WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons
27east.com

109 Comments by CoweeDewey

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  >>  

Local Tea Party movement holds two rallies on Tax Day

Not ranting (unlike John McCain, we should be able to address more than one issue at a time), and never said I'm against the TP. I share the frustrations over high taxes, self-interested politicians, taxpayer-funded bailouts. But I'm tired of TP whining and nonsensical talking points, with no substantive solutions being offered.

Taking your flat tax, I am not opposed to a flat tax, and I also strongly favor taxing corporate revenues (if they're "people" for First Amendment purposes, shouldn't they be "people" for tax purposes as well?). But, will the revenue generated by your flat tax cover government expenses for infrastructure and services? If not, what programs will be cut and how will you balance the budget? And, if what you're saying is that your flat tax will have the effect of actually raising taxes, do you really think the TP is going to go for it? I have yet to see a TP sign saying "Increase My Taxes Please" - instead, as reflected in the photos accompanying this article, these TPs believe in "Taxed Enough Already" and "Say NO To More Taxes." Your idea of a flat tax, while intelligent and insightful, will never fly with this crowd because of their fantastical belief that they can have lower taxes while continuing to receive the same level of government services they presently receive.

The reason I listed the various TP sign slogans in the earlier post is to point out that most of them are either ill-considered or flat out nonsense. How, for example, is gov't healthcare tantamount to gov't control over our lives, and why is that worse than for-profit corporations controlling healthcare (and, presumably, our lives)? What is the support for "Congress Spends Our Taxes But Doesn't Pay Theirs"? How someone can seriously believe that Obama is a Marxist (or a Socialist or a Nazi)? Or my personal favorite, the older gentleman holding a sign that says "Stop Taxes, Stop Debt." This is pure nonsense - I'm still waiting for someone to explain the substance behind these signs and prove me wrong.

And the people whose signs say "Taxed Enough Al" Apr 29, 10 9:28 AM

Hey Captn - "If Goldman Sachs is found to be in violation of law or regulations, I'm certain the vast majority of Teabaggers and bagees ... more alike will conlude they should be prosecuted or fined." Sorry, but can't be both free market/anti-regulation on the one hand, and in favor of prosecution for violating "law or regulations." Free markets = no laws or regulations, right? Once again, the TP is all slogans, no substance.

" May 1, 10 4:30 PM

To answer your question on the problem with the new AZ immigration law, there are two. First, in order for an officer to decide whether "reasonable suspicion" exists that someone is in the US unlawfully, the officer - lacking any set, objective criteria - will be forced to use judgement based on racial profiling. If a dark-skinned latino and I (a white guy) are both pulled over for speeding, it's obvious the latino is more likely to arouse "reasonable suspicion" because of his nationality and skin color. Not even the AZ Gov., who passed the law, had an answer when asked what someone who's illegally in the US actually looks like. Bottom line is that our Constitution forbids racial profiling, and that Constitutional prohibition has worked well so far - interesting that the TP is in favor of trashing it.

Second, the AZ law allows the police to be sued for not enforcing the law, creating yet another untenable situation (even the police in AZ are against the law for this reason). The cops are stuck between a rock and a hard place - either they try to enforce the law and subject themselves to racial profiling lawsuits, or they refuse to engage in racial profiling and get sued for not enforcing the law.

As for Marco Rubio - the son of Cuban immigrants - he does NOT support the AZ law, especially the "reasonable suspicion" provision. Here's a report on comments he made on 4-27-10 in Miami:

But, Rubio added, "I think that the law has potential unintended consequences and it's one of the reasons why I think immigration needs to be a federal issue, not a state one."

More specifically, Rubio said, "Everyone is concerned with the prospect of the 'reasonable suspicion' provisions, where individuals can be pulled over because someone suspects that they may not be legal in this country. I think over time people will grow uncomfortable with that."

On the prospect of suspects showing documentation to police to prove they are legal, Rubio said, "That's not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state." " May 1, 10 4:52 PM

You've defeated your own argument. Plenty of people who are legally in the US cannot speak English - that's a criteria that you're illegal? And hanging out with day laborers without ID is now a crime? Most important, both of these criteria (and any others you can dream up) constitute impermissible racial profiling, prohibited by Federal law and the US Constitution (familiar with the Equal Protection Clause?). Are you anti-Constitution?

Educate yourself with this W-era DOJ memo on the ineffectiveness and "terrible cost" of racial profiling: http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.php" May 1, 10 5:02 PM

I'm glad you're conceding that free markets is a bad idea. "Blah blah blah" is exactly what I expect from somone with nothing constructive to offer - not all Tea Partiers, but TPs like you.

As for the racial profiling, you've lost touch with reality - profiling is inevitable any time the police are left to make these kinds of decisions without objective criteria. But the obvious fact that you conveniently ignore is that I (the white guy) would never get asked your non-profiling questions - only people that don't look like me would get asked. And that's unconstituional racial profiling." May 1, 10 7:18 PM

I guess when you run out of message, you attack the messenger. But in doing so, you sidestep the main problem - what's important is not the questions they'll ask, but who they choose to ask the questions to. Why is this important? Because the true "bigger picture" is that our Constitution mandates equal protection under law and prohibits racial profiling. But you seem to be OK with trashing the Constitution, because to you, the ends somehow justify the means, regardless of constitutionality.

Your cheap reference to 9/11 is misguided - this law is aimed at Latinos, not Osama, and there were no Latino hijackers (can you even name a single Latino that's perpetrated a terrorist attack on American soil?).

But since you raise the issue of terrorism (which, like it or not, is separate from the issue of immigration), a central goal of terrorism is to get the US to curtail the freedoms and liberties that make us the greatest country in the history of the world. So when you hear that our government does things like illegal wiretapping, racial profiling, and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo, you can chalk one up for those who hate our liberties and freedoms.

As for the TP, I don't know where they're going. My problem with the TP is that they like to complain, but once you get beyond the simplistic signs, slogans and bumper sticker sound bites, they've got nothing substantive and realistic to offer in the way of solutions. And solutions are the only thing that matters." May 2, 10 4:01 PM

I couldn't disagree with you more, as I think it's naive to believe that profiling won't occur because the law forbids it (the Constitution has always forbid it, but hasn't prevented it). But I have enjoyed and appreciate the debate and will leave it at that." May 5, 10 8:58 AM

Westhampton Beach detective suspended, faces disciplinary hearing

sjd - why do you call him "Jim the Gun"?" May 23, 10 4:26 PM

Southampton School Board suspends high school principal and assistant principal, who are then hired by East Hampton

These people wanted better-paying jobs. They timed their departure (end of the year) to minimize disruptions. What's wrong with that? Is a school administrator, after joining a school system, required to stay there for life? All of this whining about shirking their responsibility to the students and being "self-centered" is ridiculous. They're professionals who left one job for a better-paying job elsewhere, just like any of us would do if given the opportunity - get over it." May 25, 10 9:22 AM

Vice President Biden visits Southampton over holiday weekend

Razza, sjd - Spending is up under Obama because, among other things, (1) the size of government (and the corresponding debt) expanded astronomically under W, while W lowered taxes, resulting (surprise!) in a massive deficit that Obama inherited, and (2) the recession - fairly attributed to mistakes by the Clinton and W administrations - required immediate and massive stimulus spending, which, while costly, has (so far) avoided the first depression in over 80 years - a considerably more costly result. Under your "logic," if "Barry" takes over cleanup of the BP spill, the he's to blame for the rig explosion, and for the cleanup costs. Please.

On health care, no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office estimates a net REDUCTION in the federal deficit of $143 billion between 2010 and 2019 (see http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm) - a relatively modest reduction, but most important, a reduction and not an increase (even if that number is off by half (and it's not), we're still talking about a massive deficit reduction, and a reduction in nonelderly uninsured by 32 million (see the same CBO report)). Apparently a horrible result, according to you. But I'm guessing you (unlike me) will end up benefitting from it - enjoy.

Meanwhile, while exact numbers are hard to come by, the Iraq war (not Afghanistan or the global war on terror, just the useless Iraq war) has cost somewhere between $500 billion and 1 trillion and counting, with no end in sight.

Meanwhile, 4,287 US soldiers dead and over 30K wounded (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm).

Have a happy Memorial Day?" Jun 2, 10 9:39 PM

Three Republican candidates will battle on Tuesday for right to challenge Bishop in November

Captn, why would you oppose privatizing the PD and FD? And while we're at it, why not let for-profit companies take over public water and sewer responsibilities? Oh, I know - because you don't want to call the FD when your house is on fire, or the PD when someone has broken into your house, and be told no one's coming to help because responding to those types of calls just isn't profitable enough.

PD, FD, clean water, sanitary sewer services - they're all directly related to our health and safety. Yet when it comes to healthcare (i.e., our own personal health), you want to keep it in the hands of wealthy, for-profit corporations. Why isn't gov't-funded police, fire, water and sewer socialist??? Using your definition of what's "socialist," we're already living in a communist country, right?" Sep 14, 10 11:35 AM

Nice quote job, Captn - but you don't understand. Obama's plan (now endorsed by John Boehner) preserves the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning under $250K. Why do you want to keep tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Because it will somehow trickle down?

Enough of your hypotheticals - here's some non-hypothetical reality from today's Bloomberg news online, titled "Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says." The opening sentence: "Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it."

Why do you want to preserve tax cuts for the ultra-rich?" Sep 14, 10 12:21 PM

What's not BASIC about your personal health? Or mine? Or anyone else's? In fact, what could possibly be more basic than our health? Isn't our health the most important thing in our lives? Remember the old saying, At least we've got our health?" Sep 14, 10 12:24 PM

The only reason health care is not a "community" service is because the for-profit model has made health insurance prohibitively expensive to most people. If cost were not an issue (i.e., if it was supported through taxes), health care would be the most basic community service of all.

Yes, unlike many, I've been fortunate enough to have selected a number of health plans, and all leave something to be desired. One size does fit all - it's the "size" that says that, whenever you need health care, you can get it. Your comment on this point is nonsense.

Let me type more slowly to help you understand the real reason for the GOP's opposition to universal health care - it hurts the wealthy for-profit health insurers." Sep 14, 10 1:24 PM

I'm doing my best to keep up...

My point is that, if you're earning over $250K, you can absorb a return to the higher tax rate more easily than if you're earning $25K. My point is also that the ENTIRE argument the GOP puts forth on preserving tax cuts to the $250K+ crowd is the 'trickle-down' theory, namely, that the taxes they save will somehow make it back into the economy and generate jobs. That's simply not true. So without that, what's the argument to extend the tax cuts for the rich who, dollar for dollar, reap a windfall in savings compared with lower-earning Americans?" Sep 14, 10 2:49 PM

re health insurance
You're kidding when you say healthcare is available for every person in America, right? That's like saying an estate on Further Lane in EH is available to every person. It is, but for a price that few can afford.

And the only reason health insurers might profit more from Obamacare is because the GOP killed the public option, which was the only way to force true competition in the health insurance industry. Again, to protect this private, for-profit industry. " Sep 14, 10 2:55 PM

Pat Lynch continues lawsuit against town

Another expensive lawsuit the Town will definitely lose. How can prior litigation against the Town serve as a basis to bar her from volunteering? This smacks of government intimidation of the worst kind. The Town's message is clear: Don't sue us, because if you do, we're going to punish you. It's particularly egregious in this instance, since Lynch WON her earlier suit (both a jury and appeals court agreed with her). And while it may be the shelter denying her application, I predict the Town will be on the hook as well because of its partial funding of the shelter.

