Latest on MJJC

So why isn't Michael Jackson included?

vncwilliam said:
u r still not in a position to judge. this is about Michael being a father, not his marriage. and i suppose you think that him being rated worse than the guy who murdered his wife and kid is justified too?
Click to expand...

I'm not judging, I'm just explaining.
And of course I bloody don't.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
So? Every parent makes bigger mistakes on a daily basis then Michael holding Blanket half way over a balcony for 2 seconds.
Click to expand...

Every parent in the world risks killing their child on a daily basis? I don't think so.

Sure we all make mistakes and if you do good deeds you can balance out the bad. But Michael is going to have to be seen doing a huge amount of good parenting to balance that out. So much so that he probably never will in most people's eyes. That's my take on it anyway.
 
who cares lol. We all know mj is a great father screw the media. they r dim sh*ts
 
BigDaz said:
Every parent in the world risks killing their child on a daily basis? I don't think so.

Sure we all make mistakes and if you do good deeds you can balance out the bad. But Michael is going to have to be seen doing a huge amount of good parenting to balance that out. So much so that he probably never will in most people's eyes. That's my take on it anyway.
Click to expand...

That's blowing it out or proportion. Michael wasn't about to drop him. And I said that everyday there are parent's who, yes, put their child's life in harms way, usually unintentionally. It doesn't make them bad parents. I didn't say that every parent in the world risks killing their child, I said that everyday, parent's make those kinds of mistakes, and they don't get labled for it. Every parent at some point does something really stupid.
 
Last edited:
Look, a number of celebrities and that includes those ones that these lists would deem to be good parents/fathers have signed multi million dollar deals with magazines to publish first photos of their new borns (J-Lo, Brad and Angelina, Cruise, etc etc) -- so Michael is no exception to that.

A single parent cannot be considered bad. It is possibly better to raise children as a single parent than raise them in an unsuitable environment where both parents are present-- this is common understanding even outside celebrity culture.

Michael's children are veiled for the two minutes they get mobbed in the paparazzi. Now, if the media, fans and the general public refuses to see it as concealing their identities but rather a heinous act orchestrated by Jackson whereby his children are perpetually wearing veils causing them long term emotional distress, then thy need some serious help and need to look for salacious, over exaggerrated news somehere else.

The baby dangling incident hit the nail on the coffin for Michael, in a long list of attempts by the ordinary joe to the media to prtray him as an unfit parent. Somebody in Hollywood had to take it.

Michael has a character which isn't conventional nor has he acted in conventional ways all his life. and he's been in the limelight ALL his life..so his life is more or less transparent and everyone holds his mistakes under the magnifying lense and he is vilified for them whenever the opportunity arises.

Michael can raise his children like a model father, educate them, feed them, bathe them and clother them privately and that's all that matters. but I'm not about to sit here and make excuses as to why he 'realistically' could not make it into a best dad list. The lame excuses just piss me off -- and in fact I think being a dad is the best thing Michael has done in a very long time.
 
BigDaz said:
Every parent in the world risks killing their child on a daily basis? I don't think so.

Sure we all make mistakes and if you do good deeds you can balance out the bad. But Michael is going to have to be seen doing a huge amount of good parenting to balance that out. So much so that he probably never will in most people's eyes. That's my take on it anyway.
Click to expand...
So what you are asking for is that Michael brings his children out one a public arena and show the world that he does good to them. Fuinny how you don't ask that of the absent fathers who have never seen their children or the one parent mothers living on wealfare or struggling to keep food on the table. How about going to the ghettos and check on those poor people who are living in unhealthy environment.
You want to pick on some little rich kid who has food and clothes and roof over thr head and go to the best resturant in town and have a father taking good care of then with a nanny to boot. You see how hypocritcal this world is.
Michael firmly held his child up for 2 seconds, over a balcony. 2 seconds. The intention was not to throw the child off, but to SHOW the child to the fans below. 2 seconds. That child was in no more danger than a mother who takes her child in a swimming pool when the child cannot swim, or a parents strapping the child in the back of a car seat and taking the child out on the road, or a child flying in an aeroplane.
But of course, it is more dangerous because it is Michael Jackson.
I rescued a baby from the middle of the street and searched on peoples door until I found the parents. The father left the frond door open and didn't see the child walk all the way down the middle of the road. Now hat was dangerous. I handed the child back to the parent and never look back. Of course that father is not Michael jackson. What hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
So what you are asking for is that Michael brings his children out one a public arena and show the world that he does good to them. Fuinny how you don't ask that of the absent fathers who have never seen their children or the one parent mothers living on wealfare or struggling to keep food on the table. How about going to the ghettos and check on those poor people who are living in unhealthy environment.
You want to pick on some little rich kid who has food and clothes and roof over thr head and go to the best resturant in town and have a father taking good care of then with a nanny to boot. You see how hypocritcal this world is.
Michael firmly held his child up for 2 seconds, over a balcony. 2 seconds. The intention was not to throw the child off, but to SHOW the child to the fans below. 2 seconds. That child was in no more danger than a mother who takes her child in a swimming pool when the child cannot swim, or a parents strapping the child in the back of a car seat and taking the child out on the road, or a child flying in an aeroplane.
But of course, it is more dangerous because it is Michael Jackson.
I rescued a baby from the middle of the street and searched on peoples door until I found the parents. The father left the frond door open and didn't see the child walk all the way down the middle of the road. Now hat was dangerous. I handed the child back to the parent and never look back. Of course that father is not Michael jackson. What hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking Michael to do anything and I recognise the difficult position he's in.

