists who deserve far worse than they've gotten.

Just because someone knows how to titillate the masses with mindless entertainment doesn't mean they should get a pass when it comes to exploiting children. They're like the pied pipers of pedophilia, both of them. One lured his victims with the music of drugs, the other with "Jesus Juice" and the Neverland Ranch.

Give me five minutes in a room alone with Polanski and I'd fix the problem once and for all. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Scumbag.

Ah yes. Jeff the Patriot. And judge, jury and executioner. With your fine omniscience you pronounce people guilty based on tabloid information.

You know nothing about what actually happened but your moral indignation and righteous outrage at their imagined crimes runs high.

Fortunately for us the rest of us, you hold no high office—because if you did you'd be dangerous.

Carry on Mr. Patriot. Keep fighting the good fight in front of your screen.

Keep fighting the good fight? Sure. I will.

And you can keep right on defending and idolizing the baby-f*ckers like Wacko Jacko and Roman Polanski. We need more shameless defenders of pedophiles, freaks, molesters and rapists.

Care to share with the class how Mr. Polanski is NOT guilty? The evidence is overwhelming, including his own admission.

Maybe you really think they're innocent? Or is that the Jesus Juice talking?

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and fly like a duck..............

Why would anyone in there right mind invite little boys into their bed and think it's all innocent?

I don't know if Dottore is a lawyer or not, but he's certainly resorting to an old lawyer's trick which basically seeks to legitimize "the game" and by extension, them and their roles which they play within it. The thing to keep in mind is that the system and its participants (namely the lawyers) rake in untold billions of dollars off of getting the rest of us to believe in their impartiality, omniscience and enlightenment to which the rest of us are not privy. Ultimately however, this is a sham on the rest of us - it's all about the money. Here's how it works:

First, someone stands behind the platitude of "innocent until proven guilty" (which in and of itself is not a bad platitude). This is then extended to "guilt" someone into thinking that unless someone has been convicted IN COURT, that they're somehow innocent and it's completely inappropriate to have one's own opinion. This is where the logic breaks down.

The reality of this position is meaningless. Ultimately you can't prove a negative. So just because someone has NOT been convicted in a particular forum (court) hardly can be extended to "prove" their innocence. It simply means they haven't been convicted in court. Nothing more. There is another platitude which is often invoked, the principle whereby "it's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than have one innocent man found guilty". Again, fine in theory but unfortunately this has been misinterpreted to mean "we SHOULD set a hundred guilty men free for every one we convict so it legitimizes the system and allows us to claim we're being true to this principle". This I disagree with. It's WAY too easy for guilty people to walk these days on technicalities, procedural mistakes, soft judges, etc. I'd love to see hard numbers on how many times it actually takes for someone to commit a repeat crime before they're actually (1) caught, (2) convicted and (3) sentenced in such a way that will prevent recidivism (i.e. not "community service" or "pay a fine and no admission of guilt"). It sure as hell isn't 1:1. Probably closer to 20:1, but like I said, I'd love to see the hard numbers.

By holding up "conviction in court" as the standard however, the players in the system legitimize themselves. It's a self-referential effort. If everyone is made to believe that "conviction in court" is the ultimate standard of someone's overall guilt or innocence, it benefits them, since they get paid everytime something goes to the courts. And they profiteer off of it. Mightily. The participants in "the system" want us to simply toss all individual discretion to the wind and leave it to "the experts" (them) to think for us. And naturally they want us to pay them handsomely for the privilege.

In reality (where I live) I don't need a court or lawyerly games to shape my opinions of someone for me. The system is broken, corrupt and manipulated by for-profit lawyers on a daily basis. I don't believe in the system. I certainly don't need it to think for me. It is hardly an objective standard that is an adequate substitute for my own judgment. This is not to say I think a CONVICTION in court is necessarily wrong, nor is it to say that I completely disrespect the authority of the courts to pass judgment on those who meet a certain standard of having their guilt proven.

What it means is that I'm not buying into the ruse. I don't need "the system" to think for me or for me to feel guilty about convicting someone in my own mind. I'm not afraid to say it. Both MJ and RP are guilty as hell and they should both rot in hell for it. One guy's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd add OJ to that list as well, all three are guilty as sin!

OJ was guilty. MJ, I'm not so sure.

Agreed.

Guilty and innocent have nothing to do with whether or not you did it. It only has to do with the state having proved its charges or not. OJ was NOT guilty. He did it. But he was not guilty because the state could not prove it. Doesn't mean shiet to me. He and MJ are equally criminal in my mind. Maybe if OJ dies soon we'll all be remembering what a great running back and Hertz spokesman he was.

Jeff (and others) - you (guys) need to relax about the ped thing and consider how YOU are going to pay for Jackson's funeral at the Staples Center.

That's right: news this morning said the send off will be at the Staples Center, will be larger than Elvis and Princess Di's funeral combined, and the taxpayers might have to pay for everything.

Wow! Now that takes balls!

Depend on the usual suspects, sans the guy in the middle, to be at the 10 million fan gala:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1...rownfunera.jpg

Could we box the other two up and get a package deal?:D:D

It will generate more revenue than it will cost.

For whom and from whom? And of the taxpayers, how will they see any of that revenue?

Sure, taco trucks and water stands will make $$$...

Otherwise, I fail to see the benefit of trickle-down superstar funerals to the public at large.

I had the same opinion about the Lakers celebration until the Mayor raised a lot of the cost through private donations.

Heck, It's cali****infornia, what's a few more millions???

i remember years back arguing with someone who said that since tookie williams wrote a children's book telling kids to not join gangs, he should be spared the death penalty.

now, i have worked on dozens of children's books and cartoons. WHEN DO I GET MY FREE MURDER? i have a prepared list of people i'd like to kill in my desk.

they didn't have an answer.

back in the seventies norman mailer fell in love with the poetry of some convict. he testified before the parole board saying the guy was too talented to remain in prison. within a month of being set loose, the guy got drunk and murdered a waiter.





roman polanski gave a 13 year old pills. and then sodomized her while she was unconscious. being a moderately talented director does not give you a free pass for stuff like that.