Michael jackson - jackson to be honoured as official american legend

M

MoonGlider

Guest
so as a black person you care more about a nonbinding resolution honoring MJ than you do about climate change, the economy, the war in Iraq and afhghanistan, and universal health care, while remembering that blacks suffer more from lack of health care than white people do?

that's kind of backwards. the truth is that as a black man you have no more authority to complain about this than I do as a white man. Your color gives you no special leg up on this. And this has nothing to do with race anyways. MJ isn't controversial because he's black. He is controversial because of allegations.

I did not say I cared more about the resolution then those things. You're creating a false dichotomy.

You are also assuming that passing the resolution would be detrimental to other issues. That is not fact. It is your assumption. I do not accept your presupposition, so your argument about me fails.

You simplistically reduced my post to being about just Michael when I clearly said I think this is indicative of a bigger problem.

You assumed I am black man. You are wrong again.

I never claimed "authority" and I don't need authority. If I feel slighted I have the right to complain, and I don't need to wait for authorization from you or any other white person. You are are so unaware of your own privilege that you feel you get to decide for black people what is appropriate for them to feel. Newsflash: you don't. You have no idea what it is like to be a black person in this society. You don't know how alienated I and many other black people often feel in this society. It may have nothing to do with race for you, but it does for me and many other people. Just because you don't feel that way does not make it invalid. You have no authority to decide how other individuals and races should feel. And just so you know, my opinion is based on a much larger context than the limited facts in this situation.

You completely ignored my point about how Elvis and Sinatra both had controversial things in their life. You can decide the difference between them and MJ has nothing to do with race. That's fine. I wouldn't judge you for that. But I disagree, and I am not wrong just because my opinion differs from yours. I take issue with your post in which you just assumed I had no basis for my ideas and condescendingly treated me like I am an irrational person crying "race" on a whim. I am not, and I'll thank you to not forget it.
 

the floacist

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
270
Points
0
Location
New York
The controversial aspects of Presley's and Sinatra's lives don't even begin to compare to Michael's.

Don't tell me you guys actually thought this would pass through? :smilerolleyes: Its not 1984 anymore.

There are more important things to be done than trying to pass an official honor to Michael Jackson. Do you know what hell this administration would get for neglecting the issues that really matter to focusing on whether or not Michael Jackson should be considered an American legend?? :no: There are many American legends that aren't 'officially' branded as one. Why is this necessary for Michael?

If you guys want to watch television and see Republican politicians debate about Michael Jackson and demeaning his name on C-Span, be my guest.

^^^^There's no difference between Rebublicans & Democrats, they're just names. That is why Ron Paul & Cynthia McKinney became really popular on the internet last election although they had very little mainstream media coverage. They represented a different view

LOL you keep thinking that.

By the way, Ron Paul is a Republican.

Get this in front of Obama. He *should* understand what this means to millions of people around the globe.
Hell Michael's a King in Africa for cryin out loud.

And what's that got to do with America?

I think someone may need to remind Pelosi of how Michael helped the Democratic party in the 90s.

1993-Clinton-TL026582-2035.jpg

By performing songs at the INAUGURATION? How is lip syncing to 'Heal the World' when the Democrats ALREADY WON helped them win during the 1992 election? I love Michael dearly but the profound credit he is being given here is highly unnecessary and makes me wonder where people's values lay.

But they don't like Bill Clinton, why do you think they tried to impeach him for a totally dumb reason. So they're not going to give Mike any recognition for that

Republicans were the ones who voted for impeachment, not the Democrats.

You mean Barack "don't wanna release a statement about this 'tragic life' " Obama. Bill Clinton would approve. He's the real 1st "African American" president, not Obama lol. Obama doesn't wanna upset the Bible Belt people.

That has to be the most insulting thing I've ever read. Barack Obama is a direct decedent of an African man, born in America. Please tell me what exactly did Bill Clinton do that made him so "Black"? Because he cheated on his wife, smoked weed, plays the saxophone and probably banged a few black chicks in his life? Oh, and he has an office in Harlem, that totally makes him more African American that Barack Obama.

And Clinton has not released a statement, and he KNOWS Michael.

It means something to me as an African-American. I am tired of this. Finally we have a black person who surpassed his white predecessors in commercial and popular appeal, but still that is not good enough. I am so mad. I believe it is racially motivated, albeit perhaps subconsciously, I really do. They can say that pervert/pedophile crap all they want, but Congress has recognized Elvis several times now and he freaking dated and married a 14 year old! That is not an allegation. It's a fact. So why isn't he a pedophile? Why isn't Congress above him? And Sinatra had ties to be the mob, but that didn't prevent Congress from naming a post office after him. I am pissed. This is a slight to Michael Jackson and to minorities in general.

