Posted on 12/19/2004 3:42:09 PM PST by MizzouTigerRepublican
i ABSOLUTELY agree that OJ was guilty, but my opinion on that is based on the evidence presented.
hah, it still boggles my mind how the juice made it.
"Excuse me, have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? HeeeEEE HEEeee! Owwwww!" *moonwalk*
}:-)4
that reminds me of the joke regarding the Michael Jackson sale at K-Mart....all boys' pants half-off (ugh).
Stupid or greedy?
The press calls it a party; Jacko calls it a buffett.
he likes the coctail weenies
REASONABLE doubt means just that. There is none in this case. Let's see, this adult man is accused by many young male children, he admits they sleep in his bedroom, and on and on and on. He is guilty as sin, and I mean that literally. If he were some Joe Schmoe, he'd already be in prison.
I gave up on the 'Ghost of Christmases Past' when he forked over $25 million to shut that boy up.
Look, the 'Thrilla' admits to sleeping with these kids. What 45 year old men do you wish to allow to sleep with your little boys or girls?
Parents who continue to expose their children to this clown are unfit.
Now THAT is FUNNY! Ha ha ha ha...
...and singing soprano'er'...
...if you catch my drift.
Ouch. I give. Ahh, what's one more....Did you hear Jackson has food poisoning...yeah, he ate a 10-year old wiener.
What do you call it when Michael Jackson molests a boy from the inner city?
White on black crime.
New keyboard requisition coming your way.
You do understand that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to jurors, NOT public opinion, yours or mine. That is nothing more than a cop-out, intended to make you unable to form your own opinions, or judgements. You know, you DO have the right and responsibility to make judgements every day, in all situations. Please do not give me that "innocent until proven guilty" clap-trap again.
The point is this: No responsible parent would allow their child to be around a man suspected of sexual abuse of children. I wouldn't let my children within 100 feet of this sick bastard. I don't gamble with my children's well being or safety. Those that do in order to allow their children to spend time with a celebrity should have their kids removed. Period!!!!!!!!!
very true, you make a good point.
still (just to continue playing devil's advocate), i could also argue that hundreds, if not thousands, of children would argue otherwise - that he never abused them or took advantage of them...in fact, he did just the opposite, donating to charity, volunteering his time, and on and on and on...and again, we've seen no evidence yet.
personally, i think jackson DOES have mental issues...deprived of a childhood, probably still thinks having kids over = innocent slumber parties.
haha, or not - i admit, i can easily have a change of opinion based on the evidence.
as for the joe schmoe remark, i'll actually agree with you 100% on that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.