Anthony Weiner?

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:02 pm

malchior wrote:That press conference just became awesome. Breitbart is insane. i've never seen anything like that.

Please expand on the insanity for those of us who missed it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:04 pm

Andrew Breitbart takes over Anthony Weiner news conference

Andrew Breitbart took over the press conference in New York that was supposed to feature Rep. Anthony Weiner Monday, declaring that everything he’s posted on his conservative Web site BigGovernment.com has proven to be true.

Weiner was supposed to come to the microphones at 4 p.m. but Breitbart took the podium instead, criticizing the media’s coverage of the Weiner scandal. BigGovernment posted new shirtless pictures of Weiner on Monday.

For more than 15 minutes, Breitbart fielded a string of questions about how he obtained the photo of Weiner, whether it was truly him and why he published the photos.
...

Breitbart initially stood unnoticed holding his iPad at the side of the 3rd Floor Ballroom at the Sheraton New York, a hotel that political parties in the state typically use for political events. He was alone until a POLITICO and New York Observer reporter approached him, tweeted about it, and then was urged to the podium by a press corps waiting for Weiner to arrive.

“I find the hacked story specious, especially because he doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it,” Breitbart said.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:05 pm

Assuming no major new revelations come out, I don't know if this will have a big impact on Weiner's political career, at least over the short term. He'll run for and win re-election in 2012.

This might help discourage him from running for NYC mayor in 2013. That would be a tough race for him regardless, since it's expected to be a crowded race, packed with rising NYC pols who have been waiting for Bloomberg to retire already.

I suppose this means he'll never be senator, but he never struck me as the senatorial type.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:08 pm

Oh, and it was Weiner's wedding tackle:

Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York said today he has engaged in "several inappropriate" electronic relationships with six women over three years, and that he publicly lied about a photo of himself sent over Twitter to a college student in Seattle over a week ago.

"I take full responsibility for my actions," Weiner said. "The picture was of me, and I sent it."

The announcement came as ABC News prepared to release an interview with Meagan Broussard, a 26-year-old single mother from Texas who provided dozens of photos, emails, Facebook messages and cell phone call logs that she says chronicle a sexually-charged electronic relationship with Weiner that rapidly-evolved for more than a month, starting on April 20, 2011.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:22 pm

"I take full responsibility for my actions," Weiner said. "The picture was of me, and I sent it."

The picture? What about lying your ass off? Jesus. And some of the text content is just creepy.

Breitbart is a jackass too.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:41 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
"I take full responsibility for my actions," Weiner said. "The picture was of me, and I sent it."
The picture? What about lying your ass off? Jesus. And some of the text content is just creepy.

Breitbart is a jackass too.

Jackassery is not a zero-sum game.

I don't think that Weiner could have handled himself any worse since this broke if he'd been getting advice from a crack panel of experts on getting things badly wrong.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:44 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:I don't think that Weiner could have handled himself any worse since this broke if he'd been getting advice from a cracked-out panel of experts on getting things badly wrong.

FTFY

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:48 pm

Lying liars suck. Admitting it and making amends is the baseline for decency, but the taint remains.

Back to basics: what is it about public figures and celebrities that compels them to email pictures of their junk, or record their phone sex, or make videos of their extramarital affairs? Don't they know they're just producing avoidable, persistent evidence of shame?

What is it about *people* that makes them want to incorporate media technology into their sex lives? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this seems like not only a bad idea but also a complete sexual turnoff.

"You make me so horny, Baby. Please unzip the attached JPEG. I wanna sex you all the way to your bandwidth limit."

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:56 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
"I take full responsibility for my actions," Weiner said. "The picture was of me, and I sent it."
The picture? What about lying your ass off? Jesus. And some of the text content is just creepy.

Breitbart is a jackass too.

Jackassery is not a zero-sum game.

I don't think that Weiner could have handled himself any worse since this broke if he'd been getting advice from a crack panel of experts on getting things badly wrong.

Yup. Now he gets a whole nother week of headlining the Daily Show... but the worst thing is that he's validating Breitbart.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:04 pm

Holman wrote:Lying liars suck. Admitting it and making amends is the baseline for decency, but the taint remains.

