(01-20-2015 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 07:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

I have no skin in this game, but Paterno has done enough other good things in his life that I can understand the outrage over his lynching from Penn State fans.

The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

I wonder what the internet version of tar and feathers is? So many internet crusaders that love to pick and choose their "holy battles" when it best coincides with their own personal agenda's.

If these folks think that Penn State should be tore down, then are they just as upset about the Major Banks of this country? They have done far worse and covered up so much more. Yet, it isn't a Penn State vs Syracuse situation with the banks so who cares right?

What I want to know is how many supposed Christians are wanting their pound of flesh taken from Penn State over the horrible things done by Sandusky and those individuals that covered it up? Let's go folks, ante up.

Bold: Actually, statistically speaking, I can answer this question: yes, more so in fact.

Underlined: Religious people all over the world want all kinds of bad things to happen to others. Literally every major religion is at war somewhere in the world - probably with every other major religion.

LOL, every kind of people all over the world want all kinds of bad things to happen to others. You could point the same finger at the USSR/China/Vietnam among other non-religious societies. Talk about getting the pound of flesh throughout history.

People are people, with the same thoughts and emotions to overcome, despite what motivates them.

(01-20-2015 09:57 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Ped St and the NCAA sicken me to my core. As a parent, if you do not feel the same then I don't know what to say to you.

If I was one of those parents I would have burned that place to the effing ground.

They deserved the death penalty more than SMU.

(01-20-2015 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Because we all know that Paterno ruled Happy Valley. He was the Czar of the damned place.

Many Penn Staters relished telling everyone that...over and over...until the Sandusky issue.

Then, Joe was this confused, powerless old man, an underling who reported "something" (it was all so confusing to poor ole' Joe) to his "higher ups", which allegedly satisfied any moral, legal or ethical duties he may have had.

Most of the non-PSU world ain't buying it..

This

The name Penn State stirs up some pretty nasty feelings in most of the college football world.

Somebody needs to hit the reset button.

Joe was undeniably a screwed up little man, but I actually disagree to an extent. It isn't just Joe, and that's the problem. It was a systemic problem that involved a disturbing amount of PSU higher-ups. If any one of them wasn't corrupt or indifferent, lives would have been spared. That's one of the many things about the scandal that makes it heart-breaking.

There are several layers to it, the higher ups that didn't want the scandal, Joe who wanted his record, the loser coaches who didn't want to lose their jobs, and more. It was a perfect **** storm.

I find the situation disgusting. What I find even more grotesque is the reaction going forward....

(01-20-2015 12:18 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 07:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

I have no skin in this game, but Paterno has done enough other good things in his life that I can understand the outrage over his lynching from Penn State fans.

The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

I wonder what the internet version of tar and feathers is? So many internet crusaders that love to pick and choose their "holy battles" when it best coincides with their own personal agenda's.

If these folks think that Penn State should be tore down, then are they just as upset about the Major Banks of this country? They have done far worse and covered up so much more. Yet, it isn't a Penn State vs Syracuse situation with the banks so who cares right?

What I want to know is how many supposed Christians are wanting their pound of flesh taken from Penn State over the horrible things done by Sandusky and those individuals that covered it up? Let's go folks, ante up.

Bold: Actually, statistically speaking, I can answer this question: yes, more so in fact.

Underlined: Religious people all over the world want all kinds of bad things to happen to others. Literally every major religion is at war somewhere in the world - probably with every other major religion.

LOL, every kind of people all over the world want all kinds of bad things to happen to others. You could point the same finger at the USSR/China/Vietnam among other non-religious societies. Talk about getting the pound of flesh throughout history.

People are people, with the same thoughts and emotions to overcome, despite what motivates them.

Oh, I completely agree. Those other groups just weren't mentioned in the original post.

For the life of me, I can't understand why in-state students would pick Penn State over Pitt

(01-20-2015 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Because we all know that Paterno ruled Happy Valley. He was the Czar of the damned place.

Many Penn Staters relished telling everyone that...over and over...until the Sandusky issue.

Then, Joe was this confused, powerless old man, an underling who reported "something" (it was all so confusing to poor ole' Joe) to his "higher ups", which allegedly satisfied any moral, legal or ethical duties he may have had.

Most of the non-PSU world ain't buying it..

This

The name Penn State stirs up some pretty nasty feelings in most of the college football world.

Somebody needs to hit the reset button.

Joe was undeniably a screwed up little man, but I actually disagree to an extent. It isn't just Joe, and that's the problem. It was a systemic problem that involved a disturbing amount of PSU higher-ups. If any one of them wasn't corrupt or indifferent, lives would have been spared. That's one of the many things about the scandal that makes it heart-breaking.