I see your point but taking a child swimming, crossing a busy street or whatever are normal, everyday activities and we accept the danger. Leaving a child unsupervised is a risk, but then we all understand that it's virtually impossible to watch a child 24 hours a day. These are indirect dangers really. Michael put his child in danger directly and I think that's a major difference here.

For example if you'd known that the man you mentioned had deliberatly put the child in the middle of the road, than I assume you wouldn't have have handed him back quite so willingly. If the situation is different than I don't think it's hypocritical to have a different response.
 
That incident was completely blown out of proportion. A two second clip made in slow motion to look like eternity and put on loop. If you are stupid enough to fall for the propaganda of the media. And yes I have seen people do similar things but no one would have taken a second look. I saw someone hold a child briefly on a bridge over the edge. That showed in slow motion would have been the same thing. Person had no intention of hurting their child. They are not living under a microscope like Michael Jackson is. If something is shoved in your face day in day out, the image splashed everywhere. You hear a lie often enough you begin to believe it as the man said. He sure is right.

Michael Jackson needs to prove nothing to no one. And I am quite sure he would tell anyone where to go with quite strong language in relation to his children. Michael's children will be the ones in the future to say how good a father Michael was. Proof will be in the pudding.

All the media focus on in relation to celebrities. Good looking parents and good looking children. If the children are wearing designer brands, etc. It's so vile.
 
Sure we all make mistakes and if you do good deeds you can balance out the bad. But Michael is going to have to be seen doing a huge amount of good parenting to balance that out. So much so that he probably never will in most people's eyes. That's my take on it anyway.
Click to expand...

i doubt mj or his kids couldnt care less as to what people think about them the fact is the media hate the fact he has kids to start with. yeah he fecked up in berlin and hopefully got slapped round the head by someone for doing it but thats it he aint done nothing else wrong. the media and certain others hate the fact those kids are poliet well mannered and well behaved as supported by anyone who has ever come across them. oh the media hope they turn out like the osbornes for eg so they can use yet another stick to beat mj with
 
Last edited:
There's nothing to suggest that Michael is a bad parent and in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, exampling how he is a good parent. From how well behaved his children are, to people recounting observing Michael's parenting skills. He doesn't have to do anything in public to show that. If anyone believes Michael to be a bad parent, it's purely born out of ignorance. And like elusive said, I doubt Michael or his children give a fudge what anyone thinks. They know the truth.
 
Maybe those ppl didn't decide against him on the list, maybe they only didn't think of him... maybe Michael didn't came to their mind as being a parent.
If they've thought of him they maybe just didn't have enough picture material... and there's the hind... if Michael would want to be recognized with the 'wonderful dad' image... believe me there would for sure be enough pictures. He decide that different.

And you know lol maybe it's that he just thinks the same as me: it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about him being the parent he is, it's him and the kids involved and only him and the three will maybe one day judge what kind of a parent he is/was... it's their very private business.

Who cares who's be on that list... I mean you guys who just saw it, do you still remember all of them on that list? If you most certainly remember them cuz you connected them to other stuff before.
 
Sorry, double post.

How do I delete a post?
 
Last edited:
My thought is that how can they really know how he is as a parent?
 
I saw this when it came out, but never thought anything about Michael not being there. The article says:

"Today we celebrate men who are, of course, gorgeous and mega-talented, but are especially notable for their devotion to their children. They shine in roles -- and as role models. So let's spend some quality time with these dreamy ... moredads. Happy Father's Day to the tops of Hollywood's pops"

I just assumed that he wasn't included because he isn't associated with the Hollywood grouping. I was just glad they had the presence of mind to not include K-Fed.
 
Justthefax said:
I saw this when it came out, but never thought anything about Michael not being there. The article says:

"Today we celebrate men who are, of course, gorgeous and mega-talented, but are especially notable for their devotion to their children. They shine in roles -- and as role models. So let's spend some quality time with these dreamy ... moredads. Happy Father's Day to the tops of Hollywood's pops"

I just assumed that he wasn't included because he isn't associated with the Hollywood grouping. I was just glad they had the presence of mind to not include K-Fed.
Click to expand...

well..they speak of role models...and T.I. is included in there after just spending a stint in jail.

but as someone said, earlier..i'm just glad they left MJ alone, becuase they'd be nothing but unjustifiably negative.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top