Weiner is a modern human being (by Alec Baldwin)

I'm wondering if any of the pro-Weiner's will still be pro-Weiner if one of the twitter-twits he was tweating was only 17... sexual or not, i'd think that would be extremely inappropriate.

Clinton should have resigned. He didn't get impeached for getting a BJ in office, he was impeached for lying under oath. In court it's called perjury and the offender is subject to fines and imprisonment. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Perjury requires much more than lying under oath.

At the time, I thought he was better off to resign.... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What has been lost to history was the outrage most lawyers felt about President Clinton and how deserved his disbarment was.

Only in America can a greatly successful president be impeached for a BBBJ, acquitted and have his name continued to be assailed by whoremongers on an SHMB.

Anthony Weiner was a lying sack of shit, yet committed no crime. Harmed nobody -- outside of course of the people who saw those nasty ass pix -- and came clean with his wife, who's hotter than most whookers on this board.

Didn't make your taxes go up. Didn't kick your parents out of their factory jobs. Didn't throw your chldren out of school. Of course that's coming because of Republican legislation.

Weiner just sent pix of his junk to a college kid in Seattle.

How is that any different that an ECCIE Showcase? And before you say that none of the ECCIE providers are elected officials, ARE YOU SURE THAT'S RI?GHT?

What the fuck are you all on about?

You need to give up your evil ways and join Rick Perry August 6 for a day of prayer and fasting. He'll get you on your knees. Of course, we can only guess what he'll want you to do then.

YAhOO!

So far they have come up with nothing concerning his correspondence with said teenager. But the fact the news is carrying on about an investigation of it, makes it seem like he did something inappropriate with a minor. The parents were already talked to, they talked to the teenager in question, they got the phone and everything. Believe me if there was anything inappropriate they would have found by now, and it would have been plastered all of the news.

Yssup Rider, I agree with you.

Perjury requires much more than lying under oath. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Spoken like a true attorney.

So the latest I heard is now the guy is going to take a leave of absence from the house and enter a treatment center.

Why is it the celebrity class (Hollywood, athletes, politicians) enter rehab when shit goes down re-emerge shortly thereafter with many of their sins forgiven.

Average Joe just gets sacked, his wife leaves him (with the kids), takes him for most of what he's got (& alimony/support going forward), is toxic employment-wise and generally lives a miserable remainder of a life?

Well, I'm always up for a little truth-in-advertising!

The $800 billion so-called "stimulus package" was named the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a misnomer if there ever was one.

Perhaps we should rename it the Government Growth, Entitlement Expansion, and Political Payoffs Act of 2009. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Breaking it down for ya!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020100154.html

Hi Guys,
The discussion has partially switched into political affairs which is comprehensible on one hand, but me being european i seriously do think that what a person does in private (also clinton and BBBJ) should not be evaluated into his business propositions. I k now that is a big fat difference between europe and USA,because in your country it matters. So for me i will not take note of his political actions, as i am not aware of how good/bad he conducted them, but for me it was relevant to post this article just to show some sex-positive approach. The media in such cases (also Clinton case) do always portray heteronormativity and sex-negative views. which means anything outside that norms get portrayed as "bad conduct", which is disagree.
As long as the act is consensual and no minors are involved and no crime has been committed,
i don`t see anything wrong with Clinton getting as many BBBJs as he likes and whoever else chatting up people in the internet. Unfortunately it has been stupid that the pics got spread around to so many people.
If you guys like, i`d much rather discuss the private versus political sphere that is represented here, aside from his work related conducts. Would you guys be in for that? For me its simple: even if he was the worst politician on earth its no reason to evaluate such conduct as example of his politics. I am neutral to him politics wise, did not hear about that guy until this happened, so i have no opinion. But i am not neutral on bashing sexual acts or such things and using it against a person . That was my point. Criminal acts aside of course.

