Here’s another thing … if a little boy was so fucking misguided and insecure and outside of himself that he *did *ask an adult to bring him to a deserted locker room in the middle of the night for showering lessons … the only proper response would be, “I’m sorry, that’s not appropriate.”
That right there keeps your shower scene solely in the realm of pedophilic erotic literature.
Actually I specifically said that while there might be innocent explanations the fact that a crime is possible, if not likely, creates a moral imperative to have it appropriately investigated.
Then I apologize, I may have been getting you mixed up with someone else.
I wish we had a “like” button just for this post. Kids can ask any manner of things, some completely inappropriate. It’s up to the adults to say no and set the limits.
I managed to get through the *physics/angle of entry/if a Sandusky train leaves NY at 6pm and is traveling rape miles per hour *posts, but something about the showering lessons has put me right over the edge.
Showering lessons! Holy fuck, man. You are one sick, twisted dude.
That one actually came from Sandusky’s lawyer.
It did, but it made SA’s eyes light up like, well, the lights that he claimed were not on until McQueary entered the locker room; you know, the lights that would obviously, when (he pretended) they were first turned on, have caused Sandusky to stop raping if he was raping, therefore he couldn’t have been raping.
Which, it should be noted, I retracted as soon as I was shown to have been mistaken.
Make no mistake, Huerta, you are the premier loon in this thread and even people on your own side can see it. They may disagree with me factually or philosophically, but they know, whether they want to admit it or not, that I have my wits about me. This is why they argue against me so furiously - they know I’m making sense and are terrified that without their counter arguments - weak and/or specious though they may be - my arguments will prevail.
Your numerous [del]arguments[/del] flailings, on the other hand, lie there like dead fish, commented on mostly by me in order to correct yet another of your lies or misrepresentations. Really, you’re a dishonest, hysterical putz, right up there with miss elisabeth, another poster who gets roundly ignored even by her own side.
Naturally, I don’t expect this to have any effect at all on the quantity or content of your posts, I just wanted to let you know that you aren’t fooling anybody.
He also said, when I pointed out that people like him are the reason kids are scared to come forward when they’re being abused:
This sounds EXACTLY like the type of thing a child molestor tells his victim – if you tell, something bad will happen.
So kids, don’t tell, even if you’re seriously being abused – because, you know, then you’ll be ruining someone’s life. Even if they deserve it.
That’s why rapists go free. That’s why child molestors go free. Because people like Starving Artist think that these kids are lying.
“Due process” means – never speak up. You’ll ruin someone’s life. You’re a liar, kid. You just imagined it. It never happened.
Read it and weep.
(Reading this DID make me cry)
You moron. For the ten thousandth time, due process is a constitutional term and the constitution only applies to the government. Football coaches are not subject to the constitution and thus don’t get due process. Football coaches get fired all the time for all sorts of real or perceived failures.
None of this offends due process.
What makes you a doubleplusgood moron is that Paterno actually got more procedural fairness than just about any fired coach I’ve ever heard of. As I think about it, a highly detailed and extensive and clearly professional 2+ year investigation was conducted by a large number of trained professionals – cops, prosecutors, investigators (you know, the same people who could have stopped the rapist Sandusky if they’d been called in eight or nine years earlier by that cowardly old dolt Paterno). They produced an exhaustive, internally consistent report of everything that happened around the Sandusky case and specifically, of McQueary’s report and Paterno’s subsequent actions/inactions.
The PSU Board of Trustees, with the benefit of this exhaustive information, met over a period of days to consider what to do. Presumably they read the indictment, none of which Paterno contradicted or could contradict. They deliberated. This is what boards do and are supposed to do. If the PSU Board has bylaws, you have offered not a shred of proof that those bylaws and every last jot and tittle of Parliamentary procedure were not followed in full faith. You don’t have any such proof, and we are not going to pretend it exists. The Board, after deliberating, came to a conclusion that Paterno had shown bad judgment in exercising his supervisory powers by not doing more to pursue the allegations against Sandusky. This conclusion (conclusions and decisions are what Boards are there to make) was one that was well within the delegated powers of the Board to make (it was not, since you insist with your Sandusky-victim-grade-level education on playing boy lawyer, ultra vires*). It was one that was based on sufficient evidence (no further evidence was going to come out showing that McQueary had told Paterno anything different from what their mutually-consistent testimony confirmed, and that disclosure was the necessary and sufficient basis for the Board concluding that Paterno should have done more). There was not, despite your shrill repeat-it-a-million-times-'cause-then-it’s true, any “new evidence that they should have waited to come out” that would have changed their thought process. Even if Sandusky came forward with a video of the kid raping him (oh God, I just got you all hot and bothered) instead, the Board’s conclusion that Paterno acted too passively in view of McQueary’s (hypothetically) false but credible report of wrongdoing by Sandusky would not have changed. The decision the Board made was not unreasonable under the circumstances even if other Boards might have reached another judgment (boy lawyer time again: it was consistent with the broad discretion given to managers of an enterprise on day-to-day management decisions under the business judgment rule).
