JOE PA DEAD AT 85

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:12 pm

Van wrote:
bradhusker wrote:Even the free ones are gone.
You are truly one paralyzingly moronic ham hock of an individual.

Van, if you have nothing nice to say about an individual, then you might consider not saying anything at all. Didnt your mommy teach you that when you were young?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:56 pm

Memorial services aren't really my thing, but...tickets? No thanks

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:38 pm

The Happy Valley thought police are requiring mandatory attendance wearing black, faux wailing and self-flagellation are encouraged, but optional.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:13 am

Let me ask, Wags - does your stupidity cause you actual physical pain? I can't imagine that there are no side effects whatsoever.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:58 am

get over yourself, ninny.

I once thought you had a sense of humor.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:58 pm

According to the AP and reuters, Jod Pa's body will lie in state as thousands pay their respects. This is on par with world leaders and even past popes.

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:30 pm

Good comparison between JoePa and popes. I guess JoePa hasn't cost his beloved institution billions by turning a blind eye to child abuse--yet.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:44 pm

He could have done more.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:02 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
Did you read my entire message, you chink-fucking brown-dicker? Didn't think so. Try again.

i read the whole of your idiocy the first time. it consisted of two opposed conditional statements, one predicated on the existence of unicorns and reasonably intelligent southerners. stick to scat jokes, you walking ball of cholesterol.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:55 am

oh, this is logic?

If Joe did what he could, but was told his family would get killed by god knows who, then I see his side of it.

if twinkies tasted halfway decent, then i can see your side of being fat and useless.

seriously, what odds you laying that joeped clammed up because someone threatened to go car bomb on the most visible public figure in all of pennsylvania?

keep it up, you lonely hobo.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:54 pm

M Club wrote:oh, this is logic?

If Joe did what he could, but was told his family would get killed by god knows who, then I see his side of it.
if twinkies tasted halfway decent, then i can see your side of being fat and useless.

seriously, what odds you laying that joeped clammed up because someone threatened to go car bomb on the most visible public figure in all of pennsylvania?

keep it up, you lonely hobo.

OH really M Club? Then why dont you tell us what happenned to the District Attorney then?
Care to comment on that one?
The DA just vannished off the face of the earth, along with the hard drive from his computer?

Cant wait to hear your explanation for this one.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:29 pm

bradhusker wrote:The DA just vannished off the face of the earth, along with the hard drive from his computer?

Cant wait to hear your explanation for this one.

JoPa had the DA murdered.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:00 pm

R-Jack wrote:
bradhusker wrote:The DA just vannished off the face of the earth, along with the hard drive from his computer?

Cant wait to hear your explanation for this one.
JoPa had the DA murdered.

R Jack, if thats true, then I was right all along about Joe Pa and his old-school Mafia ties. If they make a movie about all of this drama, There is no doubt in my mind who should play Joe Pa,

Without a doubt, the role goes to Joe Pecsi.

Sounds like Joe, looks like Joe, Pecsi would be perfect for the part.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:57 pm

Joe had no need of mafia ties. One of his former players and close friends is very very wealthy, and he exercised a protective role (in a variety of ways) of Joe for a number of years...this guy and his friends kept pretty much anything of that sort far away from the Paterno family. This is one of the reasons, in my opinion, that Joe was able to operate as HC for so many years, and one of the causes of his relative isolation...many of his immediate needs were basically handed to him before he was able to ask.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:00 pm

bradhusker wrote:Then why dont you tell us what happenned to the District Attorney then?
Care to comment on that one?
The DA just vannished off the face of the earth, along with the hard drive from his computer?

Cant wait to hear your explanation for this one.

People have been all over this, both before and after the scandal. No link has been established between the Gricar case and the Sandusky situation.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:52 am

BREAKING NEWS!!
At the memorial service for Joe Pa yesterday, Phil Knight, the founder and CEO of NIKE, totally got behind Joe Pa. He said without a doubt, that Joe Pa can rest in peace, and that he is totally without fault in this scandal in any way shape or form.

When a guy as powerful and connected as Phil Knight speaks, I take note. I hope this puts to rest for you guys in here, that Joe Pa is indeed totally in the clear about all matters pertaining to this case.

GO on youtube, and listen to Phil Knight at the memorial service. He makes a very strong case for Joe Pa, and the standing ovation he received afterward, drives the point home.

NOTHING you guys can say in here holds as much weight as what was said by the founder of NIKE.

I know that some of you will still think Joe Pa is guilty of something, BUT, after hearing Phil Knight speak? Whatever you guys think is totally a joke. Not a single guy in this forum is in the same league as a Phil Knight, in fact, im pretty sure that no one in here is fit to shine his shoes.

Go ahead, watch it on You tube, and you will see what I am saying is true, Joe Pa can indeed rest in peace. Thank you Mr. Phil Knight.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:12 pm

Yes, all the facts surrounding the incident go down the toilet because a rich guy had a take on Joe Paterno.

You really are one colosally braindead pile of simpleton spit. Impale yourself on a pitchfork dipped in AIDS.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:41 pm

Uhhh, brad? I'm pretty sure Nike sponsors Penn St football. Phil Knight's take on Joe Paterno has about as much credibility as yours do regarding Elvis.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:49 am

Van wrote:Uhhh, brad? I'm pretty sure Nike sponsors Penn St football. Phil Knight's take on Joe Paterno has about as much credibility as yours do regarding Elvis.

Van, Elvis Presley is beyond reproach. Elvis is an eternal legend, an icon, a GOD, if you will. Elvis is on a higher level than Dr Martin Luther King. IN FACT, few people who have ever walked the earth can be mentioned in the same sentence as the king.

So, I dont need any credibility when it comes to the KING, its considered common knowledge and a matter of public record.

As for Mr Knight's views on Joe Pa? Whatever they may be, they certainly carry more credibility than any poster in this forum. Who in this forum has reached the level in life that he has?

SEE, you need to realize that there is a certain pecking order in life. You, and most everyone in this forum, occupy the lowest rungs on the ladder of life, THEREFORE, your opinion on Joe Pa doesnt mean squat.

The highest rungs in this game we all call life, are occupied by a select few. so when they speak, you'd do well to stop and take note.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:32 pm

This is becoming a discrace to trolling.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:04 pm

R-Jack wrote:This is becoming a discrace to trolling.

Call me crazy, BUT, I most wholeheartedly agree with you!

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:32 pm

R-Jack wrote:This is becoming a discrace to trolling.

Becoming? Exactly how low are you setting the bar that you're still withholding judgment on this guy?

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:59 pm

Van wrote:
R-Jack wrote:This is becoming a discrace to trolling.
Becoming? Exactly how low are you setting the bar that you're still withholding judgment on this guy?

Van, if this is a world where a smelly ignorant turd like you, sits in judgement of me? It reminds me of the 1968 sci fi classic, starring the great Charlton Heston, when he first realizes a world where dirty smelly filthy apes sit in judgement of him.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:44 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Mace wrote:I have a very difficult time believing that Paterno knowingly harbored a pedophile who was using the facilities to molest young boys and there will have to be a lot more evidence presented to convince me that happened.
Seriously, what "evidence" can come to light that would justify allowing a known pedophile to freely roam PSU's campus for 10+ years? Any further evidence at this point is trivial to the bottom line. Unless you are one of those sad individuals, like tardhusker, who believes JoePa did everything he could do by leaving this in the hands of bureaucracy then wiping his conscience clean and taking it to his grave.

I mean the "evidence" that will come out in a trial and any evidence revealed that might tell us exactly what Paterno did, or didn't do....most of which we don't know. If you think the media knows, and is actually reporting, all of the facts, then you're one stupid piece of shit. It's usually better to reserve judgment until all of the facts are revealed, even though it's the nature of this board to jump to conclusions and wildly speculate just like the media.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:33 pm

So when Joe Pa said he could've done more, what in the fuck do you think he was referring to? Going 7-5?

