smotherb

14 hours ago, helpisgood said:

As I am sure it's been said before, maybe also changing that celibacy rule would help. 

Celibacy? I think you're missing the real problem. It's the Catholic Church's covered-up of crime by its clergy that bothers me. I suggest, if the church had arrested and convicted their clergy for these crimes; there would be fewer of them. Instead, the Catholic Church aided and abetted the crimes. 

10 hours ago, Timbob said:

<removed>

 

I made a joke based on your statement:

 

"Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers"

 

I suppose you never read books / newspapers, or watch the news? Surely these are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers? The only TV shows you watch must be Judge Judy or Court TV. Oh and that was a joke... so there's no need to explain!

A decision of any consequence to me should be based on numerous viable sources, not on one documentary, no matter how compelling it is to you.  

We have already established my faith in your judicial prowess. You tell me there is compelling evidence--or rather, "The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses . . . Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. "

Let's recap:

"The two guys in the documentary" Yes, one of whom testified for Jackson in the 2005 trial.

"the accuser from the 2005 case" Yes, the case which resulted in Jackson being found not guilty.

"Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993)" Yes, perhaps he got what he sought.

"and a few more besides" Yes, quite compelling they are.

"Sure they could all be lying" Yes, what can I add to that? 

"but I don't believe so. "  Well then, that's it, sorted.

Now, that's a joke.

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

That's what I said.

So, what is your point? Are you suggesting Thailand has no right to set financial requirements for foreigners who wish to live in their country?  

Just now, BritManToo said:

Financially challenged, you mean white guys with guaranteed pensions of more than 2x-10x the locals wages.

I mean those who do not meet the legal Thai minimums for foreigners. 

12 hours ago, Leaver said:

That used to be the case.

 

Now, immigration have a bigger say, through financial requirements, who they want to stay, and who they want to leave. 

I am not sure I understand your complaint. Are you saying a sovereign state has no right to try to keep financially-challenged individuals out of their country?

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Yeah, and now it is the new normal for men to sleep with young boys, and for the fans to say it is completely cool, and that nothing ever happened? He is an innocent man, and there is nothing wrong for him to be sleeping with young boys. Yeah right. If I were a judge, or jury, that would be all the evidence I would need. As a civilian, that is all the evidence I need. Guilty!

You, apparently, have not read my posts or do not understand. I am neither advocating Michael Jackson's activities with children nor am I a fan of his talents; although, I do recognize them.  I am very pleased; however, that you are not a judge; since your words indicate you would make your judicial assessments based upon your beliefs rather than the evidence presented.   If you cannot see the fallacy in the belief something is criminally and morally wrong simply because you do not condone it; I have nothing else to say to you; it would be like pounding sand down a rat hole.  

12 hours ago, Timbob said:

Your wife: "There's an interesting documentary on tonight that I thought we might watch together?"

You: "Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers." 

 

Jeez, get over yourself.

I am indeed sorry that you have no better retort than to cast aspersions. 

Let me try to explain.

If my wife wanted me to watch something with her, I most likely would. I doubt she would be trying to make me form my opinion of the situation from the documentary. You see, she has a full command of English, is intelligent, educated, and can hold her own in a debate.  

I appears you believe I feel superior because I do not see your point. No, it is the ineffective way you argue it.

8 hours ago, Timbob said:

No. Like many people I had thought MJ was probably a pedophile, but I didn't actually want this documentary to help confirm my suspicions. FWIW, I was pleased he was found not guilty in 2005. Back then I believed he was probably innocent and misunderstood. I was groomed too. I now think he was definitely a pedophile as I think the evidence is compelling.  

 

True. But you see to have more than a passing interest in this topic so why not watch the documentary and find out for yourself? Then you can make up your own mind whether it is credible or not.  

I do not make-up my mind from documentaries. Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers.   

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I tend to disagree, when it comes to trusting the court of law. The US justice system is incredibly corrupt and compromised. If you have millions to throw at a legal team, more than likely they can create some doubt in the mind of at least one juror. How is that not corrupt? How does that equate with "justice"? The same charges, with the same evidence results in a guilty verdict, for someone like most of us, who do not have $5 million or more to pay a legal team of men and women who are specifically hired with deceit, deception, trickery, and disingenuousness in mind, when it comes to creating that doubt. It has nothing to do with justice, fair play, honesty, integrity, or the search for the truth, and everything to do with manipulating the system to gain a positive result for the rich client, who then becomes another person who is above the law. Think OJ Simpson, for example.