I don't know Pat Lynch, don't care what her motives are, and certainly am not defending her. Dislike her all you want, and feel free to criticize the result in her earlier suit, but don't for a second think that the message the Town-funded shelter is sending is legitimate. As long as there's Town funding, the shelter is going to have to let her volunteer, but it looks like taxpayers will be forced to continue to foot the bill (and Lynch's bill - she'll get her attorney fees in the suit as well) for their ignorance." Sep 22, 10 12:41 PM

What if a female Town employee was wrongly passed up for promotion based on her gender or her race? By your logic, if she sued the Town and won, the Town would then be justified in firing her and barring her from getting another job with the Town (or with a Town-funded entity), solely based on her earlier suit. That's wrong.

People can hate on Pat Lynch all they want, but she's going to win this suit too and enjoy another taxpayer-funded payday." Sep 24, 10 9:43 AM

You're not a whistleblower if you're suing to protect your own rights (as it the employee in my example) - a whistleblower exposes wrongdoing that affects others.

Lynch is a citizen with a right to free speech (as the court in the earlier suit recognized), and with a right to not be discriminated against at a town-funded entity (as this court will eventually find). If you want to avoid your tax dollars going into her and her attorney's pocket, either cut Town funding or let her volunteer." Sep 27, 10 2:12 PM

Throne-Holst: No layoffs in 2011 tentative budget

Interesting photo of ATH." Oct 4, 10 2:16 PM

Clashing ideas about jobs dominate congressional race

Anger is clouding your ability to tell fact from fiction. No takeover of healthcare, just extending it to 32 million Americans who wouldn't otherwise get it. And only wants to eliminate Bush tax cuts for the super rich, not for the rest of us.
Your defense of wealthy health care insurers and the super rich is very un-teabag of you.
And by the way, everyone in America sucks at the government teat. Did you drive on a government-built road today, drink a glass of water purified by a government-buit and -run water treatment plant, use a municipal sewage system? Ever call the police or fire department who are funded by... yes, the government? Teat-sucker." Oct 14, 10 6:01 PM

Do you mean 18 more days until we return to the same 8 years of awesomeness that got us into this mess (aka, the W Years)? More unfunded wars? Continued tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy? Further unprecedented expansion of the federal government and spending, with no plan to pay for it? You're right - happy days ARE here again!" Oct 14, 10 6:06 PM

And embrace imperialism, fascism, corporate greed, environmental degredation, economic disparity !
Regarding entitlements, see my post above. Even teabaggers enjoy government "entitlements" - public roads, clean drinking water, municipal sewer, fire/police services. How do you propose we get by with no more "entitlements." And tell us how all the blue-hair teabaggers are going to feel when you take their medicare and social security "entitlements" away." Oct 14, 10 6:41 PM

Just as expected - the "real" razza has nothing to offer. I guess when reason trumps empty slogans and the party of No, your best move is to go to the 'lol.' The fake razza is much more interesting." Oct 14, 10 6:58 PM

But razza, the small business argument has exposed as a sham. For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20100924/bs_bw/1040b4197030541676
You guys are in favor of protecting big business, health care insurance conglomerates, and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy. It's just not very teabaggish of you." Oct 14, 10 7:07 PM

No offense taken, "real" razza. But come on - my response tracked the earlier post. No John McCains on this board - we can handle more than one topic at once.
But let's stick with this - everyone is, on some level, a beneficiary of what you call government handouts or entitlements. So where do you draw the line? Roads/water/sewer/police/FD are OK, but welfare is not? Medicare ok with you? Or do we get rid of all of it?" Oct 15, 10 9:27 AM

His show is great entertainment. But it's not so much what he says as how he says it, in his anguished, prepubescent Paul Harvey voice - you've definitely got to check him out." Oct 15, 10 9:33 AM

Agreed they're 'handled' at the local level, but the fed gov't provides states with massive funding so they can actually "pay" for them. Without that money, services would be severly limited.
No doubt medicare and SS are in need of reform, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. You'll see above - TCM did not say that we're 18 days away from "reforming" federal programs. He said we're 18 days away from "reject[ing] ... entitlements." Like a lot of what I hear from the TP, it's a nice bumpersticker slogan, but no one bothers to explan exactly how they're going to make it work. " Oct 15, 10 12:45 PM

Altschuler, Bishop Will Take Part In Campaign Event On Thursday

The US Supreme Court halted the recount before it was completed. No one (including Gore) knows what the recount would have yielded had it been allowed to proceed to completion.
Suprised the TPs aren't up in arms over the US Supreme Court halting a state vote count, being conducted pursuant to a procedure expressly approved by that state's supreme court. Where's the outrage?" Oct 20, 10 12:26 PM

Would you, your family and your business be better off if the country were in a depression? Conservatives can't seem to own up to the fact that we avoided a depression because of the stimulus (and most economists believe the stimulus wasn't big enough). I've got young kids and don't like the prospect of deficits that will take generations to resolve. But doing nothing would have been a unmitigated disaster." Oct 20, 10 12:33 PM

Judge Orders That 161 Ballots Be Counted, Prepares Ruling On 1st District Race

So in the past week, all that's been accomplished as of this evening is (1) 71 military ballots counted, (2) campaigns each dropped 100 challenges (out of more than 2,000), and (3) the BOE commishes ONLY TODAY started looking at the remaining 2,000 contested ballots? That's pathetic. If anyone can explain why this is moving so slowly, I would greatly appreciate it." Nov 30, 10 6:07 PM

Altschuler Concedes Congressional Race To Bishop

hmmm bigfresh... It was a tax cut when your boy W enacted it. It was scheduled to expire in three weeks. And now your party's insistence on avoiding repeal for the rich adds a few hundred billion (minimum) to the deficit. It's the GOP's own Shameless Stimulus Package - Rich Guy Edition. As a TP fiscal conservative, you must be so proud." Dec 8, 10 4:52 PM

I'm frustrated by adding anything to the deficit, unless it will help the economy longterm. According to many (but not all) economists, stimulus in any form will help. The problem I have with extending (or not letting expire, take your pick) the tax cuts for those making over $250K, as opposed to continuing unemployment, is my personal belief that those who are unemployed are more in need of help.

And suffice to say that being "disappointed" in Obama, and the Dems generally, over their performance these past two years is an understatement. But hope springs anew, now that the GOP will actually be expected to get something done, as opposed to obstruct. I suspect the GOP gains last month will, over the next two years, prove a blessing in disguise for Obama and the Democrats." Dec 9, 10 8:56 AM

Just because he voted in the Democratic primary doesn't make him a Democrat. Instead, he sounds more like a Repub who likely registered Democrat, voted against Bishop (twice?) in the primary in hopes of derailing the Dems strongest candidate, but when that failed, voted (twice) for RA in the November election." Dec 9, 10 9:02 AM

bigfresh - back to basics. W's massive and unnecessary tax cut passed in 2001 but didn't save us from the mess we're in today. Meanwhile, despite our massive financial commitments - forget pork, focus on Iraq and Afghanistan - the GOP insists on adding hundreds of billions to the deficit by extending the cuts for people making over 200/250K/year. Unless you fall into that category (and congratulations if you do), your tax rate would not have changed and you would have kept under the Dem plan. So stop saying things like "us" and "our" - Dems wanted to keep taxes lower for 99% of "us", it's the GOP (i.e., you) that wants them kept low for the other less-than-1%." Dec 9, 10 4:12 PM

Captn - I think, then, that we can all agree that W was a disaster. He began by implementing massive and unnecessary tax cuts in '01 (remeber, the gov't was running a surplus at the time), then presided over a massive expansion of fed gov't (read: spending), preemptively engaged us in an unpaid-for war in Iraq, and left this country fiscally unable to adequately deal with the collapse of the housing bubble.
Next, the GOP and TP'ers cry foul over Obama's $700B stimulus pkg (which in fact was signed into law by W), complain that trying to reign in healthcare costs is socialism (when in fact it's forecast to save the gov't billions in the long run), and now, with our economy in the toilet, they're holding all legislation hostage (including benefits for 9/11 responders - shameful) until they get tax breaks extended for the rich.
So understand that, when the GOP claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility, and the TP whines about Dems being socialists who want nothing except to steal your stuff, it's a little bit frustrating." Dec 10, 10 11:36 AM

