- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
God, what an ugly mug that is! :lol:
No it doesn't. A person's personal life has nothing to do with their competency at their job.No, but the level of competency and constant lying in the process of dealing with that scandal certainly speaks to his potential to perform such a job.
You falsely charging it doesn't change the fact you're wrong. I've know a few different people I wouldn't trust with a lucky penny outside of work, but were very good at their job.You simply choosing to ignore that really doesn't change anything
How well he performs his job. Does he attempt to follow through on his promises. Is he active or just collecting a paycheck. Etc.What exactly would he have to do to show you that he owes you less integrity than he owes his wife?
No it doesn't. A person's personal life has nothing to do with their competency at their job.
You falsely charging it doesn't change the fact you're wrong. I've know a few different people I wouldn't trust with a lucky penny outside of work, but were very good at their job.
And what he was dealing with publicly was his personal sex life. It did not involve his job. Like I said.please read: " but the level of competency and constant lying in the process of dealing with that scandal certainly speaks to his potential to perform such a job"
The part about "process of dealing with that scandal" suggests we are discussing how he attempted to deal with something publicly
I would. *shrug*Do you trust them working with money? Because here confidence and trust are very important aspects of the job, Gordy
And what he was dealing with publicly was his personal sex life.
It did not involve his job. Like I said.
I would. *shrug*
Would I trust Weiner? I have no idea, like I said from the beginning, I don't know enough about him. But exposing his penis over the Internet does not mean he is not worthy of trust in matters related to his job.
Attempts to deal with what? His personal sex life, right? Yep.And his attempts to deal with it publicly
What are you talking about? That's all we're dealing with. If no one gave a rat's rear end about sex, it never would have been an issue. This situation/past situation is completely about his personal sex life, as was his response to it was about his sex life.So see, we are simply not dealing with his private life like you previously claimed
And that trust should come from whether or not he is good at his job, not if he likes to show his penis to girls on the Internet.A big aspect of his job would be dealing with the public, who will need to trust him ...
Correct. People are not automated robots, they have different moods and even values depending on the situation they are in. A person who might cuss like a sailor in front of his friends wouldn't dare utter a four letter word around a child. A person who is a great risk taker on his own becomes a cautious driver when his wife is in the car. As situations change, people change. Trying to describe every aspect of a person based upon one aspect is silly.So you don't trust these people with money outside of work but will within the confines of work?
No you didn't, you mentioned a situation which was directly related to exposing his penis on the Internet.right, which is why I mentioned things outside exposing his penis on the internet and that speak directly to his ability to perform his job. Amazing how that works, right?
Attempts to deal with what? His personal sex life, right? Yep.
What are you talking about?
That's all we're dealing with.
If no one gave a rat's rear end about sex, it never would have been an issue.
as was his response to it was about his sex life.
I honestly don't know how else to say this before you understand EVERYTHING controversial about this situation is related to his personal sex life.
And that trust should come from whether or not he is good at his job, not if he likes to show his penis to girls on the Internet.
Right...the scandal about his personal sex life. We can continue this forever, and you'll never be right.You know, the attempts to deal with the scandal in the media and with his constituents.
Which revolved solely around his personal life. As a former Congressman, I'm sure he made many public appearances, dealt with many public issues. Those issues would have work related, and it is on those issues for which he should be judged. Judging him based on issues of his personal sex life is ridiculous.No, there is a very clear public element to it.
But it's still sex related. It still comes back to the issue of sex.Sending random women **** pics isn't simply sex, nor is it simply sexting.
I mean the response to the situation about his personal sex life, yes. No matter how often you use the word "public" it'll never change the fact we're talking about his private life.You mean the response he addressed to the Public and that was presented in the public sphere?
I'll be wrong the moment the situation you're referring to was not about his private sex life. And since it will never not have been, I'll never be wrong.Well, maybe you'll need to learn to live with the fact you are wrong?
What situation? The situation surrounding his private sex life? Got it.I just outlined how his handling of the situation speaks to his ability to perform his job.
Right...the scandal about his personal sex life. We can continue this forever, and you'll never be right.
Which revolved solely around his personal life. As a former Congressman, I'm sure he made many public appearances, dealt with many public issues. Those issues would have work related, and it is on those issues for which he should be judged. Judging him based on issues of his personal sex life is ridiculous.
But it's still sex related. It still comes back to the issue of sex.
I mean the response to the situation about his personal sex life, yes. No matter how often you use the word "public" it'll never change the fact we're talking about his private life.
How well he performs his job. Does he attempt to follow through on his promises. Is he active or just collecting a paycheck. Etc.
