Hypocrisy Liberal Style

[crux]

Tell it to Huma and the underage girls, single mothers and others who crossed paths with Weiner.

You are another fine example of the sensitive leftist male.

[ParkerLongbaugh]

The question is, is there a standard? Are there degrees of bad behavior? Is teasing and sexting from hundreds of miles away as bad as, say, jumping an office worker (Ensign) or soliciting prostitutes (Vitter) where actual physical contact and acts of moral perversion actually took place?

Seems the ruling republicans are so appalled over Weiner's cyber fantasies as to demand Weiner's resignation, they seem to have forgotten the completely opposite standards they applied to their own members with regard to resignation who, in any unbiased judgement did much, much worse.

And we could add Rangel, Burris and lots of others to the naughty list too. Scumbags are scumbags, regardless of what letter is after their name. And shame on both sides for treating bad people differently based on which team they're on.

This isn't about teasing or sexting or "cyber fantasies", and you know it- it's about a man who lies yet testifies, votes and stumps for all sorts of things that directly impact all of us. He lied and encouraged others to lie about this scandal, even offering training from his media staff to help them pull it off. He swore up and down that nobody would be forced by the IRS or any other agency under Obamacare and that nothing was compulsary under it- listen to his March 23 interview on the subject. He stumped successfuly for Obamacare, then sought a waiver for his NYC. The list goes on and on. The man is on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for crying out loud- do you honestly think his actions there haven't impacted us in the last several years?!

The man's dishonesty has NATIONAL implications in terms of policies and votes, and that's the problem. Complaining about sexual standards is a red herring.

[coondog]

Well, Longfellow, I'd respond to the second part of your post if there was such a thing as Obamacare. If you want to discuss something, why not call it what it is and drop the intended derrogatory.

So I'll just say this about the first part of the post: We can add lots of people to lists, and, to my point, these are only the ones we know about. But there are different levels of scumbags! There is a difference between things that are job related and things that go on in the presumed privacy of ones home.....and there are degrees of all of them.

Job related infractions are not, generally, based on moral interpretation but the ramifications are still judged according to the bias of party affiliation. Personal matters ARE judged on a moral interpretation and apparently still judged according to party affiliation bias.

Being somewhat of the liberal persuasion, I'm not morally concerned about what goes on over the phone or over the internet between two consenting adults. That's for the real scumbags like Andrew Brightbart to obsess over. But if you're on the record like Eric Cantor (another scumbag in my book) as saying that such personal matters are between the family and constituents, then applying a different standard to Weiner is just another instance of hypocracy and further evidence of the confliction conservatives have about all things pertaining to sex!

Coondog

Crux: What underaged girls are you talking about? She looked at least 18!

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Well, Longfellow, I'd respond to the second part of your post if there was such a thing as Obamacare. If you want to discuss something, why not call it what it is and drop the intended derrogatory.

I actually did not mean that term as a derogatory one- it's the common term on all sides, I would have thought. Weiner himself doesn't think it's derogatory, saying "I don't believe in letting GOP own language of debate. I'm proud of Obama and Obama Care."

And you can't exactly call the source for that quote anything but liberal...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/anthony-weiner-twitter_n_839738.html

What is the term you would prefer us to use?

Moving on, we clearly disagree on whether this is only about private or sexual matters, or actually a symptom of a bigger problem that impacts us all. So let me ask you this: would his using his official, taxpayer-paid media relations staff to offer coverup and "lie coaching" to one of the women involved still make it personal or private, since the topic is still simply (pseudo) sex?

[crux]

Well, Longfellow, I'd respond to the second part of your post if there was such a thing as Obamacare. If you want to discuss something, why not call it what it is and drop the intended derrogatory.

I.E...."teabaggers" & "teabagging"???

C...

[fangz1956]

10 Stories More Important Than Weinergate

'nuff said.......................

[coondog]

Oh, cryxy!

Your obsession with the self labeling of the Tea Party astounds me. I have visions of Michelle Bachmann holding up
Tea Bags, some silly lady with teabags hanging off her hat by the dozens and a woman carrying a sign that read Teabagging for Jesus!

Chalk it up to an unfortunate failure to connect the connotations, but the Tea Party started the whole teabagging thing at the outset........ well before the rest of us started laughing hysterically.

Coondog

[crux]

These are the numbers that continue to astound... The Progressive/Union/Democrat vision that is FAILING. This is just Cook County! I have said it before. Let's just UNIONIZE everybody, DECLARE mandatory LIVING WAGES for all, and it will only serve to raise prices, raise the costs of doing business and living, make the cost of government even more... What a failed state of affairs, on so many levels.

[crux]

The TSA's enhanced pat downs of babies, adolescent girls, and OLD WOMEN. This was instituted under total Dem Federal control.

Remember the worry of the Patriot Act and WARRANT-LESS wire taps? Compare that fizzled issue, to the above. I can only hope that more sensible approaches will be instituted when the Executive changes. Yes Obama will go down.

[coondog]

Cruuuuuuux!

These policies were in effect prior to Obama. You just weren't against them, then.

But, I can agree with you to this extent.....Obama has utterly failed to enact progressive policies. All he has managed to do so far is advance the conservative causes that the conservatives held prior to a black democrat taking office. The idea that conservatives really care about the unemployment rate, wages, inflation or infant pat downs is laughable.

I would almost like to see just what the republicans would do with the country after they succeed in gutting the government, wrecking the economy and hamstringing anyone in a position to do so from taking any action to prevent total social and economic collapse.

My guess is they would reverse every policy stand they now espouse and utilize their positions of power to turn Washington back into the reckless playground of cronyism, graft and corruption they always engage in when they're in power. We will have the evangelical equivalent of Saudia Arabia where the kind of dissent they participate in now will be deemed traitorous, all public lands, monuments and institutions will be corporate owned and no uterus will go unscrutinized!

What a Country!

Coondog

I nominate Eric Cantor for Ministry of Lies!

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Cruuuuuuux!

These policies were in effect prior to Obama. You just weren't against them, then.

The TSA had about 15 scanners in 2007, almost 400 in 2010, and says they will have 1000 by the end of this year. I think more folks would have been opposed to the scanners earlier if they'd had more knowledge or interaction with them. Most folks were originally also given the option of going through the standard metal detectors instead of the backscatter machines, an option which largely went away as the program became more widespread (mostly in 2010).

And this one is solely a recent development for warrantless actions that makes the Patriot Act concerns pale in comparison:

FBI expands agents’ investigative power
The New York Times
First published Jun 12 2011 07:40PM
Washington • The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents — allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
The FBI soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
The FBI recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former FBI agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.
"Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse," German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the FBI had improperly used "national security letters" to obtain information like people’s phone bills.
Valerie E. Caproni, the FBI general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau — which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general — had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.
Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an "assessment." The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations "proactively" and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.
Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Bush or Obama doesn't much matter for either of these- these are both issues of federal bureaucracy and powerful agencies that transcends administrations.

[coondog]

Yep!

It's what happens when fear trumps reason. One minute its about "Keeping us Safe", the next its about freedoms and beaurocracy. This is why, when I want to go to Hawaii......I drive there!

Coondog

Note: A full body scan of Coondog would probably constitute basis for eliminating the program all together!

[crux]

Cruuuuuuux!

These policies were in effect prior to Obama. You just weren't against them, then.

I have told you before and you can look back, and look it up yourself. Under Pistole, BO's man, like November 2010. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=229&p=6043&hilit=pistole#p6043

crux

[coondog]

Cruxwrangler

Once again we are in somewhat of a consensus. The TSA has taken a bad policy and expounded on it. This, as I said in the previously alluded to conversation, is what happens when fear rules over reason. And.....its the sort of enhanced methodology of fighting terrorism and keeping America Safe that the Bush Administration would have boasted of as proper and necessary.

And....who knows, that grandma in the wheel chair just might be one of those anti-government Tea Party types with a seditious attitude and explosives in her drawers. (or she might have converted to radical Islam while in prison).

I agree that this is paranoia at it's most anal. I do not agree that it is an issue that matters all that much in light of the efforts of those anti-american operatives in congress (the ones Michelle Bachmann was talking about?) who want to default on the debt, wreck the economy and bring about anarchy and chaos so they can.................
.............of course, blame it on Obama!

As it stands, the democrats control (loosely) one and a quarter of the three branches of government. (the presidency and the ineffectual filibuster ridden Senate). Corpoprations and PACs control the rest. (Supreme Court, House of Representatives and the effectiveness of the Senate.)The majority of republican led, corporate backed state legislatures are enacting restrictions on voting (a particularly un-American activity) to insure that those disinclined to vote republican are excluded from the process. And, when it's all corporate owned, we're still gonna blame Obama....like we blamed Clinton for 8 years??

I'm sure that were the TSA is privatized, (outsourced to the private sector at twice the cost) the complaints from the right would evaporate like spilled beer in the Walmart parking lot.

Corporate slavery? Shall we drink to that?

Coondog

Nobody knows the trouble I seen......

[ParkerLongbaugh]

The majority of republican led, corporate backed state legislatures are enacting restrictions on voting (a particularly un-American activity) to insure that those disinclined to vote republican are excluded from the process.

