got to love rachel, he lied straight to your face, blamed others, and you still defend him….wow

I remember when Letterman had a decent show and was just funny .

Maddow had LARRY FLYNT as a guest on her TV program .

The world is getting cruder each day .

Thank goodness for TCM .

“He didn’t do it, and besides, it doesn’t matter that he did it.”

Rachel…you silly litle fruit cup…you make me laugh! Keep on keeping on.

I really don’t care whether he resigns or not, but this argument – because a handful of people didn’t resign for their personal indiscretions, Weiner shouldn’t – is ridiculous. If a person’s personal life is personal, then that applies to everyone and she should be defending Vittar the same way she’s defending Weiner. Instead, she twists this around basing resignation on “degree” of bad behavior and “hypocrisy” (which apparently is worse than lying….). Who’s the real hypocrite here?

Oh, yeah… it doesn’t matter that Weiner paraded the bigwigs from every television network through his congressional office in order to deny the facts on camera.

It doesn’t matter that he tried to implicate other people for stating the truth.

He’s just guilty of bad manners.

sheesh…I’ve always defended this woman for being smart and having a moral compass. Why has she so utterly sold out for the likes of one Anthony Weiner!?

crclarkNY said:
I really don’t care whether he resigns or not, but this argument – because a handful of people didn’t resign for their personal indiscretions, Weiner shouldn’t – is ridiculous. If a person’s personal life is personal, then that applies to everyone and she should be defending Vittar the same way she’s defending Weiner. Instead, she twists this around basing resignation on “degree” of bad behavior and “hypocrisy” (which apparently is worse than lying….). Who’s the real hypocrite here?

She’s a hypocrite by asking for consistency?
Well…..that’s funny to say the least.

Rachel reminds me of the pig “Squealer” in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Always an apologist for the Party. Vitter was also a rascal, but he just handled the PR much better, Rachel. He owned up to his misdeeds before they became public. He did not look directly into the camera and lie to the entire country, you included. That you can defend this guy with the tired old false equivalency argument speaks volumes. When you can’t get David Letterman to join in the apology, you know you are out of the liberal fringe. She should have fallen back on some Palin bashing. He’d go along with that for a cheap laugh or two.

It will be fun when the Weiner defenders eventually have to condemn him.
What will Rachel say when the first 15 year old steps forward with more Weiner pictures??
Is that the tipping point? Or will Rachel continue to defend Anthony?

Seriously guys, Weinergate is only big news for comedians. He have sent some pictures of himself that’s all! He’s probably the most straight up guy in all of american politics!

So a crime is only as bad as it is in comparison with those of thy enemies?
Liberal logic on full display…

“face value” is too direct a term for liars and cheats…

Maddow and Letterman on the same show: Definition of mutual masturbation.

I met Letterman’s Mom at the Second Presbytarian Church on Meridian St., in Indianapolis, IN.

She did not seem to be too proud of her son. Just my impression.

Carl Emmoth said:
Seriously guys, Weinergate is only big news for comedians. He have sent some pictures of himself that’s all! He’s probably the most straight up guy in all of american politics!

It’s the lying. How can you trust a man who has been caught brazenly lying to the entire country? Do you think he’ll be honest next time? As for Vitter, I could care less if he resigns, gets re-elected, or goes sailing. As for Weiner, being an R, I hope he hangs in there and drags down the Ds as much as possible.

skoorbekim said:
So a crime is only as bad as it is in comparison with those of thy enemies?
Liberal logic on full display…

“face value” is too direct a term for liars and cheats…

What crime did Weiner commit?

RM, when was the last time you saw a politician personally invite network media into his office so that he could personally lie to them?

I guess if that’s not enough, I guess Weiner’s attempt at suborning perjury from one women doesn’t matter either. Or how about his talking to his ex-girlfriend, lib Kirstin Powers, and feeding her his lies, knowing she was going on FOX to discuss this incident? ( She has now called for his resignation)

Or how about accusing others for hacking his account and then blaming them for making “victims” out of his wife on his chat pals?

BTW, RM, when are you going to ask Weiner what his private security investigators found out about this and has he now learned how to prevent it from happening in the future?

david r said:
It’s the lying. How can you trust a man who has been caught brazenly lying to the entire country?

So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

Weiner is the naked guy in a raincoat flashing random females at the mall for the sexual thrill.
The guy was trolling the internet out in the open showing his junk to random females.

TheEagle said:
So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

He did?

No, I think he listened to theses people:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

TheEagle said:
What crime did Weiner commit?

coaching private citizens to lie while using gov’t resources…
engaging in phone sex w/ gov’t resources…

TheEagle said:
So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

Really??
That is the best you can do?

Maddow is playing Sex ScandalThree Card Monte… poorly

david r said:
It’s the lying. How can you trust a man who has been caught brazenly lying to the entire country? Do you think he’ll be honest next time? As for Vitter, I could care less if he resigns, gets re-elected, or goes sailing. As for Weiner, being an R, I hope he hangs in there and drags down the Ds as much as possible.

I get your point…..but the thing is every one caught in those situations have lied and came clean only when they had no choice.He lied so we can’t trust him…ok then.
Weiner has to go…fine.
But then the “family value” GOP should force Vitter to resign too…I mean he did cross into the illegal territory did he not?

Consistency

skoorbekim said:
coaching private citizens to lie while using gov’t resources…
engaging in phone sex w/ gov’t resources…

Has that been proved? And isn’t that just an ethics violation rather than a crime.

dummy123 said:
Really??
That is the best you can do?

Don’t need to do any better.

dummy123 said:
Really??
That is the best you can do?

Well, if can’t change the subject to Vitter, he’s hoping Bush will work.

Rivermont said:
He did?

No, I think he listened to theses people:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

So you’re saying the President Bush invaded Iraq soley on the word of Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

Bennybombom said:
But then the “family value” GOP

Yes, since the “Valueless” Dem party can’t be held to even a minimal standard.

TheEagle said:
What crime did Weiner commit?

Needs to be re-posted.

The Baboon was screaming his head off “He put us all at peril” and Billdo was “Brayfarts, you should fear for your life”

What crime, again?

Rivermont said:
He did?

No, I think he listened to theses people:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Way to conveniently dismiss all the info he had before and after 9/11….and through those 8 years.
Bush and Cheney lied.
Common knowledge by now.
Get over it.

TheEagle said:
Has that been proved? And isn’t that just an ethics violation rather than a crime.

I’m in the weeds when it comes to specific legalities…
I know he was asked if he made these contacts w/ gov’t resources… he obfuscated…

TheEagle said:
So you’re saying the President Bush invaded Iraq soley on the word of Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

Where did I say “solely.” He listen to the findings of other countries intel agencies and the Clinton holdover from the CIA, Tenet.

Can you believe the argument that Maddow is making on behalf of Weiner?!

Weiner isn’t guilty of “political hypocrisy” because he never campaigned on the platform that sending out pictures of his penis was wrong?!

Cecelia said:
Well, if can’t change the subject to Vitter, he’s hoping Bush will work.

Not changing the subject, just trying to see where the bar for lying is. Democrat lies about sexting vs. Republican lying us into invading another country.

Bennybombom said:
Way to conveniently dismiss all the info he had before and after 9/11….and through those 8 years.

Tell me about all that info he had?

TheEagle said:
So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

Hey look… it’s more, “Oh yeah, well you’re guy did it too!” logic. Of course, in this case, it’s even more illogical and factually incorrect… but the attempt at a defense is the same.

Bennybombom said:
I get your point…..but the thing is every one caught in those situations have lied and came clean only when they had no choice.He lied so we can’t trust him…ok then.
Weiner has to go…fine.
But then the “family value” GOP should force Vitter to resign too…I mean he did cross into the illegal territory did he not?

Consistency

The GOP or the DNC cannot “force” anyone to resign. That’s not how the government works.

Vitter should have resigned… just as Wiener should now. You do not get to lie to the press and the public, and keep your job. But ultimately, it’s a decision that only he, and then the voters, can make.

Bennybombom said:
Get over it.

back at ya…
stay on topic…

Gee Rach it’s always nice to see a sheep on TV;

Democrat = oh it’s just gossip not news meaning we shouldn’t pay attention to this even though the man lied,alot,and did weird things.

Republican = oh my lord this is big news and a reason to judge every person who isn’t a liberal democrat as a kook,sex addict and someone who’s peeking through your windows ready to have sex with your children.It should be talked about 24/7/365 especially if the Democrats are bombing with the economy and wars etc etc.

TheEagle said:
So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

Nope.

Rach, Booby…what are you doing defending the Weiner?

Let’s hear about You & Keith!

Did you throw him under the bus, like he’s stewing over?
C’mon Rach, we’re all friends here. Did you twist the blade on ole’ Keith with mgmt.?

TheEagle said:
So you’re saying the President Bush invaded Iraq soley on the word of Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

No, he did it on the intelligence available and on the authority of Congress.

TheEagle said:
. Democrat lies about sexting vs. Republican lying us into invading another country.

Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Albright are not Repubs.

Thanks for playing anyway.

ImNotBlue said:
Hey look… it’s more, “Oh yeah, well you’re guy did it too!” logic. Of course, in this case, it’s even more illogical and factually incorrect… but the attempt at a defense is the same.

The GOP or the DNC cannot “force” anyone to resign. That’s not how the government works.

