If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   What's black and white, costs $35 million and comes in little cans?   (nydailynews.com) divider line 50
    More: Sick, Michael Jackson, Neverland Ranch, Pellicano, FBI files, hush money, Wade Robson, Michael Jackson spent  
•       •       •

10195 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Jun 2013 at 7:03 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-30 06:05:13 PM
LMFAO
Better than any headline I CAME up with.
 
2013-06-30 06:40:21 PM
Oh subby...you evil but magnificent bastard.
 
2013-06-30 06:49:23 PM
MJ's side gig as a serial sexual predator of little boys has kept me from listening to his over-rated crap for years now.

I'd rather listen to Nickelback.

/Plus one for Subby's headline though, nice jerb!
 
2013-06-30 07:04:27 PM
Hee Haw gone Hollywood.
"His" kids aren't even black, not in the least.
 
2013-06-30 07:11:42 PM
"well known child actor" that's gotta be macaulay culkin right
 
2013-06-30 07:13:08 PM

falcon176: "well known child actor" that's gotta be macaulay culkin right


Corey Feldman, Ricky Schroeder, or Alfonso Ribera.
 
2013-06-30 07:14:15 PM
$35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!
 
2013-06-30 07:15:22 PM

theflatline: falcon176: "well known child actor" that's gotta be macaulay culkin right

Corey Feldman, Ricky Schroeder, or Alfonso Ribera.


My money's on Corey.  He was as easy target, being such an MJ mark, and it would explain why he's messed up in adulthood.
 
2013-06-30 07:19:55 PM
Nice, submitter, nice.
 
2013-06-30 07:22:43 PM
I wouldn't object to a Headline of the Year nod.
 
2013-06-30 07:24:07 PM
Wow...The NY Daily Post writing a story using a British Tabloid as a source. Reading chicken bones would be more trustworthy. Maybe Fox News will pick this up and we can have triple filtered bullshiat.
 
2013-06-30 07:24:42 PM
(Fantastic headline though)
 
2013-06-30 07:36:09 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wow...The NY Daily Post writing a story using a British Tabloid as a source. Reading chicken bones would be more trustworthy. Maybe Fox News will pick this up and we can have triple filtered bullshiat.


It's pretty straightforward. We have a guy bullshiatting through his teeth for cigarette money, and because the completely unsubstantiated rumor posted by a convict has to do with Michael Jackson, well, all of the bottom feeders are on it like a dead carp in the Thames.

I hate to agree with ICP, but, damn, folks...
 
2013-06-30 07:36:15 PM

gimmegimme: $35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!


You must be tripping. That's around $1.45 million per boy. Per boy the Catholic Church has gotten them for WAY less than that over the centuries.
 
2013-06-30 07:40:17 PM
assets.nydailynews.com

Congratulations New York Daily News, you've managed to find the creepiest picture of MJ EVAR. I'm going to have to drink extra-heavy in order to sleep tonight.
 
2013-06-30 07:47:52 PM

mongbiohazard: gimmegimme: $35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!

You must be tripping. That's around $1.45 million per boy. Per boy the Catholic Church has gotten them for WAY less than that over the centuries.


I'm talking the recent legal settlements that are causing so many parishes to go into bankruptcy.  You know, to protect their assets from the people whose assets they didn't protect.
 
2013-06-30 07:54:20 PM

StrikitRich: theflatline: falcon176: "well known child actor" that's gotta be macaulay culkin right

Corey Feldman, Ricky Schroeder, or Alfonso Ribera.

My money's on Corey.  He was as easy target, being such an MJ mark, and it would explain why he's messed up in adulthood.


That's got to make you seriously messed up. Not only do you get abused and the guy doesn't get punished but he's basically known to have done it to a bunch of kids and is still doing it and being held in high regard by a number of people.

 What is it with people like Polanski where the artistic community seems to think it's okay to be a child molester because "he's a great artist and artists are misunderstood and the common folk are just prudes"?
 
2013-06-30 07:55:45 PM
I totally believe what the guy who's in prison says about the guy who got acquitted.
 
2013-06-30 07:58:26 PM
Hasn't this story already been debunked like 5 years ago?
 
2013-06-30 07:58:29 PM

gimmegimme: mongbiohazard: gimmegimme: $35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!

