Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) That's essentially what the campaign letter does. "She's not a successful person like Cain, why would you believe her?!" We also have no indication that she's being paid to have her name and history dragged through the mud. No but this was interesting: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438 And yes, it's Coulter, but it does put this whole incident into a very interesting context.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) In the Grand Jury file, it says Paterno testified that he was told about "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" by a "very upset" McQueary. I don't think he needs to be specifically informed of anal sex to know that a sexual assault was being reported. I wasn't making a big deal out of it, just saying that I don't think you can say definitely that he was notified that Sandusky had raped a kid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) You're ignoring the entire reality of victim shaming. That she filed bankruptcy at some point in her life is completely irrelevant. It doesn't even truly speak to her character. It doesn't lower her credibility. It simply is an attempt to tarnish her character; it's literally an ad hominem. You can assume that the person is innocent. You can legitimately question motives if there is a good reason to question motives. That is completely different from ripping apart someone's life in order to diminish their claims. The problem isn't that maybe something is dishonest or misleading and she's really a good person; the problem is that bad people can be abused too and deserve no less protection under the law. That Daily Mail article you posted earlier is disgusting and a perfect example of the problem. If someone was shouting "look! this woman accusing Cain of SH filed for bankruptcy in 1998....GOLD DIGGER!" then i'd agree with you. But as i've explained numerous times, look at the whole picture. IMO she's full of s*** and looking to cash in on the opportunity here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) P: Joe Paterno was informed by McQueary that Sandusky was raping a young boy in the PSU locker rooms. P: Joe Paterno presented this information to his AD. P: Joe Paterno is one of the most powerful men in State College and could get whatever he wanted. P: No serious investigation of the allegations was ever conducted. Sandusky retained access to children and PSU. C: Joe Paterno did not press to have a serious investigation conducted even though he was informed of his actions, enabling Sandusky to continue molesting children. Where's the logical flaw there? Your first premise is not accurate, if you're going to consider what Paterno testified to... He denied being informed of any rape.

BTW I do find it curious the feelings towards Paterno versus the feelings towards just about everyone involved in the life of Michael Jackson. I whooooole lotta firing should have been going on the last 30 years.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) Is speculation and discussion the point of a message board? When I took things a little personally than I should have especially during the Tressel situation I simply didnt open the thread for a few months. It definitely helps. Ugh. Who would? What Paterno did pales in comparison to that monster Tressel...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) You and Joe Paterno. BAM! lol, nice.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) Just to be clear. If someone tells you they saw a crime, it becomes your responsibility to make certain it is investigated. That's a slippery slope I do not want to be a part of.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) Yes. Unequivocally. It's a pure protection/veneration of power. If you accuse someone of something, especially something sexual in nature (which goes to your moral/ethical belief systems) then you damn well better be able to question the motives of the accuser and assume that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. This has nothing to do with power or authority. Edit: let me ask you this - should an accuser have to confront the accused? or can they just make their claims and hide in their homes until the matter is decided? After all, wouldn't want those rich authority figures to question whether the accusations are credible!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Although there are conflicting reports about what exactly he was told in 2002 which could in fact mean that he has lied in public statements. If he committed perjury i'm sure they would have brought charges like they did against the other two.

