DescentBB

But I'm not someone holding a high office...I'm just one of those poor schlubs. If I screw up and make an ass of myself, it won't really impact anyone other than those who know me personally (unless I make an ass of myself in some spectacular manner that makes the national news). If someone holding national office makes an ass of themselves through their own actions, as Weiner did, it reflects poorly not only on themselves, but on the office that they hold. We should expect our elected officials to hold themselves to higher standards than the rest of us, because that's presumably part of why we elected them.

You.

I don't see how that contradicts anything. I said that I expect my elected officials to hold themselves to a higher standard than Joe Q. Public, because that comes part and parcel with the offices they hold. But that doesn't prevent me from choosing to hold myself to those same standards myself, though it's not something I would reasonably expect from a random person I meet on the street.

Well that's the misnomer my friend. Public officials have to be held to higher standards, not the other way around.

A wonderful example of why I don't watch TV news anymore.

The media today is a whore, but it also makes them predictable. JUST, by watching the news today you can get a real good feel for the state of things and what direction to go. I've noticed that politicians are saying the same things I'm saying, just a lot more subtle and gentler and, If you know someone is lying, it makes it a lot easier to get to the truth. I find myself only watching the news these days.

flip wrote:The media today is a whore, but it also makes them predictable. JUST, by watching the news today you can get a real good feel for the state of things and what direction to go. I've noticed that politicians are saying the same things I'm saying, just a lot more subtle and gentler and, If you know someone is lying, it makes it a lot easier to get to the truth. I find myself only watching the news these days.

Not just a whore, but a damn CIRCUS!

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... he_re.html

I'm ashamed of the media for allowing this BS to go on at all, and although Wiener needed to resign, he didn't need this crap heaped upon him. It's maximum overkill. Just SICK! I felt sorry for Weiner! He was damn near crying near the end of this torture session. And he'd never had any actual sex during his misdeeds either, so it was uncalled for.

Republicans will circle their wagons when one of their people gets in trouble, but the Democrats will usually throw theirs to the wolves.

tunnelcat wrote:he didn't need this crap heaped upon him. It's maximum overkill. Just SICK! I felt sorry for Weiner! He was damn near crying near the end of this torture session.And he'd never had any actual sex during his misdeeds either, so it was uncalled for.

so let me get this right. you fell sorry for a Married Politician who was sexting multiple women inc allegedly an under-aged one, then lying to EVERYONE while claiming that his account was hacked, instead of being a man and owning up to his transgressions from the start. seems like this is a self inflicted wound to me. he deserves everything he gets.

let me ask you a question, if your husband has behaved in the same manner, would you feel the same way??

I do not think Weiner did anything wrong whatsoever in regards to this matter. I'm just throwing that out there.

null0010 wrote:I do not think Weiner did anything wrong whatsoever in regards to this matter. I'm just throwing that out there.

So you see nothing wrong with infidelity in a marriage?

in·fi·del·i·ty
   [in-fi-del-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. marital disloyalty; adultery.
2. unfaithfulness; disloyalty.
3. lack of religious faith, especially Christian faith.
4. a breach of trust or a disloyal act; transgression.

Well wrong yes, IMO. Honestly not very smart either. I've heard I don't know how many times someone suggest if he had just came to them, they might could have helped him. He panicked and made a big mess of things. None are qualities worthy of stewardship. As far as the witch burning, I agree, but he like Cuda said, he could have avoided all of it by accepting his fate at the very beginning. I know I've mailed a couple pictures of my penis too LOL

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:I do not think Weiner did anything wrong whatsoever in regards to this matter. I'm just throwing that out there.

So you see nothing wrong with infidelity in a marriage?

The person who decides that is his wife, not me. Maybe she's into that. We don't know.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:he didn't need this crap heaped upon him. It's maximum overkill. Just SICK! I felt sorry for Weiner! He was damn near crying near the end of this torture session.And he'd never had any actual sex during his misdeeds either, so it was uncalled for.

so let me get this right. you fell sorry for a Married Politician who was sexting multiple women inc allegedly an under-aged one, then lying to EVERYONE while claiming that his account was hacked, instead of being a man and owning up to his transgressions from the start. seems like this is a self inflicted wound to me. he deserves everything he gets.

let me ask you a question, if your husband has behaved in the same manner, would you feel the same way??

You didn't get my point. I was talking about the "types" of questions that those "reporters" where throwing at him.

