Weinergate

Post Reply
User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by Tyrannical » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:26 am

It's not the alleged act so much as the possibility of lying to cover it up.

Weiner is required by law as he is a Congressman to report acts of hacking against his accounts, as that is what he claimed. But filing a false report is a serious crime.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Weinergate

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:37 am

Prudery--relative isn't it?

In the US the police don't issue tickets for swearing.

Anyone ever seen Deadwood? It is an HBO series.

Just because the FCC decided to fine Viacom for the Janet Jackson exposure does not mean that that single incident describes the attitudes of all Americans to nudity or sex or explicit language in the media or personal life.

Part of the problem with the Janet Jackson incident is that CBS and MTV
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ckson.html
had full advance notice of the sexually provocative nature of the segment, including the choreography, the songs and their lyrics (albeit apparently not the exposure of Ms. Jackson’s breast).[56] According to the CBS Response, these officials sought only to: (i) instruct a dancer to change her costume to one that was not as “revealing;” and (ii) have Kid Rock remove his reference in his performance to “bastards from the IRS,”[57] a line that he, in fact, delivered during the broadcast.
The policy is
Any consideration of government action against allegedly indecent programming must take into account the fact that such speech is protected under the First Amendment.[29] The federal courts consistently have upheld Congress’s authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent material, as well as the Commission’s interpretation and implementation of the governing statute.[30] Nevertheless, the First Amendment is a critical constitutional limitation that demands, in indecency determinations, that we proceed cautiously and with appropriate restraint.

At the time, this was the most watched Super Bowl ever with 144.4 million viewers.
There were 540,000 complaints.

So had it been just an unplanned wardrobe malfunction I bet Viacom would not have been fined.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Weinergate

Post by maiforpeace » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:35 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:A man is accused of sending a picture of underwear on his body to a 21 year old woman.
A 46 year old married man, yes. I bet some of the people who have no problem with it on this thread would be all over him if he were Republican.
Where did anyone say they have no problem with it? At most CES said it was a non-story...otherwise most of the discussion has been about whether or not Americans are more prudish than people in other countries.
Tyrannical wrote:It's not the alleged act so much as the possibility of lying to cover it up.

Weiner is required by law as he is a Congressman to report acts of hacking against his accounts, as that is what he claimed. But filing a false report is a serious crime.
:this:

For the record, I think he's lying, and I'm a Democrat. :hehe:
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by Robert_S » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:10 am

What we really want to know is:

Does he shave down there?
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:44 am

All male holders of public office should be subject to chemical castration while in office; if they get the science right, it may even be reversible when they leave their position...

Female office holders can do whatever the fuck they like...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Weinergate

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:45 am

I don't care who sends pictures of what to whom.

I wouldn't mind some pictures of some things sent to me by some certain persons though.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:47 am

Gallstones wrote:I don't care who sends pictures of what to whom.

I wouldn't mind some pictures of some things sent to me by some certain persons though.
:woot:

You want a picture of my whiteboard at school, covered densely with complex equations, I just know it...

:hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Weinergate

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:13 am

JimC wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I don't care who sends pictures of what to whom.

I wouldn't mind some pictures of some things sent to me by some certain persons though.
:woot:

You want a picture of my whiteboard at school, covered densely with complex equations, I just know it...

:hehe:

If it was a blackboard I'd say yes.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:16 am

Gallstones wrote:
JimC wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I don't care who sends pictures of what to whom.

I wouldn't mind some pictures of some things sent to me by some certain persons though.
:woot:

You want a picture of my whiteboard at school, covered densely with complex equations, I just know it...

:hehe:

If it was a blackboard I'd say yes.
I was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, trailing a cloud of chalk dust all the way...

But now I am a master of modern educational technology...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by sandinista » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:50 am

Ian wrote:
roter-kaiser wrote: We are not talking about porn on TV but about seeing a tiny bit of flesh around the breast area. How does that disturb a young child? And if it does, it is living proof that something's wrong with the attitude of most people towards sex. This doesn't have to be exclusively Americans, but they seem to show that behaviour a lot more than, say, Europeans.
I don't think "a tiny bit of flesh around the breast area" is any problem on American TV, network or otherwise. And what's seen and said on regular TV channels nowadays is a lot more permissive than it was when I was a kid. I don't think TV here is repressive at all. How much American TV do you watch, or are you just going by reputation?
Thats what I am talking about, precisely, "a tiny bit of flesh around the breast area". Take Survivor for instance, they BLUR butt cracks and bits IN underwear. Tiny bits of flesh are exactly what we are talking about. The sad thing is...parents who (and tv networks) "have no problem with mainstream networks blurring out nudity." have no problems with the mass amounts of violence shown on mainstream networks OR with their own country bombing the shit out of poor people. Violence...A-OK, sex...OOOOOOHHHH Nooooooo, Not sex! fucking weak.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Weinergate

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:51 am

JimC wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
JimC wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I don't care who sends pictures of what to whom.

I wouldn't mind some pictures of some things sent to me by some certain persons though.
:woot:

You want a picture of my whiteboard at school, covered densely with complex equations, I just know it...

:hehe:

If it was a blackboard I'd say yes.
I was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, trailing a cloud of chalk dust all the way...

But now I am a master of modern educational technology...

They don't even write on a board anymore. They project shit on it.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:56 am

^^^^^

We have those too, and I make use of them where they are relevant, but I insist on having something I can scrawl differential equations on...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by Robert_S » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:22 am

sandinista wrote:...
Thats what I am talking about, precisely, "a tiny bit of flesh around the breast area". Take Survivor for instance, they BLUR butt cracks and bits IN underwear. Tiny bits of flesh are exactly what we are talking about. The sad thing is...parents who (and tv networks) "have no problem with mainstream networks blurring out nudity." have no problems with the mass amounts of violence shown on mainstream networks OR with their own country bombing the shit out of poor people. Violence...A-OK, sex...OOOOOOHHHH Nooooooo, Not sex! fucking weak.
I agree with you about the sex being more taboo than the violence, although that's changing gradually.

At least I think it is from my meager sample of television watching which I think amounts to about 10 hours this year so far. Are you watching the corporate indoctrination machine more than I am?
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by sandinista » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:35 am

Robert_S wrote:
sandinista wrote:...
Thats what I am talking about, precisely, "a tiny bit of flesh around the breast area". Take Survivor for instance, they BLUR butt cracks and bits IN underwear. Tiny bits of flesh are exactly what we are talking about. The sad thing is...parents who (and tv networks) "have no problem with mainstream networks blurring out nudity." have no problems with the mass amounts of violence shown on mainstream networks OR with their own country bombing the shit out of poor people. Violence...A-OK, sex...OOOOOOHHHH Nooooooo, Not sex! fucking weak.
I agree with you about the sex being more taboo than the violence, although that's changing gradually.

At least I think it is from my meager sample of television watching which I think amounts to about 10 hours this year so far. Are you watching the corporate indoctrination machine more than I am?
well, more than 10 hours a year, but not so much...mostly just cbc news so I can yell at the tv.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Weinergate

Post by Tyrannical » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:06 am

JimC wrote:All male holders of public office should be subject to chemical castration while in office; if they get the science right, it may even be reversible when they leave their position...

Female office holders can do whatever the fuck they like...
as long as they take their daily dose of Midol :{D
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests