Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rwd5035

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 126
1
Penn State Basketball / Re: New AD?
« on: Today at 10:38 AM »
JoeBot is a word created by people who agree with the mainstream narrative regarding Joe Paterno's firing and agree with all the scandal-related changes to PSU. The majority of Penn State fans don't agree with how Joe Paterno was treated, so in reality the majority of PSU fans are so-called "JoeBots", as all PSU fans were Joe Paterno supporters. I'd be hard pressed to find PSU fans who agreed with Paterno being fired. It's a way for the Dean Wormers of the world to make it seem like PSU fans who support Joe Paterno are somehow the crazy insane minority. It's a fantasy, when this term was coined you'd be hard pressed to find any PSU fans who weren't outraged and shocked at how Paterno was treated. When the statue was taken down, the vast majority of PSU fans were pissed, and rightfully so. These people, the vast majority of PSU fans, are so-called JoeBots to the sheepherders.

I didn't say I didn't know what they were, I said I don't know who he's specifically referring too since he mentions them constantly in the Sandusky thread and has done it in this one a few times I believe. I'm asking who they are on this forum.

Though I'm not sure who he thinks the Joebots on this forum are or where they come from?

JoeBot is a word created by people who agree with the mainstream narrative regarding Joe Paterno's firing and agree with all the scandal-related changes to PSU. The majority of Penn State fans don't agree with how Joe Paterno was treated, so in reality the majority of PSU fans are so-called "JoeBots", as all PSU fans were Joe Paterno supporters. I'd be hard pressed to find PSU fans who agreed with Paterno being fired. It's a way for the Dean Wormers of the world to make it seem like PSU fans who support Joe Paterno are somehow the crazy insane minority. It's a fantasy, when this term was coined you'd be hard pressed to find any PSU fans who weren't outraged and shocked at how Paterno was treated. When the statue was taken down, the vast majority of PSU fans were pissed, and rightfully so. These people, the vast majority of PSU fans, are so-called JoeBots to the sheepherders.

Quote
I think it is very concerning that Cal-Berkley wasn't graduating players. Maybe it was a weird situation but colleges should pride themselves on graduating student athletes.

Of course it's concerning. PSU went from the highest graduates rates of major programs in the country, to hiring an AD coming from a school with the lowest. PSU has lowered its standards so much in the aftermath of the scandal that the good stuff PSU used to stand for no longer is of priority.

Quote
Though if we are going to just say "screw it" let's try and win, I have no problem with it. Though I know I will be most likely in the minority on that. We aren't any better or cleaner than other college programs, might as well try and win championships.

I have a big problem with that. That's not what PSU was all about. PSU under Curley was about success on the field and in the classroom. Ever since 2011, it's just been "screw it" and lowering of standards across the board. The school has a new identity and no one knows what it is.

PSU was better and cleaner than most other programs prior to 2011, by graduation rates alone, but it didn't have a "squeaky clean" image. There's such a slippery slope when it comes to saying that you are better than other schools. It sounds arrogant. But it's not when you can back it up with facts like graduation rates. This is why a lot of PSU fans don't recognize this school. It used to be a tight ship. Now it's been taken over by outsiders for better or for worse.


Fans that prided themselves on graduation rates are doing so because we aren't winning. If we won the national title and were graduating 55% of our players, fans would say what we are doing is a necessary evil in today's college sports. You can't win as one of the nice guys who graduates players.

Given what happened here, we aren't in a position to be high and mighty or sanctimonious anymore. Maybe we should be going for guys with higher class and dignity, maybe that's what should have happened. But that's not what we ended up doing, so here we are.

Of course it's great to graduate players, but if you want to support college athletics for the purity of it and for the hopes that these kids are going to go out into the world professionally in their respective sport or a career, then I don't know why you are watching given the state of the NCAA and its athletes in 2014.

2
Not sure of its relevance?

3
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 01:35 PM »
The allegation that Jerry may have molested a child in the showers at Penn State, if Joe heard about it. At worst, if they knew, they knew Jerry was showering with a young boy on Penn State's campus when no one was supposed to be around.

4
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 12:11 PM »
I really don't think it would've made a difference. Joe still would've coached with him after the allegations (if he was aware of them) and Joe would still have held the power (could have threatened to resign if not dealt with). It's very very very wishful thinking to think if 2001 is prosecuted to the full extent and Sandusky is convicted that Paterno would somehow remain unscathed despite being associated with the man for over three decades by that time I believe, especially if he knew about previous incidents but didn't push for Sandusky's firing.

5
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 11:31 AM »
I can about guarantee that if Paterno wanted to fire Sandusky for being creepy, the BOT would have blocked it due to the negative press TSM would get.

And do you think that would matter to the national media even a little bit?

And it's not like we'd be talking about just being creepy, showering with little boys should've been the red flag (if they actually knew about it, still hypothetical) to kick him out. There's no justification for sending a perv like that to the households of 16-18 year old prospects, Second Mile or no.

6
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: Yesterday at 09:32 AM »
At least 98 was handled by the police and DA. Only a nut would think Joe had power over them.

I agree but not everyone would feel that way. They'd still want Joe Paterno to push and do more, or at the very least not retain Sandusky. Hindsight drives a lot of the public opinion. (Assuming Joe had knowledge of the 98 incident for this hypothetical), Joe still would've been the guy who kept an accused child molester/rapist (at the very least a creepy old dude that showers with little boys) on his staff. So, I think it's incredibly wishful thinking that people would've been rational about this when we have seen rationality go entirely out the window when this incident broke. There's a great quote from Euripides I believe, it goes something like "Talking sense to a fool leads to a fool calling you foolish." People aren't rational, it should be assumed that people are stupid until proven otherwise. Regardless, Paterno would've went down I think (in my hypothetical scenario anyway), no matter if 2001 goes all the way and Sandusky is convicted.

Now, the only benefit to Joe in 2001 would've been the lack of social media driving public opinion and public opinion wouldn't have been so identifiable because the connections weren't there. So, maybe it wouldn't have been as big of a deal but who knows to be honest.

7
Penn State Basketball / Re: New AD?
« on: Yesterday at 09:09 AM »
I love this hire for the simple fact that many of the Joebots hate it.

Now, openly admitting to being a troll.

Though I'm not sure who he thinks the Joebots on this forum are or where they come from?

I think it is very concerning that Cal-Berkley wasn't graduating players. Maybe it was a weird situation but colleges should pride themselves on graduating student athletes.

Though if we are going to just say "screw it" let's try and win, I have no problem with it. Though I know I will be most likely in the minority on that. We aren't any better or cleaner than other college programs, might as well try and win championships.

8
Penn State Basketball / Re: New AD?
« on: July 26, 2014, 10:12 AM »
You would think if it's an AD there would be feelers out there that another job opening would be out there.

9
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:05 PM »
I think it's incredibly wishful thinking to think that if Sandusky is prosecuted in 2001 let's say for the Lasch Building incident that Joe Paterno is remembered as a martyr, even if he's holding Sandusky's head after putting him through a guillotine. He'd still be the guy who coached with a pedophile and knowledge of the 98 incident comes out and people start questioning what Joe knew for the 98/99 seasons (when Sandusky was still on staff).

He'd still be forever attached to Sandusky, rightly or wrongly.

10
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:25 PM »
Good think Dave Jones invented that term Joebots.

11
Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:33 PM »
New AD to be announced?

Yup. Tomorrow at approximately noon.

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:23 PM »
Hobby Lobby DOES cover 16 of 20 forms of contraception including birth control pills.  They won't cover the 4 that destroy fertilized embryos.

So it's not against their religious practice to provide birth control, so why are they exactly? Because of a personal opinion, not a religious belief.

13
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:22 PM »
And what could Joe Paterno be held accountable for? He's dead. He's convicted in the court of public opinion but never can be convicted or confront his accusers in a court of law.

I don't believe his testimony could ever be used against Spanier, Schultz and Curley anyway. The Confrontations Clause bars it.

14
Penn State Basketball / Re: PSU hoops articles, videos, etc.
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:18 PM »
Would love a 3 and D guy on our team. Haven't had one for a few years.

about 13 years by my evaluation

I was thinking DJ Jackson, though he wasn't an elite defender and not as good of a three point shooter as I remember when I looked at his stats his senior year.

15
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:15 PM »
Was Jay Paterno the QB Coach? 



Did Joe Paterno admit in his own testimony that Mike McQueary visited him on a Saturday morning?



16
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:23 AM »
Dean Wormer acting like he knows what Joe would want for Jay more than Jay would sums him up entirely.

Dean, get a grip dude.  You can't continue to tell people what definitely happened when you definitely don't know.

This is all he's ever done from the start brotha. He doesn't know anything, whether it's about this investigation or basketball.

17
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 25, 2014, 07:21 AM »
Complaining about the language in the Complaint is stupid. It's entirely biased and Plaintiffs plead facts or assertions that are often dropped or disproven later. It's about positioning the Plaintiff in a position to earn as much as possible from the beginning. To quote one boss I interned for, "just throw it all in there, we'll drop it if we need to."

18
Penn State Basketball / Re: PSU hoops articles, videos, etc.
« on: July 24, 2014, 03:54 PM »
Would love a 3 and D guy on our team. Haven't had one for a few years.

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: July 23, 2014, 12:36 PM »
You're making some leaps in your reply. It's a very religious corporation. The family is devout. They closed on Sundays to observe the Sabbath.

Well, I think only religious organizations should get religious exemptions as well (because what Hobby Lobby does has nothing to do with religion). It appears they do close on Sundays and do actually talk about God in their Company's mission. That still doesn't make them a religious organization though.

That still doesn't change how discriminatory the outcome eventually is and hypocritical it is to offer men Viagra but not offer women birth control. And further it doesn't change that all the company is doing is taking out a health insurance policy, the employee would select the coverage they get. The employer's interest is incredibly remote.

Sure, the left is against CItizens United

I think anyone with a working brain should be against Citizens United and their corporate language. They essentially said that corporations are people and can influence the outcome of elections because they have money and money = speech. Can corporations vote? Can corporations drive a car? Can corporations eat? Can corporations go for a run? What about corporations makes them PEOPLE? All they have is money and all they are is an entity. They should have NO VOICE in elections at all. Especially since it's a well known fact that the candidate that invests the most money tend to win elections (the number is obscenely high, somewhere over 80% I believe). Candidates now have to get the approval of the Corporations, what will come as a result of that?

CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And now corporations can be a part of the driving force that dictates what the real issues are. There's already enough special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington and this decision has made it a lot worse. If the Government's interests in preventing political corruption and the appearance of political corruption aren't enough to dictate why corporations shouldn't have a say in elections (because well um, they can't vote), then what can have a say? Why should corporations have free speech? Where does the Constitution say that corporations or business associations should have the protections of free speech? I'll save you some time, it's not there at all.

Anyway, case is over, get over it.

I'm sure that's what some white people said about Dred Scott as well. 

Re male vs female. Males don't get contraceptives covered. Who's being hypocritical? Viagra treats a medical condition. Birth control is like $30 per month, and it should be made OTC.

And birth control can do the same but you know what the vast majority of men use Viagra for, TO HAVE SEX. Do you know what the vast majority of women use birth control for? TO HAVE SEX AND NOT GET PREGNANT. These are very interwoven things. I wonder what the response from the Supreme Court would've been if it was men not being allowed to get Viagra. How can it be said that men are allowed to have sex whenever they want but women can't without the risk of pregnancy? And why can't women get it, because their employer won't let them get it out of their policy.

Quote
But you didn't respond to the 8 free visits women get. Women get 8 free visits, men get zero. How is this fair?

Because it's not relevant to the case.

21
Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:27 AM »
So we should be on the lookout for a Tone/Tony Carr visit soon.

22
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: July 23, 2014, 09:34 AM »
Not a believer in the First Amendment, I guess? My body, my choice, your responsibility? Sure, women can have contraceptives, but why does someone else have to pay for them? Re the tit for tat vs. men, don't think you want to go down that road. Did you know under the ACA, women get 7 "free" visits per year? I'm not joking. Do men get anything like this? Think of the cost. 8 visits, at let's say, $300 per visit x 100 million women=$240 billion annually. Who pays for these "free" visits? There's no such thing as a "free visit". Don't believe me? Show me where men get anything like this. Now, if you're honest, and think it should be "equal", the deck is stacked against men. Does any male here get 8 "free" visits per year, with no co-pay. Any idiot can give away "free" stuff to garner votes. It's an old trick. Effective, though.

Just to ignore the ACA stuff here and talk about the actual decision, since it didn't actually analyze the ACA from the perspective that you just carted out really without reason and it compared the ACA to the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Of course I believe in the First Amendment and a person's right to freely practice their religion but corporations and businesses need to actually practice religion in order to get protections of the First Amendment. In my opinion and in opinions written by the Supreme Court in the past (see Employment Division v. Smith), when deciding on whether a corporation should get a religious exemption, what should be examined is what the Corporation is and if the Corporation itself practices its religion. Yes, it's privately held but the corporation itself has no religious belief, it's an arts and crafts supply store. There's nothing religious about it and it doesn't practice any sort of religion. The family who owns it can be as religious as they want and practice those faiths, but their business should do the same if they want to get an exemption. Did you know that approximately 90% of the corporations in America are closely held? So now, any closely held corporation can claim a religious exemption even when they do not practice one, that to me is an abuse of the law and is derelict to the purpose of the First Amendment.

Also, we are focusing on the business, what about the employees of Hobby Lobby who don't practice a religion or who believe that contraceptives should be provided? They now don't get the same healthcare options as men do! How crazy is that? It's open discrimination against women because they aren't allowed to get the same coverage as men are, as explained next. You seem to conveniently omit that men can get Viagra and other male enhancement medicines at Hobby Lobby but women can't get contraceptives. Let's think about how unbelievably hypocritical that is. So, men are able to engage in all the sexual activity they want according to Hobby Lobby as long as they can get it up, but women aren't, or well they can and just get pregnant over and over again. That's not just, that's not a sound resolution and never mind the fact that birth control can be used as a cure for some diseases and conditions such as ovarian cysts.

Essentially, the Supreme Court has yet again bent backwards to give rights to corporations that they were never intended to have. Citizens United has started them on a track they can't stop yet. Hopefully some order can be restored but I don't hold my breath with this Court. Every time they seem to take a step forward (DOMA and Prop 8.), they always manage to take a few back (Hobby Lobby, Citizens United still being controlling and good law, McCutcheon could end up here depending what happens to the eventual contribution limit challenge that will be in front of the Court soon, I would expect in the next two years and their complete disregard that political corruption isn't going to look the same after Watergate, they aren't going to do the same thing again).

23
Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: July 23, 2014, 09:01 AM »
I think Maryland offered Tone Carr as well.

24
OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:48 PM »
I'm not familiar with the claims in that suit but I'd be interested to know the Statute of Limitations since most of the predominant ones expire after two years and since he was terminated in January 2012, that means it would have ran.

25
OT / Re: OT: PSU Football
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:06 PM »
A hush fell over the auditorium and the Alabama students began another
chant. "Give him another chance! Give him another chance!"

Hahaha

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 126