Michael Jackson's kids
Don Geddis
Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-511702/Unveiled-Michael-Jackson-finally-shows-children-world.html
Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
They're blond(e) and blue eyed! Can you get that, in one generation, from
a very black father? (Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
at photos of him as a teenager. He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
black man. Those are his genetics.)
Compare, for example, with Seal's kids. Even marrying Heidi Klum -- about as
white as you can get -- still winds up with kids that basically look black.
Or look at Halle Berry or Barack Obama. Everybody calls them "black", but
really they're only half black ... and half white. And yet they "look
black".
That seems the case with all children of at least one black parent.
The physical characteristics of "looking black" seem very dominant.
And then you have Michael Jackson's kids. Even without a genetic test,
it seems you can tell just by looking at them that they couldn't possibly
be Jackson's biological children.
Is this a known open secret? Is this why Jackson hid his kids behind veils
and masks and blankets for so long? Because it would be obvious to anyone
with half a brain that they can't possible actually be his real kids?
Or am I being "racist", or something, here?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
I guess I wouldn't mind if aliens from outer space came and visited our planet.
But please, no children. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
TravIsGod
> I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson with his kids.
> Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
>
> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
> They're blond(e) and blue eyed! Can you get that, in one generation, from
> a very black father? (Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
> at photos of him as a teenager. He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
> black man. Those are his genetics.)
Um...he didn't want to have black kids dude.
> Compare, for example, with Seal's kids. Even marrying Heidi Klum -- about as
> white as you can get -- still winds up with kids that basically look black.
Disgusting.
> Is this a known open secret? Is this why Jackson hid his kids behind veils
> and masks and blankets for so long? Because it would be obvious to anyone
> with half a brain that they can't possible actually be his real kids?
The guy was a fucking freak which is why he did what he did.
> Or am I being "racist", or something, here?
>
> -- Don
Noticing ANY difference between races is racist, Don. Unless you are
a "wise latina woman." Then it's ok.
Trav
YumYumPandaburger
> I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson with his kids.
> Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
>
> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
> They're blond(e) and blue eyed! Can you get that, in one generation, from
> a very black father? (Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
> at photos of him as a teenager. He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
> black man. Those are his genetics.)
>
> Compare, for example, with Seal's kids. Even marrying Heidi Klum -- about as
> white as you can get -- still winds up with kids that basically look black.
> Or look at Halle Berry or Barack Obama. Everybody calls them "black", but
> really they're only half black ... and half white. And yet they "look
> black".
>
> That seems the case with all children of at least one black parent.
> The physical characteristics of "looking black" seem very dominant.
>
> And then you have Michael Jackson's kids. Even without a genetic test,
> it seems you can tell just by looking at them that they couldn't possibly
> be Jackson's biological children.
>
> Is this a known open secret? Is this why Jackson hid his kids behind veils
> and masks and blankets for so long? Because it would be obvious to anyone
> with half a brain that they can't possible actually be his real kids?
>
> Or am I being "racist", or something, here?
>
> -- Don
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
> I guess I wouldn't mind if aliens from outer space came and visited our planet.
> But please, no children. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
MICHAEL JACKSON WAS BLACK ???!!!
The dog from that film you saw
"Don Geddis" <d...@geddis.org> wrote in message
news:87bpo2b...@geddis.org...
>I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson with his kids.
> Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-511702/Unveiled-Michael-Jackson-finally-shows-children-world.html
>
> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
it's open knowledge that they are not - especially as they are clearly not
half caste but totally white.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
suds mcduff
----Nah----denigrating the difference between races is racist, loon...
Morbius
> Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
>
> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
> They're blond(e) and blue eyed! Can you get that, in one generation, from
> a very black father? (Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
> at photos of him as a teenager. He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
> black man. Those are his genetics.)
>
> Compare, for example, with Seal's kids. Even marrying Heidi Klum -- about as
> white as you can get -- still winds up with kids that basically look black.
> Or look at Halle Berry or Barack Obama. Everybody calls them "black", but
> really they're only half black ... and half white. And yet they "look
> black".
are you kidding? halle would fit in more in a group of swedes than
hutus or tutsies.
