Hey SA – answer my question – what is your official position on whether you posted those “impossible to rape a three foot tall boy” and “McQueary fabricated the whole thing to steal Sandusky’s job” threads at PennLive. I’d like to get your denial on the record, I think I’m getting close to triplr digits on the list of your official lies and fabrications.
No really, answer bitch.
Guin, worry not. There won’t be any doubt as to whether and who was responible for any rape of his kids.
With SA, sodomy almost certainly begins at home.
I would say don’t be stupid, but it would be like expecting a baby not to cry.
Answer the question yes or no bitch. It isn’t hard. Get your lying denial out there, we can move forward. You know, like men (unlike your gay-ass idol Sandusky).
Answer it bitch.
Starving Artist, since you think Sandusky was wrongly accused (see SA’s paper towel tube defense), do you think the other 10 to 20 victims that have come forward are also incorrect?
I don’t know anything about them and have no opinion
How strange then that he has such extensive firsthand knowledge of what happened in the shower with Victim (a word I cannot stress enough) no. 2 and McQueary and Sandusky and Paterno that he is able to “testify” that he is “certain” no rape took place. Why is Victim No. 2 so different for him than the other victims of hios sodomite hero? Did SÀ perhaps enjoy a dalliance with Victim 2, or Sandusky?
Nah, he made shit up to justify his girlish boy-crush on the old dolt Paterno and the old boy-queer Sandusky.
Mind you he may still be a perv. Everyything he’s said would gladden and help pederasts.
It would be better if he did not exist. Much better. What misbegotten set of parents and mentors established his belief that being uniformly decried as a freak prervert was proof that you were right?
What loophole in our generous gun lawss debarred him from actin on what must be constant impulses to eradicate his diseased sensorium? I’m actually sympathetic in this regard.
Ok.
So based on what you do know, Sandusky should be released, right?
SA has reduced himself to a case that is virtually solid, it is rational, but it is not reasonable. He insists that it is possible…just possible, mind…that a wholly innocent explanation exists for the embarrassing situation. Not that it is probable, or even likely, simply that it is possible. He is on solid ground there, when you invoke the limitless variety of what is possible, beyond the reach of speculation and rationalization.
Similarly, Lee Harvey Oswald. It is not impossible that he took his rifle to the Texas Book Depository for a good and thorough cleaning, and three rounds were accidentally discharged in rapid succession. You can’t say that isn’t possible!
Similarly, it is possible that a perfectly innocent explanation exists. Instruction in the intricacies of the modern locker room shower, for instance, or a cultural examination of the movie 300, as to why all the men are buff, oily, and half-nekkid. Possible, mind you.
As reasonable people, we are obliged to curb our lynch-mob mentality long enough to give due consideration to this possibility. One Mississippi, two Mississippi… There. More than enough.
Well, I suppose you’re right – no laws of physics were violated. Of course, by the “possible because it’s not impossible” standard that Starving would have us apply, any (or all!) of the following could be true:
[ul]
[li]McQueary wasn’t supposed to be in the showers that night – PATERNO was, to join in.[/li][li]The reason Paterno campaigned for Bush in 2004 wasn’t due to any deeply held ideological values, but rather because they had been lovers for many years.[/li][li]Dick “Dick” Cheney would often supervise their torrid weekends, giving instruction as needed.[/li][li]The reason Paterno let Sandusky still have access to Penn State facilities after Jerry resigned as DC was because Paterno had the locker room showers secretely filmed for his pleasure.[/li][/ul]
There is exactly as much evidence for each of these scenarios as there is for the “Sandusky was just teaching the kid to shower, alone, on a Friday night” scenario. But not impossible!
Did you read their testimony? If not, why?
[quote=“quixotic78, post:2531, topic:602167”]
[li]The reason Paterno campaigned for Bush in 2004 wasn’t due to any deeply held ideological values, but rather because they had been lovers for many years.[/li][/QUOTE]
Holy goddamn shit. I didn’t know this until now. This is what caused this sack of shit to start this right to rape apology, isn’t it?
Well, you know how it can be, guy’s cool enough to have a beer with, you get to talking… Besides, its not really gay if its Bush. Perverted, sure, but not gay…
I know that you know it’s not worth asking, just as you know that I know my last 40 posts were just rhetorical, more or less. You know the universe of possibilities.
He’ll ignore the inconvenient question.
He’ll say he was busy or had to run or was at the children’s Christmas party (gulp) or on his iPhone.
Or, he’ll lie and say he didn’t because it wasn’t relevant to the point he was trying to make.
