08-19-2016, 09:41 AM
leilanidude (and perhaps others, Punatic007, etc)
Given your certainty that the Mayor was "...a thief..." I'll ask only that you provide some factual basis for your opinion. Prove to me that your opinion is based on your knowledge that these purchases, the surfboard and the bike, were NOT reimbursed within the $22k prior to the newspaper article.
If you can establish that they were paid back in the secondary reimbursement, the $9k, prove that they were outside of the parameters established for his use of the P-card as explained in the above linked article. If you can't do either of those then perhaps you could wait for the legal fog to clear on this matter.
Chunkster,
I don't agree, at all, regarding Billy's capacities to gain and exercise power, which is the point of Machiavelli's treatise. He became the Mayor, he promoted and gained his Executive interests in terms of the Budget, and he accomplished some (not all) of his goal to develop better public facilities with our tax base. His administration took full advantage of the historically low interest rates to refinance the inherited debt, then combining it with new debt to finance considerable public infrastructure, and maintain the inherited ratio of debt service to total budget. Mission accomplished !
However over time Machiavelli's willingness to discuss the need to sometimes act in self-interest has become the context by which most people understand his thesis (common definition; cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one's career). The most common generalization is that there is some core evil to practicing Machiavellian principles. It's not a mandate, it's an understanding that the author promoted that, at times, "The Prince" must act in self-interest in order to maintain their position of power, thereby being able to practice power in the future and to complete the purpose of having gained their position in the first place. Machiavellianism is at it's core pragmatic and that Good and Evil are secondary to public welfare.
It's a bit complex, I'm sure the Punaweb moral relativists are no doubt better equipped to grasp the nuance, while the absolutists (True Believers, obtuse shouters, the querulous ) are no doubt cringing at the implications. Anyway, I'll now apologize if I've digressed too much from the point of this poorly titled thread....airportparking, no presidential references at all (though they are explicitly allowed, read his strictures more carefully)
Given your certainty that the Mayor was "...a thief..." I'll ask only that you provide some factual basis for your opinion. Prove to me that your opinion is based on your knowledge that these purchases, the surfboard and the bike, were NOT reimbursed within the $22k prior to the newspaper article.
If you can establish that they were paid back in the secondary reimbursement, the $9k, prove that they were outside of the parameters established for his use of the P-card as explained in the above linked article. If you can't do either of those then perhaps you could wait for the legal fog to clear on this matter.
Chunkster,
I don't agree, at all, regarding Billy's capacities to gain and exercise power, which is the point of Machiavelli's treatise. He became the Mayor, he promoted and gained his Executive interests in terms of the Budget, and he accomplished some (not all) of his goal to develop better public facilities with our tax base. His administration took full advantage of the historically low interest rates to refinance the inherited debt, then combining it with new debt to finance considerable public infrastructure, and maintain the inherited ratio of debt service to total budget. Mission accomplished !
However over time Machiavelli's willingness to discuss the need to sometimes act in self-interest has become the context by which most people understand his thesis (common definition; cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one's career). The most common generalization is that there is some core evil to practicing Machiavellian principles. It's not a mandate, it's an understanding that the author promoted that, at times, "The Prince" must act in self-interest in order to maintain their position of power, thereby being able to practice power in the future and to complete the purpose of having gained their position in the first place. Machiavellianism is at it's core pragmatic and that Good and Evil are secondary to public welfare.
It's a bit complex, I'm sure the Punaweb moral relativists are no doubt better equipped to grasp the nuance, while the absolutists (True Believers, obtuse shouters, the querulous ) are no doubt cringing at the implications. Anyway, I'll now apologize if I've digressed too much from the point of this poorly titled thread....airportparking, no presidential references at all (though they are explicitly allowed, read his strictures more carefully)