|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 27, 2012 20:55:10 GMT -5
To claim ignorance of the laws he violated is weak....the laws that state such a conflict-of-interest results in a minimum penalty of removal from office. He should've known what could get him tossed. Maybe he did, and he didn't think it applied to him. Now he's playing the "I just want to help kids" card in his apology, which seems very spin-doctorish. I wonder if he's sought the advice of his former right-hand man, Nick Kouvalis. Kouvalis was Ford's deputy campaign manager and became the new mayor's chief of staff. He stepped down from that position in Feb. of 2011. Ford has vowed to appeal and to run in the by-election if his appeal falls through. Now there's talk that being removed from his term means til the "end of his term", which is 2014. That would preclude him from a by-election. How ironic that a man who ran on budget transparency and accountability has turned $3150 into probable court cases and a by-election that will get in the way of, and take money from, things that really need to get done in the city. Maybe the judge could've ruled differently, but he went by the book...and Ford should've known better. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 27, 2012 22:39:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 27, 2012 23:03:47 GMT -5
Toronto's the centre of the universe, franko....you know that.  Yep, another for the oxymoron list: clean politician. Or so it seems. Here's a little "it's who you know" favour Ford delivered to a supporter...AM640 morning host, John Oakley, who had Ford on his show for years, building his image via a weekly segment. Mr. Oakley voted for Mr. Ford; with awe in his voice, he recounts how the councillor helped Mr. Oakley's friends get a parking pad in the Beaches. "He went out there, took care of it." Mr. Oakley, in return, MCed "Ford fest" at Rob Ford's mother's house in Etobicoke.From: ArticleI know this crap goes on undetected all the time, by any politician of any stripe...but, man, it just doesn't sit right with me. So self-serving and rife with hypocrisy. They'll cut through all the red tape to help their privileged friends...but the rest of us can wait in the endless queue...thank you very much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2012 23:36:12 GMT -5
Naturally, when loudmouth and bullying tactics don't work - such as the demand for an appeal - that's when you get on your knees and plead. I'm not buying it, Ford.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 28, 2012 0:07:46 GMT -5
Isn't Don Cherry one of his biggest boosters?  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 28, 2012 10:01:54 GMT -5
Isn't Don Cherry one of his biggest boosters? Yeah, he asked Don to speak at his inauguration. A very awkward speech. Tried to be funny...obviously, he's not. It's one thing playing to a camera, uncontested, on Coach's Corner...but it's way different when people are lookin' back at ya, believe me. "Honest, truthful, no phoney...."
"Going to be the greatest mayor this city has ever, ever seen...as far as I'm concerned...and put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks!"Now I know why he wears a high-collar...to cover the red neck. Even Ford seemed embarrassed by it. Somehow, I doubt he'll be calling on Don to be part of his appellate process. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 28, 2012 15:56:44 GMT -5
Heard Doug Ford on the radio today. He's calling the municipal conflict-of-interest law that got his brother turfed: "antiquated". "We have to get rid of this antiquated law." Yep...it's the law's fault for being out of touch. Should never have been in place. How many bets the Fords would've been citing that law had any of their opponents broken it? Hypocrisy and shifting the blame. Typical of any politician getting caught. ===================================================== Also....Ford's former "Karl Rove" who I mentioned above--Nick Kouvalis--his company, Campaign Research, has just been censured (i.e. officially reprimanded) by its industry body (MRIA) for making misleading, untrue phone calls to the Mount Royal riding constituents, on behalf of Stephen Harper. They had been hired by the Conservative Party. Now that arm of Campaign Research, called Campaign Support, has been made independent of Campaign Research. Hmmm..... Oh well, a little slap on the wrist for some dirty pool. But again, typical. ArticleFrom the article: Campaign Research, through "acts, omissions and public statements," violated public confidence and its professional responsibilities, a complaints panel of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) concluded.
Speaking to CBC News last February, Brendan Wycks, head of the association, said Campaign Research had 30 days to discuss its work in the riding with those who complained and try to resolve the complaints. It wasn't able to do so, and the association set up a three-person panel. The panel had three options from which to choose:
Censure.
