Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to support your position, but I don't have full access to transcipts from your college dates. Without those, I don't know if you're sleazy or not, and thus if your position is the correct one or not. Besides, there hasn't been any investigation into your use of the internet, so I don't know if any laws have been broken.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Cordova is telling the truth, then it WASN'T consensual.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Is Cordova the participant in the facebook chat that Brainster posted?
Click to expand...

No, Cordova is the one he sent the picture that went public.

But tracing back the thread I end up at this post from Brainster, which is about Cordova. Your post responding to that quoted both Brainster's post about Cordova and a post about Weiss (the one with the chat transcript). But it's the part of your post about Cordova that Brainster subsequently responded to, and which led to our exchange. So if there are crossed wires here about who is being referred to, they got crossed before I posted.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, Cordova is the one he sent the picture that went public.

But tracing back the thread I end up at this post from Brainster, which is about Cordova. Your post responding to that quoted both Brainster's post about Cordova and a post about Weiss (the one with the chat transcript). But it's the part of your post about Cordova that Brainster subsequently responded to, and which led to our exchange. So if there are crossed wires here about who is being referred to, they got crossed before I posted.
Click to expand...

Thanks for looking into it. What I'm still trying to get at, though, is that we're getting near the end of week 1 of (my guess) a 2-week news cycle that focuses largely on every bit of sleaze that it can from this story, when the sleazy details have literally zero political relevancy to the public. If only the public would take this sort of interest in, you know, actual political issues.


ETA: In a flash of inspiration, I've got the solution to this. By law, politicians are required to either be nude or actually engaged in the act of copulation while discussing political matters publicly. People will come to make jokes about penises and breasts, and stay for the discussion on the legality of enhanced interrogation and domestic wiretaps.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
ETA: In a flash of inspiration, I've got the solution to this. By law, politicians are required to either be nude or actually engaged in the act of copulation while discussing political matters publicly. People will come to make jokes about penises and breasts, and stay for the discussion on the legality of enhanced interrogation and domestic wiretaps.
Click to expand...


It certainly would make filibustering more interesting.




I declare that 'Filibuster' is now officially a euphemism.
 
tyr_13 said:
It certainly would make filibustering more interesting.




I declare that 'Filibuster' is now officially a euphemism.
Click to expand...

And the obstruction procedures would be a lot more personal. And let's not even get started on secret holds.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
ETA: In a flash of inspiration, I've got the solution to this. By law, politicians are required to either be nude or actually engaged in the act of copulation while discussing political matters publicly.
Click to expand...

nancy-pelosi-rham-emmanuel.jpg


My eyes!!! Damn you, what have you done?!?!?!?
 
Ziggurat said:
[qimg]http://thewiddershins.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nancy-pelosi-rham-emmanuel.jpg[/qimg]

My eyes!!! Damn you, what have you done?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

Now imagine Mitch McConnell just hanging out (in every sense of the word) during a debate.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
If I thought that he actually believed what he was saying.....
Click to expand...

You mean that you would have to judge the credibility of his conversion? How would you do that?

(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?
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi
 
Last night I read the Facebook exchange of Weiner and a Las Vegas woman. It started last August, a month after Weiner was married. I think it's real and the woman sold it to Radar Online. (I think that's where I read it although maybe it was TMZ.) It was on and off for several months and it gets pretty graphic.

I'm fascinated in a few ways:

1. If you were an attractive woman it might make sense to purposely start stuff like this up with people in sensitive places. I"m not saying this woman did, and even if she did then he's still responsible, but the point is that so many men in sensitive places seem to be unable to stop themselves from doing dumb stuff like this that the a smart thing to do for a woman of modest means (I think the Las Vegas woman was a blackjack dealer) would be to get as many as these guys as you can on the record and then get a payoff or two. I don't know what Radar Online paid her but I wouldn't be surprised it was equivalent to many months salary at her regular job.

2. There is a video of Weiner on Youtube from a year or two ago where he completely loses it and is screaming in rage. After seeing that I would think that no woman anywhere would want to have contact with him. But in the Facebook exchange the first thing the Las Vegas woman says is how much she liked Weiner tearing into the Republicans on that video. I mean, stating a political position someone agrees with and says "You go" is one thing, but Weiner is literally screaming in rage on the video. I find it a big weird that anyone can find that behavior endearing.

3. It's amazing that Weiner either wasn't aware of how much trouble he could get into by doing what he did or else that he knew but couldn't stop himself. This was a sitting married US Congressman, a guy you see on national TV a fair amount, and he was having a sexually graphic exchange with a complete stranger over the internet over a period of months. Think about that. It's mind boggling.

4. It's hard to tell from a distance but I can't help but wonder about the wives in these cases we see over and over. Do they really have no clue about the guy they're married to? Do the guys hide their true selves that well? Or are the wives just purposely ignoring signals? From his press conference it sounds like Weiner was doing this while he was courting his wife and then after he married her. He was doing it all along. Did she really have no reason at all to suspect anything?
 
Number Six said:
1. If you were an attractive woman it might make sense to purposely start stuff like this up with people in sensitive places. I"m not saying this woman did, and even if she did then he's still responsible, but the point is that so many men in sensitive places seem to be unable to stop themselves from doing dumb stuff like this that the a smart thing to do for a woman of modest means (I think the Las Vegas woman was a blackjack dealer) would be to get as many as these guys as you can on the record and then get a payoff or two. I don't know what Radar Online paid her but I wouldn't be surprised it was equivalent to many months salary at her regular job.
Click to expand...

Of course, with the internet you don't even have to be an attractive woman. Indeed, if voice-morphing ever takes off you wouldn't even have to be female.

2. There is a video of Weiner on Youtube from a year or two ago where he completely loses it and is screaming in rage. After seeing that I would think that no woman anywhere would want to have contact with him. But in the Facebook exchange the first thing the Las Vegas woman says is how much she liked Weiner tearing into the Republicans on that video. I mean, stating a political position someone agrees with and says "You go" is one thing, but Weiner is literally screaming in rage on the video. I find it a big weird that anyone can find that behavior endearing.
Click to expand...

That clip is what made Weiner a star. There is a coterie of leftists who believe that the only reason Democrats can't get a leftist agenda passed is because they are too nice.

3. It's amazing that Weiner either wasn't aware of how much trouble he could get into by doing what he did or else that he knew but couldn't stop himself. This was a sitting married US Congressman, a guy you see on national TV a fair amount, and he was having a sexually graphic exchange with a complete stranger over the internet over a period of months. Think about that. It's mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Famous people all think the rules don't apply to them. And of course there are the posters on this board who agree with that notion.
 
leftysergeant said:
They still, however, owe an apologyto the ladies for dragging them through their hog wallow. It was never their freaking business.
Click to expand...
Wieners the only one to blame. He's the one that sent the photo to the public Tweeter feed.
Thus, to my way of thinking, Diapers Vitter, Newt, Ensign, Edwards and Craig can burn in hell for all I care.
Click to expand...
Should Vitter resign? Should Craig not have resigned?
 
Tweeter doesn't have a private feed now? It's all public?

And, yes, Vitter should resign. He actually broke laws.
 
Sexting transcripts 'coming' out of the weeds, and now this.

The image of what are said to be Weiner's genitals was posted online after Breitbart appeared on the satellite radio show of shock jocks Opie and Anthony Wednesday.

Breitbart said that while he was in the studio, Opie -- real name, Gregg Hughes -- snapped a photo of the graphic image "without my permission." Breitbart said he's shown the image to other members of the media as proof of his claims, but until now nobody has made that image public.
Click to expand...
Stick (so to speak) right in there Weiner. Your fame will be useful.
 
Drudgewire said:
Opie and Anthony Leak Wein... wait, maybe that should be rephrased


Breitbart claims to be horrified. Sorry guy you're the one who started the Homeless Charlie controversy and got them suspended from XM, thinking you were evening the scales of justice for Imus when they were the only people in radio defending him.

Some people hold grudges. :p
Click to expand...

What the hell was Breibart thinking going on O and A anyway?What did he expect to happen? if he did not know the kind of show that O and A do, he was stupid.
This whole thread is becoming a study of how religon has nothing on political ideology when it comes to people who are usually intelligent making fools of themselves.
 
dudalb said:
What the hell was Breibart thinking going on O and A anyway?What did he expect to happen? if he did not know the kind of show that O and A do, he was stupid.
This whole thread is becoming a study of how religon has nothing on political ideology when it comes to people who are usually intelligent making fools of themselves.
Click to expand...


He had gone out drinking with Ant the night before after they were all on Red Eye. In fact Anthony had tweeted Breitbart showing "a picture of something on his cell phone" to Ann Coulter and her gawking at it.

But yeah, if you aren't going to release something don't show it to other members of the media... ESPECIALLY if you're currently in the spotlight for releasing pictures to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom