Latest on MJJC

This is pissing me off....

tragickingdom said:
This is exactly how I feel about MJ's death and the Obama silence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKW3jjlYj10
Click to expand...
:rofl: that had my sides to' up for a few seconds. now...

Come on here guys (op disagreers) lets just be real here:doh:. All private notes to the jacksons aside. OBama CLEARLY distanced himself from michael. ppl going on about him being BUSY, well how in the world did he get time to do that video on walter. All :56 seconds and all michael could get was an uncomfortable obama who was ASKED about michael, dubbed with "tragic figure!" throw in it. Why can't anybody JUST say something nice, i mean even if you don't mean it, just say something NICE about michael without throwing in "tragic" "bizarre" "odd" "but" "allegations" for just ONE time in history on michael's behalf. WHY? Now.....

Just go look at obama's demeanor when his talking about michael and then go look at how PROUD he is when talking about walter. He talked about walter as if walter was the first person to do open heart surgery:doh:. A news reporter. Come on now! And here I am, an american citizen who wouldn't know walter if I passed him on the street. Now just go to the smallest africa village and ask a child, not an adult, but a child who michael jackson is and I betcha they will know. I don't care how (supposedly) TRAGIC of a figure michael was, the fact that he was the most known man on the planet, greatest (BLACK) entertainer, and a humanitarian shoulda been enough for obama to address his death BETTER then that. -_-
 
mello1 said:
This is a very important point. What he says privately to the Jackson Family is way more important than his official statements that we are privved to. That man and his wife grew up on the J-5. No way his passing didn't affect them.

But the man is the President and he's already got fools saying awful stuff about him and his family that has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS OR RUNNING THIS GOVERNMENT.

No way was he going to give these fools more fire to throw at him. He has a country to run and he has to walk a thin line. He can't afford have his personal feelings about Michael Jackson politicized for obvious reasons.

And if you don't know by now what those obvious reasons are, then you aren't gonna ever know.
Click to expand...
oh dear mel:bugeyed, so exactly what are you saying. Ppl are always gonna talk whether you Obama or otis from down the street. If obama truely cares then WHO CARES if somebody is gonna critize you for it. I don't see how obama coulda felt out of place when even folks who didn't care 2 pennies about michael before the 25th mourned him and went out and bought a cd. The point is walter got treated better then michael just because walter was SAFE. If he cared for michael but worried that someone was gonna critize him so he didn't release a proper video... Then theres only one word for that. *coughCOWARDcough* I mean what if somebody is gonna speak out about his health care policies for the poor folks. Is he gonna back down from that policy now cuz someone might speak out. Come on now you can't be serious mel:doh:. What are you really saying here! And yes I know it is only michael jackson NOT health care. But what you are saying here it is that its ok bite you tounge or not stand up for what you believe because someone might shoot ya down. Now that's some JACKED up principles. He what only the president. I doubt it if they woulda impeached him for giveng a real statement on michael's behalf. -_-
 
Who's Walter Cronkite? Never heard of the man! I guess it's somebody who's famous in the US, but once you get outside, nobody knows who it is XD didn't even know he passed away. well RIP Walter
 
MoonGlider said:
I get what you're saying, but that is irrelevant because caring about one does not diminish your ability to care for the other. It is a pointless argument. And seeing as this is a MJ forum, not a political forum, you have no idea what people here get more "butthurt" about. It makes sense that the tendency would swing towards Michael since he is...um, gosh, how do I even say it? The subject of the entire forum.
Click to expand...
oh don't get me wrong, i understand but i fail to see how mj could make someone re-think their position on the president. that's more important that his policies? that's all im wondering.

this is different from not like justin timberlake b/c of this or that, this is the president! lol
 
Soso Deaf said:
oh don't get me wrong, i understand but i fail to see how mj could make someone re-think their position on the president. that's more important that his policies? that's all im wondering.

this is different from not like justin timberlake b/c of this or that, this is the president! lol
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone would change their minds based solely on that. I would assume such a person would also be dissatisfied in other areas or taking into account other things. For example, myself, this does affect my opinion of Obama, but only slightly. It's one part of a big, complex picture, but it is a part. The issue about Michael Jackson is a proxy for another concern I have about Obama-- his tendency to try to avoid controversy and always play things safe. His refusal to take pictures with supporters in Islamic dress, his distancing of himself from Rev. Wright, his refusal to be vocal about certain issues are understandable to to me to an extent, but I think he can sometimes be a little weak and cowardly for the sake of political expediency. For me, Michael Jackson was the nail in the coffin on that point because I really don't think it would have cost him much or any political capital, but he was too scared to risk it. I say all this not to get into a drawn out discussion of Obama, who I think has his good points too, but to illustrate that politics are so complicated that what appears to be just a trivial issue to some may actually be grounded in a more significant issue or understanding of the candidate.
 
MoonGlider said:
I doubt anyone would change their minds based solely on that. I would assume such a person would also be dissatisfied in other areas or taking into account other things. For example, myself, this does affect my opinion of Obama, but only slightly. It's one part of a big, complex picture, but it is a part. The issue about Michael Jackson is a proxy for another concern I have about Obama-- his tendency to try to avoid controversy and always play things safe. His refusal to take pictures with supporters in Islamic dress, his distancing of himself from Rev. Wright, his refusal to be vocal about certain issues are understandable to to me to an extent, but I think he can sometimes be a little weak and cowardly for the sake of political expediency. For me, Michael Jackson was the nail in the coffin on that point because I really don't think it would have cost him much or any political capital, but he was too scared to risk it. I say all this not to get into a drawn out discussion of Obama, who I think has his good points too, but to illustrate that politics are so complicated that what appears to be just a trivial issue to some may actually be grounded in a more significant issue or understanding of the candidate.
Click to expand...