To answer your question, yes, I would be very disappointed and furious at my husband if he did the things Weiner did. Maybe to the point of divorce, but we've been married a long time, and it would take an awful lot to dump him. BUT, I would NEVER subject him to the humiliation and degradation of that kind press conference, errr, CIRCUS. I don't believe in that type of shadenfreude. I'm not cruel. The man messed up, tried to cover it up and is paying the price. He resigned. End of story. He now has to deal with his wife. He doesn't need to be ground into a pulp with sick satisfaction. I don't remember this much sick vitriol or outrageous questioning with any other Congressman that's been caught in infidelity or scandal recently. What the hell is wrong with you CUDA? Are you a Christian human being or a vengeful conservative who can't hold his own party to the same scrutiny?

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:he didn't need this crap heaped upon him. It's maximum overkill. Just SICK! I felt sorry for Weiner! He was damn near crying near the end of this torture session.And he'd never had any actual sex during his misdeeds either, so it was uncalled for.

so let me get this right. you fell sorry for a Married Politician who was sexting multiple women inc allegedly an under-aged one, then lying to EVERYONE while claiming that his account was hacked, instead of being a man and owning up to his transgressions from the start. seems like this is a self inflicted wound to me. he deserves everything he gets.

let me ask you a question, if your husband has behaved in the same manner, would you feel the same way??

You didn't get my point. I was talking about the "types" of questions that those "reporters" where throwing at him.

To answer your question, yes, I would be very disappointed and furious at my husband if he did the things Weiner did. Maybe to the point of divorce, but we've been married a long time, and it would take an awful lot to dump him. BUT, I would NEVER subject him to the humiliation and degradation of that kind press conference, errr, CIRCUS. I don't believe in that type of shadenfreude. I'm not cruel. The man messed up, tried to cover it up and is paying the price. He resigned. End of story.

and your husband isn't a public figure either is he. This man was elected by the PEOPLE, he owes the PEOPLE an apology. the "CIRCUS" was created by him for lying to the People and the press in the first place, you reap what you sow.

He now has to deal with his wife. He doesn't need to be ground into a pulp with sick satisfaction. I don't remember this much sick vitriol or outrageous questioning with any other Congressman that's been caught in infidelity or scandal recently.

the issue with his wife should be kept as private as possible. and you either have a VERY short memory, or you choosing to ignore reality every time this has happened to a private figure the press has had a field day. I'll point to Arnie, the difference was Arnie didn't go on National TV and lie about it, and he was smart enough to keep a low profile. Weiner wasn't as smart

What the hell is wrong with you CUDA? Are you a Christian human being or a vengeful conservative who can't hold his own party to the same scrutiny?

SO because you don't like the fact that I wont let a man that is a public figure elected to represent his people who was unfaithful to his wife and lie to his constituents, the Press and the entire country off you hook, I'm a vengeful conservative I chose not to ignore bad behavior. unlike you and Null, who love to make excuses for it.

edit: oh and show me an example, just 1 where I have not held a conservative to the same standards. you wont find it. and you know why. because its never happened and its never happened because I hold my elected officials (those people that represent me) to the same standards that I hold myself to.

I am not making excuse; I do not think it is relevant to his role as a legislator.

null0010 wrote:I am not making excuse; I do not think it is relevant to his role as a legislator.

so you don't think a member of congress sending explicit naked photos of himself to several women that he was not married to opening himself up to a possible case of blackmail is not relevant to his role as a legislator?

No I can't agree with that Null. They are supposed to be stewards and higher minded. Seeing the bigger picture and have vision. They should be serious and somber and trustworthy for they hold our futures in their hands. If his own wife can't trust his integrity, I damn sure can't. Is he that much different from the rest of us at some stage of our lives? Hell no, stfu and be thankful, but he is wholeheartedly and completely unfit for a life of service. At the moment anyways.

null0010 wrote:I am not making excuse; I do not think it is relevant to his role as a legislator.

How about lying to the public and engaging in a conspiracy (asking others to lie or cover for him) to cover up the truth - is that at all "relevant to his role as a legislator" ?

They are supposed to write laws. That is the extent of their responsiblity. Sending photos of dongs has nothing to do with writing laws.

tunnelcat wrote: I don't remember this much sick vitriol or outrageous questioning with any other Congressman that's been caught in infidelity or scandal recently.

I seem to remember a lot of press coverage, and pointed questioning, regarding the Larry Craig scandal.
Look, I can google up long lists of articles.

I don't think there's anything special here in regards to Weiner. He threw chum in the water for days. He can't complain now when the sharks show up.

