Please continue any discussion on random news items here.

I'm not sure how long you two intend to go back and forth on Michael Jackson, but the summary of your arguments is basically that Iso thinks he is guilty and TUP thinks he is innocent / not enough evidence to presume guilt.

Until you can agree on that point, everything else in that discussion is pointless.  If you can't agree on that point, you will go back and forth in perpetuity.

12 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Well I don't know you're a pedo either but I wouldn't just assume you were. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-AwQAvbRo

 

27 minutes ago, Rich said:

I'm not sure how long you two intend to go back and forth on Michael Jackson, but the summary of your arguments is basically that Iso thinks he is guilty and TUP thinks he is innocent / not enough evidence to presume guilt.

Until you can agree on that point, everything else in that discussion is pointless.  If you can't agree on that point, you will go back and forth in perpetuity.

Not every disagreement is pointless.  Sometimes differences of opinion within a discussion are enlightening. Feel free to split it off to its own thread and then only people who want to read and or take part can do so. 

Quite honestly I think it's pretty wild for someone to assume a guy is a sick pedo with no evidence to support that.  But as I said I assumed Jackson was guilty too....until I bothered to look into it more. And I've helpfully detailed the first accusation and why it was clearly bogus. So while I agree ISO isn't likely to change his mind (I said the same thing earlier) I was hoping he'd read the supporting facts and admit that perhaps there was more to the story than he thought. 

Regrdless it's very different than Polanski who admitted he did it, said she was into it and then fled to avoid jail. He's a sleaze. 

I read your post, TUP. I just took it to be an extremely  rich guy who paid people off to stay out of jail. Just like Polanski taking off to avoid prosecution. Except Jackson did it multiple times. I fail to see how one child is more important than a number of others.

If Rich doesn't want me to comment anymore, I won't.

5 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

And....?  He only wanted to operate when he thought his rich pals would grease some palms.  When there was a risk of prison, he took off.  Does having a lousy life beforehand give him one free child raping?  

He spent 42 days in a Chino State Prison.

if you read my other posts I said it didn't. 

4 hours ago, Brandon said:

Are you trying to justify raping a 13 year old?   Yowza 

Don't be obtuse. I've said multiple times what he did was wrong.

i support the victim in this. If she wanted Polanski extradited and throw in jail I'd be  all for it. But she doesn't and it's her opinion that matters to me.

Edited June 3, 20169 yr by Jacquie

My post wasn't meant for you guys to stop the argument, though reading back on it, I suppose I worded it poorly.

You guis just aren't really discussing the root cause of your difference of opinion, as illustrated in the last two posts.

TUP doesn't think it is right to assume Jackson is guilty.

Quote

Quite honestly I think it's pretty wild for someone to assume a guy is a sick pedo with no evidence to support that.  But as I said I assumed Jackson was guilty too....until I bothered to look into it more

Iso thinks he is guilty:

Quote

I just took it to be an extremely  rich guy who paid people off to stay out of jail. Just like Polanski taking off to avoid prosecution. Except Jackson did it multiple times. I fail to see how one child is more important than a number of others.

This is where your disagreement is, all your differences of opinion stem from this one point, but this isn't at all what you guys are arguing.   It is just a fascinating read in a very frustrating way.    

I haven't split it off into its own thread because I assumed that you guys would have realized that you have this very basic disagreement and aren't likely to change each others mind on it, because at the end of the day, who the heck in this forum really knows if he did it or not, so the discussion would end.

So sure, if you guys want to discuss his innocence / guilt, I will split it off.  But I think you need to argue what your difference of opinion actually is, not what the effect of it is.  Because your difference of opinion will give very different effects.  If you don't have a whole lot to add to change each others mind, I won't.

To change the subject.... Jollibees opening up on St James! 

Gotta loves the Germans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/01/universal-cancer-vaccine-on-horizon-after-genetic-breakthrough/

 

 

11 hours ago, Brandon said:

To change the subject.... Jollibees opening up on St James! 

Leave your machetes at the door.

15 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I read your post, TUP. I just took it to be an extremely  rich guy who paid people off to stay out of jail. Just like Polanski taking off to avoid prosecution. Except Jackson did it multiple times. I fail to see how one child is more important than a number of others.

If Rich doesn't want me to comment anymore, I won't.

You didn't read  my post then because it sad nothing about a rich guy paying people off.  It was about a slime ball trying to extort a celebrity who actually refused to pay the extortion which is why the allegations were made public.

