http://youtu.be/qSBVO6rU57A?t=2m2s

"This is Penn State's legacy, this is Joe Paterno's legacy -- football was more important to them than saving children.

http://youtu.be/-6NU-KbZkaU?t=2m31s

"Fighting back and demanding moronic, trivial, irrelevant things like the restoration of the wins to the record of a despicable man who did not act while one of his prodigies raped children -- that will only increase the length of the purgatory and only make you all look even more like those idiots who still insist that OJ Simpson was framed."

"Your institution is associated with children's terror; if you're naive fan blindness does not let you see that, just ask any outsider, in the real world."

Didn't watch. But from the snippets that you posted. That is just about what everyone else thinks.

(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.

(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.

WHAT ? I just don't know what to say to you. SMHAY

(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.

Saw his commentary this morning. It was fantastic.

(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).

Paterno himself said he didn't do enough (read: anything) to protect those kids and that he should have done more.

Olbermann went over the top here but he's right about one thing: This is Paterno's legacy. His name will always be associated with these horrific crimes, and his wins will always have an asterisk in that they were removed and reinstated.

In 30 years, discussion of the greatest football coaches will rightfully include Paterno's name, followed by some version of "it's too bad he was part of that serial child rape scandal at Penn State..."

(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.

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.

I don't get it. Maybe I am in the wrong. To me it comes down to two questions . One what if it was your kid that had that happen to them and your family had to live with the damage it does? I have to work in places sometimes were these kids wind up .It's not a good scene. Two how would you feel if you found out someone knew about it and did not stop it ? I can't say for sure what I would have done in anger but I am sure it would not be pleasant. The Nittanyliars show no sign of shame or remorse by asking for their punishments to be lifted. As far as I am concerned Happy Valley can burn to the ground. What a bunch of knuckle dragging POS.

(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 don't have any skin in this game either, but he failed to explain it well? Vague hints? Joe knew that Sandusky was doing something sexual with a child in the shower, isn't that enough? And if it's the details your worried about, Joe didn't feel the need to ask for them.

Joe Paterno Testimony:

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

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.

(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.

If that were true, we wouldn't still be talking about it. Yet, here we are.

I wouldn't call Paterno a "good guy." He wanted his record and was willing to keep his mouth shut and eyes closed when it came to sexual assault in his locker rooms.

(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.

(01-20-2015 10:00 AM)FUB Wrote:  I don't get it. Maybe I am in the wrong. To me it comes down to two questions . One what if it was your kid that had that happen to them and your family had to live with the damage it does? I have to work in places sometimes were these kids wind up .It's not a good scene. Two how would you feel if you found out someone knew about it and did not stop it ? I can't say for sure what I would have done in anger but I am sure it would not be pleasant. The Nittanyliars show no sign of shame or remorse by asking for their punishments to be lifted. As far as I am concerned Happy Valley can burn to the ground. What a bunch of knuckle dragging POS.

How do you start with "maybe I'm in the wrong" and end with "Happy Valley can burn...those bunch of knuckle dragging POS"?

One of the frustrating issues is folks like you want the crosshairs SOLELY AND SQUARELY on Joe Paterno. Why? If you want to go assigning blame in this whole tragedy, he should get about .5? The State College Police Department (who never pressed charges), the Attorney General's office (who sat on the case from 2007 until November 2011), and the three guys on trial for perjury (who actually made the infamous "locker room" decision) all deserve about 96% of the blame. McQueary maybe should get the other 2.5%.

But you want "PSU football to burn to the ground" and "Paterno to burn in h3ll"?!?!?

Why don't you just admit that you wouldn't know or care if you weren't a football fan who dislikes everyone successful except for your team...and that makes you incredibly ignorant and hypocritical when it comes to doling out "judgments" about a tragic serial child abuse case when you make it about "protecting a football record"???

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..

(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.

(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.

(01-20-2015 11:38 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 10:00 AM)FUB Wrote:  I don't get it. Maybe I am in the wrong. To me it comes down to two questions . One what if it was your kid that had that happen to them and your family had to live with the damage it does? I have to work in places sometimes were these kids wind up .It's not a good scene. Two how would you feel if you found out someone knew about it and did not stop it ? I can't say for sure what I would have done in anger but I am sure it would not be pleasant. The Nittanyliars show no sign of shame or remorse by asking for their punishments to be lifted. As far as I am concerned Happy Valley can burn to the ground. What a bunch of knuckle dragging POS.

How do you start with "maybe I'm in the wrong" and end with "Happy Valley can burn...those bunch of knuckle dragging POS"?

One of the frustrating issues is folks like you want the crosshairs SOLELY AND SQUARELY on Joe Paterno. Why? If you want to go assigning blame in this whole tragedy, he should get about .5? The State College Police Department (who never pressed charges), the Attorney General's office (who sat on the case from 2007 until November 2011), and the three guys on trial for perjury (who actually made the infamous "locker room" decision) all deserve about 96% of the blame. McQueary maybe should get the other 2.5%.

But you want "PSU football to burn to the ground" and "Paterno to burn in h3ll"?!?!?

Why don't you just admit that you wouldn't know or care if you weren't a football fan who dislikes everyone successful except for your team...and that makes you incredibly ignorant and hypocritical when it comes to doling out "judgments" about a tragic serial child abuse case when you make it about "protecting a football record"???

Nothing you have said is true or based on any fact everything I have said has already been confirmed.