There are several layers to it, the higher ups that didn't want the scandal, Joe who wanted his record, the loser coaches who didn't want to lose their jobs, and more. It was a perfect **** storm.

I find the situation disgusting. What I find even more grotesque is the reaction going forward....

It's a systemic problem. The organization as a whole has a problem, which is why nothing changed. There is still wide-spread indifference.

That's why I think my Alma Mater needs the death penalty. It would be better off for it in the long run. PSU is broken and cannot fix itself.

(01-20-2015 01:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Because we all know that Paterno ruled Happy Valley. He was the Czar of the damned place.

Many Penn Staters relished telling everyone that...over and over...until the Sandusky issue.

Then, Joe was this confused, powerless old man, an underling who reported "something" (it was all so confusing to poor ole' Joe) to his "higher ups", which allegedly satisfied any moral, legal or ethical duties he may have had.

Most of the non-PSU world ain't buying it..

This

The name Penn State stirs up some pretty nasty feelings in most of the college football world.

Somebody needs to hit the reset button.

Joe was undeniably a screwed up little man, but I actually disagree to an extent. It isn't just Joe, and that's the problem. It was a systemic problem that involved a disturbing amount of PSU higher-ups. If any one of them wasn't corrupt or indifferent, lives would have been spared. That's one of the many things about the scandal that makes it heart-breaking.

There are several layers to it, the higher ups that didn't want the scandal, Joe who wanted his record, the loser coaches who didn't want to lose their jobs, and more. It was a perfect **** storm.

I find the situation disgusting. What I find even more grotesque is the reaction going forward....

It's a systemic problem. The organization as a whole has a problem, which is why nothing changed. There is still wide-spread indifference.

That's why I think my Alma Mater needs the death penalty. It would be better off for it in the long run. PSU is broken and cannot fix itself.

I didn't realize you attended PSU.

I agree though. It can't fix itself. Strong leadership would see this and would not want this to affix itself permanently to the university.

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

You obviously do not have kids. I feel for you. If this happened to any of my kids there would have been a lot of hell to pay.

(01-20-2015 09:57 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Ped St and the NCAA sicken me to my core. As a parent, if you do not feel the same then I don't know what to say to you.

If I was one of those parents I would have burned that place to the effing ground.

Exactly. It is totally disgusting. Anybody who trivializes it either doesn't have kids or has no conscience and heart. That simple.

(01-20-2015 12:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 09:57 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Ped St and the NCAA sicken me to my core. As a parent, if you do not feel the same then I don't know what to say to you.

If I was one of those parents I would have burned that place to the effing ground.

They deserved the death penalty more than SMU.

Absolutely, agree 100%

(01-20-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I didn't realize you attended PSU.

I agree though. It can't fix itself. Strong leadership would see this and would not want this to affix itself permanently to the university.

That I did. I went to the UP campus, too.

Unfortunately, my fellow alumni have more or less turned into a cult, and we control who sits on the BoT, making that a de facto cult (read the campaign statements if you don't believe me). The president is hired, and serves at the pleasure of the BoT, making him the puppet of two cults (BoT and alumni). Nowhere in that process is there any room for sanity and football permeates EVERYTHING (see the campaign statements).

With the possible exception of the new governor, every single major PSU official has sworn an allegiance to Joe and the football team, directly and explicitly (in the case of the BoT) and/or indirectly through superiors (in the case of the president). That is a massive problem and it will not change without an outside force. In fact, the cult attitude is getting worse.

Unfortunately, not only has that created a *clearly* dangerous athletic department, it is adversely affecting the academic quality of the school (but reputations are slow to change, so this won't show up for a while).

The university, as a whole, would be MUCH better off losing football, remembering that it's (theoretically) a place of learning, and taking pride in that existence (as a place of learning). Developing an identity as a *legitimately* good school (which it is not right now), and then re-establishing the football team.

That process requires dramatic institutional changes, which necessitate strong and courageous leadership. Unfortunately, such leadership will not ever occur on the PSU campus under the current system. It can't. Such systemic changes also require time (i.e. a 4 year death penalty), and are facilitated by monetary resources (something that the University does not have and the state will not provide).

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

Yes and no.

I agree that Paterno didn't know what Sandusky was up to. But I think there was enough for Paterno -- or someone else designated by Paterno -- to follow-up and ask some discreet questions to Sandusky and to anyone in Sandusky's orbit. The failure to do so had tragic consequences in this case, and while I don't "blame" Paterno or Penn State for it, they (and their reputations) must bear the responsibility for those consequences.