Her skin maybe in the middle but structurally she looks nordic as all
hell.
and obama? he may look mostly black but his dad was crazy black, like
baseball player grease barrack is cklearly in the middle, and his
features are both black and white, his heads dimensions look more
white than black imo.
i think you just picture white americans and black and figure these
you mention look more like black americans.
thats cause 95% of americans who are black are part white.in fact in a
study done decades ago they found on average black americans are 30%
white.oprah for axample and whoopie goldberg underwent tests and
theyre both right araound the aveerage 30% white.black subsaharan
africans are far darker than they are.
> That seems the case with all children of at least one black parent.
> The physical characteristics of "looking black" seem very dominant.
to some degree there is something there, like eye and hair colro the
darker the more dominatant, but it doenst mean an anything else it is.
> And then you have Michael Jackson's kids. Even without a genetic test,
> it seems you can tell just by looking at them that they couldn't possibly
> be Jackson's biological children.
yeah no way.miachel was actually pretty dark as a child.
besides he seems to prefer raping white kids.
so why would he adopt black ones?
> Is this a known open secret? Is this why Jackson hid his kids behind veils
> and masks and blankets for so long? Because it would be obvious to anyone
> with half a brain that they can't possible actually be his real kids?
>
> Or am I being "racist", or something, here?
yes you are racist.everyone is.especially black people.
so dont take it too hard.
he may have actually kidnapoped the younger kid or bought it off the
black market, no one even the law seems to know where he got him.
whatever even if with so much debt his kids dont inherit shit, theyll
soon be rich cause in a few years theyll right about getting sodomised
by the king of pop.that has best seller all overit.in fact im gonna
try and preorder my copy when im done posting this.
lucky little bastards.
Morbius
Okay lets play with that.
is saying asian people are crappy basketball players racist? or sayin
that europeans never produce top sprinters so theyre slow.is that
racist?
be aware that you are about three posts from being boxed in as a
racist a liar or an idiot.
But im pretty balsy.
im aiming for all three.
Don Geddis
> "Don Geddis" <d...@geddis.org> wrote in message news:87bpo2b...@geddis.org...
>
> it's open knowledge that they are not - especially as they are clearly not
> half caste but totally white.
So, doesn't this run into legal difficulties? They're not his genetic
children, and he didn't legally adopt them. Doesn't that make him basically
a kidnapper?
You can't just take somebody's kids, even with their cooperation. Can you?
You get a sperm donor, and an egg donor, and a surrogate ... can you really
just have a kid made to order, and it's yours, no questions asked?
I didn't think the law worked that way...
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
My mother loved children---she would have given anything if I had been one.
-- Groucho Marx, 1890-1977
TravIsGod
Look man, feel free to put your daughter in with them.
When the difference between the races is 20 IQ points and a 10x higher
violent crime rate, where one invented everything we call modern and
civilized and the other cannot even form a functioning society,
denigration is EXACTLY what we need.
We NEED to denigrate black culture because it is pathologically
destructive.
Trav
Stanley Moore
> "The dog from that film you saw" <d...@removethisbitbtinternet.com> wrote
> on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 :
>> "Don Geddis" <d...@geddis.org> wrote in message
>> news:87bpo2b...@geddis.org...
>>> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
>>
>> it's open knowledge that they are not - especially as they are clearly
>> not
>> half caste but totally white.
>
> So, doesn't this run into legal difficulties? They're not his genetic
> children, and he didn't legally adopt them. Doesn't that make him
> basically
> a kidnapper?
>
> You can't just take somebody's kids, even with their cooperation. Can
> you?
> You get a sperm donor, and an egg donor, and a surrogate ... can you
> really
> just have a kid made to order, and it's yours, no questions asked?
>
> I didn't think the law worked that way...
>
> -- Don
If he is listed as father on their birth certificates and they were born to
his legal wife (two anyway) that gives the legal presumption that they are
his kids. I am not a lawyer but I believe this is black letter law. You
would need to get legal opinion from a family law specialist but they are
his kids. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Sam the Bam
> > I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson
> > Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological
> > children?
> MICHAEL JACKSON WAS BLACK ???!!!
Was. Was.
Sam
Slim
> I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson with his kids.
