Weiner on a grill... Hot dog. lol

Donald Blake wrote: Mack wrote: I would think that it has a lot to do with his ability/suitability as an elected official.  It is an insight into his character and integrity that he is willing to lie to the electoral public and allow someone else to take the blame for a "hack-attack" as long as it protects his reputation.  It is further insight that the truth only comes out after it looks like the cyber-sleuths will prove he's lying anyway and that an apology to the individual who he stood idly by and allowed to be falsely accused of hacking was only forthcoming after pressure/questions from the press.   It's the old Clinton-lie, and my position on this is the same as it was with Clinton: 1. It is unreasonable to expect ANY man (or woman) to fess up to sexual shenanigans just because somebody asks.  There are some things where lying is the expected result, and infidelity (or near-infidelity) is right at the top of the list. For some reason, I expect better of our elected officials.  It would be nice if those chosen to lead us were of a higher moral fiber since they are making decisions that impact all of our lives. Infidelity, by its very nature, requires covering up.  You can be upset with the man for cheating on his wife, Agreed, I consider this to be despicable behavior. but I can't blame the man for covering it up. Yes I can.  It is a free country, I am allowed to blame people for pretty much whatever I wish too as long as it is based on a factual incident.  Furthermore, while related, the lying/cover up is a separate issue from the actual behavior.  It reflects not one but two separate instances of bad judgement/lack of integrity. That just comes with the territory.  Expecting any other result is to hold him to an irrationally high standard.  You don't want a married man to lie to you about his affair?  Then don't ASK him about the affair! Conversely, if he doesn't want to lie about the affair, he could actually act like a man and choose not to; or, better yet, he could not have the affair in the first place.  I would also point out that he is not just some guy off the street, he is (was) and individual in a position of public trust and as such is held to a higher standard.  There is a reason that people who assume such positions are given additional scrutiny by both the media and the government and that reason is the potential that their actions have for impact on others besides themselves. 2. Just because a man lies about one thing doesn't mean that he will lie about another, or that he is generally untrustworthy.  Excluding the "white lies" that are a part of everyday life for the sake of civility and sparing the feeling of others, I am going to disagree.  Generally, an individual's behavior, especially that behavior that occurs when they feel they will not be caught engaging in it, is a very good indicator of the individual's actual behavior/personality.  It is the public face that people, and probably politicians more than most, put on that should be suspect. I am a pretty honest guy, yet I can lie with a straight face, and do so on a regular basis. Then, you are not actually "a pretty honest guy."  Furthermore, if you do a web search for "signs of sociopathic behavior, you will find that this is considered a common sign of being a sociopath.  (Something that I point out to correct the statement below regarding truthfulness being a sign of the psychotic.  Regarding that, I did not find anything that generally supported the assertion made below regarding honesty in relation to psychotic behavior.) So, frankly, do most people.  Anyone who is always truthful is psychotic, not honorable. Incorrect as pointed out directly above. It is certainly irrational to extrapolate that because a married man covered up his quasi-infidelities (duh!) he is also generally untrustworthy or lying about issue X.  The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise. Actually, it does.  You can only judge someone by their behavior as we are not allowed to or capable of  reaching inside their minds and see what they really think.  Generally, we have to go off of what other people choose to show us in making such judgements and, as people tend to try to show themselves at their best, we see what they want us to see.  It is when they are forced into revealing that which they don't want others to know that we get a deeper and more accurate insight.  In this specific case, the deeper insight showed something, that while not pretty, must be taken into account when judging the individual in question. Now, I'm not saying that one lie means that nothing out of the individual's mouth should ever again be taken as fact; but I do believe that it should be given less credence, and the individual given less trust, than someone who has not displayed such behavior.  In this case that means that, in my opinion, there are a lot of people who are better suited to serve in Congress than Former Representative Weiner. 3.  Instead, a more rational approach (still not entirely rational, but less bizarrely irrational) would be to be concerned about elected officials who lie about things directly in the path of their jobs, like fabrications about their political opponents or issues they disagree with.  People worry about those as well.  However, as people sometimes have their own agenda on those specific items that may coincide with the agenda of the candidate they are willing to overlook the lies because they either don't recognize them as such or believe it is for the "greater good."* Yet somehow it doesn't bother us when Candidate A blatantly spreads lies about Candidate B - we just roll with it, but freak out when some lies about cheating on his wife. 4.  ... which leads me to my main conclusion, which is that the whole "OMG HE LIED!" schtick is just sublimation, a sub-conscious excuse for our real feeling:  We disapprove of the underlying issue - the cheating.  Interesting opinion.  However, I will disagree based on the fact that since you can't read minds you are really unqualified to tell the rest of us what we are thinking.  In my case, I didn't care about Weiner (beyond the obvious forum humor possibilities) until the lying started.  If you follow the case, it is obvious that if he had fessed up immediately and sought help with apologies to all involved the media would probably have moved on.  But we cannot rationally connect Wiener-pics with "bad leader," so we take the scenic route through the convenient-yet-specious "he lied" argument.  If your friend cheated on his wife, you would be understandably upset about it.  But would you be more upset that he lied to you about it, or more upset about the cheating? In most cases, I would have to say the lying.  The cheating is dishonesty with his wife, the lying is being dishonest with me. Would the lying even register at that moment, or would you be fully focused on the cheating?  "Sure, Billy, I guess I'm upset that you were schtupping the girl in accounting, but what really burns me is that you didn't come right out and tell me!"  Oh please. Actually, if I never asked and it just came out, I wouldn't really think of that as a lie.  Nobody goes around telling everyone everything they are doing.  If I had asked, it would be a different matter. 5.  ... which leads to the politically convenient inconsistency/hypocrisy of it all.  Newt Gingrich (for instance) is out there criticizing Clinton (or whatever cheater of the moment) - yet does anyone on this planet believe that Newt never cheated on any of his 11 wives, or that he would lie till the cows came home to cover it up?  He may or may not have cheated on his wives, however, that is entirely irrelevant.  We're not discussing what might of happened that there is no evidence for, we're discussing a Congressman that was confronted by evidence that he accidentally provided himself that chose to lie to not one individual but the whole nation and committed a further lie of omission by supporting the hacking story and allowing someone who only reported the truth to be accused of crimes.  Big difference. Or Vitter, also calling for Clinton's resignation - but who still sits in the Senate after numerous prostitution scandals with associated lies.  It is just a political tool of convenience, and we the gullible masses are being led by our noses (or whatever) and whipped into great outrage! over the bad bad man over there. Wow, you sound like FE.  The media is only providing the information.  (At least some of the media is.)  What we do with it is our choice. This whole thing is an irrelevancy for Wiener as elected official.  It's a private matter.  The end. Court cases concerning the paparazzi, celebrities and politicians have determined that those who choose to live in the public eye have chosen to give up some privacy.  (Not necessarily something I agree with, but that is the way it is.)   Regardless of that, it became a public matter when Weiner chose to lie to the public.

