Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[TraneWreck]

That's not even the relevant question. The relevant question is what's the story.

And yes, it's a story, and a legitimate one, if a verified Twitter account got hacked. Even without the sex aspects. It's a much smaller story without the sex angle (but really, welcome to humanity), but it's still a story.

...Are you legitimately claiming that if the photo had been a landscape, maybe a mountain somewhere, and Weiner thought, "The hell? I didn't send that," there would be a story?

The only reason he was even asked about it was because it was a penis.

Now he gets asked, "Why is there a penis on your twitter feed?" There is no answer to that question that allows him to keep his Congressional seat.

You think telling the press, "It's none of your business," would have done anything? The questions stop when he says, "Yeah, that's my dong?"

Nope, it's over. When he claimed it was a hack, why did you want to know more?

Do you pursue all instances of Congressional lying with the same verve? Why or why not?

 

[TraneWreck]

No, that's not the standard I'm proposing.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you”. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Not every lie ruins your credibility. But some do. Weiner's lies ruined his credibility. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. Perhaps you need to watch him lying again to reacquaint yourself with what his lies were really like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0z5k0mc5yk

How do you determine which lies are sufficient to ruin credibility?

This is about the most frivolous, meaningless lie a Congressperson could make.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you determine which lies are sufficient to ruin credibility?

You're not capable of making a judgment call?

I guess not, since it wasn't obvious to you from early on that he was lying.

 

[TraneWreck]

You're not capable of making a judgment call?

I guess not, since it wasn't obvious to you from early on that he was lying.

Nice try. Here is the exchange, to help you stay on topic:

Me: "Is this really your standard? Any lie to the public no matter how meaningless means the speaker, if a member of Congress, should resign?"

You: "No, that's not the standard I'm proposing...Not every lie ruins your credibility. But some do. Weiner's lies ruined his credibility."

I'm asking how you determine which lies ruin credibility and which don't. Give me an example of a non-credibility ruining lie, according to you.

I realize that you think Weiner has ruined his credibility, I'm asking you how you distinguish between lies.

As for my abilities to make a judgment call, I find the appearance of personal credibility to be a nearly worthless characteristic in a politician. I look at how they vote, what deals they make, and how they advocate for the causes they claim to believe in.

This "credibility" nonsense is how we end up with a press corps going on and on about what a great guy George W. Bush is as he's lying to their faces about various issues. The newest incarnation of this phenomenon is Paul Ryan. The Villagers go on and on about what a wonderful person he is, but when you read his economic plan, you quickly realize it's 100% ********.

I would rather have a guy in office who lies about his sex life but advances economic theories grounded in reality than a guy that seems charming and honest but is either so full of **** or so stupid that he spouts out clearly ridiculous plans.

 

[cwalner]

You're not capable of making a judgment call?

I guess not, since it wasn't obvious to you from early on that he was lying.

I will admit it was not obvious to me that the hack story was a lie. It set of most of the alarm bells on my BS detector, but it was not obvious that it was a lie.

As to why this is a story at all. It is because the average American has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old (myself most definitely included). We have a public figure named Weiner accused of sending some college girl a picture of his weiner. I personally don't give a **** what party the guy is in, I want to know more.

 

[Roadtoad]

I will admit it was not obvious to me that the hack story was a lie. It set of most of the alarm bells on my BS detector, but it was not obvious that it was a lie.

As to why this is a story at all. It is because the average American has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old (myself most definitely included). We have a public figure named Weiner accused of sending some college girl a picture of his weiner. I personally don't give a **** what party the guy is in, I want to know more.

Lie or not, regardless of the content of the message, as long as it was between consenting adults, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot to this "story," such as it was. But, as I've said before, when you know damned good and well you have powerful enemies, you're an idiot to hand them ammunition. Gingrich did this, and look where it got him. (Thankfully, he won't be president in 2012, or any other time soon.) That Weiner's was more sexually charged than the usual drivel made it even worse for him.

I would agree, that this is next to nothing. Arnold cheating on his wife and fathering a child with his staffer? That had far more substance on every level. This was a waste of time, and that Weiner's fellow Democrats took the lower road is disappointing.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to the SWOYMRN thread to clear the filth from my brain.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm asking how you determine which lies ruin credibility and which don't. Give me an example of a non-credibility ruining lie, according to you.

