Weinergate

[Foxfyre]

Just because he used the account to communicate with constituents does not make it an official "Congressional Account".

Just like if he uses a ball-point pen to communicate with constituents said pen does not become an official "Congressional Pen".

The account was not Anthony Weiner private citizen as most of us have Twitter accounts. His was [B] Rep[/B] Anthony Weiner and he clearly identified himself as a member of Congress and was being followed by thousands because he was a member of Congress.

You can spin this any way you want, but it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

So what? As long as he was not using it to transmit any classified material what difference does it make? With all the people that communicate via facebook, twitter and what have you, you can't blame an official for using that manner of communication when it is available.

Immie

Immie. Come on. You aren't a rabid leftist who draws conclusions like that. I have not faulted Weiner at all or anybody else using Twitter to communicate with constituents. Practically everybody famous or in politics does.

The point I was making that it was a CONGRESSMAN'S account that was hacked, if it was indeed hacked, in this case and that IS more serious than hacking a private citizen's account. And it should be dealt with by federal authorities lest more be encouraged to tap into private communications and information of elected officials.

 

[Immanuel]

The account was not Anthony Weiner private citizen as most of us have Twitter accounts. His was [B] Rep[/B] Anthony Weiner and he clearly identified himself as a member of Congress and was being followed by thousands because he was a member of Congress.

You can spin this any way you want, but it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

So what? As long as he was not using it to transmit any classified material what difference does it make? With all the people that communicate via facebook, twitter and what have you, you can't blame an official for using that manner of communication when it is available.

Immie

Nobody's blaming him for having a Twitter account. Millions of people have them and are able to avoid sending auto-crotch shots to thousands of strangers.

We do have a valid criticism of his posting accusation and making claims that his account was hacked, and then not reporting it to the proper authorities.

As I said before, I have not (and still have not) listened to his excuses. I really don't care about this issue all that much. Maybe if I followed it more than just on this site, I might, but right now I just don't care about it... too many other things going on in my life.

I can from what little I know, understand why he might at first claim the account was hacked. I do not understand what is so bad about the picture that was sent. It is not something I am all worked up about. I definitely would not call it porn.

Beyond that... his is a politician. Regardless, of party, I expect the denials/excuses/cover-ups coming from a politician.

I suppose I am taking a wait and see attitude regarding this. I'm waiting to see if there is any meat to [t]his thing or if it turns out to be nothing more than political point making by the right. Based on the picture there is not much meat to this. Which puts the odds highly in favor of the point making by the right.

Immie

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

His account was RepWeiner, and he used it to communicate with his constituents.

Please refer to post #826 for what he should have done if he just wanted to meet Hawt Chicks.

Just because he used the account to communicate with constituents does not make it an official "Congressional Account".

Just like if he uses a ball-point pen to communicate with constituents said pen does not become an official "Congressional Pen".

So... the restroom foot tapper.... was hat his official congressional foot?

 

[Immanuel]

The account was not Anthony Weiner private citizen as most of us have Twitter accounts. His was [B] Rep[/B] Anthony Weiner and he clearly identified himself as a member of Congress and was being followed by thousands because he was a member of Congress.

You can spin this any way you want, but it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

So what? As long as he was not using it to transmit any classified material what difference does it make? With all the people that communicate via facebook, twitter and what have you, you can't blame an official for using that manner of communication when it is available.

Immie

Immie. Come on. You aren't a rabid leftist who draws conclusions like that. I have not faulted Weiner at all or anybody else using Twitter to communicate with constituents. Practically everybody famous or in politics does.

The point I was making that it was a CONGRESSMAN'S account that was hacked, if it was indeed hacked, in this case and that IS more serious than hacking a private citizen's account. And it should be dealt with by federal authorities lest more be encouraged to tap into private communications and information of elected officials.

That is why I am asking that question of you. What I was understanding from your post just didn't make sense.

But, this post makes me want to know why a Congressman's account is more important than my own.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

The account was not Anthony Weiner private citizen as most of us have Twitter accounts. His was REP Anthony Weiner and he clearly identified himself as a member of Congress and was being followed by thousands because he was a member of Congress.

You can spin this any way you want, but it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

And you were so charitable and understanding and forgiving too when it was Sarah Palin's Twitter account that was the center of controversy, right?

Yes, it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

That is quite a different thing from "it was a congressional account that was hacked".

For example: the Congressman's twitter account is not a place where he would be posting confidential national security information.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The account was not Anthony Weiner private citizen as most of us have Twitter accounts. His was REP Anthony Weiner and he clearly identified himself as a member of Congress and was being followed by thousands because he was a member of Congress.

You can spin this any way you want, but it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

And you were so charitable and understanding and forgiving too when it was Sarah Palin's Twitter account that was the center of controversy, right?

Yes, it was a Congressman's account that was hacked.

That is quite a different thing from "it was a congressional account that was hacked".

For example: the Congressman's twitter account is not a place where he would be posting confidential national security information.

He says it was hacked. He also claims to not know if the picture is of himself. He's full of shit.

 

[Vast LWC]

So... the restroom foot tapper.... was hat his official congressional foot?

Hope not, or he used congressional property in the commission of a crime.

There are 2 major differences between Weiner's supposed act and Craig's act:

1. Weiner is not an anti-gay activist engaging in gay activities. The problem with Craig was not his sexual activities, but his hypocrisy concerning his sexual activities.

If Craig had been a representative in Brooklyn, and a liberal, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, as he wouldn't have been preaching anti-gay propaganda all his life.

and

2. Craig committed a crime, Weiner did not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So... the restroom foot tapper.... was hat his official congressional foot?

Hope not, or he used congressional property in the commission of a crime.

There are 2 major differences between Weiner's supposed act and Craig's act:

1. Weiner is not an anti-gay activist engaging in gay activities. The problem with Craig was not his sexual activities, but his hypocrisy concerning his sexual activities.

If Craig had been a representative in Brooklyn, and a liberal, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, as he wouldn't have been preaching anti-gay propaganda all his life.

and

2. Craig committed a crime, Weiner did not.

What exactly was the crime again? Foot tapping in a men's room or being a hypocrite?

 

[Vast LWC]

He says it was hacked. He also claims to not know if the picture is of himself. He's full of shit.

That was Fox who used the term hacked, I was disputing the term congressional.

Though I believe him when he said it was, I won't say that that is a fact, as I do not know that to be the case.

 

[boedicca]

So... the restroom foot tapper.... was hat his official congressional foot?

Hope not, or he used congressional property in the commission of a crime.

There are 2 major differences between Weiner's supposed act and Craig's act:

1. Weiner is not an anti-gay activist engaging in gay activities. The problem with Craig was not his sexual activities, but his hypocrisy concerning his sexual activities.

If Craig had been a representative in Brooklyn, and a liberal, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, as he wouldn't have been preaching anti-gay propaganda all his life.

and

2. Craig committed a crime, Weiner did not.

Translation:

Craig is a Republican, so he's guilty.

Weiner is a Democrat, so he's not guilty.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Frankly, I don't think Weiner committed a crime either. Is he a creepy fucker? Definitely. But I've thought that ever since I saw him screeching like a stuck pig on Capital Hill.

But he ain't no criminal.

 

[Vast LWC]

What exactly was the crime again? Foot tapping in a men's room or being a hypocrite?

The charge was "Lewd Conduct". Personally I don't even think what he did should have been criminal, but then, I don't live in Minnesota.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what? As long as he was not using it to transmit any classified material what difference does it make? With all the people that communicate via facebook, twitter and what have you, you can't blame an official for using that manner of communication when it is available.

Immie

Immie. Come on. You aren't a rabid leftist who draws conclusions like that. I have not faulted Weiner at all or anybody else using Twitter to communicate with constituents. Practically everybody famous or in politics does.

The point I was making that it was a CONGRESSMAN'S account that was hacked, if it was indeed hacked, in this case and that IS more serious than hacking a private citizen's account. And it should be dealt with by federal authorities lest more be encouraged to tap into private communications and information of elected officials.

That is why I am asking that question of you. What I was understanding from your post just didn't make sense.

But, this post makes me want to know why a Congressman's account is more important than my own.

Immie

It might or not be more important in the grand scheme of things. But the fact that it is a U.S. Congressman posting as a U.S. Congresman that makes that account property of the people of the United States. If your account is hacked and an embarrassing photo is posted you and perhaps those closest to you will be angry and embarrassed. But no harm is done outside of your social and perhaps professional circles.

When a U.S. Congressman's account is compromised it can be far more serious as it can affect pending legislation, foreign relations, or upcoming elections. Nobody should be able to be attacked, embarrassed, and/or destroyed with impunity; but most especially a high level official should not be attacked as it could be specifically to influence political outcomes.

 

[boedicca]

He says it was hacked. He also claims to not know if the picture is of himself. He's full of shit.

That was Fox who used the term hacked, I was disputing the term congressional.

Though I believe him when he said it was, I won't say that that is a fact, as I do not know that to be the case.

No it's not.

Weiner himself posted a Tweet shortly after the Weiner Pic appeared claiming that his "FB account had been hacked". He's also on the record in quite a few interviews and public statements claiming that his account had been hacked, then he called it a prank.

He MADE this into a Media Crisis via his evasions and insane comments.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What exactly was the crime again? Foot tapping in a men's room or being a hypocrite?

The charge was "Lewd Conduct". Personally I don't even think what he did should have been criminal, but then, I don't live in Minnesota.

Indeed. Who are these people looking for sex in restrooms?

Nasty fuckers.

 

[Vast LWC]

Translation:

Craig is a Republican, so he's guilty.

Weiner is a Democrat, so he's not guilty.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Incorrect.

If Craig had been a "Log Cabin" republican, there would have been no scandal, and the misdemeanor charges against him probably would have disappeared.

But since he was a champion of anti-gay legislation, it was quite a scandal.

In Weiner's case, there is no Hypocrisy, as he is not a champion of, say, "sanctity of marriage" laws, and there is no law that has been broken for him to be charged in the first place.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I had sex with a girl in a restaurant bathroom once, but in my defense, I was drunk as shit.

 

[boedicca]

I had sex with a girl in a restaurant bathroom once, but in my defense, I was drunk as shit.

I bet you didn't post pics of it on the internets.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I had sex with a girl in a restaurant bathroom once, but in my defense, I was drunk as shit.

I bet you didn't post pics of it on the internets.

Nope... but AL Gore hadn't invented it yet. Shit, I had just bought my first IBM PC AT.

Geeze Louise... I just dated myself.

 

[Vast LWC]

To give a good example:

In David Vitter's case, there really wasn't that much of a story on the hypocrisy, as Vitter was not a champion of anti-prostitution.

Of course, soliciting prostitution is a semi-serious crime, so there was that...

But Vitter's case didn't get nearly the coverage of Craig.