Poor Judgement is a Punishable Offense

I saw the other day that some of the SUFA regulars wanted to comment on the Anthony Weiner situation. Someone asked me for my thoughts. So I will offer them in this article, but I imagine that the title above already clues you in to what my position is on what Weiner is guilty of and what I think should be done about it. I will come right out and say that I absolutely believe that Anthony Weiner should be removed from office immediately. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. I am sure at least two of our resident antagonists will claim I only feel that way because he is a Democrat. So you two can shut your pie holes up front on that aspect. I feel that way because he is a dirtbag…

I fully admit that I despise Anthony Weiner. He is the epitome of the modern day politician. He is arrogant and smug. He is a consistent liar and twister of the truth on nearly every issue. He treats others with disrespect and demeans those who challenge him as though they don’t have the right. I won’t soon forget his treatment of Megan Kelly on more than one occasion as he arrogantly ignores the questions and speaks as though he is doing you a favor by spouting his bullshit. Here is one of the more memorable exchanges with Weiner:

Just do a quick google search for videos of Anthony Weiner and you will find a plethora of instances where he treats those who challenge him on the issues in this way. And it doesn’t stop at news personalities on Fox News. When challenged on the issue of this picture that he way lying about sending, there was this reaction:

So, in my personal opinion, Anthony Weiner is a class A dickhead. He is not a good person. He is not an acceptable person to occupy a position in the United States House of Representatives. He is an asshole. And I will laugh for hours at this little prick getting what is coming to him. Karma is a bitch Tony.

What I am most surprised by is the consistent excuses made for jerks like Weiner. I watched here at SUFA as the position was presented that this is something in his personal life and has no bearing on his ability to be a member of Congress.

Well I say, bull-dookey. He stood in front of America and lied his ass off for a week and a half. He demeaned anyone who pressed for answers. He showed poor judgement. He showed a complete lack of character. He showed that he has no respect for his marriage or the people he serves in New York. He showed that he is everything we DON’T want someone to be when we say that he “represents us.”

And he isn’t alone. On the whole, members of Congress have shown themselves to be morally inferior to the vast majority of Americans over the last couple years. Since its creation in 2008, the independent Congressional Ethics watchdog group  has doubled the number of investigations opened each year. And we can all sit back and point to dozens of additional instances that were not even touched by Congressional Ethics groups.

Politicians, as Weiner has done, refuse to relinquish their vaunted position over something as minor as being unethical. A few of the outrageous examples of politicians who are dirty, yet remain in the spotlight:

  • Charles Rangle – 13 offenses and an official admonition from the Congressional Ethics Committee. Not only does he not step down, he wins reelection.
  • Maxine Waters – Helps family members gain profit through organizations that she has political ties to and is then found to have ensured that her husbands bank received federal bailout money, even though it didn’t qualify. Consistently rated as one of the most crooked members of Congress. Refuses to step down and claims that the Ethics Committee is after her because she is black. Reelected.
  • Nancy Pelosi – Helps force health care down our throats while her district receives a high percentage of the waivers so that they don’t have to be affected by it. Simply claims everyone is lying or wrong (through her press secretary of course). We could do a whole article just on her unethical and anti-American ways. Relected over and over and selected by her peers as Minority Leader (which makes sense, she is perhaps the most unethical so she should be the leader of a group of unethical people).
  • Newt Gingrich – Has an affair during his marriage, and faces a list of nearly 80 ethics violations lodged by Democrats when he was speaker of the House of Representatives, and several years later becomes one of the front-runners for President in the party that claims to believe in “family values”.
  • Chris Dodd – As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Dodd proposed a program in June 2008 that would assist troubled sub-prime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial in the wake housing bubble’s collapse. Later revealed that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial. Retired from Congress (with full benefits for life) and is now a top lobbyist.
  • The Clintons – The Whitewater scandal, Weinergate episode 1, the travel office scandal. Their list is extensive. One was elected President after the non-sex scandals were public knowledge. The other went on to run for President and become Secretary of State.
  • Tom Delay – Multiple scandals over many years in Congress and he continued to be reelected time and again. He was eventually given little chance to do anything but resign. He only left office because he was indicted on federal money laundering charges which he was later convicted on and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
  • John Ensign – Yet another member of the party of family values who placed a higher value in getting into the pants of a staffer for his office. He had an affair and remained in office for another two years, finally resigning when investigations of ethics violations for his actions after the affair threatened to become a public affair.
  • William J Jefferson – A FBI raid on his home found $90,000 stashed in his freezer. There were tapes of him being bribed. He was reelected anyway in 2006. He served the full term and lost reelection in 2008 and was shortly thereafter convicted of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
  • Barney Frank – Where to start…. Besides doing all the Fannie/Freddie nonsense while sleeping with an executive from there, we have a former lover of Frank’s convicted of running a gay prostitution ring out of the apartment he shared with Franks. Of course Barney claims it was done without his knowledge. What was done with his knowledge was using his office powers to eliminate 33 traffic tickets for that same former partner. After playing a key role in the housing crash by forcing regulation to lend to those who can’t afford it, he was caught attempting to do the same thing shortly after for condos, which he would benefit from. Reelected again and again despite all these things and still screwing America today as a member of Congress.
  • Jesse Helms – His campaign was found guilty of “voter caging” when 125,000 postcards were sent to mainly black neighborhoods and the results used to challenge their residency and therefore their right to vote. Reelected anyway and his racist behind served in Congress until they carried his corpse out from a vote (it’s a joke, relax).
  • George W. Bush – Don’t even get me started. I would like to make it possible for you to finish reading this article sometime today.
  • Barack Obama – As much a liar in office as I have seen in my lifetime. Between the ACORN madness, the ordering of the Justice Department to drop some suits and pursue others disgracefully, his ties to radical far left extremists and racists, he creeps up towards reelection anyway.

I am sure that there are plenty that I am missing. But just look at that extensive list. And keep in mind I didn’t even include the scandals involving Mark Souders, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, or Chris Lee because they all resigned following their scandals so they didn’t get to stay in the spotlight. These are just some of the major names and these are just the more recent ones! Scandals involving politicians and government officials are in the hundreds every year. We just dealt with major national politicians in this article. We didn’t even touch non-Congress folks like DC Mayor Marion “Bitch Set Me Up” Barry, who was caught on film smoking crack with a prostitute, resigned in shame and came back a few years later to be reelected as Mayor! Or the Secretary of the Treasury who evaded paying his taxes!!!!

I guess the point I am trying to get at is that it floors me that someone as intelligent as as some of the readers here at SUFA are would see what Weiner did and say, “no he shouldn’t resign.” All I can think to myself is…

What the Hell is Wrong with America These Days??????

Every one of those names above committed illegal or immoral acts while serving as one of the 535 chosen members of our elected representation. And every one of them not only didn’t resign, but were actually RE-ELECTED by voters. How is that even possible? How have we gotten to the point where our elected officials commit crimes and cheat the system and there are those of you willing to give them a pass? I applaud Charlie for stating the other day that he liked Weiner but now says screw him. That is what should happen to every one of these people.

Has America fallen so far away from having a moral and ethical foundation that we are willing to accept that the 535 people that we have elected to be our representatives in government are perhaps the LEAST moral and ethical people in the entire country? It would appear that the answer is a resounding “YES”.

Everyone acknowledges that Washington DC is perhaps the most crooked place in America (in a fierce battle with Chicago for the title). Everyone will tell you that politicians are the lowest form of human being on the planet. Everyone lives in the status of immediately knowing that they cannot trust anything a member of Congress allows to pass through their lips. It results in Congress having an approval rating that is half of what the approval rating was for George W. Bush!!!!!! Yet the reelection percentages for incumbents in Congress is consistently north of 90%.

Enough. Enough. ENOUGH!

I know I have written on this subject before. I know that I have made these statements before. But at what point will this begin to sink in for all of those who still don’t get it? It is time that we took a stand.

I get it. If you are a Democrat, you are not willing to put up with the other side that embraces tax cuts for all, rambles on about taking away the choice of an abortion, or loves to spend money starting wars with whomever they can.

If you are a Republican, you are not willing to put up with the other side that embraces tax increases on the wealthy, grows government at a faster rate, and loves redistributing other people’s money.

But shouldn’t we be able to agree that, at a minimum, whomever we put into office act within ethical and moral boundaries? This isn’t about left versus right, conservative versus liberal, red-shirted thief versus blue-shirted thief. This is about holding our elected officials to at least some sort of minimal standards. Can’t we agree at least on the fact that liars shouldn’t be in Congress. Can’t we agree at least on the fact that cheaters shouldn’t be in Congress? Can’t we at least agree on the fact that criminals should not be in Congress?

Or is the problem that Congress really is an accurate representation of the average American citizen? Have my core principles of hard work, honesty, integrity, and service to my fellow man become such a minority stance that I don’t deserve to be represented in Congress?

Because that is where we are. The inmates in America’s prisons are heavily represented in Congress. But at this point, those who try to do the right things, who conduct ourselves with honor and integrity, are truly now in a position of “taxation without representation.”

Someone find me a ship with some damn tea on it. I have some work to do.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. The reason Anthony Weiner should be FIRED (and not have the option to resign) for me is very simple. EVERY single job I’ve ever worked in New York (whether in financial houses – PaineWebber (not USB Warburg), Drexel Burnham (before they went bust), Bear Stearns (before they went bust), etc. and every law firm (top tier and otherwise), I am FORCED to acknowledge that I’ve either received training or that I will not abuse the firm’s internet and/or email system (never mind pictures, they are talking about inappropriate language and/or communications). This is simply a fact; if you work in a corporate environment in New York (probably everywhere), you are not permitted to do what Weiner did.

    I spent a good percentage of my time fighting what I called “hysterically blind” democrats the other night on Facebook about Weiner. They seem to be playing the political game (Vitter, Craig, etc.). I ended the exchange by first apologizing for being rude, then returning for one last comment and saying, “Okay, I take back the apology. You’re a moron. Good luck.”

    Frankly, there has been talk in my house about me moving one step closer to anarchist for exactly the reason stated above, we have become so immune to being screwed, some of us actually defend these losers.

    Now, I wouldn’t be an anarchist in the BF mode because I am not sold on the equality of free markets (if it were implemented while we’re in this incredibly unfair have/have-not situation (the gap being too wide for too many to recover), but I do understand why so many are fed up with paying lifetime benefits and pensions to assholes like Weiner, Vitter, Craig, Clinton, et al …

    Bottom line: If we (the people) have to sign statements that we won’t abuse firm equipment with inappropriate behavior (facing the consequence of being fired for “cause” (which means NO unemployment, never mind a pension and lifetime healthcare)), then Weiner et al should AT LEAST be held to that same standard. What he did, aside from the creepy factor, was yet another slap in the face (by government in general) to every single tax paying individual in the country. For me it has nothing to do with politics; it’s a matter of simple equality.

  2. One of your captions was perfect, USW … it (the government) is, in fact, organized crime.

    • Right on. One of the things that distresses me watching all the feathers flying about Anthony Weiner’s head is that it’s so distracting of other, much more important matters. Recall that an investigation was launched into Ms. Clinton’s role in crashing some savings and loans in AR . . . an investigation that morphed into a sanction against Mr. Clinton for lying about HIS dalliances. How many people do we know who can work as a junior operative in any business organization and end up in possession of that company’s billing records years later? Willy took the fall for being horny while Hillary skates for being evil.

      The despotic progressives are masters at misdirection. They thrive in an environment when the nation is focused on trivial clouds of feathers while they continue their missions hiding in plain sight. Yeah, Weiner is a sleaze bag . . . one of thousands who are in the employ of government. One of hundreds that seek to rule over all our lives.

      I got a newsy letter from my representative yesterday that spoke to some ‘concerns that regulation may be choking some small businesses . . .and Senator Snowe was suggesting legislation for some degree of oversight’. Talk about fighting a forest fire with a squirt gun. I wrote him saying that his newsy missives were the biggest disappointments in my email every week. My representatives fiddle while the Constitution burns and government plunders the nation.

      Yeah, Weiner should be tarred, feathered, run out of town and permanently barred from holding any future public office. But folks, he is perhaps 50th on a much longer list who are equally deserving of the ire of honorable citizens. Let us not loose track of the greater battle while the nation debates whether Mr. Weiner’s “rehab” should be qualification for tenure. Feathers and floobydust!

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning All 🙂

    I wonder how long this will continue before the whole thing crashes in on them. Charlie is right, they are nothing but an organized crime ring, sadly, that the sheeple allow to continue. While my ideas are “out of the box thinking”, this system in place screams of change, even nothing would likely be better that these criminals.

  4. Terry Evans says:

    Where are the SUFA jock straps (Weiner supporters) this morning? I would like to know if your support for the Congressman has diminished over the weekend…especially after more and more pictures surface. USW and Charlie are right (that is a statement that I thought I would most likely never make), the shenanigans our “representatives” involve themselves in are shameless, and, to me at least, stink of the elite having the illusion they are better than the rest of us.

  5. Mathius™ says:

    Sorry Wep!

    I’m going to have to stand by my opinions.

    I don’t support elected representatives because they are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrift, brave, clean, and reverent.

    I support them because they make laws I like and don’t make laws I don’t like.

    Get a blow job in the oval office while married, then lie about it? Not really my business. Are you doing a good job in the official capacity of your office? Yes? Great! Then keep it up. No? Then get the hell out of office.

    I know I’m in the minority here, but I have a good capacity to segregate things in my mind. These people aren’t supposed to be role models. They’re supposed to be law-makers. And that is the only litmus test by which we should be judging them.

    Now, if they commit a crime, then they should be prosecuted the same way as anyone else would be, and obviously they can’t serve while behind bars, but otherwise, it’s irrelevant.

    Are you a convicted axe murderer who just so happens to be great at writing effective legislation and getting it passed? Well I can’t say I approve of your lifestyle choice (yes, axe murdering is an “alternative” lifestyle choice), but I’ll still vote for you. Hell, I might even donate to your campaign.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Matt, Your wife does a great job of being a wife. She has multiple affairs. Do you feel the same about her as you do about representatives who act wrongly but do a good job?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Her “job” of “wife” required marital fidelity. It’s one of the job requirements.

        Marital fidelity is not, strictly speaking, a job requirement of the job of “representative.” That job is to write and pass “good” laws and to represent, not the people of your district, but their interests.

        Does he do a good job of representing their interests? I don’t know.. I generally think so. So then he’s doing his job and whatever else he may also be doing is irrelevant.

        • Why permit a guy who works for you to have less responsibility than you, Matt?

          I know you had to sign a piece of paper stating you won’t send pictures of your pecker over the internet (or get terminated for cause). Why permit elected officials less of a standard of behavior?

          Do you really need Anthony Weiner to represent you? Could there be another progressive right behind him to do the same? You’re way off base here … and what the hell did Weiner do that has been so great as far as progressive politics go? He went along with a bailout without protecting workers is what he did. Great. It may let you win that unemployment bet with me (as unemployment continues to rise while fat cats profits skyrocket) but I doubt the unemployed in his district appreciate it. Yes, his district will re-elect him … the same way a crack addict was re-elected in DC. All that does is prove BF’s arguments against democracy.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Why permit a guy who works for you to have less responsibility than you, Matt? I don’t know about “less.” How about “different.” He has all sorts of duties I do not. My job doesn’t explicitly state what I can and cannot do – but they reserve the right to fire me at any time for any reason (or no reason, for that matter).

            Wiener’s job is to write legislation and vote. Everything that is not writing legislation or voting (or directly related to these) is irrelevant.

            Your job is to flip burgers at Burger King. In your time off you smoke crack and club baby seals. But you show up every day, on time, and you flip those burgers – and you do a good job. Should they fire you?

            • He has all sorts of duties I do not.

              And he’s obviously been very diligently at work doing them …

              If they make me sign a piece of paper at Burger King requiring me not to abuse their internet/emails, etc., I can kill all the baby seals I want (as can Weiner), but should I abuse the paper I signed clamining I wouldn’t, they can fire me too.

              If you’re on the internet (your job) you were required to abide by your firm’s rules regarding internet/email abuse or your firm could be sued for their ass.

              It’s a very simple forumla. Either you hold your elected officials to AT LEAST the same level of responsibility as you or you don’t. Just remember, Goldman Sachs, et al, the people Weiner did so much for with the bailout (I don’t remember him doing anything for me–I was working 7 days a week before the bailout and now I’m unemployed), GS will fire your ass in a heartbeat for doing what Weiner did (my son works at GS). He should be gone with no benefits, no unemployment …

              • Mathius™ says:

                but should I abuse the paper I signed claiming I wouldn’t general agreement..

                OK, now all you have to do is show me his employment contract with the federal government where he agreed to not send pictures of himself to people over the internet, where he agreed to never lie about his personal life to reporters, where he agreed to spend all day every day working at his job so that he would never have the free time to hit on girls on Twitter, or some other contractual obligation which he violated.

    • Terry Evans says:

      This post is just as I expected. You are a smart fellow Mathius…I am a bit confused (not surprised) that you condone this behavior…especially the lies…you actually trust this sack of crap? You would actually vote for this sack of crap…again? I agree with you more than most Liberals, but we difinitely part ways here.

      • Robin Hood was a “hero” if he gave you part of what he had stolen. How else do you defend thieves?
        “Well, he was always good to me! Very helpful to my wife, even found her a position at his office.”

      • Mathius™ says:

        I am a bit confused (not surprised) that you condone this behavior

        ::Mathius quickly rereads everything (and there is quite a bit) that he has written here at SUFA over the last couple days::

        Nope, sorry, not seeing it.. can you show me where I “condoned” this behavior?

        Condoning is not the same thing as saying that it’s none of our business.

        This is none of our business.

        You actually trust this sack of crap? Nope. I trust Anthony Wiener to be Anthony Wiener. I trust that his political interests will frequently align with mine. Beyond that, I assume everything he does, as well as the motives behind those actions are highly suspect. But, again, I don’t really care since it has nothing to do with me.

        You would actually vote for this sack of crap…again? Not in my district. I don’t know enough about his voting record to judge, and of course it depends on who he’s running against, but sure.. it’s a distinct possibility.

        I agree with you more than most Liberals Um… thanks?

    • Matt,
      I salute your honesty. I don’t agree with you position at all, but you do lay it on the line.

      “I support them because they make laws I like and don’t make laws I don’t like.”

      Isn’t that a “whats in it for me outlook”? Rangle and all the others re-elected after being shown to be unethical makes me think it’s all about the pork and favors they use their office to grant. These people are supposed to be held to the highest standard. For you to say that doesn’t matter is a little shocking. I see it as being the most important qualification.

      • Mathius™ says:

        “whats in it for me outlook” Well yes. I think that’s exactly it.

        We elect them to represent our interests. “Our interests” is roughly equivalent to “what’s in it for me,” no?

        —–

        Think about it this way (and maybe I’ll expand on this later).. you’re a boss and have two potential hires for a job opening.

        The first is a mess. He looks slovenly, unshaven, not well spoken, bad personal hygiene, and you know (by whatever means) that in his personal life he uses drugs and routinely sleeps with prostitutes, he is also a degenerate gambler, he also voted for Obama and intends to do so again. He is, however, an unfettered genius. He is hardworking, incredibly knowledgeable, efficient, skilled, et cetera. Sometimes he loses track of time and works for 36 hours straight.

        The second looks and acts the part. He is clean, presentable, well spoken, married for 15 years (no affairs, first wife), no drugs, no drinking, no bad habits at all, in fact. He’s.. ok.. at the job. He knows enough to scrape generally. He misses things here and there, and clocks out early frequently. If you hire him, you’re going to have to keep a very watchful eye on his output.

        OK, now given the false dichotomy, make your pick. This job is for someone to sit in an office in the back – no human or customer interaction is or will be involved. Who do you hire and why?

        • Terry Evans says:

          Hire neither, and post the opening for more applicants. This is, however, not the same…Weiner is already working. In my company, I would not have to fire him…he would have fired himself with his behavior. HR is pretty black and white when it comes to transgressions such as this.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I see I had a bold-ing malfunction.. oh well..

            I don’t see why it should matter. I Mathius, Inc., your personal life is irrelevant. Do your job. That’s what matters. Do it well, get promoted. Do it poorly, get fired. Anything that doesn’t impact me, the employer, or your job (that is, the actually specific duties of your job) is non of my business.

            Let’s dial it back a notch.. your employer is very anti-drug. You smoke a little pot every now and then in the privacy of your home. You boss finds out because your roommate (who works at the same company) narc’d you out because he wants a promotion that you’re both vying for (and for which you’re better qualified). Before he found out, he was planning on giving you the promotion. Should he fire you instead? Why is it any of his business?

            What if it’s nothing illegal – what if you smoke cigarettes and your boss just happens to be fanatically smoking? Can he fire you for that? Should he fire you for that? If he considers it immoral, does that still mean it’s any of his business?

            • Terry Evans says:

              Again, concerning the pot, HR is very black and white…if a drug screen is administered and I fail…to the unemployment line I go. If it is not illegal, i.e. cigarette smoking, then while I would retain my position, the boss may make his decision based on that…unless I could prove that was the reason, I would be SOL. Keep in mind I am a private employee and not a public one…

              • Terry, you made one mistake. To an employment agency you go … when you’re fired for cause, it’s up to the employer (in most instances) to allow you to collect unemployment. Generally, when you violate some company policy that permits them to fire you for “cause”, you can forget unemployment.

                Weiner gets a lifetime healthcare package and a pension. How fucking sick is that?

              • Mathius™ says:

                So if you smoked cigarettes (on your own time, in the privacy of your own home), something your boss considered to be unacceptable, and you were denied a promotion on those grounds, you would find this acceptable or would you rant and rave that it’s none of his damn business? You work in private industry (so do I), but at the same time, why should your private non-work choices be permissible to be held against you?

                What if he was fanatically against guns and found out that you own one to defend your family? If he fired you for that, what would you think?

              • Terry Evans says:

                Mathius, rant and rave I might, but unless I can PROVE that is why his decision was made, then I would have to do one of two things…seek employment elsewhere, or learn to live with it…as I see it anyway…

              • Terry Evans says:

                Charlie…I agree, however, I have personally experienced an employee being fired for violating company rules…he kept appealing on the unemployment deal until he finally got it…almost as sick as the Weiner getting the lifetime benefits, but not quite.

    • USWeapon says:

      @Mathius

      You are certainly entitled to your opinion Matt. But I think that you fall into the trap of rationalizing whatever you need to in order to attain what you desire. You are willing to put up with whatever this man does so long as he gets the results that you want to get.

      And isn’t this the very sentiment that you would argue against if we were talking about corporations or Republicans? Weiner is not a good person. He is a liar on top of everything else. If he is this dishonest in his dealings, what makes you think that he is any more honest in his political dealings? Someone either lacks integrity or they don’t. They don’t lack integrity in one area and have it in another. He has shown what he is. Now the question becomes whether people believe a dirtbag like him should be in public office or not.

      I refuse to accept him being in Congress, despite whether he votes the way I like or not. The same goes for all the other scumbags I listed in the article.

      • Sweet Jesus … I echo USW.

        He’s right … this is a no brainer. Any one of those pieces of shit he listed shouldn’t be in office (and precluded from re-running for office). Any defense of these clowns legitimizes behavior any of us would be terminated for. The fact they get pensions and lifetime healthcare makes it a better deal than retiring from the mob … before the start of my second novel, Jimmy Bench-Press I wrote this just after the dedication:

        Life is often times stranger than fiction. When a corporation the size of ENRON can implode at the expense of so many of its loyal employee-shareholders, leaving them without a job and/or retirement funds, after those overseeing the fiasco had already cashed out, one has to wonder if the term “organized crime” deserves a more inclusive definition.

        Many elected officials received ENRON political contributions on both sides of the political fence — the tribute paid up?

        ENRON’s financial auditors, ARTHUR ANDERSEN, shredded potentially incriminating documents — much the same way a bookmaker might shred betting slips?

        The highest ranking ENRON officials encouraged employees to buy as much ENRON stock as they could, when the same officials already knew that ENRON’s value wasn’t what the cooked books led to believe — “pump and dump”?

        Organized crime doesn’t always involve men with Italian names. Sometimes, probably more often than we’ll ever know, it involves some of the most respected and accepted business people of our time. The double standard for corporate organized crime is grossly hypocritical. We all know what needs to be done with these ENRON clowns should they ever be brought to justice and found guilty.

        Instead of the federal country club circuit of prisons reserved for “respectable businessmen” who’ve lost their way, let them tour the real joints where we send all the other criminals of the so-called organized crime world.

        I say Weiner is no different and allowing him to attend rehab (and not lose his job) creates the “victim” (as Doc wrote last week) the Dems seem to want.

      • Mathius™ says:

        the trap of rationalizing whatever you need to in order to attain what you desire. I’m not rationalizing anything. I think what he did is sleazy. I think it’s unacceptable to have an online affair while married (always assuming, of course, that she didn’t know or condone such behavior). I don’t condone lying – though I do accept that, to some degree or another, everyone lies. (“Does this dress make me look fat” … “nooooo, of course not!”)

        If he is this dishonest in his dealings, what makes you think that he is any more honest in his political dealings? Nothing. Show me evidence that he’s dishonest in his political dealing and I’ll join you in the call for booting him.

        Someone either lacks integrity or they don’t. They don’t lack integrity in one area and have it in another. I’ve had friends who I could trust absolutely – Buck, for example – who I could leave alone with a girlfriend/wife or with my wallet sitting on the table. I would never think twice about putting away my valuable with him around because I know that he would never even think about taking something that wasn’t his. But I know that when he’s around, I have to watch my good scotch. I can’t leave him alone for two minutes with my bottle of 18 year old Macallan. I can trust him completely in certain aspects but not in others. Other people I’ve known would never think about touching my scotch or my wallet, but wouldn’t hesitate to hit on my (then) girlfriend. Others would never hit on the girl, but might pocket a dollar bill they found in my couch.

        The assumption that any lack of integrity in one aspect guarantees a lack of integrity elsewhere is not something I believe to be supported by my experience with humanity thus far. People have internal honor codes and some are perfectly willing to do something you immoral in one aspect, but would never consider doing something else. Anthony Wiener has shown that sexual integrity is not important to him – if you want to make this argument, show me that he similarly doesn’t hold political integrity to be important.

        • Show me evidence that he’s dishonest in his political dealing

          How about the fact he offered one of the women the services of his PR people?

          Are you FOCKING KIDDING ME?

          Matt, you’re going to single handedly turn me into one of these crazies on the right 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            I don’t know anything about this. Is it factually proven? Who pays for his PR people? What did she need PR for and what services was he offering?

            Can you give me some more color on this?

            • It was taken off one of his FB or twitter messages to the BJ dealer (I think). I don’t know if it was a private PR firm (but I highly doubt that). It’s one of the things they are “supposedly” investigating. That came out almost instantly after his “confession” which had everything to do with the woman coming out and little to do with any sincerity.

    • So basically you don’t include good judgement – which we have proof Wiener does not have – as a valuable quality in constructing legislation as being important? You don;t judge honesty – which we have proof Wiener doesn’t have since he initiated his own coverup and lying on his behavior – as important in a person crafting legislation you have to live by?

      To you it all comes down to is that he is voting for legislation you like? When does his character come into consideration? He used computers and places paid for by tax dollars for carrying out some of this behavior and this doesn’t get considered? So if he’s banging Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House that’s fine by you because character doesn’t matter?

      No damn wonder it’s all going to hell in a hand basket!

      • Mathius™ says:

        So basically you don’t include good judgement It matters if he has good judgment in terms of legislation. Good in terms of maintaining his marriage is none of my business.

        I have great judgment in terms of financial issues. I have terrible judgment in terms of social tact. Thus, I try my best to confine my marital decisions to financial matters, and anything that uses interpersonal skills gets handled by Emilius.

        Wiener has (I think, generally) pretty good legislative and political judgment. He has pretty bad judgment in terms of marriage. I don’t pay him to be a good husband. I pay him to write laws.