No further evidence that comes out is going to negate the fact that Joe Pa stated to the press that McCreary informed him of what happened, admitted he could've done more, then later tried to excuse his in-actions on incompetency.

Seriously, how dense are you? You have a brain for a reason. Use it.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:37 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So when Joe Pa said he could've done more, what in the fuck do you think he was referring to? Going 7-5?

No further evidence that comes out is going to negate the fact that Joe Pa stated to the press that McCreary informed him of what happened, admitted he could've done more, then later tried to excuse his in-actions on incompetency.

Seriously, how dense are you? You have a brain for a reason. Use it.

MgoBlue,

I believe what the esteemed gentleman "mace", meant was this, sure, in the court of public opinion, ie. "the angry mob", YES, we should just take Joe Pa's lifeless body, string it up in the public square, and dis-embowel and humiliate it.

HOWEVER, you fuckin shit-headed moron, we live in a constitutional republic, and, as a result, there must be a "day in court", I know that liberal retarded faggotts like yourself, dont approve of such civilized procedures, BUT, that is why you are what you are.

SO, in short, you are a DUMBASS!!!

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:37 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So when Joe Pa said he could've done more, what in the fuck do you think he was referring to? Going 7-5?

No further evidence that comes out is going to negate the fact that Joe Pa stated to the press that McCreary informed him of what happened, admitted he could've done more, then later tried to excuse his in-actions on incompetency.

Seriously, how dense are you? You have a brain for a reason. Use it.

So what, exactly, did McQuery tell Paterno? There are conflicting reports on that, and even if he told Paterno exactly what was happening, the far greater fault falls on McQeuryd for not stopping it, and for telling Paterno (whatever it is that he told him), and for not calling police. Paterno called his superiors (which I suspect is school policy on most college campuses) and they dropped the ball. Yes, Paterno could have done more and, in hindsight, I'm sure that he recognized that, but until it's known exactly what McQueary reported to him, I consider it a rush to judgment to villify Paterno in the way you and others are doing. I'll wait for all of the facts to emerge, and they should, and idiots like you can continue to think you know the whole story when, in fact, you don't know shit.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:41 pm

Mace, didn't you see JoePa's interview? If you did, what more do you need? That wasn't hearsay, nor was it media spin. It was JoePa describing in his own words what he was told, what he knew, and what he did with that information.

It was a confession of guilt. He even admitted to feeling guilty over his own inaction.

What other "evidence" do you seek? The guy won't be involved in any trial, other than his recorded interview that corroborates everything McCreary said. The State College police have already stated for the record that they were not contacted by anyone at PSU regarding Sandusky's actions, either in 1998 or 2002.

At best, any trial will become a quagmire of he said/she said, but in the end Joe Paterno has already described his do-nothing role in these matters.

Oh, and tardhausker, JoePas was never going to receive his "day in court." He wasn't charged with any crime. His only role in any potential trial would have been as a witness, not a defendant, and that role has already been fulfilled with his recorded interview.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:51 pm

No, I have not seen the entire interview with Paterno but McCreary was the one who should have been the one designated as a mandatory reporter in that case, not Paterno. I said that he could have done more, but by reporting it to his superiors, it was up to them to get the ball rolling and they failed to do it. There's plenty of blame to go around but the bulk of it should fall on McCreary for failing to report it to the police. The rest is just a lot of cover your ass by Penn State.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:33 pm

Mace, that's true, but it doesn't absolve Paterno of his failure to do a damn thing. He engaged in just as much "cover your ass" and "bury your head in the sand" as anyone else at PSU.

Is he as guilty as McCreary, much less Sandusky? Of course not. Nonetheless, JoePa was the one who allowed Sandusky continued use of what were essentially JoePa's facilities to conduct another decade of alleged pedophilia. From what JoePa admitted to knowing about Sandusky, c'mon, bare minimum the guy cannot allow Sandusky back on campus, and he definitely can't allow him back on campus for the purpose of running a foundation that gives him unfettered access to young boys.

