Jerry Sandusky

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:04 pm

I wonder how much he would have raised by now had he been a Gop presidential candidate.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:43 pm

Ahso!;1377196 wrote: I wonder how much he would have raised by now had be been a Gop presidential candidate.

Inches or money?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:54 pm

Money (Cain) or standings (Gingrich). It seems sex scandals do wonders for Gop candidates, and the more perverse the better from the party of Family Values. Too bad Sandusky wasn't a Gop candidate when the news broke, besides building up a nice treasure chest of funds for his defense he'd be enjoying the backing of FOX, Rush and the rest of the conservative media. The one thing they do well is deny. I'm not saying Jerry is guilty, all I am saying is he'd have a better chance of being shielded from the hysteria.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:11 pm

I think the Kennedy's and Clinton did pretty well, don't you?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:24 pm

hoppy;1377201 wrote: I think the Kennedy's and Clinton did pretty well, don't you?They never had the backing of the media to the extent Gop members enjoy, though in JFK's time the media kept that stuff a secret for both parties. But the point is that the Gop claims to be the pristine party concerning sex. The funny thing about it all is the fact that they are unabashed about the hypocrisy while their followers just keep dancing to the music. The Gop insult their faithful members terribly in the face.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:41 pm

You have sources for these claims?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:44 pm

hoppy;1377204 wrote: You have sources for these claims?Yup

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:13 pm

Ahso!;1377205 wrote: Yup

Well?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:51 am

What parts are you disputing? For general claims there's no need to look any further than the behavior and gullibility of the faithful. Are you one?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:59 am

Ahso!;1377212 wrote: What parts are you disputing? For general claims there's no need to look any further than the behavior and gullibility of the faithful. Are you one?

YOU said you had sources for your claims. Now you are hedging around like a typical liberal. Next, you'll tell us you are not a liberal, that you are some combination of something else, since no one wants to admit to being a stinkin liberal anymore.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:06 am

Ahso!;1377203 wrote: They never had the backing of the media to the extent Gop members enjoy, :yh_rotfl That's pretty good!

But to your question, do the Repubs still claim family values? I haven't heard that term used in ages, and Santorum isn't polling very well.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:28 am

hoppy;1377213 wrote: YOU said you had sources for your claims. Now you are hedging around like a typical liberal. Next, you'll tell us you are not a liberal, that you are some combination of something else, since no one wants to admit to being a stinkin liberal anymore.I'll provide the proof you seek if you'll tell me what part of what I've said requires verification.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:33 am

Accountable;1377214 wrote: :yh_rotfl That's pretty good!

But to your question, do the Repubs still claim family values? I haven't heard that term used in ages, and Santorum isn't polling very well.Thanks! You're in a jovial mood this morning.

They'll start with the family values thing as soon as the general election campaign begins probably. But if the nominee is going to be Newt or Cain, that will be one tuff road to ho.

Speaking of Santorum, I never really noticed before how much he talks through his teeth ala Clint Eastwood. I wonder if it's intentional.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:10 pm

Ahso!;1377227 wrote: Thanks! You're in a jovial mood this morning.

They'll start with the family values thing as soon as the general election campaign begins probably. But if the nominee is going to be Newt or Cain, that will be one tuff road to ho. No way. Family values is going to stay on the shelf this time. You have a first-marriage faithful father of two young'uns for competition. It would be like Michael Moore saying he supports a healthy lifestyle more than the local aerobics instructor. Actually, if Newt gets the nomination, it'll look like Michael Moore saying he supports a healthy lifestyle more than the local aerobics instructor.

Ahso!;1377227 wrote: Speaking of Santorum, I never really noticed before how much he talks through his teeth ala Clint Eastwood. I wonder if it's intentional.I dunno. I might be gritting my teeth like that, too, if I was dissed as badly as he has been this campaign. I'm sure he figures it's his turn, dangit!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:33 pm

And I thought this thread was about the Penn State scandal...........my husband, an alumni, is still shaking his head over the shame of it all.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:43 pm

chonsigirl;1377482 wrote: And I thought this thread was about the Penn State scandal...........my husband, an alumni, is still shaking his head over the shame of it all.I wouldn't do that because he's innocent until proven guilty. I was a bit wary about the title as it were and was ready to take it down had I been asked to by management.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:09 pm

Innocent till proven guilty which I believe her will be proven guilty. This creep should be behind bars. He has admitted to taking shower with 10 year old boys and horsing around makes me cringe, he is a sick pervert.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:49 pm

Is there a 15 year statute of limitations? The allegations only go back 15 years. Seems an unlike hobby to have picked up at the age of 52.