Rabbi Shmuley Speaks to Joy Behar about Michael!

[Lucilla]

Behar, Schmuley and everybody else is in no position to determine morality. each of them has something they feel they believe in doing that somebody else considers immoral. so they are in no position to play God, judge or determine that 'where there's smoke, there's fire.' but thanks for posting and reminding me that Behar hasn't changed, though she's fascinated by Michael Jackson. she's still as nasty as she ever was. and envious.

and the proof is in the pudding. MJ's kids turned out fabulous. He was a GREAT father.

i will give Schmuley props for showing the fallibility of the phrase 'where there's smoke, there's fire'. comparing MJ's activities to smoke is like comparing apples to oranges, and saying a car is like a human being.

:clapping:

I remembered Joy Behar from here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxNGQEY1heM&feature=related

And no, she hasn't changed :doh:

 

[Severus Snape]

"He was exonerated, or did they pay the family off?" Does she, like, live under a friggin' rock or something? Where was she in 2005? Why bother to go through the trial if you're just going to pay the family off and call it a day? The lack of logic in this hag is nauseating. Moreover, she acknowledges that asking about the paternity of the children is a 'rude' question...well then, why ask it in the first place? I guess that makes you a rude person, thanks for giving us at least that bit of honesty in your self-portrait. Not that we needed it.

This woman doesn't even know how to give a good interview, does she? She flounders around topics, all of which we've heard before, and looks for (???) I'm not entirely sure what she's expecting, or if she's even familiar with federal law (regarding the molestation charges and their exoneration in 2005, not to mention Sneddon's wholly unsuccessful attempts to make something out of nothing for over a decade.) It seems as though she doesn't even know the details of the story --poor research conduction on her part-- and this is exhibited when she just says "a few kids." Like, who? Thus far, the only two which actively pursued a case were Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo, for Jordy (who famously refused to testify) and Gavin, respectively. The first case could be summed up in one word: money. Yet, even after "paying them off", as Behar suggests, Tom Sneddon kept the case open, and continued to look for people who were willing to sue throughout the nineties, ending in his closing of the case, due to complete lack of evidence. Arvizo, in 2003, was advised to pursue a criminal case by Sneddon for credibility purposes, learning from his mistakes a decade prior--even though all the family wanted was a payoff, which is why they wanted to pursue a civil case like the Chandlers in the beginning. Yet, their entire story was proven to have holes a truck could drive through, and to be wholly inaccurate, and therefore, false, in case the drastic changes it underwent weren't clue enough.

I think, during the 90's, there was one Blanca Francia, a former maid of Michael's, who attempted to suggest that her son had been molested by Michael, but whose story was so completely ludicrous that no one took her seriously. Again, the pursuit was of a civil case, which does no favours to anyone's credibility. Francia's stories, aside from being utterly disgusting, tell more about her own character than they do about Michael Jackson. Her stories include accounts saying she 'witnessed' misconduct by Michael on children--but if at all true, why is she telling the tabloids about it, and not the police? Ah, because the tabloids pay good money for a salacious interview, and the police department doesn't. Why is it that she waited until she got fired to pursue any of this? There are too many strange circumstances surrounding her allegations, because they're simply untrue. Not only is she not a good liar, but she's also a complete idiot to boot! Go figure.

My point is, the only people who seem to raise allegations of child abuse on Michael's part all happen to have one thing in common: they're all money-grubbing, sociopathic b@$t@rds. Why doesn't Behar point this out? Perhaps because she's of the same stock, and only wants the most utterly sensational stories on her show for ratings, rather than the truth, which is far less exciting, popular, and profitable.

Truly, what a waste of money, space, air, and resources. Think of all the poor children we could feed on her salary. I'd rather have them live, than her. At least they have somewhat of a chance to actually contribute to our society, instead of being useless parasites like Joy Behar.

 

[Victory2004]

Bravo Mikage! BRAVO!!!!

 

[Sue1]

"He was exonerated, or did they pay the family off?" Does she, like, live under a friggin' rock or something? Where was she in 2005? Why bother to go through the trial if you're just going to pay the family off and call it a day? The lack of logic in this hag is nauseating. Moreover, she acknowledges that asking about the paternity of the children is a 'rude' question...well then, why ask it in the first place? I guess that makes you a rude person, thanks for giving us at least that bit of honesty in your self-portrait. Not that we needed it.

This woman doesn't even know how to give a good interview, does she? She flounders around topics, all of which we've heard before, and looks for (???) I'm not entirely sure what she's expecting, or if she's even familiar with federal law (regarding the molestation charges and their exoneration in 2005, not to mention Sneddon's wholly unsuccessful attempts to make something out of nothing for over a decade.) It seems as though she doesn't even know the details of the story --poor research conduction on her part-- and this is exhibited when she just says "a few kids." Like, who? Thus far, the only two which actively pursued a case were Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo, for Jordy (who famously refused to testify) and Gavin, respectively. The first case could be summed up in one word: money. Yet, even after "paying them off", as Behar suggests, Tom Sneddon kept the case open, and continued to look for people who were willing to sue throughout the nineties, ending in his closing of the case, due to complete lack of evidence. Arvizo, in 2003, was advised to pursue a criminal case by Sneddon for credibility purposes, learning from his mistakes a decade prior--even though all the family wanted was a payoff, which is why they wanted to pursue a civil case like the Chandlers in the beginning. Yet, their entire story was proven to have holes a truck could drive through, and to be wholly inaccurate, and therefore, false, in case the drastic changes it underwent weren't clue enough.

I think, during the 90's, there was one Blanca Francia, a former maid of Michael's, who attempted to suggest that her son had been molested by Michael, but whose story was so completely ludicrous that no one took her seriously. Again, the pursuit was of a civil case, which does no favours to anyone's credibility. Francia's stories, aside from being utterly disgusting, tell more about her own character than they do about Michael Jackson. Her stories include accounts saying she 'witnessed' misconduct by Michael on children--but if at all true, why is she telling the tabloids about it, and not the police? Ah, because the tabloids pay good money for a salacious interview, and the police department doesn't. Why is it that she waited until she got fired to pursue any of this? There are too many strange circumstances surrounding her allegations, because they're simply untrue. Not only is she not a good liar, but she's also a complete idiot to boot! Go figure.

My point is, the only people who seem to raise allegations of child abuse on Michael's part all happen to have one thing in common: they're all money-grubbing, sociopathic b@$t@rds. Why doesn't Behar point this out? Perhaps because she's of the same stock, and only wants the most utterly sensational stories on her show for ratings, rather than the truth, which is far less exciting, popular, and profitable.

Truly, what a waste of money, space, air, and resources. Think of all the poor children we could feed on her salary. I'd rather have them live, than her. At least they have somewhat of a chance to actually contribute to our society, instead of being useless parasites like Joy Behar.

Well done, a great piece of writing! So sick of all these people - mega bandwagon jumping going on here!