Back to basics: what is it about public figures and celebrities that compels them to email pictures of their junk, or record their phone sex, or make videos of their extramarital affairs? Don't they know they're just producing avoidable, persistent evidence of shame?

What is it about *people* that makes them want to incorporate media technology into their sex lives? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this seems like not only a bad idea but also a complete sexual turnoff.

"You make me so horny, Baby. Please unzip the attached JPEG. I wanna sex you all the way to your bandwidth limit."

i'd be willing to be that its just human nature, and not simply because they are high profile people in our cultures.

I am more laughing at the fact that this is actually an issue we are talking about. Yeah he should've admitted it, and still tasteless to tweet it.

And whomever is arguing that it is our business i disagree. In terms of security and such...did we see such blackmail over clinton when he was caught. Or what bout newt, he was having an affair prior to his divorce and while in a power position. Hmm what bout...let's see the Louisiana senator leader from 10 years back...forget his name......was really brief....Sen. Ensign having just been caught, i think he was being forced to pay off the accusers.

If you think its a method that they can be blackmailed, there are many other methods people can attain such ends...ie bribery....Honestly, I just dont see a compelling reason to make it our business. Too many other important stories out there than to concentrate on Wiener-gate.

The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous, and its our culture forcing us into this behavior. And honestly I am willing to overlook such failings, as long as they are doing their jobs in governing.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:06 pm

Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous,

If this is true, I suspect that the qualities that make it difficult for some people to be monogamous are the same qualities that make people want to run for office.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:29 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:What an utterly freakish display.

And he made it so much worse by coming out with the hacking thing.

Would that he had followed Fed's advice "Just Shut UP"

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:41 pm

I'm able to see that some people aren't geared for fidelity. But what I don't get is the apparent compulsion to digitize it.

You're professionally visible, you have enemies, you're doing something dishonest/lewd/unseemly, and some part of your brain knows that this partner isn't the one you'll be spending your life with. This is the time to make a video?

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:03 pm

Holman wrote:I'm able to see that some people aren't geared for fidelity. But what I don't get is the apparent compulsion to digitize it.

I think it's the veil of technology that makes it easy for people to do things that they would be embarrassed to in person. I know these messages weren't anonymous, but I think it's still easier to whip it out by IM than it is face-to-face. It's the same reason cowards (like me at 16) break up with their girlfriends by email.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:18 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:
Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous,
If this is true, I suspect that the qualities that make it difficult for some people to be monogamous are the same qualities that make people want to run for office.

Why not? You're up for a possible job change every 2-6 years, and it's not like there's any huge penalty if you just quit outright.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:46 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:
Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous,
If this is true, I suspect that the qualities that make it difficult for some people to be monogamous are the same qualities that make people want to run for office.
Why not? You're up for a possible job change every 2-6 years, and it's not like there's any huge penalty if you just quit outright.

I'm guessing it has more to do with the desire to f*ck as many people as possible.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:17 pm

Holman wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:
Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous,
If this is true, I suspect that the qualities that make it difficult for some people to be monogamous are the same qualities that make people want to run for office.
Why not? You're up for a possible job change every 2-6 years, and it's not like there's any huge penalty if you just quit outright.
I'm guessing it has more to do with the desire to f*ck as many people as possible.

Rock star, ftw!

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:52 pm

I thought he was smarter than that.
I thought he would have had the balls to tell the truth instead of lying through his teeth until there was no way out.
He went from one of my favorite politicians to being one of the lowest.

Matrix · Post by **Matrix** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:04 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:
Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous,
If this is true, I suspect that the qualities that make it difficult for some people to be monogamous are the same qualities that make people want to run for office.

Some are not, approximately 20% in both men and women. And yes, same quality indeed. Lack of feelings, not on psychopathic extreme level, but on abnormal level. Compassion, love, anger and other feelings. yet, they have to fake those feelings, at least some of those feelings. This is based on 1930s study of psychoanalysis in Stalins russia during the communist "cleanings".

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:08 pm

Newcastle wrote:
Holman wrote:Lying liars suck. Admitting it and making amends is the baseline for decency, but the taint remains.

Back to basics: what is it about public figures and celebrities that compels them to email pictures of their junk, or record their phone sex, or make videos of their extramarital affairs? Don't they know they're just producing avoidable, persistent evidence of shame?

What is it about *people* that makes them want to incorporate media technology into their sex lives? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this seems like not only a bad idea but also a complete sexual turnoff.

"You make me so horny, Baby. Please unzip the attached JPEG. I wanna sex you all the way to your bandwidth limit."
i'd be willing to be that its just human nature, and not simply because they are high profile people in our cultures.

I am more laughing at the fact that this is actually an issue we are talking about. Yeah he should've admitted it, and still tasteless to tweet it.

And whomever is arguing that it is our business i disagree. In terms of security and such...did we see such blackmail over clinton when he was caught. Or what bout newt, he was having an affair prior to his divorce and while in a power position. Hmm what bout...let's see the Louisiana senator leader from 10 years back...forget his name......was really brief....Sen. Ensign having just been caught, i think he was being forced to pay off the accusers.

If you think its a method that they can be blackmailed, there are many other methods people can attain such ends...ie bribery....Honestly, I just dont see a compelling reason to make it our business. Too many other important stories out there than to concentrate on Wiener-gate.

The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous, and its our culture forcing us into this behavior. And honestly I am willing to overlook such failings, as long as they are doing their jobs in governing.

A large percentage of those coerced into breaching security are the victims of blackmail. That is why even a former drug dealer can get a security clearance while someone will often be denied about not disclosing something that on the surface would be rather trivial. these policies were not developed from a paranoid bureaucracy but in reaction to statistical fact. It may sound nonsensical just as Weiner's lying about this does, but when you get the same result 9 of 10 times it would be unwise to disregard it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:47 pm

Newcastle wrote: i'd be willing to be that its just human nature, and not simply because they are high profile people in our cultures.

I am more laughing at the fact that this is actually an issue we are talking about. Yeah he should've admitted it, and still tasteless to tweet it.

And whomever is arguing that it is our business i disagree. In terms of security and such...did we see such blackmail over clinton when he was caught. Or what bout newt, he was having an affair prior to his divorce and while in a power position. Hmm what bout...let's see the Louisiana senator leader from 10 years back...forget his name......was really brief....Sen. Ensign having just been caught, i think he was being forced to pay off the accusers.

They lied to their spouses and children for years. They lie to us when exposed. What makes you think they'll come out and admit to being blackmailed? The best thing that can happen to you is that you finally get caught for an embarrassing, but ultimately legal, "mistake."

Newcastle wrote: If you think its a method that they can be blackmailed, there are many other methods people can attain such ends...ie bribery....Honestly, I just dont see a compelling reason to make it our business. Too many other important stories out there than to concentrate on Wiener-gate.

And bribery happens, though it's far less effective on millionaires. They tend to worry less about gaining a few grand than they do about losing their job and/or family. As for other stories, they're not nearly as fun, apparently. The important stuff usually isn't.

Newcastle wrote: The other part of my thinking here, is that i think there are people out there who are not "programmed" to be monogamous, and its our culture forcing us into this behavior.

Then don't enter into a long term legal union such as marriage. Not that hard. Or go be a politician in France.

Newcastle wrote:And honestly I am willing to overlook such failings as long as they are doing their jobs in governing

Weiner's sure been doing a lot of that lately, huh? How should his constituents feel now that's he's probably going to lose a lot of credibility and goodwill in the House?

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:49 pm

Just curious where you saw the large % statistic & blackmail. I am not going to dispute that blackmail can be a sufficient lever to induce corruption. But, i dont think infidelity has led to a lot of "corruption".

But i would think that a large source of "corruption" is more motivated by greed & ideologyy.

Just thinking back over the last several years i can think of 1 notable case and thats Sen. Ensign from Nev. who was busted with a staffer, and the husband started after him for a payout.

-I guess John Edwards, but i havent followed that, so dont know the details. (partially because i really dont care).

To counter that let me state other cases
-Rep. Jefferson (Dem from Louisiana) definitely corrupt, found with money in his freezer for contracts for certain parties
- San Diego Republican...Bud something, just recently...was siphoning money & contracts to defense contractors...in exchange for free rent on a boat and other amenities.

-then lets take spies
- a recent spy in Dc, about 9 years, was spying for cuba...motivation ideology, not blackmail
-aldrich ames, famed cia mole...motivation greed
- Robert Hansen ...motivation.,...ideology
-jonathan pollak, israeli spy...motivation....ideology

Then lets bring up main stream cases of infidelity....
-Elliot spitzer; former NY Gov. ...caught with a prostitute....was still pretty tough on wall street, and really no hints of corruption
-Mark Sandford, former S. Carolina Gov; argentina mistress....no hints at corruption
-Arnold Schwarzenegger; Former CA. gov....affair with staffer, again no hints of corruption from that...but he took care fo the child.
-Clinton- notorious womanizer...but no hints of corruption related to that
Gingrich - also had affairs while in power...again no hints of corruption in relation to that
-Bob Livingston - former House leader (briefly when Gingrich resigned)...affair revealed, he resigned...again no hints of corruption

Those are some of the ones i can think of off the top of my head. So i'd argue that cases of infidelity really havent led to main stream "corruption" or blackmail. And in the case of Ensign, i'd argue that he's the exception & not the rule.

FYI, personally i think it's their business. But personally I'd be a 1 woman man, if i were engaged in a relationship.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:31 pm

Matrix wrote:
Some are not, approximately 20% in both men and women. And yes, same quality indeed. Lack of feelings, not on psychopathic extreme level, but on abnormal level. Compassion, love, anger and other feelings. yet, they have to fake those feelings, at least some of those feelings. This is based on 1930s study of psychoanalysis in Stalins russia during the communist "cleanings".

Wait, people who aren't monogamous are nearly psychopathic? Really? What about those who have made the decision to have an open marriage? What about those that have decided to have a non-traditional relationship with more than one other person?

Certainly there are some people out there that don't care who they hurt, but I doubt every guy that's fooling around is a psychopath.

I wish we'd become a lot less hung up about the sex lives of our politicians. I'd love to see this level of outrage over the corruption that circulates through Congress, but it's so much easier to freak out over some guy sexting. I really don't care that Vitter was hanging out with escorts or that Newt had a mistress or that what's his name had a wide stance, except to expose their moralizing for the hypocrisy it is.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:45 am

I got it from the NSA when I was granted Top Secret SCI clearance and every few month during the training required for for working with crypto and standing nuclear weapons security guard. Most of the espionage and courts martials for intel violations are never made public. There politicians and military personnel caught leaking and/or mishandling classified info by the dozens every year. Many of them are the victims of stings.

We used to get at least one or two guys in my squadron nailed ever year by NCIS agents either getting someone to discuss something forbidden or overhearing a group who worked together discussing stuff where they shouldn't be.

edit to add: I know of two cases myself where NCIS found out stuff about someone and used it to get them to disclose classified info. One was seen getting high at Ocean Beach and the other they discovered was gay. In both case NCIS had an undercover agent threaten to disclose the misconduct unless the provided some info on deployments they were scheduled for. The one who was gay killed himself in the barracks parking lot with a vacuum cleaner hose when he got wind of what was really happening.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:47 am

Holman wrote:Lying liars suck. Admitting it and making amends is the baseline for decency, but the taint remains.

Back to basics: what is it about public figures and celebrities that compels them to email pictures of their junk, or record their phone sex, or make videos of their extramarital affairs? Don't they know they're just producing avoidable, persistent evidence of shame?

What is it about internet posters that make them want to generalize? Is there any reason to suspect that public figures are any more or less likely to do this than a regular joe?

What is it about *people* that makes them want to incorporate media technology into their sex lives? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this seems like not only a bad idea but also a complete sexual turnoff.

"You make me so horny, Baby. Please unzip the attached JPEG. I wanna sex you all the way to your bandwidth limit."

Phone sex lines have been around long before the internet. Now you can add picture too.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:18 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Phone sex lines have been around long before the internet. Now you can add picture too.

Phone sex lines --> pr0n

N --> sending digital photos of your chest and cock to women.

