I think that the stupid Democratic idea of the day was letting Weiner speak in public and it not being his resignation speech, and I’m a Democrat. They should have sat him down and said “listen here, moron, you resign right here right now, or we’ll run your ass through a fucking wood chipper, then post it on Twitter.”
Bricker, please see my first sentence in post #16. I’m not arguing with any of the examples you show (especially not Massa or Edwards) but I’m looking for new stuff going forward, not a laundry list of dumbassery in the past. I have every confidence the politicos will not let me down.
The question was not whether democrats have sex scandals (or scandals in general). That much is obviously true.
The assertion he was asking cites for was Shodan’s claim: “It’s hard to keep a thread going when every other post is “That doesn’t count”. Even when the reason given are ridiculous.”
Oh, yeah. I meant Whack-a-mole’s request for examples of Shodan’s claim that every other post is ‘that doesn’t count.’
I think your post about policy stupidity is a pretty good example of ‘those don’t count.’
And for Dio, to simplify the task, I guess just read through the thread in MPSIMS about Weiner, as each post by him after the truth came out is why it doesn’t count.
I’d disagree. A sex scandal on the Republican side is noteworthy because they have “family values” as a core pillar of their platform.
A Republican acting in a non-Christian way is betraying his constituents. There is no similar holier-than-thou mentality on the left.
I’d say thinking that Weinergate isn’t important is reasonable. I don’t see that he did anything worth stepping down over. He lied when faced with an embarrassing truth. That’s human nature.
When Larry Craig, who voted against gay rights every chance he got was reaching for hot-anonymous-airport-cock, that’s hypocrisy. What has Weiner advocated professionally that is analogous here?
Now mind you, I’m not saying I’m pleased with his actions, but if David Vitter is still in congress, there is no way on Earth Weiner needs to step down.
The thread on Republicans is not dedicated to personal scandals and foibles, but to actually policy and legislative ideas offered by elected Republicans.
(responding to Lobohan)Sure, those are all valid opinions; nevertheless, it’s another post of ‘that doesn’t count.’ That’s all that was requested. Now you’re trying to say examples of ‘that doesn’t count’ don’t count.
Noting something doesn’t count is not wrong in and of itself. Pointing out that two, seemingly similar events, are only that way on a superficial level and that there are important distinctions is fine.
Shodan would like a free pass by belittling “that doesn’t count” when he (or whoever) makes a false equivalence argument.
The additional piece that really needs to be included is, “Even when the reason given are ridiculous.”
Seems to me he needs to make the case that the reasoning is dubious. Doubtless it has happened around here but it is the case he has to make.
Obviously some things should count and others shouldn’t, right?
I mean crossing against the light or parking tickets don’t count, right? Getting pineapple on a pizza doesn’t count, right?
If there aren’t standards, anything counts. And as I say, sex scandals aren’t Republican or Democrat ideas. They’re human ideas. The reason a sex scandal should count for Republicans is that they stupidly claim they are above it as a party.
So the stupid idea isn’t that David Vitter likes sticking his dick in strange, it’s that the party pretends they have a lock on decency.
Here is every post in this thread that says some variety of “that doesn’t count:”
Now, as far as the reasons given being ridiculous…
Since the original Republican thread is full of similar non-policy-based attacks on general Republican stupid behavior, any “false equivalence” objection is ridiculous.
Claiming that the issue is hypocrisy and that Democrats are immune from charges of hypocrisy is ridiculous. In this video, Weinner makes several broad statements that are (knowing what we now know) hypocritical.
Your own deflection of the charge that Obama was flouting the War Powers Act requirements does not ring sincere, given your unwillingness to extend to Bush the same laissez-faire attitude about issues that lacked a court’s final judgement.
So, what did this guy do, again? He talked dirty on the interwebs? Gasp! I can certainly understand how the victims of his intrusion would rush to condemn his assault on their virtue. Except, of course, it seems as though they didn’t. Almost seems as though this was a bit of foolishness amongst consenting parties.
Tony Weiner is going down. He has enemies, and his “friends” are the leadership of the Dem party, who don’t like him that much. He’s a bit of a lefty, don’t you know, doesn’t quite fit in with the Republican Lite “centrist” leadership.
But,seriously, folks…what’s the big hairy ass deal, here? Who was victimized by his tawdry, juvenile behavior? And what impact does this have on the scourge of cognitive dissonance, number one threat to the Republic?