The fact is a person's sexual desires have nothing to do with their ability to do their job. Besides that, we don't know what kind of a relationship he has with his wife. Maybe they are only married for political reasons. Maybe they have an open marriage and she doesn't care he's been doing these things. Maybe she wants them to be a dedicated couple and was horrified and embarrassed that he was doing these things. We don't know. But, more importantly, it's irrelevant to what kind of performance he has on the job.
Of course integrity does. But integrity is far more than whether or not someone has sent naked pictures of themselves.And yet integrity means nothing concerning a position of trust?
First of all, as I've mentioned, you don't know what his relationship with his wife is like. But, even if we assume it's the traditional relationship, it still has nothing to do with his job. If a man rode a motorcycle without a helmet in his free time, would you say he's unfit for public service because of his reckless disregard for safety? If a man moved to a new house and broke his rental release to do so, would you say he's unfit to hold public office because he's not a man of his word?If he can't be honest with, and uphold his promises to, his wife...why would he be honest to you?
Of course integrity does. But integrity is far more than whether or not someone has sent naked pictures of themselves.
First of all, as I've mentioned, you don't know what his relationship with his wife is like. But, even if we assume it's the traditional relationship, it still has nothing to do with his job. If a man rode a motorcycle without a helmet in his free time, would you say he's unfit for public service because of his reckless disregard for safety? If a man moved to a new house and broke his rental release to do so, would you say he's unfit to hold public office because he's not a man of his word?
Simply focusing in on one aspect of a person, especially an aspect unrelated to his job, to determine if he's qualified for a job is silly. I'm not saying Weiner is qualified or that I'd vote for him, I'm simply saying that sending pictures of his genitals to people would not keep me from voting for him.
Why would looking at his penis have anything to do with anything?Take a good look at the picture and then say it wouldn't keep you from voting for him.
People making jokes about him means he cannot do his job well?Carlos has a responsibility first and foremost to his family, and right now most everyone has seen his private parts, and they are making jokes about him.
Why would looking at his penis have anything to do with anything?
People making jokes about him means he cannot do his job well?
I literally have no idea what you're trying to get at. I get the feeling you believe you're making a point, but all I can see is that you're mentioning something that roughly half the country has between their legs.I could say a lot but I won't.
Having the world see his junk doesn't say much for him, now does it?
I have absolutely no idea how you figure that.People making jokes about him means he doesn't make good decisions or good choices.
Of course integrity does. But integrity is far more than whether or not someone has sent naked pictures of themselves.
First of all, as I've mentioned, you don't know what his relationship with his wife is like.
But, even if we assume it's the traditional relationship, it still has nothing to do with his job. If a man rode a motorcycle without a helmet in his free time
would you say he's unfit for public service because of his reckless disregard for safety?
If a man moved to a new house and broke his rental release to do so, would you say he's unfit to hold public office because he's not a man of his word?
Simply focusing in on one aspect of a person, especially an aspect unrelated to his job
I'm not saying Weiner is qualified or that I'd vote for him, I'm simply saying that sending pictures of his genitals to people would not keep me from voting for him.
I literally have no idea what you're trying to get at. I get the feeling you believe you're making a point, but all I can see is that you're mentioning something that roughly half the country has between their legs.
I have absolutely no idea how you figure that.
It amazes me how persistent you are on being wrong. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your post, because I know I can ask one simple question you're incapable of answering in any way but one, the one way which proves my point.Right, like misleading the public, how you treat your wife and child, willingness to drag your family through a public scandel, sending random people offensive images, being dumb enough to do so publicly, etc, etc, etc.
I had a girlfriend once who would have been perfectly okay with it. In fact, she would have enjoyed the three of us getting together in person. I'm not really that kind of person, but she wouldn't have had a problem at all with it.Why don't you ask your wife, girlfriend, partner or whatever how they would feel about you sending pictures of your junk to women and dickting with them.
No, he acted foolishly, but his actions were reflective of decisions made in his personal life, not his professional. I would not be voting for him to be Minister of Morality, I would be electing him to run my city.Do you, as a professor, think Carlos Danger acted wisely?
There are many things I would not want my hypothetical children to do...one such thing would be to judge a man totally by his actions in one narrow aspect. I prefer my children be able to see beyond such a limited understanding of the world and realize people are multi-faceted and complex beings, and inefficiencies in one area do not automatically indicate inefficiencies in others.You are right, we all have genitalia, but would you want your small children viewing Carlos' appendage?
It amazes me how persistent you are on being wrong. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your post, because I know I can ask one simple question you're incapable of answering in any way but one, the one way which proves my point.
Was this "scandal" about his personal life or was it job related? Until you can tell me it was job related, I don't need to read anything else from you.
Yes, and the answer is the same. It was about his private personal life. So as I said:I already answered that
Yes, and the answer is the same.
It was about his private personal life.
So as I said:
"Until you can tell me it was job related, I don't need to read anything else from you."