Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Snide]

This is a Skeptics forum. As soon as Weiner failed to deny the photo was him, it was obvious he was guilty. Yet you kept trying to blame Breitbart for the whole thing. Which made you wrong, whether you admit it or not.

This. And no, saying "I wish" doesn't count. He never gave a straight denial, and that's when we all should have known something was up, no pun intended.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

For GB: you are nominated for the US Grenade Leaping Upon team in the 2012 Olympics. You got game.

I guess that's something. I'm always willing to go wherever the argument goes. If it's a Rational discussion I'm game, and if it's a grenade lobbing Flame War I'm game for that too.

I don't think either side was looking too good before Weiner 'fessed up! It was just dueling links and hyperbolic speculation until that point. But I think I've been pretty straightforward from the start. I promised to follow the evidence wherever it led, even if it meant admitting I was wrong. And I did.

Here's a fun little hypothesis in re Congressman Weiner:

Oh no...not speculation again!

you've all been had. The narrative goes something like this:

His wife was getting suspicious, but couldn't sort out who he might be seeing other than her. (Note in an early page of this thread, that she was accused by one of our posters of marrying him for convenience, as she's allegedly (huh?) the Secretary of State's lover). He senses her probing about and has his lover take a few pics of his package to create some bait. His lover, in this story, is a nice young man from a lobbying firm in DC. The misdirection uses Drudge Wannabe Breitbart as conduit to getting a thread of him lusting after young ladies in his heart, a la Jimmy Carter, though never consumating this desire in the flesh.

Big noise, all flash, no boom. The only tactical error is the pointless lying early on about what he did or did not do, but that did provide extra cover.

We arrive at today, with the story being he and his wife "working through this" and his gay love affair (heck, in this narrative, if he's bi, why not have lovers of any sort that gets his Kilbasa interested?) now a very well protected secret. No Gary Hart moment for this guy.

Pretty much an A, or A-, in false flag operation.

Very entertaining!

I tell ya, I finally give props to the CT loons I arrived on the JREF forums to kick over four years ago. Their brain waves and lunacy gave me some framework material that helped me come up with that little jest, which closes my participation in this thread.

Everyone has some sort of CT, whether they cop to it or not.

Who really cares about Weiner's wiener?

Nobody with a life, except his wife.

Who would have guessed it would end this way? Now we're all on the same page.

GB

 

[Roadtoad]

More emerging on this "story."

Thanks, Andrew Breitbart. Political discourse takes another nosedive into the compost.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

More emerging on this "story."

Thanks, Andrew Breitbart. Political discourse takes another nosedive into the compost.

They're probing Weiner?

In Russia, Weiner probes you!

 

[Roadtoad]

They're probing Weiner?

In Russia, Weiner probes you!

Dammit, milk all over the keyboard...

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Dammit, milk all over the keyboard...

All that's left is wiener jokes and cleaning up after the party.

GB

 

[Brainster]

In terms of politics, the answer in my opinion should be "yes" to both of those. I've thought about it a lot in the past few days, and I don't think it should be anybody's business if a politician--regardless of campaign position or ideology--has an affair until laws are broken, and at that point it shouldn't be a national circus like affairs always are. Even at that extreme point (say, for example, the alleged crimes committed in covering up the affair by John Edwards), it's really only the business (in terms of covering all the sordid details over and over) of the people involved and the law. Voters simply need to know "this guy had an affair, take that into consideration when you vote for him."

It would have been nice if Weiner had mentioned his affairs in his campaign literature the last time around so that the voters could take that fact into account. And until the press starts digging we don't know if any laws have been broken, for example on whether he used US government phones/computers/blackberries to pursue his dalliances.

It's an extremely idealistic stance to take, I guess, but the way I see it, people should vote on candidate's stances on issues (or even just their ideology, at a baser level), not on "he seems like a nice guy that wouldn't do anything bad."

So if, say, Andrew Breitbart were to renounce conservatism and you found that his new stance and ideology matched yours, you would vote for him?