Part of the problem here is that when a man has been in a position of high authority for so many years (decades), there is a natural human impulse to withhold "bad news" (or potential bad news) from the "Boss", or else to describe the "bad news" as gently as possible. Especially when the "bad" news" concerns another man known to be good friends with the
"Boss".

Quote:The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

Well said.

(01-20-2015 03:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

Yes and no.

I agree that Paterno didn't know what Sandusky was up to. But I think there was enough for Paterno -- or someone else designated by Paterno -- to follow-up and ask some discreet questions to Sandusky and to anyone in Sandusky's orbit. The failure to do so had tragic consequences in this case, and while I don't "blame" Paterno or Penn State for it, they (and their reputations) must bear the responsibility for those consequences.

Part of the problem here is that when a man has been in a position of high authority for so many years (decades), there is a natural human impulse to withhold "bad news" (or potential bad news) from the "Boss", or else to describe the "bad news" as gently as possible. Especially when the "bad" news" concerns another man known to be good friends with the
"Boss".

Quote:The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

Well said.

For those whom think that Paterno knew nothing and continue to live in denial;

"Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

Mr. Paterno: In the shower."

The mans own words damn him. You all believe everything he says and yet the one time he comes clean, you ignore him and say he knew nothing. Priceless!!!

The statements he made above would have been enough to warrant a criminal investigation which would have revealed wrong doing at the campus. Not to say they had done anything wrong but that Sandusky would have and at that time, Paterno was fighting not only to become the winningest coach but, also to retain his job. Had this gone public he may have been removed and that would have ended the win totals and his carrier. Lets not let the facts cloud the myths here.

(01-20-2015 02:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I didn't realize you attended PSU.

I agree though. It can't fix itself. Strong leadership would see this and would not want this to affix itself permanently to the university.

That I did. I went to the UP campus, too.

Unfortunately, my fellow alumni have more or less turned into a cult, and we control who sits on the BoT, making that a de facto cult (read the campaign statements if you don't believe me). The president is hired, and serves at the pleasure of the BoT, making him the puppet of two cults (BoT and alumni). Nowhere in that process is there any room for sanity and football permeates EVERYTHING (see the campaign statements).

With the possible exception of the new governor, every single major PSU official has sworn an allegiance to Joe and the football team, directly and explicitly (in the case of the BoT) and/or indirectly through superiors (in the case of the president). That is a massive problem and it will not change without an outside force. In fact, the cult attitude is getting worse.

Unfortunately, not only has that created a *clearly* dangerous athletic department, it is adversely affecting the academic quality of the school (but reputations are slow to change, so this won't show up for a while).

The university, as a whole, would be MUCH better off losing football, remembering that it's (theoretically) a place of learning, and taking pride in that existence (as a place of learning). Developing an identity as a *legitimately* good school (which it is not right now), and then re-establishing the football team.

That process requires dramatic institutional changes, which necessitate strong and courageous leadership. Unfortunately, such leadership will not ever occur on the PSU campus under the current system. It can't. Such systemic changes also require time (i.e. a 4 year death penalty), and are facilitated by monetary resources (something that the University does not have and the state will not provide).

Well put

(01-20-2015 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 07:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

I have no skin in this game, but Paterno has done enough other good things in his life that I can understand the outrage over his lynching from Penn State fans.

The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

If you buy hook line and sinker, they all knew he was doing this and covered it up to protect the football program, the outrage is understandable. I just don't think that conclusion is backed up by much. I'm pretty sure Paterno strongly suspected Sandusky was guilty of having done something improper in 2001. He just didn't want to think about it and so didn't ask any questions. He gave it over to Curly and Shultz and washed his hands of it. The outrage against Curly, Schultz and McQueary (who has the nerve to sue PSU in a whistleblower lawsuit) is understandable, but I don't believe they knew it was continuing. It was neglect, not assistance, not a coverup (except maybe in 2010 when the police were investigating).

Sorry...

Everyone knew. How could they not. Come on. The police were investigating back in the mid 90s. . but when someone says "hey, we think someone in your program is molesting kids" the correct answer, from Paterno to his bosses, is "that's horrible, we are an open book" - THAT did not happen.

I notice that nowhere in Olbermann's words does he mention that Curley/Schulz/Spanier have not yet been found criminally guilty of a single thing.

(01-20-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Because we all know that Paterno ruled Happy Valley. He was the Czar of the damned place.