Accusations against opponents' positions (They want to destroy Medicare! They want to ruin marriage!) don't destroy credibility. People don't like them when pointed in their direction, but right or wrong, it's a standard part of politics. A politician's supporters will regularly excuse those sorts of lies.

But why am I even having to tell you this stuff? Whether or not you agree with me about what kinds of lies destroy credibility and what sort don't, do you really think that no such difference exists? Or are you just not able to decide for yourself which sort of lies fall into which category?

 

[Malerin]

No, that's not the standard I'm proposing.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you”. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Not every lie ruins your credibility. But some do. Weiner's lies ruined his credibility. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. Perhaps you need to watch him lying again to reacquaint yourself with what his lies were really like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0z5k0mc5yk

This.

Who can trust him anymore? If he'd just come out and said, "Yeah, I sent it, I'm hung like a horse. Deal with it. This is a private matter between between me, my wife, and my bitches." he'd be OK.

 

[TraneWreck]

Accusations against opponents' positions (They want to destroy Medicare! They want to ruin marriage!) don't destroy credibility. People don't like them when pointed in their direction, but right or wrong, it's a standard part of politics. A politician's supporters will regularly excuse those sorts of lies.

But why am I even having to tell you this stuff? Whether or not you agree with me about what kinds of lies destroy credibility and what sort don't, do you really think that no such difference exists? Or are you just not able to decide for yourself which sort of lies fall into which category?

I absolutely think there's a difference, I've articulated this some 567 pages (not that I expect anyone to remember).

The severity of the lie is directly proportional to the subject matter lied about.

Lying about private lives--I don't care. I didn't have any right to know about that in the first place, thus, an attempt to keep that information from me when directly confronted doesn't bother me.

Lying about issues of public interest---I have a right to know these things, thus, when someone lies to cover something like that up, we have a problem.

Obviously there are gray areas, welcome to reality. Flirting on the internet is not even close to such an are of difficulty.

And finally, I find lies about policy positions in an attempt to sway legislation to be far more important than this Weiner ****. The "death panels" nonsense has actually caused damage to our country. It delayed and weakened a bill that deals with fundamental issues of human rights. Weiner's dick really doesn't.

 

[TraneWreck]

Who can trust him anymore?

Why do you need to trust him? What does "trust" add to a voting record?

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that "trust" in elected officials is a very negative thing. It leads one to cease paying attention to what they're actually doing. I don't think I "trust" a single politician, depending on how you're defining the word.

They're welcome to hurt my fee-fees as long as they're voting in the public interest.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lying about private lives--I don't care. I didn't have any right to know about that in the first place, thus, an attempt to keep that information from me when directly confronted doesn't bother me.

This is a naive perspective. It completely ignores how and why people lie. That simply isn't how we operate. We don't say, well, this is private, so I'll lie about it all the time, but since that is public, I'll always tell the truth. However much you'd like people to work that way, it's just never going to happen. We don't actually draw those distinctions when deciding our own actions. And neither did Weiner. That's why his credibility is ruined. Nobody can trust him on anything, private or not. And rightly so.

But perhaps that naive perspective is related to why you couldn't figure out it was all lies in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you need to trust him?

Wow.

Just... wow.

I don't think the disconnect can be bridged.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is a naive perspective. It completely ignores how and why people lie. That simply isn't how we operate. We don't say, well, this is private, so I'll lie about it all the time, but since that is public, I'll always tell the truth. However much you'd like people to work that way, it's just never going to happen. We don't actually draw those distinctions when deciding our own actions. And neither did Weiner. That's why his credibility is ruined. Nobody can trust him on anything, private or not. And rightly so.

But perhaps that naive perspective is related to why you couldn't figure out it was all lies in the first place.

Nonsense. This is the difference between maturity and jock sniffing.

No, we don't always know the difference, but sometimes we do. This time we did. Assuming the worst case scenario, this was just an issue of a guy flirting on the internet. That's not a subject matter of public concern.

And again, I call ******** on this "credibility" nonsense. Why do you only go in one direction? Weiner lying about his sex life means he has no credibility, does that mean that Sarah Palin lying about "death panels" means she is some kind of sexual deviant?

