Lying: Weiner

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:19 am

It appears lying is the unforgivable sin in this tale. I don't think his actions are cause for him stepping down, but I agree with the Democrats that are asking for his resignation for the lying. Do you agree?

Democrats Ask Weiner to Resign | Daily Political

"Former DNC chairman Tim Kaine was the first prominent Democrat to ask Weiner to quit.

Kaine said that lying publicly is unforgivable and this should be enough reason for Weiner to resign."

:guitarist

Weiner has since taken a leave of absence. Lying is a no-no. (except for WJC and those who follow the Qur'an.)

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:24 am

Judgemental codswallop, I'd have said. If the electorate can't stomach it they'll say so at the next opportunity. If the party doesn't want to risk running him they'll replace him. Meanwhile he has a mandate to serve until his term expires.

What on earth is wrong with the World Jewish Congress?

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:36 am

spot;1361417 wrote: If the electorate can't stomach it they'll say so at the next opportunity.

I'll have to agree on that point.

However, it appears the week of lying is what's sinking the poor chap. He must be so confused. It was OKay for Clinton but not for him.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:39 am

And the World Jewish Congress?

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:41 am

spot;1361422 wrote: And the World Jewish Congress?

You are invoking A:

A) Change the subject

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:43 am

BeccaRachel;1361424 wrote: You are invoking A:

A) Change the subject

Not at all, I'm responding to your "Lying is a no-no. (except for WJC and those who follow the Qur'an.)" in the original post. What on earth is wrong with the World Jewish Congress?

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:46 am

spot;1361425 wrote: Not at all, I'm responding to your "Lying is a no-no. (except for WJC and those who follow the Qur'an.)" in the original post. What on earth is wrong with the World Jewish Congress?

Oh I see, you're slow on the take up. WJC is William Jefferson Clinton. The man who got a free pass for lying while others serve jail time for it. That one.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:55 am

BeccaRachel;1361427 wrote: Oh I see, you're slow on the take up. WJC is William Jefferson Clinton. The man who got a free pass for lying while others serve jail time for it. That one.

You might have said so to start with. Sticking that TLA bang next to "the Qur'an" is guaranteed confusion in some quarters.

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:59 am

spot;1361430 wrote: You might have said so to start with. Sticking that TLA bang next to "the Qur'an" is guaranteed confusion in come quarters.

I'll try to take it easier on you in the future.

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:16 am

BeccaRachel;1361432 wrote: I'll try to take it easier on you in the future.

No acronyms.

Baby steps instead.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:33 am

Gee, a politician lying?

Whoodathunkit?

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:54 am

LarsMac;1361447 wrote: Gee, a politician lying?

Whoodathunkit?

I remain confused on how the American public accepted it from Clinton but not Weiner. Pelosi was strong in her statement of removing him. Something is not clicking.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:02 am

BeccaRachel;1361449 wrote: I remain confused on how the American public accepted it from Clinton but not Weiner. Pelosi was strong in her statement of removing him. Something is not clicking.

It's a public polarised by partisan bigotry who see flaws in the opposite camp which are immaterial when demonstrated within their own. You ought to know a lot about that mentality.

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:10 am

spot;1361452 wrote: It's a public polarised by partisan bigotry who see flaws in the opposite camp which are immaterial when demonstrated within their own. You ought to know a lot about that mentality.

Hold on there, boy. I agreed with you earlier on this subject at hand.

Why must you continuously invoke A,B and C? I understand this board is your world but, really, invoking B all the time? You're a heart attack in action. :-1

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:44 am

Nothing of the sort, I just recognise when people are posting from their own pre-set agenda for effect with no intention of ever discussing responses. It's the way you set your opening posts that gives it away, it's not hard to notice. If you ever get round to engaging rather than posturing then we might get an interesting exchange.

I'll also offer an even-handed playing field: two alternate posts each on these subjects which you're bringing up. One thread per subject, two posts each, one to put forward a point of view and the second to criticise the other's argument, at which point the thread's closed. It cuts to the chase and prevents all this sarcastic time-wasting you find so enjoyable.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:28 pm

We have short memories and this guy is ugly and comes off evil and sleazy. Clinton on the other hand was somewhat handsome makes all the difference in the world. I'm sick of all of them none are worth the power to blow them to hell..~~

I remain confused on how the American public accepted it from Clinton but not Weiner. Pelosi was strong in her statement of removing him. Something is not clicking.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:57 pm

It's not just the lying, it's the extremely poor judgement of his actions.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:04 pm

spot;1361460 wrote: Nothing of the sort, I just recognise when people are posting from their own pre-set agenda for effect with no intention of ever discussing responses. It's the way you set your opening posts that gives it away, it's not hard to notice. If you ever get round to engaging rather than posturing then we might get an interesting exchange.

