Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[thaiboxerken]

This is only an "issue" because the GOP has been losing on the important, political and economic issues. A distraction is what they need, but after this stupid story is forgotten we'll get back to the GOP's "kill Medicare" issue.

 

[leftysergeant]

Spare us your faux moral outrage. Ask the guy sending lewd pics of his crotch to girls young enough to be his daughter if he has any dignity.

You have only the word of the sludge monster that he did that. That and twenty dollars will get you a forty ounce Olde English.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hello Paul Ryan, I wanted to ask you "why do you want to kill Medicare."

Ryan: Anthony Weiner sent an immoral tweet!!!

 

[leftysergeant]

He doesn't have to do anything to put this behind him except report it to the authorities. That would have saved him hours questions from reporters, with the simple answer, "I reported it to the police. Check with them to see what they found." Is innocence would have been proven in the 15 minutes it would have taken to identify the IP address. That's of course if he was innocent.

This is the same reasoning that the twoofers, birfers and neo-Nazis use. Nobody is obligated to disprove them, nor is anybody entitled to use anything that the sludge monster brings forth to criticize any adult citizen. Citing the sludge monster should be indictable as conspiracy to commit fraud and a few other minor crimes.

The sludge monster and the two sociopathic sexual deviants should be compelled by law to prove to a panel of industry experts that the the tweet was Weiner's own idea before any adult ever repeats what they have to say.

The only thing that anybody owes to anyone here is an apology from the rightwing noise machine to Weiner for bothering him and to the American people for trying to distract us from the Republicons' efforts to destroy the middle class and America as we knew it.

 

[Nova Land]

He doesn't have to do anything to put this behind him except report it to the authorities. That would have saved him hours questions from reporters, with the simple answer, "I reported it to the police. Check with them to see what they found." Is innocence would have been proven in the 15 minutes it would have taken to identify the IP address. That's of course if he was innocent.

This is the same reasoning that the twoofers, birfers and neo-Nazis use.

Yes.

And it never works. Just produce the birth certificate. Just let us rummage through your hard drive. Just answer this or produce that. And of course when the question is answered they are immediately asking ten more, claiming a perceived hesitation indicates the person was lying, that an ink smudge on the paper means it's a forgery, that saying you were at home with 10 unimpeachable witnesses on the night in question raises the question of why you happened to have witnesses present then (and the question of where you were the previous ten nights). No matter what Weiner had said or done, the people who are predisposed to disbelieve him would have found ways to perceive it as further evidence he was hiding something.

Which he may be. But until people come up with a consistent standard for judging when evasiveness means someone is hiding something and needs to be pursued (Anthony Weiner) and when evasiveness is nothing we need to be concerned about (Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch, Mike Stark, Dan Wolfe) and apply that standard consistently, the equating of evasiveness with dishonesty is worthless as a tool for skeptical inquiry.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, that's what the 9/11 folks keep telling us.

Nice attempt to poison the well. But you're the one, not me, who's alleging a conspiracy here. What I'm alleging is quite ordinary. Boring, in fact, in its mundaneness.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hello Paul Ryan, I wanted to ask you "why do you want to kill Medicare."

Ryan: Anthony Weiner sent an immoral tweet!!!

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that you're just making **** up.

 

[johnny karate]

Anytime someone is arrested, cited, indicted, they are assumed by the authorities of being guilty. How perverse of them!

What an excellent point a dazzling display of insight into how the criminal justice system works.

I look forward to the statistical data regarding successful indictments made on "He was acting weird" you will surely be providing to drive this point home.

 

[tyr_13]

Weiner cancels scheduled speaking engagement in Wisconsin to "spend time with his wife."



I could speculate as to why he needs to spend time with his wife. But that would be speculation, something that only conspiracy theorists do.

I'll speculate. Speculating isn't a problem; believe speculation constitutes evidence is a problem. Acting like any speculation is the truth is a problem. Acting like one valid speculation is completely crazy simply because it isn't the one you favor is a problem. (Note, that I'm not saying all speculation is equal. Some is clearly out there.)

Speculation: He didn't send the picture, but it is of him. The attention and presence of the picture publicly is putting strain on him or his relationship with his wife. It doesn't necessarily mean that she's the one who needs help with the stress, he could, she could, the both could really use the time together.

Speculation: The picture is of him and he sent it. There is a strain in their relationship because of his 'flirting' (understatement), and spending time together might bring the back closer together. The attention doesn't help matters.

Speculation: He didn't send the picture and is of him. They don't like the fact that what was supposed to be their own private little game has gone public and are worried that the other pictures will surface.

Speculation: He sent the picture and it is of him. The attention being paid to the picture and entire situation has made one or both of them inordinately horny and they are using the time together to get their freak on.

Speculation: He didn't send the picture, it is of him, and he's begging his wife to stay with him because she uncovered sex texting messages on his phone.

