Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Anthony Weiner not sure if that's his weiner.Follow

#52 Jun 03 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yup. Totally got me there. Not a single reason.
Quote:
investigate online copies of screenshots of the picture first instead of

Is there a reason you think these are mutually exclusive?

I think he's just looking for an excuse to "investigate" online pictures of weiners.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#53 Jun 03 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Weiner should run for President, with Boehner as his VP. Or the other way around.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Jun 03 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
investigate online copies of screenshots of the picture first instead of

Is there a reason you think these are mutually exclusive?


They're not, in the same way that talking on your cell phone while having dinner isn't either. But one isn't necessary for the other, and tends to distract from it. No amount of "investigating" the screen shots of the picture will *ever* tell us who sent it and whether or not Weiner's account was actually hacked. Isn't that the question: Did the Congressman send that picture or not?

If it turns out that he didn't and someone hacked his YFrog account to send it pretending to be him, *then* you have a starting point. You can trace who that person was and go from there. I just don't see how looking at screenshots of the picture taken by third parties can ever actually accomplish anything other than distracting us from the actual issue at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jun 03 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Weiner should run for President, with Boehner as his VP. Or the other way around.


I'd vote for 'em.
#56 Jun 03 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yup. Totally got me there. Not a single reason.
Quote:
investigate online copies of screenshots of the picture first instead of

Is there a reason you think these are mutually exclusive?

I think he's just looking for an excuse to "investigate" online pictures of weiners.

He should talk to Varus.
#57 Jun 03 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
In Gbaji's America, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent.
#58 Jun 03 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,901 posts
gbaji wrote:
If it turns out that he didn't and someone hacked his YFrog account to send it pretending to be him, *then* you have a starting point. You can trace who that person was and go from there. I just don't see how looking at screenshots of the picture taken by third parties can ever actually accomplish anything other than distracting us from the actual issue at hand.


Dude, the whole issue is nothing but a distraction.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#59 Jun 03 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Some people are just more easily distracted by Weiner than others.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Jun 03 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're not, in the same way that talking on your cell phone while having dinner isn't either. But one isn't necessary for the other, and tends to distract from it.

Ummm... no.

Well, I don't know... maybe you can't do two things at once. Most people (or groups of people in this case) can.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jun 03 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
They're not, in the same way that talking on your cell phone while having dinner isn't either.
No. Not even close. If you honestly thing that checking the source of one copy of the original will "distract" people from investigating the posted picture (when both "investigations" are measured in minutes), then I have to seriously question how you can eat breakfast and continue breathing every morning.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#62 Jun 03 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Technogeek wrote:
In Gbaji's America, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent.


Nope. But I assume that if a message (picture in this case) is sent from your account that you sent it and are responsible for the content unless you can reasonably prove it wasn't you. Claiming "I was hacked", but then not actually having any law enforcement investigate said hacking goes a long way towards not providing reasonable proof that it wasn't you. Going after those who dared to take screen shots of the picture you sent instead of doing that takes us even farther into crazy-land.

Insisting that it makes sense to investigate those who took screen shots of the picture prior to actually investigating the alleged hacking just means you're drinking the crazy-land kool-aide. We have nothing but his word that he was actually hacked, and given his actions since then (or lack of in some cases), forgive me if I have a hard time accepting that word at face value.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Jun 03 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're not, in the same way that talking on your cell phone while having dinner isn't either. But one isn't necessary for the other, and tends to distract from it.

Ummm... no.

Well, I don't know... maybe you can't do two things at once. Most people (or groups of people in this case) can.


You just can't help but twist words around, can you? Where did I say you "can't" do those two things at once? I just said that one doesn't help accomplish the other and is an unnecessary distraction. No amount of examining the screen shots will determine if Weiner was hacked, or who hacked him. So what is the point of doing that when he's *not* having the police investigate the hacking? Shouldn't we first determine if he was hacked and maybe even who hacked him before doing anything else?


Those "investigations" only serve one purpose. They allow Weiner's supporters to distract the attention away from him and focus it on his enemies. They allow people to think there must have been a frame job in there somewhere because someone's screen capture of the tweet isn't perfect, or doesn't have the right time stamp. Never mind that this makes no difference. Never mind that no one is questioning whether said picture was tweeted from his account, so none of that matters. Toss a ton of innuendo and speculation and maybe you can get enough dumb people to believe that something sinister happened and Weiner is really just a victim of some evil conservative plot or something.


I just don't accept that. Until Weiner has law enforcement subpoena the logs for his account and determine that someone else sent that message the only correct assumption is that he sent it. And until that happens, any efforts to point the finger elsewhere are just attempts to distract from that fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Jun 03 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Going after those who dared to take screen shots of the picture you sent instead of doing that takes us even farther into crazy-land.

Weiner isn't going after them, individual parties are investigating it on their own initiative. Why this drives you to such distraction is... well, it's weird but I assume it's more of a partisan thing than anything logical. 'Cause it sure doesn't make sense.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jun 03 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Obviously gbaji just wants to punish Weiner for leaning far to the left.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Jun 03 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Going after those who dared to take screen shots of the picture you sent instead of doing that takes us even farther into crazy-land.

Weiner isn't going after them, individual parties are investigating it on their own initiative.


Uh huh... While he sits back and attempts to duck the issue. So he's got a lot of liberals out there willing to carry water for him. I'm not sure how that changes things. You think it "makes sense" for them to make a big deal about completely irrelevant things semi-related to the scandal involving Weiner.

I don't think it "makes sense". Not unless the purpose is to attempt to turn attention away from from Weiner and in any other direction possible. Which is what I said from the start.


Quote:
Why this drives you to such distraction is... well, it's weird but I assume it's more of a partisan thing than anything logical. 'Cause it sure doesn't make sense.


It is a partisan thing Joph. If this was done by a Republican you'd be screaming and howling for his resignation. But because he's a Democrat, it's suddenly perfectly reasonable for third parties to smear those who revealed the picture sent from his account and point the finger of blame/suspicion at them. If a conservative group were doing that to protect a Republican, don't you think you'd be screaming about it too? Yeah. You would.

You know what the difference is? If this had happened to a Republican, I'd be saying the exact same thing I am now: That he should be contacting law enforcement to investigate the alleged hacking and that we should not speculate in any direction until after said investigation has determined if he sent the message or not. I would certainly not be defending people who insisted we should investigate those who made the issue public, nor would I be defending the Congressman if he choose not to contact the police about the issue. If he did that, I would treat it as an admission of guilt and would be calling for his resignation.


But that's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, isn't it? The ends always justifies the means for your side, and the end of keeping a Democrat in office trumps any act of illegality, impropriety, or abuse of office. Your ethics get tossed right out the window the second it's inconvenient for your own political party. That's why you insist it "makes sense" to essentially white wash this issue. You're ok with Weiner getting away with this. You don't care if your elected officials are sending pictures of their private parts to 21 year old college students as long as they vote in lockstep for the things you want.


That's where the partisanship is on this Joph. And you damn well know it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Jun 03 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Props to lolgaxe for his continued weiner jokes.

/aprove
#68 Jun 03 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
In Gbaji's America, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent.


Nope. But I assume that if a message (picture in this case) is sent from your account that you sent it and are responsible for the content unless you can reasonably prove it wasn't you. Claiming "I was hacked", but then not actually having any law enforcement investigate said hacking goes a long way towards not providing reasonable proof that it wasn't you. Going after those who dared to take screen shots of the picture you sent instead of doing that takes us even farther into crazy-land..
I know that from all those hacked WoW account stories I read, people routinely go after hackers instead of just, y'know, changing their passwords and running a virus scan Smiley: nod
#69 Jun 03 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Props to lolgaxe for his continued weiner jokes.

/aprove


Don't approve him for copying me copying The Daily Show. Smiley: mad
#70 Jun 03 2011 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If this was done by a Republican you'd be screaming and howling for his resignation.

Bullshit. Show me where I "screamed and howled" for Rep. Lee's resignation following his little Craigslist debacle. Show me where I "screamed and howled" for Senator Craig's resignation after his bathroom cruising scandal. "Screamed and howled" for Ensign's resignation? "Screamed and howled" for Vitter's resignation? In fact, show me where I "screamed and howled" for anyone's resignation after some *****-based dalliance.

Quote:
You don't care if your elected officials are sending pictures of their private parts to 21 year old college students as long as they vote in lockstep for the things you want.

By in large, I don't care about any elected officials sending pictures of their dicks to any adult who isn't upset by it. The "family values freakout" thing is traditionally a GOP event. I might watch and comment on it but I save my righteous ire for shit that actually matters.

Quote:
That's where the partisanship is on this Joph.

You making shit up about me and then insisting that you'd act totally different? You're flipping out about people taking it upon themselves to look at things they find suspicious because you're praying for some Democratic fall, nothing more. I don't care if they investigate Weiner, investigate the picture, screen shots... whatever. I see no reason to. Meanwhile you're saying "Hey! Don't look at that! No, you need to only look at this! Stop it! No, ONLY this! I don't care how weird that is... STOP IT!"

