I can respect that. It was your Nazi comment that I find disgusting, and way out of line.

Shortfuse may not have gone about this in the right way. The accusations may or may not be true. I can certainly think of more subtle ways of saying them.

However, NYPD is not without some history of heavyweight corruption.

Remember Frank Serpico? That wasn't just a movie.

From New York Magazine:

"Serpico Testifies


May 3, 1971
When: October 1971

Background: For years officer Frank Serpico testified against bad cops, collected evidence against corruption in the New York City police department, and repeatedly failed to get superiors to act on his allegations. He wasn't a popular guy in the precincts.

Getting nowhere inside the system, Serpico contributed to an April 1970 New York Times expose that reported that police were earning millions of dollars a year from payments from drug dealers, mobsters, and even small businesses. The story leads Mayor Lindsay to form the Knapp commission the following month to investigate the charges. A year later Serpico is shot in the face during a drug raid but survives. Officers do not call for aid and Serpico believes he was set up.

"A high-ranking police official said later, 'that when word came in that Serpico had been shot, this building shook. We were terrified that a cop had done it'."
— From the May 1971 New York article, "Portrait of an Honest Cop" by Robert Daly"

One would certain hope that NYPD has stayed "clean," but it is a huge bureaucracy and there are lots of opportunities for greed, graft, bribery, etc.

Because the department acted heroically on 9/11 (which it did), does not mean that it is squeaky clean throughout. The "Blue wall of silence" make it pretty hard to prove wrongdoing in any police department.

Nor does an assertion by Shortfuse that it is corrupt mean it is so.

However, attacks either way by those of us with no real proof really get us anywhere.

I will say that since my early trips to New York in the 1960's, the Department has certainly done a lot to foster a better image in terms of friendliness and cooperation with the public -- evry NY cop I've worked with while doing projects there has been great -- but so has the rest of the city.

I have a huge amount of respect for NYPD, but it's not blind respect.

So, that automaticially means that you know of every police officer and what he/she does while on or off duty? Because you're older cousin is a cop. My older brother is a cop. So therefore, I can speak of how there isn't corrpution., right? Makes sense...using your logic and all.

There is greed everywhere. Hell, I saw greed while working for The Nature Conservancy. There isn't an organization out there doesn't doesn't have corruption.


All that being said, Kerik is probably the only appointment by Bush that I agree with; maybe now places like DC, NY, NJ, etc will actually get more funding to fight terror than Montanta.

Looknig back at it I might have spoke out of emotion

(comparing them to Nazi's)

So I can roll with that. See it's all in good conversation. Thank god the internet allows me to talk to people like you.

Kerik Withdraws His Name for Top DHS Job
 

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Bernard Kerik, New York City's former top cop, withdrew his name from consideration to be President Bush's homeland security secretary, a victim of the embarrassing "nanny problem" that has killed the nominations of other prominent officials.

The surprise move late Friday sends Bush back in search of a Cabinet official to help guard the nation against another terrorist attack.

While assembling paperwork for his Senate confirmation, Kerik said he uncovered questions about the immigration status of a housekeeper-nanny that he employed. As homeland security secretary, Kerik would oversee the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The rest of this article is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...erik_withdraws

Damn... No Bernie for Homeland Security... :(

Who's next? Rudy doesn't want it, but was pushing for Bernie.

We really need someone who can get stuff done in this position.

Nannie gate arise again.

Yeah, that was just really sloppy on Bernie's part. He should have known better.

Speculation is (NY Times today) that a number of media and other agencies are onto additional problems that almost certainly would have come out in or before confirmation hearings.

Don't know what those things might be, but they could have something to do with misuse of city employees.

at least it wasn't the British Nanny

Hmm interesting,


see remark about corruption.

Oh no need to apologize or say that I'm right. I understand completely.

Maybe you should read the posts above before you suggest that particular people appologize. And, when you quote someone, do it to someone who disagreed with you.

A few people were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that won't happen next time.

Besides, the alleged misuse of city employees is pure speculation at this point.

Why don't you put the soapbox away and wait until something is proven?

:rolleyes:

Untie you panties first ummkay. (response to your soapbox accusation.)

1. Didn't say it was you who disagreed with me. i was just using your post it said something about wrongdoing, which supported my initial post (except the nazi reference, that was wrong on my part). If you felt that I was attacking you then just come out and ask me about it and I'll be gladly to explain my position and reason for using your quote.

2. If it wasn't true then he'd still be there. Something had to be wrong it had to be wrong on his part. Where there's smoke there's fire. He pulled himself out before it really got big. Speculation my arse.

My reaction is that your reply to my post, with a quote, basically asked for an apology. I don't think I owe you one, since I didn't take issue with you. I also didn't say I agree with you. If you want an appology from someone else, don't ask for it with my quote.

As for the alleged misuse of public employees, to this point, nothing has been officially charged or proven. You are still making comments about charges that have not been made. If you have an opinion, label it as such.

In the end, that kind of thing may prove true -- but it won't factual bacause you say so -- only when someone offers real proof.

The nominee admitted to hiring an undocumented person and potential IRS irregularities -- not anything to do with corruption.