> Hadn't seen his kids before. Here are some photos:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-511702/Unveiled-Michael-Jackson-finally-shows-children-world.html
Is
>
> there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
> They're blond(e) and blue eyed! Can you get that, in one generation, from
> a very black father? (Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
> at photos of him as a teenager. He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
> black man. Those are his genetics.)
Ever see Jason Kidd?
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Don Geddis
> If he is listed as father on their birth certificates and they were born to
> his legal wife (two anyway) that gives the legal presumption that they are
> his kids.
Presumption, sure.
But recall Howard Stern and Anna Nicole Smith? He said he was the dad (and
Anna agreed), but eventually a court case forced a DNA test, and it turned
out not to be the case. So in the end the child had nothing to do with Stern.
Perhaps nobody had standing to order a DNA test. But if one happens, and
Jackson isn't the father ... then he's nothing at all, isn't that true?
> I am not a lawyer but I believe this is black letter law.
Now who's being racist? Those negros never get a break. :-)
> You would need to get legal opinion from a family law specialist but they
> are his kids.
I'll agree with your "presumption". But I think it's on shaky ground.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
I'll never forget how happy I was when I got my first paycheck, because I
thought, Oh, boy, now I can quit. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Greendistantstar
> "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 :
>> If he is listed as father on their birth certificates and they were born to
>> his legal wife (two anyway) that gives the legal presumption that they are
>> his kids.
>
> Presumption, sure.
>
> But recall Howard Stern and Anna Nicole Smith? He said he was the dad (and
> Anna agreed), but eventually a court case forced a DNA test, and it turned
> out not to be the case. So in the end the child had nothing to do with Stern.
>
> Perhaps nobody had standing to order a DNA test. But if one happens, and
> Jackson isn't the father ... then he's nothing at all, isn't that true?
>
>> I am not a lawyer but I believe this is black letter law.
>
> Now who's being racist? Those negros never get a break. :-)
>
>> You would need to get legal opinion from a family law specialist but they
>> are his kids.
>
> I'll agree with your "presumption". But I think it's on shaky ground.
Jackson may not be the biological father if someone else's semen was
used in the pregnancy. If however Jackson has been the father by virtue
of his being there and discharging all those caring and loving duties
that fathers do, then he's the father for all useful purposes.
It seems that MJ didn't want his father (duh) or Debbie Rowe (who has
shown only recent interest in further parental duties) to have much to
do with his kids upon his demise.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Stanley Moore
> "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 :
>> If he is listed as father on their birth certificates and they were born
>> to
>> his legal wife (two anyway) that gives the legal presumption that they
>> are
>> his kids.
>
> Presumption, sure.
>
> But recall Howard Stern and Anna Nicole Smith? He said he was the dad
> (and
> Anna agreed), but eventually a court case forced a DNA test, and it turned
> out not to be the case. So in the end the child had nothing to do with
> Stern.
But they were not married. I think that makes a difference.
Don Geddis
> Jackson may not be the biological father if someone else's semen was used in
> the pregnancy. If however Jackson has been the father by virtue of his being
> there and discharging all those caring and loving duties that fathers do,
> then he's the father for all useful purposes.
Emotionally, sure. Maybe even morally.
But legally? I don't think that's how the law works. You don't become
someone's legal father merely by acting like it. You need to either
be the genetic father, or else have a legal adoption. Anything else is
kidnapping.
Meanwhile, I just saw another wrinkle here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_12753210
Namely:
Jackson's ex-wife, Deborah Rowe, the mother of the two older
children, says the children were conceived by artificial
insemination.
So EVEN HIS WIFE, the MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN, freely admits that the
children were not conceived by the usual method of a husband having sex
with his wife.
That kind of seals it for me. They're not actually his kids. And legally,
I'm pretty sure that means they don't belong to him. In any way.
(But Trav is the lawyer here, right. Why isn't he ripping down my amateur
legal hypotheses, like he does to everybody else?)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
Job vacancy advertisment. Wanted: Small man for job as a mud flap.
Must be flexible and willing to travel.