Many Penn Staters relished telling everyone that...over and over...until the Sandusky issue.

Then, Joe was this confused, powerless old man, an underling who reported "something" (it was all so confusing to poor ole' Joe) to his "higher ups", which allegedly satisfied any moral, legal or ethical duties he may have had.

Most of the non-PSU world ain't buying it..

Good post.

As a Notre Dame fan, I can see why you'd choose Czar. For us non-Catholics, Paterno was the Pope.

His former QB and current AD Curley was a Archbishop. Former players and former/current coaches Sandusky and McCreary were priests.

One priest sees another priest molesting a boy on the church premises. He informs Pope Paterno who decides how to conceal it and Archbishop Curley carries out the instructions.

(01-20-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Because we all know that Paterno ruled Happy Valley. He was the Czar of the damned place.

Many Penn Staters relished telling everyone that...over and over...until the Sandusky issue.

Then, Joe was this confused, powerless old man, an underling who reported "something" (it was all so confusing to poor ole' Joe) to his "higher ups", which allegedly satisfied any moral, legal or ethical duties he may have had.

Most of the non-PSU world ain't buying it..

I haven't seen anyone on a message board (now I haven't been on PSU message boards) say that Paterno didn't fail morally or ethically. Even Paterno admitted that. But there's a difference between that and fully knowing and covering up a crime.

(01-20-2015 09:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 07:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

I have no skin in this game, but Paterno has done enough other good things in his life that I can understand the outrage over his lynching from Penn State fans.

The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

I wonder what the internet version of tar and feathers is? So many internet crusaders that love to pick and choose their "holy battles" when it best coincides with their own personal agenda's.

If these folks think that Penn State should be tore down, then are they just as upset about the Major Banks of this country? They have done far worse and covered up so much more. Yet, it isn't a Penn State vs Syracuse situation with the banks so who cares right?

What I want to know is how many supposed Christians are wanting their pound of flesh taken from Penn State over the horrible things done by Sandusky and those individuals that covered it up? Let's go folks, ante up.

I'm not really what your question is here, I mean Paterno is dead and Sandusky is in prison. I've always felt that the outrage was more about the fact that while Paterno was effectively the CEO of the Athletic Department, he couldn't know everything. Yet the justification for his ouster was predicated on a zero defect mentality that is typically seen more often in the military; that regardless of whether or not he knew, Sanducky's actions happened on his watch.

What I am talking about is that everyone involved with the situation is gone, dead, charged, in prison, fired, etc. People still raising hell about it and wanting more and more pounds of flesh taken from Penn State, well it is simply pathetic. Penn State is a massive institution with a massive alumni population. I have seen the insanity go so far as some folks wanting to see Penn State lose it's accreditation.

A large number of Americans consider themselves Christian. My point is that this witch hunt mentality isn't very Christ like. Only one group of persons brought out the wrath of Christ, that was the moneylenders aka bankers. Hence, my comparison.

(01-20-2015 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:10 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 07:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

Not me. There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that "Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky raped children."

There IS evidence that one of Paterno's assistants saw "something" in the showers that he failed to explain very well to Paterno. And that "something" was not serious enough to where the assistant felt the need to go to the police. There's also evidence of 2-3 less serious hints than that, spread out over about 15 years. All the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there think that Paterno should have turned a couple of vague hints into a very public criminal investigation of someone who had been a friend for decades.

I have no skin in this game, but Paterno has done enough other good things in his life that I can understand the outrage over his lynching from Penn State fans.

The failure to distinguish between defending the reputation of someone who, by all other accounts, was a good man, and defending the actions of the president and the board of trustees is just part of this silly "with me or against me, and you have 140 characters to explain your position" attitude that has pervaded society in the internet age.

I wonder what the internet version of tar and feathers is? So many internet crusaders that love to pick and choose their "holy battles" when it best coincides with their own personal agenda's.

If these folks think that Penn State should be tore down, then are they just as upset about the Major Banks of this country? They have done far worse and covered up so much more. Yet, it isn't a Penn State vs Syracuse situation with the banks so who cares right?

What I want to know is how many supposed Christians are wanting their pound of flesh taken from Penn State over the horrible things done by Sandusky and those individuals that covered it up? Let's go folks, ante up.

Bold: Actually, statistically speaking, I can answer this question: yes, more so in fact.

Underlined: Religious people all over the world want all kinds of bad things to happen to others. Literally every major religion is at war somewhere in the world - probably with every other major religion.

Are they calling for the dismantlement of these out of control banks? No. Most of the Christian Right is falling in line with their Republican masters to protect all that financial money.