• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

Neally said:
This wasn't a spur of the moment lie to cover up that his hand was in the cookie jar. It was a thought out plan that included supposedly hiring a law firm. Sorry, I don't give him a pass on the coverup job because he "panicked". He'd still be sticking with the lie had more photos not come out and all evidence to his guilt kept piling up. And you would have dutifully supported him.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't panic if someone pointed a gun at you and demanded that you give up all public life?

Remember that he had the sludge monster drooling in his face and that the sludge monster was dragging other people into it as well. Yes, he did need a lawyer. The sludge monster or some drooling moron working with him might have crossed the line of legality and this would be a chance to give that low-born piece of compost what he had coming. It still might happen. Some of the non-public figures whom the cess pool gang outted might have a legal claim against them.

I wouldn't want anyone with his poor judgement to represent me, regardless of his politics.

Character and judgement flaws are not things that necessarily can be segregated from personal and public life. The guy is a creepy lying rat, regardless of his other accomplishments.
Click to expand...

So, you want Diapers Vitter drummed out of congress as well, right?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Sickness? The guy is plain stupid.
Click to expand...
No, he just paniced. And nothing that he did was illegal, so his lying about it doesn't even matter.

What dirtbags like Sanford, Rotten Rudy, Craig and Diapers Vitter did was stupid, vile and in some jurisdictions illegal.

I want to hear the Republicon outrage about those critters' walking around among decent folk.

While I am waiting for that to happen, I shall dismiss any Republicon or blue dog howlling as annoying background noise.

Sick is what Diapers Vitter did.

As for its being just partisanship, please note how quickly we threw Spitzer and Edwards under the bus and, in Edwards' case, drove it back and forth a time or two to be sure he stayed down.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
I'm done with the other stuff, but I just had to ask:

Do you hold David Vitter to the same standard?

Should every Republican ever involved in a sex-scandal resign?
GB
Click to expand...
Anyone involved in a scandal in which they deny it by repeatedly lying, blaming others, and creating an elaborate coverup like Weiner did, should be held to the same standards.

leftysergeant said:
You wouldn't panic if someone pointed a gun at you and demanded that you give up all public life?
Click to expand...
That's not what happened. He should have simply stated, "What happened was a private matter, no further comment."

Yes, he did need a lawyer. The sludge monster or some drooling moron working with him might have crossed the line of legality and this would be a chance to give that low-born piece of compost what he had coming. It still might happen. Some of the non-public figures whom the cess pool gang outted might have a legal claim against them.
Click to expand...
Pure nonsense. He had no need for a lawyer. He sent the photo. Others reported what was a public tweet. Quite hilarious that you continue to defend and support his clear scam of hiring a lawyer to "get to the bottom of this".

So, you want Diapers Vitter drummed out of congress as well, right?
Click to expand...
Still waiting for your answer to what qualifies as "deviant sex" which justifies public scrutiny.

leftysergeant said:
What dirtbags like Sanford, Rotten Rudy, Craig and Diapers Vitter did was stupid, vile and in some jurisdictions illegal.

I want to hear the Republicon outrage about those critters' walking around among decent folk.
Click to expand...
I want you to describe what private sex acts should be brought to public attention.
 
Neally said:
Still waiting for your answer to what qualifies as "deviant sex" which justifies public scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Scrutiny is only warranted based upon 1) hypocrisy, 2) lack of consent or 3) the involvement of tax payer funds or some other abuse of public duty.

Anything else adults decide to do is their business.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
Scrutiny is only warranted based upon hypocrisy or lack of consent.

Anything else adults decide to do is their business.
Click to expand...
I agree. Apparently leftysergeant thinks certain sex acts performed between consenting adults should be brought to the public attention for scrutiny and/or ridicule.
 
leftysergeant said:
The sludge monster or some drooling moron working with him might have crossed the line of legality and this would be a chance to give that low-born piece of compost what he had coming. It still might happen.
Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal. Even when it flies in the face of experience.
 
Ziggurat said:
Newsflash: Cordova never consented to having Weiner send her crotch shots.

Newsflash 2: Weiner was, in fact, acting hypocritically.
Click to expand...