Vitter should have resigned… just as Wiener should now. You do not get to lie to the press and the public, and keep your job. But ultimately, it’s a decision that only he, and then the voters, can make.

I agree.

Cecelia said:
Weiner isn’t guilty of “political hypocrisy” because he never campaigned on the platform that sending out pictures of his penis was wrong?!

imagine how far out you could carry that “logic”…

“I never said I was against murder…”

skoorbekim said:
I’m in the weeds when it comes to specific legalities…
I know he was asked if he made these contacts w/ gov’t resources… he obfuscated…

Isn’t that the purpose of the Ethics committee investigation, to find out if he violated the code of ethics and/or committed a crime.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Rach, Booby…what are you doing defending the Weiner?

Let’s hear about You & Keith!

Did you throw him under the bus, like he’s stewing over?
C’mon Rach, we’re all friends here. Did you twist the blade on ole’ Keith with mgmt.?

do tell
where can I read/hear/see that goodness??

skoorbekim said:
imagine how far out you could carry that “logic”…

“I never said I was against murder…”

But murder is a crime, sexting isn’t.

ImNotBlue said:
Vitter should have resigned… just as Wiener should now. You do not get to lie to the press and the public, and keep your job.

Did Vitter lie to the press and the public? IIRC, when his situation was revealed, it was 10 years in the past and Vitter acknowledged it, using the “We got past that ages ago” defense.

TheEagle said:
Not changing the subject, just trying to see where the bar for lying is. Democrat lies about sexting vs. Republican lying us into invading another country.

No, you’re trying to change the subject.

You can’t defend Weiner’s lies, so you’ll deflect to a more a more debatable topic in hopes that someone will take the bait.

Pablo said:
Did Vitter lie to the press and the public? IIRC, when his situation was revealed, it was 10 years in the past and Vitter acknowledged it, using the “We got past that ages ago” defense.

true

TheEagle said:
But murder is a crime, sexting isn’t.

So, you can only be a hypocrite if you’re talking about actual crime? Survey says: “Bzzzzzt.”

The real positive take-away here is that Weiner is humiliated, anguished, and near political death…not to mention near divorce. The other positive take-away is how foolish Libs look in defending the indefensible. Weiner is their pit bull, but let’s see how everyone laughs next time he goes on TV with his fist-pounding Lib ideology rants. What a limp-wrist he is.

Rivermont said:
Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Albright are not Repubs.

Thanks for playing anyway.

Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and Albright didn’t invade Iraq.

Pablo said:
So, you can only be a hypocrite if you’re talking about actual crime? Survey says: “Bzzzzzt.”

Never said that.

Bwahahahaha

In Rachel’s world – if you are a democrat, you can lie to the world, to your constituents, you can lie, lie, lie and it won’t matter one little bit.

bwahahahahaha

what a double standard; this woman is crazy.

skoorbekim said:
imagine how far out you could carry that “logic”…

“I never said I was against murder…”

What can you say about people who defend politicians by arguing that they aren’t accountable to moral standards because they don’t possess them?!

Rach finally found a Weiner she likes. Good for her. I guess it is a “choice” after all.

TheEagle said:
Isn’t that the purpose of the Ethics committee investigation, to find out if he violated the code of ethics and/or committed a crime.

I agree!
Weiner’s phone and internet usage at work must be meticulously scrutinized!
I demand all transcripts and photos also be released.

TheEagle said:
But murder is a crime, sexting isn’t.

if there were underage girls and gov’t resources involved it might be…
w/ regards to the murder comment I was pointing out the illogical extension of her argument…

Cecelia said:
No, you’re trying to change the subject.

You can’t defend Weiner’s lies, so you’ll deflect to a more a more debatable topic in hopes that someone will take the bait.

I’m not trying to defend Weiner’s lies. I just want to know why it is OK for Bush to lie us into war but not OK for Weiner to lie about sexting.

TheEagle said:
Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and Albright didn’t invade Iraq.

But the Congress voted approval for the invasion. See unlike Barry’s attacking Libya without Congressional approval, Bush get approval.

Now talk about Weiner, the topic..

Cecelia said:
skoorbekim said:
imagine how far out you could carry that “logic”…

“I never said I was against murder…”

What can you say about people who defend politicians by arguing that they aren’t accountable to moral standards because they don’t possess them?!

That’s a very good point, Whopper, and by extension, it could be argue that it is unfair to criticize Palin as a poor parent because she has no parenting extincts.

skoorbekim said:
if there were underage girls and gov’t resources involved it might be…
w/ regards to the murder comment I was pointing out the illogical extension of her argument…

The operative word being “if”. And if there were not?

Cecelia said:
What can you say about people who defend politicians by arguing that they aren’t accountable to moral standards because they don’t possess them?!

I heard a brilliant response to such an argument:

something about hiding behind one’s own lack of standards as a misguided badge of honor…

Rivermont said:
Bush get approval.

On demonstrably false pretenses. You can sell magic seeds and rightfully claim people are fools for buying them, but the fraudulent nature of the transaction is not excused.

TheEagle said:
I’m not trying to defend Weiner’s lies. I just want to know why it is OK for Bush to lie us into war but not OK for Weiner to lie about sexting.

That’s what I said. You’re not trying to defend Wiener, you’re trying to point the finger at his critics.

It’s called deflection. That that game and put it where the sun don’t shine.

TheEagle said:
The operative word being “if”. And if there were not?

politically?

he is a mark on the Dem brand… Therefore I would want him to remain in office…

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
On demonstrably false pretenses. You can sell magic seeds and rightfully claim people are fools for buying them, but the fraudulent nature of the transaction is not excused.

Topic is Weiner.

Thanks for playing!

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
no parenting extincts.

What exactly are parenting extincts?

ImNotBlue said:
Hey look… it’s more, “Oh yeah, well you’re guy did it too!” logic. Of course, in this case, it’s even more illogical and factually incorrect… but the attempt at a defense is the same.

No it’s the hypocrisy of those demanding that one person resign because he lied about sexting while making excuses for another who lied us into war.

To be sure, there is news in L’Affaire Weiner, but there is a good deal of gossip and pornographic indulgence by the news media and some readers/listeners/viewers. Even Mediaite has become a bit pornographic in all of this.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
That’s a very good point, Whopper, and by extension, it could be argue that it is unfair to criticize Palin as a poor parent because she has no parenting extincts.

Well, since her critics would make that case, rather than her supporters, thanks for illustrating your logical comparison skills.

TheEagle said:
TheEagle says:
June 9, 2011 at 10:08 am TheEagle(Quote)

Bush is NOT in any office. Try again

timzank said:
What exactly are parenting extincts?

Whoops. Instincts. Thanks for the very good catch.

Cecelia said:
That’s what I said. You’re not trying to defend Wiener, you’re trying to point the finger at his critics.

It’s called deflection. That that game and put it where the sun don’t shine.

No it’s called pointing out hypocrisy.

TheEagle said:
No it’s the hypocrisy of those demanding that one person resign because he lied about sexting while making excuses for another who lied us into war.

BTW, if I were you , I would change the topic too. I mean Weiner does in fact represent your values, doesn’t he?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
unfair to criticize Palin as a poor parent because she has no parenting extincts.

Robert and his colleague Larry Flynt cannot stay away from Palin .

Bennybombom said:
I get your point…..but the thing is every one caught in those situations have lied and came clean only when they had no choice.He lied so we can’t trust him…ok then.
Weiner has to go…fine.
But then the “family value” GOP should force Vitter to resign too…I mean he did cross into the illegal territory did he not?

Consistency

I agree with the idea of treating pols the same regardless of their party, but the comparisons are always fuzzy. It would not have bothered me to see Vitter resign. Should I ever move back to Louisiana, I’ll be inclined to support his opponent because of his past behavior. I don’t think you can defend someone’s bad behavior by the light “punishment” meted out to someone else. Look at the punishments handed down by our criminal courts. Very, very inconsistent. I have the same “automatic presumption” that Letterman referred to about our elected leaders. We should expect more than what Weiner, Vitter, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and John Ensign have shown us.

A more appropriate headline might have been “Notorious Womanizer/Adulteror interviews Semi-Famous Homosexual Regarding Deviant Behavior Of Democrat Congressman.”

TheEagle said:
Never said that.

Then what were you trying to argue in noting that sexting isn’t a crime?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
To be sure, there is news in L’Affaire Weiner, but there is a good deal of gossip and pornographic indulgence by the news media and some readers/listeners/viewers. Even Mediaite has become a bit pornographic in all of this.

You certainly weren’t tsking that phenomenon back in the days when you recounting the stories of a prostitute with a financial interest in lurid stories.

Rivermont said:
Where did I say “solely.” He listen to the findings of other countries intel agencies and the Clinton holdover from the CIA, Tenet.

George Tenet? If he was so bad why didn’t Bush replace him? Why did he instead award Tenet the Medal of Freedom?

And not all intel agencies agreed: http://downingstreetmemo.com/

Rivermont said:
BTW, if I were you , I would change the topic too. I mean Weiner does in fact represent your values, doesn’t he?

hum…..you want how many names that represent yours?
3?
Vitter
Ensign
Gingritch
Want more?
Still wanna go with the “value” angle here?…Cause I don’t mind.

Big Dummie said:
Robert and his colleague Larry Flynt cannot stay away from Palin .

Because of her intelligence?

Pablo said:
Then what were you trying to argue in noting that sexting isn’t a crime?

I was pointing out the illogic of comparing sexting to murder.

TheEagle said:
No it’s called pointing out hypocrisy.

Yes, as long as Weiner never said he wouldn’t send out pics of his sex organ to strangers and to people who didn’t even ask for one, and didn’t say he would never lie to the media and never said he would never blame others for something he did, he is golden, isn’t he?

Did Vitter ever say he wouldn’t frequent hookers?

NO!

In fact, RRK, I doubt there’s a week that’s gone by since 2007 that you haven’t mentioned Sen Vitter on a blogboard.

NOW such talk has gotten too lurid for you?

Bennybombom said:
um…..you want how many names that represent yours?
3?
Vitter
Ensign
Gingritch
Want more?
Still wanna go with the “value” angle here?…Cause I don’t mind.

Yes, and I raise you:

FDR,
JFK,
LBJ,
Clinton,
RFK,
EMK,
Crane,
Edwards,
Frank
Inouye,
Fred Richmond,
Wayne Hays,
Gerry Studds,
Mel Reynolds,
James McGreevey,
Jesse Jackson,
Gary Condit,
Eliot Spitzer,
Neil Goldschmidt,
Allan Turner Howe,
Joseph Waggonner Jr.,
Jerry Springer
Eric Massa
Anthoney Weiner

Ouch!

Rivermont said:
BTW, if I were you , I would change the topic too. I mean Weiner does in fact represent your values, doesn’t he?

In terms of fighting for the 9/11 responders, yes he does.

TheEagle said:
No it’s called pointing out hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy would be David Vitter himself shouting for Weiner to be vilified. It’s not hypocritical for someone who has NOT had a sex scandal to vilify him at all.

Rivermont said:
Yes, as long as Weiner never said he wouldn’t send out pics of his sex organ to strangers and to people who didn’t even ask for one, and didn’t say he would never lie to the media and never said he would never blame others for something he did, he is golden, isn’t he?

Did Vitter ever say he wouldn’t frequent hookers?

NO!

But Vitter campaigned on family values. Do family values mean it is OK to go to hookers?

Cecelia said:
You certainly weren’t tsking that phenomenon back in the days when you recounting the stories of a prostitute with a financial interest in lurid stories.

The question is simply whether the story is news or gossip/pornography. I claim it is both, and I think it is important to recognize that. Whilst I may find pornography hideously boring, dangerously vicarious and exploitive, I have never sought to discourage your prurient interest or those of others. We merely need to be candid about what we are doing, Whopper.

Maddow is brilliant. No one can dispute that fact.

timzank said:
Hypocrisy would be David Vitter himself shouting for Weiner to be vilified. It’s not hypocritical for someone who has NOT had a sex scandal to vilify him at all.

True. But it is also hypocrisy for those willing to give Vitter a pass to try to vilify Weiner.

Cecelia said:
In fact, RRK, I doubt there’s a week that’s gone by since 2007 that you haven’t mentioned Sen Vitter on a blogboard.

NOW such talk has gotten too lurid for you?

I’m honored to have such a following, Whopper. Thank you.

Nobody has an opinion about Vidder or Einsign?

TheEagle said:
But Vitter campaigned on family values. Do family values mean it is OK to go to hookers?

he has a point, democrats have no values, so they can’t be hypocrites

TheEagle said:
But Vitter campaigned on family values. Do family values mean it is OK to go to hookers?

BHO campaigned on solving the problems of the economy. Does it matter that he lied?

Did Vitter say he wasn’t going to go to hookers? That’s what your defense for Weiner is, he never said he wouldn’t engage in perversity.

And I didn’t see many repubs speaking up for Vitter’s actions, unlike libs are speaking up for Weiner’s deplorable display

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
The question is simply whether the story is news or gossip/pornography. I claim it is both, and I think it is important to recognize that. Whilst I may find pornography hideously boring, dangerously vicarious and exploitive, I have never sought to discourage your prurient interest or those of others. We merely need to be candid about what we are doing, Whopper.

That is patently false. Just the other day, before Breitbart’s pictures, you were trying to shut down all conversation on Weiner by arguing that it was so lurid that people with “integrity” refused to discuss it.

Now, you’re essentially trying to do the same thing by suggesting that a “gossip” component dilutes the scandal, as though THAT component is part and parcel of ANY personal malfeasance brouhaha.

You’re a sap.

Bennybombom said:
hum…..you want how many names that represent yours?3?VitterEnsignGingritchWant more?Still wanna go with the “value” angle here?…Cause I don’t mind.

you’ll have to start with a list longer than the Kennedy’s family tree…

mtjade4 said:
Nobody has an opinion about Vidder or Einsign?

They aren’t the subject of the topic. Thanks for trying to change the subject though.

Cecelia said:
In fact, RRK, I doubt there’s a week that’s gone by since 2007 that you haven’t mentioned Sen Vitter on a blogboard.

NOW such talk has gotten too lurid for you?

oh so you’re going to name people that only have allegations huh….Jerry Springer too huh
Ok I call your raise and raise only CONVICTED SEX FELLONS….I’m not even going into the “alleged” thing.
The list is too long so check this out

Republicansexoffenders.com

Maybe after that we can get back to topic huh?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I’m honored to have such a following, Whopper. Thank you.

You’re welcome. Only too glad to point out your games.

mtjade4 said:
Nobody has an opinion about Vidder or Einsign?

Hounds.

opps quote the wrong person
sorry cecelia

TheEagle said:
True. But it is also hypocrisy for those willing to give Vitter a pass to try to vilify Weiner.

Who is giving Vitter a pass? What is your wish? That we go back in a time machine? What exactly is your goal in bringing up Vitter? That his behavior 5 years ago was abhorrent and he got light treatment, fine, I’m sure EVERYONE would stipulate to that, but what does that have to do with Weiner in 2011? Not a damn thing.

Vitters misdeeds are a really bogus defense of Weiner don’t you think?

cjd ohio 1 said:
he has a point, democrats have no values, so they can’t be hypocrites

No they just don’t share your values and don’t pass judgement on the moral values of others.

Maybe Weiner is hiding a few lost jobs down there…..?

skoorbekim said:
you’ll have to start with a list longer than the Kennedy’s family tree…

oh so you’re going to name people that only have allegations huh….Jerry Springer too huh
Ok I call your raise and raise only CONVICTED SEX FELLONS….I’m not even going into the “alleged” thing.
The list is too long so check this out

Republicansexoffenders.com

Maybe after that we can get back to topic huh?

Bennybombom said:
oh so you’re going to name people that only have allegations huh….Jerry Springer too huhOk I call your raise and raise only CONVICTED SEX FELLONS….I’m not even going into the “alleged” thing.The list is too long so check this out Republicansexoffenders.com Maybe after that we can get back to topic huh?

The topic is Anthony Weiners behavior, right?

Emma said:
Maddow is brilliant. No one can dispute that fact.

Well, that’s what makes it doubly sad that she has sold her soul to the likes of Anthony Weiner.

im_lovin_it said:
Maybe Weiner is hiding a few lost jobs down there…..?

You want to apply?

TheEagle said:
No they just don’t share your values and don’t pass judgement on the moral values of others.

no values, they dont speak of them, you are just assuming they do

im_lovin_it said:
Maybe Weiner is hiding a few lost jobs down there…..?

I mean, surely there is SOME reason we’re all so obsessed with his penis. Maybe his shaft has the formula for cold fusion on the underside of it.

TheEagle said:
No they just don’t share your values and don’t pass judgement on the moral values of others.

no judgeent passed………hater, bigot, racist….lol………no they pass no judgement lol

TheEagle said:
No they just don’t share your values and don’t pass judgement on the moral values of others.

Well, since Weiner gave about ten interviews in which he did NOT say “Folks, I cruise the internet for cybersex and send women pictures of my naked penis all the time. There”s nothing wrong with that in my book”, perhaps you’re making a specious point.

im_lovin_it said:
I mean, surely there is SOME reason we’re all so obsessed with his penis. Maybe his shaft has the formula for cold fusion on the underside of it.

I’m sure you would know about that.

Bennybombom said:
Republicansexoffenders.com
Maybe after that we can get back to topic huh?

your defense of your defense of a man sending out pictures of his erect penis is that most men are bad?

TheEagle said:
No it’s the hypocrisy of those demanding that one person resign because he lied about sexting while making excuses for another who lied us into war.

No… it’s about you looking for a way not to talk about Wiener, and going to an old standby.

Stay on topic buddy. You’re not fooling anyone with the, “Look over here,” routine.

The issue is very simple. Should Wiener resign because he lied to the public and press… yes or no, and why? Bush, Cheney, Palin, Vitter, and whomever else you’d prefer to talk about don’t factor into it. Yes or no, on Wiener. Simple as that.

_________________

Hey TRRK… Where’s the “unified voice” you were talking about before?

Certainly not here.

Rivermont said:
BHO campaigned on solving the problems of the economy. Does it matter that he lied?

How did he lie?

Rivermont said:
Did Vitter say he wasn’t going to go to hookers? That’s what your defense for Weiner is, he never said he wouldn’t engage in perversity.

I’m not defending Weiner. I’m just saying there should be a consistancy.

Rivermont said:
And I didn’t see many repubs speaking up for Vitter’s actions, unlike libs are speaking up for Weiner’s deplorable display

I didn’t see any republicans demanding for Vitter to resign. But they are demanding Weiner resign.

timzank said:
The topic is Anthony Weiners behavior, right?

actually the topic here would be consistency….at least that’s what the article is about
I was just answering someone who thinks he can play the “name game” instead

Am I the only one who suspects that the Lesbian Laureate of the Left may have a few jems of her own floating out on the web? Defending this scumbag is disgusting. My heart goes out to Huma, who, unlike maddow, is class all the way. Athough I am pro life, amending the law to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest or impregnation by Anthony Weiner sounds about right to me.

ImNotBlue said:
No… it’s about you looking for a way not to talk about Wiener, and going to an old standby. Stay on topic buddy. You’re not fooling anyone with the, “Look over here,” routine. The issue is very simple. Should Wiener resign because he lied to the public and press… yes or no, and why? Bush, Cheney, Palin, Vitter, and whomever else you’d prefer to talk about don’t factor into it. Yes or no, on Wiener. Simple as that. _________________ Hey TRRK… Where’s the “unified voice” you were talking about before? Certainly not here.

The loudest voices calling for his resignation are from Democrats.

Bennybombom said:
actually the topic here would be consistency….at least that’s what the article is about
I was just answering someone who thinks he can play the “name game” instead

don’t lash out at others because you have failed in your convoluted attempt to defend a Congressman who has sent out pictures of his erect penis…

timzank said:
Who is giving Vitter a pass? What is your wish? That we go back in a time machine? What exactly is your goal in bringing up Vitter? That his behavior 5 years ago was abhorrent and he got light treatment, fine, I’m sure EVERYONE would stipulate to that, but what does that have to do with Weiner in 2011? Not a damn thing.

Vitters misdeeds are a really bogus defense of Weiner don’t you think?

No republicans called for Vitter to resign, rather they gave him a standing ovation in the Senate. I’m not defending Weiner. But I find it hypocritical for the same people to call for Weiner to resign now.

skoorbekim said:
don’t lash out at others because you have failed in your convoluted attempt to defend a Congressman who has sent out pictures of his erect penis…

Progressive logic, somebody I don’t like did something similar 5 years ago, ergo, my guy should get a pass.

hughglass said:
Am I the only one who suspects that the Lesbian Laureate of the Left may have a few jems of her own floating out on the web? Defending this scumbag is disgusting. My heart goes out to Huma, who, unlike maddow, is class all the way. Athough I am pro life, amending the law to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest or impregnation by Anthony Weiner sounds about right to me.

What’s amazing to me, is that Republcans are uniquely accountable for traditional morality, but no one should be judgmental or find it ironic when a liberal feminist brings on a man who made a living by objectifying women in the sleaziest manner possible, in order to defend a guy in a sex scandal.

Boy, they want to have it all ways, don’t they…

skoorbekim said:
your defense of your defense of a man sending out pictures of his erect penis is that most men are bad?

it’s not a defense,it’s pointing out hypocrisy,righteous indignation and all that B S from people who have no morals to start with…it’s a call for consistency.
Bite me.
And btw the link you read is not about “most men”….it’s Republican men only…and CONVICTED.
Tell me again how Republicans can call for someone’s resignation with a straight face.

cjd ohio 1 said:
no values, they dont speak of them, you are just assuming they do

Depends on what you define as values.

TheEagle said:
Depends on what you define as values.

true

TheEagle said:
I’m not defending Weiner. I’m just saying there should be a consistancy.

Did Vitter lie? Did he blame his failings on others? Did he tell lies to his ex-girlfriend who he knew was going on TV to talk about this matter and tell her his lies?

No, NO, NO!

TheEagle said:
No republicans called for Vitter to resign, rather they gave him a standing ovation in the Senate. I’m not defending Weiner. But I find it hypocritical for the same people to call for Weiner to resign now.

You’re just trying to deflect from Weiner’s actions by suggesting his critics are hypocrites.

TheEagle said:
No republicans called for Vitter to resign, rather they gave him a standing ovation in the Senate. I’m not defending Weiner. But I find it hypocritical for the same people to call for Weiner to resign now.

Well… first off, that’s not true.

But secondly… if it was true, does that mean that you think Wiener should stay, simply because the your political opposition thinks it’s okay? Is that how you define your opinions… if the other guys do it, I’ll do it too?

TheEagle said:
No republicans called for Vitter to resign, rather they gave him a standing ovation in the Senate. I’m not defending Weiner. But I find it hypocritical for the same people to call for Weiner to resign now.

Why? Didn’t weiner do it? Vitters behavior (or Ted Kennedy’s for that matter) has no bearing on Anthony Weiners proclivity for perversion in 2011. That’s a straw man argument.

Cecelia said:
Well, since Weiner gave about ten interviews in which he did NOT say “Folks, I cruise the internet for cybersex and send women pictures of my naked penis all the time. There’’s nothing wrong with that in my book”, perhaps you’re making a specious point.

Seems like you’re the one making the specious point.

Bennybombom said:
it’s not a defense,it’s pointing out hypocrisy,righteous indignation and all that B S from people who have no morals to start with…it’s a call for consistency.
Bite me.

what about those who are not Republicans?
are they allowed to be appalled at a Congressman sending out photos of their erect penis?

you are defending your photo-sharing Rep by pointing to another group of people…

that seems empty to say the least…

ImNotBlue said:
if the other guys do it, I’ll do it too?

Sadly, that’s how these guys really think. They can rationalize anything. (see previous 5 pages)

TheEagle said:
TheEagle says:
June 9, 2011 at 10:36 am TheEagle(Quote)

I’m pleased that you and your lib friends believe that sitting in a towel draped chair, naked and sending nude pics of yourself to strangers is perfectly acceptable. That is YOUR world, it isn’t mine.

TheEagle said:
Depends on what you define as values.

I tell you what. Next time we see a Democratic pol in a moral scandal and he says something like, “Hey, my wife and I have an open marriage? You didn’t know that, folks?!”,,,, “There’s nothing wrong with using interns for oral sex”…. “Cybersex… hell yeah”…. “THOSE are my values, people”…. THEN you might have a point.

Rivermont said:
You want to apply?

Rivermont said:
I’m sure you would know about that.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

ImNotBlue said:
The issue is very simple. Should Wiener resign because he lied to the public and press… yes or no, and why? Bush, Cheney, Palin, Vitter, and whomever else you’d prefer to talk about don’t factor into it. Yes or no, on Wiener. Simple as that.

Why should he? If he didn’t break any laws, can’t he just be voted out? Vitter stays, so he stays. Same with Weiner.

“Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged wrote that flawed leaders and leaders who admire the flaws of human beings make the most despicable feel welcome to follow a leader. Flawed leaders and leaders who admire the flaws of human beings make the most despicable among us feel welcome to follow the flawed leader. Those who hold themselves to higher standards are left to wonder, what in the hell is real anymore?”
—

ImNotBlue said:
No… it’s about you looking for a way not to talk about Wiener, and going to an old standby.

Stay on topic buddy. You’re not fooling anyone with the, “Look over here,” routine.

Well the topic of the article is Maddow’s interview on Letterman where she brings up the different treatment of Vitter vs. Weiner so I am staying on topic.

im_lovin_it said:
You’ve got to be kidding me.

You said, it – not me. Now you sound like Weiner blaming others for your actions.

TheEagle said:
Cecelia said:
Well, since Weiner gave about ten interviews in which he did NOT say “Folks, I cruise the internet for cybersex and send women pictures of my naked penis all the time. There’’s nothing wrong with that in my book”, perhaps you’re making a specious point.

Seems like you’re the one making the specious point.

How so? If the argument is that Weiner has differing values from our own, when why did Weiner deny that he did what he did?

TheEagle said:
Depends on what you define as values.

Who doesn’t consider honesty a value?

Rivermont said:
Did Vitter lie? Did he blame his failings on others? Did he tell lies to his ex-girlfriend who he knew was going on TV to talk about this matter and tell her his lies?

No, NO, NO!

So now the issue is lying? So it’s OK that Vitter broke the law by going to hookers since he didn’t lie about it after he was caught?

Cecelia said:
I tell you what. Next time we see a Democratic pol in a moral scandal and he says something like, “Hey, my wife and I have an open marriage? You didn’t know that, folks?!”,,,, “There’s nothing wrong with using interns for oral sex”…. “Cybersex… hell yeah”…. “THOSE are my values, people”…. THEN you might have a point.

Do you remember Ashssnold? (R)

And don’t your even think of labeling as a (D).

im_lovin_it said:
Why should he? If he didn’t break any laws, can’t he just be voted out? Vitter stays, so he stays. Same with Weiner.

Okay, again… Vitter has nothing to do with anything. I’m not sure why you guys seem to not understand that.

Anyway, so unless a congress person breaks actual laws, they’re allowed to lie and mislead the public about whatever they want? Is that what you’re saying?

TheEagle said:
Well the topic of the article is Maddow’s interview on Letterman where she brings up the different treatment of Vitter vs. Weiner so I am staying on topic.

Not really… since Maddow too is trying to pass the buck. SHE should stay on topic, and so should you.

Rivermont said:
You said, it – not me. Now you sound like Weiner blaming others for your actions.

I was trying to make a joke that this is a waste of time. This is one Congressman in a solidly blue district. If he goes great. If he stays good for him. I wish our politicians weren’t a bunch of freaks, but I have more important things to worry about. You, however, lack mental flexibility and are constrained in your thoughts by partisanship. I can see this from your other posts as well as your horribly lame rejoinders to what I said. Good luck out there.

Cecelia said:
You’re just trying to deflect from Weiner’s actions by suggesting his critics are hypocrites.

I don’t need to suggest it.

Bad Manners?
Do you want to lay odds that Anthony will be Anchor on MSNBC within a year?

Cecelia said:
I tell you what. Next time we see a Democratic pol in a moral scandal and he says something like, “Hey, my wife and I have an open marriage? You didn’t know that, folks?!”,,,, “There’s nothing wrong with using interns for oral sex”…. “Cybersex… hell yeah”…. “THOSE are my values, people”…. THEN you might have a point.

You can’t be serious….remember when Newt was calling for Clinton’s resignation and sharing “his values” with America while banging a staffer who was 23 years younger than him?
Is that a point?

TheEagle said:
So now the issue is lying? So it’s OK that Vitter broke the law by going to hookers since he didn’t lie about it after he was caught?

Just answer the question, Eagle… stop trying to deflect.

Should Wiener resign because he lied to the press and the public… yes or no.

Don’t mention Vitter, don’t mention Bush… just “Yes” or “No.” It’s really easy.

Skippy said:
Do you remember Ashssnold? (R)

And don’t your even think of labeling as a (D).

So when did Arnold argue that he and Maria had an open marriage?

TheEagle said:
I don’t need to suggest it.

are there critics of Weiner who are not hypocrites?

im_lovin_it said:
You’ve got to be kidding me. Why should he? If he didn’t break any laws, can’t he just be voted out? Vitter stays, so he stays. Same with Weiner.

I’m going out on a limb here assuming you have a job, but let’s say this exact situation happened at your company to one of your management team. What then? Is lying repeatedly to your employer grouds for getting canned? Would you, as an employer (we employ the congress by the way) be ok with one of your company managers lying repeatedly to superiors, subordinates, customers, and co-workers?

Use a little common sense.

ImNotBlue said:
Okay, again… Vitter has nothing to do with anything. I’m not sure why you guys seem to not understand that.

Anyway, so unless a congress person breaks actual laws, they’re allowed to lie and mislead the public about whatever they want? Is that what you’re saying?

No, I wish he wasn’t a creep. If I did something like this at my work I’d be terminated immediately. His employers are his constituents, correct? They can decide his fate. Our phony moral outrage over things like this is a waste of time.

TheEagle said:
So now the issue is lying? So it’s OK that Vitter broke the law by going to hookers since he didn’t lie about it after he was caught?

LOL

This has always been about lying and perversion – MG, what planet do you live on?

ImNotBlue said:
Well… first off, that’s not true.

But secondly… if it was true, does that mean that you think Wiener should stay, simply because the your political opposition thinks it’s okay? Is that how you define your opinions… if the other guys do it, I’ll do it too?

First, it is true. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/OPINION/707230311

Second, I never said Weiner should stay.

ImNotBlue said:
Just answer the question, Eagle… stop trying to deflect. Should Wiener resign because he lied to the press and the public… yes or no. Don’t mention Vitter, don’t mention Bush… just “Yes” or “No.” It’s really easy.

He lied to his employer, (that’d be us, dems repubs, indies, socialists whatever) period. We the taxpayers.

Bennybombom said:
You can’t be serious….remember when Newt was calling for Clinton’s resignation and sharing “his values” with America while banging a staffer who was 23 years younger than him?
Is that a point?

your argument is a fail…
no one is defending the people you have thrown into the discussion…
it is you who are defending the actions of a man who sends pictures of his penis…

timzank said:
I’m going out on a limb here assuming you have a job, but let’s say this exact situation happened at your company to one of your management team. What then? Is lying repeatedly to your employer grouds for getting canned? Would you, as an employer (we employ the congress by the way) be ok with one of your company managers lying repeatedly to superiors, subordinates, customers, and co-workers?

Use a little common sense.

Wow, great minds think alike! Hahaha…..

TheEagle said:
Second, I never said Weiner should stay.

should he go?

Bennybombom said:
You can’t be serious….remember when Newt was calling for Clinton’s resignation and sharing “his values” with America while banging a staffer who was 23 years younger than him?
Is that a point?

No, it’s not a point.

Unlike with Weiner, no one argued that people shouldn’t have expected anything different from Newt because traditional morality wasn’t HIS standard.

THE POINT is that if traditional morality wasn’t Weiner’s standard, then why didn’t he simply admit that he did what he did and be proud of it?

TheEagle said:
Second, I never said Weiner should stay.

Then what have you been arguing about? Jeez, back pedal much?

Cecelia said:
How so? If the argument is that Weiner has differing values from our own, when why did Weiner deny that he did what he did?

Oh dear Buddha… please grant me another fish.

Because Weiner thought he could get away with his lies?

sending pictures of your penis to strangers….cool, lying straight to the face of american people…..cool, accusing others of a crime(hacking)….cool, love anthony’s values

timzank said:
Why? Didn’t weiner do it? Vitters behavior (or Ted Kennedy’s for that matter) has no bearing on Anthony Weiners proclivity for perversion in 2011. That’s a straw man argument.

Never said Weiner didn’t do it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are condeming him.

Cecelia said:
THE POINT is that if traditional morality wasn’t Weiner’s standard, then why didn’t he simply admit that he did what he did and be proud of it?

true…
lying about it would make Weiner the hypocrite…

Rivermont said:
I’m pleased that you and your lib friends believe that sitting in a towel draped chair, naked and sending nude pics of yourself to strangers is perfectly acceptable. That is YOUR world, it isn’t mine.

Never said that.

im_lovin_it said:
Wow, great minds think alike! Hahaha…..

My point is, his colleagues and the taxpayers are asking him to resign instead of eventually waiting to be fired.

TheEagle said:
Never said that.

So you agree what he did was wrong, he just shouldn’t suffer any punishment for it. Got it.

TheEagle said:
Never said Weiner didn’t do it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are condeming him.

You’re a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.

Maybe you should stop embarassing yourself on behalf of a pervert who couldn’t care less about you.

Or are you one of these idiot liberals who think the Democrat party values you beyond your sheep status as a braindead pipeline to more power?

rachel madCOW would even defend excrement if it supported lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremist ideology.

timzank said:
So you agree what he did was wrong, he just shouldn’t suffer any punishment for it. Got it.

Yes, that’s pretty much the entire Democrat party as a whole. These pathetic people change their entire value system based on the letter that follows the name of the white house occupant.

If it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

Cecelia said:
How so? If the argument is that Weiner has differing values from our own, when why did Weiner deny that he did what he did?

No the argument is that those who are so outraged about Weiner seem to be those who regularly pass judgement on the values of others yet turn a blind eye when someone on their side doesn’t live up to those values they claim to cherish.

Cecelia said:
No, it’s not a point.

Unlike with Weiner, no one argued that people shouldn’t have expected anything different from Newt because traditional morality wasn’t HIS standard.

THE POINT is that if traditional morality wasn’t Weiner’s standard, then why didn’t he simply admit that he did what he did and be proud of it?

Oh I agree with that.
Weiner shouldn’t have lied and he should step down…but the Republicans shouldn’t call for it
And don’t tell me it wasn’t Gingrich’s standard though because it was and he was screaming it.
It’s on tape you know…google it.
Actually he’s still screaming it.
Consistency.

joebiner said:
Who doesn’t consider honesty a value?

Yes it is. But can you claim that every elected official has always been 100% honest.

Yes, many libs, such as Ed Schultz, have called for Weiner to resign. What hypocrites!

im_lovin_it said:
No, I wish he wasn’t a creep. If I did something like this at my work I’d be terminated immediately. His employers are his constituents, correct? They can decide his fate. Our phony moral outrage over things like this is a waste of time.

Our outrage as his constituents is part of his “employers” reaction, is it not? Our outrage represents what we think he should do on his own. If he does not respond, then at the time allowed, if our outrage is the same, we will vote him out. So what part of this is “phony?”

TheEagle said:
First, it is true.

No, it’s not… and it’s been proven a number of times already. I know this is the current talking point, but it’s still wrong.

Second, I never said Weiner should stay.

Okay, so should Wiener go? You didn’t say he should stay… does that mean you think he should go, or are you going to keep playing verbal gymnastics to avoid making a declarative statement?

TheEagle said:
Yes it is. But can you claim that every elected official has always been 100% honest.

Is that an excuse?

TheEagle said:
Never said Weiner didn’t do it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are condeming him.

So in your world, anybody who has say, for instance, had an affair can ever condemn someone else for having an affair ever again. The previous transgression nullifies any moral capability ever again in life. Got it.

Doesn’t that sort of step all over the notion one can learn from ones mistakes?

Here’s the imponderable for all of Weiner’s defenders: For all those saying this is not job related, it is a personal matter, he didn’t do anything illegal. this is all salacious character assassination, and this is no big deal at all answer this question —

Why did he spend a week lying his ass off about this?

No big deal? Then why didn’t he come out and admit it? Oh, because he’s married and did not want his wife to know. However he should stay in office because, even though he showed he could not keep his word and betrayed the woman he loves, he will still keep his word and not betray the anonymous minions of this country whom he will never meet.

Bennybombom said:
Oh I agree with that.
Weiner shouldn’t have lied and he should step down…

so Maddow is playing the fool?
or just you?

ImNotBlue said:
Just answer the question, Eagle… stop trying to deflect.

Should Wiener resign because he lied to the press and the public… yes or no.

Don’t mention Vitter, don’t mention Bush… just “Yes” or “No.” It’s really easy.

If Weiner broke the law or violated the congressional code of ethics, he should resign.

Now you tell me if you think Vitter should resign for breaking the law. Or if Bush should have resigned for lying to the people about Iraq.

MartiniShark said:
Here’s the imponderable for all of Weiner’s defenders: For all those saying this is not job related, it is a personal matter, he didn’t do anything illegal. this is all salacious character assassination, and this is no big deal at all answer this question — Why did he spend a week lying his ass off about this? No big deal? Then why didn’t he come out and admit it? Oh, because he’s married and did not want his wife to know. However he should stay in office because, even though he showed he could not keep his word and betrayed the woman he loves, he will still keep his word and not betray the anonymous minions of this country whom he will never meet.

Outstanding!

TheEagle said:
If Weiner broke the law or violated the congressional code of ethics, he should resign. Now you tell me if you think Vitter should resign for breaking the law. Or if Bush should have resigned for lying to the people about Iraq.

neither Vitter nor bush broke the law einstein

skoorbekim said:
are there critics of Weiner who are not hypocrites?

In this day and age, probably not. As a wise man once said, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone’.

TheEagle said:
In this day and age, probably not. As a wise man once said, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone’.

Therefore no one should be admonished for questionable behavior ever again?

Rivermont said:
LOL

This has always been about lying and perversion – MG, what planet do you live on?

So you’re saying that you don’t think Vitter’s actions are a perversion.

ImNotBlue said:
Our outrage as his constituents is part of his “employers” reaction, is it not? Our outrage represents what we think he should do on his own. If he does not respond, then at the time allowed, if our outrage is the same, we will vote him out. So what part of this is “phony?”

The population of this country always takes this obnoxious holier than thou standard on personal indiscretions like trolling shirtless on Craig’s List or lying about Tweeting dick pictures. These are immoral actions and if these were my Congressmen I would vote for their removal when given the opportunity. Yet, think of all of the lies we are fed everyday. First Obama wanted to death panel grandma. Now Paul Ryan wants to throw grandma out on the street. What did any of that do to find a solution? Where was the news write up on the WIkileaks about oil speculators? Buried under a pile of gossip about Weinergate or whatever stupid thing Sarah Palin said this week.

We like to be so OUTRAGED!! about things like this but we can’t ever keep our eye on the ball.

TheEagle said:
In this day and age, probably not. As a wise man once said, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone’.

your argument implies that there can be no moral code…
men are flawed, but we must strive to be good…

skoorbekim said:
should he go?

If he broke the law or violated the code of ethics, yes. I just think the same standards should be applied to all.

TheEagle said:
In this day and age, probably not. As a wise man once said, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone’.

then i guess maddow should quit throwing stones

Bennybombom said:
And don’t tell me it wasn’t Gingrich’s standard though because it was and he was screaming it.
It’s on tape you know…google it.
Actually he’s still screaming it.
Consistency.

I never claimed it wasn’t and explicitly stated that unlike with Weiner, no one HAD made that argument in defense of Gingrich.

TheEagle said:
If he broke the law or violated the code of ethics, yes. I just think the same standards should be applied to all.

absolutely!

but the rush to defend him by voices on the Left is a bit unnerving…
it muddies the moral waters…

timzank said:
Then what have you been arguing about? Jeez, back pedal much?

I’ve been arguing about hypocrisy. Keep up.

I believe Maddow because she is a super smart Liberal and that cannot be challenged, by anyone.

timzank said:
So you agree what he did was wrong, he just shouldn’t suffer any punishment for it. Got it.

Never said that either.

Cancon2 said:
I believe Maddow because she is a super smart Liberal and that cannot be challenged, by anyone.

unless she talks about economics…

TheEagle said:
So you’re saying that you don’t think Vitter’s actions are a perversion.

I hate to be a stickler on “facts” but Vitter was never charged much less convicted of anything, His name was on a list, but there was no hard (sorry) proof that would hold up in court or it would have been pursued,no?. The only thing he admitted to was “sinning” which is a pretty loosey goosey description. Weiner on the other hand, is on film and recorded for ever in the twitterverse with thousands of nasty communiques.

JasonMays said:
You’re a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.

Maybe you should stop embarassing yourself on behalf of a pervert who couldn’t care less about you.

Or are you one of these idiot liberals who think the Democrat party values you beyond your sheep status as a braindead pipeline to more power?

I love it when you guys resort to nasty namecalling. Usually means I’m making good points you can’t refute with facts.

Skippy said:
Because Weiner thought he could get away with his lies?

Eh…Yeah… So Maddow can’t have it both ways. She can’t say that Weiner wasn’t accountable to a standard of traditional morality when Weiner himself embraced that standard by trying to cover up infractions against it.

He even publicly apologized for what doing things he explicitly stated were wrong. Sorry, Maddow, it’s his standard too…

TheEagle said:
I’ve been arguing about hypocrisy. Keep up.

You’ve been all over the map just trying to defend and deflect, you are not to be taken seriously.

“Flawed leaders and leaders who admire the flaws of human beings make the most despicable among us feel welcome to follow the flawed leader. Those who hold themselves to higher standards are left to wonder, what in the hell is real anymore?”
-AR

ImNotBlue said:
No, it’s not… and it’s been proven a number of times already. I know this is the current talking point, but it’s still wrong.

Yes it is. And it is not the current talking point, this article is from 2007: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/OPINION/707230311

ImNotBlue said:
Okay, so should Wiener go? You didn’t say he should stay… does that mean you think he should go, or are you going to keep playing verbal gymnastics to avoid making a declarative statement?

As have now said several time, if he broke the law or violated the code of ethics, he should go.

ImNotBlue said:
Is that an excuse?

No. But if 100% honesty is the bar, no one will ever reach it.

timzank said:
So in your world, anybody who has say, for instance, had an affair can ever condemn someone else for having an affair ever again. The previous transgression nullifies any moral capability ever again in life. Got it.

Doesn’t that sort of step all over the notion one can learn from ones mistakes?

No it doesn’t. But learning from one’s mistakes doesn’t give anyone the right to pass moral judgement on another.

timzank said:
neither Vitter nor bush broke the law einstein

So far it hasn’t been proven that Wiener did either. And are you saying that going to hookers is legal?

timzank said:
Therefore no one should be admonished for questionable behavior ever again?

Admonished is one thing. But passing moral judgement and condeming someone for something that is not a crime is another.

Cecelia said:
She can’t say that Weiner wasn’t accountable to a standard of traditional morality when Weiner himself embraced that standard by trying to cover up infractions against it.

More Orwell.

I have to hand it to you, Whopper, you are one of the few around here who have read Orwell and who can mimic the analytical models he created. It’s really a shame you and Maddow can’t get together over coffee and Danish. I should think the chatter would be most interesting.

skoorbekim said:
your argument implies that there can be no moral code…
men are flawed, but we must strive to be good…

No it doesn’t and we should strive to be good. But we should not be so quick to condemn another when we all have flaws.

I think we should only be outraged when Republicans are involved in scandals.

cjd ohio 1 said:
then i guess maddow should quit throwing stones

So should you!

skoorbekim said:
absolutely!

but the rush to defend him by voices on the Left is a bit unnerving…
it muddies the moral waters…

Who has defended his actions?

If Maddow wants hypocrisy she shiould take a peek at these names – Mike Duvall, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford,Mark Foley. All in sex scandals, all dogged by the media, and led to their stepping down from office. With Weiner the media went to bat for him and turned their anger on Breitbart for outing the guy. But for all her head shaking how does she explain Nancy Pelosi looking into this debacle.

timzank said:
I hate to be a stickler on “facts” but Vitter was never charged much less convicted of anything, His name was on a list, but there was no hard (sorry) proof that would hold up in court or it would have been pursued,no?. The only thing he admitted to was “sinning” which is a pretty loosey goosey description. Weiner on the other hand, is on film and recorded for ever in the twitterverse with thousands of nasty communiques.

No Vitter admited that he went to hooker in a press conference and wasn’t prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out: http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/07/vitter_unlikely_to_face_crimin.html

Maddow is a disgrace. She’s obviously incapable of recognizing breaches of morality. She should appear on Chris Hanson’s “To Catch A Predator” to make up excuses and defend the perverts after they “have a seat”.

And as a first class liar herself, of course she wouldn’t have a problem with Weiner telling dozens of bold faced lies and his attempts to frame other people for his actions. She’s just upset that she looks like an idi-ot for willingly broadcasting Weiner’s lies for him.

timzank said:
You’ve been all over the map just trying to defend and deflect, you are not to be taken seriously.

I could care less if I’m taken seriously by you.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
More Orwell.

I have to hand it to you, Whopper, you are one of the few around here who have read Orwell and who can mimic the analytical models he created. It’s really a shame you and Maddow can’t get together over coffee and Danish. I should think the chatter would be most interesting.