You must be tripping. That's around $1.45 million per boy. Per boy the Catholic Church has gotten them for WAY less than that over the centuries.

I'm talking the recent legal settlements that are causing so many parishes to go into bankruptcy.  You know, to protect their assets from the people whose assets they didn't protect.


According to the article one family alone received $20 million.
 
2013-06-30 07:59:05 PM

StrikitRich: gimmegimme: mongbiohazard: gimmegimme: $35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!

You must be tripping. That's around $1.45 million per boy. Per boy the Catholic Church has gotten them for WAY less than that over the centuries.

I'm talking the recent legal settlements that are causing so many parishes to go into bankruptcy.  You know, to protect their assets from the people whose assets they didn't protect.

According to the article one family alone received $20 million.


Wow.  Some of the boys got screw---

I mean, received far less money than the others.
 
2013-06-30 08:12:48 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wow...The NY Daily Post writing a story using a British Tabloid as a source. Reading chicken bones would be more trustworthy. Maybe Fox News will pick this up and we can have triple filtered bullshiat.


...whose source is an unnamed "associate" of a known lying scumbag PI. Wow, what a reliable info provider.

Not that it couldn't be true; but really. Pellicano's "unnamed associate" just handed over the files to a British tabloid? Uh huh. I've got this bridge for sale too...
 
2013-06-30 08:17:32 PM

mongbiohazard: gimmegimme: $35 million for 24 boys?  The Catholic Church would call that a bargain!

You must be tripping. That's around $1.45 million per boy. Per boy the Catholic Church has gotten them for WAY less than that over the centuries.


To be fair, they buy in bulk.  MJ bought them by a case, if you buy a brewery, you get them for pennies on the dollar.
 
2013-06-30 08:17:35 PM

falcon176: "well known child actor" that's gotta be macaulay culkin right


Yes.
 
2013-06-30 08:21:26 PM
ALLEGED molestations
 
2013-06-30 08:23:24 PM
Headline is ripping off a really old joke.

The parents of those molested kids failed their children.
 
2013-06-30 08:26:51 PM
Convenient this coming out when he's dead and all...can't defend himself.
 
2013-06-30 08:27:39 PM

Johnsnownw: Convenient this coming out when he's dead and all...can't defend himself.


To be fair, he did a bad job of that when he was alive.  Almost as bad as Sandusky with the "the most beautiful thing you can do is share your bed with a child" thing.
 
2013-06-30 08:37:45 PM
I like how since MJ died, apparently no one ever thought he molested kids nor made jokes about him doing so.
 
2013-06-30 08:57:14 PM
etradebabyshockedface.jpg
 
2013-06-30 09:21:21 PM

StrikitRich: According to the article one family alone received $20 million.


The fact that people who accused Jackson took money in exchange for keeping quiet makes me lean towards the side that he probably didn't do anything. I mean I just find it hard to believe a parent could take money in exchange for changing there story and letting the person who molested their kid walk free. Now if you were in it for the money all along then of course you would take the money.Now I totally think that Jackson had a weird thing about kids, but that doesn't mean it led to anything illegal. And it would totally be the perfect situation that a con artist could use to make some cash.
 
2013-06-30 09:21:25 PM
Oh look! There's a sale at Neverland!
Boy's pants, half off!
 
2013-06-30 09:31:03 PM
FunkOut:
 What is it with people like Polanski where the artistic community seems to think it's okay to be a child molester because "he's a great artist and artists are misunderstood and the common folk are just prudes"?

MJ was alleged to have molested multiple children. It was never proven, and with MJ dead there's really no way to put him on trial. All we're going to get is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, and testimonies by scumbags wanting to make money off him now that he can't sue them for libel.

Polanski plead guilty to the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. Any further sex crimes that he was accused of commiting have resulted in him winning libel cases. He admitted he did it. He said he's regretted it for 33 years. He has never attempted to deny it. He settled with the woman when she was much older and her estate confirmed he paid her off and offered her an apology, which she accepted.

One of these people have never been found guilty in a court of law for sex crimes. The other has plead guilty in a court of law, but fled the country.

I was a 13 year old girl too. She knew what she was doing. She wanted to be famous. He took advantage of that. He coerced her, and that was wrong. But she wasn't an unwilling participant. If she didn't want it, she could have left at any time. She was a minor and what he did was illegal, but it's a very big contrast to the allegations MJ has faced.

Artistic talent has nothing to do with it except to people who don't fully understand the situation, or choose to not fully understand. MJ has never been convicted, and this is America... we're innocent until proven guilty. It's just as feasible that his eccentric lifestyle and time he spent with boys has resulted in him paying the families off out of an extortion attempt on him as it was hush money to keep them quiet. Polanski actually was guilty, and has been apologetic about it ever since -- his major mistake was that he fled the country when he felt the judge was going to go back on his sentencing and take advantage of the media exposure for his own benefit. Which may or may not be bs.

But both situations are completely different and criticism changes accordingly.
 
2013-06-30 09:44:54 PM

Weatherkiss: Polanski plead guilty to the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. Any further sex crimes that he was accused of commiting have resulted in him winning libel cases. He admitted he did it. He said he's regretted it for 33 years. He has never attempted to deny it. He settled with the woman when she was much older and her estate confirmed he paid her off and offered her an apology, which she accepted.


He also pleaded guilty (and did short time) based on a plea deal which was later not honoured by the judge and it was at that time that he fled the country.
 
2013-06-30 09:51:51 PM

fusillade762: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x591]

Congratulations New York Daily News, you've managed to find the creepiest picture of MJ EVAR. I'm going to have to drink extra-heavy in order to sleep tonight.


If there was ever a picture that begs for the caption SOON ... it's this one.  Fark you, Joe Jackson.
 
2013-06-30 10:19:30 PM

FeedTheCollapse: I like how since MJ died, apparently no one ever thought he molested kids nor made jokes about him doing so.


Why do you like that?  I'm pissed.
 
2013-06-30 11:41:21 PM
I am so going to hell for laughing at that headline.

Bravo, subby.

www.bubina.com
 
2013-07-01 12:44:19 AM

mechgreg: StrikitRich: According to the article one family alone received $20 million.

The fact that people who accused Jackson took money in exchange for keeping quiet makes me lean towards the side that he probably didn't do anything. I mean I just find it hard to believe a parent could take money in exchange for changing there story and letting the person who molested their kid walk free. Now if you were in it for the money all along then of course you would take the money.Now I totally think that Jackson had a weird thing about kids, but that doesn't mean it led to anything illegal. And it would totally be the perfect situation that a con artist could use to make some cash.


I don't know, people are great a justifying things to themselves, maybe they convinced themselves the money would better help them, they were already out of the situation and it wasn't like THEIR kid was going to get molested by Micheal Jackson again, that is other peoples problem now and we are great at ignoring others when we have no direct envolvment with them. Taking money is certainly much easier then going to court getting a guilt or not guilty then suing for money in civil court that you might not get if you can't prove anything. I am not saying it is right, but I can certainly see people taking that route and convincing them it is the correct route.
 
2013-07-01 01:27:52 AM

StrikitRich: I wouldn't object to a Headline of the Year nod.


Old joke is old, and a bit clumsily adapted.

/still funny, but you gotta have standards
 
2013-07-01 03:01:23 AM
As someone who has used that joke, I approve of this headline. Well played, subs.
 
2013-07-01 03:01:30 AM

fusillade762: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x591]

Congratulations New York Daily News, you've managed to find the creepiest picture of MJ EVAR. I'm going to have to drink extra-heavy in order to sleep tonight.


It looks like Joan Crawford just looked into the Ark of the Covenant.
 
2013-07-01 03:33:29 AM

Weatherkiss: FunkOut:
 What is it with people like Polanski where the artistic community seems to think it's okay to be a child molester because "he's a great artist and artists are misunderstood and the common folk are just prudes"?

MJ was alleged to have molested multiple children. It was never proven, and with MJ dead there's really no way to put him on trial. All we're going to get is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, and testimonies by scumbags wanting to make money off him now that he can't sue them for libel.

Polanski plead guilty to the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. Any further sex crimes that he was accused of commiting have resulted in him winning libel cases. He admitted he did it. He said he's regretted it for 33 years. He has never attempted to deny it. He settled with the woman when she was much older and her estate confirmed he paid her off and offered her an apology, which she accepted.

One of these people have never been found guilty in a court of law for sex crimes. The other has plead guilty in a court of law, but fled the country.

I was a 13 year old girl too. She knew what she was doing. She wanted to be famous. He took advantage of that. He coerced her, and that was wrong. But she wasn't an unwilling participant. If she didn't want it, she could have left at any time. She was a minor and what he did was illegal, but it's a very big contrast to the allegations MJ has faced.

Artistic talent has nothing to do with it except to people who don't fully understand the situation, or choose to not fully understand. MJ has never been convicted, and this is America... we're innocent until proven guilty. It's just as feasible that his eccentric lifestyle and time he spent with boys has resulted in him paying the families off out of an extortion attempt on him as it was hush money to keep them quiet. Polanski actually was guilty, and has been apologetic about it ever since -- his major mistake was that he fled the country when he felt the judge was goi ...


You are dead wrong about the nature of that encounter. She may have suspected what may happen at the residence, but it doesn't matter because she was incapable of making that decision as she was underage. Don't blame the victim here, she was taken advantage of by an older famous man. Furthermore,  she was drugged early in the incident and incapacitated for the rape and sodomy (both kinds) so even assuming she was legally able to consent to the encounter, Polanski took away her ability to change her mind and say no.. Like any plea deal, it masks the true gravity of the alleged crime and he avoided paying for his crime by fleeing.  If you believe for a second that she was the only victim of this behavior in his life, you are very trusting and probably naive.  People who engage in that kind of behavior usually are incapable of stopping as they desire the total control and power over victims.
 
2013-07-01 06:09:23 AM
I don't get the headline.... little cans?

Anyone?
 
2013-07-01 11:19:10 AM
Weatherkiss:
You left out Polanski spiking her champagne with Qualudes.
 
2013-07-01 11:46:04 AM

danielscissorhands: I don't get the headline.... little cans?

Anyone?


Really?  Children's butts.

/I hope you have comment notification enabled, because I now feel dirty for explaining this...
 
2013-07-01 01:12:55 PM

Odd Bird: danielscissorhands: I don't get the headline.... little cans?

Anyone?

Really?  Children's butts.

/I hope you have comment notification enabled, because I now feel dirty for explaining this...


Thanks.

Since when are cans a euphenism for butts? If anything, I thought cans were a rarely used euphemism for breasts.
 
2013-07-01 01:16:01 PM
euphemism
 
2013-07-01 01:18:12 PM

danielscissorhands: Odd Bird: danielscissorhands: I don't get the headline.... little cans?

Anyone?

Really?  Children's butts.

/I hope you have comment notification enabled, because I now feel dirty for explaining this...

Thanks.

Since when are cans a euphenism for butts? If anything, I thought cans were a rarely used euphemism for breasts.


I thought the answer was Michael Jackson's penis.
 
2013-07-01 08:52:02 PM
I always wondered if that was Brigham Young university in Bad...
 
2013-07-02 08:16:01 AM

dmars: mechgreg: StrikitRich: According to the article one family alone received $20 million.

The fact that people who accused Jackson took money in exchange for keeping quiet makes me lean towards the side that he probably didn't do anything. I mean I just find it hard to believe a parent could take money in exchange for changing there story and letting the person who molested their kid walk free. Now if you were in it for the money all along then of course you would take the money.Now I totally think that Jackson had a weird thing about kids, but that doesn't mean it led to anything illegal. And it would totally be the perfect situation that a con artist could use to make some cash.

I don't know, people are great a justifying things to themselves, maybe they convinced themselves the money would better help them, they were already out of the situation and it wasn't like THEIR kid was going to get molested by Micheal Jackson again, that is other peoples problem now and we are great at ignoring others when we have no direct envolvment with them. Taking money is certainly much easier then going to court getting a guilt or not guilty then suing for money in civil court that you might not get if you can't prove anything. I am not saying it is right, but I can certainly see people taking that route and convincing them it is the correct route.


I see your point. But I also think it is weird that there was 100's  if not 1000's of kids who spent time at Neverland Ranch, yet there were only 2 accusations. I mean you think if he truly was a predator and he was bringing that many kids into his amusement park home more than 2 kids (who from what I remember were years apart) would have said something happened to them.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report