Every rule was followed. The facts were exhaustively investigated by professionals and evaluated by other professionals. By the way, the Board you posit as gleefully eager to join a lynch mob because they were among the “Paterno haters” (a category that did not exist until the Sandusky revelations) was to a certainty very unhappy and reluctant to dismiss Paterno, whom most or all of them had almost certainly admired and idolized for years. If they’d been able to find a way to justify keeping him, they would have.
There was no such way.
So in summary – Joe Paterno got more “due process” in the events leading up to his termination than any fired college football coach in the entire 100+ year history of college football. He and his family should be grateful.
And yet you’re just about the only one voicing substantial disagreement. The fact that you cite this as proof of how much everyone agrees with you is just your latest bout of lunacy.
And people say my posts are too wordy. :rolleyes:
Nope, Mr. Paterno has not gotten due process, neither by the regents at Penn State or on this board. He has been the victim of endless suppositions and imaginings of what he knew, what he thought, what his motives were, and about how prescient he should have been about things he likely never knew. What happened to him was a tragedy, a travesty and an outrage.
Can’t we all just nod politely and get back to our Thanksgiving dinner? We can argue quietly later in the kitchen about who’s stuck driving SA back to the nursing home.
Which he could have avoided if he had done something about Sandusky.
A two+ year investigation in which Paterno had the opportunity to offer sworn testimony and could have volunteered any additional information that would have countered the suppositions (there were no suppositions at all, he was fired solely because of a fact he admitted, that he reported allegations of “fondling or sexual contact” to Curley and Schultz and did nothing more) is more “due process” than anyone fired outside of a New York City teachers’ union has ever gotten. What would be enough for you? Three years of investigation? Four? Five? A second sworn deposition where Paterno could offer additional extenuating excuses or explain away any “imaginings” (there were no imaginings relied upon in firing him, just sworn testimony by himself and McQueary)? Two more sworn depositions? Three? Five? Eleven?
Clearly the only “process” you’d be happy with is one that exonerated Paterno and had no consequences or embarassment at all for him. Well, that’s what we call “results driven jurisprudence.” That is not a term of praise, and it is considered highly inconsistent by those who actually know what “due process” means (unlike you) with, well, due process.
Let’s all chip in and buy a superhero costume for our special friend to wear when he stands on courthouse steps shouting his righteous proofs whilst waving a paper towel tube in front of his crotch. It’ll have “DP” emblazoned across the chest.
He’ll think that stands for Due Process Man.
The rest of us will know that it correctly stands for other titles. Deluded Pissant, for starters.
I really haven’t joined in the fray too much in all of this, but I just have to say that I am cracking up at the idea that the more someone argues with me, the more they must secretly agree with me! Brilliant!!! Starving Artist is a true philosophical genius.
Deifier of Paterno?
Defender of Pedophiles?
No.
We’ve all been saying the opposite of this.
I violently disagree with this statement. . . er, wait a minute. . .
No. What happened to Paterno was not a “tragedy”, nor a “travesty”, nor an “outrage”.
What happened to these individuals was a tragedy a travesty, and an outrage.
You sick, sick fuck. I pity any child of yours, if they were to be molested, I can only image your response. “Oh, are you sure? Because you know, if falsely accused someone, it would ruin their life, and that would be a horrible, horrible thing to do! People will treat them like an absolute monster, you know. So are you absolutely, positively certain? Children don’t always understand – did someone try to tell you to do this, to get back at this person?”
Sicko.