Newsflash 3: then Cordova is the party that can protest. Obviously the cold sending makes the behavior more questionable, but it's odd that you're upset on her behalf.

Newsflash 4: the hypocrisy in this case, to the degree it can even be conjured, is so mild as to be nearly incoherent. Weiner is not justifying his political decisions based upon some notion of his moral superiority.

Newsflash 5: The word "only" sets forth the necessary condition. Those things listed were necessary, but not sufficient conditions for public scrutiny. You have imporperly reversed the conditional phrase:

"Only when it rains do I carry an umbrella" = "if I carry an umbrella, then it is raining." The presence of rain does not mean I carry an umbrella, but carrying an umbrella means it is raining.

Thus, Only when hypocrisy, lack of consent, or some public malfeasance are present should a scandal become public.

public--->those three things. Finding one of those three things does not automatically mean its worthy of public scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
Newsflash 3: then Cordova is the party that can protest.
Click to expand...

A congressman who send unsolicited crotch pics is a congressman who send unsolicited crotch pics. Whether or not his particular target objected this time doesn't change that.

Newsflash 4: the hypocrisy in this case, to the degree it can even be conjured, is so mild as to be nearly incoherent. Weiner is not justifying his political decisions based upon some notion of his moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Actually, yeah, he pretty much is.

Newsflash 5: The word "only" sets forth the necessary condition. Those things listed were necessary, but not sufficient conditions for public scrutiny. You have imporperly reversed the conditional phrase:
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. You did not list any additional requirements. The obvious interpretation is that, regardless of any other requirements, you thought Weiner didn't satisfy those requirements. I pointed out that he did. If you feel there are other requirements which must also be satisfied, and which Weiner does not, you are free to tell us what they are. But until such time, I obviously can't take any position about whether he does or doesn't satisfy whatever additional requirements you might feel exist.
 
Ziggurat said:
A congressman who send unsolicited crotch pics is a congressman who send unsolicited crotch pics. Whether or not his particular target objected this time doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it really does. People who want pictures of the Congressman's junk or don't care are distinguishable from people who are offended. That decision is not ours to make, though I agree sending them unsolicited is very odd and highly questionable. If someone who was offended did receive those, then there would be an issue of harrassment.


Ziggurat said:
Actually, yeah, he pretty much is.
Click to expand...

I've seen little evidence of that.


Ziggurat said:
No, I haven't. You did not list any additional requirements. The obvious interpretation is that, regardless of any other requirements, you thought Weiner didn't satisfy those requirements. I pointed out that he did. If you feel there are other requirements which must also be satisfied, and which Weiner does not, you are free to tell us what they are. But until such time, I obviously can't take any position about whether he does or doesn't satisfy whatever additional requirements you might feel exist.
Click to expand...

Look, a necessary condition is a necessary condition. You're not going to change the way formal logic operates.

"Only" distinguishes the necessary condition. That's why I used that word. I don't have to list sufficient conditions when I'm making a statement about necessary conditions.

Here are the things that must be present, but just because they're present, that doesn't mean all issues are satisfied.

The mere presence of hypocrisy, for example, is not enough to automatically make something newsworthy. Anthony Weiner supporting environmental legislation while still driving to work is the sort of stupid, meaningless technical hypocrisy that should be beneath people's notice. It's the result of living in a world that is a certain way while working to change it.

Now, Anthony Weiner supporting environmental legislation while driving around with an armada of SUV's filled with bodyguards or chartering private jets for short trips, then we've got a bit of an issue.

I chose the language I chose precisely because of that issue.

Now, something that is closer to a sufficient condition would be lack of consent. That's really the only thing brought up in all of this that gives me pause, but no one has come forth to say they were offended by these advances. The minute someone says, "I received a picture of the Congressman's Johnson and was upset and scared given his authority," I will gladly join the calls for his resignation.

What we have now is a picture of a penis and no one who seems to care.
 
TraneWreck said:
Yeah, it really does. People who want pictures of the Congressman's junk or don't care are distinguishable from people who are offended.
Click to expand...

Not before the fact, they aren't. Weiner not only sent a crotch pic to a person who didn't request it, but he also had absolutely no way of knowing if she would be offended or not. Which meant he was willing to send crotch pictures to strangers who would be offended. That's a problem. I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing that.

