Thursday, July 25, 2013

Oy Vey!!! Again...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



He does it again! Maybe it's in the name?

New York Post - Anthony Weiner came up with an extraordinary excuse yesterday to explain why he went back to sexting after supposedly kicking the habit — he was suffering from marital woes.

In a startling e-mail letter sent to rally campaign supporters, Weiner said he sought hot-blooded female consolation on the Internet when he and his wife, Huma Abedin, hit a rocky patch in their relationship last summer.

At the time, Weiner had been out of Congress for a year, having resigned in disgrace, and was giving interviews with his wife at his side claiming he was cured.

“It was a terrible mistake that I unfortunately returned to during a rough time in our marriage,” Weiner said in the e-mail.

Later, at a press conference, he went into more detail.

“I think that a lot of people see the resignation was the end of the challenges my wife and I, my family faced, and it wasn’t,” Weiner said. “It was part of something that needed to get resolved and frankly it hadn’t been.

“It took some work to get to that place. It wasn’t a function that a certain moment in time came and went. It was a continuum. These things are behind me now.”

A defiant Weiner vowed not to quit the race for mayor despite revelations that he used an online pseudonym — Carlos Danger — to exchange dozens of sexually explicit messages, phone calls and photos with a 22-year-old Indiana woman identified as Sydney Leathers. {Read More}

A PATHETICALLY small unstable man.

Via: Memeorandum

11 comments:

  1. Forget his scandals: it's the man's policies that really dick around with the voters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And forget my above comment. Weiner is truly the Berlusconi of American politics. Shameless scandal that won't end.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was one of the few people in the galaxy who defended this fellow right up to the bitter end last time (well after even Pelosi had tossed him overboard). Yes, he was a jerk, I figured, but it was totally up to him, his wife, and his constituents as to how they wanted to handle it....This time, I ain't defending the lunatic at all. He's scum and I hope that he gets humiliated (electorally, I'm saying - the other horse has already left the stable).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Weiner the Berlusconi of American politics? Does Dennis know what sexting is? Clearly not, otherwise he wouldn't be comparing these two men. For the benefit of Dennis: "Sexting is the act of sending sexually explicit messages and/or photographs, primarily between mobile phones". (source: Wikipedia). Note that sexting does not include actual sex, or the participants even ever meeting.

    Weiner was a good progressive, but he's done in politics. Anyway, I've heard that Rusty wants to be known from now on as "Carlos Danger". I noticed him referring to this desire on several blogs. Maybe he thinks he can trick young women into thinking he's Anthony Weiner and sending him "naughty" pictures?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thankfully, he is done. The "naughty pictures" Anthony Penis sent to the Constitution and the public interest in the form of typically bad legislatin and efforts are reason enough to be glad the American Berlusconi is toast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis doubles down on his uninformed comment concerning sexting. Sexting involves no sex therefore he can't be compared to Berlusconi. To do so only shows one's ignorance. Also, Anthony Weiner fought for the common man by supporting and voting for legislation in the public interest. Dennis confuses "public interest" for "plutocrat's interest" (this is something he does very frequently).

      Delete
    2. Anthony Weiner is a slime with no moral compass and no shame.

      But, he "fought for the common man" and therefore it makes everything alright. Che Guevara fought for the "common man" as well.

      I do however agree with you wd/DS, Weiner is no Berlusconi. He may be worse.

      Delete
  6. WD/DS is willing to give Weiner a slide due to Weiner's statist (the interest of the powerful, ruling over the interest of the common man, "Average Joe") policies.

    I never confuse public interest with "plutocrats' interest".

    WD does though. In discussions about school boards wanting to spend money wisely and efficiently, he called the school board members plutocrats. In discussions of mom-and-pop store operators wanting to pay employees a fair wage, he called them "plutocrats" also.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not "willing to give Weiner a slide". I am actually in agreement with Will when it comes to Weiner. Defended him the first time but saying he's done this time. He got a second chance and blew it. But Weiner did fight on the side of the average voter. Because the "state" (an entity that represents all of us without the power that comes with having a lot of money) is the only entity that can stand up to the plutocrats. This is why Dennis demonizes the "state"... he is on the side of the Plutocrats and not on the side of the people (the "state" and the people are one in the same).

    As for who is a plutocrat and who isn't... Dennis gives false examples of who I have labeled a plutocrat in order to make me look foolish. None of the people he listed are plutocrats. I've never said they were.

    As for RN's comment that Weiner may be worse than Berlusconi... like Dennis not knowing what sexting is, apparently RN does not know who Berlusconi is. Berlusconi is one of the biggest slimes to ever walk the earth. Nothing Anthony Weiner did even comes close.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But Weiner did fight on the side of the average voter."

    Quite a dubious claim.

    "because the "state" (an entity that represents all of us without the power that comes with having a lot of money)"

    The state CLAIMS to represent us. But only a fool who worships authority believes this. But of course, fascism like this never succeeds without bootlickers.... the careless folk who get a good mushy feeling at the thought of the government as a "Great White Father" looking after nothing but our best interests.


    And guess what? Not only does the state have "a lot of money" (the Colonels own words), it has more than anyone else.

    Revenue for GM, one of the largest companies, in 2012: $154 billion.
    Revenue for the US Government during Fiscal 2012 (a mostly overlapping time period): $2.5 trillion.... 16 times larger than GM.

    Total US Federal Government Assets: $128 Trillion. This is more than the assets of the Fortune 500 combined, and ten times the total combined assets of the top two million rich people... the "one percent"

    The state has the most power, the most money, and its claim to represent us is dubious and at best a wish, a mere ideal (which is, again, why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom placed many restraints on State power).

    "This is why Dennis demonizes the "state".

    Our founding fathers "demonized" the state as well. It is why we have the Bill of Rights.

    "Dennis gives false examples of who I have labeled a plutocrat in order to make me look foolish."

    You said it: you once AGAIN specifically brought plutocrats into a discussion of mom-and-pop small businesses... so it made you look foolish. But hardly anyone whom YOU have called a plutocrat actually is.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.