Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: FlJoePa

Disheartening that anyone would still be defending that enabler of pedophiles, Joe Paterno.

He reported that his assistant saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the shower. Paterno did the bare legal minimum and no more. And Paterno continued to allow Sandusky access to Penn State facilities for *years* after that report.

Character shows in difficult situations. Paterno revealed himself to be a total scumbag. He either didn’t believe the assistant (yet kept him on the staff) or was okay that Sandusky continued to walk around a free man to abuse more boys.

Which one is it, apologists?


24 posted on 09/16/2013 7:34:58 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: highball
He reported that his assistant saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the shower.

No he didn't. You're clueless. The assistant himself wasn't clear about what he saw. You are aware, aren't you, that the shower incident was the one incident Sandusky was ruled "not guilty" on? Of course you aren't - - you're clueless. In fact, I'd say it's you who are the scumbag.

28 posted on 09/16/2013 7:40:41 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: highball

You have almost everything imaginable incorrect in your post. I take that back - you have everything incorrect.


29 posted on 09/16/2013 7:41:56 PM PDT by FlJoePa ("Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson