"All this tells us is that Verio/NTT.net is a crappy hosting provider, not that Giuliani has done anything wrong."
Rubbish. Nobody thinks that Giuliani personally set up the website. But, he *did* hire the people who did, who did a bad job and then the site was allowed to fester with major issues that were not fixed. He hired the people who failed, no matter how you look at it.
That is exactly the problem. Nobody thinks that Giuliani is going to personally set up any security, either. But he *will* be in charge of hiring skilled competent people to do that. If he can't make sure that the public facing window of his security company is competently set up, what is the policy and government defence he's in charge of going to look like?
The issue isn't his personal IT skills, the issue his ability to manage the job at hand - and he has failed miserably.
My opinion on this is that it doesn't look good... but there could be perfectly reasonable explanations for what happened, he's actually innocent of the DWI (but reacted badly because he knows how some people react to the mere accusation) or circumstances that make it not worth destroying his life over. Let's wait for his day in court before calling for his head on a pike.
It certainly looks like he knows he's screwed anyway, but I guarantee there's more to the story here that will probably come out later. I'll try to make a mental note to check back in a few weeks and see what the real story is.
"He also did not think his cunning plan all the way through"
Well yeah, it was doomed to failure any way he played it. Even if he had bought every copy *and* stopped every subscription from going out direct from the publisher, that wouldn't have gone unnoticed. People would have complained about not being able to get a copy, which would have led to an investigation revealing what he'd done, and they might even have been able to print more to meet demand on the day anyway depending on their setup. On top of that, the newspaper does have a website, which did report on the original arrest (http://www.waynetimes.com/law-order/bank-vppalmyra-man-calls-trooper-asshole-refuses-mug-shot/). So, even if his plan to remove all physical copies had worked, the news was still public available.
There's probably more to the story, as I don't think anyone's going to be this desperate unless he knows that the charge will have serious consequences for him over and above what a judge might give him. But, it's clearly all about his DUI not being made public so I hope he enjoys his new international audience.
I other words, you admit I said no such thing. I remember most of my comments here, but there's a lot of them and I may have said something I didn't mean or regret. Or, you could be making the whole thing up. I know which is more likely, sadly. A lack of honesty does tie into the whole lack of morals you display, so no surprise there.
"I don't need to debate my morals. I don't, and will never think like you do. You stated, that because I don't think like you do, that I am immoral."
I did, and according to my personal subjective view of morality, that's exactly what you are. You can either accept that's what you are in my eyes or try to argue why I'm wrong. You've decided to cry about it instead, over and over and over. What a waste of skin you are.
Let me restate for the hard of thinking - I didn't say you have to think like me. In fact, I wouldn't want someone like you on my "side" even if I were dumb enough to think that politics is a team game. But your stunning lack of maturity and self control is entertaining.
Yes, you stated an immoral position, and I said that's how I saw it. Then, even though you now admit that morality is completely subjective, you chose not to discuss my view of your despicable views. You've chosen instead to whine like a little girl because I hurt your tiny little feelings.
You are easily the most pathetic human being I've had the misfortune of addressing here, and I've addressed some whiny little shits in my time.
"I read once were you told a guy that if anyone didn't believe in the Left's "ideals" they were scum"
Citation please. I know it pains you to be faced with the reality of your horrible personal views, but you don't get to invent shit about me.
You're both right. On the one hand, it is a mundane crime in the dictionary sense ("common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative") - as in it's something that wouldn't get a huge amount of attention outside of his personal/professional circle. Whatever your opinion of it, an arrest for it is not generally that notable. On the other hand, you're correct in the sense that it's a crime that should result in some real consequences since he did needlessly endanger those around him.
If guilty, of course. From what I saw it doesn't look like he's been in court for DWI yet. Which would make all this extra hilarious if he was actually found not guilty of the original crime.
"I kind of feel sorry for the guy as his "crime" is pretty mundane."
It gets better!
"After being brought to a state police office in Lyons, Talbot refused to give a breath sample and would not let troopers take his fingerprints or photo, saying he didn't want to end up in the local newspaper, according to state police. He was then charged with second-degree obstructing governmental administration in addition to the DWI charge."
So, his first attempt to stay out of the newspapers made the story more newsworthy and thus more likely to be reported than a simple DWI charge. Then, he tries to remove evidence of the first report, but does so in a way that ensures that the story is reported and repeated in ways way beyond the reach of the original story.
It's not just Streisand, it's someone repeatedly digging a hole to try and avoid repercussions from their actions. .. and failing so hard that a story of no interest to people who don't know him professionally or personally is being repeated to an international audience.
I don't feel sorry for him, he's brought this on himself because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his original actions.
"How many murders, rapes, robberies, little old ladies being assaulted, kids killed, etc... would be enough for someone to label those he ends up dealing with as garbage?"
How many bad interactions with cops do you need before you label all of them as garbage - then why would you treat them as anything but?
I know where you're coming from here with the devil's advocate thing, but it works both ways. Yes, the nature of the job is that you have to deal with the worst of society. But, you will also come into contact with good people, and if you treat them like they're criminals they won't treat you any better even if you are trying to "protect and serve".