Membership suspension.
Expulsion.
The decision also includes the script for the calls, provided by Campaign Research. Callers were to say that they were calling on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and ask whether Stephen Harper could count on the constituent's support "in the upcoming election."
"If asked what election this is for, say the following: 'Some people are suggesting that the current MP MAY retire, so we're calling on behalf of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to ask you if you would consider supporting the Conservative Party of Canada if there is a byelection,'" the script reads.
Cotler was re-elected on May 2, 2011, six months before the calls started.
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said Harper should take responsibility for the calls, which were paid for by his party.
"The effort to dislodge Mr. Cotler was, to use a technical term, disgusting," Rae said.
To imply Cotler was stepping down was beyond any standard in politics he's ever known, Rae said, since the people running the company and the Conservatives knew that "it was a lie and knew it was false and knew it was untrue."
"The response that you've got to remember is the response of Mr. [government House header Peter] Van Loan. Who said, 'It's just politics. It's how we do business.' That tells you something about the Conservative Party."
The Conservatives have long targeted the seat, which Cotler has held since 1999.Another articleCampaign Research has been closely affiliated with conservative political campaigns and worked for more than 90 Conservative candidate campaigns in the 2011 election. Kouvalis was also a key adviser behind Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s election win.I would presume that all parties use such agencies....but this one, at first blush, seems like a hired gun. Perhaps they all are to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 28, 2012 20:36:56 GMT -5
I did some ground work for Ford. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he man is honest, hard working and stubborn. The old story about who do you want to jump into a fox hole with you, well, given a big enough fox hole, I would take Ford to cover my back.
He is a completely different from the spit and polished urban lefty politician who knows how to say the right things and push the right buttons. Sadly, he defiantly has hoof in mouth disease. Both Ford brothers need someone who knows how to help them with weasel politics. Perhaps someone from the McGuinty Weasel School of Politics.
What annoys me is that the masses talk from both sides to their mouths. They want someone like Ford because he is true to his word, but then, they roll their eyes when he burps at the dinner table.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 28, 2012 20:48:16 GMT -5
I know this crap goes on undetected all the time, by any politician of any stripe...but, man, it just doesn't sit right with me. So self-serving and rife with hypocrisy. They'll cut through all the red tape to help their privileged friends...but the rest of us can wait in the endless queue...thank you very much. Have you asked for help? Sometimes we assume without testing the waters. I asked for some help from local councilman/woman in my area about council approval for solar project. No problem. I also "know people who know people" with the Ford camp, I bet it wouldn't be much different. We go about living most of our lives with very little contact, or need to contact politicians. When you need them, much like broken taps, they run hot and cold. What I despise is some that when they get in office, they think they are Gods gift to humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 28, 2012 22:50:06 GMT -5
And there are no spit and polished urban righty politicians who know how to say the right things and push the right buttons? Please. There are unpolished lefties as well. If anything is weasely, it's playing the "I just wanted to help under-privileged kids play football" card and claiming ignorance of a law that he now calls "antiquated". The dude has his own family printing business, Deco Label and Tags. What's an extra 3 grand to him, if he's so dedicated to kids playing football...or how about finding sponsors through proper channels? Maybe he could've used some of the money he made by outsourcing the printing of his business cards and those of his staff to his family's company...charging as much as four times what they could get them for from the city printer. October 28, 2011. Yeah, it's just under $1600...but it's the principle of it, isn't it? Yes, he cut office budgets overall...but he made sure to give his own business some of the action in an area that cost more. And....he refused comment. Speaking of weasel McGuinty...I heard him interviewed on CBC Radio today. My lord, you'd think he was just the best premier this province has ever seen.  What a puff piece. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2012 4:55:05 GMT -5
He cuts 20k from everyone's budget but he committed the insane cost of spending a couple of hundred too much on business cards. Meanwhile Pravda has no problem promoting Smitherman as mayor. No problem with billions down the drain.....nope, not one......nothing to see there.....compared with Fords mind blowing corruption.
As for the issue of paying a few thousand. Ford stood his ground that he will not pay it because he personally did not benefit from it. ALL that money was for charity. Every penny. No different from anyone working for free for the Salvation Army and someone stealing the Christmas presents. Do we demand that he pays for the loses?