TravIsGod
> Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au> wrote on Sat, 04 Jul 2009:
>
> > Jackson may not be the biological father if someone else's semen was used in
> > the pregnancy. If however Jackson has been the father by virtue of his being
> > there and discharging all those caring and loving duties that fathers do,
> > then he's the father for all useful purposes.
>
> Emotionally, sure. Maybe even morally.
>
> But legally? I don't think that's how the law works. You don't become
> someone's legal father merely by acting like it. You need to either
> be the genetic father, or else have a legal adoption. Anything else is
> kidnapping.
>
> Meanwhile, I just saw another wrinkle here:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_12753210
> Namely:
> Jackson's ex-wife, Deborah Rowe, the mother of the two older
> children, says the children were conceived by artificial
> insemination.
> So EVEN HIS WIFE, the MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN, freely admits that the
> children were not conceived by the usual method of a husband having sex
> with his wife.
>
> That kind of seals it for me. They're not actually his kids. And legally,
> I'm pretty sure that means they don't belong to him. In any way.
>
> (But Trav is the lawyer here, right. Why isn't he ripping down my amateur
> legal hypotheses, like he does to everybody else?)
>
> -- Don
because I honestly do not care...
I am not taking part in concerning myself with anything to do with
this freak.
Trav
Stanley Moore
"TravIsGod" <trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:361211d9-c41b-4dfa...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Trav
*******************************************
Yet everything is connected. I really like the Gloria Gaynor version of
Never Can Say Goodbye. The other night I listened to the Isaac Hayes version
and recalled the Jackson 5 version. If you like that song or listened to a
version of it you are connected to MJ. I was never a big fan though I have a
CD of some of the J5 hits. He was talented for all his faults. Take care
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote on Sat, 04 Jul 2009:
>> Jackson may not be the biological father if someone else's semen was used in
>> the pregnancy. If however Jackson has been the father by virtue of his being
>> there and discharging all those caring and loving duties that fathers do,
>> then he's the father for all useful purposes.
>
> Emotionally, sure. Maybe even morally.
>
> But legally? I don't think that's how the law works. You don't become
> someone's legal father merely by acting like it. You need to either
> be the genetic father, or else have a legal adoption. Anything else is
> kidnapping.
Not quite. Every jurisdiction has its own peculiarities, but generally
speaking, family courts will look at what is in the children's 'best
interests'. Clearly, all interested parties will take a different view
as to what those interests are. Whoever has been the 'primary carer'
will have a head start, as courts like the idea of routine and
continuity as sources of stability in childhood.
> Meanwhile, I just saw another wrinkle here:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_12753210
> Namely:
> Jackson's ex-wife, Deborah Rowe, the mother of the two older
> children, says the children were conceived by artificial
> insemination.
> So EVEN HIS WIFE, the MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN, freely admits that the
> children were not conceived by the usual method of a husband having sex
> with his wife.
>
> That kind of seals it for me. They're not actually his kids. And legally,
> I'm pretty sure that means they don't belong to him. In any way.
I think you're placing too much emphasis of the concept of 'ownership'
which courts are not all that interested in. Paternity may or may not be
an issue. Plenty of men are paying child support to women who fooled
around and bore someone else's child.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
TravIsGod
> speaking, family courts will look at what is in the children's 'best
> interests'. Clearly, all interested parties will take a different view
> as to what those interests are. Whoever has been the 'primary carer'
> will have a head start, as courts like the idea of routine and
> continuity as sources of stability in childhood.
This is correct. The courts always decide in the "best interests of
the child" as they see them.
> I think you're placing too much emphasis of the concept of 'ownership'
> which courts are not all that interested in. Paternity may or may not be
> an issue. Plenty of men are paying child support to women who fooled
> around and bore someone else's child.
>
> GDS
Nobody owns kids. They cannot be disposed of by bequest in a will or
shit like that. The children's best interests are what the court will
use.
