Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

I feel sorry for his wife.

They haven't even had their first anniversary yet, and he does this to her.

Weiner's wife puts on brave face amidst Twitter-photo scandal

She's standing by her man -- but that act seems to be wearing thin.

Rep. Anthony Weiner's humiliated wife sheepishly showed her face at a Washington event yesterday, keeping a stiff upper lip amid the swirling scandal surrounding her husband's tawdry Twitter photo.

Huma Abedin, 34, briefly hesitated at the State Department ballroom door before working up the courage to go in -- but she left after just five minutes and steered clear of her boss, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While she put on a brave face inside the Beltway, her husband was busy weaseling out of a long-scheduled speaking engagement at last night's Wisconsin Democratic Convention.

"He told us this morning" that he was canceling his appearance, said Graeme Zelinski, spokesman for the state's Democratic Party. "My understanding is he's going to spend the weekend with his wife in New York."

It seems like a good call, as Abedin's wounds still looked fresh yesterday.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with John Stewart: "You gotta come cleaner, Weiner."

He could clear this up in half an hour (assuming he's telling the truth) if he would just pick up a phone and call Twitter.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
You really don't think Wieners own words " I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow." aren't a tacit admission that he doesn't know what yfrog is, never used it, and just used a twitter client that used yfrog to host pictures ?
Click to expand...

Tacit, perhaps. Explicit, no. And that's the point. If a tacit admission is the best we have, we can't then treat it as fact. And that's what these right wing bloggers claiming the yfrog exploit was not possible are doing in order to make their version of events work.

TheL8Elvis said:
And by his own admission, he didn't authenticate to yfrog.
Click to expand...

He admitted no such thing. Again, his statements are being interpreted in this way, but Weiner never explicitly made any such admission.
 
Puppycow said:
He could clear this up in half an hour (assuming he's telling the truth) if he would just pick up a phone and call Twitter.
Click to expand...

You don't know he hasn't already done that. There is an ongoing investigation, and Weiner has no obligation to you or anyone else to reveal the details of that investigation until he sees fit.
 
Puppycow said:
I have to agree with John Stewart: "You gotta come cleaner, Weiner."

He could clear this up in half an hour (assuming he's telling the truth) if he would just pick up a phone and call Twitter.
Click to expand...

That, really, is the heart of the whole matter. It is within his power to clear up what happened. And he's not doing that.

I remember when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke. I really believed his denials. I believed all the explanations for why it didn't make sense that he would do it, all the reasons why he couldn't have done it without anyone noticing. But it was all lies. He was guilty. He really did do something so monumentally stupid, and all the explanations were just spin that I was foolish enough to believe because I wanted to believe it. I really don't know why anyone thinks Weiner couldn't (or wouldn't) have done this. Hell, it's not even nearly as stupid as what Clinton did.

But he's not clearing it up, and he probably won't, for the very simple and obvious reason that he did it. But it isn't the fact that he did it that's the real problem, it's how he's handled the situation. And that really is the problem, even if I'm wrong about him having done it. His behavior reveals a contempt for honesty and accountability, and the same self-entitlement that led to him racking up more than $2000 in parking tickets, even while railing against UN diplomats in New York not paying theirs. That is hardly unique among Congressmen, and it's not even the worst example of that all-too-common character flaw. But it's not nothing either.
 
Puppycow said:
I feel sorry for his wife.

They haven't even had their first anniversary yet, and he does this to her.

Weiner's wife puts on brave face amidst Twitter-photo scandal



I have to agree with John Stewart: "You gotta come cleaner, Weiner."

He could clear this up in half an hour (assuming he's telling the truth) if he would just pick up a phone and call Twitter.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't feel that sorry for her. You do realize that that's a heavily loaded and hugely un-journalistic article, right. What passes for news in the NY Post is not dissimilar to what passes for news on Glenn Beck's Fox broadcast. There are not less than fifteen heavily emotionally loaded terms in that piece, not one of which is backed up by anything other than the fact that it appears in a purported "news"paper.
 
johnny karate said:
He has no obligation to.
Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. But at the same time, the public has no obligation to refrain from drawing conclusions based on his failure to clear up the situation. The logical inference that he is guilty still remains. If Weiner is happy with people making the logical inference even if it's not correct, then he is indeed free to continue with his approach and not make the truth known.
 
Ziggurat said:
In a sense, yes. But at the same time, the public has no obligation to refrain from drawing conclusions based on his failure to clear up the situation.
Click to expand...

Those of us who know what is going on have no reason to believe that Weiner did anything inappropriate, thus does not need to explain it. Those who haven't figured out that somebody who doesn't like Weiner staged the event don't matter that much because they are probably just disappointed birfers looking for SOME Democrat, ANY Democrat to bring down.

That they seem to think that the sludge monster has actually gotten hold of legitimate evidence to show that somebody else is sleazy speaks poorly of their intelligence or knowledge of who the sludge monster is.
 
Ziggurat said:
In a sense, yes. But at the same time, the public has no obligation to refrain from drawing conclusions based on his failure to clear up the situation. The logical inference that he is guilty still remains. If Weiner is happy with people making the logical inference even if it's not correct, then he is indeed free to continue with his approach and not make the truth known.
Click to expand...

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, but I disagree that the logical inference is that he's guilty. I think the logical inference is that we don't yet have enough information to make an informed decision.

It's kind of sad that some people determine the validity of an accusation not by its merits but by scrutinizing the behavior of the accused.
 
johnny karate said:
It's kind of sad that some people determine the validity of an accusation not by its merits but by scrutinizing the behavior of the accused.
Click to expand...

We know about as much as Weiner does as to how the picture came into the hands of the sludge monster and the rats who feed him.

I think that the known character of the accuser in this case serves as evidence that the whole affair is an unsuccessful crime in progress being committed by the sludge monster.
 
johnny karate said:
It's kind of sad that some people determine the validity of an accusation not by its merits but by scrutinizing the behavior of the accused.
Click to expand...

It's kind of sad that some people refuse to consider obvious behavioral evidence that's staring them in the face.
 
anduin said:
To be fair, I'm on your side on this debate, and I think that your level of reading comprehension is appalling. You seem to miss every nuance in the story and every attempt at sarcasm.
Click to expand...

That's ironic! Because to buttress your claim, you used a quote I made that is completely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. It makes me wonder about your reading comprehension.

However, because we're on the same side, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :) I have openly and honestly admitted when called on errors (one of which involved sarcasm from someone on "my side"). Which is something the "other side" never does.

I pointed out that The Smoking Gun posts articles that challenge the assumptions of both "sides," some of which add fuel to support either side's Conspiracy Theories.

And I have explained my point of view in regards to whom I consider "Liberal" or "Leftist." Which alludes to Tommy Christopher and his article in which he goes out of his way to give Breitbart cover. And in doing so, provides evidence that supports "our side's" claims.

I have pointed out that speculation regarding Weiner's behaviour is speculating.

So next time you see a post of mine which you believe to be incorrect, please quote the relevant post and offer evidence. If I am categorically wrong, I will admit it (a rarity at JREF). If the appearance of "wrongness" is based on a misperception of my views, I will explain my views.

GB
 
johnny karate said:
You don't know he hasn't already done that. There is an ongoing investigation, and Weiner has no obligation to you or anyone else to reveal the details of that investigation until he sees fit.
Click to expand...
It seems very unlikely that he would have done that and not told anyone about it.
johnny karate said:
He has no obligation to.
Click to expand...

Not even for his wife's sake?
Well, gosh, no I suppose he doesn't have an obligation to clear anything up.

But then the public is under no obligation to believe him either.

And the late night shows and Comedy Central are under no obligation to stop mocking him either.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's kind of sad that some people refuse to consider obvious behavioral evidence that's staring them in the face.
Click to expand...

The "behavioral evidence" doesn't point to anything obvious. If it did, there would be an obvious reason why Weiner would deny sending the tweet, but not deny the photo is him.
 
Puppycow said:
It seems very unlikely that he would have done that and not told anyone about it.
Click to expand...

Personal incredulity noted. Again, it's an ongoing investigation. It could be that Weiner was hacked (in the common parlance), is now building a case against those responsible, and therefore doesn't want to reveal any details of the investigation at this point.

Puppycow said:
Not even for his wife's sake?
Click to expand...

You have no idea how his wife feels about it.

Puppycow said:
Well, gosh, no I suppose he doesn't have an obligation to clear anything up.

But then the public is under no obligation to believe him either.

And the late night shows and Comedy Central are under no obligation to stop mocking him either.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. Weiner is certainly making himself a punchline with his evasive behavior. But that's his choice and has no bearing whatsoever in determining his guilt or innocence.
 
Emet said:
Isn't this the source?
Click to expand...

Yes! I'm SHOCKED :jaw-dropp shocked I tell you!!

I'm so sorry that I used a list from a site maintained by a school of higher education. :rolleyes: I promise not to use any more sources from a site maintained by a college or university, because they are clearly biased in favour of reality :p (by the way, I have my fingers crossed behind my back).

Yes, clearly you've debunked this post (not really):

Gandalfs Beard said:
Sorry? Were you laughing at your own severe lack of education?

GB
Click to expand...


GB
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, sure. And Weiner is sure to produce evidence to that effect any day now.
Click to expand...

He is not obligated to satisfy the curiousity of anyone dim enough to believe that the sludge monster has anything incriminating against him.

He has better things to do, and we need him to attend to far more important things than attend to the methane emmissions of some neurotic little punk who is taking it out on the world because his danglies are still hung up in his inguinal canals.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
Yes! I'm SHOCKED :jaw-dropp shocked I tell you!!

I'm so sorry that I used a list from a site maintained by a school of higher education. :rolleyes: I promise not to use any more sources from a site maintained by a college or university, because they are clearly biased in favour of reality :p
Click to expand...

You're not from Washington, are you?

I am personally quite happy with anything that Evergreen might present to the public, but its reputation is not all that good among Republicons and other less intellectual persons. It is seen as one of the last outposts of the 1960s hippies.

(Which is ironic,since it was founded by a moderate Republican, back before those went extinct.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom