Oh, puhleeeze, ColoCdn, spare me the nonsense. The two sets of circumstances are drastically different. I don't give a rat's butt what you think of Michael Shiavo, nor am I at all motivated to try to change your mind. However, Michael Shiavo has never been accused IN LAW of a crime.
In about the starkest contrast possible, Michael Jackson has ADMITTED TO sleeping with young boys. He has a long, very public record of luring troubled familes to his estate, and then doing, shall we say, unusual things with them.
You zealots also cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, screech about the Shiavo case on religious grounds while excusing the atrocious behavior of Jackson. A middle-aged man luring unrelated young boys into his home and sleeping with them is morally wrong period. Jackson's fame, celebrity and wealth do not excuse him.
Well stated. As always.
Not to carry on unpleasant feelings--but apparently Post #8 has been reinstated, and I am able to see that indeed, it did not start with Peach. I only bring this up now because I feel a public apology is in order. Peach, I'm sorry I got it wrong.
Wolfstar, thanks for your post--if not for that, I wouldn't have noticed the reappearance of #8.
PS--some of us zealots also think Jackson is guilty as sin. I'm one of them.
If you will take the time to investigate my threads, I have not only NEVER stated anything about my belief in Jackson's guilt or innocence, my posts have been about the inconsistency of posts that support MS (never charged IN LAW, as you so aptly point out) based on the COURT RECORD, versus the opprobrium directed against MJ based on MSM HEARSAY (because there is no full, adjudicated COURT RECORD as of yet).
If you want to try Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion, as you are obviously doing, fine. Just don't criticize people for trying Michael Schiavo in the same court you're using for Jackson.
That's called hypocrisy.