That quote looks a little :dubious: -worthy if you squint and assume the worst (which is somewhat understandable at this point, but come on). Unless he actually talked dirty to her or sent her a picture where he’s wearing a cape and bulging tights, there’s nothing going on here.
Is your notion that ethical behavior for a congressman resolves to “do anything that isn’t illegal” ?
So in your little bubble, talking over the internet to people outside a strict age range is unethical ?.. Oh crap. **Qin **! **Qin **get out before you get us all in trouble !
Pretty much…If it’s not illegal, I don’t give a fuck. None of my business. None of yours either.
I don’t automatically give a fuck even if it IS illegal. They want to smoke a doobie or blow a cop in the MSP Airport men’s room, I don’t give a fuck. These assholes aren’t my religious advisors.
I think it come across as unprofessional - “shit” adds no useful meaning and seems unworthy of a congressman when talking to a highschooler.
So lying, for example, is fine with you so long as it isn’t under oath?
Huh? I’m claiming the ethics of any talk depend on what was said.
Does he have to resign from office because he said something you think is unprofessional? I understand why people are going over the guy’s words with a fine-toothed comb, and I understand that it’s not a great choice of words. Unless the guy actually did something illegal or seriously inappropriate, this is a non-starter. What’s next? “Anthony Weiner accused of using Congressional restroom without washing his hands?”
Feel like I need to address this, because this is touted a lot in the wake of this (and a lot of similar) stories and it bugs me to no end: he did not “post photos on the internet”. He sent them privately to other people. When those other people sold the photos, *they *were the ones who made the matter public. He could have sent the photos by phone, or by snail mail, or even handed the developed shots to those people in person and it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
You can accuse him of being a poor judge of character for trusting people who were demonstrably not trustworthy (least not trustworthy enough to sit on a dick pic… that was probably not the best verb to use :)), but him doing so over the internet is not an added stupidity factor. The 'net is just as private as any other venue.
[QUOTE=Xema]
Huh? I’m claiming the ethics of any talk depend on what was said.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So it *is *about uttering a swearword. To an American highschooler. During an informal chat. On the Internet. Oh lawdy lawdy, but what is that po’ girl gon’ become now.
Get a grip.
That being said, I think most people would agree that if you are a person in public office, it’s stupid to send explicit photos of yourself to people you barely know over the 'net. In Weiner’s case at least, these were not women he knew very well and you never know who you’re talking to or what they’ll do with something incriminating like this. And please cite that they sold the photos.
No, I don’t think that. I don’t see that what we know of his behavior has reached the point he must resign. I do think he’s skating on thin ice.
From the Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service:
I think it would be amusing to hear Weiner explain how his conduct has conformed to this. I suppose he could argue that this doesn’t explicitly say that loyalty to self can’t come first.
I think he’s already admitted how stupid his conduct was, but that quote doesn’t apply to this situation. The quote says you’re supposed to put your loyalty to ethics and the country above your loyalty to people in the government, parties, or departments. It means your loyalty to people, your political party, and agencies can’t come before your loyalty to the country or ethical behavior. He didn’t put the good of his party or politicians ahead of the country or his ethics. He thought with his dick and put his horniness ahead of his marriage and any good judgment. The only loyalty involved was with regard to his wife.
To be more accurate, it’s about a congressman engaging in unprofessional conversation with a high-school junior. The notion that this is likely to do her harm is seriously far-fetched. But it nonetheless puts him in a questionable light.
Sending pictures of his dick puts him in a questionable light. On its own terms, this is neither here nor there. Dick Cheney told Pat Leahy “go fuck yourself” on the floor of the Senate and the entire country heard about it, but nobody said it put Cheney in a questionable light. It just made him look like an asshole, and people were already pretty well aware of that.
This.
The man is an absolute pig who does what he pleases with no respect for his wife. There will certainly be constituents who can connect the dots at the next election but whether or not it’s enough to tank his career remains to be seen.
He has nothing to gain by suddenly acting like a human being.
I haven’t followed the story that closely, but I thought they were gals he’d flirted back and forth with for some time ? Although yeah, I guess that doesn’t mean much on the 'net :p.
Anyway, I’m not saying that he wasn’t stupid to do what he did because he kinda was (even though I reckon the whole mess fits into the whole “America badly needs to get laid” paradigm). I only have an issue with the pervasive notion that everything that’s on the 'net is (or should be considered) public.
No cite. I just can’t imagine another reason the recipients would have sent them to a news agency, outside of a deliberate honey trap sort of thing.
Well, the quote actually refers to “loyalty to the highest moral principals”. I doubt Weiner would fancy having to explain how spinning a week of lies about his conduct conforms to that.
I think he did have long term interactions with some of them. I agree they weren’t public in the sense tim314 was talking about, but it was a very careless thing to do.
I don’t know how Breitbart does these things, but outside of the National Enquirer, most news agencies will not pay for photos or stories. It’s considered extremely unethical and gives people a reason to lie.
It refers to putting your principles ahead of political or personal loyalty. It doesn’t say “you must be loyal to the highest moral principles at all times,” full stop. It’s about priorities, in other words. Which is not to say his conduct was ethical, because it wasn’t. But I don’t think you’re interpreting the quote correctly.
He’s already said it didn’t.
… they instead said more pointed things such as:
… which I think falls within the category “unprofessional”.