 

From my perspective, the possibility that MJ is not innocent, is more likely than an Alaskan native preferring  vegan brownies, over Copper River salmon.

Fine, we have your perspective, but I posit your perspective does not make it so.

Granted, a court decision can be influenced by funding. 

However, it is a fact that documentaries can be biased and self-serving?  

None of us were in the bedroom with Jackson and those boys.  

Do you not subscribe to the presumption of innocence?

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable--court adjudicated--doubt. 

On 3/27/2019 at 8:29 AM, tifino said:

in the doco.; MJ had BJs with the kiddie. MJ used the same evade as BC 

Oh, so the "doco" is in fact exactly what happened? So, you believe all documentaries, or just this one?

Do you have any idea of the reasons documentaries are made?

Sometimes it is the reveal a truth, but sometimes it is only to generate interest and accrue whatever benefit can be derived.

Of course, there can be many other reasons, but those two cover our discussion rather well.

On 3/28/2019 at 12:18 AM, Timbob said:

As I said previously, being found not guilty is not proof of innocence. If he was tried again based on the testimonies of these men then he would likely be found guilty.  

 

You have not even watched the documentary. Fine. Remain (willfully) ignorant. 

I do not believe I said Jackson was proved innocent, but I did say he was found not guilty. 

Do you believe any video you see, or just ones which support your beliefs? 

You will have to forgive me if I do not recognize your legal qualifications to prejudge the result of a trail.  

Now you have called me ignorant. Why, because I do not agree with you?  Somehow, I think agreeing with you would . . . 

1 hour ago, Timbob said:

 

Nobody will ever know with 100% certainty. That's true of almost all such cases of child abuse, rape, etc. There are seldom any witnesses to these crimes. That doesn't mean we have to just move along and let it be, even if the accused is dead - as some here are suggesting.

 

What "definitive evidence" do you want?

 

Yes, Wade Robson did testify in Jackson's '05 defense. If you watch the documentary you will hear his reasons why. It's also fairly common for sexual abuse victims to take a long time (well into adulthood) to fully understand what happened to them and to seek justice.

 

Plus it's a lot more than he said / he said. The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses, as are their family members. Watch the documentary and you may well agree. Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. 

 

P.S. Yes, I'm aware that is not Michael Jackson in the video ????

100%? Only thing 100% is death. I am more likely to believe a court of law than a documentary, but feel free to believe whatever you want.   

3 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

I doubt anyone would compare Micheal Jackson with the the abused children's mother or father. 

Off you go on another tangent.

I am not comparing Michael Jackson with the abused children's mother or father.

Do you not understand?

I am saying you, me, anyone; can sleep with a child and it does not mean we had sex with them. 

Is that too complicated?

4 hours ago, Timbob said:

MJ only invited boys into his bed. Not girls, not fat boys, not ginger boys. I wonder why? 

 

 

Wonder all you want.  I just hope you do not think that video is Jackson.

I do not know what went on in Jackson's bed with those boys and neither do you.

However, Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 in a court of law and Wade Robeson, one of his accusers now, testified in Jackson's defense. 

So, until more than the he said she said of that documentary comes out; I will withhold my condemnation.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not arguing what went on--as I said, I do not know and I have seen no definitive evidence--I am simply arguing that you do not have to have sex with someone just because you sleep with them.

1 minute ago, tifino said:

Clinton also evaded the admitting by claiming that Oral was not sex!

Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

Clinton was trying to evade the fact by pushing the thought that a blow job was not sex. However, there was a blow job.

I am saying that it is possible to sleep with someone without having sex with them. 

Do you deny that possibility? If so, I posit the fact that many parents sleep with their children; do you think they have sex with them?

1 minute ago, marcusarelus said:

You are kidding right?

I have to ask you the same thing? You seriously do not see the difference?

Let me put it this way; most people have slept with their mothers and not had sex. Most people have slept with friends or relatives without having sex. I have slept with my grandson and not had sex. 