I know this resolution could pass if people could be mobilized to show their support. This is so frustrating. Michael has a huge fan base, but fat lot of good it's doing him now.

Just curious; did any of these people receive this recognitions immediately after their death? Michael died only 2 weeks ago. What difference will it make in life if Michael is awarded with this or not?
 
Last edited:

lilsusie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,434
Points
0
Agree Moonglider. hmmm...but then I don't think they will honour him as american legend because he's not white.

:rolleyes:
 

resonnant

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
363
Points
0
Location
USA
If I was a politician I guess I'd vote for it, because it wont hurt anything and he was a legend, but this shouldn't even be proposed, voted on, or debated on the house floor. This is not a government issue. It's taking things too far. It's too controversial. I don't want politicians whom I want to get reelected suffering politically over the controversy of this, when there are much more important things which are also controversial for them to worry about.

Politicians have to calculate which positions are worth the backlash and which aren't. considering gay marriage, a second stimulus, an economic disaster, and the situation in Iran, politicians can not afford to deal with this.

If it turns out to be easily passed with both parties onboard than it's nothing to worry about, but I have a feeling republicans will oppose it and then bash democrats for it come the 2010 election.

Remember despite the countrie's fascination with MJ, and their sympathies for him, most still believe he was a pedophile and underserving of such an honor.

I love MJ, but the government has more important things to worry about.

Not to mention this is only going to increase the negative comments being said about MJ. People are going to complain left and right about the government honoring a pedophile, and that could end up dominating the discussions about MJ across the air waves and in living rooms around the country.

Luckily Pelosi stopped the house from even debating it. If she hadn't Peter King and others like him would be in Washington at the podium bashing MJ right now.

Very, very good point. Apparently I was speaking from the "emotional side" mostly yesterday. :mello: This really does save Michael from more verbal bashing and the rest of us from crossing over into hating people like King who don't know Michael and yet have the most vile opinion of him. See - I can be practical. :) Thanks for saying this.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,013
Points
0
my little sister was diagnosed with diabetes at age 4. since then she has been taking insulin injections several times a day. she is 9 now. she cant' be left alone because at any moment she could crash. you even have to check her in the middle of the night. be the time she is my age her disease could kill her, leave her blind or missing a limb.

George Bush vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research. He vetoed her cure, her right to live.

Obama funded her cure.

You claim politics is meaningless? It effects everybody in ways much larger than music ever could. Just look at the killed and wounder soldiers and civillains in Iraq. Look back at slavery. Look at the Japanese internment. Look at everything!!! You think Lincoln didn't give blacks something Micahel Jackson never could? You think Obama hasn't given my sister something Michael Jackson never could? He has given her the chance to survive!!!!!

Politics is extremely important. That is why I am majoring political science and journalism. It is my goal to make a difference in this world. I have chosen to devote the rest of my entire life to bringing about world peace and ending poverty and oppression all over the world.

You can't do that with music no matter what the lyrics say. They willl fall on deaf ears. Hell I love MJ's music, and I love the song Will You Be There which is about Jesus, even though I'm an agnostic. A great melody isn't going to suddenly change somebody's mind.

Yeah, I think it's meaningless. Because in the end, it all goes back around again. Power changes hands, laws get made and then unmade. My brother in law is a congressman. And I still don't think politics means squat. What laws are made today, in whatever nation, will not last or impact people for nearly the length of time great art will. Never has, never will. You can parade around all you like trying to place politicos importance over an artist like Michael Jackson, and maybe you feel the need to do so because you yourself want to feel important, but the bottom line is, artists are the most important people in the world. They reveal truth, when they truly are an artist, and they make that truth, something that was otherwise beyond description, they take that thing and make it tangible, make it something we can hold and grasp and feel and see. That's art. Those who have inspired people to the right direction, those who have inspired in people a change in perception, have been the world's creative people. Politics simply follows the shift in public perception. It doesn't change public perception. The leaders of the world are really those who produce art. Michael changed my perception on a lot of things. No politician EVER did that for me. When political leaders sense a change in public perception, they change their policies to fit that. What often changes those perceptions is the artist and philosophers of the world. Art is more important then the constantly changing, fluctuatisng laws and rules of eventually crumbling nations.
 
Last edited:

olivia

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
217
Points
0
The controversial aspects of Presley's and Sinatra's lives don't even begin to compare to Michael's.