Principles......hmmmmm.......
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 29, 2012 9:10:19 GMT -5
I don't mind him speaking at the meeting to explain himself but he should never be voting on something that directly benefits him. It's the defintion of conflict of interest & as an experienced council person this should have been very obvious to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 29, 2012 9:13:02 GMT -5
Agreed, HA. The money in question is miniscule....but it was inappropriately voting on the motion that he should pay the money back that's the issue. That's the conflict-of-interest. I know his reasoning: why should I pay back something from which I did not personally benefit, monetarily. If you can't vote on such motions that involve you....then you simply can't. Doesn't matter if it's $5 or $5 million. You have to admit, there's a sense of "I'm above the rules" about him. You know, when a player gets too big for the team? I mean, you can still love the Habs while wishing Scott Gomez was gone. Now I see Hudak is lobbying to get the law amended. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 29, 2012 13:20:49 GMT -5
I don't know what's going on with municipal politics nowadays. I didn't want to start a new thread, so I decided to place these stories in here because they pertain to municipal corruption. Ford isn't the only mayor going down. Gérald Tremblay, mayor of Montreal and Laval mayor, Gilles Vaillancourt, have both resigned amidst scandals. Vaillancourt had a 23-year run end as well. Maybe some of our Quebecer community members can weigh in here. Is there more to come in Quebec? For some of our GTA members; how did Ford do as mayor overall? Cheers. PS, CH, I'm not trying to hijack the thread. But, there's a lot of corruption being uncovered lately. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 29, 2012 13:22:35 GMT -5
Not hijacking...all on the same topic. But I don't care if a thread goes off tangent anyway...ha!
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 29, 2012 13:32:29 GMT -5
I don't care if a thread goes off tangent anyway...ha! a tangent? a thread hi-jacked? that never happens here! btw, I love the thread title . . . my first thought was that Ford was dismissed by many a long time ago |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 29, 2012 13:33:17 GMT -5
Now I see Hudak is lobbying to get the law amended. someone else who has no credibility opening his pie-hole. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 29, 2012 14:00:27 GMT -5
Not hijacking...all on the same topic. But I don't care if a thread goes off tangent anyway...ha! Right on ... I was just listening to Terrance McKenna on CBC just now. I guess Vito Rizzuto and certain members of Hells Angels have been subpoenaed already. Have to wonder if this is the base of a pending mushroom cloud. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2012 14:53:55 GMT -5
For some of our GTA members; how did Ford do as mayor overall? He's done well considering that the majority of the councilors are left wing. Considering he hasn't spend a couple of hundred million chasing pet sky falling projects and terrorizing motorists, he's done great. But, he commuted the crime of standing up for himself and pushing and evil charity agenda...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2012 14:59:27 GMT -5
Agreed, HA. The money in question is miniscule....but it was inappropriately voting on the motion that he should pay the money back that's the issue. That is the point. If you were accused of inappropriate behavioral by your bitter foes and they saw a way to stick it to you, would you be so cool and laid back? Particularly if it was a worthy cause? Did you hear the comments by Ruby and the lefty village cryer who launched the lawsuit? "We as citizens are responsible for each other, and that means standing up and doing what is right." Yup....take down that right winger..... If that is not left politics and law warfare, then tell me what is? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 29, 2012 15:07:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 29, 2012 15:30:34 GMT -5
Agreed, HA. The money in question is miniscule....but it was inappropriately voting on the motion that he should pay the money back that's the issue. That is the point. If you were accused of inappropriate behavioral by your bitter foes and they saw a way to stick it to you, would you be so cool and laid back? Particularly if it was a worthy cause? Did you hear the comments by Ruby and the lefty village cryer who launched the lawsuit? "We as citizens are responsible for each other, and that means standing up and doing what is right." Yup....take down that right winger..... If that is not left politics and law warfare, then tell me what is? No, it doesn't logically mean "take down that right winger". It's "take down that politician to whom the law applies." The village crier may very well have been left-minded...but that's irrelevant to the law in place. That law applies