Yes, here you are “not caring” and not defending:
Your lassitude and ennui postively leap off the page.
Not a single one of those posts is an example of me either “defending” or caring about the alleged sex stuff.
Sure.
If you want to assert it, show me exactly which post defended Weiner sending any of those pictures. If you can’t show that (which you can’t), you don’t have a point here. I can’t even keep track what you think you’re proving about me anymore. My assertion was that I never care about sex scandals, whether they’re Democrat or Republican. You haven’t shown that I do. You showed that I once made a joke about a pederast (which puts it outside my rubric of “consenting adults” anyway). So what?
This defends him:
You’re challenging the claim that Weiner’s story changed. Your question asks the reader to conclude that his story hasn’t changed.
This defends him:
It invites the reader to develop skepticism about the claim that Weiner did anything at all. That defends him.
In contrast, you’ll note you never ask these kinds of questions about Foley. You never invite readers of the Foley thread to be skeptical of those claims.
I’m spelling this out for you not because it needs elucidation – everyone else reading this already knows how you defended Weiner – but because it’s just barely possible you don’t see it.
How did you know he was a pederast when you made your joke?
Bricker, to be honest, I don’t see what you’re driving at either.
- It was just a question.
- Weiner’s story, in fact, had NOT changed at that point (at least not that I was then or am now aware of).
- It’s not a defense whatsoever of the actual alleged behavior.
Christ, you can be dishonest sometimes. That was a statementt about comparison’s to Chris Lee resigning after posting pictures of himself on Craig’s list. That was a case in which there was no ambiguity or question about whether he had done it/ It wasn’t a “defense” of Weiner, it was an explanation of why Lee had resigned so quickly and Weiner hadn’t.
There was no question about Foley either. The emails were not disputed.
There’s nothingt to see. You are making shit up. I never defended Weiner sending pictures. Not one of thsoe posts shows that I did. You’re trying to change my claim that I don’t care about sex scandals into a claim that I always believ what politicians say about them no matter what. I never said that, so you have no pont.
I didn’t say he was a pederast in my joke.
I don’t, either. And based on his lame arguments that don’t make the point he’s attempting to make, I can only assume he must have been one lousy attorney. No wonder he doesn’t practice law anymore.
Give it a rest, Rick. This thread isn’t about Dio, it’s about Anthony Weiner. Quit hijacking it and take it to the Pit if you must.
-
Dio defended Weiner in this thread. strongly. His explanation was that he took Weiner at his word.
-
Under similar circumstances, when the target was Foley, Dio didn’t take Foley at his word.
Do you disagree with one or both of those claims?
This thread includes Dio’s spirited defense of Weiner. It’s hard for me to understand how Dio’s defense is fine, but a rebuttal of that defense is not.
But you are a moderator, so I’ll accept your direction.
No it doesn’t.
You aren’t rebutting the defense, you’re alleging a defense ever occurred in the first place, and coming up with stupid examples that don’t even prove the point you’re attempting to make.
It was a suggestion, but since I reported your tired hijack, perhaps a moderator will be along to give you official direction.
I didn’t defend Weiner’s behavior with regards to sending the photographs, and I chose to privisionally accept him at his word that he’d been hacked (Foley made no such similar claim). But even if I were guilty of finding one deniable more plausble than another, so what? When did I ever say that I found all denials equally plausible? You keep trying to rebut an assertion I never made. How did you get there from me saying I don’t care about sex scandals?
I don’t know that I would call it a vigorous defense, where by “vigorous” I mean in the sense that proponent was arguing that Rep. Weiner’s actions were the best/the most appropriate/the most justified that he could have undertaken. Rather, it seems to me that Dio was suggesting that whatever imperfect behavior Rep. Weiner had engaged in was not serious enough to justify the condemnation has was getting. I think this is exactly what Dio means when he says he doesn’t care about sex scandals regardless of the party affiliation. It certainly doesn’t mean he’s not going to make jokes about it. So your pointing to the fact that he did make a joke about it in the Rep. Foley case doesn’t really amount to very much.
It is true that Dio told a joke. It doesn’t seem that Dio said that Rep. Foley should not be given the benefit of the doubt. It happens that the credibility of the evidence in the Rep. Foley was of a different kind than here, and this furnishes a rationale for a differing response other than partisan bias.
In the Rep. Foley case, the IMs were released by ABC News, an outfit that is not as problematic as Breitbart, which has shown itself not at all above using doctored videos and the like. Furthermore, there was some third-party statements in support of the hacking claim (as this, for instance) that was not present in the Rep. Foley case. So to describe these two episodes as involving “similar circumstances,” when their similarities seem to begin and end with “House of Representatives sex scandal,” is unduly generous to Rep. Foley—and unfair to Dio.
Foley’s claim was that there was an innocent context for the messages. Why is that not similar?
I know you don’t. It’s my contention that you find denials from Democrats highly plausible and denials from Republicans implausible.
Yes, Ill agree with that.
I contend that the joke showed pretty clearly that he found Foley’s denials implausible.
What’s your honest best guess? Was Dio motivated by partisan influence when he defended Weiner?
Okay, I’m a mod, and I’ve read this page. Kind of. I have absolutely no interest in reading this page carefully, let alone read the whole thread for context.
It appears that this is turning into squabbling about each other rather than squabbling about Weiner. If you have serious issues with each other, take 'em to the Pit. If they’re not serious, drop 'em.
And please don’t make me come back in here to figure out whether they’re serious or not, 'kay?
Thanks,
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
…Mrs. Weiner is reportedly PREGNANT.
You could not sell this as fiction.
Someone else made the comment that this was wonderful news at the worst possible time. I’m inclined to agree.
Congratulations to Congressman Weiner and Ms. Abedin.
Does the pregnancy change anything?
It’s a dick move to engage in sexting with a strange woman on the internet when married, regardless of whether your wife is pregnant or not. (Assuming the wife hadn’t ok’d the activity before hand.)
I don’t get why it’s supposed to matter that his wife is pregnant. So what?