And you won't pay child support until/unless you legally acknowledge
the kids. A support order if they're not yours will be reversed upon
paternity proof. Most custody decrees however will involve a legal
acknowledgement so it's in your best interests to have the test done
if there is any doubt. Because women have no honor nor decency, there
is a relatively high frequency of guys being duped in paternity
fraud. I have friends who have relatives in delivery rooms who say
there's a reasonably high incidence of dudes being in there and the
fucking baby comes out a niglet. A lot of times bitches will just
cross their fingers and hope and try to dupe the guy that is the most
decent out of the dozens they fucked recently. Despite society's
desire for men to step up and get punked out trying to do the right
thing, I would counsel anyone to wait till that thing comes out just
so's you don't wreck your life with a marriage you have to undo.
Trav
Don Geddis
> Plenty of men are paying child support to women who fooled around and bore
> someone else's child.
Not if the man can prove that he's not the genetic father. Regardless of
"the best interests of the child", regardless of if the man was married to
the woman when she bore the child, if he doubts paternity, and a DNA test
supports his doubt, then any court order for child support will be
immediately removed.
It matters a lot more than you're suggesting. Just being married to the
woman isn't sufficient, and just having acted like the father to raise them,
isn't sufficient either.
Now I guess that doesn't really answer the Michael Jackson case, because
he was a guy who was _not_ the father, but _wanted_ to be. In child support,
we're talking about a guy who isn't the father, and _doesn't_ want to be.
In the child support cases, the courts won't force him to be the father.
But in the case where he _wants_ to be the father, then perhaps you're right,
and "best interests of the child" become the deciding criteria. Although
one wonders what force the will has, now that he's dead, given that he isn't
their father. Or does that part even matter? Trav says that children aren't
property, so even if a guy _is_ the real father, and his will requests that
guardianship go to some specific individual, do courts regularly overrule
that "in the best interests of the child"? I don't know.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
If you're being chased by an angry bull, and then you notice you're also being
chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on
running. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote on Sun, 05 Jul 2009:
>> Plenty of men are paying child support to women who fooled around and bore
>> someone else's child.
>
> Not if the man can prove that he's not the genetic father. Regardless of
> "the best interests of the child", regardless of if the man was married to
> the woman when she bore the child, if he doubts paternity, and a DNA test
> supports his doubt, then any court order for child support will be
> immediately removed.
>
> It matters a lot more than you're suggesting. Just being married to the
> woman isn't sufficient, and just having acted like the father to raise them,
> isn't sufficient either.
It's not fair, but in many jurisdictions, the latter is quite sufficient.
> Now I guess that doesn't really answer the Michael Jackson case, because
> he was a guy who was _not_ the father, but _wanted_ to be.
It appears he wasn't the biological father, but by his actions and to
the children's perception, he was.
> In child support,
> we're talking about a guy who isn't the father, and _doesn't_ want to be.
Are we? Since when do fathers who pay child support don't want to be
fathers. Some, no doubt, but all? Nope. And don't forget, women pay
child support, too.
> In the child support cases, the courts won't force him to be the father.
Depends. There's plenty of cases where some years post birth, the man
discovers the kid/s are not his, they separate and he will still be
required to pay child support. Family courts like this idea of 'the
status quo' wherein the role of parent, once established, prevails over
paternity.
> But in the case where he _wants_ to be the father, then perhaps you're right,
> and "best interests of the child" become the deciding criteria. Although
> one wonders what force the will has, now that he's dead, given that he isn't
> their father. Or does that part even matter? Trav says that children aren't
> property, so even if a guy _is_ the real father, and his will requests that
> guardianship go to some specific individual, do courts regularly overrule
> that "in the best interests of the child"? I don't know.
Now that Jackson's dead, it kinda changes things. If he's not the
biological father but Rowe is the birth mother, if she wants custody and
can prove she's a fit mother, it will be hard to argue against.
I can't see any claim by Joe Jackson succeeding, so what's the alternative?
Even King Solomon got stumped by this stuff; there's no easy answers.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
TravIsGod
Yep. Family courts view men as a wallet.
> Are we? Since when do fathers who pay child support don't want to be
> fathers. Some, no doubt, but all? Nope. And don't forget, women pay
> child support, too.
Talk to my ex wife about that one...
> Depends. There's plenty of cases where some years post birth, the man
> discovers the kid/s are not his, they separate and he will still be
> required to pay child support. Family courts like this idea of 'the
> status quo' wherein the role of parent, once established, prevails over
> paternity.