You can't say Jackson abused a child.  You simply can't.  There is no evidence and he was never found guilty.  Polanski admitted it.  Again, how are they the same?  

15 hours ago, Rich said:

My post wasn't meant for you guys to stop the argument, though reading back on it, I suppose I worded it poorly.

You guis just aren't really discussing the root cause of your difference of opinion, as illustrated in the last two posts.

TUP doesn't think it is right to assume Jackson is guilty.

Iso thinks he is guilty:

This is where your disagreement is, all your differences of opinion stem from this one point, but this isn't at all what you guys are arguing.   It is just a fascinating read in a very frustrating way.    

I haven't split it off into its own thread because I assumed that you guys would have realized that you have this very basic disagreement and aren't likely to change each others mind on it, because at the end of the day, who the heck in this forum really knows if he did it or not, so the discussion would end.

So sure, if you guys want to discuss his innocence / guilt, I will split it off.  But I think you need to argue what your difference of opinion actually is, not what the effect of it is.  Because your difference of opinion will give very different effects.  If you don't have a whole lot to add to change each others mind, I won't.

Thing is Rich, I know that. I even said that ti ISO in an earlier post.  But my point in continuing the discussion is that he won't answer the very simple question in regards to how he can say someone is a pedo with not only no evidence to support it, but plenty of evidence to counter it...and how that is worth using as comparison against Polanski?

A much better comparison would be Bill Cosby.  He still never plead guilty to anything and didn't rape a child but he admitted to drugging women for the purpose of sex.  And public opinion on Cosby is similar to Polanski (bad).  The difference is Hollywood is mostly against Cosby but supports Polanski.  We can guess as to why.

15 hours ago, Jacquie said:

He spent 42 days in a Chino State Prison.

if you read my other posts I said it didn't. 

He spent 42 days of a 90 day assignment to prison for purposes of an evaluation which he agreed to in an effort to get off.  It was part of his plea deal to avoid significant prison time.  The 42 days were not a sentence on the crime.  He was released early.  The issue is the judge said he felt Polanski deserved to at least serve the remainder of the 90 days he had agreed to.  Polanski didn't think he should do any time at all since, you know, the child wanted it.

Regarding the victims opinion, its important but not almighty.  Many examples in domestic abuse of women who don't want their partner's arrested but they are anyway.  In this case, the child co-operated fully initially.  And for years.  And years later sued...so she still wanted justice then.  She got paid and now doesn't want to proceed.  And while her opinion is relevant in the sentencing phase, it doesn't preclude the public interest (by way of the role of the DA) to consequence Polanski.  Not to mention he still could be charged for fleeing, which she has no relevancy in.

Bend over the price of gas just went up again.

11 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Bend over the price of gas just went up again.

What price are you seeing?

Some places have gone up to 112.9 but a lot are still at 103.4 & Costco is at 98.9.

http://www.winnipeggasprices.com/

 

Edited June 3, 20169 yr by bigg jay

9 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

What price are you seeing?

Prices started going up at 1 this afternoon 112.9 popping up around the city, also heard this morning that Petro Can stations in the west are running out of gas, being blamed on problems at Fort Mac.

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You didn't read  my post then because it sad nothing about a rich guy paying people off.  It was about a slime ball trying to extort a celebrity who actually refused to pay the extortion which is why the allegations were made public.

You can't say Jackson abused a child.  You simply can't.  There is no evidence and he was never found guilty.  Polanski admitted it.  Again, how are they the same?  

Well, I see you want to play that game. Okay, I'llplay. You can't say he didn't. Anyway I'm done. Jackson was a pervert & I won't change my mind.

8 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

He spent 42 days of a 90 day assignment to prison for purposes of an evaluation which he agreed to in an effort to get off.  It was part of his plea deal to avoid significant prison time.  The 42 days were not a sentence on the crime.  He was released early.  The issue is the judge said he felt Polanski deserved to at least serve the remainder of the 90 days he had agreed to.  Polanski didn't think he should do any time at all since, you know, the child wanted it.

Regarding the victims opinion, its important but not almighty.  Many examples in domestic abuse of women who don't want their partner's arrested but they are anyway.  In this case, the child co-operated fully initially.  And for years.  And years later sued...so she still wanted justice then.  She got paid and now doesn't want to proceed.  And while her opinion is relevant in the sentencing phase, it doesn't preclude the public interest (by way of the role of the DA) to consequence Polanski.  Not to mention he still could be charged for fleeing, which she has no relevancy in.

The lawyer for the victim negotiated the plea bargain. The victim and her family did not want Polanski sent back to prison after he had served the 42 days - long before the lawsuit.