Why can we conclude from a specific story about someone's private life to a broad condemnation of their professional life, but it's pure idiocy to go in the opposite direction?

 

[Roadtoad]

Why do you need to trust him? What does "trust" add to a voting record?

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that "trust" in elected officials is a very negative thing. It leads one to cease paying attention to what they're actually doing. I don't think I "trust" a single politician, depending on how you're defining the word.

They're welcome to hurt my fee-fees as long as they're voting in the public interest.

Wow.

Just... wow.

I don't think the disconnect can be bridged.

Not much can be at this point.

Get a room, you two.

 

[TraneWreck]

Wow.

Just... wow.

I don't think the disconnect can be bridged.

If this is how you escape providing argument, go for it.

Again, I do not trust a single politician I can think of, even some I know personally. This is the purpose of oversight. We are not supposed to trust our elected officials which is why we set up the system we did.

Was Weiner even remotely responsible for anything approaching professional malfeasance? Nope. He flirted with chicks on the internet. Whether that happened or not, I can see the legislation he proposed, how he voted, and generally how he's handled himself as a public official.

Why do I need to trust him at any point? Once someone shows themselves inadequate or incapable of doing their job, for whatever reason, demand they resign. When they're doing something that has nothing to do with anything, who cares?

 

[Roadtoad]

Why do I need to trust him at any point? Once someone shows themselves inadequate or incapable of doing their job, for whatever reason, demand they resign.

If this is your view, then I believe we ought to be asking the whole of Congress to step down. We should remove at least half the Supreme Court, and at the very least, remove Joe Biden.

From there, it ought to be easy, as we fire nearly 90 percent of Federal bureaucrats, replacing them with updated computer software.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why can we conclude from a specific story about someone's private life to a broad condemnation of their professional life, but it's pure idiocy to go in the opposite direction?

He didn't lie in private (well, he did, but that's not relevant). He lied in public. When you're holding a press interview in your office, and you lie to a reporter, how the hell can you still lay claim to privacy? Whether or not it should be, at that point it isn't.

 

[TraneWreck]

He didn't lie in private (well, he did, but that's not relevant). He lied in public. When you're holding a press interview in your office, and you lie to a reporter, how the hell can you still lay claim to privacy? Whether or not it should be, at that point it isn't.

Not all lies are created equally, you said it yourself.

He lied in public about a very private issue that has nothing to do with his ability to be a member of Congress. He was backed into a corner by a rabid media fixated on the puerile, and he reacted poorly. I would still argue that nothing he could do would have saved his job, but he could have handled it with more personal dignity.

That doesn't mean it was right that he was put in such a position to begin with. It's as dumb as demanding that Clinton answer questions about Monica Lewinsky under oath in the Whitewater investigation.

He was trying to cover up a private matter. He had every right to do so, it's none of your business whether that cock was his or not, why were you so desperate to find out?

But you've just evaded the question once again. When Sarah Palin lies about "death panels" can we conclude she has no credibility as a mother? Why or why not?

 

[TraneWreck]

If this is your view, then I believe we ought to be asking the whole of Congress to step down. We should remove at least half the Supreme Court, and at the very least, remove Joe Biden.

From there, it ought to be easy, as we fire nearly 90 percent of Federal bureaucrats, replacing them with updated computer software.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I think most bureaucrats are actually pretty good at their jobs, but I won't argue when the Congressional culling begins.

 

[Ziggurat]

He lied in public about a very private issue that has nothing to do with his ability to be a member of Congress. He was backed into a corner by a rabid media fixated on the puerile, and he reacted poorly.

And his poor reaction DOES have something to do with his ability to be a member of Congress.

That doesn't mean it was right that he was put in such a position to begin with.

1) Nothing can be done about that now.
2) People are not going to stop paying attention to sex scandals of politicians. Regardless of how things should be, that's the way they are, and you can't change that.

But you've just evaded the question once again. When Sarah Palin lies about "death panels" can we conclude she has no credibility as a mother? Why or why not?

Why does "as a mother" have anything to do with it? You can make conclusions about her credibility in general from something she does in one area. Of course. But "as a mother" doesn't even mean anything, nor is it relevant to anything I care about. Furthermore, in your previous iteration, the conclusion you asked me to draw wasn't even about credibility, which is why I didn't respond before. You were just trolling.