erynthered Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I wouldn't classify Breitbart as your typical reporter. And really did anyone ask him to get involved in this in order "to save his marriage"? I'm sure that he was concerned about that. The National Enquirer was the first to release info on John Edwards. So you just want to shoot the messanger if you dont like the messanger. Please list for me the "Typical Reporters" you have in mind.
Peace Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 What are you...six, seven? So which is it? They should resign or they shouldn't resign? On one hand you say they should resign. On the other you say asking them to resign is silly because there is a precedent of others staying in office for doing worse things, even when the precedent has an exception you cite is a virtual carbon copy of the Weiner incident minus the dick photos? Maybe if we start forcing these people to resign (Clinton, Rangle, Lee, Weiner) regardless of party affiliation, we'd start seeing better behavior from our elected officials. But no. Charlie Rangle can do what he wants and stay in office because, y'know, there's a precedent, so pushing for him to quit is silly. And yet you rail against people who keep re-electing incumbents? Yes, it's silly, as in a waste of time. As in you calling for it is a waste of breath. As in you might as well call Angelina Jolie and ask her to blow you. People don't resign in the wake of controversies like this anymore (or if they ever did, see, eg, Teddy Kennedy). They just have a presser, maybe do some BS rehab, and wait for the next controversy to knock them out of the headlines. In 2 months, Weiner's weiner will be in the long list of people we talk about when the next guy's story breaks. The guy's a pathalogical douchenozzle and compounds it by being an arrogant prick. Shortly he'll find Jesus and try to reinvent himself.
Bishop Hedd Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 How am I changing the subject? You asked and I replied. Dear lord I wouldn't classify Breitbart as your typical reporter. And really did anyone ask him to get involved in this in order "to save his marriage"? I'm sure that he was concerned about that. I haven"t really been following this story....was it Breitbart? It kinda figures it might be, or O'Keefe or another member of the Fox News Investigative team.
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I haven"t really been following this story....was it Breitbart? It kinda figures it might be, or O'Keefe or another member of the Fox News Investigative team. Yes, it was everybody's fault but Weiner. Probably those Koch brothers taking photos of Weiner's dick and posting them on the internet and forcing Weinter to give a press conferece to lie and tell everyone he did it. Ahhh, progressives. Always the victims.
1billsfan Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Yes, it's silly, as in a waste of time. As in you calling for it is a waste of breath. As in you might as well call Angelina Jolie and ask her to blow you. People don't resign in the wake of controversies like this anymore (or if they ever did, see, eg, Teddy Kennedy). They just have a presser, maybe do some BS rehab, and wait for the next controversy to knock them out of the headlines. In 2 months, Weiner's weiner will be in the long list of people we talk about when the next guy's story breaks. The guy's a pathalogical douchenozzle and compounds it by being an arrogant prick. Shortly he'll find Jesus and try to reinvent himself. Dude, you're on a Buffalo board and you have the nerve to say such a silly thing? BTW, it would probably be very interesting to read that Lee thread now.
Rob's House Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Is it outside the norm these days to send cockshots? Pretty sure that's the norm. Infidelity is also "normal," at least in that it's not some statistical outlier activity. Anal play in public restrooms and hiding you're gay like Larry Craig, however, that's starting to move out to the fringes of normalcy. I think you missed the spirit of the post. Switching between personas may be taking a toll on you powers of perception.
pBills Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The National Enquirer was the first to release info on John Edwards. So you just want to shoot the messanger if you dont like the messanger. Please list for me the "Typical Reporters" you have in mind. If the messenger seems to be showboating or lying about their true intentions for releasing the story.
erynthered Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 If the messenger seems to be showboating or lying about their true intentions for releasing the story. How does this relate to Breibart? Please list for me the "Typical Reporters" you have in mind.
pBills Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Yes, it was everybody's fault but Weiner. Probably those Koch brothers taking photos of Weiner's dick and posting them on the internet and forcing Weinter to give a press conferece to lie and tell everyone he did it. Ahhh, progressives. Always the victims. Another blanket statement that is not true. Everyone knows and should admit that Weiner F'd up. I think what gets people annoyed is that Breitbart sort of hijacked the press conference and then makes dumb ass statements like "I was doing this to save his family". He doesn't give a crap about Weiner or his family.
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 If the messenger seems to be showboating or lying about their true intentions for releasing the story. Let's make it about the messenger then in order to deflect criticism from the perpetrator. Just blame "Faux" News, Breitbart, Drudge, etc. You liberals are very adept at this.
Peace Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) I think you missed the spirit of the post. Switching between personas may be taking a toll on you powers of perception. I didn't miss the spirit of the post. I was just taking it to another place. This is like when courts pontificate about porn and meanwhile everyone is looking at it. I was noting that there's a lot less deviance in what he did than you might like to think. I know because I got your cockshot text. Edited June 7, 2011 by Peace
pBills Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Let's make it about the messenger then in order to deflect criticism from the perpetrator. Just blame "Faux" News, Breitbart, Drudge, etc. You liberals are very adept at this. First off. Not every Democrat is a Liberal. Hopefully you know that. Doubt it though. Secondly I have stated over and over and over again... that Weiner F'd up. No doubt. Not sure about him breaking any laws other than the marriage agreement he had with his wife. Now in regards to the media.. I have simply said I would like to know HOW Breitbart gained the photos. I see nothing wrong with that. I also do not believe him in anyway when he makes statements like he was going after this story "in order to protect Weiners" family. Statements like that make me question Breitbart and wonder what his true intentions were. Obviously and not surprisingly so, most people here are not questioning Breitbart.
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I think what gets people annoyed is that Breitbart sort of hijacked the press conference... What gets people annoyed are liberals who lie out there ass while simultaneously yelling that they're the victim. Watch this interview of Weiner crying "I'm the victim" and you'll realized that you should probably just tell your progressive pals to STFU and wait for this to pass.
Rob's House Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I didn't miss the spirit of the post. I was just taking it to another place. This is like when courts pontificate about porn and meanwhile everyone is looking at it. I was noting that there's a lot less deviance in what he did than you might like to think. I know because I got your cockshot text. That was supposed to be for pBills.
erynthered Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Obviously and not surprisingly so, most people here are not questioning Breitbart. Why? Because he's the one who broke the story wide open with the photos? And why is he not releasing the more graphic photo of Weiner? 3rd time....Please list for me the "Typical Reporters" you have in mind.
pBills Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 What gets people annoyed are liberals who lie out there ass while simultaneously yelling that they're the victim. Watch this interview of Weiner crying "I'm the victim" and you'll realized that you should probably just tell your progressive pals to STFU and wait for this to pass. Yeah, he is no victim in this. If he would have just come out and said he did it from the beginning this probably would have been over by now.
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 First off. Not every Democrat is a Liberal. Hopefully you know that. Doubt it though. Secondly I have stated over and over and over again... that Weiner F'd up. No doubt. Not sure about him breaking any laws other than the marriage agreement he had with his wife. Now in regards to the media.. I have simply said I would like to know HOW Breitbart gained the photos. I see nothing wrong with that. I also do not believe him in anyway when he makes statements like he was going after this story "in order to protect Weiners" family. Statements like that make me question Breitbart and wonder what his true intentions were. Obviously and not surprisingly so, most people here are not questioning Breitbart. I didn't say anything about Democrats. Are you trying to say you are a Democrat but not liberal? Why are you confusing the issue? If Walter Cronkite had gotten the "goods" on Weiner would you question his source?
Buftex Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I think when someone like Breitbart comes out and holds having access to photos over someone's head in order "to save their marriage" they should. I like how Brietbart, in his faux press conference says "I could have released x-rated photos"...implying that he didn't, so that makes him a decent guy, but then tells everyone that they exist...Weiner is an ass...Breitbart is an ass. We live in a world where both things are possible!
pBills Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Why? Because he's the one who broke the story wide open with the photos? And why is he not releasing the more graphic photo of Weiner? 3rd time....Please list for me the "Typical Reporters" you have in mind. Every other reporter is more credible than him right now. I'm sorry one normally does not see a "reporter" jumping up on the stage and taking over a press conference. Most reporters sit in the crowd and ask questions. Even those who broke a story and were right all a long. So since he's the one that broke the story, why can't he state how he came in possession with the photos? Why is he not releasing the another photo... the story has been completely blown open releasing anything else just makes him look like he's piling on. I didn't say anything about Democrats. Are you trying to say you are a Democrat but not liberal? Why are you confusing the issue? If Walter Cronkite had gotten the "goods" on Weiner would you question his source? I am a Democrat. But I am not a far left leaning Democrat. I like how Brietbart, in his faux press conference says "I could have released x-rated photos"...implying that he didn't, so that makes him a decent guy, but then tells everyone that they exist...Weiner is an ass...Breitbart is an ass. We live in a world where both things are possible! :thumbsup:
RkFast Posted June 7, 2011 Author Posted June 7, 2011 First off. Not every Democrat is a Liberal. Hopefully you know that. Doubt it though. Secondly I have stated over and over and over again... that Weiner F'd up. No doubt. Not sure about him breaking any laws other than the marriage agreement he had with his wife. Now in regards to the media.. I have simply said I would like to know HOW Breitbart gained the photos. I see nothing wrong with that. I also do not believe him in anyway when he makes statements like he was going after this story "in order to protect Weiners" family. Statements like that make me question Breitbart and wonder what his true intentions were. Obviously and not surprisingly so, most people here are not questioning Breitbart. Why "question" someone when EVERYTHING they have put forth has checked out as bonafide? And why does he have to prove to YOU that his motives are clean. Typical leftard Alinksy tactic.....foist a label (like racism) on your oppoistion and then demand they disprove it, which is impossible. tell ya what....Breitbart will have to "prove" his motives are "just" when Joy Behar has to "prove" she isnt a c-nt. Deal?
Recommended Posts