" this is also the government that set the slaves free"
No, actually this is the *nation* that set the slaves free. The 'government' would have happily negotiated slavery in new territories on a 1 for 1 basis, one slave, one free. The nation was divided on this, and one side (slavers) chose to go to war over it, and while you will quibble over who started what, the South chose war, prosecuted that war, and lost that war.
And the South, continuing to pay respect to those who fought and died for a cause they believed in, is now excoriated for honoring its dead. I note none call for removing the Grant Memorial or any of 15 other statues in Washington DC honoring Union officers, nor the Lincoln Memorial, though of course that movement was denied election and so is somewhat out of power.
And to be fair, the movement in the West to end slavery wasn't started in the US. If you know where, you also know why, and why post-Enlightenment civilization is hardly the worst thing to occur in the world.
Wow. All this time I thought they were 'competing' for your money. I'm betting they would not accept an eyeball in the post for payment.
Yes, I know your attention is marketable, but if the cable cos worked somewhat like Google or Facebook, for instance, your service would be free, but your TV would be on 24x7, you would have to wait through ads for what you aren't very interested in to actually *see* what you wanted, your DVR would include unskippable ads and would arbitrarily include whatever they wanted to pimp to you, and you would be offered all manner of benefits in exchange for watching or listening to what *they* wanted you to, whenever you watched. And they would listen in to try and discern your interests, so that they could mold them into something profitable.
As it is, they almost play both ends against the middle. Almost.
I apologize if I offended you. I did think you were clear, but in this 'matter' especially I find it's useful to force everyone to deal with the simple and undisputed facts.
Well, gee, read up a bit on the philosophies of NYC government leadership. Or, for a shortcut, it seems to me that they do not value competence or performance, but rather they seem to prefer to punish contrary thought, spend taxpayer money on unnecessary or actually harmful purposes, and as this article sort of points out, fail to deliver the services both necessary for a well functioning city, and those reserved to the city itself to the exclusion of private vendors.
NYC residents and visitors should be hounding their government to do what they both claim is theirs to do (maintain transit systems) and is necessary, even critical.
And to be fair this is the result of decades of neglect. Plenty of blame for previous administrations, if they prefer to lament the situation instead of fixing it.
And recall that there have been other violations, in the same time period, that were criminally prosecuted. People were convicted and punished. For the same sort of violations.
Actually I think it's more accurate to take the FBI Director at his word, and recognize that he stated that the 'matter' would not likely be prosecuted by the available prosecutors.
In other words, he believed this would not be pursued by Justice. And that is where the blame belongs.
And yes, I'm reaching back to complaints that FLOTUS somehow overstepped her role and inappropriately influenced a White House staffing decision. Our President's daughter is accused of interesting but somehow undervalued violations of records laws, devalued because previous flagrant violations were unpunished, even excused, and considered to be unlikely to result in prosecutions and/or convictions.
But not now, of course, because of the political views of those associated with this current 'matter'. And that's not merely unfair, it's a direct threat to our nation's form of government. Think it through. Yes.
The precedent isn't prosecution, but rather the decision to prosecute or not. Letting the FBI choose to not refer a 'matter' to the Justice Department for further investigation and consideration of criminal charges and prosecution sets a 'precedent' of sorts, first that the FBI somehow should be deciding on prosecutions, and second that Justice can avoid any responsibility, real or implied, to act when there is knowledge of criminal violations.
And there is certainly knowledge of criminal violations. Some that require intent, and some that actually do not. And not just recently, nor limited to the current First Lady.
Transit 'pays for itself' by making cities like New York possible. Without a transit system, businesses would move out to somewhere that their employees can get to for work .
The only controversy regarding these accusations is whether the actions satisfy the definition of 'gross negligence', or are merely 'extremely careless', as the FBI Director characterized them, bearing in mind that his assessment was neither binding nor required.
Also the Federal Records Act, FOIA, NARA
My assertions are based on public statements of, among other officials', the Director of the FBI. If your commenting on that these assertions are baseless, I recommend you consider his statements, and demand that he correct or rescind them. I'm merely referring to the public record. Or you can cling to the characterization of those acts as 'extremely careless'. Recognize also that other recent prosecutions of civilian and military defendants for virtually identical acts might lead you to believe that prosecution for these violations is selective... Whether that's excusable is a matter of personal opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
" this is also the government that set the slaves free"
No, actually this is the *nation* that set the slaves free. The 'government' would have happily negotiated slavery in new territories on a 1 for 1 basis, one slave, one free. The nation was divided on this, and one side (slavers) chose to go to war over it, and while you will quibble over who started what, the South chose war, prosecuted that war, and lost that war.
And the South, continuing to pay respect to those who fought and died for a cause they believed in, is now excoriated for honoring its dead. I note none call for removing the Grant Memorial or any of 15 other statues in Washington DC honoring Union officers, nor the Lincoln Memorial, though of course that movement was denied election and so is somewhat out of power.
And to be fair, the movement in the West to end slavery wasn't started in the US. If you know where, you also know why, and why post-Enlightenment civilization is hardly the worst thing to occur in the world.
*other than*
This is a great turn of phrase, seeming to prove the point, and of course not.
Not a great choice, maybe not even a fair choice, but a choice. Patience. Band 71.
Wow. All this time I thought they were 'competing' for your money. I'm betting they would not accept an eyeball in the post for payment.
Yes, I know your attention is marketable, but if the cable cos worked somewhat like Google or Facebook, for instance, your service would be free, but your TV would be on 24x7, you would have to wait through ads for what you aren't very interested in to actually *see* what you wanted, your DVR would include unskippable ads and would arbitrarily include whatever they wanted to pimp to you, and you would be offered all manner of benefits in exchange for watching or listening to what *they* wanted you to, whenever you watched. And they would listen in to try and discern your interests, so that they could mold them into something profitable.
As it is, they almost play both ends against the middle. Almost.
What? Who?
"inserts something into a law, "
That's legislation, even if it's merely DC.
Which should, SHOULD be proposed to, and ratified by, the city council (or whatever). The public isn't inserting into law. alt least not legally.
I suppose the council can authorize the changes to the repo. But it's not random insertions...
I apologize if I offended you. I did think you were clear, but in this 'matter' especially I find it's useful to force everyone to deal with the simple and undisputed facts.
Woulda coulda shoulda.
Hard to offend your current and apparent future bosses all at once.
Well, gee, read up a bit on the philosophies of NYC government leadership. Or, for a shortcut, it seems to me that they do not value competence or performance, but rather they seem to prefer to punish contrary thought, spend taxpayer money on unnecessary or actually harmful purposes, and as this article sort of points out, fail to deliver the services both necessary for a well functioning city, and those reserved to the city itself to the exclusion of private vendors.
NYC residents and visitors should be hounding their government to do what they both claim is theirs to do (maintain transit systems) and is necessary, even critical.
And to be fair this is the result of decades of neglect. Plenty of blame for previous administrations, if they prefer to lament the situation instead of fixing it.
Hehe. Ask Oklahoma. Or Pittsburg.
To be fair, cops aren't excused, they are permitted to violate and not punished...
And recall that there have been other violations, in the same time period, that were criminally prosecuted. People were convicted and punished. For the same sort of violations.
"no classified emails were involved"
Not a very high bar...
Actually I think it's more accurate to take the FBI Director at his word, and recognize that he stated that the 'matter' would not likely be prosecuted by the available prosecutors.
In other words, he believed this would not be pursued by Justice. And that is where the blame belongs.
And yes, I'm reaching back to complaints that FLOTUS somehow overstepped her role and inappropriately influenced a White House staffing decision. Our President's daughter is accused of interesting but somehow undervalued violations of records laws, devalued because previous flagrant violations were unpunished, even excused, and considered to be unlikely to result in prosecutions and/or convictions.
But not now, of course, because of the political views of those associated with this current 'matter'. And that's not merely unfair, it's a direct threat to our nation's form of government. Think it through. Yes.
The precedent isn't prosecution, but rather the decision to prosecute or not. Letting the FBI choose to not refer a 'matter' to the Justice Department for further investigation and consideration of criminal charges and prosecution sets a 'precedent' of sorts, first that the FBI somehow should be deciding on prosecutions, and second that Justice can avoid any responsibility, real or implied, to act when there is knowledge of criminal violations.
And there is certainly knowledge of criminal violations. Some that require intent, and some that actually do not. And not just recently, nor limited to the current First Lady.
Slick way to disqualify a contractor without looking like you're playing favorites.
"What is wrong with the NYC and state governments that they don't want to fund a transport system worthy of a great city?"
Look into it. The problem is obvious.
"Expected passenger revenue over a five-year period has dropped by $485 million since July. "
WTH does this even mean?
Transit 'pays for itself' by making cities like New York possible. Without a transit system, businesses would move out to somewhere that their employees can get to for work .
Oh, wait.
Most of your readers only heard a *whoosh* sound... Sad, they may only respond to the much louder and more alarming sounds later.
"wealth"
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Everyone has a moral compass. Every corporation is run by people who all have moral compasses.
The problem is where the compass points and leads their actions.
And these so-called 'compassless' people have a few things in common, which is instructive.
PS- you may by confused about who I think committed crimes. My response should help clear up any confusion.
18USC2232
18USC1519
18USC2017
18USC793
18USC1924
The only controversy regarding these accusations is whether the actions satisfy the definition of 'gross negligence', or are merely 'extremely careless', as the FBI Director characterized them, bearing in mind that his assessment was neither binding nor required.
Also the Federal Records Act, FOIA, NARA
My assertions are based on public statements of, among other officials', the Director of the FBI. If your commenting on that these assertions are baseless, I recommend you consider his statements, and demand that he correct or rescind them. I'm merely referring to the public record. Or you can cling to the characterization of those acts as 'extremely careless'. Recognize also that other recent prosecutions of civilian and military defendants for virtually identical acts might lead you to believe that prosecution for these violations is selective... Whether that's excusable is a matter of personal opinion.
Private address spaces are not a "private internet". However, they also are not useful in the public, actual Internet.