no matter what political ideology is in office. One could've done the same to David Miller, David Crombie, Mel Lastman, et al. I think it's important to remain objective. And it's important to be honest about the subjectivity, too. Of course, the left will be happy if Ford's gone. If somebody had taken down David Miller in the same way, would the right not have been jumping for joy? Why is the law there, if it's not to be enforced? Are some mayors created more equal than others? Yes, Ford has done some good things....but he messed up here. No matter the motive, no matter the project. That's like letting Lance Armstrong off the hook just because he started a cancer foundation. As jkr said above, he should've plead his case (if allowed under the law) and stepped out of the vote. Like I said, it was 3 grand, wrongly solicited. Pay it back and get on with your great work for the city. Ford's the one who pushed the issue by voting and breaking the existing law. Oh yeah, he didn't know about a huge law governing his position. One can only assume he's, as you said earlier in the thread, stubborn and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Should someone like that be running Canada's largest city? Shouldn't we demand diplomacy, prudence, and intelligence in such a position? He wants to talk about accountability....but instead all he has in being held accountable to breaking a law are a backhanded apology, the "I was just helping kids" guilt card, and excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2012 16:00:04 GMT -5
Because the law NEVER apply sentence in absolutes pr strictly on principle.
Do we apply the same sentence to shop lifters and bank robbers?
Do we apply the same sentence to those who grab a mans ass and a childs ass?
We create laws and punishments to fit the crime and sentence accordingly. Demanding that one law should stand on principle and be absolute, partuicularly since there was no crime committed, is a slippery slope.
As for Miller, I would enjoy seen him taken out of office because of his politics. Nothing but politics. And I would say so. I would not pretend or justify to be based on "legal principle".
BTW........just for the record....the judge could of suspended him for a period of time. Instead,, he took down a politician on a case that was all about politics and not a crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 29, 2012 16:14:23 GMT -5
Because the law NEVER apply sentence in absolutes pr strictly on principle. Do we apply the same sentence to shop lifters and bank robbers? Do we apply the same sentence to those who grab a mans ass and a childs ass? We create laws and punishments to fit the crime and sentence accordingly. Demanding that one law should stand on principle and be absolute, partuicularly since there was no crime committed, is a slippery slope. As for Miller, I would enjoy seen him taken out of office because of his politics. Nothing but politics. And I would say so. I would not pretend or justify to be based on "legal principle". BTW........just for the record....the judge could of suspended him for a period of time. Instead,, he took down a politician on a case that was all about politics and not a crime. RE: Miller. My point is that if it was the same law that brought him down, right wingers would be behind it all the way. Only human. =========================================== You know what? I just found out that Ford WAS aware that he was about to break the law. He was alerted/warned by Council Speaker, Sandra Bussin, when the vote was taking place. He wasn't supposed to speak on the matter either...but he did. From the text of the judge's decision. 6] At the City Council meeting on August 25, 2010, the Integrity Commissioner’s report and recommendations were initially approved without debate. Later in the meeting, a Councillor moved for reconsideration of that approval. A vote was held and the motion for reconsideration was defeated. The respondent voted on that motion. Just before this vote, Council Speaker Sandra Bussin alerted the respondent to a conflict of interest. She described what occurred in her affidavit in this proceeding, as follows:
Because the matter involved Councillor Ford’s conduct and made him personally liable for $3,150.00, it was my opinion that Councillor Ford had a direct and personal interest in Item CC52.1 which amounted to a conflict of interest that prohibited him from speaking on or voting on the motion.
As a Councillor bound by the City’s Code of Conduct, it was Councillor Ford’s responsibility to declare that he had a conflict of interest because of his pecuniary interest in the motion. Nevertheless, as Speaker, when I realized that Councillor Ford intended to vote on the motion, I alerted him directly to his conflict of interest. I said to him in a clear voice:
“Councillor Ford. This matter deals with an issue regarding your conduct. Do you intend to declare a conflict? You are voting? Okay.”
I have attached a transcript of the exchange to this affidavit as Exhibit “A”.