N = flashing maybe? Speedos?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:25 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Phone sex lines have been around long before the internet. Now you can add picture too.
Phone sex lines --> pr0n

N --> sending digital photos of your chest and cock to women.

N = flashing maybe? Speedos?

Phone sex, not phone recordings. It's an interactive medium. At least it was 20 years ago when I had a curfew.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:42 am

noxiousdog wrote: Phone sex, not phone recordings. It's an interactive medium. At least it was 20 years ago when I had a curfew.

So is some pr0n (live streaming or whatever).

The difference here is instead of paying a "professional" you are in direct communication and correspondence with a "normal" woman. Phone sex with some woman you met at...I don't know, wherever you'd meet someone 20 years ago...is different than dialing a number and paying $1/minute for "sex."

Phone sex, like pr0n, is generally just a way to get off. A sexting/tweeting/facebook relationship where you also send explicit or semi-explicit images is a bit different. At least in my thinking.

Of course I'm not an expert and might have a different idea about what phone sex was. My only experience with it was dialing 1-800-WETBUTT and putting it on a PA system in a university building.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:49 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:Phone sex, like pr0n, is generally just a way to get off. A sexting/tweeting/facebook relationship where you also send explicit or semi-explicit images is a bit different. At least in my thinking.

I'm sure, like everything else, it depends on the people.

One thing that OO has taught me: If your sex life is 'normal' you're doing it wrong.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:55 am

gbasden wrote:I wish we'd become a lot less hung up about the sex lives of our politicians.

It's not the sex lives of the politicians. It's the corruption of politicians. It's only a scandal when it becomes a scandal. The closest I've seen to a non scandal was the guy who was married to Jeri Ryan. The only reason that was a scandal in my book was because Jeri Ryan basically said he was creepy and that she was pressured into all the perversity. That scandal not only went away quickly, I can't recall the guy's name.

Now when there ends up being a whole web of lies to the people closest to a person, how do you trust them to govern, even if they are actually effective at their jobs from your perspective? It's not the same as throwing a football for a living.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:07 am

LordMortis wrote:
gbasden wrote:I wish we'd become a lot less hung up about the sex lives of our politicians.
It's not the sex lives of the politicians. It's the corruption of politicians. It's only a scandal when it becomes a scandal. The closest I've seen to a non scandal was the guy who was married to Jeri Ryan. The only reason that was a scandal in my book was because Jeri Ryan basically said he was creepy and that she was pressured into all the perversity. That scandal not only went away quickly, I can't recall the guy's name.

Jack Ryan. Yet even that non-scandal had far reaching implications. He was forced to withdraw from the Senate Race due to the scandal. My guess is that if he was sitting, he wouldn't have had to resign. At any rate, his replacement (after Mike Ditka declined), was a crazy MFer named Alan Keyes. Keyes, who really had no chance to win, lost to a youngster named Barack Obama, sending the later to off Washington and launching one hell of a career.

FWIW, sealed divorce documents were unsealed (don't remember how or why) during the campaign, 5 years after their divorce, and they showed Jeri Ryan's "complaints." IIRC, she didn't want them unsealed either. If you ask me, Ryan got screwed on that one. But hey, it got us Obama.

LordMortis wrote:Now when there ends up being a whole web of lies to the people closest to a person, how do you trust them to govern, even if they are actually effective at their jobs from your perspective? It's not the same as throwing a football for a living.

Exactly. It also reveals a lot about how they act under pressure. "Hehehe, I was pranked!" is not exactly a stellar way to handle a potential crisis.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:20 am

Rip wrote:I got it from the NSA when I was granted Top Secret SCI clearance and every few month during the training required for for working with crypto and standing nuclear weapons security guard. Most of the espionage and courts martials for intel violations are never made public. There politicians and military personnel caught leaking and/or mishandling classified info by the dozens every year. Many of them are the victims of stings.

We used to get at least one or two guys in my squadron nailed ever year by NCIS agents either getting someone to discuss something forbidden or overhearing a group who worked together discussing stuff where they shouldn't be.

edit to add: I know of two cases myself where NCIS found out stuff about someone and used it to get them to disclose classified info. One was seen getting high at Ocean Beach and the other they discovered was gay. In both case NCIS had an undercover agent threaten to disclose the misconduct unless the provided some info on deployments they were scheduled for. The one who was gay killed himself in the barracks parking lot with a vacuum cleaner hose when he got wind of what was really happening.

I'd make the argument that politicians/public servants/military personnel by the very act of their infidelity have made the choice that their marriage isn't as important to themselves as some other things - arguably service to one's country is one of those things. It's also increasingly rare that infidelity is a career-killer in politics, though it definitely has a bump down. Gary Hart should have been caught on the boat 15 years later...

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:27 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:Jack Ryan. Yet even that non-scandal had far reaching implications. He was forced to withdraw from the Senate Race due to the scandal. My guess is that if he was sitting, he wouldn't have had to resign. At any rate, his replacement (after Mike Ditka declined), was a crazy MFer named Alan Keyes. Keyes, who really had no chance to win, lost to a youngster named Barack Obama, sending the later to off Washington and launching one hell of a career.

FWIW, sealed divorce documents were unsealed (don't remember how or why) during the campaign, 5 years after their divorce, and they showed Jeri Ryan's "complaints." IIRC, she didn't want them unsealed either. If you ask me, Ryan got screwed on that one. But hey, it got us Obama.

When you put it that way, is so sounds like a modern conspiracy puppetmaster novel fiction. Will Obama find his conscience and turn on the string pullers the way Ryan did? At what personal cost? Whose lives will it ruin beyond just his own to put the countries needs first? What will America do when the aliens landed in 1937 are revealed. I've said too much.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:28 am

Pyperkub wrote: It's also increasingly rare that infidelity is a career-killer in politics,

Signed,
JFK

deadzone · Post by **deadzone** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:59 am

Like we needed another example to prove that our Politicians are technologically illiterate dumb assess that lie.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:00 pm

Pyperkub wrote:It's also increasingly rare that infidelity is a career-killer in politics,

I would tend to agree; it likely wouldn't be much of an issue had the chuffwit in question merely had an extramarital affair. But there's an extra creepy vibe about a 46-yr old man who sends pictures of his erection to college-age girls he meets through the internet, that borders on trenchcoat-weirdo (and who then indignantly castigates journalists about pie-flingers when questioned about his conduct).

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:04 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: But there's an extra creepy vibe about a 46-yr old man who sends pictures of his erection to college-age girls he meets through the internet, that borders on trenchcoat-weirdo (and who then indignantly castigates journalists about pie-flingers when questioned about his conduct).

It's hardly trenchcoat weirdo territory when the girls seem to have been into it. At least in the publicized cases, there were pictures going both ways. This guy is scummy, but let's not overstate it.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:07 pm

PLW wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote: But there's an extra creepy vibe about a 46-yr old man who sends pictures of his erection to college-age girls he meets through the internet, that borders on trenchcoat-weirdo (and who then indignantly castigates journalists about pie-flingers when questioned about his conduct).
It's hardly trenchcoat weirdo territory when the girls seem to have been into it. At least in the publicized cases, there were pictures going both ways. This guy is scummy, but let's not overstate it.

Depends on the age of the girl. If college girl is 25, meh (ignoring that he has a wife and maybe kids and maybe kids in college and maybe kids in college 25 years of age). If college girl is 18, not so meh. If he never met the girl at all but was just sending pictures to his Internet friend, not so meh.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:35 pm

LordMortis wrote: Depends on the age of the girl. If college girl is 25, meh (ignoring that he has a wife and maybe kids and maybe kids in college and maybe kids in college 25 years of age). If college girl is 18, not so meh. If he never met the girl at all but was just sending pictures to his Internet friend, not so meh.

He admitted to several but I think only 1 has come forward. The college girl was just a Twitter follower. I doubt he did any kind of ID verification on his regulars. The "girl" he never met might well 16-years-old or a man. Or...Breitbart!

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:28 pm

Spirit Airlines is having its Weiner sale.

Check out our BIG Weiner Sale boasting fares just too hard to resist! This scandalous sale is no secret so get socially connected with fares from just $9* each way, based on roundtrip purchase! Hurry to book now before this sale gets hacked

Stay classy Spirit.