Olberman is calling it like he sees it, just like Mark Levin (I'll certainly give him that). More important is that congressional Dems are also questioning the tax deal. I see intra-party debate, not as a sign of weakness, but of independent thinking by people with a conscience.
Would have been nice to get some of that from the GOP over the 8 years that W presided over his massive expansion of the fed gov't (preceded, of course, by his massive tax cuts)." Dec 10, 10 11:44 AM

Hendrickson Recalls Days On Gardiners Island

Very cool - thanks for this article." Jan 28, 11 11:17 AM

Group Pushing For Religious Boundary Files Suit Against Southampton Town, Westhampton Beach And Quogue

DFJ - Once you let this happen, then you're left with two unappealing options: either the gov't opens the floodgates to every 'religious display' that's sought (bad), or deals with each subsequent request on the 'merits,' forcing gov't to draw the line somewhere (worse). The point has been made repeatedly on threads relating to this issue: how will gov't determine what is/is not a 'legit' religion? How will gov't decide what is/is not a 'legit' religious display?

Should the Wesboro Baptist Church (the lowlifes that protest soldiers' funerals) be allowed to put up hate-filled signs on utility poles as a display of its 'religion'? How about anti-abortion Catholics putting up graphic photos of aborted fetuses? Or a Ham Sandwich religion that wants to hang delicious ham sandwiches from the overhead wires (apparently similar to the Old-Sneakers-Tied-Together religion, which has for years put up unauthorized signs on local utility wires). You may say that this is different from putting up ribbons, but then you've drawn an arbitrary line based on your inherently arbitrary standards. And when we empower government to draw that line - to say one religion is legit and another is not, to say that one display is OK and another is not - freedom of religion is at risk." Jan 28, 11 11:49 AM

Thanks Raz - You are Exhibit 1 to my example. What about tiny photos of aborted fetuses? Delicious ham sandwiches? Ganja for the Rastafarians? Give us your own personal criteria on what is OK and what isn't, and then everyone on here will give you their criteria, then the gov't will impose its criteria, and then you're including some religions/displays and excluding others, and then we've eviscerated the guarantee of religious freedom in this country." Jan 28, 11 12:12 PM

I don't know Z, that might be an oversimplification. Maybe better described as a religious use, of private property, for the exclusive benefit of the particular religion (pretty sure utility poles are considered private property, and the fact that this involves a religion, instead of a private individual or secular entity, seems to be what's confusing everying and getting them so fired up)" Jan 28, 11 6:07 PM

I would bet that most if not all of the LIPA poles are located within the municipal right-of-way for the streets that the poles are located next to. I don't believe the poles these folks are talking about are ones that might be located on a private landowner's property.

One interesting aspect of this case will be the extent to which the towns can enforce their zoning and code ordinances on these folks. There is a federal law that provides religious groups with additional protections from zoning and land use laws (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act for an overview) but I believe it only applies to land owned by the religious organization. Here we've got a religious organization complaining about zoning/code enforcement, but on property not owned by the religious organization. It will be interesting to see whether the ordinances hold up (common sense tells me they should, but you never know...)." Jan 29, 11 12:37 PM

View The Kabot DWI Police Tape

Funny how the cop calling ATH means nothing as far as whether LK was intoxicated. But somehow it means everything. Odds of an acquittal just skyrocketed." Feb 3, 11 4:07 PM

Jury Verdict In Kabot Case: Not Guilty Of DWI

I'm assuming the WHB PD has sent ATH a text to let her know?" Feb 4, 11 4:55 PM

Attorney Asks For $70 Million Judgment Against Southampton Town

Ridiculous pic - are they presenting her with the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes check? Maybe...

I'm reasonably certain a default judgment will 'only' result in the Town admitting liability - she'll still have to prove up her damages. But by admitting liability, the Town has removed her biggest hurdle and has paved the way for her to recover something for all the pain/suffering/humiliation/etc. she'll claim she suffered.

Mr. Sordi's got some esplainin' to do..." Feb 8, 11 4:02 PM

I don't think so. You only get damages on default when your damages are "liquidated." LIquidated damages typically arise under contract (whereby, if you breach, contract provides the amount of damages you'll pay $X as "liquidated damages"). This is a tort case, where damages are inherently unliquidated. Assuming a default is entered (which, by the way, is generally unlikely), the court still must hold a hearing to fix her damages." Feb 8, 11 4:37 PM

No default means the case moves forward. Defendants will either seek to dismiss the complaint (advisable) or will answer it. If they answer, discovery ensues, followed by motions for summary judgment (essentially seeking a judgment based on the evidence, but without having to go to trial). If the motions are denied, then there's a trial, presumably with a jury (if either party requested a jury trial)." Feb 8, 11 5:03 PM

No question, no excuses - it's the attorney's responsibility. " Feb 8, 11 5:05 PM

The "concept" of terrorism existed then (as did actual terrorists). The Founding Fathers were well aware of it when they wrote the Constitution. The whole idea was that, in a (reasonably) free and open society governed by laws, the extreme views of the minority could not be imposed on the majority.

Keep in mind the 9/11 attacks had dual goals: horrific death/destruction but, more important, instilling fear/terror. To those Stone Age Islamic extremists, the ultimate 9/11 victory would have been for the US to abandon its principles, curtail freedoms, and basically become something other than the US. Fortunately, that has, for the most part, not happened.

With that said, I agree that we need to be practical in dealing with extreme (and potentially threatening) idiocy. With apologies to the libs, poor judgment doesn't begin to describe taking pics of the ANG with guns & ammo in the trunk - it's asking for trouble. She'll get her day in court (and hopefully there won't be a default judgment, so that she'll have to prove her entire case). But I suspect that a jury will have little sympathy for this kind of behavior.

My prediction: Judgment against the Town and the County, Damages = $1." Feb 8, 11 6:35 PM

While she may have hired, him, she's not responsible for managing his calendar - that responsibility falls to the attorney ONLY.

Sordi is the lone person responsible for this inexcusable neglect." Feb 9, 11 9:44 PM

If we're going to get technical about it, ex-pat is wrong - "arrest" and "detained" are different.

Arrest means you are taken into police custody, and are typically restrained (handcuffed, put in cell). Detained for questioning is temporary and does NOT involve being taken into custody or being restrained." Feb 10, 11 5:24 PM

Case in point.

Besides, if they shut it down, where would you go to post your 19th comment?

" Feb 10, 11 8:22 PM

Southampton Town Board Accepts Town Attorney's Resignation

Maybe politics has more incompetents? Although they're mostly lawyers...

That said, there are plenty of good, honorable and ethical attorneys out there. Problem is that, like anything else, you only hear about the bad ones." Feb 12, 11 8:22 PM

Editor: The earlier article on this fiasco said plaintiff is seeking a default judgment. This article says she's seeking a summary judgment. Very different things - can you clarify?" Feb 12, 11 8:24 PM

Thank you." Feb 14, 11 10:47 AM

Town Releases Details Of Sordi Separation Agreement

As distasteful as having to give him even a dollar may be, the fact is that the Town got out of this one cheap." Feb 15, 11 6:12 PM

Get real: The Town's payout here is a bargain compared to fighting the guy in court. $26K would get burned up in a month or two of attorney fees to outside consel fighting a Sordi suit. And even if Town attorneys handled it, Sordi would have gotten more than $26K from a judge/jury.

SPOILER ALERT: Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and people who walk away from unexpired employment contracts without demanding $$ in return all share something in common. It's not a desire to give to others. If you favor reduced government spending (apparently you do?), then be happy this wasn't $260K or $2.6m." Feb 16, 11 12:34 AM

Southampton Village Hopes To Relieve 'Number 1' Problem

Socialist Government at its worst. First taxpayer-funded bailouts, Death Panels and mandatory health insurance for all. Now they're attacking our God-given right to express ourselves through public defecation.

Where does it end?" Feb 16, 11 10:22 PM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  >>