*These "ends justify the means" type of people really worry me.

Mack wrote: I would think that it has a lot to do with his ability/suitability as an elected official.  It is an insight into his character and integrity that he is willing to lie to the electoral public and allow someone else to take the blame for a "hack-attack" as long as it protects his reputation.  It is further insight that the truth only comes out after it looks like the cyber-sleuths will prove he's lying anyway and that an apology to the individual who he stood idly by and allowed to be falsely accused of hacking was only forthcoming after pressure/questions from the press.

It's the old Clinton-lie, and my position on this is the same as it was with Clinton:

1. It is unreasonable to expect ANY man (or woman) to fess up to sexual shenanigans just because somebody asks.  There are some things where lying is the expected result, and infidelity (or near-infidelity) is right at the top of the list.  Infidelity, by its very nature, requires covering up.  You can be upset with the man for cheating on his wife, but I can't blame the man for covering it up.  That just comes with the territory.  Expecting any other result is to hold him to an irrationally high standard.  You don't want a married man to lie to you about his affair?  Then don't ASK him about the affair!

2. Just because a man lies about one thing doesn't mean that he will lie about another, or that he is generally untrustworthy.  I am a pretty honest guy, yet I can lie with a straight face, and do so on a regular basis.  So, frankly, do most people.  Anyone who is always truthful is psychotic, not honorable.  It is certainly irrational to extrapolate that because a married man covered up his quasi-infidelities (duh!) he is also generally untrustworthy or lying about issue X.  The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.

3.  Instead, a more rational approach (still not entirely rational, but less bizarrely irrational) would be to be concerned about elected officials who lie about things directly in the path of their jobs, like fabrications about their political opponents or issues they disagree with.  Yet somehow it doesn't bother us when Candidate A blatantly spreads lies about Candidate B - we just roll with it, but freak out when some lies about cheating on his wife.

4.  ... which leads me to my main conclusion, which is that the whole "OMG HE LIED!" schtick is just sublimation, a sub-conscious excuse for our real feeling:  We disapprove of the underlying issue - the cheating.  But we cannot rationally connect Wiener-pics with "bad leader," so we take the scenic route through the convenient-yet-specious "he lied" argument.  If your friend cheated on his wife, you would be understandably upset about it.  But would you be more upset that he lied to you about it, or more upset about the cheating?  Would the lying even register at that moment, or would you be fully focused on the cheating?  "Sure, Billy, I guess I'm upset that you were schtupping the girl in accounting, but what really burns me is that you didn't come right out and tell me!"  Oh please.

5.  ... which leads to the politically convenient inconsistency/hypocrisy of it all.  Newt Gingrich (for instance) is out there criticizing Clinton (or whatever cheater of the moment) - yet does anyone on this planet believe that Newt never cheated on any of his 11 wives, or that he would lie till the cows came home to cover it up?  Or Vitter, also calling for Clinton's resignation - but who still sits in the Senate after numerous prostitution scandals with associated lies.  It is just a political tool of convenience, and we the gullible masses are being led by our noses (or whatever) and whipped into great outrage! over the bad bad man over there.

This whole thing is an irrelevancy for Wiener as elected official.  It's a private matter.  The end.

Donald Blake wrote: GroupB wrote: Looks like congress lost a member. . . . it is even more disgraceful that we as a people thinks this has any bearing on his ability or suitability as an elected official.

I would think that it has a lot to do with his ability/suitability as an elected official.  It is an insight into his character and integrity that he is willing to lie to the electoral public and allow someone else to take the blame for a "hack-attack" as long as it protects his reputation.  It is further insight that the truth only comes out after it looks like the cyber-sleuths will prove he's lying anyway and that an apology to the individual who he stood idly by and allowed to be falsely accused of hacking was only forthcoming after pressure/questions from the press.  

Donald Blake wrote: GroupB wrote: Looks like congress lost a member. This upsets me greatly, on several levels.  First off, Wiener is/was one of the few Congressmen to speak intelligently and candidly (and often amusingly so).  But mainly I don't view this whole "scandal" as worthy of anything more than a funny bit on Bill Maher's show.  It is disgraceful that the media has gotten so excited about this, and it is even more disgraceful that we as a people thinks this has any bearing on his ability or suitability as an elected official. I wish he hadn't buckled to the pressure and stuck it out instead.  On the other hand, maybe he was concerned about losing reelection and figured that quitting is better.  Either way it sucks.  We lose Wiener, but we keep Joe "how did oil get to Alaska" Barton.  That's just great.

I think you misread his post. That or you need to recalibrate your Double Entendre Reception Dish.


Edited by usafpilot07 - 17 June 2011 at 6:04pm

To be quite frank, I've been waiting for this whole package issue to wrap up, so I could ketchup on it all at once.

So he resigned, can we get back to more important matters?

FreeEnterprise wrote: I wish he wouldn't, he is the poster child for liberalism morality.

"Weiner out" Who ever posts that headline tomorrow will win the best pun contest... (although the NY post sure has a strong entry into the weiner gate odyseey)

High Voltage wrote: I hear he is going to resign.

I hear he is going to resign.