Edited, Jun 3rd 2011 11:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Jun 03 2011 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The thread about Larry Craig was all sorts of amusing...
I once wrote:
Everyone on the board was clamoring for him to resign? The media was all about him resigning? Public outcry in general was for him to resign?

Well! Who knew? Funnily enough, my first response was one of sympathy. I honestly believe that it must absolutely suck to want to strive for conservative values as a public official and also have homosexual urges knowing that your party will castigate you at the drop of a hat no matter how effectively you served in government. If you asked, I doubt anyone on the forums would say that they felt this incident made him unsuitable for public service (although many might feel smug about his hypocrisy which goes again to my point about Pubbies ready to pounce). Most people, by in large, aren't really worried about where you put your ****. This is why the Pubbies had to keep screaming "Perjury!" about Clinton; the ******** aspect of it might have been good for some jokes but few people thought it made him unsuitable to serve. But conservatives care. They care a lot. They care so much where your **** has been that this man's "disorderly conduct" meant they might lose a Senate seat fourteen months from now and so they'd rather throw an long serving Senator out of office over a misdemeanor than risk losing a seat. Because of sex.

This is purely a Republican invention no matter how you might keep trying to deflect it. But keep blaming the Democrats.
Gbaji once wrote:
I've already stated my annoyance with Republicans in Congress who are so scared of a scandal that they'll toss their members overboard at the first sign of trouble. But that does not change the fact that he was vilified in the media before he ever got a chance to explain his side of the story. The tape of the interview with the police officer was (IMO) very telling and corroborated a heck of a lot of what he'd said about the event. However, by the time that information came to light, the damage had already been done, virtually everyone had already made up their minds, and it was too late for him to do anything.


Again. I fully believe that the party should have supported him, or at least taken a "we're waiting for the facts" stance. The "fact" is that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge that had nothing to do with sexual activity at all. But since it was presented in the context of an allegation of sexual activity, assumptions were made that were not proven.
[...]
Maybe that's just how you and I are different. I don't just automatically assume that the allegations being made are true. In fact, I start with the assumption of innocence (kinda like our legal system is supposed to be).
I once wrote:
Interestingly, Craig is now saying he might back out of his resignation and fight the case after all. That'd be all sorts of interesting and I can't say I object. From a personal standpoint, I don't think he should have been rode out like he was.

Yeah... not partisan AT ALL! :D


Edited, Jun 3rd 2011 11:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jun 03 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Technogeek wrote:
In Gbaji's America, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent.
If it were a conservative, he'd have given us a 40 paragraph rant about privacy and the constitution or something.
#73 Jun 03 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
By in large, I don't care about any elected officials sending pictures of their dicks to any adult who isn't upset by it. The "family values freakout" thing is traditionally a GOP event. I might watch and comment on it but I save my righteous ire for shit that actually matters.

Tangentially related, when do you think Favre is going to un-retire this year? I'm giving it six weeks; sometime mid-July.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#74 Jun 03 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Props to lolgaxe for his continued weiner jokes.

/aprove
Don't approve him for copying me copying The Daily Show. Smiley: mad
Yeah, but it was my third one on this page, and worked into the general discussion. Don't get Weiner envy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Jun 03 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lubriderm, Star Breaker wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
In Gbaji's America, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent.
If it were a conservative, he'd have given us a 40 paragraph rant about privacy and the constitution or something.

In the case of Larry Craig, Gbaji got bent out of shape that I took Craig's guilty plea as evidence that Craig was actually guilty of something (even as I said he didn't deserve to be thrown out for it) and said that I should wait for more facts to come out. Because, you know, innocent before proven guilty and stuff.

gbaji, in this thread, just wrote:
If he did that, I would treat it as an admission of guilt and would be calling for his resignation.

But Weiner not reacting the way Gbaji says he should is actually an admission of guilt! Gbaji would hold anyone to this standard! He said so!

So, to restate:
  • Pleading guilty to "disorderly conduct" where the facts of the case (which you signed) clearly say you were cruising for gay sex means that you're not really guilty and everyone should wait for more facts or else they hate the American justice system.
  • Saying you're innocent of a non-crime but not contacting the authorities as Gbaji thinks you should means that you're actually admitting your guilt and should be thrown out of office. Also, no one should dare to look at any facets of the event aside from those Gbaji approves of you looking at because then you're not looking for the correct facts.
  • ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #76 Jun 03 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
    Smoking gun on the alleged perps behind the astro-turfed scandal.

    What a bastion of conservative values he is!

    Also, since he has **** connections, it'd explain where the undie pic actually came from.
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 203 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (203)