Can you give an example of what you're claiming?

[coondog]

The documentation that you requested is found below:

Disclaimer: These links are to what you may consider to be sites exhibiting "liberal bias". Consider the content and not the proclivity of the source Facts are Facts! Besides, you will not find the term "Voter Suppression" on right leaning websites. If the issue is discussed at all, it will be characterized as "election reform" or "curbing massive voter fraud" or some other such nonsense.

Of particular interest is the Wisconsin voter ID bill which (since according to Gov. Walker, they are broke) will cost 5.7 million dollars to impliment.

It is not the cost, however, or the stated intent that is of significance. It is the actual intended result of making it more difficult for certain demographics to be able to participate in the election process that explains an otherwise innocuous undertaking. Almost exclusively, the effected groups are those that likely favor the opposition.

Weekly Voter Suppression Update: Vetoes & More
http://campusprogress.org/articles/weekly_voter_suppression_update_vetoes_more/

Voter Suppression Bills Sweep the Country
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country

STEALING DEMOCRACY: THE NEW POLITICS OF VOTER SUPPRESSION
http://www.stealingdemocracy.com/index.cfm

Wisconsin Voter Suppression Law Passes Assembly
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/12/wisconsin-voter-suppression-law-passes-assembly/

ACLU sues Rick Scott to stop 'voter suppression'
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/03/2249778/aclu-sues-rick-scott-to-stop-voter.html

[Wise One]

Good response, Coondog. Here are a few more points that spring to mind:

Republicans swelled in numbers when the old Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party over Lyndon Johnson's promoting civil rights for black people. The old Dixiecrats and the new Republicans detest the prospect of a large electorate comprising many viewpoints. They have always wanted, and will always want the smallest possible electorate – a minority of clones of themselves white, conservative, wealthy and Christian. The old Dixiecrats had their poll tax, since banned by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, so the new Republicans search frantically for any other way to limit the electorate.

The following ideas and initiatives have been pushed by Republicans to keep people who are not white and don't live in the suburbs from voting:

• The very concept of "Voter Fraud" is a great Republican fraud, holding that huge numbers of non-citizens lie and cheat their way to the polls to cast multiple votes. There is no evidence for this, certainly not for significant skewing of votes. Republican cures for this non-existent problem would erect complex new identity barriers and investigations and checks, poor people simply not having the time and resources to jump through a number of new hoops.
• Several Republican-dominated southern states essentially attempted to re-institute the poll tax. They proposed a proxy for the same thing, a costly and logistically burdensome state-issued voter identity card. These attempts have mostly failed.
• Michigan Republicans in the last election assembled lists voters at foreclosed home addresses and mounted a project to challenge them, fearing votes for Obama by people who were not rich. They got caught by the press and skittered off with their tails between their legs.
• Maryland Republicans in the last governor election initiated a robo-calls to likely Democratic voters falsely stating that the election was over and there was no point in going to the polls. Republican operatives were indicted last week. So I guess there is voter fraud, but authored by Republicans and inflicted on voters.
• Republicans never forgive. They bitterly oppose steps that would restore rights to those who have served jail sentences or otherwise made amends for past transgessions. They would deny forever any right of a former felon to vote, regardless of all circumstances after the fact and would hold them forever in a mandatory sub-citizen class.

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Do the two of you honestly think voter fraud is a problem only on the right? Seriously? I can post just as many example from the left, if you desire.

But frankly I'm more interested in one question: Do you think someone should be able to cast a vote without identification?

[crux]

Presenting a photo ID when VOTING is not vote suppression, but the TSA under the democrat Obama is suppression of common sense and liberty.

[Wise One]

Parker, I don't actually think "voter fraud," as so cynically used as an excuse for unnecessary new laws to suppress voting, is a problem at all. Yes there are occasional abuses by voters that don't seem to have much to do with party or ideology, but they are rare and seem to be handled pretty well by enforcement already.

The "dirty tricks" I mentioned do seem to come most often from Republicans, are not "voter fraud" in the same sense, and also seem to get prosecuted. Voters are the victims, not the perpetrators.

Do I think someone should be able to cast a vote without identification? As a practical matter probably yes, because the chances are infinitesimal that anybody will attempt to impersonate me at the polls and the costs of implementing "fixes" are unacceptable. Poll workers are pretty savvy, I've done it, and are pretty good at spotting fishy behavior and doing something about it. Poll watchers affiliated with both parties, add additional sets of eyeballs which can cause the whistle to be blown. This is a "problem" only in the minds of cynics who would use it to suppress voter turnout.