04-06-2016, 05:31 PM
Ironyak (Kalakoa, etc)
"...Seems like a fact that Kenoi had helping paying back his personal pCard purchases, yes?"
Yes, and no. Context matters, especially here. Arguments are being made about the Mayors "inability" to pay his debts. Others seem to suggest that special interests are stepping up to cover for the Mayor (presumably to gain quid pro quo). Is this what YOU mean?
Actually what the article says is that those individuals and trade organizations paid the expenses in real time, as they were responsible, and before the Pcard became a cause celebre. That's a big difference, since it suggests that there was no subterfuge but instead legitimate acceptance of responsibility.
Kinda like what Billy has done all along.
The criticisms of the Mayor so far seem to rely on moral outrage. This outrage seems misplaced due to the lack of obvious illegal activities (A gentle reminder, an indictment is not proof, so leave that on the side for a while). In the meantime there's a whole bunch of making s*** up, seemingly due to either poor reading comprehension skills, conflation, resentment or, all of the above.
For the record, I have been described as an apologist for the Mayor. How would you feel, what would you think, if I were just playing as a "Devils advocate". Or how about if I were just engaging in sophistry? In other words, can you separate an argument from the arguer? Can you respect one without accepting the other? Or do you have to demonize the arguer in order to ignore or subvert the argument ?
I know I have a hard time taking some of you seriously...one can't be that devoid of critical reasoning can (insert one of many names here)?
"...Seems like a fact that Kenoi had helping paying back his personal pCard purchases, yes?"
Yes, and no. Context matters, especially here. Arguments are being made about the Mayors "inability" to pay his debts. Others seem to suggest that special interests are stepping up to cover for the Mayor (presumably to gain quid pro quo). Is this what YOU mean?
Actually what the article says is that those individuals and trade organizations paid the expenses in real time, as they were responsible, and before the Pcard became a cause celebre. That's a big difference, since it suggests that there was no subterfuge but instead legitimate acceptance of responsibility.
Kinda like what Billy has done all along.
The criticisms of the Mayor so far seem to rely on moral outrage. This outrage seems misplaced due to the lack of obvious illegal activities (A gentle reminder, an indictment is not proof, so leave that on the side for a while). In the meantime there's a whole bunch of making s*** up, seemingly due to either poor reading comprehension skills, conflation, resentment or, all of the above.
For the record, I have been described as an apologist for the Mayor. How would you feel, what would you think, if I were just playing as a "Devils advocate". Or how about if I were just engaging in sophistry? In other words, can you separate an argument from the arguer? Can you respect one without accepting the other? Or do you have to demonize the arguer in order to ignore or subvert the argument ?
I know I have a hard time taking some of you seriously...one can't be that devoid of critical reasoning can (insert one of many names here)?