        He used computers and places paid for by tax dollars for carrying out some of this behavior and this doesn’t get considered? Yes.. it has.some baring. But generally not. I am using a work computer on work time with work paid internet to talk to you about this non-work issue. As long as I get my work done (and done correctly), it’s a non-issue. That said, I would have to see what the congressional ethics rules are regarding personal use of computers/internet/electricity/etc. You may have grounds there for me to back his resigning.

        So if he’s banging Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House that’s fine by you because character doesn’t matter? I have to question the judgment (as well at the eye-sight) of anyone banging Nancy Pelosi for any reason at any time. There isn’t enough Viagra in the world….

        • Ok…..I agree, not enough Viagra. Change his partner to…oh, your wife say?

          So then it was fine that Bush lied about the evidence for attacking Iraq? Lying was acceptable?

          It’s fine with you that Bush started the bandwagon rolling along that “enhanced interrogation” (torture) is acceptable to gain information from “enemy combatants” and does not reflect on the quality of character of the individual to hold political office?

          It is fine with you that a person has no morals or ethics and is in a position of representation of the people? What if your boss had no morals or ethics and sent your wife pictures – but does his job excellently? I would guess that would be fine by you that his character was in the toilet?

          • Mathius™ says:

            No, because that lying was part of his job. His job was to lead the military. He lied so that he could lead the military incorrectly.

            His job is to uphold the constitution. He lied and manipulated and circumvented the Constitution with his “enhanced interrogation” (torture is exactly the right word).

            These lies and immoral actions were relevant to his job.

            When he said he gave up golf for the troops (what idiocy) and was later proven to be lying, I thought (and said) he’s a douchebag (which I still contend he is), but I did not and do not think it has anything to do with his job of President, and would not have advocated a resignation (or that issue, anyway) or an investigation (over that issue anyway).

            If I were inclined to vote for him, it might have given me pause at the ballot box. But that would have been it.

            —-

            What if your boss had no morals or ethics and sent your wife pictures – but does his job excellently? I would guess that would be fine by you that his character was in the toilet? In a business capacity, it is irrelevant. Though, honestly, being (somewhat) human, I would probably have difficulty separating my out-of-work anger from my at-work professionalism. However, out side of work, I would probably let him have it.

            • These lies and immoral actions were relevant to his job.

              Remember that when you have a child. You need not teach them that good character values are necessary to their professional life since it has no bearing on how well they accomplish their work.

              And Wiener’s lies were relevant to his job – if for nothing else it is in his use of public property and public supported communications (do we really think he pays for his internet service out of his personal pocket?). Character counts, or so the public service ads tells us.

              We will never agree about the roll of character in behavior simply because you will ignore any behavior that is not a crime apparently.

              I hope you give the same public support to the next right wing dirtbag who is found to have little moral character. We’ll wait and see.

    • Can you cite examples of laws you “like” and “don’t like”? Frederic Bastiat explained two centuries ago that the law in a representative republic is an extension of our right to self defense. In other words, while the honorable citizen is within his/her right to waste a predator in the court of present circumstances, you cannot chase him down if he runs away. It then becomes a matter for courts and the law to resolve. The law is for making a measured response to an attack upon the liberty of honorable citizens.

      I have observed that very few laws go to the resolution of attacks upon liberty. Instead, most have become, as Bastiat warned, tools of legal plunder. So I am just curious. What laws supported by the infamous Mr. Weiner do you find consistent with the founding fathers view of the role of government?

      • Mathius™ says:

        You make a fatal assumption here. You seem to believe that I necessarily agree that laws should conform with the views of the Founding Fathers or that they need to be constrained to the goal of resolving attacks upon liberty. I, as a typical Big Government Wealth Redistributing Social Engineering Liberal, take a more expansionist view.

        I don’t vote for Wiener so I don’t pay too much attention to his legislative agenda. I cannot tell you what he has or has not supported and/or authored, so I cannot give you examples. However, he is a popular liberal Democrat and while that’s no guarantee of a match with my politics, it’s generally a good indicator that I might find him fairly agreeable – politically, at least.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Mathius: I don’t support elected representatives because they are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrift, brave, clean, and reverent.
      I support them because they make laws I like”

      TS: You just contradicted yourself. How do you know they they are gonig to make laws like and not make laws you dont like? TRUST. Therefore, you believe they have the character that you relate with to make similar judgements like you. Being a government employee, I signed many agreements saying how i will not abuse government computers and resources, and most certainly, NO PORN. We also go through an ethics class yearly. Why should I have to have ethics and not our lawmakers?

  6. Any of these things mentioned would get any normal person fired from their respective job. The double standard is so prevalent, that we have become expecting to be screwed without being kissed in the process. It does affect their job and it does affect their ability to govern accordingly. Kudos to Charlie for standing up and speaking up (frankly, sir, I did not expect it). The arrogance and the elitist attitude in Washington js not party related. It is elitist related.

    However, USW, I do wish you would not pull any punches next time and really let me know how you feel.

    Nice article.

    • Kudos to Charlie for standing up and speaking up (frankly, sir, I did not expect it).

      Come on, Colonel … you know we’re really not that far apart on a lot of issues … 🙂

      • Terry Evans says:

        I fully expected it…I believe you said so last week…

        • I may be from Pluto, but I haven’t lost ALL my common sense … yet.

          I can’t tell you how pissed off I was arguing this with some hysterical blind democrat faithful the other day on FB. He kept pointing to Republican scams … when liberals defend the indefensiable they do their cause no good. Letting this asswipe off the hook does much for the anarchist or libertarian cause (at least in my mind). It is not only paying to get shtuped in the ass, it is waving a flag of pride for it.

          • Terry Evans says:

            I believe we are in firm agreement here…there are scumbags (most all of them) holding elected office…they should be held to a HIGHER standard…especially since their paychecks come on everyone else’s back.

    • Charlie, to his credit, has consistently maintained that all jackwagon politicians of every stripe be horse whipped and run out of town on rails (actually jailed in real prisons).

      He’s said it enough and consistently – and I damn sure agree with him on it.

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    @USW – good article – I see you’re getting riled up for Game 6 this evening…..

    Anyway – I do believe Anthony Weiner should be fired (no chance to resign). Charlie is correct – most anywhere in corporate America the misuse of computer assets is often punishable by immediate termination. I work cases on a daily basis involving misuse/abuse of technology – it is frustrating and disappointing to see people lose their jobs because they cannot follow simple rules. The rub is – I doubt Congress even has these types of rules in place. If they do not then they should.

    I also believe that others in Congress that break the law and/or demonstrate behavior as such (e.g. lying, adultery, etc) should be dealt with harshly and severely – and you don’t get any pensions or any of that other bullshit. I often cringed that folks herein would beat the drum loudly on getting rid of a Harry Reid because of policy decisions – yet sat on their hands and zipped their lips at the mere mention of an enormous asshole/scumbag like John Ensign.

    It’d be interesting to see the debate open up on a statement like this from USW:

    “Or is the problem that Congress really is an accurate representation of the average American citizen? Have my core principles of hard work, honesty, integrity, and service to my fellow man become such a minority stance that I don’t deserve to be represented in Congress?”

    I’d offer that most all people are to some degree imperfect. But what does that mean in this context? Are we naive enough to think that the “statesmen” of yesteryear were somehow more perfect than the politicians we have today? Isn’t our history rich with people that have done great things but were not exactly perfect people? Is it possible we have far more Mickey Mantle-types versus those cut from the Harmon Killebrew mold?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      To answer my own question – we will always elect people that are flawed in some way or some sense. We need to be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves what those flaws are and whether we are okay with them. You smoked weed in college? And inhaled? I could care less. You cheat on your wife and send lewd pictures of yourself to people AND then repeatedly lie about it? I’m not okay with that. The process for investigating, charging and disposition should be swift and public and transparent. That Weiner is still in office is offensive to me and should be to most people.

      • Mathius™ says:

        we will always elect people that are flawed in some way or some sense.

        Well yes. Because only a flawed person would have the audacity to run for national office.

        “I possess a sort of narcissistic sociopathy that makes me think that I should be in charge of everybody.” – Clint Webb

    • Mathius™ says:

      Martin Luther King had numerous affairs. He even had one which, supposedly, involved emotional attachment greater than his emotional attachment to his wife (in my mind, this is far worse than physical infidelity).

      Thomas Jefferson fathered numerous illegitimate children, including six with a slave he owned.

      If we booted everyone who violated these morality rules, would we have ever had civil rights marches? Would we have purchased Louisiana?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I don’t completely disagree with you Mathius – relativism is what is going to make heads explode. Weiner lied. I know all politicians (and all people) lie. This is a big enough lie to me to mean something.

      • Terry Evans says:

        Please remind me of what public office MLK held?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Fine.. Jefferson then. I gave two examples.. what about the other one?

          But the point is more the effect that a person can be a spectacular success within certain bounds even while being a sleazeball in other ways. It doesn’t really have anything to do with elected office.

          • Terry Evans says:

            I disagree…(surprise!). This is definitely, to me, dealing with elected officials. I am rather weary of their opinion of themselves…the elite thing. TJ (IMO) would have been raked over the coals if information was as readily available then as it is now.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I agree he would have been raked over the coals….

              But should he have been?

              Should he have been kicked out of office?

              • Matt I get that you don’t think ones morality unless it goes into the criminal should be used to fire or judge people. But in our society it does and as long as it does-people in power especially our representatives are in danger of being blackmailed to keep their secret safe. maybe it would just be voting against a certain bill-Maybe something else. But once they are caught -they should leave office. They do not have the right to put themselves in the position to have to betray their constituents in order to keep their job.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Well that actually sounds pretty opposite of logic.

                You’re saying that any politician with a dirty little secret is vulnerable to blackmail (agreed) and may be coerced to vote a certain way (agreed). So one that dirty little secret becomes public knowledge (and thus loses it’s power), he should leave office (huh?).

                They do not have the right to put themselves in the position to have to betray their constituents in order to keep their job. OK, so put another way, you should not have the right to put yourself in a position where you may wind up killing someone – please surrender your driver’s license and sell your car immediately.

              • And what may I ask about Weiners actions and the total stupidity of them-leads you to believe that he should be trusted not to do something else. Six different women-pictures floating around on the internet-does this even suggest that the man has the ability to be discrete. I will give you that people and their morals and what action should be taken isn’t written in stone. But in this case there really isn’t any question-this man needs to go. As far as the driving comparison-your kidding right. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                what […] leads you to believe that he should be trusted not to do something else.

                Nothing. But it’s not my job to judge this. That’s for his constituents.

              • No it isn’t-we have a very powerful centralized government these days and everything that our reps do effect us all-and if this man has proven his self to be untrustworthy and susceptible to being blackmailed in his voting practices-he needs to go.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You keep talking about blackmail.. is there something you know that I don’t?

              • I simply acknowledge the possibility -a possibility that you do not deny. I see the possibility as a big deal. I see his taking this type of job which is powerful and requires TRUST as a commitment to honor that trust. He has broken that trust. He should acknowledge that fact and leave.

    • USWeapon says:

      @Ray

      You bet I am getting fired up for game 6. I just hope the Bruins are up to the task.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @USW – I believe the Bruins will be up to it – I felt like Game 5 was a fluke. The way TT has been minding net – he deserves to raise the cup. Best of luck to your team!

  8. Watching FOX this AM, was not enjoying them doing a segment on this ahole every fifteen minutes. I think the guy is scum and should resign, but am not surprised at his actions. I also think FOX is acting like a mob with torches, not fair and balanced.

    “I watched here at SUFA as the position was presented that this is something in his personal life and has no bearing on his ability to be a member of Congress.

    Well I say, bull-dookey. He stood in front of America and lied his ass off for a week and a half.”
    (My position, while I agree, adultery and lying to the press is not a crime. He should be thrown out, but by the people who elected him. If they are happy with his actions, it’s on them.)

    ” He demeaned anyone who pressed for answers. He showed poor judgement. He showed a complete lack of character. He showed that he has no respect for his marriage or the people he serves in New York. He showed that he is everything we DON’T want someone to be when we say that he “represents us.”

    ( All of that should be determined by the Congressional Ethics Committee. I know, it’s a joke, let criminals be the judges. The key point is if and how he broke the law. As Charlie said, using official internet and/or email system in inappropriate ways may violate laws. It most certainly violates ethics rules. Have heard a 17 yr old may be involved. Solicitation to a minor is a crime. Mainly am waiting for enough evidence to be gathered to see what is/should be done.)

    • Mathius™ says:

      My position, while I agree, adultery and lying to the press is not a crime. He should be thrown out, but by the people who elected him. If they are happy with his actions, it’s on them.)

      HUZZAH!

  9. Pardon my french Westchester, but Huzzah this.

    You send a picture of your pecker today and see what happens. You’re gone … for “cause” … NO unemployment, never mind a pension and lifetime healthcare.

    The rules SHOULD BE CHANGED … so long as there are NO consequences for offenses such as these (inappropriate use of equipment, never mind the clowns regulating the oil industry watching porn all day), nothing will change … and that makes funding these assholes (never mind voting for them) smaller assholes than WE ALL ARE.

    Fuck Weiner … he should’ve been gone already. Fired, not resigned.

    Now, I’ll be gone starting domani for about 12 days (career changing–low residency MFA so I can teach some day … if they havne’t outsourced that too).

    I’ll pop in and out here the rest of the day but I’m off early domani … please, keep your applause to a minimum.

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/06/gone-fishing.html

  10. Lets face it folks-when it comes to Weiner we aren’t talking about the normal morality questions. This man obviously has a liking for the dangerous(and a rather sick fetish over his own body). What he did was so stupid it ranks way up there-I see no way that he didn’t recognize the huge potential for getting caught so he either likes danger or he simply has no self control. Either condition makes him untrustworthy and shows an emotional imbalance that makes his having any ability to effect our lives or to state secrets dangerous. He needs to be in that hospital, he needs psychiatric help and he damn well doesn’t need to hold an office that effects the entire population.

  11. For the record, until this disaster, I supported Weiner’s politics (not his arrogance):
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-dick-ringing-bells-and-warning.html

  12. 😐

  13. Here you go, Matt: PR people:

    Embattled Congressman Anthony Weiner told one of his Internet women (a former porn star) to lie about their relationship and offered PR help from his staff as the scandal unfolded, according to a report by TMZ.

