Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[TraneWreck]

Impressive dismissal of criminal behavior under the guise of not caring about religion.

Yeah, crazy me thinking the "social contract that holds civil society together" will survive some whores. Old morality laws come from religion. They make no sense absent the silly fairy tales from whence they emerged. Mocking religion is to mock the source of such nonsense making the allusion very appropriate.

There were sodomy laws and laws against contraception and laws about blacks marrying whites and currently there are dumb laws about gambling and gays getting married. I wouldn't care if two dudes had sex in 1930, though their action was against the law and therefore likely to destroy the moral fabric of our country (which makes a surprisingly effective jizz rag), and I don't care if someone buys a whore today.

Prostitution should be legal. The only problems stem from the illegality: lack of health care for the workers, the abuse that often drives women into prostitution (note this really isn't an issue for the high-priced employees of the DC Madame), and the violence and abuse perpetrated to keep the illegal activity hidden from law enforcement.

Paying for a prostitute that has willingly joined the profession to make money is a victimless crime. I don't care. It's an issue for Vitter and his wife.

There are real crimes to spend time worrying about, we don't need to fly off the handle every time a businessman gets a happy ending.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, crazy me thinking the "social contract that holds civil society together" will survive some whores.

I never said or even suggested it wouldn't surive.

Prostitution should be legal.

But it isn't.

Do you think people should just break laws they don't agree with?

Do you think congressmen should just break laws they don't agree with?

Or perhaps you think people should break laws you disagree with.

 

[TraneWreck]

I never said or even suggested it wouldn't surive.

Ah, "undermine." Yeah, I'm not sure whores can even manage that. It's a capitalist society, exchanging goods for services is the way we roll.

But it isn't.

So? Smoking weed is illegal, would you care even 1% if someone in Congress smoked a joint? I wouldn't.

Do you think people should just break laws they don't agree with?

Depends on the law. If there's no victim and the action occurs between consenting adults, then I don't really care if it's broken or not. Let's total up the damage to society caused by all the gays that were *********** when sodomy was illegal. Were we undermined? How about when a black person married a white person? Was that damaging because, by definition, it was illegal?

Do you think congressmen should just break laws they don't agree with?

I see them no differently than any other citizen.

Or perhaps you think people should break laws you disagree with.

No victim, no property damage, no perceivable damage of any kind save this inchoate concern over "undermining" civil society. Any transgression of the law with those characteristics won't keep me up at night.

 

[Brainster]

Truly, the exchange of photographs between consenting adults via the internet is a scourge that must be approached with the gravity of the Bin Laden sting.

Congratulations! You have reached the fallback position, which abandons the idea that Weiner has been the subject of a "prank" or "hack" and takes the new argument that yes, he's probably guilty of sending the original tweet, but it's no big deal.

 

[AlBell]

Even so, as boooeee intimates, I doubt there is more than one on this forum, if any, who would actually call for his resignation. But we've come to expect such nonsense from the poster who made the claim.

Noting the royal "we" and looking past it, thanks for the personal attack. Why not use my name?

 

[leftysergeant]

Yet you think it's more important to make than to Ryan and Cantor look like idiots than to prevent the crimes against humanity that Breibart is doing?

The sludge monster is supporting the cause of dimwits like Ryan and Cantor, distracting people from the fact that the Republicons are trying to transform this country into a Christian form of Pakistan.

Taking away Medicare is a lot more harmful to the public order than is someone's sending someone else a shot of his willy.

Republicons have some pretty screwed up priorities.

 

[TraneWreck]

Congratulations! You have reached the fallback position, which abandons the idea that Weiner has been the subject of a "prank" or "hack" and takes the new argument that yes, he's probably guilty of sending the original tweet, but it's no big deal.

Yeah, that's been my position all along (minus the "probably guilty"). Assume the worst-case scenario, what are we left with? Nothing.

And also Breitbart is a liar and a fabricator. Thus far he has offered nothing substantive enough to make me buy his story, but even if he's right about everything, who cares?

 

[Snide]

Noting the royal "we" and looking past it, thanks for the personal attack.

Attack? No, just an observation. And certainly not the royal "we," nor a tapeworm. I'm just reasonably certain several would agree. Do you deny it was nonsense (even as hyperbole goes) and of the sort similar to what you've posted numerous times before? If yes, care to take boooeee up?

Why not use my name?

Does it matter?

 

[leftysergeant]

BTW, where does the sludge monster show us that anybody has photos of something inappropriate that we KNOW Weiner sent? He hasn't shown me a thing that he can support. The boy's hormonal shortfall must be interfering with his brain function.

Call me when that sorry excuse for a hominin actually has something that should really cause people to doubt the virtues of their elected representatives.

All that the sludge monster has demonstrated is that Weiner has a rather healthy (and hetero) view of sex. Can the party of Diapers Vitter say the same about all of their bozos?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Has Breitbart been correct on any of the "scandals" he's reported on?

 

[Brainster]

Pics of Weiner's pecs.

 

[leftysergeant]

Pics of Weiner's pecs.

So?

And where are those other photos that the sludge monster claims exist?

Context, people. CONTEXT!

 

[thaiboxerken]

So someone's hacked into Weiner's photo archive and is publishing them. Sounds like a criminal issue here. Hopefully Breitbart and company will be punished for this.

 

[tyr_13]

Pics of Weiner's pecs.

Do we get to see the pictures she sent him? Pretty please.

I mean, if the women get to see those rocking pecs, surely we should get to see whatever assets she was sending right? Or are only the pictures of the Congressman subject to public scrutiny?

This is probably the reason he didn't want to sue or press chargers; he knew there were pictures out there verifiable as him.

And again, we're left with, so what?

 

[tyr_13]

So someone's hacked into Weiner's photo archive and is publishing them. Sounds like a criminal issue here. Hopefully Breitbart and company will be punished for this.

We don't know that, and there isn't any evidence to support that yet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We don't know that, and there isn't any evidence to support that yet.

Okay.

I still don't see a big deal about the photos themselves.
For all we know, these could be pics intended for his wife.

 

[Neally]

The sludge monster is supporting the cause of dimwits like Ryan and Cantor, distracting people from the fact that the Republicons are trying to transform this country into a Christian form of Pakistan.

All the more reason for Breitbart to be exposed and taken down for his crimes against humanity, no?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So someone's hacked into Weiner's photo archive and is publishing them. Sounds like a criminal issue here. Hopefully Breitbart and company will be punished for this.

Maybe the same people that hacked his Twitter and FB ?

Okay.
I still don't see a big deal about the photos themselves.
For all we know, these could be pics intended for his wife.

They could be.

The big deal for Rep. Weiner right now seems to be that Breitbart is controlling the story, not him.

Additionally, you and many others, myself included, may be able to overlook these photos and shrug them off - but I don't think that's how it's going to play out with the general public.

 

[uk_dave]

I never said or even suggested it wouldn't surive.



But it isn't.

Do you think people should just break laws they don't agree with?

Do you think congressmen should just break laws they don't agree with?

Or perhaps you think people should break laws you disagree with.

I don't know anything about this Vitter person, but I'm sure you'll confirm for me that he was arrested, charged, found guilty and sentenced for breaking the law? Cheers.

 

[JohnnyG]

I think the reason for the "I can't say with any certitude..." reply is becoming more clear. The excerpt below was part of a chat with a different woman, but does establish a modus operandi.

Weiner, 46, wrote to the woman, "ridiculous bulge in my shorts now. wanna see?"

She responded: "Yea! can u send a pic?"

"jeez, im rushing. let me take a quick pic," Weiner answered.

After the woman asked how she was going to receive the image, Weiner allegedly told her: "It wont go away. and now im taking pics of it. making me harder still."

Link