CUDA, I'm NOT for letting any slimy, crooked public official off the hook. If Weiner had kept up the charade of lies and deceit and remained in office, I'd be all for vilifying him in the press until he cried uncle. That's what the press is there for and that what they succeeded in doing too.

Arnie, by the way, did not have this type of show for the very reason you pointed out, he stayed out of the media spotlight, like a little wussy coward. A chickenturd lowlife who banged the housekeeper and who knows how many other women while he was married! At least Weiner had the temerity to stand up, own up (although a little late) and take it like a man. Weiner DID apologize by the way, or at least tried to with all those BS nonsense questions flying around. It's not like he flipped the bird at everyone without comment as he left stage right, which I almost wished he'd done now.

What I absolutely DON'T condone is kicking a man once he's down. That's cowardly and I don't think it's honorable. THAT'S what pisses me off.

null, think about this, if these guys have the time to waste on sexting or other unacceptable immoral playtime activities, they're taking time away from doing the job we elected them for.

dong photo -> coverup -> blackmail -> write laws based on blackmailer's whims instead of wishes of constituents and/or constitution

So yeah, it is pretty relevant, not for the photo itself, but for the circumstances surrounding it. It'd be different if we elected a porn star who sent out explicit photos that everyone knew about, and who wasn't trying to hide it from a spouse or the public.

tunnelcat wrote:null, think about this, if these guys have the time to waste on sexting or other unacceptable immoral playtime activities, they're taking time away from doing the job we elected them for.

I don't expect people to spend every waking hour of their existance conducting job-related activities.

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:null, think about this, if these guys have the time to waste on sexting or other unacceptable immoral playtime activities, they're taking time away from doing the job we elected them for.

I don't expect people to spend every waking hour of their existance conducting job-related activities.

Some people are always on call. Policemen, Firefighters, Politicians. that's the Job they chose, and those are the consequences of taking that Job. Politician are your representative. they are what people look at when they look at you. dont you think they should take that obligation seriously and represent you to the best of their abilities???

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:null, think about this, if these guys have the time to waste on sexting or other unacceptable immoral playtime activities, they're taking time away from doing the job we elected them for.

I don't expect people to spend every waking hour of their existance conducting job-related activities.

True, we are human and can't do one job all day, every day. People need recreational time to wind down. But if you're a public official, why do something immoral or weird, that if one gets caught at doing, would surely destroy ones career? It seems like self-destructive behavior.

CUDA, you didn't answer why a man should be kicked while he's down. Do you think that's acceptable?

tunnelcat wrote:

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:null, think about this, if these guys have the time to waste on sexting or other unacceptable immoral playtime activities, they're taking time away from doing the job we elected them for.

I don't expect people to spend every waking hour of their existance conducting job-related activities.

True, we are human and can't do one job all day, every day. People need recreational time to wind down. But if you're a public official, why do something immoral or weird, that if one gets caught at doing, would surely destroy ones career? It seems like self-destructive behavior.

It does not affect his ability to craft legislation.

null0010 wrote:It does not affect his ability to craft legislation.

No, but the constant fear of exposure when doing something immoral, perceived or not, or illegal, might interfere with judgement. Don't get me wrong null, I liked Anthony Weiner's official work in office. He was a good liberal firebrand who stayed true to his base, unlike a recent president I know. But unfortunately, he got caught playing dirty hanky panky and it cost him dearly.

tunnelcat wrote:

null0010 wrote:CUDA, you didn't answer why a man should be kicked while he's down. Do you think that's acceptable?

I'll answer, but I need Clarification from you first. How did they kick him when he was down???

Null is reserving his right to mail "unsolicited?" pictures of his dong at anytime he would like.

I did that once. but the file was so large it took two emails

Didn't you hear the questions they were blasting at him at the final news conference? None of those questions had any merit to his resignation. They were only put out to intimidate and embarrass the man, especially those yelled from the Howard Stern lackey. I call that beating a dead dog. What's funny is that our local Channel 2 news played the entire audio early this morning, unbleeped. I mean, shouldn't they be bleeping most of what the Howard Stern guy was yelling when kids might potentially be within earshot?

tunnelcat wrote:

null0010 wrote:It does not affect his ability to craft legislation.

No, but the constant fear of exposure when doing something immoral, perceived or not, or illegal, might interfere with judgement. Don't get me wrong null, I liked Anthony Weiner's official work in office. He was a good liberal firebrand who stayed true to his base, unlike a recent president I know. But unfortunately, he got caught playing dirty hanky panky and it cost him dearly.

