if this woman took out a life insurance policy on me! :shock: http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/3200992/
I do find it a little odd that the title of the article says that she is "obsessed by cash", but nothing in the article suggests that she was any more "obsessed" than anyone else.
I'm way less concerned about that than how many folks around her met untimely deaths. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but DERN! 8)
I don't think most people are "obsessed" enough to take out life insurance policies on people with herself at the beneficiary and they conveniently die. :?
I think she just took her obssession a little more to the extreme than the rest of us would. The only life insurance policy I have is on me with my kids as the lucky benificiaries. My daughters were worried what would happen to them if something happened to me. I was explaining about who they would go live with and that there would be some money set aside for them...they both looked at me with the most serious and scarey look and asked how soon was i going to die. Im not sure if they were worried or excited it might be soon LOLOL
But you don't hear about bank robbers being "obsessed with cash". People who are "obsessed" want to be surrounded with the object of their obsession. I did not read that this woman had stacks of cash at her home, etc. It's just another example of media sensationalism. And y'all are eating it up like good little sheep.
Oh, I'm sure there is a perfectly logical (innocent) reason ALL those folks died. You know...............gullible is not in the dictionary either. I never cease to be amazed. Sheep my ***.
no we aren't...no one has said anything about the money ...'cept you and the person that typed the headline at WRAL.....stop trying to start something....
Or, she might have killed them all. Who knows? But we're not talking about whether or not she's guilty. We're talking about the used of the phrase "obsessed with cash". Apparently y'all have no problem with the prejudicial nature of what the media is doing. Or, to put it in words you might understand better..., "Baaa, baa, baaaaa." That's exactly my point. I mean, we can't have you guys thinking she just might be innocent. So, instead of using a headline like "Woman Accused of Killing Husbands for Insurance Money", it's much better to say she was "obsessed with cash".
How about this headline? "Woman obsessed with cash accused of killing husbands for insurance money" That better? Craig
Why are you so keen on "obsessed with cash"? From the same WRAL news site is the headline: "Sidney Lowe II to plead guilty to 12 charges" Shouldn't we change that to: "Sidney Lowe II, who is obsessed with cash, to plead guilty to 12 charges" Or how about: "Police: Men kidnapped Fayetteville bank manager to steal money" Should be changed to: "Police: Men obsessed with cash kidnapped Fayetteville bank manager to steal money" Once again, there was nothing in the article cited that suggested she was any more "obsessed with cash" than anyone else who commits a crime for monetary gain.
she is not innocent and you know it as good as everyone else.....and we all know the news is going to make it as appealing as possible with an outrageous headline, so we'll all click on it....I mean do think Angelina REALLY had babies, or it could be a hoax..... I admire your always sticking up for the innocent peeps, but I know for one second you know dern well grandma is guilty.....how about give us all a break and for once, just go with the flow.....its really not that hard
Perhaps, but that wasn't my point. To bad you are so ready to claim that she is guilty that you completely missed anything else I may have written. I'm sorry, but I did not read anything about Angelina being obsessed with children. Once again, it's not whether or not she's guilty, and I am not saying she is or isn't. All I'm saying is that the media has no call to have said she was "obsessed with cash" unless they had something to back up the claim. Now let's see if your ignorance shines though and you come back yet again and tell me that I am defending this woman.
whatever Clif....and I am not ignorant....let's not start name calling..... and I did read your original (meaningless pot stirring) post
That's not name calling, anymore than calling you a human is name calling. I just state facts as I see them. If you read my posts as you claim and still believe that I am defending this woman, then you are either stupid, mentally challenged, or just plain ignorant. If you did, then why on Earth do you accuse me of trying to defend this woman? I did not make a single statement in defense of this woman. All my posts have been referring to the headline theat WRAL attached to the news item.
Then take it up with WRAL. Geez o pete, don't you have anything better to do? I posted a link to a freaking article, it's not brain surgery.