Consequently, I have to believe you are kidding?

1 minute ago, ShortTimed said:

 

My post must not have been clearly worded. I saw interviews with MJ where he admitted having children sleep in his bed.

Those same interviews included the fact that the various parents were aware their sons were sleeping in the bed of MJ.

Obviously, I am convinced that they were sleeping in his bed.

 

Sleeping in the same bed and having sex are not the same thing. 

9 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 

I am not convinced of anything but I saw interviews where MJ admitted it at the time so the parents had full knowledge...they gave their consent for pajama parties with a 40-year old man.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine but $$$is usually on the short list.

 

Uhh? You saw it but are not convinced? And, "they gave their consent." Isn't that just what I said?

10 hours ago, direction BANGKOK said:

I know what you mean. I was taking that kind of thing into consideration though. 

 

It is just too far fetched for me. Anything is possible, but you have mothers completely ruining their lives and credibility in the documentary. It is hard to believe a performance like all that would even be possible if it was all made up. 

 

Put it this way, any reasonable person would have some serious questions about this as a casual onlooker. In the documentary the questions do seem to get answered in very convincing ways however. 

Have you ever seen those little girl beauty pageants and watched their mothers? Look at the millions spent to fraudulently buy their kid's way into colleges--parents can do crazy things to get what THEY want for their children.

43 minutes ago, direction BANGKOK said:

I advise watching the documentary. It addresses this question rather well in my opinion. 

Yeah, I guess I could, but documentaries can be fraught with inaccuracies and afterthoughts. After all, the intent of the developer is to cause interest in the documentary.

However, I have read several reviews and it appears to be the age-old case of star-struck children, over zealous stage mothers, and "shh, don't tell anyone, this is all about our love and nobody else would understand"  If I didn't know better I'd think Jackson was a priest. Perhaps it is simply chapter three in the pedophile's handbook.

Perhaps a little more about the hypothetical situation is needed. 

You mentioned defamation of character and non-justifiable threats. Although I am not sure of the legal definition of a justifiable threat; I can fathom a case of defamation of character. 

Let me spin a little yarn for you--there is no valuable information in this tale, so go on to the next post if you seek closure. I am waiting for an old buddy to arrive so we can drain this crock of Tullamore Dew and am just killing time.

Once upon a time, this acquaintance of mine had gone through a couple of bad marriages and was envious of my relationship with my Filipina wife.  Apparently, in his mind, marrying a Filipina was the answer to a happy life.

So, off he went on a two-week trip to Manila and married a girl he met on the streets--his words.  He took her to the US Embassy to start the spousal visa process before he left.  According to him, the consul/embassy employee told him to go home and sober up; that his wife was nothing but a whore. Well, he did admit he met her on the street and she went with him.

As I said, he was an acquaintance and this is his story. He asked me about suing the Manila Embassy employee--As I understand it, to prove defamation of character a third party has to be privy to the claim and the claim has to be proven false.  When I confronted him with that statement, he said there was another person in the office when he was told that and that she was not a whore--apparently, he forgot he told me how they met. 

He said he went to the State Department when he returned to DC and complained and said he got results. I am not privy to all the results he my have gotten, but he did bring a Filipina to the US some months later--this was in maybe 1984.

She did leave him a short while after and she certainly acted like a lady of negotiable virtue--her first question to my wife was, "How much money do you get out of him?"    

Well, she left him and he claimed all women were bad--sound familiar?

4 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 

Maybe they were thinking what a wonderful experience for our son—in that wonderful place sleeping in the same bed with and snuggling up with that mega-star.

 

Yeah...sure.

So, you're convinced the parents were letting Jackson have sex with their children. Hmmm. So, Jackson had parental consent?

19 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

What were the boys’ parents thinking when they would leave them unattended like that overnight?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Oh, maybe they were thinking what a wonderful experience for our son--in that wonderful place associating with that mega star. 

If they were wondering how much money they could get from Jackson for selling their sons for sex; I think they waited too long. 

19 hours ago, Skallywag said:

I want to know how you turned 100K into 500K in 5 years.  That is the TV post I want to read about.  ????????????

 

 

First, you have to have the $100k.