Nor is there any to support your’s, other than wishful thinking.
I want to get SA’s take on a particular situation. Lets give Paterno the benefit of the doubt and say that McQueary came to him and said merely “I saw Sandusky naked in the shower with an underage child and it upset me”. Paterno reports this to his superiors. He then drops the matter. He continues to be a spokesperson for the charity and sees Sandusky traveling to Penn events with children. He sees Sandusky spending a lot of time with children. Legally, he has fulfilled his obligation. Do you think that morally he has done enough?
I think that many posters here would argue that at the least he would keep a closer eye on Sandusky and maybe have some reservations about the time Sandusky spends alone with children. Even if he had no knowledge of the fact that Sandusky had previously been caught showering with a child and been told that this is not appropriate, I would think he would want to at least pay close attention to make sure that Sandusky was OK alone with children. It’s not his job and he legally has no duty to do anything but IMO he did not act like a leader or as a “good man” by simply ignoring the fact that at minimum Sandusky was naked in a shower and touching a child.
Apropos of nothing, I was recently watching a review of the year’s news and they were playing clips of Charlie Sheen interviews where he claimed to be in possession of some absolute truths of the universe, spouted a bunch of gibberish and then declared that he was awesome and that he was “WINNING!”.
I wonder what reminded me of that?
“Nattering nabobs”? Geesus H. frigging Kriest. That phrase was coined by Spiro Agnew, a guy that was caught red-handed and thrown out of office while VP of the United States for accepting cash payment bribes in his office. He was street level corrupt, not executive level corrupt. The bag man that delivered the money testified against him. Agnew was nothing but scum and you use his verbiage? That phrase was never used before or after Agnew until you used it today.
You’ve told us all we need to know about you. Go back to your hole.
[Mr. Rogers]Can you say “parody”? Yeah, I thought that you could.[\Mr. Rogers]
I’m well aware of where the phrase "nattering nabobs [of negativity] comes from.
And if we’re going to be making character judgements here on the smartest message board on the internet which are based upon whom we’ve quoted, then you’d be well advised to attribute William Safire’s character traits to me, since it was he who “coined” the term in a speech he wrote for Agnew.
(So, once again a voice of reason in this thread knows what it’s talking about and the proponent of hysteria is jumping to erroneous conclusions.)
Yes, dear, that’s right, you keep on telling yourself that like a good boy. pats Starving Artist on the head
Actually, it was coined by William Safire.
Also, it’s supposed to be “nattering nabobs of negativity” which is much more alliterative. But expecting SA to get anything right in this thread is like expecting the sun to come up in the west.
Let me fix that for you:
But expecting SA to get anything right [del]in this thread[/del] is like expecting the sun to come up in the west.
So what? Isn’t it clear that I was going more for descriptive rather than alliterative? In this case it just so happens that “nattering nabobs” in conjunction with hysteria is most descriptive.
It’s telling that McMurphy gets a free pass from the likes of you and hendo for his aggressive ignorance as to who coined the “nattering nabob” line while at the same time trying to impose upon me the nonexistent rule that the phrase may only be used in full and limited to alliterative purpose.
I know that Safire wrote the speech. Agnew delivered it so it’s his line. What an insufferable nitpicker you are.
What can I say? Facts are facts. And the fact is that Safire coined the phrase, not Agnew. It would be fair to say that Agnew made it famous, but in no way could he properly be regarded as having “coined” it.
I realize that facts have been your enemy throughout this thread and that you greatly prefer to think what you want without regard to them, but that doesn’t make them any less facts. If you want to stamp your feet and insist that Joe Paterno tried to cover up for Sandusky or that Spiro Agnew coined the nattering nabobs line simply because they are what you want to believe, then you are certainly within your rights to do so, but the facts (and ignorance-fighting) will oppose you every time.
That is not what he is saying, BTW clarifying who coined it does not help your position at all, as it is clear that Safire was paid to make people like Agnew sound smart.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/agnew_9-18.html
And still, Agnew took the credit as it should be because we are dealing with a hired hand then.
What Safire deserve credit later is for his lying justifications to get us involved with the Iraq invasion. From Agnew to Safire there is not much difference on their art of misleading the American people.
So regardless who you attribute those words, they are not coming from people that deserves support, or to be remembered fondly, that you imagine they or their words help your cause is really dumb. Defending coverups was their name and their game.
Nope, not a bit of it. It merely occurred to me that nattering was a pretty good discription of the hysterical way many of Paterno’s critics in this thread have been behaving. This led naturally to nabobs, which in conjunction with nattering and hysteria flowed naturally into “nattering nabobs of hysteria,” which I think is an excellent description of the people I’m talking about no matter who said 2/3 of it first.
But be that as it may, is it really your stance that once someone you disagree with politically says something (and there’s no way you can prove that “Bush lied”, with or without Safire’s help), no one henceforth may use the same words, even in a completely different context, without ipso-facto taking on the character traits of the person who said them first? In that case you’d better never deny having had “sexyul relations” with someone, for you’ll surely be deemed a baldfacedly lying sumbitch if you ever do. 
Tell me who you cite with, and I will tell you who you are… 
Cite? Nah, just a (minimally, no doubt) shared vocabulary.
So are you being serious that your “sexyul relations” just overturns what I said? You are really deluded. Conext is what I go for, and “sexyul relations” is not being attributed to an specific person, and only if an intern does blow me that your idiocy would be relevant.
What is relevant to me is that your memory had to reach for “luminaries” that said those things in the context of coverups or misleading of the American people. That is telling to me.
Dear Clueless One,
It’s the speech maker that owns the quote, not the speech writer.
R.P.
P.S. In case you haven’t noticed, PSU is going to great lengths to distance the institution from the stench of Joe Paterno.
You can think whatever you like, and in this thread assumptions certainly are the rule. But the fact is that ‘nattering nabobs’ isn’t something I had to “reach back” for, nor was it said in an attempt to evoke Agnew or Safire. Those words simply became part of my vocabulary after I first heard them and I’ve used them from time to time ever since.
Now, you can continue to try to divert attention from the fact that this tread is indeed full of nattering nabobs if you like, but the attempt is as transparent as it is ineffective.
And you are missing the point, the point remains the context, not the words, and we are discussing a coverup.
The nabobs are more correct than you are, as they where the ones against Agnew and Safire.