Hi Guys,
The discussion has partially switched into political affairs which is comprehensible on one hand, but me being european i seriously do think that what a person does in private (also clinton and BBBJ) should not be evaluated into his business propositions.

... The media in such cases (also Clinton case) do always portray heteronormativity and sex-negative views. which means anything outside that norms get portrayed as "bad conduct", which is disagree.
As long as the act is consensual and no minors are involved and no crime has been committed, i don`t see anything wrong with Clinton getting as many BBBJs as he likes and whoever else chatting up people in the internet. Unfortunately it has been stupid that the pics got spread around to so many people.
If you guys like, i`d much rather discuss the private versus political sphere that is represented here, aside from his work related conducts. Would you guys be in for that? For me its simple: even if he was the worst politician on earth its no reason to evaluate such conduct as example of his politics. I am neutral to him politics wise, did not hear about that guy until this happened, so i have no opinion. But i am not neutral on bashing sexual acts or such things and using it against a person . That was my point. Criminal acts aside of course. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I think it is interesting that you and I Nina can't seem to discuss this topic without those (who have political agendas) chiming in and carrying on that we are somehow pro weiner, pro clinton. This is more about a human being who is being prosecuted by people with political agendas and using the media to bash the crap out of him because of his private sexual acts. I would rather have a meaningful discussion on this without bringing politics into the picture.

Edit: He hasn't done anything illegal, and has not impacted anyone's life negatively (other than his personal relationship with his wife), it is not his fault that the media is obsessed with reporting on this type of stuff instead of doing real journalism on real issues.

I think it is interesting that you and I Nina can't seem to discuss this topic without those (who have political agendas) chiming in and carrying on that we are somehow pro weiner, pro clinton. This is more about a human being who is being prosecuted by people with political agendas and using the media to bash the crap out of him because of his private sexual acts. I would rather have a meaningful discussion on this without bringing politics into the picture.

Edit: He hasn't done anything illegal, and has not impacted anyone's life negatively (other than his personal relationship with his wife), it is not his fault that the media is obsessed with reporting on this type of stuff instead of doing real journalism on real issues. Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

He is a politician that is currently in office...political agendas matter.

If he was a janitor at some office building...maybe he gets a pass

FWIW, I don't really care what he does BCD...

That said, as I noted earlier, ultimately it will be the lies and coverup people care about...

Breaking it down for ya! Originally Posted by WTF

Mighty kind of you to try to "break it down" for me, WTF, but you needn't have bothered.

My characterization of the ARRA of 2009 was spot on.

Much of the so-called "tax cut", as the CBO and others have noted, was "refundable tax credits" -- in other words, direct transfer payments to people who don't pay any federal income tax. (An entitlement expansion that politicians will find difficult to take away.)

This was simply more of the same of what George W. Bush teamed up with Pelosi's congress to do in the spring of 2008. At that time, the government sent out checks totalling something like $150 billion to all taxpayers in the lower income brackets. It didn't do much to prevent or mitigate the severity of the worsening recession.

The essential problem is that it isn't affordable or sustainable policy, and it did little to address real problems in the economy. We don't need more debt-fueled consumption -- that's what got us in trouble in the first place. We need more savings, investment, production, and exports. In other words, many of the problems we face today are structural, not cyclical.

Another large portion of the "stimulus package" was money given to states with no accountability. This enabled vote-buying legislatures to kick the can down the road regarding anything like responsible, tough decisions on issues relating to contracts and lavish pensions of public sector unions, which are rapidly bankrupting a number of states.

Much of the rest of the $860 billion was simply squandered on political pork and payoffs to favored constituencies, not infrastructure maintenance and development as was claimed by supporters. That should surprise no one, since the design of the package was turned over to staffers for Nancy Pelosi and David Obey. It was a political stimulus package, not an economic one.

The sad truth is that we really do have large and critical infrastructure needs. But both parties have been squandering resources so rapidly over the last eiight or nine years that we can't afford to do much of anything without worsening the risk of a calamitous fiscal bust.