I'm with Iso on one thing, I think we need to agree to disagree.

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by Jacquie

Muhammad Ali hospitalized:

Quote

Former world heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali was close to death in a Phoenix-area hospital on Friday, a source close to the family said.

Ali, 74, one of the world's most celebrated athletes, was hospitalized this week for a respiratory ailment. The family spokesman has said he was in fair condition, but speculation has swirled about his health.

Asked about Ali's condition, the source said: "It's extraordinarily grave. It's a matter of hours."

The source said he had spoken with Ali's wife, Lonnie. "It could be more than a couple of hours, but it's not going to be much more. Funeral arrangements are already being made."

The spokesman, Bob Gunnell, has not responded to repeated requests for comment about his condition.

Ali has suffered from Parkinson's disease for more than three decades and has kept a low profile in recent years.

Ali's last public appearance was in April at the "Celebrity Fight Night" gala in Arizona, a charity that benefits the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center.

At the height of his career, Ali was known for his dancing feet and quick fists and his ability, as he put it, to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Nicknamed "The Greatest," he retired from boxing in 1981 with a 56-5 record.

Ali's diagnosis of Parkinson's came about three years after he retired. Ali, born in Louisville, Kentucky, as Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., changed his name in 1964 after his conversion to Islam.

Ali's daughter Laila, a former boxer, posted a photo to Facebook of her father kissing her own daughter, Sydney. She thanked supporters for their wishes for Ali, saying, "I feel your love and appreciate it!"

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/muhammad-ali-hospital-1.3615614

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by Jacquie

Muhammad Ali dead. RIP 

On June 3, 2016 at 4:06 PM, iso_55 said:

Well, I see you want to play that game. Okay, I'llplay. You can't say he didn't. Anyway I'm done. Jackson was a pervert & I won't change my mind.

Ofcourse you're entitled to your opinion even when it's wrong.  All I will say in closing, is if you ever want to explore it more deeply, do some research.  As I said, I used to see it the same way as you and had my mind changed.

Good discussion.  No hard feelings.

On June 3, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Jacquie said:

The lawyer for the victim negotiated the plea bargain. The victim and her family did not want Polanski sent back to prison after he had served the 42 days - long before the lawsuit.

I'm with Iso on one thing, I think we need to agree to disagree.

It doesn't matter what the victim wants.  If a 13 year girl is raped and says she doesn't want the guy to go to jail, the DA can't base a decision on no persecuting on that fact.  Its a relevant consideration in choosing to proceed on the basis of strength of the case without the victim's cooperation but its not reliant on that cooperation.  There is an obligation for the DA to seek justice.  In this case, its moot because Polanski admitted it.  Its possible he wasn't going to be sentenced to prison or just the remaining 48 days of his previously agreed upon 90 day stint.  But the judge also is not obligated to agree with plea agreements.  

Plus now you have the issue of his fleeing which is a crime.  I don't know the penalty involved but once they have him back its possible they say fine we accept the plea deal on the sex crime...but hey now you're going to prison for fleeing.

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

It doesn't matter what the victim wants.  If a 13 year girl is raped and says she doesn't want the guy to go to jail, the DA can't base a decision on no persecuting on that fact.  Its a relevant consideration in choosing to proceed on the basis of strength of the case without the victim's cooperation but its not reliant on that cooperation.  There is an obligation for the DA to seek justice.  In this case, its moot because Polanski admitted it.  Its possible he wasn't going to be sentenced to prison or just the remaining 48 days of his previously agreed upon 90 day stint.  But the judge also is not obligated to agree with plea agreements.  

Plus now you have the issue of his fleeing which is a crime.  I don't know the penalty involved but once they have him back its possible they say fine we accept the plea deal on the sex crime...but hey now you're going to prison for fleeing.

In 2003 when Danny Heatley killed his teammate Dan Snyder in Atlanta he wasn't charged by the DA in Atlanta because Snyder's parents went public & said they didn't want that. The DA respected their wishes even though he had the evidence to put Heatley in jail but didn't pursue the more serious charge of first degree vehicular homicide which would have meant years of jail time. Instead the DA charged Heatley with second degree vehicular homicide, speeding, driving too fast for the conditions & failing to maintain his lane. He was fined $25,000 & put on probation for 3 years . He was also required to give 150 speeches about the dangers of speeding. Victims or their families do have a say in what happens.

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by iso_55

Meanwhile in 'merica

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/06/06/man-sued-30k-over-40-printer-he-sold-craigslist/85478168/