Well, that depends upon a lot of things.
> Now that Jackson's dead, it kinda changes things. If he's not the
> biological father but Rowe is the birth mother, if she wants custody and
> can prove she's a fit mother, it will be hard to argue against.
Yeah...what a clusterfuck tho. All you'd expect from MJ tho.
> I can't see any claim by Joe Jackson succeeding, so what's the alternative?
>
> Even King Solomon got stumped by this stuff; there's no easy answers.
When you let people do freak shit and satisfy their insanity, yeah,
trouble is the result.
Trav
Greendistantstar
>> It's not fair, but in many jurisdictions, the latter is quite sufficient.
>
> Yep. Family courts view men as a wallet.
Here at least, things have changed, but now we've got a 'liberal' govt
and it's reverting to all the anti-men shit we've spent 20 years
fighting against.
>> Are we? Since when do fathers who pay child support don't want to be
>> fathers. Some, no doubt, but all? Nope. And don't forget, women pay
>> child support, too.
>
> Talk to my ex wife about that one...
Analyzing the 'who pays and who doesn't' stats is an education, believe me.
>> Depends. There's plenty of cases where some years post birth, the man
>> discovers the kid/s are not his, they separate and he will still be
>> required to pay child support. Family courts like this idea of 'the
>> status quo' wherein the role of parent, once established, prevails over
>> paternity.
>
> Well, that depends upon a lot of things.
Sure, but let no one believe it doesn't happen.
>> Now that Jackson's dead, it kinda changes things. If he's not the
>> biological father but Rowe is the birth mother, if she wants custody and
>> can prove she's a fit mother, it will be hard to argue against.
>
> Yeah...what a clusterfuck tho. All you'd expect from MJ tho.
>
>> I can't see any claim by Joe Jackson succeeding, so what's the alternative?
>>
>> Even King Solomon got stumped by this stuff; there's no easy answers.
>
> When you let people do freak shit and satisfy their insanity, yeah,
> trouble is the result.
It's the fallout of being able to do shit just because you can. MJ
wanted to have some other guy's sperm impregnate a woman he clearly had
no relationship with so he could have kids. WTF??? How do we as a
society know whether such arrangements will have any benefit to the kids
involved, or the society at large?
We don't...it's a fucking experiment in social engineering, and now look
at the mess.
I could say much the same thing about gay couples adopting, too.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
YumYumPandaburger
> On Jul 3, YumYumPandaburger <theoriginald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson
> > > with his kids. Here are some photos:
>
>
> > > Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological
> > > children?
> > MICHAEL JACKSON WAS BLACK ???!!!
>
> Was. Was.
>
> Sam
Was.
TravIsGod
> and it's reverting to all the anti-men shit we've spent 20 years
> fighting against.
Men, particularly white ones, are obviously responsible for every bad
thing in the entire world. I think we should only burn coal that
women mine, eat king crab they fish for, and live in buildings they
built. When the power goes out in a storm, we'll use the transmission
lines they go up in the bucket to repair. All the minorities, not
just women...we can live like they live seeing as how they're so
superior to us.
> Analyzing the 'who pays and who doesn't' stats is an education, believe me.
>
Being a woman in the US in family court is a blank check for mayhem.
> Sure, but let no one believe it doesn't happen.
There are some rules on whether a man can be made to pay support and
these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
> It's the fallout of being able to do shit just because you can. MJ
> wanted to have some other guy's sperm impregnate a woman he clearly had
> no relationship with so he could have kids. WTF??? How do we as a
Well, hell, he had sperm + egg pieced together and implanted into a
3rd party.
> society know whether such arrangements will have any benefit to the kids
> involved, or the society at large?
>
> We don't...it's a fucking experiment in social engineering, and now look
> at the mess.
>
> I could say much the same thing about gay couples adopting, too.
>
> GDS
That is the new vanguard of family law as dykes use the kids as
weapons against each other. A baby is an appliance to women, not a
person.
Trav
Don Geddis
> There's plenty of cases where some years post birth, the man discovers the
> kid/s are not his, they separate and he will still be required to pay child
> support.