I completely agree!
 
We have to look at it this way, Obama can't just stop and give a two hour long state of the union address about MJ. I am sure the letter he sent to the family was heart felt. I suggest we look at what the family is doing, they didn't complain so we shouldn't either. We all know Joe Jackson doesn't bite his tongue and if he can accept what the president wrote we can too. I don't think Obama won't be going to Cronkite's funeral just like he didn't make it to MJ's, so chill be easy boo. Hey at least we know Obama is jamming to Billie Jean on his ipod..lol

However I do think Obama could've said a lil bit more about MJ and left out the part about him having a troubled life. But I still got love for my president.. Walter Cronkite isn't known outside of the US, and MJ is known on the damn planet Jupiter.
 
MoonGlider said:
This has nothing to do with him separating personal feelings. It's all about the fact that he is a slave to public opinion and he perceives MJ to be political kryptonite, the same reason he did not want to be photographed with supporters in traditional Muslim garb during the campaign. On a strategic level I get it, but it still makes me angry. I don't think it would have cost him much political capital just to affirmatively (the briefness doesn't bother me, but the fact that we may not have had any public comment at all if someone hadn't asked him does) and publicly recognize Michael's passing.

Dancemaster, first of all, no one said anything about voting based on MJ. Second of all, you have no right to decide how other people should prioritize their political beliefs. To you MJ may be just an entertainer, trivial in the scheme of things, but to an artist who feels the arts are not valued or treated seriously enough, it may be a huge slight. Obama's decision might signal practicality to you, but to a person who identifies with MJ in some way, it may feel like they themselves are being rejected on some level. Politics is about distributing the resources of society, yes, but it is also intertwined with social issues that are equally important to many people. You come across as condescending when you ignore this or decide that social issues are not important. They are important to many people and it is not for you to tell them they are wrong. Finally, if you think people are voting primarily on the issues now, then you are in denial. The attractiveness and charisma of the candidate, his (or her) public speaking ability, the gender and race of the candidate, the candidate's religion, the candidate's lifestyle and whether they are perceived as someone the public can relate to, the composition of the candidate's family, etc., are factors that have little direct bearing on the policy issues but still largely affect the way people decide to vote. The basis for voting is often emotional, not rational.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. I agree 100%
 
Sorry guys, Obama is a president and needs to tread cautiously. I understand this board's particular feelings on MJ (many sentiments I probably share as well), but the guy has a job to do.

I thought his comment was tasteful and appropriate. I don't see why he was obligated to say anything publically anyways. He didn't gush over him so as not to piss off the haters, and he didn't ignore the situation so as not to piss of fans.

Its like that old phrase, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
 
BruceWayne said:
Michael was never convicted for anything, and if we're so proud of our laws then we should uplift that you're innocent until proven guilty, and if you've never been proven guilty then you've been falsely accused.
Click to expand...
O.J. Simpson was never proven guilty of killing anybody, yet a lot of people thought he did it anyway. It was trial by media. So "innocent until proven" doesn't work and never has. A lot of people in jail have been convicted of things they didn't do. A few have been let out years later after their cases have been re-evaluated. But it's too late then. To paraprase Public Enemy "the court system is a joke."
 
Superstition said:
Sorry guys, Obama is a president and needs to tread cautiously. I understand this board's particular feelings on MJ (many sentiments I probably share as well), but the guy has a job to do.

I thought his comment was tasteful and appropriate. I don't see why he was obligated to say anything publically anyways. He didn't gush over him so as not to piss off the haters, and he didn't ignore the situation so as not to piss of fans.

Its like that old phrase, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Click to expand...

Seems like Obama is gushing over walter to me. And none of us,well- i wasn't expecting a state of the union address.But Obama didn't even get on tv, utube or anywhere else to say he is sadden by the lost of michael jackson....ya da ya da ya. On issues as such at the very least Presidents make a formal statement. He didn't even do that.

It took him 4 days, to say anything. And only when asked by a reporter how he felt.
Waiting four days to say something is inappropriate at best. And cowardly at worst. We voted for President Obama because he was a "change" candidate. We just expected a little more. This is not change. This is politicians acting like politicians. All values go out the door.
 
Michael was a lot closer to the Clinton's then to Obama...I didn't like either that Obama didn't really get how much Michael change the world and break the skin color limitation!
 
MoonGlider said:
His refusal to take pictures with supporters in Islamic dress, his distancing of himself from Rev. Wright
Click to expand...

With those actions he showed already what a false filou he is. So I am not even disappointed since I have never expected one good deed from him.
If you don't stand for something, you may fall for anything. I see him open his mouth but he has nothing to say.

What really bothers me is the money they waste for him. Hypocrisy is expensive. The billions they have spent for his inauguration, and the millions we have to pay every time he visits our country. I really would want to donate that money to the poor, it hurts to waste it on a z who doesn't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top