Sinatra's doesn't but Elvis' does. Elvis was a pedophile (and this fact should be reiterated to that Pete guy , Pelosi, and all of congress by Michael's supporters), Priscilla was only 14 when he brought her to Graceland. Yet the Senate deemed Graceland a Natl. Historic landmark. Whereas, Michael shouldn't have that attached to his name by lawmakers because he was found innocent. These law makers should be examples to the citizens and should be reminded of this fact.
Also, Elvis was a drug addict (street drugs) and ther was much controversy re. his lifestyle. Also, Michael is known for his charitable acts (gave more than any other pop star), his good deeds. Elvis - nothing in that area.
Course, I do agree with you that it's only been two weeks. Give it some time I guess.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,295
Points
63
And Clinton has not released a statement, and he KNOWS Michael.
Former president Clinton praises Michael Jackson
Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Bill Clinton paused during an aid mission to Haiti yesterday to honor Michael Jackson for helping the Democratic Party raise cash at a crucial time.

The former U.S. president, now a special U.N. envoy to Haiti, recalled Jackson's performance at a 2002 fundraiser at New York's Apollo theater.

"He basically helped save my party from terrible financial distress, so he was very kind to me personally," Clinton said during a stop on his tour of a still-struggling northern Haiti, where floods killed several hundred people last year.

Clinton, his face bright red under a scorching summertime Caribbean sun, spoke fondly of Jackson, recalling that the singer performed at his first inauguration in 1993. He also said Jackson had struggled with the burden of early fame.

"He was an immensely gifted man and I think he basically meant well," Clinton told The Associated Press. "I know about all the trouble he had in his life and I hope he will be remembered for his contribution as an artist. I hope his children turn out well. That would be the greatest tribute you could have."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09189/982368-348.stm#ixzz0KsIWOLIG&D
 
Last edited:

dancemasterman

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,035
Points
0
I did not say I cared more about the resolution then those things. You're creating a false dichotomy.

You are also assuming that passing the resolution would be detrimental to other issues. That is not fact. It is your assumption. I do not accept your presupposition, so your argument about me fails.
then you don't understand the diffuculties involved in getting things done when it comes to politics. It is my responsiblity to know this as I am in college specifically to become a political advisor.

Pelosi made the right decision that was in the best interest of her party.
You simplistically reduced my post to being about just Michael when I clearly said I think this is indicative of a bigger problem.

You assumed I am black man. You are wrong again.
You specifically said "as a black man I am tired of this. I didn't assume you were black. You said you were.
I never claimed "authority" and I don't need authority. If I feel slighted I have the right to complain, and I don't need to wait for authorization from you or any other white person. You are are so unaware of your own privilege that you feel you get to decide for black people what is appropriate for them to feel. Newsflash: you don't.
Not all black people feel the same. Neither do all white people etc. HOw can you assume I have never had to struggle with the prejudice of others? My sister is a lesbian. She's gotten it a lot worse than most people of color do in today's times.

and not to mention. I am allowed to have an opinion, so telling me I can't comment on another person's feelings is ridiculous, especially when those comments come off as sounding racist.

You have no idea what it is like to be a black person in this society. You don't know how alienated I and many other black people often feel in this society.
Make up your mind. Are you black or not? UP above you said I assumed you were black and I was wrong. Now your telling me your black.
It may have nothing to do with race for you, but it does for me and many other people. Just because you don't feel that way does not make it invalid. You have no authority to decide how other individuals and races should feel.
I have every right to reject racist comments where people act like their opinion is above mine based on the simple fact that they have a different color than I do. I'm sorry but your acting superior based on the fact that you are black, and that is racist. we are in this together but you act like your seperate from me.
And just so you know, my opinion is based on a much larger context than the limited facts in this situation.
I would definitely agree that your opinion is based on something other than the facts.

You completely ignored my point about how Elvis and Sinatra both had controversial things in their life. You can decide the difference between them and MJ has nothing to do with race. That's fine. I wouldn't judge you for that. But I disagree, and I am not wrong just because my opinion differs from yours. I take issue with your post in which you just assumed I had no basis for my ideas and condescendingly treated me like I am an irrational person crying "race" on a whim. I am not, and I'll thank you to not forget it.
this has nothing to do with race. HOw did I ignore comments about Elvis and Sinatra? I said this would put politicians in a difficult spot politically and harm their ablity to get important things done for this country. It would become a divisive issue going all the way from the senate to the house. And when it finally gets to Obama? If he rejects it then it will anger a lot of people and if he passes it then it will also anger a lot of people.