 

[Brainster]

It's the boy who cried wolf routine; Breitbart has been wrong so often that when he is right and actully has the goods that people have a good reason for being very skeptical.
Fact is both sides have attack dogs who main task is throwing stuff at the opposition, regardless of whether there is any truth to it or not. I always put a huge discount on information from sources like that.

Skepticism is fine. Stuffing your index fingers into your ears and saying lalalala I'm not listening lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala as many did in this thread is not skepticism, especially when we reached the point where Weiner was claiming not to be sure whether that was his briefs.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Just when I thought it was over!

It would have been nice if Weiner had mentioned his affairs in his campaign literature the last time around so that the voters could take that fact into account. And until the press starts digging we don't know if any laws have been broken, for example on whether he used US government phones/computers/blackberries to pursue his dalliances.

Damn Straight!!! Let's have an extramarital affairs test for ALL politicians and not elect them if they don't pass!

(Or just get over ourselves and adopt the French system; affairs are expected and people just get on with it).

So if, say, Andrew Breitbart were to renounce conservatism and you found that his new stance and ideology matched yours, you would vote for him?

Would that be the Wide Stance that Larry Craig favoured?

Let's reverse that and ask yourself the same question! Which is pointless, because it's a trick question.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Skepticism is fine. Stuffing your index fingers into your ears and saying lalalala I'm not listening lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala as many did in this thread is not skepticism, especially when we reached the point where Weiner was claiming not to be sure whether that was his briefs.

What about the point when Weiner confessed and ended all the evidence-free speculation (on both sides). Skepticism should be about following the evidence.

The fact is that Breitbart and Wolfe were up to their necks in this stuff. It just so happened that they actually had the goods on Weiner.

Stuffing your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalalala I'm not listening lalalalalala Weiner lalalalalala, as many did on this thread is not skepticism either.

The role that Wolfe and Breitbart played in bringing us this story is as central to this story as is Weiner's eventual confession. By most accounts now, Weiner finally copped to it because they had more dirt on him to reveal.

Now how's about we have a virtual beer together and put this thread to rest.

There are some real issues to discuss; playtime is over.

GB

 

[Ziggurat]

What about the point when Weiner confessed and ended all the evidence-free speculation (on both sides). Skepticism should be about following the evidence.

I know you'd like to pretend that the speculation was evidence free, but it wasn't. The evidence of his guilt was obvious and persuasive. To those paying attention, his guilt came as absolutely no surprise.

And that, to me, is the most interesting part of the whole thing. Why were so many people not just unsure of his guilt, but actually sure of his innocence? For whatever reason, many people were simply blinded. They either weren't getting good information, or weren't able to process it adequately. Given the proof of his confession, will they go beyond admitting they were wrong and examine why they couldn't see what was so obvious to others?

For the most part, the answer is no. Those are the people destined to be surprised by events again and again.

 

[marplots]

And that, to me, is the most interesting part of the whole thing. Why were so many people not just unsure of his guilt, but actually sure of his innocence? For whatever reason, many people were simply blinded. They either weren't getting good information, or weren't able to process it adequately. Given the proof of his confession, will they go beyond admitting they were wrong and examine why they couldn't see what was so obvious to others?

I found my worst error. Although I didn't fall precisely in the category of "sure he is innocent," I certainly leaned that way. My error was looking over the computer hacking talk in a cursory manner and assuming that both sides had equivalent arguments without actually thinking them through.

I was lazy. They were certainly written at a level I can parse if I make the effort -- I didn't. Bad on me.

On the upside, I did avoid the "sludge monster only excretes sludge" arguments. I still don't perceive the "he's obviously lying" in the footage though. I can't tell if that is straight bias or an inability to detect liars. He still looks believable to me.

 

[leftysergeant]

My position was that the only really bad guys were the sludge monster and his pervert buddies. They still, however, owe an apologyto the ladies for dragging them through their hog wallow. It was never their freaking business.

I only get upset about a politician's sex life when it reveals a psychopathology or they kick a wife to the curb for a bimbo, or there is an element of rape or hypocrisy accompanied by a vindictive streak. Abusive treatment of an object of one's sexual attentions is a no-go in any situation. If Weiner used his own Blackberry and cell phone or his home land line, I do not consider it our business.