Keep in mind, absolutely no one is claiming that JoePa was ever told that Sandusky had not done those things that McCreary reported to him. JoePa said he never discussed any of it with Sandusky, so Sandusky never told him, "Look, Joe, it's all bullshit. I don't know what McCreary thinks he saw, but I swear to you, I didn't do it." Neither was JoePa ever informed similarly by McCreary, his superiors at PSU, or the State College police. As far as JoePa knew, Sandusky had done something awful with a little boy in the shower, and still he allowed Sandusky to hang around.

There is no explaining that, except as an example of JoePa burying his head in the sand. He prioritized not wanting to rock the boat over doing the obvious right thing.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:36 pm

Paterno didn't witness any wrongdoing by Sandusky and reported to his superiors when he was informed by McQueary of what he had seen....although we don't know exactly what McQueary chose to report to Paterno. Paterno could have called police and said "I've been told that a criminal act took place on campus", but it was McQueary who should have called the police and reported what he allegedly witnessed. The Athletic Director should have been the one to notify law enforcement, not Paterno (although he too could have), because that's how the bureaucracy works in government and colleges. Yes, Paterno could have aggressively pursued the followup by demanding this superiors take action, but he didn't. You call it "burying his head" while I would say that he trusted his superiors to do the right thing and they failed to do it. Paterno was actually the middle man in this scenario and was someone who had no practical experience in dealing with this kind of situation. He did what was prudent by notifying his superiors of whatever it was McQueary told him and they apparently chose not to call police or involve law enforcement in the investigation.

The glaring question that I think needs to be answered is why Sandusky was given free access to the athletic facilites after he was fired/resigned, and after Penn State was alerted to the allegations by McQueary? My limited understanding is that he was given those privileges as a condition of his leaving the football staff. But why? How could that happen if the university gave any credence to McQueary's allegations? That's something I don't understand and would like to be answered during the course of the trial.

Paterno absolutely had a moral obligation to do more than he did, but he violated no laws and did what he needed to do at the time to comply with his legal responsibilities.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:20 am

whatthefuckever, Mace.

I can't believe for one minute that you'd defend the inaction. If Joe deserved half the adulation he's been accorded, he would've seen to it that at the very least, Sandusky never set foot on campus again.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:35 am

War Wagon wrote:whatthefuckever, Mace.

I can't believe for one minute that you'd defend the inaction. If Joe deserved half the adulation he's been accorded, he would've seen to it that at the very least, Sandusky never set foot on campus again.

Yeah, "whatthefuckever" is right. :roll:

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:25 am

Mace wrote:although we don't know exactly what McQueary chose to report to Paterno.

We know what McQueary says he reported to Paterno, and it fully jibes with what Paterno admitted during his interview. Since Paterno did confirm McQueary's description of what he'd told Joe, I don't know why you're still saying we don't know "exactly" what McQueary told him. We do. Watch the tape. Going by the description McQueary gave him, Joe characterized his understanding of what Sandusky did as "man rape" of a little boy.

That's it. In terms of Joe's understanding of what Sandusky was supposed to have done, nothing more need be said. Joe knew enough to where he should have personally made sure Sandusky had been cleared of those allegations before ever allowing him to set foot on Penn State property again.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:47 pm

Van wrote:
Mace wrote:although we don't know exactly what McQueary chose to report to Paterno.
We know what McQueary says he reported to Paterno, and it fully jibes with what Paterno admitted during his interview. Since Paterno did confirm McQueary's description of what he'd told Joe, I don't know why you're still saying we don't know "exactly" what McQueary told him. We do. Watch the tape. Going by the description McQueary gave him, Joe characterized his understanding of what Sandusky did as "man rape" of a little boy.

That's it. In terms of Joe's understanding of what Sandusky was supposed to have done, nothing more need be said. Joe knew enough to where he should have personally made sure Sandusky had been cleared of those allegations before ever allowing him to set foot on Penn State property again.

Joe Paterno didn't witness any abuse, McQueary did. McQueary is the one who should have called the police, not Paterno. Like I said earlier, I haven't seen the entire interview with Paterno, only excerpts, so I don't know exactly what he said. I don't know what's so hard to understand about Paterno actually doing what he was required to do by calling a superior to report McQueary's allegations of what he allegedly witnessed and it appears to me that he is primarily guilty of trusting his superiors to do the right thing. Could he have done more? Of course, but he didn't, and he is being villified for that. Someone should have called the police, I agree, and McQueary should have been the first one to do so, and the Athletice Director should have done so after Paterno's phone call, but he didn't. Paterno could have made the call but, instead, followed university protocol and called his superior.

I'm not going to speculate as to why Sandusky was allowed to remain on campus, or of Paterno's influence in the making that decision, but I've read that he was granted access to the facilities as a condition of his resignation. I don't know who was involved in agreeing to that stipulation and I'm not going to engage in wild speculation. It's possible that the university considered McQueary's allegations to be false, or at least unfounded, and thought that Sandusky's resignation was enough. Of course they could also have been trying to sweep things under the rug. I don't know the motivation or circumstances surrounding that decision, and neither do you. Apparently it's just easier to take down a coaching icon than to weigh all of the facts before passing judgment.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:21 pm

No, apparently it's easier for you to ignore the actual words of a coaching icon than to admit that his shameful role in this scenario has already been determined. You're going to "weigh all the facts" until the cows come home. The pertinent facts regarding JoePa are now on record. The only thing that hasn't been determined is the full extent of what Sandusky did or didn't do, but there no longer remains any doubt as to what McQueary told Joe or what Joe did with that information.

Those facts are known. Nothing left to weigh or wait for there.

And no one is trying to say that JoePa is as guilty as McQueary, much less Sandusky. Where JoePa is more guilty than McQueary, however, is in the way he handled the issue of Sandusky's continued presence on the Penn State campus. JoePa had both the power and obligation to prevent that. McQueary didn't.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:52 pm

Van wrote:No, apparently it's easier for you to ignore the actual words of a coaching icon than to admit that his shameful role in this scenario has already been determined. You're going to "weigh all the facts" until the cows come home. The pertinent facts regarding JoePa are now on record. The only thing that hasn't been determined is the full extent of what Sandusky did or didn't do, but there no longer remains any doubt as to what McQueary told Joe or what Joe did with that information.

Those facts are known. Nothing left to weigh or wait for there.

I guess I'll have to tell you for the third fucking time that I haven't seen the interview, with the exception of a few excerpts, and have not seen where Paterno says what McQueary told him.

And no one is trying to say that JoePa is as guilty as McQueary, much less Sandusky. Where JoePa is more guilty than McQueary, however, is in the way he handled the issue of Sandusky's continued presence on the Penn State campus. JoePa had both the power and obligation to prevent that. McQueary didn't.

Sorry, I guess I've also missed the part where Paterno drew up the agreement regarding Sandusky leaving the coaching staff and giving him access to the athletic complex.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:33 am

Apparently you also missed the part where Joe Paterno ran that athletic complex, and if Joe says you're gone, you're gone. Joe could've made it happen, and didn't.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:53 am

Mace wrote:I guess I'll have to tell you for the third fucking time that I haven't seen the interview, with the exception of a few excerpts, and have not seen where Paterno says what McQueary told him.

Seems odd since you're so dead set on "weighing all the facts."

If you aren't convinced by now of Joe Pa's culpability, you simply don't want to be convinced. You want to hang onto this romantic notion that the icon, Joe Paterno, was this pillar of integrity through to the end. Sorry, but not everything has a fairy tale ending. Suck it up and accept it.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:00 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Mace wrote:I guess I'll have to tell you for the third fucking time that I haven't seen the interview, with the exception of a few excerpts, and have not seen where Paterno says what McQueary told him.
Seems odd since you're so dead set on "weighing all the facts."

If you aren't convinced by now of Joe Pa's culpability, you simply don't want to be convinced. You want to hang onto this romantic notion that the icon, Joe Paterno, was this pillar of integrity through to the end. Sorry, but not everything has a fairy tale ending. Suck it up and accept it.

Pretty hard to weigh all of the facts when I haven't seen them. What part of that don't you understand?