As a politician you can't help angering people, but you choose your battles carefully and try to minimize backlash as much as possible without compromising the security and prosperity of the country. Pelosi stopped this. She minimized backlash and she did it without compromising the security or prosperity of this country.
 
Last edited:

dancemasterman

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,035
Points
0
Yeah, I think it's meaningless. Because in the end, it all goes back around again. Power changes hands, laws get made and then unmade. My brother in law is a congressman. And I still don't think politics means squat. What laws are made today, in whatever nation, will not last or impact people for nearly the length of time great art will. Never has, never will. You can parade around all you like trying to place politicos importance over an artist like Michael Jackson, and maybe you feel the need to do so because you yourself want to feel important, but the bottom line is, artists are the most important people in the world. They reveal truth, when they truly are an artist, and they make that truth, something that was otherwise beyond description, they take that thing and make it tangible, make it something we can hold and grasp and feel and see. That's art. Those who have inspired people to the right direction, those who have inspired in people a change in perception, have been the world's creative people. Politics simply follows the shift in public perception. It doesn't change public perception. The leaders of the world are really those who produce art. Michael changed my perception on a lot of things. No politician EVER did that for me. When political leaders sense a change in public perception, they change their policies to fit that. What often changes those perceptions is the artist and philosophers of the world. Art is more important then the constantly changing, fluctuatisng laws and rules of eventually crumbling nations.

so the money and aid given to the poor is meaningless? dead soldiers are meaningless? th efunding for my sister's cure is meaningless? It's difficult to change preexisting laws because no new law can override or contradict previously passed laws. and even if funding gets taken away years from now scientists will still be that much closer to a cure for my sister.

Not that it all revolves around my sister, but it's a perfect example. I'm sorry but your putting MJ on a pedastal too high. great musician sure but he's not in the league with Martin Luther King, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson or even Obama.

and you claim Mj changed your perception and no politician ever did that? well remember it was politicians who gave us freedom of expression and speech. they gave Mj the right and the power to do these things in the first place. It was the Kennedy/ Johnson administration which ended segregation and discrimination laws in the first place. Imagine MJ's career if not for Kennedy and Johnson.
 
Last edited:

dancemasterman

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,035
Points
0
Sinatra's doesn't but Elvis' does. Elvis was a pedophile (and this fact should be reiterated to that Pete guy , Pelosi, and all of congress by Michael's supporters), Priscilla was only 14 when he brought her to Graceland. Yet the Senate deemed Graceland a Natl. Historic landmark. Whereas, Michael shouldn't have that attached to his name by lawmakers because he was found innocent. These law makers should be examples to the citizens and should be reminded of this fact.
Also, Elvis was a drug addict (street drugs) and ther was much controversy re. his lifestyle. Also, Michael is known for his charitable acts (gave more than any other pop star), his good deeds. Elvis - nothing in that area.
Course, I do agree with you that it's only been two weeks. Give it some time I guess.


yeah and if Elvis were alive today than you would have the same challenges getting a resolution in his honor. It's not worth it.

I think MJ would be disapointed in some of his fans right now. He'd want health care, higher minimum wages, peace between the U.S. and Iran, reduced poverty to take precidence over this resolution. That is what he fought for, and now some of his fans want to risk all that over a resolution.
 

AllTheLovelyFlowers

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
7,226
Points
0
I don't think that Michael will get this honor. But I do believe that he will get other honors. Possibly the Nobel Peace Prize, finally. Maybe a Kennedy Center Honors which was long overdue for him. And of course, he will get more Grammies, AMAs and BET awards for his music.

In addition to all this, there will be streets named after him, monuments built all over the world depicting him, art centers and auditoriums named after him and numerous awards named after him.

Then there will be Neverland.

Believe me, Michael will not be lacking in the honors department.
 

the floacist

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
270
Points
0
Location
New York
Former president Clinton praises Michael Jackson
Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Bill Clinton paused during an aid mission to Haiti yesterday to honor Michael Jackson for helping the Democratic Party raise cash at a crucial time.

The former U.S. president, now a special U.N. envoy to Haiti, recalled Jackson's performance at a 2002 fundraiser at New York's Apollo theater.

"He basically helped save my party from terrible financial distress, so he was very kind to me personally," Clinton said during a stop on his tour of a still-struggling northern Haiti, where floods killed several hundred people last year.

Clinton, his face bright red under a scorching summertime Caribbean sun, spoke fondly of Jackson, recalling that the singer performed at his first inauguration in 1993. He also said Jackson had struggled with the burden of early fame.

"He was an immensely gifted man and I think he basically meant well," Clinton told The Associated Press. "I know about all the trouble he had in his life and I hope he will be remembered for his contribution as an artist. I hope his children turn out well. That would be the greatest tribute you could have."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09189/982368-348.stm#ixzz0KsIWOLIG&D

mm hmm :timer: :smilerolleyes:
 

the floacist

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
270
Points
0
Location
New York
Sinatra's doesn't but Elvis' does. Elvis was a pedophile (and this fact should be reiterated to that Pete guy , Pelosi, and all of congress by Michael's supporters), Priscilla was only 14 when he brought her to Graceland. Yet the Senate deemed Graceland a Natl. Historic landmark. Whereas, Michael shouldn't have that attached to his name by lawmakers because he was found innocent. These law makers should be examples to the citizens and should be reminded of this fact.
Also, Elvis was a drug addict (street drugs) and ther was much controversy re. his lifestyle. Also, Michael is known for his charitable acts (gave more than any other pop star), his good deeds. Elvis - nothing in that area.
Course, I do agree with you that it's only been two weeks. Give it some time I guess.

Unfortunately, I don't think those aspects of Elvis' life has been promoted much in the media. For example, I had no idea he didn't write his own songs or had any real creative input in his music until recently.
 

ThankyouMichael

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
423
Points
0
I don't think that Michael will get this honor. But I do believe that he will get other honors. Possibly the Nobel Peace Prize, finally. Maybe a Kennedy Center Honors which was long overdue for him. And of course, he will get more Grammies, AMAs and BET awards for his music.

In addition to all this, there will be streets named after him, monuments built all over the world depicting him, art centers and auditoriums named after him and numerous awards named after him.

Then there will be Neverland.

Believe me, Michael will not be lacking in the honors department.

I think it's more likely he gets honoured as an official American legend than getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,295
Points
63
mm hmm :timer: :smilerolleyes:
As I said in another thread, it's not an obligation for anyone to put out a press release for the public if someone dies. That's a private matter between the person and the family. None of the non celebrity relatives of the Jackson family have put out statements, because the public doesn't care, so one asked them. So what difference does it make if a famous person puts out one or not? It's the same as people on here wondering about if so and so celebrity showed up at the memorial service because they were friends or associates with Michael. Why didn't they ask about the Jackson relatives in Louisiana, Gary Indiana, etc., or even Joh'Vonnie showing up? They're closer to the family than the famous people.
 

wednesday

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
550
Points
0
The more I think about it, the more I am surprised. The second Bashir or the like says a word about Michael there will be threads pages long of people wishing him death and other ill will. If a stupid story is posted in a trashy tabloid that no one takes seriously, many of us will get very upset and write e-mails and comments. If Michael is involved in a meaningless online poll, you organize yourselves to affect the outcome of the poll in favor of Michael. I don't understand why this is less important than an online poll or getting riled up over a stupid declaration by someone who is not really a fan of Michael. I could understand if you were completely apathetic and never did anything on Michael's behalf, but you aren't.


Very good and very true post! :clapping:
I really don't understand some comments of so-called "fans". :no:


And it is not as if honouring Michael Jackson would take any of the politicians precious time or if it would in any way interfere with other issues or stop the efforts on health care etc.!!

Michael Jackson was a GOOD MAN and a ROLE MODEL and a creative GENIUS and there is absolutely and factually NO CONTROVERSY about him at all.

Some people want you to BELIEVE he was controversial!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
 

dancemasterman

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,035
Points
0
Very good and very true post! :clapping:
I really don't understand some comments of so-called "fans". :no:


And it is not as if honouring Michael Jackson would take any of the politicians precious time or if it would in any way interfere with other issues or stop the efforts on health care etc.!!
If you grasp the concept of political capital at all you would know that it could potentially interfere with other issues in a very severe way!!!!!!!!! Us so called fans as you take it upon yourself to label us are merely being smart and mature about it. It's possible that you just don't have an understanding of the political process, but politicians can only get away with a certain amount of controversial acts.
Michael Jackson was a GOOD MAN and a ROLE MODEL and a creative GENIUS and there is absolutely and factually NO CONTROVERSY about him at all.
then how do you explain this divisive conversation we are having? MIchael Jackson is probably the most controversial musician of all time. and michael was not a role model. he was an entertainer. he was a troubled person.
Some people want you to BELIEVE he was controversial!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
You have to open your eyes. People don't make it on the cover of every tabloid without controversy. That is the very definition of controversy. Where people gossip and debate about you.
 
Last edited:
Top