Thus, to my way of thinking, Diapers Vitter, Newt, Ensign, Edwards and Craig can burn in hell for all I care. Weiner and Bill Clinton get a pass from me, not just because they were acceptable politicians, but because their wives seemed not to be all that ready to mount their danglies on the wall as a trophy.

A screw Spitzer. He got caught dirty after making life hell for prostitutes. What goes around comes around.

 

[leftysergeant]

So if, say, Andrew Breitbart were to renounce conservatism and you found that his new stance and ideology matched yours, you would vote for him?

No. A worthless drongo is a worthless drongo.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I know you'd like to pretend that the speculation was evidence free, but it wasn't. The evidence of his guilt was obvious and persuasive. To those paying attention, his guilt came as absolutely no surprise.

If you are honest enough to refer back to some of my earliest posts on this thread, you will find a post in which I posit a couple of scenarios, one of them saying that it could be Weiner's wiener.

As for "pretending," that's what you were doing when you put on your "psychologist" hat, and analyzing his behaviour. I know you'd like to think that counts as evidence, but it doesn't really.

I did the same thing, but with a slightly different spin. I suggested that he was equivocating and trying not to say anything that was an outright lie, in case it turned out to be true. But again, that was speculation on my part based on his behaviour patterns, it doesn't count as evidence.

Moving on:

And that, to me, is the most interesting part of the whole thing. Why were so many people not just unsure of his guilt, but actually sure of his innocence? For whatever reason, many people were simply blinded. They either weren't getting good information, or weren't able to process it adequately. Given the proof of his confession, will they go beyond admitting they were wrong and examine why they couldn't see what was so obvious to others?

For the most part, the answer is no. Those are the people destined to be surprised by events again and again.

This one is really simple, and I don't know why you can't admit that Breitbart is a known Con Artist; a Dirty Tricks operator who specializes in Swift-Boating tactics.

Why should I believe a known fabricator at a point in time when there was no actual evidence either way? For that matter, why would you believe it when the story is coming from a known Liar?

I, for one, was not absolutely sure that Weiner was innocent (if you recall, I am certain that most politicians lie about something), but I was a 100% sure that this was a Breitbart Dirty Trick. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It just happened that this time, the Dirty Trick was based on facts. Not because Breitbart was interested in the Truth, but because Breitbart wanted to take down a feisty Democrat.

I wasn't ready to presume guilt on Weiner's part without some real evidence that could in no way have been fabricated by Breitbart. That happened when Weiner confessed after lying for days about it. For me, that was convincing evidence. And I publicly admitted as much.

Their was NOTHING obvious before that point in time. It is only in retrospect that we have the evidence to conclusively conclude that Weiner's evasive behaviour was due to a guilty conscience.

So that is why you will never get anyone on this side of the aisle to agree that there was any "obvious" evidence until Weiner actually confessed.

I am troubled that some of the posters on my side of the aisle won't unreservedly admit that they were wrong now that the jig is up.

But I am equally troubled that posters on your side backed a known Con Man without having any real evidence.

For my part, I have been straightforward from the beginning that if Weiner really posted that tweet, it wouldn't bother me particularly, because I am more concerned about policies. I personally don't care about sex scandals, they are a distraction from real issues.

The only thing that bothers me now about Weiner, is how such a smart guy could be so stupid as to pull a stunt that people like Breitbart would gleefully use against him.

GB

 

[TraneWreck]

Skepticism is fine. Stuffing your index fingers into your ears and saying lalalala I'm not listening lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala as many did in this thread is not skepticism, especially when we reached the point where Weiner was claiming not to be sure whether that was his briefs.

Right, but who cares? I didn't bother to read the technical arguments presented because I didn't give a rip whether it was him or not.

The patented TraneWreck approach to scandals is as follows:

Step 1: Assume the worst case scenario.
Step 2: Ask yourself if under that assumption anything remotely important occurred.
Step 3(a): If yes, pursue further investigation.
Step 3(b): If no, start insulting people.

Apply this approach to the "Sarah Palin's kid is really Bristol Palin's kid" or whatever that crap was. No point in digging into it, even if it's true, who cares?

So the combination of the total insignificance of the allegations with Breitbart serving as the main instigator led me to 1) assume it was all ******** (turned out to be wrong) and 2) not really care about the story.

There are some stories that are so dumb we really should stick our fingers in our ears and go, lalalalala. This is one of them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I wasn't ready to presume guilt on Weiner's part without some real evidence that could in no way have been fabricated by Breitbart. That happened when Weiner confessed after lying for days about it. For me, that was convincing evidence. And I publicly admitted as much.

Their was NOTHING obvious before that point in time. It is only in retrospect that we have the evidence to conclusively conclude that Weiner's evasive behaviour was due to a guilty conscience.

So that is why you will never get anyone on this side of the aisle to agree that there was any "obvious" evidence until Weiner actually confessed.

I am troubled that some of the posters on my side of the aisle won't unreservedly admit that they were wrong now that the jig is up.

But I am equally troubled that posters on your side backed a known Con Man without having any real evidence.

GB

This whole stinker of a thread was a giant exercise in confirmation bias for most posters.

Ziggurat has it exactly correct when he says "Why were so many people not just unsure of his guilt, but actually sure of his innocence? For whatever reason, many people were simply blinded. They either weren't getting good information, or weren't able to process it adequately."

You, especially, GB, for all your clamoring against speculation and for the facts, blatantly ignored my posts outlining why he wasn't hacked, as he claimed, ostensibly because I linked to a page with an anti-Obama banner ad.
And I have to go there based on what you posted - yes, there was DEFINITELY SOMETHING obvious before he admitted his guilt, whether you and others chose to read and comprehend the technical evidence or not.


Whether all this is really worth caring about ... I agree it probably is not. But I enjoyed trying to come up with scenarios that explained what we knew, and what we 'speculated' and seeing how it all played out.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for "pretending," that's what you were doing when you put on your "psychologist" hat, and analyzing his behaviour. I know you'd like to think that counts as evidence, but it doesn't really.

Yes, actually, it does. Sometimes people are far less inscrutable than you'd like to insist.

Again, it was obvious. The fact that you can't see that, even now, is telling.

This one is really simple, and I don't know why you can't admit that Breitbart is a known Con Artist; a Dirty Tricks operator who specializes in Swift-Boating tactics.

Ah yes, it's all Breitbart's fault for tricking you by telling the truth. Devious monster.

There's just two problems, the first and most obvious one being that you didn't need to trust Breitbart to figure this one out. The second is a little more subtle, but plays rather directly to my point about getting bad information or not being able to process that information. You see, Breitbart DOES use rather specific tactics. But they aren't the tactics of the Swiftboat folks. And I'm not even talking about whether or not he's honest. One can tell the truth in multiple ways, and one can lie in multiple ways, but whether he's telling the truth or lying, he doesn't do it the same way as the Swift Boat folks did.

I'll give you an example: I remember someone here wondering if Breitbart was bluffing when he said he had more photos of Weiner. But it was obvious that he wasn't. Why? Because that's not how he operates. When he says he's got something more, he's got something more. That's how he operates. If you don't know this about him, then (once again) you're either not getting enough information or not processing the information that you have.

Why should I believe a known fabricator at a point in time when there was no actual evidence either way?

Because (again) there WAS evidence.

I was a 100% sure that this was a Breitbart Dirty Trick.

And you were, consequently, 100% wrong. Whereas I was 100% right. You remain intent on justifying your error. As long as this is what you care about, you will not learn.

Their was NOTHING obvious before that point in time.

This is exactly what I mean: you're trying to justify your mistake, not learn from it.

It is only in retrospect that we have the evidence to conclusively conclude that Weiner's evasive behaviour was due to a guilty conscience.

No, it isn't only in retrospect. It was obvious from almost the start. And until you come to terms with that, you will learn nothing.