I'll also offer an even-handed playing field: two alternate posts each on these subjects which you're bringing up. One thread per subject, two posts each, one to put forward a point of view and the second to criticise the other's argument, at which point the thread's closed. It cuts to the chase and prevents all this sarcastic time-wasting you find so enjoyable.

it is enjoyable I recall similar games of I think you thinks he thinks this, where what "I think" is right, what "you think" is wrong, and what "he thinks" doesn't matter being played by the general chit-chat polarized Christians. I wonder where this type of debating style works for it to be so popular?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:02 pm

If they ran off every congressman who showed poor judgement and lied, I'd be all for it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:23 pm

BeccaRachel;1361415 wrote: It appears lying is the unforgivable sin in this tale. I don't think his actions are cause for him stepping down,

Hes a member of the Congress of the United States of America. He sent pictures of his penis over the internet. Of course these actions disqualify him to represent his constituents and from remaining an honorable member of Congress. No further discussion required.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:40 pm

Nomad;1361498 wrote: Of course these actions disqualify him to represent his constituents and from remaining an honorable member of Congress.I wonder whether you could direct me to the relevant statute describing the circumstances which disqualify representatives?

I could show you the equivalent British statute, except it couldn't be invoked by the events under discussion here. If I remember right the UK statute makes reference to the length of enforced absence from Parliament due to insanity or imprisonment, there's nothing in it about offending public opinion or causing moral outrage (and it only applies to our Lower House; only death debars a member of our House of Lords, as Jeffrey Archer famously demonstrated).

Offending public opinion or causing moral outrage are handled here by the electorate at the next constituency hustings. That, fortunately, is the law of the land here. Yours sounds rather more manipulable by the press if it allows premature forced ejection from office the way you describe.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:30 pm

littleCJelkton;1361487 wrote: it is enjoyable I recall similar games of I think you thinks he thinks this, where what "I think" is right, what "you think" is wrong, and what "he thinks" doesn't matter being played by the general chit-chat polarized Christians. I wonder where this type of debating style works for it to be so popular?

I'm completely uninterested in opinion, either expressing mine or hearing anyone else's. I'm interested in hearing the facts laid out in a coherent fashion and an argument based on them tending toward a particular conclusion. The trouble with open-ended threads is that someone like BeccaRachel can just wander round and round the houses, ignoring anything said other than to attempt mockery while refusing to engage the points offered. I'm not sure what benefit it gets them, since their timewasting's left on the record as evidence of their behavior.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:47 am

spot;1361499 wrote: I wonder whether you could direct me to the relevant statute describing the circumstances which disqualify representatives?

I could show you the equivalent British statute, except it couldn't be invoked by the events under discussion here. If I remember right the UK statute makes reference to the length of enforced absence from Parliament due to insanity or imprisonment, there's nothing in it about offending public opinion or causing moral outrage (and it only applies to our Lower House; only death debars a member of our House of Lords, as Jeffrey Archer famously demonstrated).

Offending public opinion or causing moral outrage are handled here by the electorate at the next constituency hustings. That, fortunately, is the law of the land here. Yours sounds rather more manipulable by the press if it allows premature forced ejection from office the way you describe.

I think that is what Viagra is for.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:50 am

BeccaRachel;1361449 wrote: I remain confused on how the American public accepted it from Clinton but not Weiner. Pelosi was strong in her statement of removing him. Something is not clicking.

Let me help you out here, on the difference .... Clinton did it under oath.

:yh_rotfl

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:56 am

Nomad;1361498 wrote: [QUOTE=BeccaRachel;1361415]It appears lying is the unforgivable sin in this tale. I don't think his actions are cause for him stepping down,

Hes a member of the Congress of the United States of America. He sent pictures of his penis over the internet. Of course these actions disqualify him to represent his constituents and from remaining an honorable member of Congress. No further discussion required.

I contend that he does represent his constituents and any woman who is has not signed on to check her husbands account over the last week, should wake up. Any of them that have, should now make it their mission to go out and find the 'play' account that the guy is using when she's not in the room.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:57 am

flopstock;1361545 wrote: Let me help you out here, on the difference .... Clinton did it under oath.

:yh_rotfl

I was thinking: At least Clinton had a happy ending..

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:00 am

Honestly, I don't care if a politician lies about his or her sex life. It's none of our business, so long as it is legal.

The problem we face is the potential for blackmail. We need to demand that politicians be allowed their privacy on personal matters. But that's just not gonna happen.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:02 am

YZGI;1361550 wrote: I was thinking: At least Clinton had a happy ending..

I keep waiting for monica to show up on a season of The Apprentice.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:53 pm

flopstock;1361549 wrote: I contend that he does represent his constituents and any woman who is has not signed on to check her husbands account over the last week, should wake up. Any of them that have, should now make it their mission to go out and find the 'play' account that the guy is using when she's not in the room.

Contrary to this stereotype, one size does not fit all.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:03 pm

He got caught that simple he has lost the respect of his constituents, congress, and probably his wife. He can stomp his feet and say he won't step down, sorry he will. What did this ass think was going to happen that he would never be found out, yeah right. I'm always struck with how full of themselves these guys are. I find what he did embarassing to say the least for his wife and family sleazzy creep got nothing I want to see..!!

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:23 pm

What aspect of your electoral process demonstrates that he's lost the respect of his constituents, Carla? Or has US governance been reduced to media-led opinion polls? That's not a question about whether the prat ought to immediately withdraw from public life, of course he ought. It's a question about your process.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:01 am

There isn't a process that demonstrates that he has lost the respect of his constituents, but he has. He will just take a leave of absence and fade away. He committed political suicide and he knows it. You don't have to have a blemish free past nobody does you need to be close to clean and squeaky. This guy just isn't and it appears he never was and thought he was untouchable. You play you pay always it will catch up with you.