MsKreed

So infuriating that NYS allows this creature to walk the streets without any bail.

Wow. Are there consumers who really believe this line of BS? Not only do falling prices not discourage consumers....there is a direct correlation that lower prices lead to increased purchases. From cars to electronics.....consumers buy more as prices fall. Things that used to be "luxuries" only found in a few households that became commonplace for every family to own more than one. DVD players, cell phones, TVs – you name it. Remember when a PC cost $5-6k and only a few geeks bought them? And here's what the result looked like: Source

Have to wonder how those Troopers felt about being obligated to bring her to crash a solemn event, knowing that her presence would further add to the grief of the attendees. 🙁 And someone should ask her why a whole motorcade going round trip from Albany to Long Island wasn't all EV instead of gas guzzling SUVs .

Unfortunately “affordable” isn’t a concrete notion. To some, that means not having rental rates that are running 50-60% of the ‘median’ income of working families. To others, it may mean more of a focus on public assistance recipients. I think the Town of Horseheads project off Gardner And Westinghouse falls into the former.....but some officials outside the Town (County & Village) fear-mongered that it would be the latter. From this article, I’m not sure which it is. One thing that's not entirely explained is a full and clear account of what “support” and “support services” actually means. (Although the phrase is used repeatedly). "Support/supportive" is a pretty broad term that "could" refer to anything from Mental Health advocacy to Aging services or Meal Delivery. But, from the vagueness of the Press Release, I sort of get an impression that "support/supportive" means the concentration could be more welfare than working class. The closest reference is this part that encompasses "supportive" services under the NYS public assistant agency. It seems like a little bit of spin to have 13 units (31%) reserved for for families experiencing homelessness....but only six (15%) have more than one bedroom. So.....mostly homeless individuals and/or couples?

Wow. I can't find it.........I wasn't aware he had an active Legislator FB page. Like many of them, I only see the "campaign" page get busy during election years. Even if he’s using slick, manipulative language like no taxes are being used for directly “operating the Arena”....then it’s twisting facts to give a false perception. The ongoing Room Tax contributions have never been explained in anything more than vague “everyone benefits because the Arena brings visitors to the area”. No specific, measurable metric to ever show a payoff for the “investment”. Ten years down, 15 to go. And the ARP funds were earmarked for specific equipment, repairs and replacements, etc. All of which they argued were/are necessary for the Arena to operate. Period.

Nope. It was too late in the night and would have needed a short road trip to get a clear view....Besides the fact that you can't get far enough "out of town" to escape the brilliant light a Full Moon.

In addition to the $875 in ARP funds.....every year, the Legislature passes a resolution to pay $103,000/yr of Room Tax Revenue to the IDA for the Arena. This is a continuation of a 2014 resolution that promised the CCIDA more than $2.5 million in tax dollars specifically for the Arena over a 25 year period (2014 – 2039). $100k a year isn't a bad steady income for a shady 'quasi-government' agency that flagrantly violates Open Meeting Law to hide its operations from public view, and then boldly lies to the public when it is on record. He's arrogantly denying the Arena is receiving nearly $3.5 million in tax money ($875k ARP + $2,575,000 Room Tax). This doesn't include past legislative actions that were a few million from 1999 through 2017......just current tax money trough that the CCIDA is feeding at. "Who us?? We din't git no tax money."

If I had to take a guess, I’d think donated could be a factor. Also, the idea of a property that’s already “built to suit” as a medical facility. A little clean up and fresh paint on existing waiting rooms, reception areas, exam rooms, etc and the place is ready to start accepting patients on Day One..... without any real renovations needed. I admit the “campus-style” layout is practical for large medical facilities, especially if they are regional specialists/experts, etc. Whether it’s Mayo or Cleveland Clinic....or Strong, specialists will schedule multiple tests and visits on the same day for anyone coming from out of area. Having services and specialties all located in tight proximity makes sense for that. But can’t stand that concept for local care. Fighting to park adds unnecessary stress to medical visits that are already a source of anxiety for many people. I do not need my doctor to be located right next door to every single test or lab that they might ever need at any point in my lifetime.

This would be my guess. Or, quite likely....the FQHC developers got sick of waiting for Moss to do his job and approached the City. And maybe suggested that Elmira apply for one of the DRI that the State Legislature green-lighted? The developer had a presentation at a County Legislature meeting about the deal they approved ARP funds for. At the time, they (County Leg) asked the City pitch in with them, and it was declined. That plan was proposed adjacent to AOMC - not the Southside. Those guys already had a facility in either Chautauqua Cattaraugus County and were putting up a few million of their own. And after the County Legislature approved the ARP money, they started work on their side. Including working with Dr. Surosky to have a building donated for the project.