So that is why you will never get anyone on this side of the aisle to agree that there was any "obvious" evidence until Weiner actually confessed.

First off, I don't think everyone on "that side" is actually unable to see that there was convincing evidence. But many people won't because it's simply too uncomfortable to do so. Admitting you're wrong about Weiner is easy. Admitting that you should have known is a much bigger step, because it opens up the disturbing possibility that you're wrong about a lot of other stuff. And many people (such as yourself) are not willing to take that step. That's understandable, that's human nature. But then, it's an understanding of human nature which should have led you to conclude he was guilty even before the press conference.

But I am equally troubled that posters on your side backed a known Con Man without having any real evidence.

And this, again, merely reveals your failure to obtain or process information adequately. The conclusion that he's guilty never depended on the reliability of Breitbart.

I personally don't care about sex scandals, they are a distraction from real issues.

But you should care about your ability to obtain and process information. Yet you don't.

The only thing that bothers me now about Weiner, is how such a smart guy could be so stupid as to pull a stunt that people like Breitbart would gleefully use against him.

The answer to that is also obvious.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Weiner displayed all you claim to detest, oh willfully blind one

My position was that the only really bad guys were the sludge monster and his pervert buddies. They still, however, owe an apologyto the ladies for dragging them through their hog wallow. It was never their freaking business.

Exposing the lies and hypocrisy of Weiner makes the MESSENGERS the bad guys, not the liar and hypocrite? "To your way of thinking" And yes, it is their business and ours. Weiner has a say on national policies. We do not want a crook, a liar, and a cheat anywhere near our nation's business. Perhaps near yours if you so desire, but nobody else's.

I only get upset about a politician's sex life when it reveals a psychopathology or they kick a wife to the curb for a bimbo, or there is an element of rape or hypocrisy accompanied by a vindictive streak. Abusive treatment of an object of one's sexual attentions is a no-go in any situation. If Weiner used his own Blackberry and cell phone or his home land line, I do not consider it our business.

Psychopathology... such as stalking women on facebook and twitter? Such as sending pornographic photos to women? What would you be saying if a Republican congressman were to be doing such a thing? I think we both know full well you'd be screaming your head off about dangerous psychopathies.

Kick a wife to the curb.. such as by denigrating her desirability and ability to please him as a woman and making a fool out of her by pursuing other sexual outlets? Or does his wife not count "to your way of thinking"?

Thus, to my way of thinking, Diapers Vitter, Newt, Ensign, Edwards and Craig can burn in hell for all I care. Weiner and Bill Clinton get a pass from me, not just because they were acceptable politicians, but because their wives seemed not to be all that ready to mount their danglies on the wall as a trophy.

They get a pass because they're leftists and sympathetic to common viewpoints. Beyond that they do not matter, "to your way of thinking"

A screw Spitzer. He got caught dirty after making life hell for prostitutes.

And Weiner has made life hell for his wife, for Hillary Clinton, for Nancy Pelosi, and for the women he pursued for sex over the internet. Does this not matter "to your way of thinking" as you still support Weiner?

What goes around comes around.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it does. As indeed it shall. Check six, buddy.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It would have been nice if Weiner had mentioned his affairs in his campaign literature the last time around so that the voters could take that fact into account. And until the press starts digging we don't know if any laws have been broken, for example on whether he used US government phones/computers/blackberries to pursue his dalliances.

Elections are an imperfect animal in that regard. If someone does something while in office, your only recourse as a voter is to wait until the next election to vote them out. And if it comes out that laws were broken, then he should resign, and that should be the end of it. Remind me again why it's relevant in the slightest, though, to post formerly private facebook chats between consenting adults in the hopes of finding new "sleazy details" to fixate on in place of actual news.

So if, say, Andrew Breitbart were to renounce conservatism and you found that his new stance and ideology matched yours, you would vote for him?

If I thought that he actually believed what he was saying (for the sake of your hypothetical, I'll just assume he is sincere), and his stances on issues most closely matched how I felt about them, then absolutely I would vote for him. Why wouldn't I?