I alerted Councillor Ford to his conflict of interest in the hope and expectation that he would declare his conflict and not vote on the motion. Having ignored my warning, there was nothing more that I could do.
Councillor Ford did not seem surprised when I told him that he had a conflict of interest. Instead, he just nodded to me, indicating that he understood what I had said but that he was voting on the item. He then proceeded to do so.Clearly, he knew he was going to break the law in place and he didn't care. Well, he cares now...and out come the puppy-dog football eyes (sounds like something a bleeding heart Liberal would throw out there, doesn't it?) and other excuses. Everything except, "I was wrong, I was bull-headed...and I ask forgiveness." You know what his apology was? “Looking back, maybe I could have expressed myself in a different way. To everyone who believes I should have done this differently, I sincerely apologize.”Apologizing just to those who believe he was wrong....well, that's not an apology at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2012 21:12:43 GMT -5
Because the law NEVER apply sentence in absolutes pr strictly on principle. Do we apply the same sentence to shop lifters and bank robbers? Do we apply the same sentence to those who grab a mans ass and a childs ass? We create laws and punishments to fit the crime and sentence accordingly. Demanding that one law should stand on principle and be absolute, partuicularly since there was no crime committed, is a slippery slope. As for Miller, I would enjoy seen him taken out of office because of his politics. Nothing but politics. And I would say so. I would not pretend or justify to be based on "legal principle". BTW........just for the record....the judge could of suspended him for a period of time. Instead,, he took down a politician on a case that was all about politics and not a crime. RE: Miller. My point is that if it was the same law that brought him down, right wingers would be behind it all the way. Only human. You quoted me and yet you ignored my point. The law? Is it absolute? Does it apply bluntly on principle? You quoted many things but have you quoted that the judge said it was NOT a criminal offence? So given that the intent of the law was to stop REAL corruption like Montreal, does this merit removing an elected official from office over a CHARITY? So where is the hand of justice? As for Miller, I made it clear that I would enjoy it but I would not spin as some kind of moral or legal justice. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 29, 2012 21:58:08 GMT -5
The charity has nothing to do with it. The fact that the judge said it was not a crime doesn't matter either. The rules in place say violation of the conflict-of-interest municipal law results in removal from office, not jail time. Who's arguing it's a crime?
It's the fact that:
a. He solicited the funds, as a councillor, using city letterhead. The Integrity Commissioner informed him that such a practice was against the code of conduct, and told him he had to pay it back. Most people would've apologized right there, pled ignorance, and complied. He refused, willfully breaking the code of conduct.
b. Council agreed with the Commissioner's findings. He still refused to pay it back.
c. The Commissioner reminded him 6 more times to repay. He refused/ignored each time.
d. Back to council for the February vote. The speaker reminded him that he was in danger of conflict-of-interest if he voted. He nodded and voted--this time breaking municipal law.
So, he willfully, defiantly, and obstinately violated the code of conduct and municipal law. That cannot be argued.
Yes, I agree, the penalty was too harsh. If the judge rescinds the ruling, it'll be because he wants to save the city the money it'll cost for an appeal process and/or by-election. I'd expect Ford would instead be heftily fined and temporarily suspended.
He must be held accountable for his contempt of the reasonable codes and laws in place for elected municipal representatives. I mean, he's all about accountability, right?
That's as concise and as clear as I can be on my opinion. How simple would it have been for Ford to pay it back when informed, and find the proper channels to solicit funds for his youth football foundation? Very simple.
Yes, it pales in comparison to what's going on in Montreal...or in Palestine for that matter...but it's not logical to say, "Yeah, he broke the laws at City Hall which stipulate removal from office, but it's not as bad as organized crime in Montreal, so let's go easy on him."
That's a real slippery slope.
We have a strict, but very reasonable, CoC at HabsRus. If members willfully defy it, they're either suspended for various lengths of time, or turfed. We don't say, "Well, compared to all the crap that goes on at HF Boards, it's not that bad. They can stay."
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 29, 2012 23:47:50 GMT -5
I was watching a program Sun TV earlier tonight. Right wing, but I sometimes need to hear that side of things.