    Weiner even joked about his own PR issues.

    “Do you need to talk to a professional PR-type person to give u advice?” read an email from Weiner to the woman, Ginger Lee. “I can have someone on my team call. (Yeah, my team is doing great. Ugh.)”

    • Mathius™ says:

      Sounds like a joke.. can you give me a link?

      I don’t know that offering to “have someone on my team call” is necessarily criminal. I do this all the time at work – I call up people I know and pick their brains, or they call me and pick mine. I never charge and neither do they, so I don’t think that would qualify as using government money (if, in fact, it even is government money not his own/private). And I don’t see anything offering to pay for their services, just to put her in touch (and even then, assuming this wasn’t a pathetic attempt at humor).

      I need more, but I’ll reserve judgment in the meantime.

  14. I smirk at those who seem “surprised” or “disappointed” at the immoral going-ons of the political class.

    But why the shock or dismay?

    This is a class of people who are immoral to their core

    They believe they are so great, they know more than you about you, and will force you to do their demand.

    They believe they are so great, normal modes of conduct do not apply.

    They are shocked you do not hold them is reverence.

    They are evil.

    Why are you surprised evil dabbles in immoral behavior?

    • 8)

    • I seriously doubt that anyone is surprised and I don’t agree that they are all evil. But I do admit that staying grounded in such positions would be very hard.

      • V.H.

        I don’t agree that they are all evil

        There may be a rare exception.

        But try to find more than a handful – and I am serious, find 5 sitting politicians who is not perverted

        • Evil is a harsh word-it sometimes applies-I suppose it depends on how you define it. There are exceptions is my only point. 🙂

          • V.H.

            Evil is very easy and precise to define – and I thank Kent for making it so perfectly clear.

            He had a post on his blog that said:
            “If harming innocents cannot be called evil, evil has no meaning”

            And I reflected on that for quite a long time – and found that the extend of human evil always involves the use of violence on the non-violent – every..single…instance.

            Now, many convolute immoral with evil …. which muddles up the thinking because it turns something objective into a subjective – and this is how evil grows.

            By adding morality into the definition of evil, those that use violence on the non-violent create confusion about what they do. They claim “Oh, your definition of evil is merely subjective – and I, MR. EVIL, subjectively define my use of violence as NOT evil … so there!”

            But human evil IS objective – it is specific and it is clear.
            Violence on the non-violent

            • Common Man says:

              BF;

              Not quoting scripture here, just want to understand your basic foundation of violence since you use it hand in hand with evil.

              Could we sum up your moral compass with this phrase: “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you”

              CM

              • CM
                The Golden Rule has been repeated in some form, in every language, and every culture on Earth.

                I would suggest that probably makes it a Universal Human Natural Law.

            • Getting into the philosophical and my religious beliefs here-but unless I am ranting I have a very high threshold to reach the point of calling someone Evil-they may create evil by their actions but for them to meet that threshold- that evil has to have been their INTENT.

              • V.H.
                Please objectively define evil….

                In other words, please provide me a way to test for evil that is universal to all men.

              • Not sure that I can-it is a word-one I use to define when man purposely and intentionally causes great harm -but in the end I believe it is God’s job to define the evilness of one’s very soul. As a human I judge actions and there intent to loosely use the word- but even that is not a complete judgement of ones soul.

    • USWeapon says:

      I hope that wasn’t a condescending smirk… I so don’t do well with condescending smirks.

      Good day to you my pirate friend. I would not say that I am surprised by the behavior of those in Congress. I am shocked that the citizens of this country continue to accept such behavior, in some cases even rationalizing the continued employment of such scumbags.

      • USWep,

        But accept what other alternative?

        The doom is that only the evil, perverse, immoral men wish to control your life and your wealth.

        Moral men have no desire to rule others.

        So, what is the expectation?
        Those that believe you can do good with violence will be ruled by evil men who do no good.

    • I doubt anyone is surprised at the behavior. I am surprised at the likes of Mathius that set such a low bar for morality and honesty. Speaks volumes to their own character, I guess. We do have a lot of work ahead of us to “clear the swamp” when even Weiner’s behavior is defended.

      And WTH, I agree with Charlie on something!!!!

      http://www.freakingnews.com/Look-flying-pigs-Pics-59706.asp

  15. I’ll see your 🙂

    and raise you one 🙂 🙂

  16. § 2635.704 Use of Government property.
    (a) Standard. An employee has a duty
    to protect and conserve Government
    property and shall not use such property,
    or allow its use, for other than
    authorized purposes.
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this
    section:
    (1) Government property includes any
    form of real or personal property in
    which the Government has an ownership,
    leasehold, or other property interest
    as well as any right or other intangible
    interest that is purchased with
    Government funds, including the services
    of contractor personnel. The term
    includes office supplies, telephone and
    other telecommunications equipment
    and services, the Government mails,
    automated data processing capabilities,
    printing and reproduction facilities,
    Government records, and Government
    vehicles.
    (2) Authorized purposes are those purposes
    for which Government property
    is made available to members of the
    public or those purposes authorized in
    accordance with law or regulation.

    (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/5cfr2635.704.pdf)

    Here Mathius, this is what an employee of the US Government would potentially face – and Wiener is an “employee” as far as I am concerned. You wanted law violations – there’s one. How many do you require to be found and applied to the dirtbag’s behavior?

    But I am sure you’ll have some lame excuse you’ll come up with here as well.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Not really. No excuse here. Prosecute him under this statute. If he’s convicted, then he should pay the price (whatever that is).

      Just make sure that you prosecute every other politician in office at the same time for going on Facebook or checking their fantasy football stats.

      Maybe Charlie will get his wish and they’ll all get locked up.

      • Common Man says:

        I disagree with Charlie about locking them all up, simply because the result will be further corruption within an already corrupt prision system. My thoughts would be to ban them all to a remote island, equip them with ample weapons and tell them that those that survive for 1 year get to come home. I am betting we wouldn’t find anyone left alive after six months.

        CM

        • Okay, we’ll do it your way … just so long as I don’t have to pay for them anymore.

          • Common Man says:

            Charlie:

            Just the initial cost of the weapons and the cargo ship to haul their ass to the island, which would be a lot less cost than what we would pay to house them in a “country club prision”.
            Although we could install hiden closed circut TV about the island and start our own private pay-for-view network and sell subscriptions to the viewing public. Who know it might wind up being more popular than “Survivor”

            CM

        • Six months? You must be an optimist?

          • Common Man says:

            PS;

            I guess it would depend upon the condition of the island, availability of food and water and the “inmates” ability to fend for themselves….Oh shit, I guess maybe six months is a bit optimisitic given the fact that these creatures are only capable of demonstraiting parasitic behaivor.

            CM

  17. So, the question that puzzles me.

    Over and over again, the People are reminded how perverse the political class are.

    Over and over again, people like Mathius rationalize these perverse evil people with “well, they’re not perfect”.

    Yet, he and so many others willing turn over your lives to them.

  18. Common Man says:

    Over the course of the last several years the general population has grown to accept the fact that the great majority of elected officials are to one degree or another corrupt; either ethically, morally or both. It is that way because it has always been that way, and is required to accomplish anything (Right or Wrong) while in office.

    If the person is not morally or ethically corrupt when they step into office, they by association, wind up that way. It’s like people in the media, Hollywood, professional sports and the list goes on, they are all subjects of their environments. The irony is that the largest percentage of them knowingly take advantage of the environment to further their own agenda. This is especially true and more advanced at the Federal level.

    What really baffles me is that the majority continues to accept more and more bad behavior from those ellected to represent them. That says a lot about our crumbling social order, and exemplifies the destructive path our society has accepted. NOTE: I said accepted not chosen, which is another example of social complacency.

    Even though a great many have chosen to stand and demand alternatives the majority of these non-representing representatives continue to thumb their noses and behave poorly; and oddly enough continue to get re-ellected. And that for the most part is because society accepts the fact that ellected officials are to one degree or another corrupt.

    Until we as a whole decide that we are no longer going to accept poor ethical behaivor by our representatives we will continually be given a choice at the polls:

    ____Bad
    ____Worse

    “Ted Nugent for President”

    That’s a choice I could happy with.

    CM

  19. Mathius,

    What if your boss had no morals or ethics and sent your wife pictures – but does his job excellently? I would guess that would be fine by you that his character was in the toilet? In a business capacity, it is irrelevant. Though, honestly, being (somewhat) human, I would probably have difficulty separating my out-of-work anger from my at-work professionalism.

    I strongly disagree.

    If you find yourself working for an immoral man, who cheats on his wife –why do you think he would not cheat on you, a person who has no intimacy or emotional attachments.

    If you work for a man who steals, why do you believe he will not try to steal from you?

    If you work for a man who lies, why do you believe he will not lie to you?

    If you work for an immoral man, why do you believe he will not ask you to do immoral acts on his business’ behalf??

    You will be perverted by this man if you stay with him.

    Leave — immediately.

    Find a moral man to sell your time for money – not only will you become wealthy, you will learn the right lessons and examples of life that will make you prosper on all aspects of your life.

    • Moral men “hang out” with other moral men, and stay at a distance from the immoral.

      If you work for an immoral man, you will be surrounded by immoral men. Other people will see you with them, and judge you the same.

      If you work for a moral man, you will be surrounded by moral men. Other people will see you with them, and judge you the same.

      • Now you’re getting crazy again, BF. Lose the morality clauses, the evil nonsense and leave it alone. The guy should be fired for cause, end of story.

        • Charlie,

          Evil – I have defined it often and well. You should, by now, have memorized it.

          Morals – are subjective. But society has built a series of such subjective to be fairly consistent.

          I couldn’t care less about a politician – he did what they all do, but he just got caught.

          So you are not punishing his actions, but is clumsiness – therefore, do not expect any better from his replacement other than his replacement will be less clumsy.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I don’t really feel like re-posting it.. did you see my initial post today?

      A man who will steal, even a little bit, is likely to be comfortable stealing a great deal. But that doesn’t necessarily equate to dishonest in other capacities.

      That has not been my experience. People compartmentalize their honest – a man who finds stealing evil may just as readily cheat on his wife constantly. And the converse is also true.

      If my boss is a thief, I would be hesitant to work for him since it is likely that he will cheat me out my money somehow.

      If my boss is a philanderer, that does not affect my business relationship with him. That does not mean that it’s likely (necessarily) that he’s also a thief. The two are separate, and you (and everyone else here) seems hell-bent on conflating them.

      Haven’t you ever known someone you would trust with your life, but not your wallet?

      • Mathius,

        A man who will steal, even a little bit, is likely to be comfortable stealing a great deal. But that doesn’t necessarily equate to dishonest in other capacities.

        I disagree – he is NOT restrained by his moral compass – he is merely restrained by the negative consequences other courses of action by create

        He steals, but won’t cheat on his wife – because he is afraid of the divorce and losing half of his stolen loot to the divorce.

        There was a good line in a movie with Billy Crystal in “City Slicker”.

        Bruno Kirby’s character is talking to Billy Crystal’s character and says something like:

        “The most beautiful woman you’ve ever seen lands in front of you from a spaceship.
        All she wants is to have sex with you for one night and then she’ll fly back home in her spaceship. No-one will ever know. Would you do it?”

        Billy Crystal’s character says “No. Because I would know…”

        An immoral man does not have that moral constraint – he does know, and his only restraint is the negative consequences of others that stops him.

        Haven’t you ever known someone you would trust with your life, but not your wallet?

        No.

      • Common Man says:

        Matt;

        I have known a number of people that some might trust with their life, but not their wallet, however I chose not to associate with them at work or in private life.

        BTW: We cannot know every person we come into contact with’s moral or ethical compass, at least until it is demonstrated, but once demonstrated we can chose to disassociate with that person.

        I chose to associate with only those whose compass points North.

        CM

        • Mathius™ says:

          Nobody’s compass points perfectly north.

          Nobody’s.

          Not you, certainly not me, not Flag, not even Dread Pirate Mathius.

          They’re all slightly off of true.

          And what I’m saying, and what you’ve acknowledged, is that there is not one compass, but many. One for theft, one for sexual fidelity, one for this, one for that, and they aggregate to something that might generally be called “integrity.” But nobody’s integrity is perfectly pointed “north.”

          Trust people in the capacities in which they are trustworthy, when in doubt, be cautious. But one compass being out of alignment doesn’t mean the rest necessarily are.

          • Mathius,

            I disagree again.

            We all make mistakes, but making a mistake is different from immoral behavior.

            I, for example, absently minded, walked out of a store carrying a bunch of magazines I had not paid for. I got all the way to my car, safely without hassle, then *wow* remembered I did not pay.

            An immoral man would have got in his car.
            A moral man walks back and pays.

            A vendor double shipped an order to me – worth a few hundred grand. There was no record of the second shipment, other than missing inventory for them. I could have easily held it, resold it, and made a few hundred grand pure profit.

            I sent it back to them.

            I clipped a car door with my van. No one saw.
            I left a note and paid for the damages.

            When I was 4 years old, I shop lifted a piece of gum. Before I got home, I ran back to the store, threw the 10c on the counter, and ran out.

            I’ve made lots of mistakes, but the key is not to turn them into an immoral act.

            —————

            This politician did make a mistake – he broadcast his immoral behavior.

            Had he not erred, nothing would have changed for him, he would have continued his philandering with no consequences for awhile longer.

            His mistake was the email. His behavior, attitude and world view is immoral

            • Mathius™ says:

              Once again, I see the world as more complicated than you. C’est la vie, non?

              • Mathius,

                All your comment attempts to do is justify immoral behavior. The world is complex, but your moral principle is immutable. It is the measuring stick of all your good and bad, and if you contradict it, no matter how worldly successful you may become, you will suffer horribly.

                You know what is right and wrong.
                There is no mystery for you here.
                There is no struggle.
                You know when you are about to do something immoral and you know when you are not.

                No one needs to define this for you – you figured this out by the time you were 10 years old.

                You do or do not.
                If the only restraint is the fear of consequences, your moral compass is bent.

                When you know you are true to your core principle, even if the whole world rages against you, you know you are still right. You cannot be moved off of your immutable bedrock of moral principle.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Who is justifying? I’m not saying it’s ok.. I’m not justifying anything.

                I’m saying that it’s none of my business.

          • Common Man says:

            It is not so much how true your compass points North as it is how true you are to that “North” heading. Since we are all human we all make mistakes, but if our aim is true and our integrity is true then even when we temporarily stray, our journey will correct itself.

            CM

  20. V.H.

    Not sure that I can-it is a word-one I use to define when man purposely and intentionally causes great harm

    Ah, that is a key, isn’t it?

    Most of use words expressing concepts that we have NOT done hard work to truly understand.

    Then when these words are used against us, we are disarmed by the fuddle, the mumble , and the confusion.

    So I urge hard thing about definitions, such as “good”, “evil”, “freedom”, “government” …. etc. and watch the contradictions pop up….then work hard to remove the contradictions.

    -but in the end I believe it is God’s job to define the evilness of one’s very soul.

    I am not at all concerned with God or the Universe; it is what it is.

    The parable of Jesus that a man sinning in his heart is the same as a sin in reality is trying to teach the same lesson I am dialoguing with Mathius.

    Your moral principle must be immutable. For if you contradict that, you destroy yourself.

    If you are merely restrained by the consequences of others, you are sinning in your heart. Free from those consequences, you will sin.

    If your heart will not let you sin, then you have no fear of restraint of anything – you do not need harsh consequences to restrain you – and then, you find yourself free.

  21. But I do care what God thinks, my friend, and my problem with the usage of the word is that I connect it to judging a mans soul, which again I believe only God has the right to do. I do however also realize that it is a word that man is going to use to judge a man and his actions. Trying to use the word as purely secular and as mans way of determining a mans character with our limited knowledge of his heart and without seeing it as me believing I have the right to condemn another to hell is hard. So I probably over react to the word-many who use it are not saying they have the right to determine where another spends eternity. So I find I need a persons definition for the word in order to judge it’s meaning.

    But I do not disagree with what you are trying to tell Mathius.

  22. Mathius™ says:

    plainlyspoken,

    These lies and immoral actions were relevant to his job.

    Remember that when you have a child. You need not teach them that good character values are necessary to their professional life since it has no bearing on how well they accomplish their work.

    I wouldn’t necessarily want to be friends with a dirtbag who cheats on his wife. As such, I wouldn’t want my children to grow up to be dirtbags who have lousy character values in their personal lives. As such, I plan to teach them how to be good people.

    But insofar as I judge the worth of a politician in terms of their service, only their service matters to me. Do I care that my trash collector is a druggie who kicks his dog and never brushes his teeth? No, because he picks up my trash every week on time, never makes a mess, and does the job for a fair price. So who cares how he is in his personal life?

    And Wiener’s lies were relevant to his job – if for nothing else it is in his use of public property and public supported communications (do we really think he pays for his internet service out of his personal pocket?). Character counts, or so the public service ads tells us.

    You’ve got me here. I would have to know the full terms of his employment contract with the federal government. It certainly seems to me that he’s in violation of his contract, as such the an investigation and prosecution may be waranted. I don’t have all the facts, but this certainly seems like a legitimate offense on those grounds.

    Just be sure to prosecute everyone in the federal government who uses publicly funded internet and computers to browse Facebook or update their fantasy football teams. If we’re going to charge Wiener for incorrect use of public property, we should apply the law equally to everyone, no? It hardly seems fair to beat one person up with the law because we don’t like what he’s doing while ignoring the actions of everyone else who is also violating the law (albeit in less offensive ways). It is my sincere belief that there wouldn’t be a single person at the federal level with access to a computer who isn’t in violation to some degree or another of this policy/law/whatever. But hell, they agreed to the terms, they should abide by them – charge ’em all!

    We will never agree about the roll of character in behavior simply because you will ignore any behavior that is not a crime apparently.

    It has nothing to do with it being or not being a crime. It has to do with it being or not being any of my business. Wiener’s wiener is none of my business. What he does with it is none of my business. Who he sends pictures of it to is none of my business. My business is the laws that he passes which impact me.

    I hope you give the same public support to the next right wing dirtbag who is found to have little moral character. We’ll wait and see.

    Count on it.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Mathius, I see where you are coming from. I am a mind my own business kind of guy. IMO, where this crosses the line is the fact that Weiner is a public official. I realize that he represents only his constituency, but how he votes affects everyone. It is a problem when these constituents keep voting in these dirtbags, and I have no doubt that if he survives this he will be elected again…a truly sad situation IMO…that exists in a lot of places and is one thing that definitely reaches across the isle.

    • If we’re going to charge Wiener for incorrect use of public property, we should apply the law equally to everyone, no?

      That’s the point, you Westchester head you … you or I would get fired. Why shouldn’t Weiner? Who the hell is he not to get fired? We pay his salary. He’s fired!

    • Just be sure to prosecute everyone in the federal government who uses publicly funded internet and computers to browse Facebook or update their fantasy football teams

      I have no problem with everyone being treated the same. But let’s be honest you or Wiener – who is more likely to get a pass from DOJ on the law violation?

      Do I care that my trash collector is a druggie who kicks his dog and never brushes his teeth? No, because he picks up my trash every week on time, never makes a mess, and does the job for a fair price. So who cares how he is in his personal life?

      But, the difference being you don’t know anything about your trash collector. How would you feel if he was selling those drugs to your kids? Or a friends kids? And, doing so while he drove his trash truck picking up your trash? You’d be fine with him continuing to be your neighborhood trash collector since his drug selling has nothing to do with his collection abilities?

      I find it interesting that you’d teach your kids to have good character and yet to not judge someones character in deciding whether or not to associate with those of poor character – especially since it would be none of their business.

  23. V.H.

    But I do care what God thinks

    “God” talks Science and Mathematics.

    From that, this is what he thinks:
    “There shall be no contradictions, and after that thy will (that is, YOUR will, V.H.) shall be done”

    What you do after that is you, not God.
    You define -for yourself- what is moral or immoral, not God.

    • 🙂 I believe that is what you think, BF and I find the dialogue’s we have interesting and sometimes educational but in this one-I think I will interpret God’s word for myself. Afterall, it is my actions and my beliefs I will have to answer for-not yours.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I knew it was only a matter of time before Black Flag directly interpreted the will and thoughts of God with absolute conviction…

      • BF defines God as the universe-so will or thoughts have nothing to do with it-at least as far as I can figure out-although I admit to not understanding why one would insist on calling the universe God and insisting that they believe in God when it is so in conflict with the normal or accepted definition of a God. And No BF -you do not have to accept the normal definition but I do sometimes think you are confusing the issue -just for fun. 🙂

      • I didn’t know God knew science and mathematics. Learn somethin new every day! 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Anita,

          God IS science and mathematics.

        • Anita,

          You didn’t know God knew science and math??!?

          How the heck do you think we learn about the Universe?

          Mathematics is the language of the Universe.
          Science is the discovery and understand of the Laws of the Universe.

          You want to listen to God? Learn math.
          You want to know God? Do Science.

      • Mathius,

        It takes no genius to know God. Look out the window, or drop a rock on your foot.

        “Thou shalt have no contradictions, and if you try, I will deliver you evil”

  24. Mathius,

    Who is justifying? I’m not saying it’s ok.. I’m not justifying anything.

    I’m saying that it’s none of my business.

    But it is your business – we are here because of the discussion about “working for an immoral man”.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I don’t work for him.

      He works for me.

      What he does outside of the scope of my employment of him is none of my business.

      • Mathius,

        How can you possibly have an employee that is immoral?!??!

        Eeek!

        • Mathius™ says:

          BECAUSE IT’S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

          • Mathius,

            But it is your business – he is your employee

            If you hire immoral men, people WILL JUDGE you as immoral.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Then judge me. Go ahead, I won’t try to stop you.

              The actions, moral or immoral, outside of the scope of employment (that is, in his private live) are none of my business.

              Just like I would tell my boss to go f*** himself if he told me that I can’t drink Red Bull at home, I fully recognize (grudgingly) his right to tell me I can’t drink it at work. My private life, none of his business. My work life, his business.

              • Flip flop! V had you convinced yesterday, what happened overnight?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Will respond below.. give me a few minutes to type it out (messed up my finger last night.. slows down my typing)

  25. It has to do with it being or not being any of my business.

    I would agree with you that is none of our business except for two points:

    1. He used public, tax dollar funded, equipment, places and services for some of this activities – so that makes it our “business” IMHO.

    2. You are a financial unknown somebody working in the Treasury Department (I know, I know – it won’t happen because the pay scale sucks) and are caught updating your Fantasy Football games on government time and using a government computer It is reported publicly so the whole worlds knows. Tell me which one, you or Wiener, will affect the reputation of the nation overall in their dealings with other nations?

    I could care less that he a twisted little freak, that’s between him, his wife, and the others he’s interacting with – until it affects our national reputation and until I find out he’s doing it on the public dime (even to a small degree).

    Wiener should go and he knows it.

    • Mathius™ says:

      1. I agree. Show me that he used public property/internet and that this violates his agreement and I’ll back prosecution/termination, or whatever the contract/policy specifies.

      2. Why should two people be treated differently under the law just because one is high profile? When Lindsay Lohan gets parole for the 15th time, don’t we cry how it’s unfair that she should be treated differently? Yet you suggest exactly the opposite, that the high-profile should have the book thrown at them while the nobody gets a slap on the wrist?

      Why? Equal protection under the law, equal enforcement under the law. If he gets axed, so should the treasury nobody. If the treasury gets a warning in their file, so should Wiener. If Wiener gets referred for prosecution, so should the nobody. I see nothing that justifies special treatment just because it’s public.

      • Because in their character some people must be held to a higher standard based of their position of trust. Now if we follow your thinking then there is a lot of tax money to be saved as we no longer will need pre-employment polygraph examinations, background investigations, or psychological screenings to fill positions of trust – like police officers, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, investigators, CIA/NSA/DIA/etc agents and personnel, and so on…………since their character will have nothing to do with their ability to keep a secret or perform their duties.

        Of course I want them to live in your town, teach your kids, monitor your activities – since for me character counts and guys like Wiener do NOT qualify in my book.

        • Mathius™ says:

          We do screenings etc because things things generally provide a best-guess as to the ability of the person to perform their job function.

          If you for for the NSA, keeping a secret is part of your job. Thus a high level of trust is required. Thus they try to ascertain that you are trustworthy by examining various aspects of your life and personality because they serve as good indicators of your trustworthiness.

          But they don’t always work, as we well know.

          Character has a lot to do with the ability to keep a secret or perform duties, but all I’m saying (for the Nth time) is that it’s more complicated than “he has bad character in this aspect, thus he can’t be trusted in any capacity.” That’s like saying, “he’s not good at math, so he can’t be trusted to be a good English teacher.” Huh?

          Why is it that we can accept that the human brain is massively complex, yet we persist in this simplistic vision of it as though “good” and “bad” were blanket statements – that a person is good in all aspects or, by default, bad in all aspects?

          The human brain is very compartmentalized. And where a man, like Wiener, may have a weakness or a lack of morality, such as for women, there is not necessarily a direct link to honesty outside of that area of his brain. I’m madly in love with my wife, but if Sofia Vergara were to try to seduce me, I doubt I would be able to stop myself from committing an, er, indiscretion. But I don’t think there is any amount of money you could place on the table in front of me that I would be tempted to just steal – no matter if I thought I could get away with it. Does this mean that I can’t be trusted in any aspect? I hardly think so.

          • Mathius

            I am not saying that his doing what he did-means he is an EVIL person without any redeeming qualities. But he proved without a doubt that when he was caught doing something he knew would endanger his job he lied-repeatedly-he from reports asked other people to lie for him. Yes, this is more normal than not but He proved that to protect his job he would do unethical things. We have no way of knowing what or how far he would go to protect his job. But we know he will be unethical-He has lost his ability to be trusted in such an important job. He should go.

            • Mathius™ says:

              V. That’s a fair argument.

              It’s hard to say if he was “protecting his job” or “protecting himself” though I’d say that both are probably true. You’re case is actually very strong – I don’t know if this is the case you’ve been trying to make all day, and if it is, sorry for being dense – multitasking doesn’t always produce my best work…

              I would say that most people will lie, cheat, and steal (to some degree) to protect something that’s important to them – namely themselves or their positions. That doesn’t make it right, but it is human nature, and it is understandable if not condonable.

              Essentially, given what you’ve said, if he found himself in another situation where the choice is to protect himself or do the right thing (whatever that may be), he has shown himself to be the type who will protect himself first. He has also shown himself to be the type of person where such a scenario is possible and likely due to personal indiscretion. That’s a fair statement and, regrettably, I agree with you.

              That said, I would still contend that the ultimate choice is up to the people that elected him. They, alone, have the decision of whether or not they find him trustworthy. It’s still none of my business.

              But you know something, V. You’ve convinced one person today. If he were in my district, I wouldn’t vote for him now based solely on your argument (that is, unless he’s running against someone worse – and he almost certainly will be (sometimes it’s still better to vote for someone who you don’t like or trust instead than a guy you do like and trust but who believes (and will vote) differently than you would like)). But, ceteris paribus, you just cost him my vote.

              V, my hat is off you to.

              • That is another reason why he should loose his job based an ethics charges-Then someone else could run in his place and you would not feel forced to vote for someone who has already been proven to be unacceptable.

            • V.H.

              He has lost his ability to be trusted in such an important job. He should go

              You mean you trusted before this???

              • I smell a trap 🙂 but what the heck-No, but when all doubt has been removed than these people, at the very least should be removed.

              • V.H.

                All of them are like him. He just got caught.

                So you actually you believe he should be fired because he was merely clumsy, not that he was immoral – because if it because of morals, you would not want anyone who endeavored for political power – which means you would never want government.

                But you want government.

                So I will guess, you are merely punishing clumsy, and don’t really care about the morality of it all…..

              • Ha-I knew it was a trap not just a joke. 🙂 I will say that you do not have the knowledge to condemn every man or woman who runs for office. You cannot read their minds or know their motivation. Condemn government if you wish-I will only argue a little-but people are complicated and some actually want and try to do good. I object to his actions based on many arguments-most were heard here today maybe all-will have to think about what all was said. But I was arguing based on Mathius reasoning. I would have liked to have convinced him that other arguments are right too. But at least he has agreed that even based on his own reasoning about morality and when one has a right to judge that Weiner should go.

          • And what I am saying for the Nth time is that Wiener’s character is integral to his performance as a member of Congress. That he has good values, morals, ethics and some intelligence – to me at least – provide a “best guess” at his ability to perform his job.

            Now, since I was a cop and have gone through those evaluations more than once for employment – they are NOT indicators of ability to perform. What is being checked on is mental stability and your MORALITY. Period. End of sentence.

            Having a DUI in your background disqualifies you from some departments. How does that indicate your performance capabilities? In New Hampshire I had a friend turned down to become a police officer because he admitted to adultery in his past. In New Hampshire at that time, don’t know about now, adultery was a crime! His occurred in another state, several years prior and he was turned down for police work. Please explain to me how that is an indicator of his abilities to perform the duties of police officer?

            While I agree that the human brain is complicated, we’re now talking about he brain. We are talking about conscience choices and their impact on your moral standing (character) and how that may/,ay not/should/should not be viewed in context of your position of trust.

            Plus it is more than just his lack of sexual morality – he lied Mathius. He initiated, by lying, a coverup of his behavior. Come on man, are you saying you trust that he hasn’t or wouldn’t lie about his work as a Representative then because that is different somehow from his lying about his sexual proclivities?

            If, as you state, the government is just trying to determine if the NSA employee is trustworthy – do you suppose they would hire an admitted liar? Or keep one working for their agency? Why should a Congressmen not be viewed the same? He lied – he isn’t trustworthy.

            • Plainly,

              All Congress men lie.

              Now, come again why you still elect them??

              • I won’t be BF – I am done wasting my time voting for federal government representatives. But, while State and local politicians lie too I will still try to find ones who – even lacking some morals – might, just might, be decent enough to be elected.

                I know it is a crap shoot, but until I can bring myself to advocate for no government (which I won’t until the proof of the change in human behavior can make it so) then I will support some for of extremely limited government. I can’t trust humanity much more than I can politicians to act honorably.

              • that should be “form” and not “for” in the second paragraph. Sorry for the typo.

  26. GO mavs

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m sorry, who?

    • Not a big NBA fan but I was really cheering for the Mavs. Dirk seems like a class act and I like Cubans kidlike enthusiasm (and how he turned the mic over to the coach and players at the celebration last night).

      The Mavs seemed like a bunch of old school guys (and just plain old in Jason Kidd’s case – NBA wise, of course) compared to the ego-centric, all about us trio on the other side.

      • I “met” Dirk a few years ago on an elevator at the Memphis Peabody. My wife & I were chatting with a hostess and we all looked up at this tall blond that walked in and everyone was suddenly silent. I turned to him and said “I’m glad you walked in, she’s(the hostess) been trash talking Texas big time”.
        Dirk smiled, pulled out his earbuds and just started talking with all of us, polite and laid back. He then whipped the Grizzlies and was the high scorer in that game.

    • basketball? I mean, is that even a sport? Really? 🙂

  27. V.H.

    I will say that you do not have the knowledge to condemn every man or woman who runs for office.

    But I can and do.

    They are people who believe they know better than you about you.
    They are people who believe they know how to spend your money better than you.
    They are people who believe you do not have rights.
    They are people who believe doing violence on non-violent people creates good.

    I condemn them for reason and because they do not reason – they are a barbarian class, and are enemies of civilization.

    You cannot read their minds or know their motivation

    But I do know their motivation.

    They cannot convince other men of the ideas by reason – and therefore resort to force.

    . Condemn government if you wish-I will only argue a little-but people are complicated and some actually want and try to do good.

    They are not trying to do good, except for themselves.

    when one has a right to judge that Weiner should go

    You cannot name 5 moral Congressmen.

    Most people operate in this manner:
    “What I do not see, but I do know, I will pretend I do not know.
    If you are clumsy, you must go, for you will have shattered my illusions and pretense”.

    • I do not attempt to name 5 moral congressmen or people because there is not even 0ne COMPLETELY moral human being
      walking this earth(which I admit is my belief -you of course do not have to agree), but there are many good people. And I repeat- you do not have the necessary knowledge it would take to judge all based on your beliefs about government. Some believe the only way to fight government is within government. Something you actually encourage at the local level at least during a transition to no government.

      You of course simply want to leave that transition period out of your evaluation of people in government and just condemn them all based on your belief that government action can only produce evil.

      Me, I think that is an unfair assessment-an assessment that ignores a reality that you know we cannot ignore. That taking all the knives out at once thing applies- even when one looks solely at your arguments.

      • V.H.

        You are bantering amd avoiding the obvious.

        No one is perfect, which is why no man has a right to rule over you.

        2nd, perfection is not the issue – MORAL is. And mistakes do not make a moral man immoral.

        I do have the necessary knowledge by fact of observation – moral men DO NOT desire rule over others.

        Some believe you can change a system within that system designed to prevent change. Such men are irrational, and I do not take their efforts, position, or argument seriously at all in that matter.

        Do not muddle where our dialogue is rooted. We are talking Congressmen and Federal politics – throwing dirt in the air to obscure this discussion with my dialogue regarding local politics is pointless.

        I condemn evil – always. To let evil “get a pass” means you encourage it.

        The reality of repairing the harm is completely different from understanding evil.

        I understand it, I know it, I speak against it – that is how things change, not by holding illusions or pretense.

        In the matter of this particular politician, he has done nothing that any of them have done and are doing – his mistake, he was clumsy, and shattered the Sheeple’s illusion about the regency of political “leadership”.

        • Geez VH!… bantering, avoiding, irrational,muddling, throwing dirt, holding illusions….pull yourself together would ya? 🙂

  28. FLAG DAY..whatcha gonna do about it?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Crap. Because what he needed was a nationally recognized pseudo-holiday in his honor.

      June 26th is Mathius day, by the way, in case anyone cares to celebrate. 🙂

      • Naten53 says:

        I will not go to work this year on Mathius Day

        • Mathius™ says:

          It’s being observed on Friday the 24th due to its falling on a weekend this year.

          It is typically celebrated with the drinking of several vodka Red Bulls.

  29. Common Man says:

    Heard on the news this morning that the Weiner has been granted a leave of absense so he can check himself into Sex rehab. He probably figures that by the time he gets out the Media will have found another political moron to bagger.

    What a joke!
    CM

  30. Matt, are you seriously saying that there are no decent people who will pass the laws you want? I mean, if you have to find guys like weiner to have people who pass laws and be the legislator you seek, then maybe you should figure out why no decent folk will pass the sort of laws you like….

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m saying it’s none of my business if they’re decent or not in their personal lives. It is my business if they decent in their professional lives.

      But, to answer your implied question: why are no decent folks interested in passing the sort of laws I like? The answer is that no decent folks are interested in subjecting themselves to public scrutiny for the sake of power the way politicians are. No decent folks have the sort of narcissistic sociopathy required to believe that they should be in charge of everybody. So, I make due with what I’ve got. :/

  31. Bama dad says:

    Minor highjack here.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110613/ts_atlantic/newpowersfbijustgranteditself38763

    More intrusion from big government, USW watch out for the last one.

  32. Mathius™ says:

    Lady Anita,

    Flip flop! V had you convinced yesterday, what happened overnight?

    V’s argument (again, assuming I understood correctly – I am a little slow, after all) is that Wiener has demonstrated that his loyalty is to himself not to doing the “right” thing. That is, he’s willing to lie to people to protect himself in order to keep his job. The online transgression itself is, to me, none of my business. It is completely irrelevant to the scope of his employment as far as I am concerned (though there may be a case against him for misuse of government property, but that is another discussion). His lack of integrity in terms of marital fidelity is possibly indicative of lack of integrity in terms of politics, but it is not proof to me.

    HOWEVER, he was willing to lie for political expedience. My initial thought process had his cover-up lies as linked only to the private life (which they are), but the reason for the lies was and had to be to protect his job as well. Once he encouraged other people to lie as well, the magnitude of the immorality escalates. This shows a lack of integrity in the political sphere. Once this is displayed, V.H.’s conclusion is inescapable to me.

    The political sphere is the job for which we employ him. If he cannot be trusted in this capacity, then it is as if I hired a security guard who steals. The moral failing directly impacts on my confidence in his ability to do his job as directed. V’s argument that he might be susceptible to blackmail is only one possibility. I find it far more plausible that if he will lie for one thing, he will lie for others – shady dealings, misrepresenting legislation, misrepresenting his record, etc. He has shown that, within the bounds of his job, his priority is himself and keeping his job and that is not acceptable to me, his employer.

    Now, Anita, you suggest that I flip-flop with this assertion:

    Just like I would tell my boss to go f*** himself if he told me that I can’t drink Red Bull at home, I fully recognize (grudgingly) his right to tell me I can’t drink it at work. My private life, none of his business. My work life, his business.

    The first, and important thing to note is that there’s nothing immoral about poisoning oneself with a delicious ice cold refreshing Red Bull.

    The next thing to note is that if he is completely within his rights to dictate what I may and may not do while at work. While it pissed me off that he would mandate something like that, I do recognize that he has a right to do so – he’s paying me to behave a certain way – that certain way involves doing work, acting professionally, looking professionally, and not drinking Red Bull. (that I drink it anyway when he’s not around may be indicative that I have a lack of professional integrity (probably true) but that’s beside the point). If he fired me for it, he would be completely justified.

    HOWEVER, what I do on my own time is none of his business. The scope of my employment does not incorporate what I do at home except as it impacts my company in any public way (ie, I can’t defame them on the internet (by name, anyway 😉 )). I don’t have to look presentable (and I don’t). I don’t have to act professionally (and I don’t). And I will drink whatever I damn well please (and I do). It’s not pertinent to the job what I do in the privacy of my own home to my job – he has the power to demand it (at-will employment sucks that way) and I have the right to tell him to get lost, because it’s none of his business.

    • I have never in my life been addressed as Lady Anita..I’m cracking up here! You would crack up if I listed the names I’ve been called 🙂 I’ll just take the title as a compliment.! In all fairness, when this topic came up the other day, I was with the crowd saying he shouldn’t be let go..for the same reasons you listed. But as the game continued, Breitbart had more pics up his sleeve, and Weiner danced around the reporter’s questions, it was obvious that he was lying. To continue the lie for days tells all. What amazes me is that you,Matt, are wise to the games but you still continued to stick up for him. Charlie said something about blind faith. He was right on. Luckily, V set you straight. I’m still with you that what you do outside work is no one’s business, but this problem got national attention and he lied for days. Not cool. He’d have been better off to keep his mouth shut, let Breitbart post the pics then humbly apologize.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I wasn’t convinced he did it. Breitbart is a serial scam artist and pathological liar. Once Wiener fessed up though, I was only very mildly surprised. But that’s his business, not mine. The lying is what gets me.. I wasn’t thinking of it as political and, in retrospect, I should have. Lying is, of course, pervasive in politics, but that doesn’t mean I, as an employer, am ok with it. I don’t know if it warants The Boot or not – and I still think this is a matter for his constituents – but the lying would count as a black mark against him if I were considering my ballot choices.

        He’d have been better off to keep his mouth shut, let Breitbart post the pics then humbly apologize. 100% agreement.

  33. And for those who support the Honorable Mr. Weiner based on his voting record. First topic, he’s at the extreme pro-abortion, a perfect tie with Obama, for federal funding of abortion, for partial birth abortion, against
    Child Interstate Abortion Notification(how can anyone justify denying a parent the right to know if their child is having an abortion?) Anyone want to take a looksee on other issues and consider if his job performance justifies him remaining in office?

    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=23162

    Abortion Issues
    (Back to top)
    Date Bill Title Vote Outcome
    05/04/2011 Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion
    HR 3 N Bill Passed – House (251 – 175)
    02/18/2011 Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood
    H Amdt 95 N Amendment Adopted – House (240 – 185)
    11/07/2009 Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services
    H Amdt 509 N Amendment Adopted – House (240 – 194)
    11/07/2009 Substitute Health Care and Insurance Law Amendments
    H Amdt 510 N Amendment Rejected – House (176 – 258)
    12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill
    HR 6099 N Bill Failed – House (250 – 162)
    09/26/2006 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
    S 403 N Bill Passed – House (264 – 153)
    06/09/2006 Foreign Operations and Export Finance Appropriation Act
    HR 5522 Y Bill Passed – House (373 – 34)
    05/25/2005 Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment
    H AMDT 209 Y Amendment Rejected – House (194 – 233)
    04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
    HR 748 N Bill Passed – House (270 – 157)
    10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth/Late Term Abortion bill
    S 3 N Conference Report Adopted – House (281 – 142)
    06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth/Late Term Abortion Bill
    HR 760 N Bill Passed – House (282 – 139)
    04/26/2001 Violence Against Fetuses/Unborn Children Amendment
    H Amdt 27 Y Amendment Rejected – House (196 – 229)
    07/20/2000 Abortion Funding Amendment
    H Amdt 1017 Y Amendment Rejected – House (184 – 230)
    07/13/2000 Family Planning Assistance Funding amendment
    H Amdt 997 Y Amendment Rejected – House (206 – 221)
    06/22/2000 Prison Abortion Funding Amendment
    H Amdt 882 Y Amendment Rejected – House (156 – 254)

    • Terry Evans says:

      LOI…not defending the dirtbag, but these votes in and of themselves are not a reason for him to not be in office…his constituency evidently prefers he vote like that given that he has bee re-elected several times…I maintain, if he weathers this storm, he will be re-elected again…

    • Mathius™ says:

      First topic, he’s at the extreme pro-abortion, a perfect tie with Obama, for federal funding of abortion, for partial birth abortion, against
      Child Interstate Abortion Notification(how can anyone justify denying a parent the right to know if their child is having an abortion?)

      First off, no one is “pro-abortion”. Wiener and President Obama are in favor of allowing women the choice to do what they wish with their body without the government being involved in the matter. I always find it amazing how people here can want government out of their lives so badly, yet support the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her uterus.

      That said, how can anyone justify denying a parent the right to know if their child is having an abortion? I’m assuming we’re talking about minor children here. I don’t know how I feel about this, but generally, even as a minor, I think that a girls uterus is hers and her business alone. The government shouldn’t be involved. If a doctor wants to require it, that’s fine. But I think the government should stay out of it.

      Isn’t that what you always want? For the government to stay out of everyone’s private lives?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Wiener and President Obama are in favor of allowing women the choice to do what they wish with their body without the government being involved in the matter.

        Except they would choose to deny that same woman the right to protect herself using her 2nd Amendment rights. The hipocracy of the Dems never ceases.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Don’t forget the Red Shirts are guilty of the exact inverse hypocrisy.

          They say government should get out of everyone’s business and then pass laws to control what a doctor can and can’t ask a patient about and they mandate medically inaccurate scripts to be read to patients. And they require unnecessary counceling. And they require patients to pay for and view untrasounds for no reason other than to maniupate and pressure them into behaving the way the Red Shirts want.

          I could go on, but I just threw up in my mouth.

          The hypocrisy of the Dems Republicans never ceases.

      • Terry Evans says:

        Yes…that is correct, for me at least…but (you knew there would be one) in the same vein, why do they have to have a Federal law that allows it? IMO, that should be a state/local issue…

        • Mathius™ says:

          The official stand of the federal government seems to be that a woman has a right to exercise control over her uterus. That said, the federal government is blocking the states from taking away a woman’s rights. Thus, a justification for federal law.

          The Red Shirts have been chipping away at this bit by bit by bit. Maybe the pendulum will swing back, maybe not. But if the Red Shirts had their way, there’d be a federal ban on abortions. If there were such a ban at the federal level, would you still say that it should be a states issue? (I suspect you would, but not everyone else here)

          Should it be a states right? Should this be legal? Should it be illegal? Is it moral? Is it murder? That’s a much bigger conversion than I want to get int here.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Yea…I would still maintain it be a state/local issue. That would provide the freedom for folks to gravitate to those localities where their ideology applied…

            • Mathius™ says:

              Terry.. while I (very generally) agree in principle, this works fine in the small states. If you live in Rhode Island, you can drive 20 minutes and be in a state where it’s legal. I live on the NY/CT border and could reasonably move between them without a major shock to my life if NY law became too onerous.

              But what about people in, say Alaska or the middle of Montana? If those states start futzing with individual rights, should they have to leave everyone and everything they know and move hundreds or thousands of miles?

              • Terry Evans says:

                If their ideology is that important, yes. Otherwise, conform or get enough like minded individuals to get the laws changed…much more viable than at a national level.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Seems to me that if this is the approach we’re going to take then every state should be broken down to a geographical area such that one can move without completely disrupting their lives. Perhaps, more to the point, these types of laws should be made at the local rather than state level?

              • Terry Evans says:

                That is certainly a possibility…the states themselves should decide how granular those situations would be…IMO.

          • Mathius has the right of the thinking here – even though I personally do not believe in abortion.

            The right constantly calls for getting government out of the business of interfering with individual rights and freedoms, yet they would happily pass laws that interfere with those rights and freedoms. Abortion is a MORAL issue, not a legal one (in my opinion at least). Mathius, also correctly, pointed out that it is the parents who should be teaching their child the moral standard, building that trust so that the child would be forthcoming to their parents for guidance and help.

            • Abortion is a criminal issue and I am not at all ready to give over my children to the state. Hell this is just to damn depressing to even debate today- Just keep supporting that which you know is wrong-see what it leads too.

      • Matt,

        I’m assuming we’re talking about minor children here.(yes)
        ” I don’t know how I feel about this, but generally, even as a minor, I think that a girls uterus is hers and her business alone.”
        (so if a teacher or 21 yr old cousin impregnates a twelve yr old, you are OK with them just driving that minor to an abortion clinic and having a surgical procedure done without a parent being notified? The working parent(s) trusting the school/family member can now trust the abortion clinic to make changes to prevent this from happening again.)

        “The government shouldn’t be involved. ”
        ( The government should not be deciding what a child can and can’t do for themselves. A child’s right to privacy is limited to what the child’s parents decide is appropriate. A child with a drug addiction will not have as much privacy as an honor student. A child pregnant at an early age may be grounded until they show themselves mature enough to be with friends, except Mr. Weiner doesn’t think parents need to know when their daughter is knocked up, and who the possible father might be. This should be called the protect child molesters privacy act.)

        • Mathius™ says:

          Personally, I might draw a distinction between a 12 year old and a 17 year old.. but that’s just me.

          Tugging on my heartstrings about statutory rape and incest is not going to change the fact that a woman owns her own body and that the decision is her’s alone. What’s next on your list? Should a teenager have to get a note from a parent to buy a condom? California tried to pass this when I was 17 – I wasn’t happy about the prospect.

          Government out! Simple.

          Don’t want your kid having an abortion? Develop a degree of trust with your child where they feel they can talk to you. Teach them about safe sex. Teach them responsibility. Teach them not to have sex with their cousin or teacher. Raise a good kid.

          But don’t use the power of the government – a power which you abhor in all other contexts – to serve ends that you just so happen to agree with and then complain when it overreaches elsewhere.

          • “But don’t use the power of the government – a power which you abhor in all other contexts – to serve ends that you just so happen to agree with and then complain when it overreaches elsewhere.”

            Sorry Matt, but I think there are cases where parental consent is required. Condoms, no. Surgical procedures, yes. And I have reason to doubt the ability of the government to ensure the well-being of a child when they allow abortions to twelve yr old’s, but won’t let them see a movie with sex in it.

            Restricted

            R – Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying adult over the age of 18. The person is required to stay with the child under 17 through the entire movie, even if the parent gives the child/teenager permission to see the film alone. These films may contain mild or implied sex scenes, prolonged nudity, strong violence often with blood and gore, strong horror scenes and explicit/illegal/prolonged drug use. A movie rated R for profanity often has more severe or frequent swearing than the PG-13 rating would permit. An R-rated movie may have more blood, gore, drug use, nudity, or graphic sexuality than a PG-13 movie would permit. Some R-rated films have an “unrated” DVD release with scenes of violence, sexual material, or profanity that have been edited from the original cut. At its inception, the R certificate permitted patrons aged 16 and older to attend unaccompanied, but this was raised to 17 in the 1970s.

            NC-17 – No One Under 17 Admitted – These films contain strong graphic violence with loads of blood and gore, sex scenes, depraved, abhorrent behavior, sexual nudity, or any other elements which, at present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children and teenagers.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I think the movie ratings are overreaching as well.. but I will mention that, to my understanding, movie theaters comply voluntarily with the rating system and are not forced by government mandate. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty confident in this.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Sorry Matt, but I think there are cases where parental consent is required. Condoms, no. Surgical procedures, yes.

              Great.. can you clarify for me what the difference is between these two? What logic are you using to draw this line other than that your gut reaction is that this is where the line should be drawn?

              • Terry Evans says:

                Pardon the interruption, but it appears that you are asking what is the difference between a rubber and surgery…certainly that is not the case…???

              • Mathius™ says:

                Terry, no one invited you to this conversation. Kindly see your way out. I’m having fun with LOI and don’t need to you gum up the works with your so-called “rational perspectives.”

                If he want to make his case he’s going to have to prove it out. I see surgery and condoms as very different, but how ’bout The Pill? That’s somewhere between them, no? Should that require consent? Why/why not? I just want to understand why he thinks that certain things a minor should be allowed to do and other things justify the government interfering with.

                🙂

              • Terry Evans says:

                Sorry…slow day and I am just having a little fun. But to answer your question, yes the pill seems to fall somewhere in between, and IMO should be left up to the parents as to when or if the pill would be allowed.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Matt,

                It is a parents right to raise a child as they see fit. The Fedral government should not be involved in this at all, it’s none of their business. 95% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control. 97% of abortion clinics are located in poor urban neighborhoods. Abortion is nothing more than a form of Eugenics. If you were to study Eugenics, you would see that abortion is a big part of those that promote it.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Gman,

                If you studied my posts, you’d see that my problem with eugenics is in the way it has been applied (ie, by external force, ergo evil). You would also note that I have nothing against self-selecting participation in eugenics and do believe that it can, in a broad sense, work.

                But we already had that argument and it was just a little too exhausting to have again so soon.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Terry, so what’s the difference between the Pill and the Rubber that justifies government intervention?

              • Terry Evans says:

                I don’t believe the government has any justification in either…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Terry, so what’s the difference between the Pill and the Abortion that justifies government intervention?

          • Common Man says:

            Matt;

            You are so correct and your point is well made. The government (local, state or federal) has no Constitutional right or authority to mandate how a women or a man treats their own body. And the government has no right to write laws that punish a person for using their body however they decide they want to as long as it does not violate the same rights of another.

            If we embrace individual liberty and freedom from a Universial perspective then we know longer have a discussion of this nature. No one person or group of persons can invoke authority over another person or persons and violate that persons rights at the same time.

            And yes, how a child is raised is up to the parents.

            CM

  34. Mathius,

    Then judge me. Go ahead, I won’t try to stop you.

    …that’s my point. You can’t stop me.

    You are supporting immoral men, surrounding yourself with immoral men, ergo, you must be an immoral man.

    Moral men avoid immoral men

    Yo do not avoid immoral men. If you were my supplier, I would move my business elsewhere.

    The actions, moral or immoral, outside of the scope of employment (that is, in his private live) are none of my business.

    It is your business as he works there – representing you and your company. His ethics represents you. His morals represents you. He represents you

    Just like I would tell my boss to go f*** himself if he told me that I can’t drink Red Bull at home,

    That has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

    • Mathius™ says:

      He believes it is immoral to poison ones body (and I have no doubt that RB is poisoning my body).

      He forces his morals on me, and at work, that is his right. At home, it’s none of his business.

      • Mathius,

        Again, I warn you about using ridiculous examples.

        Further, if he does believe that it is immoral for you to drink RB he should fire you.

        Again, moral men do not associate with immoral men

        • Mathius™ says:

          This is not a ridiculous example. It is a real-world first hand example. It is the case now, with me. Why is this ridiculous other the fact that it’s an energy drink instead of, say, cigarettes?

          And your insistence that “moral men do not associate with immoral men” is going tiresome. I associate with men, moral or immoral, but only in the capacities in which I believe they are immoral. If they are a drug dealer at home and I work with in my office, I will associate with them at work in a work capacity and not in my personal life. What they do immorally at home is none of my business. If they are good workers and do a good job, I will partner with them and do my job.

          … We’re going in circles … oh well …

          • Terry Evans says:

            Is gambling moral?

            • Mathius™ says:

              Yup.

              But, then again, so is dealing drugs, prostitution, using drugs, homosexuality, illegal immigration, and a number or other contentious items.

              That’s right, I think having sex with a gay prostitute (who happens to be an illegal immigrant) while using drugs as the result of losing a bet (ie, gambling) is perfectly moral.

              Not a bet I’d be interested in participating in.. but moral anyway.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Have you ever played vollyball? Do you know what a set up for a spike is? Just wondering…

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’ve played some volleyball in my day.. never really my game of choice, but let’s see the spike…

              • Terry Evans says:

                OK…but I just have a very limited amount of time…work calls. Some consider gambling a moral flaw…evidently BF does not as he (like most gamblers) think he is the best gambler (poker if remember correctly) he knows. So, if indeed gambling is a morally corrupt practice, then would he not, by association, be considered immoral? Much the same as he contends you are only in a different vein?

              • Mathius™ says:

                The problem is that he wouldn’t consider it immoral for the same reason I don’t consider it immoral.

                It is a game entered into by mutual consent with agreed upon rules. Much like he wouldn’t consider it evil for a boxer to hit another boxer, because they have agreed to commit violence on each other. So, if I lie in poker (bluff) in order to win, there’s nothing immoral there because lying is a well established part of the game. If I take his money, there’s nothing immoral because it’s not stealing – he agreed to risk it and lost according to the rules we agreed to freely.

              • Terry,
                To Mathius, every thing is moral, and thus he has no sense of moral or immoral at all.

                Be careful – that makes him very dangerous to everyone.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Flag is mistaken. Not everything is moral to me. I just think things are more complicated than you do.

              • Mathius

                t think things are more complicated than you do

                You, at times, manufacture complexity where it does not exist.

            • Terry,

              Is gambling moral

              To me, yes.

  35. Mathius,

    Much of the dialogue I have with V.H. circulates between these two centers of gravity.

    She is afraid of moral decay, therefore, she is willing to use evil to stop it (that is, use violence to enforce morals)

    As you know, you do not solve evil by using evil, nor do you improve morals by using evil.

    That discussion, therefore, is adjacent to one about moral men and their associations.

    If moral men – under their own accord – do not enforce the morality of society upon their associates, people like V.H. will justify evil to do it on behalf of these misguided moral men.

    The “shrug off” of accepting immoral behavior has serious consequences beyond your small, ego centric world.

  36. Mathius,
    No,
    Democracy is the worst system of government – period

    • Mathius™ says:

      So how do you feel about N.Korean-style Communism?

      How about Myanmar?

      That’s better than democracy?

      • Mathius,

        Who is more evil and ugly?
        Gee, how about saying they are evil and ugly.

        Democracy is the worse system for reasons I have posted often before.

        (1) Diffuse responsibility
        (2) Unlimited justification for action

        The marriage between these two core attributes will equal the greatest slaughter of humanity.

        • Mathius™ says:

          So you’d rather we ousted the US government and instilled Kim Jong Ill as dictator?

          Of course you’d prefer anarchy, but given your druthers, you’d switch?

          Fascinating…

          • Mathius,

            Your false dichotomy is irrelevant.

            Replacing evil with evil does not solve evil.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Replacing evil with a lesser evil is still an improvement.

              You said democracy is the worst. If we assume that you hold anarchy to be the best, then by process of elimination, dictatorships must fall somewhere in between, no?

              • Mathius,

                Replacing evil with evil is not an improvement.