 

[johnny karate]

Nice attempt to poison the well. But you're the one, not me, who's alleging a conspiracy here. What I'm alleging is quite ordinary. Boring, in fact, in its mundaneness.

Being boring doesn't make you right.

Exactly how many right wing conspiracies to defame and discredit the left must take place in order for you to allow for the possibility that another might be occurring?

Because apparently the half dozen or so that have taken place in the last couple of years aren't enough.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that you're just making **** up.

Dear GOP, what are you going to do to create jobs?



GOP: Look at Anthony Weiner's weiner!!!

 

[Ziggurat]

Being boring doesn't make you right.

It makes the comparison to 9/11 truthers pretty irrelevant. Which, in case you didn't notice, was my point.

Exactly how many right wing conspiracies to defame and discredit the left must take place in order for you to allow for the possibility that another might be occurring?

How many political sex scandals must take place in order for you to allow for the possibility that another one (and a pretty damned mild one at that) might be occurring?

 

[Nova Land]

Nice attempt to poison the well. But you're the one, not me, who's alleging a conspiracy here. What I'm alleging is quite ordinary. Boring, in fact, in its mundaneness.

If you don't want to have your methods of argumentation and evidence compared to 9/11 Truth people's methods of argumentation and evidence, don't use those methods.

You are using the same techniques to conclude Weiner is guilty of wrong-doing as the 9/11 people do to prove the US gov't is guilty of wrong-doing. Instead of offering any actual evidence, you offer us argumentation based on the idea that if a person does not respond to questions and provocations in the way you claim an innocent person ought to then they must be guilty. That's not a very reliable way for determining innocence or guilt in the real world.

As to my alleging a conspiracy, yes, I have. That's because it has been well-established there was one. A number of people were quietly working together in early May trying to find a way to bring down Anthony Weiner with a sex scandal. That's well-established by evidence. There is the testimony of people they contacted and harassed in this effort. There are screen-shots of their communications. Even Breitbart seems to be admitting that these folks were engaging in an organized effort to get Weiner, now that he's in danger of considered part of the group rather than a dupe.

Here once again is Tommy Christopher describing the actions of this group:

It was Betty who pointed out the activities of Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) and his clique, including a man named Mike Stack (@goatsred). She had a lot of information that I could not verify, but those facts that were independently verifiable formed the basis of our reporting on Wolfe Sunday afternoon. Wolfe and Stack, along with several others, had engaged in a campaign of harassing young, mostly-underage girls who were being followed by Rep. Weiner, as well as a constant stream of vitriol, homophobic innuendo, and rumormongering against Rep. Weiner. Betty was one of those young girls, and their unwanted attention, she says, caused her to shut down her Twitter feed.

Betty’s mother (we’ll call her Mrs. Betty) says that she and her husband monitor all of Betty’s internet usage, and were incensed by this group’s behavior. Rep. Weiner, she confirms, never contacted Betty privately, with the exception of a Direct Message welcoming her to his Twitter stream, a message Mrs. Betty assumed was automatically generated.

A high school friend of Betty’s, whom I will call Veronica (she’s a minor), was also contacted, via Twitter, by a member of the group, Mike Stack (@goatsred)...

Now, whether tweeting the crotch shot and pretending it came from Weiner was part of the conspiracy has not yet been established. That's a separate question. But as to the question of whether there was a conspiracy? That has been established. And wasn't established through your 9/11-style behavior analysis; it was established by Tommy Christopher and others by the use of evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

How many political sex scandals must take place in order for you to allow for the possibility that another one (and a pretty damned mild one at that) might be occurring?

Well, unlike other people I haven't dismissed any possibilities out of hand based on my political biases.

Weiner could very well be guilty of what he's accused. But there's compelling evidence that he might not be.

As I've said before, I prefer to wait until all the facts are in before I render judgment.

 

[Nova Land]

More evidence that his tale is unraveling: According to TweetCongress.org the picture was transmitted using TweetDeck — a popular Adobe desktop application that links up with social networking sites.

Chet Wisniewski, a senior security adviser at security software company SophosLabs, said the TweetDeck stamp “does make it more plausible that it did come from him.”

This information doesn’t rule out the possibility that his Twitter account was infiltrated. But experts say it adds another hurdle for his alibi.

“The complexity goes up,” said Chris McCroskey, the Texas software developer who founded TweetCongress.org.

Yes, you have quoted a person from a rather uninformative article claiming that Weiner using TweetDeck makes it more plausible the tweet came from him. But the article doesn't explain why this is seen as making Weiner significantly more likely or Wolfe and Stack any less likely. Would you care to explain what the reasoning is, so we can see if it stands up?

As far as I can see, Weiner's use of TweetDeck that day would have no bearing at all on the question of whether someone else used the yFrog exploit to generate the tweet.