Look, a necessary condition is a necessary condition. You're not going to change the way formal logic operates.
Click to expand...

Nor am I trying to. I'm merely pointing out that, contrary to your implication, the necessary condition you gave was satisfied.

Here are the things that must be present, but just because they're present, that doesn't mean all issues are satisfied.
Click to expand...

Since you STILL haven't picked up on this yet, let me make this even more explicit than it was before: I haven't claimed that any other requirements that you have are satisfied. But I can't even know whether or not they have been if you don't even give them. I responded to the requirements you gave. Again: if you have additional requirements, then give them. But don't expect me to respond regarding conditions you set which I cannot even know. That's a completely unfair demand, for rather obvious reasons.
 
My new, favorite of all-times New York Post headline:

"Obama beats Weiner"
 
TraneWreck said:
Newsflash 4: the hypocrisy in this case, to the degree it can even be conjured, is so mild as to be nearly incoherent. Weiner is not justifying his political decisions based upon some notion of his moral superiority.
Click to expand...
Flashback1: It means he's dumber than dirt. How can a person be relied upon to make wise political decisions if he is dumber than dirt? Most 10 year olds realize the idiocy of sending naked pictures of themselves over the internet.
 
Let's face facts. There are a lot of differences between the case of Weiner and other cases where the malefactor was not (or not immediately) thrown overboard by their caucus leaders -- Vitter, Ensign, Jefferson (he of $90K cash in the freezer). That difference is that the Weiner case gets lots and lots of embarrassing publicity every single day. The other cases were, by comparison, obscure to the national consciousness. The best comparison to Weiner is Sen Craig.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not before the fact, they aren't. Weiner not only sent a crotch pic to a person who didn't request it, but he also had absolutely no way of knowing if she would be offended or not. Which meant he was willing to send crotch pictures to strangers who would be offended. That's a problem. I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing that.
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree that it's a problem, I think we disagree about the significance of that problem.


Ziggurat said:
Nor am I trying to. I'm merely pointing out that, contrary to your implication, the necessary condition you gave was satisfied.
Click to expand...

Satisfying a necessary condition is basically meaningless, it gets you nowhere. Watch:

If it's sunny, I will go to the park.

Let's satisfy the necessary condition--I go to the park. Now what can you conclude?

Just that I went to the park, that's it.


Ziggurat said:
Since you STILL haven't picked up on this yet, let me make this even more explicit than it was before: I haven't claimed that any other requirements that you have are satisfied. But I can't even know whether or not they have been if you don't even give them. I responded to the requirements you gave. Again: if you have additional requirements, then give them. But don't expect me to respond regarding conditions you set which I cannot even know. That's a completely unfair demand, for rather obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

There's no way to describe this exchange save that you don't really understand how necessary and sufficient conditions operate. I gave a set of necessary conditions.

I made no demand on anyone. The questions was asked about what makes something worth public scrutiny. I offered three necessary conditions. You have confused them for sufficient conditions, as is evident by your demands. I said, "At least one of these must be present." That is all.

It's a very complicated question with few clear answers. All I feel capable of concluding with certainty is that if a situation lacks all three of those (the contrapositive), then the public has absolutely no grounds for interest.

Weiner did nothing illegal or somehow involve public funds in his action, there isn't any clear hypocrisy involving the act itself (just vague allusions to moral outrage, in general), only the consent component is troubling, and, again, no one who received the pictures cares. Thus, this isn't an issue worthy of public scrutiny.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Flashback1: It means he's dumber than dirt. How can a person be relied upon to make wise political decisions if he is dumber than dirt? Most 10 year olds realize the idiocy of sending naked pictures of themselves over the internet.
Click to expand...

Please, that's such a silly argument. Sending photos of your cock has no bearing on your ability to read legislation.

If you want to evaluate a Congressperson, look at how they vote, look at the arguments they make. Whether or not they need to dress up like Little Bo Peep and watch a burly man pull the heads off Barbie dolls to reach climax is irrelevant.

People are complicated things. They can show poor judgment in some aspects of their lives and be incredibly competent in others. This need to declare someone "bad" based on an irrelevant activity is primitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom