Get a grip.
I don’t really care about Anthony Weiner one way or the other, but I read the Big Government hit piece yesterday and it pissed me off. (I won’t link that sewer. You’ll have to use your Google-fu.) Then I read this and it pissed me off further.
What is with Breitbart and co.’s seemingly pathological need to target women? First that “It’s not like I was going to rape her or anything” incident in which Breitbart’s crony and protege, James O’Keefe planned to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau onto a boat “filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session.” (And yes, I know that Breitbart took to his fainting couch and called O’Keefe gross and offensive for that unsuccessful scheme, and no, I don’t believe he was uninvolved).
And now the “outing” of a young woman in Seattle for political sport? This is beyond the pale:
As details slowly unfold in the Memorial Day saga of Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) social media accounts, which he says were hacked to allow the distribution of a lewd photo via Twitter, the surplus of speculation has been exceeded only by a shortage of firsthand information. Rep. Weiner’s office has trickled out some information, but now, for the first time, the alleged intended recipient of the picture, Gennette Nicole Cordova, is speaking out exclusively, in a lengthy statement to The NY Daily News.
Since the story broke, a pile of circumstantial evidence and rampant speculation,throughout the blogosphere, have all but decimated the presumption of innocence due the Congressman, while details that could be exculpatory have been largely ignored or dismissed.
Some conservative blogs, which I will not link to, have taken to dissecting the tweets of underage girls who followed Rep. Weiner, without redacting their user information (as we did), and without mentioning that these girls were being harassed by the Twitter user who first, and last, noticed Weiner’s tweet in real time. These girls deserve to be left alone, not drawn into a controversy in which they are not even direct parties.
These sorts of Internet goons should be relegated to the digital landfill where porn spam and fake Viagra ads reside. They are sick twisted fucks; sitting behind their monitors, targeting, and harassing women for their own sick pleasure, yet feigning outrage when they themselves feel under attack. Breitbart is a classic case of this sort of behavior. These people have deluded themselves into believing that their behavior is either for some greater good, or justified because “it’s only the internet! GOSH!” Thus they think it appropriate to harass, name-call, leak private information, and otherwise bully their targets. Yet without fail, these goons complain when they are called out for what they are: cowards.
“It’s only the Internet” is not an excuse anymore. It’s not just ghosts in the machine; it’s real people sitting in front of the machine, wondering what the hell is wrong with the other people sitting in front of their machines.
It’s real people like Gennette Nicole Cordova who are being attacked in real life by unknown (m)asses on the Internet.
[cross-posted at Balloon Juice]
Why is nobody trying to set Brietbart or O’Keefe up? Their hunger for (manufactured) scandal would appear to make them rather vulnerable.
And it couldn’t happen to two more deserving scumbuckets.
I doubt that they are particularly vulnerable to a set up. After all, they’re probably the most likely people in the world to suspect that someone is dishonestly misrepresenting themselves to try to produce damaging evidence against them. Further, I don’t think many people see any POINT in ‘setting them up’. I mean, what would you do? Try to convince them to write a memo lovingly detailing their plans to clumsily sexually harass someone on camera in retribution for . . . something or other?
I have something to say about this whole nontroversy.
The impetus behind Andrew Breitbart’s attack on Anthony Weiner is clear. Weiner has been leading a campaign to shine a spotlight on Clarence Thomas’ unethical behavior as a Supreme Court justice. For years, Thomas deliberately submitted false financial disclosure documents, hiding his wife’s substantial income as a right-wing lobbyist and shill for interests that routinely come before the court.
Under pressure, Thomas amended those reports and now includes Ginni’s income.
All Weiner wants Thomas to do is recuse himself from cases where his wife’s employment creates a conflict of interest.
Andrew Breitbart worships Clarence and Ginni Thomas. He dedicated his most recent book to Thomas. He weeps when he talks about the Thomases. He worships them because they are evil, unethical, lying sacks of shit, and they get away with it.
And so, to attack Anthony Weiner, he’s colluded with others to fabricate a tale in which Weiner appears to be… wait for it… sexually harassing a young black woman. Anita Hill, anyone?
Do you see how intentionally, deeply, pervertedly, sickly evil that is?
Well, now I see that, now that you’ve explained it with your usual knife-sharp skills — AND IT MAKES ME SO FUCKING FURIOUS.
So thanks for that.
(Actually thanks for that! One likes to see the man behind the curtain as often as one can. Related: WHY IS ANYONE ON EARTH LISTENING TO BREITBART ANYMORE AFTER THE SHERROD CASE?)
You two are kidding, right? LOL.
Dear “Brave” Right-Wing Troll and Breitbart Dingleberry-Groomer:
You have given up identifying information and your IP address to a website run by an Angry Black Lady Obot. Smart!
Wo dar momma, yo’s -The lady’s IP WEB site is already recorded and logged at 935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20535.
Demobust says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Wo dar momma, yo’s -The lady’s IP WEB site is already recorded and logged at 935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20535
Whatever that meant.
“Do you see how intentionally, deeply, pervertedly, sickly evil that is?”
Very, very true, Allan…but this also represents the dark side of our times, in terms of the Internet. Notice that what is pushed in our faces is not actual, hard evidence (that would, of course, show that Congressman Weiner is not guilty), but speculation, circumstantial evidence…in other words, bull$**t.
And I’ll further you thought if you will be so kind… The Gutenberg Press analogy of the Internet is suspect! Web sites such as this do not promote ideas, rather it polarizes those without thoughtful justification to seek others with similar short comings in a some self gratifying empty harmonious interlude that in past was hidden from the productive citizenry, and rightly so, as it such behavior made society more divisive. YES you are the people you so complain about. Regards.
Yes “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Cassius says in Julius Caesar by WS
Women are non-entities in these circuses. Just pawns to move about and eliminate when not useful. So teens who tweet are the new “girls who dress provocatively, therefore…”
I still believe every word Ms Hill said. That was truly a travesty of justice. Imagine being on the same bench as that man? I know our female justices can deal, but…makes me ill.
It’s easy to agree with your observations as I recall Jack Nicholson’s short answer to “How do you know women so well?” in the film As Good As It Gets. “Well…, I think of a man , and then I take away reason and accountability”
You are not a good enough actor to be quoting Jack Nicholson.
MAYBE not Nicholson but boy do I do a good inprov of you…
“Annoying? (grunt) Check. Abuse? In your dreams, maybe. (snort) Threaten? (fart sound) Not likely, as you are clearly unable to make good on anything from the safe haven of your mother’s basement.(HA HA ha) Harass? Well, “annoy” and harass are similar enough (in terms of unwanted irritation) that I think you do go 2-for-4 here.
You’re way the hell out of your league here, Junior.(SNORT SNORT) Come back when you’ve risen to the level of being able to annoy people while using proper sentence structure, at the very least”
MR PONY BACKSIDE you not understand the reference… not mind keep swating those flies with your fanny.
You’re “Oda” from Salon, then, aren’t you? He too is a double-poster, and equally lame.
Nothing much for you to be proud of there, Skippy.
MAYBE not Nicholson but boy do I do a good improvisation of YOU…
“Annoying? (grunt) Check. Abuse? In your dreams, maybe. (snort) Threaten? (fart sound) Not likely, as you are clearly unable to make good on (stuttering) anything from the safe haven of your (inhale) mother’s basement.(HA HA ha) Harass? Well, “annoy” and harass are similar enough (in terms of unwanted irritation) that I think you do go 2-for-4 here.
You’re way the hell out of your league here, Junior.(SNORT SNORT) Come back when you’ve risen to the level of being able to annoy people while using proper sentence structure, at the very least”
MR PONY BACKSIDE you not understand the reference… not mind keep swatting those flies with your fanny tail. LOL this just too easy.
Not to mention the poorly phrased nonsense and bad logic.
Oh, wait, I mentioned them, didn’t I?
I must remember to speak sternly to myself at a future point.
Res ipsa loquitur.
This makes me so angry I cannot be coherent other than to say, Breitbart and company need to be sued for defamation and harrassment. This particular young woman according to the stories is not a public figure and has been harassed by this patriot76 for a long time.
Do we apply your suggestion globally to all intrusive inquires made by the 3rd column of public officials or selectively to those making invective comments directed at democratic party members?
Ginni Thomas and Michele Bachmann pheromones are written all over this. And who is better at harassing and trying to defame someone other then the ally cat himself; Andrew Breibart – a man who has nothing to loose.
Quite true! I saw it first hand when Michele Bachmann tore away his privates during debate on FOX News. It wasn’t pretty. And she’s half his weight and height. Yikes.
Why did Weiner declined to answer reporters’ questions about the photo or why he was hiring a lawyer for the case instead of having law enforcement officials pursue the matter? Or answer why Weiner was a Twitter follower of the female college student who received the photo?
Y’all are everywhere today aren’t you. Okay here goes: My response to you Demobust,
If the congressman does answer those question, he validates the premise that he did something wrong, when there is absolutely no evidence he did anything at all. Breitbart claims to have more, why hasn’t he published more? Oh right because he is a notorious liar and a drunk. Doesn’t the accuser have to offer proof positive that picture was uploaded by the same IP from which the congressman posts? So far there is no evidence of this, but we have plenty of evidence twitter and facebook are hacked often, very very often, because most people do not change their passwords every 90 days and often times they use the same passwords for many sites they frequent.
It isn’t very creative of you to basically parrot what reporters are saying, which is that a failure to answer their questions makes him look guilty. Guilty of what exactly, being one of the millions of people who don’t change their password. If the congressman wanted to be with other women, why would he have married recently? See none of this makes sense at all. But good job for parroting so called TV talkers. If Murray Waas broke this story, (he is a real investigative journalist) then I might agree with you, but since the source is Andrew Breitbart… come on, no one should believe it until there is real evidence.
Let me just add this Demobust, Epic Failure on your part.
PS one day the congressman asked all of this followers if they wanted him to follow them and if so to reply with a #follow… like I said, Epic Failure.
You certainly prove George Bernard Shaw’s observation “I haven’t the time for short letter so longer one must do”. (1) “there is absolutely no evidence he did anything at all” – then deny the Weiner’s Weiner its that easy. (2) “notorious liar and a drunk” who isn’t in DC? (3) “Doesn’t the accuser have to offer proof” Not according the ethic of Journalism as practiced by the New York Times. (4)”very creative of you to basically parrot what reporters are saying” Understanding that Press is incapable of any meaningful investigative reporting and fail to ask nothing more than softball question of our Democratic party leaders, as such I’ll take the compliment – txs. (5)”If the congressman wanted to be with other women, why would he have married recently” According to you there isn’t adultery when your marriage? Look up the word adultery and there after illegal as I assume you have a problem similar to that of Democratic Party Chair D. Wasserman. It’s been fun but way too easy.
you’ve been recalled to Breitbart Industries for maintenance.
christ on a crouton –
AM I NOT DESERVING OF BETTER TROLLS?
it’s like amateur hour with you assclowns.
Demobust is smarter than I gave him credit, ABL. He’s already used his internet skills to figure out that you’re operating from within FBI Headquarters.
Good thing Napolitano’s private stormtroopers have already been dispatched from the Pittsburgh office. Their ETA at his domicile is 15 minutes. It should be a matter of minutes until he’s taken into custody, tranquilized, and trundled off to the FEMA camp hidden in Morain State Park.
Allan are you provoking a TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 223 complaint. I’ll be happy to accomodate.
If anything, genius, the complaint’s target would in fact be you.
Since you so proudly post USC info, here’s a quote:
“…utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…”
Annoying? Check. Abuse? In your dreams, maybe. Threaten? Not likely, as you are clearly unable to make good on anything from the safe haven of your mother’s basement. Harass? Well, “annoy” and harass are similar enough (in terms of unwanted irritation) that I think you do go 2-for-4 here.
You’re way the hell out of your league here, Junior. Come back when you’ve risen to the level of being able to annoy people while using proper sentence structure, at the very least.
You’re going to LOOOOVE my next post. It will part of your deprogramming and re-education curriculum at the FEMA camp.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, embroiled in a bizarre controversy over a lewd photo of a man’s crotch sent to a young woman from his Twitter account, said Wednesday it’s possible the photo is of him – though he insisted he didn’t send it. A day earlier, the New York Democrat and potential New York City mayoral candidate had sought to end the embarrassing episode by refusing to discuss it, at one point angrily calling one reporter a “jackass.’’
On Wednesday, he reversed course and spoke to NBC’s Luke Russert. He was expected to speak with CNN later in the day. T
“I was the victim of a prank,’’ Mr. Weiner told NBC, adding that he can’t say “with certitude
Poor Demobust aka patriot76 aka Dan Wolfe: seems the culprit may be discovered sooner rather than later and that patriot76is the responsible party for the rouge tweet on yfrog. Breitbarts fanboi demobust aka patriot76, aka dan wolfe, will have the sads soon.
Check it out, http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/06/weiner-affair-close-to-solution-but-i.html
The proof is out there and maybe from now on people will quit listening to the fat drunk at tinyjournalizm, heil.com
Let me understand this – our silly troll is Wolfe? It’s clear he’s obsessive and ridiculous and a sexist, but wouldn’t this be a criminal act? Cool. Even Reagan had more class.