It’s the Magic 8-Ball. Mine really is magic. I just have to ask the right questions.
I see. And that’s EXACTLY LIKE anonymous posters on a random internet board arguing using the findings of exhaustive inquiries and on the record testimony.
I now feel so ashamed.
I hadn’t even heard of Paterno, Pennsylvania State University, Nittany Lions (what is a Nittany, btw? I could look it up, but I feel it doesn’t matter much) or Jerry Sandusky.
Weird to constantly be told I was against all of them and part of some mob trying to take them down.
It’s a mountain.
Not a very big one, mind you.
The few remaining members of the Joe Paterno fan club will rejoice that Michael Novak still defends Joe’s memory.
Wow. It takes some effort to make Starving Asshat’s Cardboard Tube and Crouching Defence look like a case winning Alan Shore summation.
You got off easy. Not only has Starving Pedarest taught me that I’m a Nancy Grace fanatic and part of the lynch mob trying to take down Paterno and Sandusky (none of whom I had ever heard of before)…I’ve also learned that I’m LIBERAL! I wish he’d told me that before I voted for GWB…
For Starkers, a liberal is anybody to the left of Calvin Coolidge.
No, it’s simpler than that.
A liberal is anyone who disagrees with his batshit theories. As witness his classing me in the ranks of liberals.
To him, words mean what he says they mean. It’s all 100% outcome-driven, reverse engineered from the fanciful result that he just knows (pretends to know) is right.
So “fondling” clearly means “non-sexual touching,” which could only be an affectionate hug.
“Evidence” means counterfactual speculation by an uninformed hagiographer.
“Forensics” and “logic” and “law” mean the deranged ravings of someone whose mental and educational attainments have brought him to a station in life where he has to trudge through the snow into town to find a reliable Internet connection.
“Due process” means “only and exclusively such proceedings that would lead to the guaranteed complete exoneration and deification of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky.”
The cognitive dissonance that’s bouncing all over this thread arises from three main causes, all exemplified in his retarded use of “liberal” as a smear of everyone, including paleoconservative cretins (to borrow someone else’s phrase uphtread) like me, who reject his moronic posturings:
- He isn’t very smart.
- He’s a complete and unprincipled sociopathic liar; and
- He has not advanced, and never will, beyond the moronic three-feet-tall-boy-worthy premise that by using his own private meanings of words and his own made-up private facts, he can unilaterally achieve and declare victory.
That’s really all his 60 pages of ranting boils down to. Lather, rinse and (ad infinitum) repeat repeat repeat.
You must have been taking showering lessons, I see.
" JoePa was honored most by those who knew him best…"
~Michael Novak
That such a superb, factual, well-written and spot-on piece should count for so little among this crowd comes as no surprise. Lynch mobs and witch hunts are always dismissive to the voice of reason.
It sure is. Here is another superb, factual, well-written and spot-on piece.
Although, I highly doubt that the hysterical lynch mob here will agree since they are so caught up in their Nancy Grace witch hunt.
This quote brings tears to my eyes:
“When I think of how much of my life I owe to Joe Paterno, I don’t even know where to begin,” said Sandusky…"
“How many people honestly get to fulfill their very deepest desires in life?” Sandusky said. “Let alone fulfill those desires over and over again, year in and year out, day after day, for decades? That’s the kind of life Joe allowed me to live.”
Sandusky added, “I owe it all to the tradition he established at Penn State University.”
Interestingly, though, that Novak article neither asserts that Paterno was morally blameless, nor argues that he ought to have been allowed to keep his position at Penn State:
In other words, “Yeah, they were right to get rid of him, but I wish they’d done it in a more respectful manner, and he did eventually regret that he had been too passive, but it’s not for me to judge him morally.”
This article is certainly sensitive, compassionate and admiring towards Paterno, but as a moral vindication of his actions in the Sandusky scandal, it’s pretty flaccid.
Shit, I thought that was real for a minute.
:smack:
Retard,
I have never watched five minutes of Nancy Grace and wouldn’t know how to use her as my role model if I tried. This thread is not about Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace has not been involved in any way with the Sandusky/Paterno case. Only your retarded raving brings her up again and again and again. Stop shitting over threads with discussion of completely irrelevant and disanalogous jerk-off side topics.
But let’s look at the parallels. Oh wait there are none. Whitney Houston has been dead four days. No lengthy police or forensic examination has been conducted or finalized. No sworn witness testimony has been taken, with full opportunity for cross examination and proffer of exculpatory theories by any party under suspicion of wrongdoing. No one has been charged with a crime based upon a completed, thorough, and professional police and prosecutorial investigation and formal written report (the very opposite of “absolutely no evidence”). No third party body has been aware of and involved in such investigation, nor met as a duly-constituted Board to evaluate and rule on the moral and good-judgment suitability of any person’s technically-law-compliant but minimal conduct or inaction. There is no pattern of repeated bad acts, no coherent pattern of mutually-reinforcing multiple instances of people drowning Whitney Houston.
All of those factors – all, including a two and a half year police investigation of which PSU was aware – are, by contrast, abundantly present in the Paterno/Sandusky case. So there couldn’t be a less analogous analogy, even in the mind of a diseased retard pervert like you, than a comparison between Nancy Grace and the Sandusky fiasco. The only single thing they have in common is that they took place in a bathing setting. If only you’d given Whitney lessons in bathing, she’d be alive today!
No, wait, I take that back. Both situations involve someone who is an ignorant, shrill, attention whoring, baselessly opinionated, legally-incompetent, scientifically and forensically completely untrained, hysterical flogger of batshit theories that run against the clear evidence, and that make up counter-factual, Occam unfriendly bullshit theories that are, in fact, based on “absolutely no evidence whatsoever and jumping to conclusions” (about the Victim slipping, about “no apparent look of distress,” about “naked hugs,” about “playing hide the soap.”).
Congratulations, come claim your Moron Of The Year trophy. You have just proved, more convincingly than any of us could have hoped to, that the only true doppelganger to your retarded soulmate Nancy Grace is – Starving Artist.
Can’t make this shit up people.
This is yet one more example of the anti-Paterno crowd’s inability to think straight. Novak clearly believes Paterno did all he should have done, fullfilling his responsibility as required by law and university practice. He also is incredulous that not one single Regent had the courage to speak up against the Board’s eagerness to “end the bad publicity” by sacrificing Paterno to the ravening hysterical mob. That you can interpret this as his not arguing that Paterno should have his kept his job is just more evidence of your determination to see what you want to see rather than the truth.
Obviously you can. 
I meant you can’t make up the fact that the completely accurate facts I cited, all of which prove you to be a hysterical Nancy Grace clone, are in your mind (and your mind alone) proof that everyone who points out the eerie similarities between your style of argument and fact-inventing is, instead, like her.
I’d challenge you to prove that anything in the multiple 180 degree distinctions I pointed out between Sandusky and Paterno’s accusers and Nancy Grace is substantially inaccurate, but you’re a coward who has repeatedly promised to repudiate “lies” and then pussied out, so why bother?
Wrong, asshole! A Liberal is anyone who disagrees with Starkers. You reveal your bias, here, my man.
Hey man, I had First.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14777615&postcount=3084