Are there? Can you find me one?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
...an animal loses not only its life but also its third dimension.
-- Roger M. Knutson, in "Flattened Fauna: A Field Guide to Common
Animals of Roads, Streets, and Highways"
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote on Mon, 06 Jul 2009:
>> There's plenty of cases where some years post birth, the man discovers the
>> kid/s are not his, they separate and he will still be required to pay child
>> support.
>
> Are there? Can you find me one?
Sure. It probably won't be today though. See if you can find a few in
the meantime. An excellent book, one of the best texts on this whole
mess is "Divorced Dads - Shattering the Myths" by Dr Sanford Braver.
http://www.amazon.com/Divorced-Dads-Sanford-Braver/dp/087477862X
This book is essential reading for anyone who wants to get their head
around this issue, and includes examples of which I speak.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
TravIsGod
There are zillions. In almost every one, the poor dupe acknowledged
paternity at some point.
Read this: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354
Trav
TravIsGod
wrote:
> Don Geddis wrote:
Examples like this are very easy to find.
The presumption of paternity from marriage is part of common law,
dating back to England. In most cases of fraud, the man was married
to a fucking whore, then they got a divorce. He finds out years later
what type of a trick he was living with.
Look, the bottom line is that law and codes of honor are male
constructs. Don't expect women to play by them. Women lie, cheat,
and steal like they were born to do it.
Trav
Slim
>
> Talk to my ex wife about that one...
Bitter old fart. Why did she leave you? The smell finally got to her?
suds mcduff
---White Euros are pretty good....Yao Ming?
I know of some Asian kids that could probably spot you 10 pts and win to
11....
or sayin
> that europeans never produce top sprinters so theyre slow.
---There are no euro sprinters in the Olympics?
http://www.webtvhub.com/yelena-soboleva-pics-and-vid-hot-russian-runner-makes-first-olympic-appearance-at-beijing-%E2%80%93-49th-hottest-girl/
is that
> racist?
> be aware that you are about three posts from being boxed in as a
> racist a liar or an idiot.
> But im pretty balsy.
> im aiming for all three.
----No need to aim, you're already all three...
suds mcduff
>> ----Nah----denigrating the difference between races is racist, loon...
>
> Look man, feel free to put your daughter in with them.
---I don't have one...I'm sorry for yours....hopefully they'll reject
you when they come of age....
> When the difference between the races is 20 IQ points
----Yet pound the shit out of the weaker white lillies when it comes to
sports....how do those 20 IQ points help you when you're bleeding from
your beat down?
and a 10x higher
> violent crime rate,
----10x poorer as well...
where one invented everything we call modern and
> civilized
----Chinese and Arabs?
and the other cannot even form a functioning society,
---They did fairly well in Africa till we showed up....
> denigration is EXACTLY what we need.
----That's why you're the racist here, douche...
>
> We NEED to denigrate black culture because it is pathologically
> destructive.
---You know nothing about black culture, do ya, racist?
YumYumPandaburger
Websense blocked this law.com site, due to it being "TASTELESS"
Herbert Cannon
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:miP4m.64359$qa.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> TravIsGod wrote:
>>> ----Nah----denigrating the difference between races is racist, loon...
>>
>> Look man, feel free to put your daughter in with them.
>
> ---I don't have one...I'm sorry for yours....hopefully they'll reject you
> when they come of age....
>
>> When the difference between the races is 20 IQ points
>
> ----Yet pound the shit out of the weaker white lillies when it comes to
> sports....how do those 20 IQ points help you when you're bleeding from
> your beat down?
Helps during medical operations, Dunce Dump. Of course we be glad to let
your jocks operate on you.
>
> and a 10x higher
>> violent crime rate,
>
> ----10x poorer as well...
The poor are dishonest. Tch tch new mantra for you.
>
> where one invented everything we call modern and
>> civilized
>
> ----Chinese and Arabs?
Fell behind.
>
> and the other cannot even form a functioning society,
>
> ---They did fairly well in Africa till we showed up....
Yea the Zulu killed everything for 2,000 miles.
>
>> denigration is EXACTLY what we need.
>
> ----That's why you're the racist here, douche...