That seems to be the issue at hand here. If you have too many people policing a community who have no roots or off-duty contact with the community, it's too easy to become an us vs. them battle where both sides hate each other. As evidenced here - this isn't someone policing a community, this is an armed thug who wishes he could violently attack anyone he dislikes (and apparently hates everyone he sees there). The streets are almost certainly better off without him, even if he has good reason for his views.
If I'm so irrelevant, why are you so obsessed with attacking me? You couldn't even wait 20 minutes before responding to yourself with a quip about an imagined position.
Also your political thrashing is hilarious. Let me guess - you're completely incapable of addressing a person's actual political beliefs and so have to label them one part of a false dichotomy. You have to attack a label, because real world issues are too complicated - probably because you go off the rails when someone correctly described your own positions. I'd love to know what you hallucinate my political beliefs as being. Other than my now well-documented dislike of people who support corporations exploiting Tanzanian farmers for profit without consequence, of course.
But it takes a true right winger to pick it up and run with long after saner minds have considered it a non-issue and proven it not to be true. You'll notice that they dropped the issue almost as soon as it was raised, whereas Palin's supporters ran with it for years.
Nice deflection though - but you're basically saying that even if you're dumb enough to believe in the false dichotomy, "the right" can't even come up with their own half-assed lies.
Don't forget, after they still demanded proof and the "long form" certificate, Obama actually produced it and they still whined that there wasn't enough proof. The man's lineage and birth circumstances had been vetted far more than any person holding the office in history, he provided even more, yet they still weren't satisfied.
Their proof that he wasn't born in the US? Nothing. They "felt" the documents might not be real, and they point to interview outtakes and book misprints stating that Obama was born in Kenya (which, he was - Barack Obama *senior* at least. There's no evidence that Barack Obama Jr., his son and President of the United States was).
That's why these people are usually referred to as racists. There is literally nothing approaching sanity that would make anyone even consider that he wasn't born in the state of Hawaii - unless you really have a problem with something visibly different between him and previous office holders.
"I stated my arguments clearly. Instead of agreeing to disagree you attacked me, then challenged me to attack you back. "
No, you stated an immoral position, whined when I called it immoral and then refused my invitation to attack the statement rather than me personally. Rather than address the position, you claimed I said something different to what I'd actually said, then refused to explain why your position was not in fact immoral. Now you're even refusing to address the subject of the article because hurt your delicate feelings with a mean word. Poor baby.
"You can't even come to terms with what you wrote?"
I know what I wrote, and you have not supplied a single reason why I'm wrong other than that you automatically throw a fit over the use of one of those words.
"You are holding yourself to a higher standard than the law, and calling people immoral for not agreeing with you."
Yes, I consider it immoral to exploit poor people just because the law doesn't specifically say I shouldn't. You may disagree, but you haven't made a single argument as to why I shouldn't consider it immoral. I may have backed down, I may have been willing to redefine it (I could consider it amoral, rather than immoral, for example). Any adult debate would have been welcome.
"Your posting on an American web site. Don't like it? Post on a U.K. web site then. "
No, I'm posting on an international forum that happens to have a US IP address, and on a story that's about Africa to boot. It's open to every country. Plus, by your logic I shouldn't post on a UK site either since I don't live there. Intelligent and consistent thinking is demonstrably not your strong suit.
I will continue to post on websites all over the world that interest me, because this is the *world wide* web, not the closed-off hovel you apparently wish it were. I suggest you remove yourself from international discussions if you're so mindlessly territorial.
"You can't let go, you can't stop posting"
Every post I make is in response to something new you've posted. I can't let it go because the stream of ignorance and immature behaviour hasn't stopped yet. I'll stop when you grow up, get bored or I finish my work shift, whichever comes first
"somewhat comical at this point"
Now, this is indeed the truest thing you've said since you started your meltdown. A shame you can't apply accuracy to anything else you're saying.
"I won't cite them as I'm way to lazy"
Clearly. I just have to accept your word, but you lose your shit because I correctly define something. But, I'm the hypocritical one? A shame you're too lazy to use a dictionary.
...and now instead of shutting you trap before it make you look even more like a fool, you've started going on a rant about politics in a country I neither live in nor have any control over. Even if it were true, it's totally irrelevant to anything outside of your deranged imagination.
Is the truth really so painful to you that it causes you to have this kind of mental breakdown in public through the mere accurate use of a single word? Get help.
"Your not done trying to force your morality onto other people?"
No, because I only started doing that in your deranged imagination. I merely stated my opinion of what you said. You're free to disagree all you want, but you've ignored that option for some reason.
You could have opted to disagree in a mature manner, explain why your stated position was not immoral or even taken the high road and ignored the word and continued the discussion. You chose a different path, and it's not a flattering one for you.
Yet, you can't get over the use of a single word to correctly describe what you said. Now, you're having a complete meltdown because I used other accurate adjectives.
"You deem something immoral so everyone else is a whiner and child"
You are demonstrably whining, and you're the one who started calling others children. I'm sorry if accurate descriptions cause you mental anguish, but that doesn't invalidate them.