RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Weinergate: A tale of a Weiner and his weiner,that he sends photos of to chicks he likes on Twitter

iggy User [Insert Custom Title Here]
3000+ posts 06/09/11 12:53 PM Checking who's online

I'm Mxy!

LIES AND SLANDER

I guess....honestly...I'm a little fascinated. I've never seen a condition like his up-close. The denial is palatable. I sort of pity his inability to snap out of it. But, you're right, I should probably just ignore him...



The Unfuckables?



ENABLER!!



Wow. You and I are long-lost twins. If we ever meet in real-life, I'll give you a copy of all the Conspiracy documentaries I have downloaded.

Dude....really? THAT was your point? He didn't LITERALLY "call for Weiner's resignation" after the dude admitted his guilt? Was it not enough that he did so beforehand? Is it not enough he up-front blatantly stated he and Weiner were real-life friends and that he was facing a conflict of interest (thus personified by said skit with John Oliver)? Could it be that he's a comedian who never called for Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld's resignation? Isn't it a fact that his show on COMEDY Central has no political sway one way or the other? What would be the point of him asking for Weiner's resignation over showing his dick to some hotties, if he never asked for it when the last White House gang killed thousands of innocent soldiers and civilians?

Sorry. I can't see your point here. I think Stewart's doing exactly what he's always done, and suddenly you want him to go after the people "your side" says are "evil". I don't expect that kind of partisan tact from you. You're better than that, Gary Geoff Gordon Manley...

Sounds good.

Honestly, while I still allow for pinpointing one's position (i.e. liberal, conservative, or whatever), I've met and befriended many people "on the other side" who have similar views. It is mainly the people who feel compelled to be deeply partisan that really grind my gears. So often, the answer to their problems is right there in front of them if they just follow the money, but party loyalty just refuses to let them recognize it. Hell, my finding allies on the other side has--in a way--been my one consolation for the falling out I've had with "my side of the fence." I've completely fallen out with what now calls itself "The Tea Party." It has, for the most part, been co-opted. Once, it cared about things like the Fed and true deficit reduction. Now, they are lining up to vote for a man (Herman Cain) who was once on the board of directors for the federal reserve bank in Kansas City. WTF?

I've also been looking more deeply into the effects of media conglomeration on how the race for 2012 is sizing up. Watching the way they do things really shows you who are the acceptable candidate to the elite. The most egregious example I've seen of this was on O'Reilly a few weeks back. The cherry-picked the poll so badly that if you took the time to count up the percentages shown, they left out nearly a third of respondents answers. My question: what did that thirty percent say that was "less news worthy" than pointing out guys like Santorum and Gingrich were only polling one or two percent? Sorry, getting on a tangent.

Anyway, glad we share similar thoughts on this subject.

Somehow, I can sort of picture Pro and Iggy spending a whole afternoon listening to conspiracy documentaries. But the visibility is going to be severely limited by all the pot smoke in the room.

You're probably right.

I'm a PC!!

Says the dipshit who back around 2003 scolded me and says he slapped me on "ignore", and has continued to allege that, and yet regularly snipes at my posts, for lo these many years.

I don't "blow up", easily or otherwise, I just minimally respond to your hypocritical idiocy.

Yeah, because that lengthy rant of antagonism, parodying my views, and other assorted insults was such a polite attempt to reason with me in a mutually respectful discussion.


Who are you kidding, Pro?

Like you, I don't agree with all Pat Buchanan's points, much as I respect him. I'm not Catholic, and don't share his views on social issues either. Although I'm much more pro-life than I used to be, I don't really care if my elected leaders are pro-life advocates, and I actually find politicians who make a big issue of it (example: Rick Santorum) to have warped priorities and exploiting emotions.

I'm torn on Buchanan's relatively isolationist views on the U.S. being the global cop. He advocates George Washington's advice to "avoid foreign entanglements" and "wars that are not in our national interest", but our national interest can sometimes be difficult to define.
If we didn't ally with Stalin in W W II, the Axis power would likely have conquered Eurasia and eventually invaded the Americas as well.
If we hadn't taken decisive action (that Europeans were not taking) the conflict in Bosnia and Croatia could have expanded into a far wider regional conflict or even a third world war.
If we let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait in 1990, or further invade the Arabian peninsula, Hussein could have cut off the flow of oil to the West and crippled our economy.
These are arguably all in our national interest.
So I'm not sure I support Buchanan's more isolationist views, among other views he has. I post what I agree with, and likewise post what I agree with of Glenn Beck's commentary.

But I agree with a lot of Buchanan's commentary. I don't read his columns every week, but I've read his last five books, and he backs his views with considerable supporting evidence.




You are, of course, playfully making fun of Beck. I've never heard Beck say anything about gays. What he says about George Soros manipulating currencies and toppling financial systems is common knowledge and far from paranoia.
Soros' funding of liberal media sources and liberal think tanks to attack the U.S. government and conservatives, to the tune of 48 million dollars this year, are likewise well documented.
Soros' vision to collapse the U.S. dollar and reign us into a global government (while enriching himself by investing in assets that gain from the dollar's collapse) are also well known.

And I believe that based on evidence and well-researched books on the subject, many of them showcased, and authors interviewed, on Glenn Beck's program. Charlie Rose is another program I've seen these writers interviewed.

I don't believe it "just because Beck said it". I believe it because I've looked at the evidence. There are many days where I flip the channel on Beck because he's just ranting without facts to back it up. But when he cites facts I can read for myself, yes, I believe him.





I can't be held responsible for other people's perception. I certainly cite facts to back my views, and Beck when I quote him likewise cites facts.

And you unwittingly hit on the main point: It's not even political discussion of the issue by them, it's just pure trolling.




I think you don't fully understand Becks POV.

If you watched his program on a regular basis, you'd see that he says:
1) the whole Left/Right thing is a distraction from the globalist ideology that infests both parties. That McCain is in many ways near-identical in views to Obama on issues like border security, the TARP bailout, further economic U.S. integration with Mexico and Canada, etc.
Beck argues that all the left/right bickering is a deliberate distraction by the puppet masters of both parties and the media, so they can continue to move us away from sovereignty and toward global integration and collapse of the dollar, no matter which party is in power.

2) Beck doesn't "try to turn it into some vast left-wing conspiracy", he just points out what LEFTISTS THEMSELVES HAVE SAID. It's not paranoid speculation, he is quoting these radicals! Van Jones, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Jeff Jones (who wrote Obama's stimulus, omnibus and Obamacare legislation) and Obama himself. Quoted in their own writings and interviews, and videotaped public appearances.
How can anyone possibly write that off as "paranoid conspiracy theory"?

These are their own words, their own stated goals and implemented policies.

3) the "vast conspiracy" between Leftists and Muslim radicals is also supported by the undisputed actions of William Ayers, Code Pink, SEIU and other leftist groups organizing demonstrators and riots throughout the Ärab Spring" Middle East nations that are rising up.

Beck explains, again, with sources to back it up, that leftists and Islamic radicals are working together in their shared goal of overthrowing Western capitalism, and will eventually turn on each other once they achieve collapse of the West.
(Ten years ago, prior to 9-11, I spoke to a CBS News correspondent who after his speaking appearance and booksigning, talked to me about islamic terrorist groups collaborating with Ku Klux Klan and other similar anti-semitic groups, sharing information and resources, in their shared anti-semitism goals. I would hope that patriotism after 9-11 would have caused them to sever those ties with Islamic terrorists.)




If it's a troll who has no interest in any serious political discussion, and is just out to get under my skin (like rex), okay, in that case I see your point.

But Pro just alleged a bunch of bogus crap (i.e., "everybody hates you, G-man, Iggy, everybody") and I just politely pointed out the inaccuracies in what he alleged.

If anyone was truly ripe for being trolled, it's Pro, because he regularly becomes apoplectic when exchanging posts with me.
Pro hysterically whines "WHY CAN'T YOU BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE!! YOU"RE CRAZY!! YOU'RE INSANE!! YOU'RE DEMENTED AND IN NEED OF PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!! WHY CAN'T YOU BE NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE LIKE ME AND SEE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG, ATTACKING OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE OF THEIR RIGHT WING EXTREMISM, BECAUSE THEY JUST CAN'T HANDLE THAT THERE'S A NIGGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! But I'm neutral and objective, and you're a right-wing crazy."

Of course there's nothing extreme or non-objective about Pro's views.






Okay, sure. I'll own up to that. We all get a bit overheated at times. And I certainly lash back sometimes, especially when they gang up on me and I'm taking it from all sides.
But read back through my exchanges over the last month or so with Pro, or Sammitch, or Rex, or Bastard. Try and tell me that their responses are really any different than mine.

The only difference is the standard I'm held to, that they're not.

Summarize,please.

If my calm and polite response to the issues raised can fairly be described as

Another story I saw on Fox is Twitter posts by Congressional members have declined by 27% since the Weiner sexting story broke.



And a site has transcribed a number of Weiner's online sexting conversations with the Vegas woman and others.

And although the facts are not fully known and disclosed, Weiner apparently had online communication with an under-age 17 year old girl:

Exclusive: Police Investigate Weiner's Messages to Teenage Girl in Delaware

Nothing you do is ever calm or polite. You're the biggest name caller on the internet.

Only a matter of time now. Pelosi and Wasserman-Schultz have called for Weiner to resign. Whether they just waited until they saw which way the wind was blowing or they are getting out ahead of a bombshell, he is pretty much doomed.

As for the under-aged girl, this could be the bombshell or it could really be as innocent as he said. We'll just have to wait and find out. Still, he may have saved himself a lot more public scrutiny and may have been able to salvage his career if he--at least--thought of how private messaging a seventeen year old could be perceived.

Honestly, though I never really agreed with him on the issues, I liked Anthony. He was--at least--entertaining and seemed to have a real passion for what he was doing. So, it is a little sad to watch it all crash and burn like this.

The rehab move is definitely the ploy of a desperate man.

Next stop, reality tv.

Or MSNBC commentator

That's what I thought he said.

Normally I'd say


But given that you're the the most anti-social piece of work on these boards, I'll instead say:










Oh, the irony.

I win again.

Reports say Hillary and Huma are expected back today. Even if you don't like him, pray for this man's health and well-being today. Oh, but to be a fly on the wall in that meeting.

Weiner will resign: New York Rep. Anthony Weiner has decided to resign his seat in Congress after a two-week scandal spawned by lewd and even X-rated photos the New York lawmaker took of himself and sent online to numerous women, relieved Democratic officials said Thursday.

Apparently, the National Enquirer's front page tomorrow will be a pic of him posing in tights and a bra. That may have had something to do with today's decision.

No doubt.

His wife, who has been out of the country since before this story first broke, arrived home yesterday from an overseas trip with Hillary Clinton.
And I'm sure it was quite a conversation she and The Weiner had when she arrived home. I've seen reports that he wanted to talk with his wife before making the decision to resign.

"It's odd that Obama thinks RepWeiner should resign, but not [Syrian President] Assad," former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley tweeted earlier this week. "Sending lewd tweets violates public service, but not killing people?"

Today's NY Post has coverage of the resignation announcement:

• Howard Stern staffer Benji Bronk shouted, "Are you fully erect?"
  When others tried to stifle Bronk, he argued, "Don't you want to know? I want to know."
  Then he tossed another question at Weiner, "Are you more than seven inches?"