It seems like he certainly has some “controversial” views on some things....but nonconformist doesn’t mean he’s not intelligent. I kind of think he understands strategy and the importance of dialogue and being thoughtful of differing opinions/priorities, etc. I know he’s characterized as “anti-vaccine”....and also as extremely “green”. I have no reason to doubt the holds those views. But there can a huge difference between having personal views and wanting to impose those views on others. One can truly believe and be concerned that anything (from high carb diets, to fossil fuels, to gun ownership, to school curricula) may be an "existential danger".....and still believe citizens should be free to make their own choices. Not having researched his direct platform, I’m really not clear on how “rigid” RFK's particular policy ideas are. But I haven’t seen anything that says he supports prohibiting things he dislikes or mandating things he supports.

Regardless of what anyone may think about some of his specific views.....nobody should doubt RFK Jr's intelligence. He has about twice the cognitive understanding (especially about about numbers, probability and strategy) of the other two combined. If he didn't have so many partisan hurdles restricting his "reach" to the public, his would be a lot less of an underdog.

I think you’re right. Sane voters across all parties and persuasions are unhappy with the presumptive 2-man race. But, being of sane mind, they don’t have much desire to get into heated arguments by saying that out loud. Both campaigns are built on emphasizing what’s bad about the opponent. While neither is doing much to demonstrate why their candidate is a good choice. I feel like this election could be more like the unexpected 2016 result. Whether their reasons were “anti-Hillary” or “pro-Trump”..... it seemed like a large number of voters didn’t advertise their feelings, and just cast their vote quietly in November (throwing polls out the window). In contrast to the 2020 attitude of both sides screaming their choice, we could very well see quiet voters having a huge impact again.

I’ll refrain from “what about” examples, and just say that other politicians say (and do) things that are also offensive, with much less scrutiny and amplification (whether social media, pundits or “news” coverage). For now, I’ll try to focus on your specific questions about Trump’s conduct***.(see footnote) I'll qualify my remarks by saying, I did not vote for him (and will not vote for him in the future). Yes....his rhetoric is often abrasive, antagonistic, crude and hyperbolically exaggerated. In my opinion, his campaign(s) and presidency have displayed the same persona that he demonstrated on The Apprentice......evidently making it very successful – with dozens of awards and nominations. (Although I proudly count myself among those who never watched a single episode and found the commercials/clips distasteful). But clearly, the millions and millions of Apprentice fans would suggest that his rhetoric style is effective, and many people found it appealing. While his distasteful persona is unbecoming of POTUS, I’ve seen little to no evidence of the “dangerous talk” (or perceptions of) equating to any genuinely dangerous Executive actions that have been fear-mongered. (no EO’s to lock up or censor reporters, or jail Muslims, or strip LGBTQ’s of any rights, etc). And, I do include Jan 6th in my consideration. There's been plenty of domestic unrest, with intent to forcibly influence Constitutional government activity, throughout US history. Often in larger numbers and with comparable (or even higher) degrees of violence....Anyone who wants a taste of what “insurrection” actually looks like can scoot on down to Haiti. Weighing his rhetoric against his actions as POTUS, I believe his domestic and foreign policy decisions had far more positive impact on national security and economic prosperity than his successor. Barring some miracle of a third party being able to defend against the powerful D/R machine that restricts voter choice.....I have to say that, in the presumptive 2-man 2024 race, I will be more optimistic about the future if the former POTUS with potentially dangerous rhetoric prevails over the former POTUS with a demonstrably dangerous policy record. ***(perhaps we can also have an equally critical discussion on Biden’s potentially dangerous conduct at a later time – also refraining from “what about” comparisons).

Unfortunately, getting responses can be a dubious objective. The li’l f—ker is likely to “learn” that a click-bait model with provocative rhetoric will absofarking-lutely satisfy a metric based on “responses”. Whether the bulk of those resulting “responses” are going to be thoughtful or contentious....welllll. 🤷‍♀️ Bill proved that years ago without any AI help. 😉

I think we may differ on the "who/how/why" of incorrectly discerning what he meant. I have less faith in those who willfully circulate "sound byte" headlines and selective excerpts that leave out the context. Click-bait is designed to hide mundane 'full context' behind inflammatory and misleading snippets. It gives me pause to see incomplete snippets instead of the full context. (And that kind of includes TTL Bot's truncated AP quoted here, about 7-8 posts back). When a news outlet (whether AP, MSN, etc or one of their commentators) presents clear disingenuousness in a (highly edited, selectively curated) message, it tends to call the messenger’s integrity into question. Rather than offering a compelling argument of the alleged “danger” Trump presents.....misleading narratives and “quotes” illustrate bias.

He didn't call for any (corporeal) bloodbath, he's simply predicting an (economic) bloodbath if the current administration continues its path. And he's not necessarily wrong about that. But it's not his supporters who are spreading the inflammatory out-of-context phrase....the problem is those who are against him that are hoping to foment fear and counting on the idea that voters who "don’t understand context" will believe he is calling for a "bloodbath" if he doesn't win.

Don't ever count out the stupidity of some people to support (and sometimes even facilitate) actions that are against their own interest. When Seneca Lake was in the middle of the LP Storage debate.....there were plenty who proudly planted yard signs right in front of the LP tanks that heated their homes. We confused, amused and saddened for humanity, all at once.

This. I realize that Moss has no room to criticize anyone else's motives or lack of transparency.......but two wrongs do not make a right. His bad behavior doesn't give the CCIDA license to act shady. And they have been (and continue to be) acting shady. After Nichol's was evicted, they (rightly) took no blame for his stint as a tenant and made it clear that his deal was signed by "old" IDA leadership. Well, that dog don't hunt no more. The terminated Donner (and Tadross**) deal was all them. The deal was all done in secret (violating OML law)....and the deal was a complete failure. And decisions they make now are still happening in secret. And, on top of the ongoing (bond and room tax) taxpayer funding that the previous IDA leadership was getting while CAN-USA was renting....the “new” leadership has been getting additional taxpayer funding. If they feel their superior leadership is worthy of our “investment” (new money, as well as old/ongoing funding), then they should be inviting the investors to fully witness their meetings and showing them the books. If they are proud of their decisions. If they are satisfied with the progress. If they are doing great works and not misusing Taxpayer funds. Then I’d expect them to want to make sure we know that and be more transparent than the law requires, instead of hiding every discussion.

The Union president seems to have some very fair points, regarding management's lack of a consistency: If heckling has been previously been acceptable, then why is it a problem here? Did last year's example take place at a non-church venue? If so, then they need clarification as to "where" it's acceptable - not disciplinary action. If the difference is simply that Latitia holds some superior/protected status above that of the Commissioner....then that is what's political.

I tend to agree, if they were reacting to something she said that was political, then their response is a fair part of an exchange that she initiated. If they wanted to simply make a 'statement' of disapproval for a politician, then I'd say a silent statement (turning away, taking a knee, etc) would have been more appropriate in a church. However, I don't think disciplinary action is warranted. I think it would be sufficient to communicate that it's inappropriate and won't be tolerated in the future. I agree, with some stipulations. Like prior guidance in the form of some written "code of conduct" that clearly outlines when and where what behavior is unacceptable. Remember....the very fact that a public agency employs chaplains, and is holding their promotion ceremony, in a church sort of makes a blurry line for First Amendment questions.

Aside from his "stonewalling" creating an obstruction to Legislative proceedings, an attack like this is indefensible. If he had any suspicion that any county employee was inappropriately modifying legal communications......there is most certainly a process to address it besides refusing to conduct business with teh Legislature. If Moss is on record making such an accusation, Ms. Kalweit should pursue a civil suit for defamation.

I guess I recall one of my more "conspiracy-minded" acquaintances posting something about this back in December. Since the headline I recall seemed overly alarmist (something like "giving Big Pharma more freedom and removing patients' right to informed consent"), assumed it was fake news. I'd forgotten about it.....but lately have been seeing a flood of FB "sponsored ads" suddenly recruiting the general population for drug trials. So, I looked it up and it appears to be a real thing: SOURCE Considering the huge advertising push I'm seeing, the new rule must have really expanded research opportunities..... Just in the last two days, I've seen these four:

It's become commonplace, but not a new thing really. The introduction of tomatoes, etc decades ago that were "forced" to grow rapidly in greenhouses were clearly less "ripe", paler and less flavorful (less color/flavor = less nutrients). If anything, a solid argument could be made that any vegetation will typically thrive better with increased CO2 .

I doubt that there's really a "decision" between the two for NY voters.....it's pretty much a given where our electoral votes will go. (So I will vote a third party, knowing it won't change the 2024 outcome, but will give other parties more strength and viability in NYS) This will be decided in the swing states.