NSFW

So apparently the representative sent a picture of his wiener sheathed in underwear to a twitter "associate" although he denies it (of course) but he can't say for sure that it isn't his wiener. Too bad this wasn't news when we had the weiner/wiener threads going. Better late than never.

Yes of course he claims it wasn't him that sent it. He only posted minutes after the message had been sent that his Twitter account had apparently been hacked. If it doesn't seem obvious that a guy with the last name Weiner would be a target for this sort of shenanigans then I don't know what to do for you.

Jon Stewart did some reporting on this last night.

I'm certainly not one to take a politician at his word, but this "scandal" is pretty iffy. I'm going to need to see a little more corroborating evidence.

There is no reason to believe Weiner does not have a penis, so I'm inclined to say the pictures are his.

pretty sure if he was Republican all of you would be running him through the dirt.

Yes, because I defended John Edwards and Elliot Spitzer, right? This is just kind of stupid.

cmon Tony you know I'm only trolling

No this is not stupid, it's fricking hilarious! **** the scandal, who cares about that part! Just listen to the guy try as hard as he can to say ANYTHING but: no, that is not a picture of me.

Do you have any source for this? The "tweets" I've seen reported don't match up with the version you suggest.

Tweets aren't a source either.

Here's the amazing thing about this situation. You can just go look at his god damned Twitter. I don't have to look it up for you. Go look at it!

I'm not too familiar with Twitter or if one can delete their "tweets". What I've found suggests that what you've alleged is inaccurate.



Well, I would say they're a source so far as they go. If I "tweet" something, then it is a legitimate source insomuch that I'm the one that "tweeted" it.

There's no real way for him to prove that it isn't him... but he can attest that he did not send it. I don't know about you guys, but I've been asked to send some rather risque pictures of myself to various females, and Weiner did just get married about a year ago I believe. So regardless of whether it's him or not, he says he didn't post it. And he says he posted minutes after it showed up that his account had been hacked.

And I'm not looking things up for you anymore, Wookie. Even if I do provide facts that what you're saying is incorrect or just blown out of proportion, you just disregard it anyway.

Except you have never once provided a fact to prove me wrong. You have never looked anything up for me. I asked you to substantiate your post. If you can't do it don't try to claim that it's because I can't look it up. I have cited sources that show his twitter posts and provided an image of his sheathed wiener. I have delivered far more wiener than you in this thread.

Well there was that time that you tried to convince us all that President Obama was using a teleprompter to give a talk to some grade school kids. I went ahead and posted a link refuting that, but it was ignored obviously. You're really proving my point by claiming I've never done this.

And you posted the same thing that you can see on any news website? Awesome. The issue at hand should be the fact that the news coverage of this non-event is so god damned ridiculous it's not even funny.

But hey, just keep bringing up the fickle things in my posts. It's a great way to avoid any actual discussion.

EDIT: And when you start providing sources that aren't so right-wing to the point that they become hilarious to read, I'll take them a little more seriously. Sorry, bud, but biggovernment.com is not an unbiased source.

You mean this:



It was exactly as I described. I don't know how you interpreted anything else from it.



Yeah, the news coverage is pretty bad on this. Giving him far too much credibility. Still, the information I posted I could only find on one site. I'm sure it is available somewhere else but that's where I found it. Somehow you won't even produce a single news website to substantiate your post. Somehow you seem to think that the fact that you didn't source your post gives you greater credibility. I'm not going to waste any energy trying to figure that out.



Yeah, clearly I'm the one avoiding discussion here.

You used the "source" that produced the highly edited Shirley Sherrod video. That is the most bogus claim of a cited source I've ever heard of.

You just said it was available on any new site and now your position is that it is a bogus source? Make up your mind and formulate an argument.

Look, let's think about this for a second as opposed to just believing what you read on right wing nutjob websites.

Rep Weiner is posting Tweets about a hockey game and then all of the sudden "oh by the way, here's a picture of my dick"?

Which sounds more likely? That his Twitter account was hacked, or that he randomly sends dick pics to chicks?

But he didn't randomly send the picture to a chick. It was one of his few twitter "friends" that "re-tweeted" other "tweets" of his. Seriously, he's not even disputing whether or not the wiener is his.

It's funny because his name is wiener!

Incorrect. His name is Weiner.

Yeah, it was one of the people who follows him on Twitter. Just because she follows his Twitter feed and retweets his posts doesn't mean he directly corresponds with her. The man has thousands of followers on Twitter. That doesn't mean he actually talks to any of them. For a better example of this: Kim Kardashian and other famous whores routinely post pictures of themselves on Twitter. If I sign up for a Twitter account and follow any one of these women, I cannot walk around claiming that they send me sexy pictures. So when he posts something on Twitter and someone reposts it, that doesn't make it a direct message. The Weiner situation is different, because in that case it was a direct message to another user, but as I said, it seems to be completely random. But just because she had reposted things he had Tweeted doesn't mean he talks to her directly.

The entire issue is ridiculous. If it isn't blatantly obvious that his account was hacked to make fun of his last name, then you're probably pretty badly deluded.

EDIT: And if you're that skeptical that his account wasn't hacked, and he's just being a liar, I'm sure you're also skeptical about whether Playstation Network was hacked, or if Sony just started giving out personal information of its users. Oh wait, it was good enough for Sony to say they were hacked, because Sony isn't a Democratic politician.

You should actually probably learn some more about the facts surrounding this first before you make yourself look any worse. It's clear you're just arguing to argue. She was one of less than 100, at the time, mutual twitter fans of his. So I guess they followed each others tweets. And wieners.

What makes you think I give a rat's ass about how I look on this message board? You mean when you post unsubstantiated bull**** I can't counter it with unsubstantiated bull****?

From what I can tell you're interested in making a big deal out of this because there are a Democrat and a penis involved. Two things you have a strong love/hate relationship with from what I can see considering the number of times you're brought up his wiener in this thread.

I really cannot begin to understand why people even care about this.

"You should actually probably learn some more about the facts surrounding this first before you make yourself look any worse. It's clear you're just arguing to argue."

Oh my god.

Here's a pretty good evenhanded article that covers most of the important facts. The more I hear, the more I'm leaning toward this being a frame job. The only Twitter user who retweeted the cock shot before it was deleted had been harassing the supposed intended recipient for over a month before this happened, and he'd tweeted a few times before the pic was posted hinting at an impending sex scandal for Weiner. I haven't drawn any firm conclusions yet, but right now it looks like there's a stronger circumstantial case for a hack than there is for it actually being Weiner.

Yeah I just don't understand why he will not say 'those are not my bits'
He had no problem saying he got hacked, which I tend to believe, but as for if that is in fact his package in the pic... Apparently he can't be sure...?

Is this what Colbert has been tweeting about? It makes sense now.

Well consider the fact that boxer briefs are pretty much the most popular style of male underwear in America right now. Hell, I can't guarantee you that the junk in the photo isn't mine. The fact is, this could be some photo that he took or was taken of him while in college or some ****. He's actually being smart by saying he doesn't know if it's his or not. He does state that he did not send it, which is really the important part.

Yep. He's probably taken some cock shots in the past, and it's possible he just doesn't know if this is one of them. If he says the picture isn't of him and it's somehow proven that it is, people will assume he's lying about everything else.

Exactly, MacFarlane.

really, guy?

I can only tell you it's not mine because it curves the wrong way.

Am I the only one who finds his "unnecessary quotation marks" around "certain words" unbearably annoying in this post? Wookie, your whole argument is moronic - if a politician wants to send dirty pictures, he's not going to do it through a social media website and it's FAR more likely that it was hacked, but why the hell would I care one way or the other? So yes, you making a big issue out of this is annoying and stupid, but the quotation marks I just can't get past.

Most likely not, although I just think it's awkward and not helping him at all.

Yes, but why should something that has never stopped him do so now?

Seriously, I think if no one paid any heed to anything Wookie says, that would defeat his self-imposed purpose of saying stupid things to get people worked up. However, I personally don't think we should stop expressing how annoyed we are by his posts (which he wants) or how moronic most things he posts are (which, I assume, he doesn't realize), because at least the forums are more entertaining this way (even if they are more frustrating as well). It's kind of like going to the zoo to look at the monkies...you expect them to be a bunch of monkies, and they never fail to deliver. Sometimes you have to take a break from looking at the monkies at the zoo, though, but you know they're there whenever you want to be entertained by monkies. That's pretty much my approach to all Wookie06 posts these days, and it's really rather liberating to take them for what they are instead of something with any worth to reasonable discussions.

I generally just dismiss all the actual content of what he's saying after a brief moment of shaking my head.

Shouldn't he know what his underwear looks like? I mean, I guess those look like generic grey boxer briefs but I too own grey boxer briefs and can immediately tell that ain't my underwear (note stitching, ribbed panel, location of opening, etc).

Yeah, but can you guarantee that you've never owned grey boxer briefs that look like that?

I was always under the impression that people's dicks would be unique enough that they would be recognizable for their masters. I mean, no two dicks are the same, right?

I hate to bring up the "I know this like the back of my hand" concept, but if there was a pool of dick pictures, and you had to guess which one of them was yours (given that you contributed to the pool and every dick was photographed the same way), an innate awareness of your own body would allow you to determine this dick, no? Or maybe that wouldn't happen? Even if you aren't aware of the exact details of your own genitals to describe it in words, would your subconscious familiarity of your own schlong would allow you to pick it out from the pack? Same goes for any other body part.

I'm being serious.