                And, no, there is evil “over here”
                and NOT evil “over there”

                And an immutable line between them.

                Go back to my definition of evil, Mathius

          • Mathius,

            PS:
            So you willing accept a form of government that threaten the existence of the human race with the bizarre argument that Il Jong is not a nice man?

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    BOB THE CHICKEN

    Bob came home drunk one night, slid into bed beside his sleeping wife, and fell into a deep slumber.

    He awoke before the Pearly Gates, where St. Peter said, ‘You died in your sleep, Bob.’

    Bob was stunned. ‘I’m dead? No, I can’t be! I’ve got too much to live for. Send me back!’

    St.. Peter said, ‘I’m sorry, but there’s only one way you can go back, and that is as a chicken.’

    Bob was devastated, but begged St. Peter to send him to a farm near his home….

    The next thing he knew, he was covered with feathers, clucking and pecking the ground.

    A rooster strolled past. ‘So, you’re the new hen, huh? How’s your first day here?’

    ‘Not bad,’ replied Bob the hen, ‘but I have this strange feeling inside.
    Like I’m gonna explode!’

    ‘You’re ovulating,’ explained the rooster.
    ‘Don’t tell me you’ve never laid an egg before?’

    ‘Never,’ said Bob.

    ‘Well, just relax and let it happen,’ says the rooster.
    ‘It’s no big deal.’

    He did, and a few uncomfortable seconds later, out popped an egg!
    He was overcome with emotion as he experienced motherhood.
    He soon laid another egg — his joy was overwhelming.

    As he was about to lay his third egg, he felt a smack on the back of his head, and heard……

    “BOB, wake up! You Shit the bed!”

    • Mathius™ says:

      HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAA HAHAHA

    • Mathius™ says:

      Three golfing partners died in a car wreck and went to heaven. Upon arrival they discover the most beautiful golf course they have ever seen. St. Peter tells them that they are all welcome to play the course, but he cautions them that there is only one rule:

      Don’t hit the ducks.

      The men all have blank expressions, and finally one of them asks “The ducks?”

      “Yes”, St. Peter replies, “There are millions of ducks walking around the course and if one gets hit, he squawks then the one next to him squawks and soon they’re all squawking to beat the band, and it really breaks the tranquility. If you hit the ducks, you’ll be punished, otherwise everything is yours to enjoy.”

      After entering the course, the men noted that there was indeed a gaggle of ducks everywhere.
      Within fifteen minutes, one of the guys hit one of them. The duck squawked, the one next to it squawked and soon there was a deafening roar of duck quacks.

      St. Peter walked up with an extremely homely woman in tow and asked “Who hit the duck?”

      The one who had done it admitted “I did.”

      Immediately, St. Peter pulled out a pair of handcuffs and cuffed the man’s right hand to the homely woman’s left hand. “I told you not to hit the ducks,” he said.

      “Now you’ll be handcuffed together for eternity.

      The other two men were very cautious not to hit any ducks, but a couple of weeks later, one of them accidentally did. The quacks were as deafening as before and within minutes St. Peter walked up with an even uglier woman than before. St. Peter determined which one had hit the duck by the fear in his face, and cuffed the man’s right hand to the homely woman’s left hand.

      “I told you not to hit the ducks”, he said. “Now you’ll be handcuffed together for eternity.”

      The third man was extremely careful. Some days he wouldn’t even move for fear of even nudging a duck. After three months of this he still hadn’t hit a duck. St. Peter walked up to the man at the end of the three months and had with him a knock-out gorgeous woman, the most beautiful woman the man had ever seen. St. Peter smiled to the man and then, without a word, handcuffed him to the beautiful woman and walked off.

      The man, knowing that he would be handcuffed to this woman for eternity, let out a sigh and said “What have I done to deserve this?”

      The woman responded “I don’t know about you, but I hit a duck.”

  38. Mathius,

    This is not a ridiculous example. It is a real-world first hand example.

    No one cares about RB, thus it is ridiculous.

    However if they do, they would be consistent in their action if they fired you.

    And your insistence that “moral men do not associate with immoral men” is going tiresome.

    Obviously, you have not met many of them.

    I associate with men, moral or immoral, but only in the capacities in which I believe they are immoral. If they are a drug dealer at home and I work with in my office, I will associate with them at work in a work capacity and not in my personal life.

    Then those that know he is a drug dealer will question whether you are one too.

    What they do immorally at home is none of my business.

    It is YOUR BUSINESS that is being affected.

    You have no right whatsoever to tell anyone what to do or not.

    You have a right to associate with whomever you wish.

    Should you choose to associate yourself with immoral men, you will be judged the same, and other moral men will disassociate from you. The end of this scenario ends badly.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Should you choose to associate yourself with immoral men, you will be judged the same, and other moral men will disassociate from you. The end of this scenario ends badly.

      It seems that you judge everyone by their associations, even when those associations are within the bounds of where that other person behaves morally. But that’s ok, you’re an absolutist.

      Me, I think people are more complicated than that.

      You seem to believe that if my coworker cheats on his wife, I should have to quit my job so that I don’t get associated with immoral behavior.. that’s just silly, but you’re free believe what you like.

      • Mathius

        It seems that you judge everyone by their associations, even when those associations are within the bounds of where that other person behaves morally. But that’s ok, you’re an absolutist.

        Yes I do

        Birds of a feather flock together – and should you choose to flock with certain birds – knowing their morals, then you are of those morals, even if you do not necessarily partake in them.

        You seem to believe that if my coworker cheats on his wife, I should have to quit my job so that I don’t get associated with immoral behavior.

        Strawman, I did not say that.
        You were talking about you being an employer of an immoral man, or an employee of an immoral man.

        Your “co-worker” is neither to you. Him being there is not your choice.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Your “co-worker” is neither to you. Him being there is not your choice. His being there is not my choice, but my being there is. The association is voluntary by my free will. I do not have to associate with him.

          The decision has consequences, but this is no different than for an employer. An employer may lose a productive worker if he fires the cheater and has to find a replacement. A coworker loses his income and has to find another job. Why should a boss be obligated to suffer the loss in order to avoid being painted with the same brush, but you give the coworker a pass?

          • Mathius™ says:

            … Waiting on this one…

          • Buck the Wala says:

            To add,

            Based on BF’s earlier arguments, morality is subjective (correct me if I’m mistaken BF). What you find immoral can be completely moral to another. Yet in the same vein, BF argues for the shunning of someone that commits an ‘immoral’ act. Not quite sure how he squares this away.

            Also, in the example of the employee cheating on his wife, even if the employer finds this to be an immoral act, is BF really advocating for the employee to lose his job over this personal transgression (not to mention the employer couldn’t possibly know all the facts – perhaps his wife knows and condones of these affairs)? But regardless, what right does the employer have to demand his employees follow his view of morality in their daily lives outside of the office and their professional capacity?

            • The same right that allows you to decide whether to buy a product from a company you consider unethical. If a company makes a good product that meets your need, what right do you have to choose a different company simply because the company in question is run by a playboy, or uses swaetshops, or because the company you happen to choose is run by a proclaimed Christian or Muslim or whatever tickles your fancy? An employer hires a person as a transaction, labor is a commodity. IF the employer wants to hold to certain standards, that is his right. It might be a stupid decision, as the guy who is deplorable to you may be your best sales guy or whatever, but it is your right to do so. This is how society maintain morals in general without resorting to the use of force/law. You have a right to act as you wish by whatever moral standard you wish so long as it does not interfere on the rights of another. You do NOT have the right to act on whatever moral standard you wish without consequence. You cannot demand that others not judge you for promiscuity anymore than you can demand that you not catch an STD due to your lifestyle, they are both consequences of your lifestyle choice. You cannot “keep it real” and maintain your ghetto swagger and accent and expect to be a top executive by crying foul that people were being racist or blocking you because of your culture. IF the market demands that you speak plainly and dress to a certain standard, then you must do so or face the consequences.

              You do not have the right to a job. You do not have the right to anything that must be traded for or is part of a transaction in the market. You have only the right to that which you already have: your life and your property.

  39. A Texas Department of Highway Patrol pulled over a pick-up truck owner
    for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the driver, the
    man behind the wheel handed the officer his driver’s license, insurance card
    and a concealed weapon carry permit.

    The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. “Mr. Smith, I
    see you have a CHL. Do you have any weapons with you?”

    The driver replied, ” Yes sir, I have a 357 handgun in a hip holster, a .45
    in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot.”

    The officer looked at the driver and asked, “Anything else?”

    “Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge and an AR-15 behind the seat.”

    The officer asked if the man was driving to or from a shooting range and the
    man said he wasn’t, so the officer bent over and looked into the driver’s
    face and said “Mr. Smith, you’re carrying quite a few guns. May I ask what
    you are afraid of?

    Mr. Smith locked eyes with the officer……
    “Nothing”

    • Mathius™ says:

      Mr. Smith is under the poor misconception that carrying a lot of ordinance means he doesn’t have anything to fear. Unless he’s wearing body armor and has steel plating on his truck, he’s just as vulnerable as the rest of us.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Barack and Michelle are at the White Sox game.

        Sitting in the first row with the Secret Service people directly behind them, one of the Secret Service agents leans forward and says something to the president. Barack stares at the guy, looks at Michelle, looks back at the agent, and shakes his head violently.

        The agent then says, “Mr. President, it was a unanimous request, from the owner of the team down to the bat boy. And…the fans would love it!”

        So, Barack shrugs his shoulders and says, “If that’s what the people want.”

        He gets up, grabs Michelle by her collar and the seat of her pants, and drops her right over the wall into the field. She gets up kicking, swearing, and screaming — and the crowd goes wild, cheering, applauding, and high-fiving.

        Barack is bowing and smiling, and leans over to the agent and says, “You were right, I would have never believed that!”

        Then noticing the agent has gone totally pale, Barack asks what is wrong. The agent replies, “Sir, I said, they want you to throw out the first PITCH!”

  40. Buck

    Based on BF’s earlier arguments, morality is subjective (correct me if I’m mistaken BF). What you find immoral can be completely moral to another. Yet in the same vein, BF argues for the shunning of someone that commits an ‘immoral’ act. Not quite sure how he squares this away.</blockquote.

    You are correct – morals are subjective.
    I do argue for shunning someone who is immoral.

    The square has 4 right angles, but you need to add them up, so don't stop yet, Buck!

    Also, in the example of the employee cheating on his wife, even if the employer finds this to be an immoral act, is BF really advocating for the employee to lose his job over this personal transgression (not to mention the employer couldn’t possibly know all the facts – perhaps his wife knows and condones of these affairs)? But regardless, what right does the employer have to demand his employees follow his view of morality in their daily lives outside of the office and their professional capacity?

    Read this slowly:

    Because it is his company gives him all the rights he needs to choose or dismiss whomever for whatever reason, just like it is the employees right to leave and work for whomever and for whatever reason.

  41. Mathius™ says:

    I don’t really have anything important to say right now.. I just don’t want Flag to have the last post before I go home. 🙂

  42. I am going to temporarily hijack this since it’s day 2 of the Weinergate scandal discussion and I could care less what happens to the sick bastard Congressman from NEW YORK.

    I want to talk about jobs. Most specifically about the lack thereof and the President’s utter indifference to the problem. He is not indifferent you say? Well I beg to differ. He Likes to TALK about creating jobs and he keeps picking panels to study the problem……but he doesn’t DO ANYTHING except make it worse.

    Some call him anti-business. Some call him anti-jobs. Some just call him a worthless S.O.B. (I actually agree with that). I just call him Anti-American.

    Why do I call him that? Well let’s look at that. He has done nothing good for America since taking office in 2008. NOTHING!! In fact, It seems like he is deliberately sabotaging ANYTHING that might actually stimulate this economy or make us look like we actually are the most powerful Nation on the face of the Earth.

    Indeed, he never fails to denigrate us to others. He blocks ANY attempt whatsoever to make us actually energy independent. Instead of being the great Uniter of races and classes, he has done the complete opposite. He has driven deeper wedges between us all than we have ever had before.

    And I believe it all to be on PURPOSE. But WHY? Why would he do that? Why would he want to destroy this country? Maybe it’s because he is a sleeper Muslim fanatic? He certainly dotes on them and bodyslams Isreal every chance he gets. But surely not. Then why? Can he just hate us all that much? There is certainly SOME reason for it!

    It’s sure not just my imagination. And there is no visible reason behind it. And there HAS to be a reason. When the bastard said he was going to fundamentaly change America, I don’t believe ANYONE, even his supporters thought it was going to be this kind of change.

    Here’s to PRAYING that he is only a ONE TERM PRESIDENT. A Orangutan would make a better President. Hell, NO President would be better.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Esom,

      Good to hear from you. Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius. Nixon was even better. He’s a thief, a liar and deserves to be kicked out of the Whitehouse. He has disgraced our country. He is a fake.

      • But is it just stupidity, Or is it a deliberate choice to wreck our economy and with it our country?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Deliberate as all hell. The Dems and the Repubs are following right along too. We need to oust them and put in a better system of management. This one has become to corrupt to fix.

        • Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity!

          I believe O is the product of his upbringing namely his communist father and socialist mother and grandparents. Add to that that the anarchist Ayers and Rev. Wright and you see that he had a poor education into what America was and is. He certainly believes the Constitution got only the negative half of what government is supposed to be. In his view, government should provide for the people, i.e. the positives. Unfortunately, since he has never had a real job that made a profit, he has no idea how people actually do earn a living. He is an idealist and had surrounded himself with other idealists. As a result he does not hear nor can he comprehend the truth. Now that he has 2+ years invested in “his” plan, he is too much of an egoist to admit a mistake and change directions. He is currently lost, rudderless and adrift. As result we see no leadership, no proposals, no actionable ideas. The best thing the Democrats could do right now is dump him. But they too have too much pride and investment and are too far gone to the progressives.

  43. I watched the GOP Iowa debate last night on CNN. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s old press secretary, did a rebuttal for Obama. He kept saying “they want to go back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration”.

    And all I could think of was, After 2 and a half years in office, is that the best they can come up with?

  44. Congrats to USWep and his Bruins
    The best team tonight did win and well deserved Stanley Cup!

%d bloggers like this: