Jump to content

Say it ain't so, Joe


Viper

Recommended Posts

Jon Stewart puts a little bit of humor into this horrible, horrible situation by verbally destroying Sandusky.

http://gawker.com/5859949/jon-stewart-goes-off-on-jerry-sandusky

God leave it to Jon Stewart to say what we were all thinking. I mean if he were really innocent of this would he be so passive about the whole thing. I know if someone accused me of something like this and I'm innocent I'm screaming at the top of my lungs that I am. Not hemming and hawing. It really did sound like he almost wanted to admit it. Like he's one of those pervs you see on 48 hours or the like who don't see anything wrong with having sex with children. Sickos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Guy took 16 seconds to answer if he was sexually attracted to young boys. 16 seconds.

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7242840/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-lawyer-says-client-testify-jerry-sandusky

Thankfully they also have a new judge assigned to this trial. Probably just a matter of time before we find out he was affiliated with Lions football.

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from, well, children getting sexually abused, here's the thing that bothers me the most about this whole mess:

Even if McQueary had blown the lid off of it when he had the chance back in 2002, even "only" two kids known to have been abused instead of eight would still have been more than enough to devastate the program, cost everyone involved, including McQueary, their careers, and land a good many of them behind bars - pretty much the same situation Penn State is in now as it is.

In other words, delaying the day of reckoning by nine years by covering it up did not make the consequences of said reckoning significantly any worse for those doing the covering up.

In other other words, the coverup was not a failure but a resounding success, in that for thirteen years dating back to 1998, it not only accomplished exactly what its participants intended it to, but did so with no net cost to them over that time.

Not exactly a resounding warning to others against doing such a thing.

CCSLC signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the only reason they lost their jobs and face jail time is the coverup. You can't be held accountable for unwittingly trusting/hiring/discovering a monster, only for enabling them.

I'm still not comfortable with the term 'enabling'. I know indirectly that's what they did, but the word suggests more proactivity than was the case. But the point you make is entirely correct. Indeed if McQueery on Paterno had gone to the police when they first heard of the allegations, they would be considered brave, maybe even heroic.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from, well, children getting sexually abused, here's the thing that bothers me the most about this whole mess:

Even if McQueary had blown the lid off of it when he had the chance back in 2002, even "only" two kids known to have been abused instead of eight would still have been more than enough to devastate the program, cost everyone involved, including McQueary, their careers, and land a good many of them behind bars - pretty much the same situation Penn State is in now as it is.

In other words, delaying the day of reckoning by nine years by covering it up did not make the consequences of said reckoning significantly any worse for those doing the covering up.

In other other words, the coverup was not a failure but a resounding success, in that for thirteen years dating back to 1998, it not only accomplished exactly what its participants intended it to, but did so with no net cost to them over that time.

Not exactly a resounding warning to others against doing such a thing.

I think you are completely wrong.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***Disclaimer: This is NOT tax advice. I have to disclose that as a CPA.***

There ARE possible estate tax advantages but they would be null here because of the amount of money they would have in their estate. You're limited to $5,000,000 exempt in 2011. They're both not dying in 2011, and they have to have well over that anyway.

Also note that a husband and wife have an UNLIMITED estate tax exclusion. It's when they BOTH are dead that it becomes an issue to their heirs. Husband dies, no tax is incurred. Wife dies, no tax is incurred. It's only once heirs come into the fold that Uncle Sam comes calling, at the low-low rate of 35%.

You can also "gift" $13,000 a year (or $26,000 as husband and wife) to ANYONE tax-free per annum, up to $5,000,000 lifetime. But gifting between a husband and wife is literally meaningless in terms of an estate.

***Disclaimer: The information I present here is accurate as of late 1993. 18 years have passed, and it may no longer be valid.

While there aren't significant federal tax advantages to making a $1 real estate transfer among spouses, in Pennsylvania it is VERY common to do so within families - husbands to wives, fathers to sons (had a few of those myself), cousins to cousins. Newspapers are littered with notices (which, along with business organizations, inexplicably, required to be published in newspapers in the area) of these.

The reason isn't taxation as much as it is probate: Pennsylvania has over 300 years (dating back to colonial times) of probate case law, a good bit of which is seriously screwed up. As a general rule, a Pennsylvania attorney helping with estate planning will tell you that unless you have some really compelling reason not to do so, turn over any real estate to your intended heirs before you die.

Even with what was seen as an "ironclad" will, a friend of my family's death caused over a decade's worth of lawsuits among family members, all over an interpretation of two paragraphs of Pennsylvania probate law that dated back to 1868. So while on the surface Paterno's $1 sale to his wife may look suspicious, those in the know will tell you that it means absolutely nothing.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would likely be a good time to point out Sue Paterno is 13 years younger than Joe Paterno, so yeah it was probably simple estate planning.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future it looks like their could be a significant increase in the death tax if Obama had his way, so selling the house to his wife was a very good idea. Joe Paterno has also had some recent health issues and at 85 it is wise to make some plans now in case something happens.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future it looks like their could be a significant increase in the death tax if Obama had his way, so selling the house to his wife was a very good idea. Joe Paterno has also had some recent health issues and at 85 it is wise to make some plans now in case something happens.

You didn't read what NJMeadowlanders posted, did you?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the only reason they lost their jobs and face jail time is the coverup. You can't be held accountable for unwittingly trusting/hiring/discovering a monster, only for enabling them.

I'm still not comfortable with the term 'enabling'. I know indirectly that's what they did, but the word suggests more proactivity than was the case.

In any ordinary cover-up, I'd probably agree with you.

But giving Sandusky access to the buildings, giving him a place where he could commit his crimes (usually) away from the eyes of people who might stop him? Yeah, I'd call that enabling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future it looks like their could be a significant increase in the death tax if Obama had his way, so selling the house to his wife was a very good idea. Joe Paterno has also had some recent health issues and at 85 it is wise to make some plans now in case something happens.

Let's see: so far in this thread, we've had pedophilia, the pope, college football, taxes, catholicism, ponies, Nazis, hockey, Family Guy, Jon Stewert, pirates of the Caribbean, and now, to make it all complete, we finally collected an Obama comment! This thread is turning out to be quite interesting.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future it looks like their could be a significant increase in the death tax if Obama had his way, so selling the house to his wife was a very good idea. Joe Paterno has also had some recent health issues and at 85 it is wise to make some plans now in case something happens.

Let's see: so far in this thread, we've had pedophilia, the pope, college football, taxes, catholicism, ponies, Nazis, hockey, Family Guy, Jon Stewert, pirates of the Caribbean, and now, to make it all complete, we finally collected an Obama comment! This thread is turning out to be quite interesting.

I'm surprised it took ol' Tanker that long to bring Obama into this.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the only reason they lost their jobs and face jail time is the coverup. You can't be held accountable for unwittingly trusting/hiring/discovering a monster, only for enabling them.

I'm still not comfortable with the term 'enabling'. I know indirectly that's what they did, but the word suggests more proactivity than was the case.

In any ordinary cover-up, I'd probably agree with you.

But giving Sandusky access to the buildings, giving him a place where he could commit his crimes (usually) away from the eyes of people who might stop him? Yeah, I'd call that enabling.

Well again, it's not like Sandusky filled in a form to apply for space to sodomize young boys, and the authorities signed it off, or even that most of the time they knew what was going on. Yes there are people culpable of not handling the situation as they should have, but that's a world away from the proactivity of 'enabling'.

I don't personally know how Sandusky wasn't fired as soon as McQuery brought the shower incident to the authorities attention, and why then the police weren't brought in to discover exactly what had occured, but not doing so is not enabling Sandusky, in my view.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the only reason they lost their jobs and face jail time is the coverup. You can't be held accountable for unwittingly trusting/hiring/discovering a monster, only for enabling them.

I'm still not comfortable with the term 'enabling'. I know indirectly that's what they did, but the word suggests more proactivity than was the case.

In any ordinary cover-up, I'd probably agree with you.

But giving Sandusky access to the buildings, giving him a place where he could commit his crimes (usually) away from the eyes of people who might stop him? Yeah, I'd call that enabling.

Well again, it's not like Sandusky filled in a form to apply for space to sodomize young boys, and the authorities signed it off, or even that most of the time they knew what was going on. Yes there are people culpable of not handling the situation as they should have, but that's a world away from the proactivity of 'enabling'.

I don't personally know how Sandusky wasn't fired as soon as McQuery brought the shower incident to the authorities attention, and why then the police weren't brought in to discover exactly what had occured, but not doing so is not enabling Sandusky, in my view.

Fired from what? He retired in 1999, he had no real buisness being there in the first place.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the only reason they lost their jobs and face jail time is the coverup. You can't be held accountable for unwittingly trusting/hiring/discovering a monster, only for enabling them.

I'm still not comfortable with the term 'enabling'. I know indirectly that's what they did, but the word suggests more proactivity than was the case.

In any ordinary cover-up, I'd probably agree with you.

But giving Sandusky access to the buildings, giving him a place where he could commit his crimes (usually) away from the eyes of people who might stop him? Yeah, I'd call that enabling.

Well again, it's not like Sandusky filled in a form to apply for space to sodomize young boys, and the authorities signed it off, or even that most of the time they knew what was going on. Yes there are people culpable of not handling the situation as they should have, but that's a world away from the proactivity of 'enabling'.

I don't personally know how Sandusky wasn't fired as soon as McQuery brought the shower incident to the authorities attention, and why then the police weren't brought in to discover exactly what had occured, but not doing so is not enabling Sandusky, in my view.

Fired from what? He retired in 1999, he had no real buisness being there in the first place.

It's pretty common for prominent people to be given access to a physical office and possibly company resources when they retire (usually it's the case with CEOs and not assistant coaches, but still.) Some use it to run foundations, some use it to write books, some... well, I don't know. But it's not unheard of.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unbelievable part is that they knew this was going on and all they ever did was take away his keys to the locker room. He was hanging out with boys until, what, a few weeks ago?

I want to argue Saintsfan's semantic point that enabling has to be active, and Paterno/Penn State wasn't. Doing nothing, in this case, was doing something.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to argue Saintsfan's semantic point that enabling has to be active, and Paterno/Penn State wasn't. Doing nothing, in this case, was doing something.

I am not applauding their lack of action, and there is a culpability in the University authorities. It is a semantic point, but I don't like the word 'enabling', though admittedly I don't know what word I would use.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.