Or, he’ll confirm he didn’t read anything except the sections that he delusionally thinks vindicate his boys (the “impossible rape” and the “McQueary himself didn’t know what he had seen” sections). We know he didn’t even pick up the GJ report until well into his screeching defense of Paterno (and later, as the mask slipped, Sandusky himself). He knows what the outcome should be (free pass for both Paterno and Sandusky), so going through the motions of reading what are almost certainly a bunch of lies by jealous Paterno-haters (no such thing until this incident) and money-grubbing extortionist liar parents is beside the point when everyone who knows about Due Process (or did DP stand for double penetration?) knows what the just outcome should have been, and we should just walk backwards from Paterno’s and Sandusky’s enshrinement in the college football hall of fame and fill in the blanks.
Or the rest of the claims were “suppositions and imaginings,” despite the fact that Paterno was fired for one factual (not supposed or imagined) reason, which he himself testified – not doing more than telling Curley and Schultz after being told of naked “fondling or sexual contact.” No more than that went into the Board’s decision. No more than that was necessary. But this retard lives in a world (what kind of stupid horrible parents or teachers molded this mindset?) in which being shrill and repeating imaginary “facts” is not just viable, but an unbeatable debating style.
Oh, the real reason he “didn’t read and has no opinion” on all the other allegations?
Because they prove that his boyfriend Sandusky was beyond doubt a serial boy-raper, which he can’t face and which makes it all but certain that he was raping Victim No. 2 when McQueary saw him. That’s what Sandusky does – rapes little boys. FP argued somewhere that because Sandusky was caught in other previous fondling-but-no-intercourse situations, that’s possibly what happened here. Much more likely, those earlier incidents were either an earlier stage of the progressive grooming pattern, or Sandusky got seen before the real fun began. Seeing foreplay is in no way inconsistent with that moving on to rape, for a boy raper. And McQueary says he saw rape, so prior acknowledged incidents of rape (the non-shower ones) destroy both the credibility of any claim that Sandusky could not and factually did not rape Victim No. 2, and any claim that Paterno was exercising adequate oversight or investigation of skeeviness.
Oh, the simplest explanation of alll? You’re dealing with a zealous defender of Jerry Sandusky. Water finds its level, as does scum.
Not so, Ludovic. I haven’t said this before because I thought no one would believe it, but I had no idea of Paterno’s politics until someone early in the thread accused me of defending him because he was a Bush supporter.
And luci, FTR, my personal opinion is that Sandusky was up to something skeevy but not rape that night. But opinions are not facts, and the fact is that tbere are plausibly innocent explanations for what McQueary saw that night, and my whole point is that we should not be hysterically jumping to conclusions without considering all the facts just because the suspected crime is particularly heinous.
Blatant lies every word! Bush and Paterno were NOT gay lovers and you can’t prove they were. The reality, which should be obvious to anyone with more than a 5th grade education, is that Bush was teaching Paterno how to properly lather his scrotum as Paterno was one of those underprivileged kids who didn’t learn how to shower properly as a boy. They also engaged in their fair share of naked bear hugs, and had a little fun playing keep away with the soap. But your assertion that they were gay lovers is both unfounded and physically impossible as Paterno is only 5’3" and Bush was almost 6 feet tall. You are clearly a hysterical nabob who cares nothing about due process and watches way too much Nancy Grace. :mad:
5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1
But come on on that last one, you know how these biased Soviet bloc judges always screw the Americans.
You missed the six because “you can’t prove they were” needed to be “I have definitively proven they are not and everyone secretly agrees with that fact.” I also think you needed one or two out-of-left-field factual fabrications. I’d have tried something like “everyone knows Paterno was allergic to semen, if they’d been gay lovers Paterno would have sneezed to death after swallowing GWB’s jizz, so that proves they weren’t.” Or, “it can’t have happened because the Secret Service would never allow the President to shower due to the risk of slipping, and the shower is the only place gay sex takes place.”
Something along those lines, plus just a little more shrieky and Messianic in tone.
Just trying to help you up your game here.
That word, “plausible”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means likely, reasonable, it doesn’t mean straining every effort of credulity and imagination to come up with something that is “possible”. if you find Colonel Mustard in the library, holding a bloody candlestick over a brained corpse, “plausible” means Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick. If you have a clue.
Starving Artist, a question: Why do you give a fuck? I get that you think Sandusky is being unfairly maligned, but even so, why do you give a fuck? You’re not his buddy or his defence lawyer (God, that’d be hilarious), so why do you care? I mean, this can’t be fun for you. Why not drop it and wait til the trial? Then, if you’re right, you can come back and do a victory dance.