He didn't try to cover it up, though. So there was no fear of exposure.

Actually no I didn't watch it. but I did see some of the highlights or lowlights if you'd like. and Howard stern OMG Nuf said. Howard Stern criticizing Rep Wiener is asinine. the mans a slim ball to umpteenth degree. you cannot blame the "media" for that. that was just Stern getting ratings for his Radio show. and I would agree trying to embarrass the man Further in that case IS uncalled for. BUT the treatment that he got up to that point is totally justified.

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

null0010 wrote:It does not affect his ability to craft legislation.

No, but the constant fear of exposure when doing something immoral, perceived or not, or illegal, might interfere with judgement. Don't get me wrong null, I liked Anthony Weiner's official work in office. He was a good liberal firebrand who stayed true to his base, unlike a recent president I know. But unfortunately, he got caught playing dirty hanky panky and it cost him dearly.

He didn't try to cover it up, though. So there was no fear of exposure.

Oh so him lying that his email account was hacked and the pic were fake were what then????

Teacher: Jimmy do you have your Homework??

Jimmy: No Teacher My dog ate it.

CUDA wrote:Actually no I didn't watch it. but I did see some of the highlights or lowlights if you'd like. and Howard stern OMG Nuf said. Howard Stern criticizing Rep Wiener is asinine. the mans a slim ball to umpteenth degree. you cannot blame the "media" for that. that was just Stern getting ratings for his Radio show. and I would agree trying to embarrass the man Further in that case IS uncalled for. BUT the treatment that he got up to that point is totally justified.

Thank you. And I agree that the treatment he got BEFORE he resigned was justified, just to let you know I agree with you on that point. My opinion is that if you're a public official, you're in for getting public and press scrutiny.

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

null0010 wrote:It does not affect his ability to craft legislation.

No, but the constant fear of exposure when doing something immoral, perceived or not, or illegal, might interfere with judgement. Don't get me wrong null, I liked Anthony Weiner's official work in office. He was a good liberal firebrand who stayed true to his base, unlike a recent president I know. But unfortunately, he got caught playing dirty hanky panky and it cost him dearly.

He didn't try to cover it up, though. So there was no fear of exposure.

Uuuuuuh, yes he did. What were all those "My account must have been hacked" excuses he put out at first? If he wasn't embarrassed or afraid of that type of thing getting out publically, why didn't he just say without pause, "Yeah, that was me, so what? I'm really packin', aren't I!"

tunnelcat wrote:Uuuuuuh, yes he did. What were all those "My account must have been hacked" excuses he put out at first? If he wasn't embarrassed or afraid of that type of thing getting out publically, why didn't he just say without pause, "Yeah, that was me, so what? I'm really packin', aren't I!"

The pictures were out; that was not covered up.

I did that once. but the file was so large it took two emails

Yeah me too but it kept saying file does not meet minimum size restrictions. =/

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Uuuuuuh, yes he did. What were all those "My account must have been hacked" excuses he put out at first? If he wasn't embarrassed or afraid of that type of thing getting out publically, why didn't he just say without pause, "Yeah, that was me, so what? I'm really packin', aren't I!"

The pictures were out; that was not covered up.

some how I'm sensing your perception of reality is a bit skewed.

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Uuuuuuh, yes he did. What were all those "My account must have been hacked" excuses he put out at first? If he wasn't embarrassed or afraid of that type of thing getting out publically, why didn't he just say without pause, "Yeah, that was me, so what? I'm really packin', aren't I!"

The pictures were out; that was not covered up.

some how I'm sensing your perception of reality is a bit skewed.

I do not fault him for lying about it.

TC you are really delusional if you think democrats don't get the same pass from their party that conservatives do. If Weiner wasn't likely to lose his seat next cycle his party would be behind him even now! they see dumping him as a chance to replace him with a more electable dem for the coming election because he was already polling as a big loser next time. Otherwise they would let him borrow their cameras and panties if it meant keeping his seat with a D on it!
Who was that William Jefferson Rep D who had used the National Guard in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina to stop rescuing people so they could take him to his house in the flood so he could retrieve his property...including the $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer...how many election cycles did he get protected? Two I believe!

How was it that the National Organization of Woman turned feminism and their long devout stance against sexual harassment in the workplace completely on it's head to protect Clinton for screwing Lewinsky on the job then shuffling her off against her will to a job outside the WhiteHouse?

You are in total party protection mode if you want to say Dems get out and Repubs get to stay!!
corruption is common place in both because too many people like you think it's OK to rationalize it on ideological grounds.