If there is a good reason why Weiner's use of TweetDeck would have made it more difficult for Wolfe or Stack to use the exploit, I'm puzzled why the Daily Caller article see fit to include that information. But perhaps you can remedy that oversight by looking up the explanation and sharing it here.

 

[Neally]

Nobody is obligated to disprove them

No one said they were. It's entirely up to Weiner as to whether he wants to put this thing to rest or not.

nor is anybody entitled to use anything that the sludge monster brings forth to criticize any adult citizen. Citing the sludge monster should be indictable as conspiracy to commit fraud and a few other minor crimes.

Typical over the top leftysergeant statement. Thankfully the rule of law which includes free speech, prevents people from being arrested for citing sources that you personally hate.

The sludge monster and the two sociopathic sexual deviants should be compelled by law to prove to a panel of industry experts that the the tweet was Weiner's own idea before any adult ever repeats what they have to say.

See above.

I look forward to the statistical data regarding successful indictments made on "He was acting weird" you will surely be providing to drive this point home.

I don't need to provide further data that proves my point that the presumption of innocence principle applies to trials. Outside of that, people are arrested, cited, indicted, because they are assumed by the authorities of being guilty. The court presumes them innocent, prosecutors presumes them guilty. Tell me again who is perverse?

 

[leftysergeant]

No one said they were. It's entirely up to Weiner as to whether he wants to put this thing to rest or not.

No. It's up to the sludge monster to prove that he is not once again trying to commit a crime against people of more use to society than a less-than-half man like him will ever be.

Typical over the top leftysergeant statement. Thankfully the rule of law which includes free speech, prevents people from being arrested for citing sources that you personally hate.

But you are fine with sub-human trash like the sludge monster trying to rouse the low-IQ rabble against a decent, law-abiding citizen. Anybody who repeats the sludge monster's swill as though there were the slightest merit to it, to the detriment of a human being, is aiding and abetting a crime against humanity. The sludge monster's whole career has been an offense against all that is civilized.

The court presumes them innocent, prosecutors presumes them guilty. Tell me again who is perverse?

Anybody who says anything detrimental to another person based on some crap that they heard from the sludge monster.

 

[Neally]

Yes, you have quoted a person from a rather uninformative article claiming that Weiner using TweetDeck makes it more plausible the tweet came from him. But the article doesn't explain why this is seen as making Weiner significantly more likely or Wolfe and Stack any less likely. Would you care to explain what the reasoning is, so we can see if it stands up?

According to the article, the offending tweet came from TweetDeck. Weiner had been posting only from TweetDeck that entire night. The hacker would have had to known to use TweetDeck if they wanted to make it appear to be from Weiner. Again, not impossible that couldn't have happened, but it adds a layer of complexity that the hackers would have had to be aware of to pull it off. In any case, we have these additional security experts saying there is a simple, quick, definitive way to answer it. Weiner has chosen so far not to do that.

Anybody who repeats the sludge monster's swill as though there were the slightest merit to it, to the detriment of a human being, is aiding and abetting a crime against humanity.

Sounds like you are making a case for Weiner to do the right thing and let the police get to the bottom of it. Almost like he has an obligation to humanity to prevent further crimes against it. Wait, I thought you said he has no obligation...

 

[Brainster]

If you don't want to have your methods of argumentation and evidence compared to 9/11 Truth people's methods of argumentation and evidence, don't use those methods.

You are using the same techniques to conclude Weiner is guilty of wrong-doing as the 9/11 people do to prove the US gov't is guilty of wrong-doing. Instead of offering any actual evidence, you offer us argumentation based on the idea that if a person does not respond to questions and provocations in the way you claim an innocent person ought to then they must be guilty. That's not a very reliable way for determining innocence or guilt in the real world.

If that was the only evidence in favor of Weiner's guilt, you might have a point here. But in fact, Joe Cannon and the Weiner supporters like you around here are the ones behaving like Truthers. Instead of accepting the simplest solution, you concoct ever-more elaborate conspiracy theories. When new evidence emerges (such as the tweet-deck observation, or the revelation that you have to authorize your yfrog account to automatically post pics on Twitter), the conclusion never changes; the conspiracy theory just adds another layer.

I am quite sure that when Weiner gives his now-inevitable, "I am a lewd-pic tweeting American," speech, half of you will be talking about how statesman-like it was, and the other half will be claiming he confessed only to spare Dan Wolfe's children.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't need to provide further data that proves my point that the presumption of innocence principle applies to trials. Outside of that, people are arrested, cited, indicted, because they are assumed by the authorities of being guilty. The court presumes them innocent, prosecutors presumes them guilty. Tell me again who is perverse?

Your attempt to equate the prosecutor's presumption of guilt with the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of our legal system is idiotic.

The key difference - and one that applies to the incident being discussed - is that only the prosecution has to make a case to support their presumption.

In other words, what the prosecution or the police or anyone presumes doesn't amount to a damn thing unless they can prove it.