StrangeSox

More unprovoked police beatings of OWS (cali) protesters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) And it's probably going to come out that this is why the police and DA backed off on investigating the coach in 1998 as well. Because it was Penn State Football. The Death Penalty wouldn't be harsh enough. And I don't mean for the football program.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) Yeah, I'm saying I'm absolutely convinced that PSU was the only thing on the minds of the many around campus who knew what had happened, and a forced retirement and banishment from bringing kids on campus are direct results of a cover-up in action. Following along what shack, soxbadger and others are stressing, we don't actually know that. I personally think it's a safe assumption, but I'm not willing to go that far yet based on what we know.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) My bias? I dont care for Paterno, I dont care for PSU. I just happen to be involved with lawsuits on a daily basis, and my opinion is based on my experience. Why do you think McQuery is more credible? What has he done in this matter, to make you believe hes telling the truth? The number of claims against Sandusky as well as the 1998 incident lend an incredible amount of weight to the likelihood that he molested children. This isn't an isolated incident. AFAIK, Sandusky hasn't issued any denials, either. Additionally, what would be his motive to lie here?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) I don't see how the cover-up wouldn't be deliberate. We're at the tip of this iceberg. Well I meant that they knew the full reality of what was going on and for how long and chose PSU football and their own reputations over the past and future victims.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) Strangesox, From the complaint it did appear his testimony conflicted. Ive yet to see the transcript, so I cant go through it line by line and give a real opinion. Yeah, it'll be interesting if/when that comes out. My reading of the GJ report and Paterno's actions since tell me that McQueary wasn't lying when he described what he told Joe and, later, the admin.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) Your inconsistencies and assumptions are just pathetic. You claim that the entire university needs to be burned to the ground because they all knew about the rape. If it shakes out that the cover-up was deliberate and they knew what happened, I'd be comfortable with calling for their football stadium to be burned to the ground.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) No Kyle, thats what Mcquery says today. You dont know its true, for all we know McQuery told Paterno "Its not a big deal" and is now covering his own ass. Everyone just wants to jump at the worst possible story, but Ive yet to see the transcript of McQuerys testimony. Has anyone here seen the transcript? Because the Complaint is not testimony. Paterno's testimony does not appear to contradict his story.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) You don't think her motives would be questioned if she were confortably rich? All being poor does is give her one more possible motive. Because we all know that poor victims NEVER make s*** up looking for a payday. That poor stripper in the Duke case? 100% truth, peeps. Don't be hatin'! All being poor does is make you powerless and more likely to be victimized.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I haven't read anything about her not being paid. She said that she wasn't paid to come forward at her press conference. Has she denied getting paid for her appearances? Even still, she's still getting national publicity and job opportunities as a result. You understand that this calls into question the motives of anyone who accuses someone powerful of abuse or harassment?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) And yet 57 states get you elected President... Perry's incompetence is getting liberals to say nice things about Bush's debating and speaking skills.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) Yeah, I'm taking this with a huge grain of salt right now. But the writer seems highly credible at this point... The writer seems credible but he openly states it's a rumor at this point.

"Has any recent major presidential candidate shown as little mastery of the basics, when it comes to policy matters, as Cain? ... Yet some defenders of Cain actually celebrate his lack of knowledge, portraying it as a virtue, a sign that he’s an outsider, a non-establishment figure, authentic, the appealing anti-politician. ... In the 1980s, one of the Republican Party’s main sources of attraction to younger conservatives like myself was its growing reputation for intellectual seriousness. “Of a sudden,” wrote Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, in 1981, “the GOP has become a party of ideas.” The way such things happen is by rewarding intellectual excellence among those vying for the presidency rather than making excuses for their lack of knowledge," - Pete Wehner, Commentary.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandusky...ark-madden.html You know, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of this. Probably so I don't lose my faith in humanity.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) Omg. Just heard the rumor of what is supposed to come out and shock people. I hope it's not true. Rumor: Sandusky pimped out those little boys to rich donors. Please don't be true. It will also clarify how he was given retirement in 1999 in exchange for the cover up. I couldn't decide which smilie conveyed my emotions best:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) So apparently if you're Cain, all this s*** can be brought up (including past settlements that are neutral as to what actually happened) because "where there's smoke, there's fire," but all the various crap about this lady's past is not fair game in judging whether she might have had some other motive to suddenly, ten years later, come out with some statements and parade around on the talk show circuit. And again, just to be clear, I think it's pretty obvious that Cain DOES have an abuse of power issue, and he probably IS a womanizer. That does NOT mean that my original argument - that this lady seems like someone who is doing this for the opportunity of it, not to further some righteous cause - is wrong. She might be doing it for the money, but do you at least the larger issue with taking that line of argumentation, given the history of victim shaming in abuse and harassment cases?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) Which agrees with the inflation data website I sent you too in the first place. ....yes it does. It's still a very stupid paragraph. edit: this is a tangential nit-pick. I was skeptical of their results so I googled and confirmed in a few seconds. I'm still skeptical that they're not idiots.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) You question it because it doesn't agree with you. They're NOT arbitrarily picking significant figures and ignoring others. No, it seems in line with other estimates. It's just that their claims of super-precision should sound really, really dumb to anyone who's taken an undergrad science or stats course. They need to justify why their calculations can actually be more precise, not why they decided not to round off the numbers. You can't gain significant digits through calculations, so their data needs to have at least significant figures as well.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) I'm not an expert on inflation -- so I won't pretend to be -- but thinking about this logically, when enormous sums of money are being injected into the supply combined with massive government spending, we SHOULD have seen a LOT of inflation. I'm not either, and a quick googling finds that the rate is just under four. I just couldn't believe how dumb that paragraph seems on its face. That seems right to me. Sure, all of this money was printed, but since millions still don't have jobs, it's not actually in circulation and demand is still suppressed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) lol, crap. i haven't had my coffee yet. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/style_images.../rte-italic.png And that was just a jab about how you always consider personal anecdotes irrelevant as a basis for explaining one's perspective on a given issue. Anecdotes are fine for explaining your own perspective. What Balta and I have to frequently point out is that they are only good for your perspective and they are not data for larger trends. You can't use them to support a claim larger than your personal experience.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) All of it is relevant in assessing her credibility, which is the only thing you can do in a he said-she said kind of case. That she filed bankruptcy in the past has no real bearing on her credibility. It is simply to tarnish her character. edit: unless you view economics as a big morality play, where losers are punished and fail and bankruptcy is a sign of weakness or a character flaw.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflati...ntInflation.asp Appears there is inflation. Oh, and it's nearly 4%, not 0%. I dunno, this paragraph makes me seriously question if they know wtf they're talking about: You don't just get to arbitrarily pick significant figures--they need to reflect the precision and accuracy of what you're measuring. I could tell you that I measured a pencil to be 6.5452309 inches long with my ruler, which is a much better measurement than Joe's 6.5"!!! and I'd be an idiot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) I'm sorry, no. You're personal experience means nothing to this debate about sexual harassment and victims generally. - Strangesox It's "your" not "you're" Also what personal experience is he talking about there? edit: I understand it's a joke post I just don't get the joke

I just read a couple of live-blogs and recaps of the debate. How are any of these people considered serious candidates?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) Which is negated by the trillions pushed out to hold rates down. And again, there is plenty of inflation located outside of the housing sector. ...so, if the money they're spending to keep rates down is negated by the money they're printing to increase supply, the net effect on inflation is zero or near zero. So you can't use that as another shadow to hide the bond vigilantes and their rampant inflation.