Re: OT:Smoke one for Jacko
- From: Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:43:12 -0400
Joe wrote:
On 2009-06-30, Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<Snip>
Or the millions to attract the accusers in the first place.
That's bullshit. There are plenty of people with as much, or more money than Jackson. The difference is that those folks don't share their bed with young boys.
That's right. That makes him a freak with millions, hence a target of opportunity. Case in point: you already had him guilty.
Catholic priests don't have millions, but there are a few that have managed to attract quite a few accusers.
Joe, I know you're smarter than this. People don't sue Catholic priests. They sue the diocese. They'd sue the Vatican if they could (and they've tried).
Bill Gates has billions. How many folks have accused him of molesting their children?
Bill gates isn't a target of opportunity like Jackson or the Catholic Church.
All it is is a simple cop-out. People accused Jackson because they had reason to. If he wasn't keeping kids in his bed on a regular basis, he'd have had no reason to fear going to court if he wasn't guilty. His actions gave the impression of guilt. His buying off of the accusers simply reinforced it. Do I know he was guilty? Of course not. None of us will likely ever know. So, we are left with logic and opinion. Logic points to a likelihood of guilt. My opinion says there is no doubt in my mind. Your opinion ay differ, but I'd clearly disagree with you...
This is precisely why he should have avoided a trial at all costs. You're making Micky and my point for us.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: About that contrarian EPA report...
- Next by Date: Re: Just in time for Cap & Trade
- Previous by thread: Re: About that contrarian EPA report...
- Next by thread: Re: OT:Smoke one for Jacko
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
