No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
The majority of the world doesn't care about PSU football. Most people's opinions for this are not based on something as silly as sports.
Add Pitt to your list, as irrelevant as they are. And there is no mileage at all to this story for the media without the PSU and especially the Paterno angle. Follow the money for their motivation.
Last edited:
I said in my post "as highly unlikely as it is" you freaking buffoon. But do not let that stop you from "knowing" things. Seriously you take pathetic and dumb to new depths.
1. Not only don't you know how to use words, you don't know how to google either. You see some words have multiple definitions in context (remember that?) Like the uneducated kook that you seem to be you were trying to apply the scientific context of the word when it didn't apply. Let me help (all bolded answers at minimum cover my use):
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
Theory:
- 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
- 2: abstract thought : speculation
- 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
- 4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learnb : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
- 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
- 6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations
Two related, yet distinct, meanings of theory
There are many shades of meaning to the word theory. Most of these are used without difficulty, and we understand, based on the context in which they are found, what the intended meaning is. For instance, when we speak of music theory we understand it to be in reference to the underlying principles of the composition of music, and not in reference to some speculation about those principles.
However, there are two senses of theory which are sometimes troublesome. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory," implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.
OK Alien head. Have the guts to put your name on your opinions. Then I will give two rats asses what you think.
Something we mostly agree on, see it can happen. Other than Mike not paying a price. His life was ruined, he lost his wife and his kid, had to move back into his parents basement and has been the subject of incessant harassment and ridicule for 5 1/2 years now.
I've never called or paid my lawyer in the context of a "broken law" dummy. Thanks for proving my point.
Plus $12 million to get over his sorrow.
If he was that worried about his wife and kid maybe he shouldn't have been sexting pics of his schvantz to coeds?
Not true at all. In fact, the fact that it was "sports" is yet another motivating factor for many. The "majority of the world" is without question motivated in believing that many individuals related to a great University and a great "sports" program knowingly covered up for a man fellating and sodomizing young boys.
You may want to refer back to Emmert's press release.
The fact that this isn't obvious to this dipshit says it all. Wow.
OK so lets pose a hypothetical since you are missing the point. Mike comes to Joe who reports to CSS that he saw Jerry standing on the corner by the BJC sign at 9pm with a child next to him. Do you call your lawyer to see if you need to report Jerry to the authorities?
Of course you don't, because he's in public with a child who has his clothes on. He's in full view of anyone who would drive or walk down the public road, and most importantly he doesn't allegedly have his naked arm around the naked boy's body. That's normal behavior for a charity founder or any other adult. There is no reason to suspect it needs to be reported. None. Zero.
Instead Schultz called a lawyer about something he claims was totally innocent behavior. His words say one thing but his actions say another. You don't call a lawyer to find out if you have to report totally innocent behavior. The lawyer, who may be lying about what he told Gary, tells him REPORT IT. Because the lawyer sees where this could go really badly for them if they don't and hey, what do you know, it blew up in their face!
His definition also includes the use of INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT Presentments for the purpose of generating trumped-up charges (i.e., Indictments)....go figure!
Try to keep up... no anal rape occurred that night in the shower. It's an important distinction when it comes to the narrative
Nice straw man. Nobody is saying "totally innocent behavior, zero, none" except you. Nobody.
There would have been no need to develop a plan with alternatives if they "knew" that it was totally innocent. They weren't sure and obviously made the wrong choice in hindsight. So did McQueary his dad and Dranov on the night of the incident and so especially did Raykovitz at the back end. So did 100's of people over the years groomed by Sandusky.
People have different definitions of a cover up. What we know is that MM reported suspected CSA and it didn't result in a report to authorities. People are pissed because of it.
I wish Jerry didn't molest boys, but he did. It's not interesting, it's sad watching grown men live in denial.
That may or may not be true. What is true though is that CSA absolutely occurred.
In dreams anything is possible.
Nice dodge. So it is your "dream scenario" then? And please address my second point if you don't mind. Without hedging if you can. When in your mind will Joe and CSS have been trashed enough?
Nice dodge. So it is your "dream scenario" then? And please address my second point if you don't mind. Without hedging if you can. When in your mind will Joe and CSS have been trashed enough?
Or when it comes to the OAG created Presentment which enabled the production of the intentionally false Indictments! 80% of the Presentment is dedicated to claims that Mike McQueary himself says are FALSE and UNTRUE.....and not based on what he told the OAG. Not only that, but the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Fact" DIAMETRICALLY CONTRADICTS what Mike McQueary actually testified to Grand Jurors -- members of the 30th Grand Jury, not the 33rd SWIGJ as the Presentment falsely claims! (the Presentment absolutely says that the 33rd SWIGJ found Mike McQueary to be a highly credible witness and Mike McQueary NEVER TESTIFIED to the 33rd SWIGJ!). The Presentment (and it's accompanying Indictments) state they have an "eyewitness" that will support their claims AND that Mike McQueary testified to the SWIGJ that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" anal rape - BOTH OF WHICH ARE INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS and the OAG NEVER had an "eyewitness", knew they didn't have an eyewitness and also knew that the only way they were going to get an Indictment generating Presentment was to go the FRAUDULENT ROOT THAT THEY WENT!
The following excerpt from Mike McQueary's e-mail to the OAG on Nov. 11, 2011, immediately following the public issuance of the fraudulent Presentment and Indictments, leave no doubt about any of these topics:
An "opinion" of what was going on, as well as a qualifier "...It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was." clearly identifies that he is offering speculation and conjecture as to what MIGHT have been going on, but clearly does not know for sure what was going on OR qualify as the "eyewitness" account the corrupt OAG said he would give!
These statements from a 30th SWIGJ Grand Juror prove unequivocally that the OAG intentionally lied in their FRAUDULENT Presentment for the 33rd SWIGJ:
In another previously undisclosed matter, The Mag found that one grand juror who heard McQueary testify said he doubted his credibility. The grand juror, Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of The Home Depot in York, Pa., now says he was skeptical of McQueary's claim that Sandusky engaged in a sex act with the boy because McQueary told grand jurors that he didn't see penetration.
"This planted a seed with me. Either you saw it or you didn't," said Bolton, who was one of 23 grand jurors. The prosecutors "kind of glossed over it and moved on to who [McQueary] told, which started the whole Joe Paterno thing."
When the presentment charging Sandusky, Curley and Schultz was released, it was written by the 33rd grand jury. In that document, prosecutors said McQueary, identified only as a graduate assistant, was found by the grand jury to be "extremely credible." However, the 33rd grand jury never heard McQueary testify. An earlier grand jury, the 30th, heard McQueary testify on Dec. 16, 2010. Bolton was a member of that grand jury.
"This planted a seed with me. Either you saw it or you didn't," said Bolton, who was one of 23 grand jurors. The prosecutors "kind of glossed over it and moved on to who [McQueary] told, which started the whole Joe Paterno thing."
When the presentment charging Sandusky, Curley and Schultz was released, it was written by the 33rd grand jury. In that document, prosecutors said McQueary, identified only as a graduate assistant, was found by the grand jury to be "extremely credible." However, the 33rd grand jury never heard McQueary testify. An earlier grand jury, the 30th, heard McQueary testify on Dec. 16, 2010. Bolton was a member of that grand jury.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for the self-rightous, moral superiority lecture.
With deepest gratitude,
The Unwashed-Masses
It's not absolute that it ocurred that night. And it's VERY far from absolute that it was reported in 2001, which is all that matters vis a vis PSU. But don't let that stop you from "knowing" things. Absolutely.
Here's something we ought to agree on. If MM saw Jerry Sandusky thrusting himself into the backside of a young boy half his size for the purpose of sexual pleasure, he should have called the police that night. Without hesitation.
If anyone is pissed, it should be him. He had to wake up day after day knowing that he didn't.
Well isn't that something?
Who'd a thunk it from the self-proclaimed arbiter of morality himself - go figure!
Called the police after he ran into the shower to save the poor kid. "It was some form of inercourse". Too bad it took him 10 years to realize it. Oh but wait, he was soooo upset he coudn't function or even answer questions. For 10 years...
Dodge is not dealing with reality. There is no GD dream scenario when kids are molested. Your only concern is Joe which is fine. Jones is fine by me, you have demons to slay,,,,not me.