>
>>
>> We NEED to denigrate black culture because it is pathologically
>> destructive.
>
> ---You know nothing about black culture, do ya, racist?
You obviously love it.
TravIsGod
No; she's insane.
Trav
TravIsGod
> you when they come of age....
I don't have a daughter; only sons. You won't have children dude bc
the "girls" you're getting fucked by have dicks. Haven't figured that
out yet?
> ----Yet pound the shit out of the weaker white lillies when it comes to
> sports....how do those 20 IQ points help you when you're bleeding from
> your beat down?
WTF does that matter? Sports are irrelevant to societal progress. A
smart man invents a fucking gun. You're on a martial arts forum
talking shit about blacks beating down whites? Look at the title
holders in the UFC, fuckhead.
And horses beat the shit out of any man in a race, but they haven't
held elected office since Rome. A chimp would beat the fucking shit
out of you and probably make you his bitch as well as outwit you in
any test of intelligence....ok, maybe this is a bad example. But, to
a MAN, a chimp is a fucking pet, superior strength be damned.
> ----10x poorer as well...
That's b/c they're 10x as violent. It is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult to
amass wealth if you cannot restrain your urge to murder and rob
people.
> ----Chinese and Arabs?
Find me their inventions. Go ahead. Start with the microprocessor
and work backwards. The Chinese have not been significant since
500AD, and the Arabs never were.
> ---They did fairly well in Africa till we showed up....
Bitch they never had WRITING, the wheel, or any mechanical devices!
WTF were they doing well, they were the same as they fuckin are NOW
except without all the white-designed and built structures and the
awful white refrigeration and electric power that we are oppressing
them with.
> ----That's why you're the racist here, douche...
Ok, let's run with this...what is the MERIT in black culture that
produces a MAJORITY of criminals among its men, the lowest expression
of education, technological progress, and highest levels of misogyny,
illegitimacy, and violence!??! What about this should NOT be
denigrated?
> ---You know nothing about black culture, do ya, racist?
I know obviously far more than you.
Their continent's history is one of war, before, during, and after the
white man. As a race, they never accomplished shit. Oh, but they run
fast. Wow.
Trav
Slim
>> Bitter old fart. Why did she leave you? The smell finally got to her?
>
> No; she's insane.
Welllll...she did marry you.
TravIsGod
> On 2009-07-09 00:18:31 -0400, TravIsGod <travis...@aol.com> said:
>
> >> Bitter old fart. Why did she leave you? The smell finally got to her?
>
> > No; she's insane.
>
> Welllll...she did marry you.
Neither one of us really wanted to do that.
Trav
Slim
Her dad took out a shotgun after you told him you knocked her up?
TravIsGod
Never met her dad.
Trav
redsoxsrule-yankeesdrool
> I just saw some home videos on TV from Michael Jackson with his kids.
> Hadn't seen his kids before. �Here are some photos:
> � � � �http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-511702/Unveiled-Michael-...
>
> Is there any way these could actually be Jackson's biological children?
> They're blond(e) and blue eyed! �Can you get that, in one generation, from
> a very black father? �(Forget about what Jackson looked like recently; look
> at photos of him as a teenager. �He was a very typical, very dark skinned,
> black man. �Those are his genetics.)
>
> white as you can get -- still winds up with kids that basically look black.
> really they're only half black ... and half white. �And yet they "look
> black".
>
> That seems the case with all children of at least one black parent.
> The physical characteristics of "looking black" seem very dominant.
>
> And then you have Michael Jackson's kids. �Even without a genetic test,
> it seems you can tell just by looking at them that they couldn't possibly
> be Jackson's biological children.
>
> Is this a known open secret? �Is this why Jackson hid his kids behind veils
> and masks and blankets for so long? �Because it would be obvious to anyone
> with half a brain that they can't possible actually be his real kids?
>
>
> � � � � -- Don
> But please, no children. �-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
The way I understood it was Michael Jackson was NEVER the biological
father of ANY children.
The children were the result of someone else's sperm used to
impregnate the natural mother via invetro fertilization (or some such
thing).
Personally, I've often wondered why he wanted children to begin with
(no pedophile jokes, please).
You guys make sense of it!