Attempts to propel a nation to greater prosperity by means of big Keynesian fiscal packages in the presence of already-existing structural deficits have failed so many times, in so many ways, and in so many places that I'm surprised anyone other than Paul Krugman still buys into claims of their efficacy.

Austan Goolsbee, Chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, just resigned last week. His predecessor, Christina Romer, resigned last year. So did NEC director Larry Summers.

You can hardly blame them. All these people were enthusiastic cheerleaders for economic doctrine that should have been considered thoroughly discredited by the experiences of the 1970s.

Hi Guys,
The discussion has partially switched into political affairs which is comprehensible on one hand, but me being european i seriously do think that what a person does in private (also clinton and BBBJ) should not be evaluated into his business propositions. I k now that is a big fat difference between europe and USA,because in your country it matters. So for me i will not take note of his political actions, as i am not aware of how good/bad he conducted them, but for me it was relevant to post this article just to show some sex-positive approach. The media in such cases (also Clinton case) do always portray heteronormativity and sex-negative views. which means anything outside that norms get portrayed as "bad conduct", which is disagree.
As long as the act is consensual and no minors are involved and no crime has been committed,
i don`t see anything wrong with Clinton getting as many BBBJs as he likes and whoever else chatting up people in the internet. Unfortunately it has been stupid that the pics got spread around to so many people.
If you guys like, i`d much rather discuss the private versus political sphere that is represented here, aside from his work related conducts. Would you guys be in for that? For me its simple: even if he was the worst politician on earth its no reason to evaluate such conduct as example of his politics. I am neutral to him politics wise, did not hear about that guy until this happened, so i have no opinion. But i am not neutral on bashing sexual acts or such things and using it against a person . That was my point. Criminal acts aside of course. Originally Posted by ninasastri

First of all, Alec Baldwin would never have troubled himself to write such a defensive article for the man caught, if the man involved had been a janitor for a Kansas public high school. How many liberals of Baldwin’s ilk would have pilloried a male, school employee for such an obviously sexist act? So it matters that Anthony Weiner is a Democrat in the House of Representatives, or there never would have been an article for you to post. But again, the real issue is not the act. The real issue is the audacity of power and privilege that leads such men, a Weiner or a Strauss-Kahn, etc., to believe they can act, with impunity, any way they want—and then lie to cover it all up as if it didn’t happen.

When “the member” was caught, he bald faced lied to the American people claiming his Twitter account had been hacked and that the photo “certainly doesn't look familiar to me.” Well, we now all know that was a pack of lies. Maybe he was just trying to be like “Slick Willie” who similarly lied to the American people when he announced, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Most people who defend Clinton in the Clinton-Lewinsky Affair focus merely on the sexual relationship as an affair between two consenting adults. However, many other issues were at play, not merely an adulterous, extra-marital affair that took place in one of the most hallowed governmental offices in the United States—even though he personally promised the American people “the most ethical administration in history.”

Beyond the inappropriate sexual liaison between an older, married man and a younger, impressionable woman, Lewinsky was the employee and Clinton was the boss. In the U.S., this is – more than not – seen as an abuse of position and power. Civil Service regulations, and most major corporations, have provisions against such relationships.

Furthermore:

1) There were previous ongoing scandals: Gennifer Flowers (Clinton at first denied, and then much later admitted he had relations with Flowers), Paula Jones and Whitewater.
2) Lewinsky lied about the relationship with Clinton in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case. Perjury.
3) Many members in Congress (some Democratic most Republicans), believed that Clinton’s gave false testimony in the Paula Jones case (like Lewinsky, Clinton also signed an affidavit that claimed there was no sexual relationship between him and Lewinsky). Perjury is an impeachable offense.
4) Additionally, there were allegations that Clinton influenced Lewinsky to testify falsely in the Jones Case. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.

Clinton was tried for, 1) perjury and 2) obstruction of justice. He was not tried for getting eight, sloppy-sleazy, extra-marital blowjobs from a junior employee in or near the Oval Office.

BTW, Jones was denied justice in court. Her sexual harassment suit against Clinton was dismissed, in part, because of Clinton’s equivocations and Lewinsky’s lies. Upon appeal, however, Clinton did settle with Jones out of court for $850,000 if she agreed to drop all charges. There’s an old saw here in the U.S., “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

And Weiner's current plight is far from settled.

Would you guys be in for that? For me its simple: even if he was the worst politician on earth its no reason to evaluate such conduct as example of his politics. I am neutral to him politics wise, did not hear about that guy until this happened, so i have no opinion. But i am not neutral on bashing sexual acts or such things and using it against a person . That was my point. Criminal acts aside of course. Originally Posted by ninasastri

There are a shit load of right leaner's on this board that are kinda two face about sex and politics. Even if they apply the no sex rule across the board , I think it bad policy.

We wind up with a bunch of lily white fuc's who have never lived life except to others expectations. I don't want a leader that hasn't raised a little hell and knows how to drink and fuc. I don't want a preacher for President or any other office.

That is the problem here in the states, most folks worrying about private matters while the politicians are letting corporate America rob us blind.

First of all, Alec Baldwin would never have troubled himself to write such a defensive article for the man caught, if the man involved had been a janitor for a Kansas public high school. How many liberals of Baldwin’s ilk would have pilloried a male, school employee for such an obviously sexist act? So it matters that Anthony Weiner is a Democrat in the House of Representatives, or there never would have been an article for you to post. But again, the real issue is not the act. The real issue is the audacity of power and privilege that leads such men, a Weiner or a Strauss-Kahn, etc., to believe they can act, with impunity, any way they want—and then lie to cover it all up as if it didn’t happen.

When “the member” was caught, he bald faced lied to the American people claiming his Twitter account had been hacked and that the photo “certainly doesn't look familiar to me.” Well, we now all know that was a pack of lies. Maybe he was just trying to be like “Slick Willie” who similarly lied to the American people when he announced, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Most people who defend Clinton in the Clinton-Lewinsky Affair focus merely on the sexual relationship as an affair between two consenting adults. However, many other issues were at play, not merely an adulterous, extra-marital affair that took place in one of the most hallowed governmental offices in the United States—even though he personally promised the American people “the most ethical administration in history.”

Beyond the inappropriate sexual liaison between an older, married man and a younger, impressionable woman, Lewinsky was the employee and Clinton was the boss. In the U.S., this is – more than not – seen as an abuse of position and power. Civil Service regulations, and most major corporations, have provisions against such relationships.

Furthermore:

1) There were previous ongoing scandals: Gennifer Flowers (Clinton at first denied, and then much later admitted he had relations with Flowers), Paula Jones and Whitewater.
2) Lewinsky lied about the relationship with Clinton in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case. Perjury.
3) Many members in Congress (some Democratic most Republicans), believed that Clinton’s gave false testimony in the Paula Jones case (like Lewinsky, Clinton also signed an affidavit that claimed there was no sexual relationship between him and Lewinsky). Perjury is an impeachable offense.
4) Additionally, there were allegations that Clinton influenced Lewinsky to testify falsely in the Jones Case. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.

Clinton was tried for, 1) perjury and 2) obstruction of justice. He was not tried for getting eight, sloppy-sleazy, extra-marital blowjobs from a junior employee in or near the Oval Office.

BTW, Jones was denied justice in court. Her sexual harassment suit against Clinton was dismissed, in part, because of Clinton’s equivocations and Lewinsky’s lies. Upon appeal, however, Clinton did settle with Jones out of court for $850,000 if she agreed to drop all charges. There’s an old saw here in the U.S., “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

And Weiner's current plight is far from settled. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

See nina, this is a prime example of wtf I was talking about!

Ask him about Scooter Libby and watch wtf he has to say!