Host, Ezra Levant, pointed out that Ford could have avoided all of this had he not blew it off when it was first mentioned to him. However, he had to deal with a lobby that wanted him out of office and simply left them an opening.
Levant, suggested that Rob Ford was removed from office because he didn't secure enough of the "elite vote." Levant went on to suggest that Ford was basically ignored by the centretown, waterfront crowd, and that he won the majority of his votes from the ethnic groups and working stiffs that aren't as privileged as their 'elite counterparts'. Levant also used a municipal electoral map to show how the vote went. If his map is accurate, then Ford won big.
Interesting perspective, no?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 3:36:07 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, the penalty was too harsh. If the judge rescinds the ruling, it'll be because he wants to save the city the money it'll cost for an appeal process and/or by-election. I'd expect Ford would instead be heftily fined and temporarily suspended. You agree it was too harsh. The punishment should be relative or "fit" the crime. He must be held accountable for his contempt of the reasonable codes and laws in place for elected municipal representatives. I mean, he's all about accountability, right? Fine. Punish him according to the crime. Fine and temporary suspension. Again, the punishment should "fit" the crime. That's as concise and as clear as I can be on my opinion. How simple would it have been for Ford to pay it back when informed, and find the proper channels to solicit funds for his youth football foundation? Very simple. Pay who? Those who gave to the charity? None of them want the money back. The judge did NOT order re-payment either. Yes, it pales in comparison to what's going on in Montreal...or in Palestine for that matter...but it's not logical to say, "Yeah, he broke the laws at City Hall which stipulate removal from office, but it's not as bad as organized crime in Montreal, so let's go easy on him." That's a real slippery slope. Do you realize that you are re-skewering your own proportionality punishment in your above statement? If we do not compare it relative to something else, if we don't weigh it on the scales of in-justice, then we have to look at it in absolute terms. We have a strict, but very reasonable, CoC at HabsRus. If members willfully defy it, they're either suspended for various lengths of time, or turfed. We don't say, "Well, compared to all the crap that goes on at HF Boards, it's not that bad. They can stay." Actually, we do, in reverse. We use the comparison because, well, it is directly comparable. Same subject matter, same overall content, same issues, different people. Again, here you agree with me in applying proportional sentence......but argue against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 3:53:36 GMT -5
I was watching a program Sun TV earlier tonight. Right wing, but I sometimes need to hear that side of things. Host, Ezra Levant, pointed out that Ford could have avoided all of this had he not blew it off when it was first mentioned to him. However, he had to deal with a lobby that wanted him out of office and simply left them an opening. Levant, suggested that Rob Ford was removed from office because he didn't secure enough of the "elite vote." Levant went on to suggest that Ford was basically ignored by the centretown, waterfront crowd, and that he won the majority of his votes from the ethnic groups and working stiffs that aren't as privileged as their 'elite counterparts'. Levant also used a municipal electoral map to show how the vote went. If his map is accurate, then Ford won big. Interesting perspective, no? Cheers. I assure you 1000% that it was smelly workers and severely normal people who wanted him in. I met too many of them. LOL! In fact, I left the fancy cars at home and went out with the mini-van...and fit right in. As for the media....read Toronto Pravda. Other then posting their private parts on facebook and molesting children, there is simply nothing that left wing politicians can do wrong. Smitherman wasting a few billion dollars? Move along, there is nothing to see here........Mcguinty sky falling energy plans sucking out 10 billion a year from Ontario working stiffs? He did it for your own good. Move along.....Mcguinty abandoning the law, judges rulings and people of Caledonia? What? Never happened. Move along....and by the way, isn't Justine great? Almost PERFECT! Public enemy number one is not the politicians, or foreign powers, it's the mass media that have decided to be advocates and re-educators for their causes...... And because of them....we WILL be more polarized in time. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2012 7:02:54 GMT -5
Public enemy number one is not the politicians, or foreign powers, it's the mass media that have decided to be advocates and re-educators for their causes...... on a totally unrelated but related topic, Maclean's Magazine had an interesting article last month:  not sure how far I'd go in this, but teachers influence . . . even more than the media. now back to regular scheduled debate on Mr. Ford. |
|
What a puff piece. 