So new theory: The cover-up in 98 and subsequent forced retirement in 99 stems directly from the top brasses knowledge that Sandusky was pimping out kids to a whole lotta rich, rich donors to the school. If they reported him not only would they open up Penn State to embarrassment, but they further could have risked Sandusky outing all the rich donors. Not at all justifying any of this of course. Just wondering if that was why they didn't report him and allowed him to stick around.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) You understand that this calls into question the motives of anyone who accuses someone powerful of abuse or harassment? Is that a bad thing? And I still think you have to look at the total context here, not just that one aspect of it.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) I would argue that Cain is the one doing this campaign for fame and fortune. He's running it more like a book tour than an election campaign to be honest. What financial benefit could there really be for her if she isn't charging for her appearances on morning shows? Not much, I don't think. 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) For those who watched WWII in HD on History, Vietnam in HD is just as good, if not better. I'm taping it and started watching it last night. I was a little upset about the lack of build-up. They basically just jumped right in without much discussion of the political decision to actually engage. I'm 29 and still don't know the real reason the war ever happened (except for the general "threat of communism" and "cold war" justifications). I was never taught about it in HS, and I missed out on taking a class about it in college.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) Watched Hell on Wheels on AMC show looks like it has potential. I loved Deadwood and miss a western on TV. Agreed. I though it was good, solid B+. I'm interested to see where they go, i.e. if it's more of a character show versus an action-oriented show. The pilot was a mixture of both.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:20 AM) 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? I suppose, but I'm not going to agree that in every case I should automatically assume that the victim is a true victim and that he/she is 100% honest. It's the other way around - we should be questioning the accuser and assuming the accused is innocent. This is entirely different than the "she was asking for it because she's got a history of being a loose woman" type case too btw. I probably wouldn't have said anything about this case if this lady hadn't paraded in front of cameras with a Hollywood attorney shortly after a few anonymous reports came out. The timing seemed very questionable, and almost textbook "now that this story is getting national play, i'll move to be the face of it." My bulls*** meter really went off when she talked about doing this not for any personal gain (so admirable) but instead to protect other women and to out him as some bastard. Oh and because she talked to her 13 year old son, who gave her the courage and ok to do it. The stuff about her past just adds to the pile.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) That she filed bankruptcy in the past has no real bearing on her credibility. It is simply to tarnish her character. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) 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 lol, crap. i haven't had my coffee yet. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Yes, it's a giant ad hominem from the Cain campaign. ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is irrelevant to whether or not Cain harassed her. This line of argument leads to the conclusion that people who have made past mistakes cannot be victims of abuse by people who are powerful. So she has a history of being a defendant in what appears to be related lawsuits and financial claims against her. This does nothing to address her claims of being abused. It's an attack on her character in order to disparage her claims without actually addressing the claims. This is relevant how? This is relevant how? Why is this "curious?" She clearly does not intent to take legal action. Because Cain is running for President and a news organization found that Cain's previous employer had to settle two unrelated sexual harassment claims for a significant amount of money. Or maybe it's the racist Perry Democrat Machine trying to keep a businessman out of the White House! These are the only possibly legitimate statements in the whole thing, but even this plays right back into the whole disgusting idea that sexual harassment claims are just ways for dumb, humorless gold-diggers to get money. 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.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) I'll preface this with.. I think Herman Cain is a joke. However here's how he should have handled it, in my opinion. - Yes, nearly 2 decades ago there were allegations that I had behaved inappropriately with a few co-workers/employees of mine. - I believed then, as I do today, that I did nothing wrong and that the allegations against me were false. - We had determined, at that time as a business executive and not as a politican, that it was in our best interest to settle these matters without incurring lengthy court battles and legal costs. - Had I known that more than 20 years later, these allegations would resurfice, and that I would become a politician seeking the highest office in the land, I would have chosen to fight these false claims at that time. I'd also try to make an analogy, carefully, of someone who receives a ticket and decides to pay the fine, rather than go to court and fight it. (obviously the severaty of the claim is 1000x worse, but that's why I said carefully) I'm sorry, no. You're personal experience means nothing to this debate about sexual harassment and victims generally. - Strangesox

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) So you're telling me I am just speculating that the direct supervisor of an employee would be informed of the details of an official investigation regarding said employee's conduct with children ON CAMPUS and in the football building? Come on man. Joe didnt know why Sandusky was forced into retirement? He never asked a question, he wasnt present at any meetings? Maybe he is the dumbest most ignorant guy of all time then. The next two paragraphs in your post make me think you are totally fine with forgiving people who make a mistake (not commit a crime) and are regretful for it, especially if they have done so much good over their lives and career. I, as a Tressel fan, fully support your viewpoint there. Dude, all bets are off at this school and the procedure in which information is shared. Clearly there are f*** ups all over this thing, so no, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that something Sandusky was caught doing (and which was covered up by campus police) might have slipped past a 74-75 year old Paterno, who was probably more concerned about not pissing his pants during a game than what trouble one of his guys was getting into (in 1998). And if i recall correctly, the grand jury said nothing about Paterno knowing about it or being involved in it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) No, he's not. But do you absolve him of any wrong doing? Remember this is a guy who learned about Sandusky's transgressions first in 1998 then again in 2002. His most vocal and up to this point worst victim met him in 2006, 8 years after Paterno first learned of his inappropriate contact with young boys. Well first, you keep saying he first learned about this guy and his "transgressions" in 1998. You're speculating here. Just because campus police investigated him and told him to stop (equally terrible job btw) doesn't mean Paterno found out about it. He might have, but that wasn't part of the grand jury finding. In fact, given the fact that higher ups tried to cover the bigger scandal, there's actually good reason to believe that Paterno was never told. Second, I've said that Paterno probably should have done more. But he told his superiors right away and IMO had every reason to believe that they would handle it in the appropriate way. He made a mistake. A mistake that he clearly owns up to. Unless you really believe he was ok with this act (which flies in the face of everything he's done the last 50 years of his career teaching young men about life and football), then it was a mistake and he shouldn't be the center of this thing. Third, I just think this grandstanding "oh I would have driven to the FBI's headquarters and reported all this stuff myself if I were him!" is nonsense. It completely ignores the context of the situation. The guy is f***ing human and made a mistake he probably regrets. Not wanting the guy to be labeled as more of a monster than the guy actually raping young boys isn't about having a lower moral standard.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) Actually, it is. We as a society, if nothing more, have the responsibility to protect children. Those who think Paterno has done nothing wrong clearly have very low moral standards. This is such crap. He made some mistakes. He's not the monster at the center of this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) He testified. His own letter claimed that he informed his bosses and then had no further involvement. There is no indication that he took any further actions. You are making a gigantic leap here. Not everything that people testified to is included in the grand jury finding. I'm quite certain Paterno would have testified to his history with Penn State, his age, his address, blah blah. None of that is included in this finding either. Edit: Nor would his letter be the end all be all. A lot of people are assuming he knew exactly what was going on. If that's not in his letter, does that mean it's not true?

Sort of proving iamshack's point - ESPN has been working hard to hire Charles Robinson, an investigative reporter for Yahoo that tends to break a lot of big scandals: http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/09...arles-robinson/ In other words: scandals = audience = $$$$$$$$$$. Victims? Who cares.