THat’s nonsense.

It is utterly Orwellian to argue that you cannot hold a man accountable for something that HE HE HE has already condemned and apologized for.

JasonMays said:
I just find you embarassing. I see voters like you and I weep for America’s future. You and your uneducated ilk are the reason were a bankrupt nanny state with an affirmative action project tard driving the economy over an Effing cliff.

Thanks for proving my point.

writer said:
I think we should only be outraged when Republicans are involved in scandals.

I don’t think we should be outraged when anyone is involved in these personal scandals. By their nature they are just a distraction from the problems.

TheEagle said:
So should you!

TheEagle said:
Who has defended his actions?

lol

TheEagle said:
Who has defended his actions?

Maddow’s “Vitter defense”…

if you say we can not have values because we all have flaws you are saying that there is no moral standard…

might-makes-right is no way to govern a people…

It’s utterly astounding that Weiner can condemn his own conduct, even going so far as to confess that HE had confessed it to his wife BEFORE they married, but yet there are people who argue that somehow he IS NOT accountable to a traditional stance on morality!

Of course he is! He embraced traditional morality by trying to cover up infractions against that standard! He embraced it by apologizing FOR those infractions against that standard, EVEN telling folks that he had confessed this sordid behavior to his wife BEFORE they were married.

TheEagle said:
No it doesn’t and we should strive to be good. But we should not be so quick to condemn another when we all have flaws.

lol, nobody can ever take a stance on anything, because you are a hypocrite, lol………….love the way you think eagle

Love how maddow always tries to make it about the Republicans. What a freakin tool.

skoorbekim said:
Maddow’s “Vitter defense”…

if you say we can not have values because we all have flaws you are saying that there is no moral standard…

might-makes-right is no way to govern a people…

But it is not a defense. She is just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who are calling for Weiner to resign but gave Vitter a pass.

And I never said we cannot have values just that not everyones values are the same and that some people’s claim of superior values don’t give them the right to condemn the values or actions of others.

TheEagle said:
Who has defended his actions?

The better question is who hasn’t?

cjd ohio 1 said:
lol, nobody can ever take a stance on anything, because you are a hypocrite, lol………….love the way you think eagle

No. You’re twisting my words. I just think many are too quick to judge others because they think their morals and values are superior.

TheEagle said:
But it is not a defense. She is just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who are calling for Weiner to resign but gave Vitter a pass.

And I never said we cannot have values just that not everyones values are the same and that some people’s claim of superior values don’t give them the right to condemn the values or actions of others.

I don’t recall democrats pissing and moaning over all the Democrats who were found to have not been paying their taxes.

A Democrat not paying taxes is like a conservative doing what weiner was caught doing.

I assume you’re ok with republicans not paying their taxes, since they don’t run on the patriotism of doing so, like Democrats do.

Jaurez said:
The better question is who hasn’t?

No, who has?

JasonMays said:
I don’t recall democrats pissing and moaning over all the Democrats who were found to have not been paying their taxes.

A Democrat not paying taxes is like a conservative doing what weiner was caught doing.

I assume you’re ok with republicans not paying their taxes, since they don’t run on the patriotism of doing so, like Democrats do.

Nice way to change the subject. And are you serious that the GOP doesn’t run on patriotism?

TheEagle said:
No, who has?

Go back to the earlier threads on weniergate when the story just broke then get back to me, k? Every far left loon that posts here was defending him and you know it.

TheEagle said:
Nice way to change the subject. And are you serious that the GOP doesn’t run on patriotism?

Both parties run on that garbage.

Your vice president, Joe Biden, once said that it’s “Patriotic” for people to pay higher taxes.

If you’re going to run on the importance of paying taxes, you better pay your Effing taxes.

Democrats need to stop running on class warfare bs if they feel like skipping out on their taxes, and you guys who vote for them should be embarassed when they’re caught not doing so.

Charlie Rangle should have been run out of town, but the piece of crap was re-elected.

Jaurez said:
Go back to the earlier threads on weniergate when the story just broke then get back to me, k? Every far left loon that posts here was defending him and you know it.

Earlier threads??? Who in the public arena has been defending him since monday?

TheEagle said:
No it doesn’t. But learning from one’s mistakes doesn’t give anyone the right to pass moral judgement on another.

TheEagle said:
Admonished is one thing. But passing moral judgement and condeming someone for something that is not a crime is another.

TheEagle said:
But it is not a defense. She is just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who are calling for Weiner to resign but gave Vitter a pass. And I never said we cannot have values just that not everyones values are the same and that some people’s claim of superior values don’t give them the right to condemn the values or actions of others.

cool, weiner values lying, weiner values accusing others of a crime………….to each is own

JasonMays said:
Both parties run on that garbage.

True.

JasonMays said:
Your vice president, Joe Biden, once said that it’s “Patriotic” for people to pay higher taxes.

He’s your vice president too. Unless you’re not an American.

JasonMays said:
If you’re going to run on the importance of paying taxes, you better pay your Effing taxes.

Don’t disagree with you there.

JasonMays said:
Democrats need to stop running on class warfare bs if they feel like skipping out on their taxes, and you guys who vote for them should be embarassed when they’re caught not doing so.

Again, don’t disagree with you.

JasonMays said:
Charlie Rangle should have been run out of town, but the piece of crap was re-elected.

Never voted for Rangle, never will.

cjd ohio 1 said:
cool, weiner values lying, weiner values accusing others of a crime………….to each is own

Nonsense response.

TheEagle said:
True.

He’s your vice president too. Unless you’re not an American.

Don’t disagree with you there.

Again, don’t disagree with you.

Never voted for Rangle, never will.

He’s not MY vice president.

Obama is not MY president.

I choose not to accept them. Stop with the flag waving crap. It’s silly in general, but when a liberal does it, it’s even dumber.

TheEagle said:
Nonsense response.

why? those are his values

TheEagle said:
But it is not a defense. She is just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who are calling for Weiner to resign but gave Vitter a pass.

TheEagle said:
And I never said we cannot have values just that not everyones values are the same and that some people’s claim of superior values don’t give them the right to condemn the values or actions of others.

sounds like an argument for limited Government…
you might be a TEA Partier… welcome…

Rachel, doesn’t it work both ways? If you’re outraged when a Republican is involved in scandal, but not when a Democrat is, isn’t that also hypocritical?

We have seen Weiner’s facility to lie and I don’t think RM is far behind. The other day, she said if Rep Chris Lee “hadn’t” resigned, she would not even have mentioned the story.

Yeah, right, RM. You would give Casey Anthony a run for her money.

JasonMays said:
He’s not MY vice president.

Obama is not MY president.

I choose not to accept them. Stop with the flag waving crap. It’s silly in general, but when a liberal does it, it’s even dumber.

Bush was my President, even though I didn’t vote for him. It’s not flag waving crap but an acknowledgement that we are all Americans.

cjd ohio 1 said:
why? those are his values

Because it had nothing to do with the topic, it was just an attack on Weiner.

skoorbekim said:
sounds like an argument for limited Government…
you might be a TEA Partier… welcome…

I am for limited government in people’s bedrooms.

I’m always amazed when I see Rachel anywhere but her own safe “set”. She was beyond nervous on Letterman, couldn’t keep her fingers still. For someone who is brilliant, she sure is stupid – all for the sake of the democratic party. How shameful that she has to dumb her entire chatter down and in essence paints herself as a loon.

Not very smart there Rach. You gave up 100 i.q. points there girlfriend.

TheEagle said:
I am for limited government in people’s bedrooms.

are there values that exist outside the bedroom?
or is your point about passing judgement just sexual in nature?

TheEagle said:
I just think many are too quick to judge others because they think their morals and values are superior.

You see, you and your ilk believe in no standards or judgments. There is no right or wrong, there are just choices.

Yet, our entire lives are measured by standards and judgments; from an early age, we are judged by our behavior and from Kindergarten through college , we are judged on our grades. Once we are employed, we are evaluated by performance appraisals and our worth to our employer is reflected in our salaries.

Yet you want to take Weiner’s character, integrity, honesty, decorum, and suddenly act as if there is no baseline for any of these. Strangely, Senate Majority Leader Reid disagress with you as do many libs.

TheEagle said:
Earlier threads??? Who in the public arena has been defending him since monday?

Oh, now it’s “since monday.” You got one of them handy dandy portable goal posts…

skoorbekim said:
are there values that exist outside the bedroom?
or is your point about passing judgement just sexual in nature?

Not just sexual but personal. Just as there are many values that exist outside the bedroom. Some will pass judgement on someone if they smoke or drink, others won’t.

TheEagle said:
I am for limited government in people’s bedrooms.

The internet is not your bedroom. It is the most public forum in the world.

Try another lib excuse.

You are up to lib excuse # 456,278.

Rivermont said:
You see, you and your ilk believe in no standards or judgments. There is no right or wrong, there are just choices.

Yet, our entire lives are measured by standards and judgments; from an early age, we are judged by our behavior and from Kindergarten through college , we are judged on our grades. Once we are employed, we are evaluated by performance appraisals and our worth to our employer is reflected in our salaries.

Yet you want to take Weiner’s character, integrity, honesty, decorum, and suddenly act as if there is no baseline for any of these. Strangely, Senate Majority Leader Reid disagress with you as do many libs.

There is right and wrong and they are defined by our laws. After that everything is a matter of personal choices as long as they are not harming others and just because someone doesn’t share your values it doesn’t give them the right to pass judgement.

TheEagle said:
Not just sexual but personal. Just as there are many values that exist outside the bedroom. Some will pass judgement on someone if they smoke or drink, others won’t.

do you have a moral code or set of virtues?
I do, and I have faltered countless times…

Jaurez said:
Oh, now it’s “since monday.” You got one of them handy dandy portable goal posts…

No you’re the one who changed the goal as too the question of who is now defending Weiner. Now you’re trying to redefine the question to the period before all the facts were known.

Rivermont said:
The internet is not your bedroom. It is the most public forum in the world.

Try another lib excuse.

You are up to lib excuse # 456,278.

baby eagle doesn’t realize that weiner was sexting from his office most of

TheEagle said:
There is right and wrong and they are defined by our laws. After that everything is a matter of personal choices as long as they are not harming others and just because someone doesn’t share your values it doesn’t give them the right to pass judgement.

personal question, feel free NOT to answer…
Do you have kids?

Rivermont said:
The internet is not your bedroom. It is the most public forum in the world.

Try another lib excuse.

You are up to lib excuse # 456,278.

Not making any excuses. Can all you do is attack instead of engaging in any useful dialogue?

TheEagle said:
Because it had nothing to do with the topic, it was just an attack on Weiner.

you talk about judgements and values, and now its off topic lol………attack weiner how? with facts

skoorbekim said:
do you have a moral code or set of virtues?
I do, and I have faltered countless times…

Yes and the first one is to not do anything to harm another.

TheEagle said:
Now you’re trying to redefine the question to the period before all the facts were known.

The facts were known to clear thinkers from the get-go.

cjd ohio 1 said:
you talk about judgements and values, and now its off topic lol………attack weiner how? with facts

Please, it was an ad homiem attack on Weiner because you couldn’t refute my point.

skoorbekim said:
personal question, feel free NOT to answer…
Do you have kids?

Why do you want to know? How is that to the point?

TheEagle said:
Yes and the first one is to not do anything to harm another.

Have you ever harmed another?

TheEagle said:
There is right and wrong and they are defined by our laws

Some behaviors are are and some are not. It isn’t against the law to lie unless you are under oath.Have you taught your kids it’s OK to lie.

It’s not against the law to cheat on your spouse- have you taught your kids that’s OK?

It not against the law to make fun of the disabled- have you taught your kids that’s OK?

Have you taught your kids its OK to post nude shots of your crotch on the biggest public forum in the world, the WWW?

BTW, you keep referring to Vitter when talking about Weiner. The more contemporary and more appropriate comparison is Rep Chris Lee.- Lee and Weiner both caught doing inappropriate things on the net.

What did Rep Lee do when he heard the story about him was about to break?

He resigned.

TheEagle said:
Please, it was an ad homiem attack on Weiner because you couldn’t refute my point.

you have not point to refute

skoorbekim said:
Have you ever harmed another?

Not on purpose. And never physically.

TheEagle said:
Please, it was an ad homiem attack on Weiner because you couldn’t refute my point.

Still defending weiner? LOL!

TheEagle said:
it doesn’t give them the right to pass judgement.

EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD HAS A RIGHT TO PASS JUDGMENT!!!! That’s what human beings do; they were born with brains to make judgments EVERYDAY!

TheEagle said:
Not on purpose. And never physically.

A quiet life, a pure soul, and an clean conscience…

you’re a lucky person… I’m jealous…

Rivermont said:
Some behaviors are are and some are not. It isn’t against the law to lie unless you are under oath.Have you taught your kids it’s OK to lie.

It’s not against the law to cheat on your spouse- have you taught your kids that’s OK?

It not against the law to make fun of the disabled- have you taught your kids that’s OK?

Have you taught your kids its OK to post nude shots of your crotch on the biggest public forum in the world, the WWW?

BTW, you keep referring to Vitter when talking about Weiner. The more contemporary and more appropriate comparison is Rep Chris Lee.- Lee and Weiner both caught doing inappropriate things on the net.

What did Rep Lee do when he heard the story about him was about to break?

He resigned.

You can go back and forth on this. Lee resigned. So did Massa. Spitzer resigned but Vitter didn’t neither did Mark Sanford or David Ensign until the Ethics committee closed in on him.

To answer your questions, they would all be a no. But that is my personal choice and no one else’s.

Jaurez said:
Still defending weiner? LOL!

Never have.

Rivermont said:
EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD HAS A RIGHT TO PASS JUDGMENT!!!! That’s what human beings do; they were born with brains to make judgments EVERYDAY!

There is a big difference between making a judgement and passing judgement on another.

skoorbekim said:
A quiet life, a pure soul, and an clean conscience…

you’re a lucky person… I’m jealous…

Too quiet sometimes LOL!

Jaurez said:
Love how maddow always tries to make it about the Republicans. What a freakin tool.

What is that all about? All I have seen so far is Democrats saying he needs to get out of town, PERMANENTLY. This Maddow person seems to be the poster child for the rabid far left crowd.

I’d like to see her response if here husband came home one evening saying he just was at the local brothel and said, ” But honey, others have done far worse! What’s the big deal?” Or her child came home with a “D” and the kids response was “But mom, other kids are getting an “F”.” Justifying bad behavior because others have done worse, whether they have paid the piper or not, is just plain assinine. She sounds like a self centered sniveling little cry baby who was able to to get away with crap as a kid by telling her folks “The other kids are doing things far worse than I am”

Maddow is toooooooooooooooooooooo dumb by ten.

l.flor1130 said:
I’d like to see her response if here husband came home one evening saying he just was at the local brothel and said, ” But honey, others have done far worse! What’s the big deal?” Or her child came home with a “D” and the kids response was “But mom, other kids are getting an “F”.” Justifying bad behavior because others have done worse, whether they have paid the piper or not, is just plain assinine. She sounds like a self centered sniveling little cry baby who was able to to get away with crap as a kid by telling her folks “The other kids are doing things far worse than I am”

Husband?

Obviously a rhetorical question.

Weinergate didn’t just kill Weiner’s marraige and career, it also killed the myth of Rachel Maddow’s as an impartial journalist.

Well at least MSNBC still has Ed Schul…no wait Lawrence O’Donn…no umm…Chris Matthews? ah crap, they got nobody.

TheEagle said:
So do you still trust George W. Bush after he lied about Iraq’s WMDs?

LOL, Hmmmm, there is one proven liar that I know here and he is the lying fool hiding behind the phony name of “TheEagle”. How can a liar like you have the nerve to call anyone a liar? You won’t even use your real name to lie to people. How many nude photos have you sent on the internet?

Yes Rachael, they are all a bunch of salacious gossip-mongers, interested soley in prurient details, and only the purile would have thought this story was the least bit news worthy. Hell, anyone who has reported on this and shown any interest at all has to be an arrested adolescent with stunted mental faculties.

Now, remind us again, what did Gravity Pants say when you interviewed him on YOUR SHOW last week.

Rivermont said:
He did?

No, I think he listened to theses people:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

That always seems to be ignored by the leftists.

gordonbloyershow said:
LOL, Hmmmm, there is one proven liar that I know here and he is the lying fool hiding behind the phony name of “TheEagle”. How can a liar like you have the nerve to call anyone a liar? You won’t even use your real name to lie to people. How many nude photos have you sent on the internet?

For the record, I have never sent nude photos of myself on the internet. I have never taken nude photos of myself or allowed anyone else to take nude photos of me. It wouldn’t be a pretty sight.

As for my screenname, it’s a screenname just like everyone else here has a screenname.

It’s not the crime Maddow…. it’s the cover up. If you were smart you’d understand that. But you are not…. as much as you like to brag that you are. ;)

I’m sure she rather revise it out and not cover it at all. It isn’t good for pushing their agenda, and I’m sure they loved Weiner prior. O’Donnell even wanted to silence the story. And how of the Republicans hypocritical when they even ask their own to resign? So instead of trying to cover this up, she can just twist it to get their message across and smear others.

TheEagle said:
There is a big difference between making a judgement and passing judgement on another.

Really? tell me all about it!

Out of all the political sex scandals, he displayed the absolute worst judgement I think I have ever seen. From start to finish – vile, nasty and the WORST choices ever. How can ANYONE take him seriously after the bad bad bad decisions he made? He is an idiot. (Lee was terrible too, with his pics, and Craigs list) but weiner was sending out PICTURES of his weiner to women he didn’t even know – and women, he claims, didn’t even ask for it!

Partisan politics aside, how can you even consider this guy is mentally sound enough to serve?

Maybe Maddow will fess up and admit it’s her package being shown then Weiner can say he was protecting her. It doesn’t matter about this guy, libs all love bad boy’s including the female gender, gay or straight. Spitzer got a TV show, if you can call it that. Clinton makes millions with his tired old diatribe about “me” and the list goes on and on. We just need to flush Washington of all those, both sides, who have only one goal in life, %^&* the American Middle class.

“Bad Manners”

Nice spin Madcow.

“Instead, Maddow argued that demanding Weiner’s resignation was truly hypocritical of the Republican party.”

I agree with Rachel Maddow…. Anthoney Weiner is the voice of the working poor… smile :-)