|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 30, 2012 9:15:58 GMT -5
This article from Sept. 5, 2012, is very telling. Ford does things his way, making up the rules as he goes. Seems he has his own definition of conflict of interest, which continually changes shape to suit his needs. Doesn't matter to him about the actual definition in place. Toronto’s mayor has admitted for the first time that if he had the chance to do it over again he would not have cast the vote that landed him in court and put his job in jeopardy.
“Now, if someone would’ve told me that, that I’d be here, obviously I would have, in retrospect, I probably would have probably not voted,” Rob Ford testified Wednesday.
“I would have declared a conflict like I have every other time. But now that we’re here, I’m here. I can’t change what happened.”
All were there to see how the controversial mayor of Canada’s largest city would defend himself against a lawsuit that, if successful, will see him automatically turfed from office and possibly banned from running again for up to seven years.
Although Mr. Ford granted he would have changed his vote if his staff or the city solicitor had told him to do so, he did not budge from his novel explanation of why he decided to speak and vote in February.
In a court appearance otherwise marked by contradictions and lapses in memory, Mr. Ford said again and again that he has always believed a council member only has to declare a conflict if both the elected official and the municipality stand to “benefit.”
Mr. Ford argued that since he alone stood to reap a financial benefit when he cast his vote Feb. 7 – the vote freed him from paying $3,150 out of his own pocket – he was not breaking the rules.
“Like I said, for the last 13 years, I’ve always defined a conflict of interest that there’s two parties. There’s a benefit to the city or the member of council. And that’s when I declared a conflict,” Mr. Ford said.
When Mr. Ruby pointed out that neither the MCIA nor the council handbook define a conflict that way, Mr. Ford said he had not read either document.
He added that he skipped his council orientation in 2000 because, as the son of an MPP, he already understood how city hall functioned.
Mr. Ford’s understanding of a conflict of interest is key because it will form part of a defence that the mayor made an “honest error of judgment,” when he spoke and voted.
In a bid to further undermine the honest-error defence, Mr. Ruby raised two previous cases where Mr. Ford declared a conflict, but the city did not clearly “benefit.”
In March 2011, when council was debating whether to appoint the mayor’s brother, Councillor Doug Ford, or one of the mayor’s opponents, Councillor Shelley Carroll, to a subcommittee of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, the mayor declared a conflict and recused himself.
“Why is this not inconsistent with the view you expressed? Because I can see no financial benefit for the city about whether it’s Shelley Carroll who’s appointed or your brother who’s appointed,” Mr. Ruby asked.
“No, I disagree with that,” Mr. Ford replied.
“Explain it to me,” Mr. Ruby said.
“My brother would be more fiscally responsible than Shelley Carroll,” the mayor said, prompting a loud burst of laughter from the public gallery.
In the second case, Mr. Ruby played a video of Mr. Ford declaring a conflict in May of 2010 because he was the subject of an integrity commissioner’s report recommending he be reprimanded for disclosing confidential information about a city real-estate transaction.
“On that day, you understood the simple principle, if the report is about Rob Ford, you can’t take part in the debate, yes?” Mr. Ruby asked.
“No,” Ford replied.
“What part of that didn’t you understand?”
“I was advised by council that I had a conflict.”
“I heard your voice [in the video].”
“Right.”
“I heard you speak the words.”
“Right.”
“Did you understand the words as you were speaking?”
“No. My interpretation of a conflict of interest, again, is it takes two parties and the city must benefit or a member of council must benefit. Again, I don’t know exactly what the reason was, but I’m sure there was, according to my rationale, a conflict. So I declared it.”
===================================================== And now we know that he was told by the Speaker before the vote in February that he was in conflict if he voted. He nodded and voted anyway. To me, he sounds like a kid on a school playground who gets caught and can't keep his excuses straight. The punishment in place for violating the municipal conflict of interest law--of which he was informed and willfully and defiantly broke--is removal from office. While I agree that it's too harsh in this case, it's there for a reason. Integrity and accountability of office. I mean, if the mayor can make up the rules as he goes along and doesn't feel he falls under the rules in place...well, that's autocratic behaviour...and if allowed, a very slippery slope. If he wants to reform laws/procedures, he must go about it through a proper dialectic. If rescinded, I think a hefty fine and a temporary suspension are in order. I agree that each case should be looked at separately and weighed with common sense. If it turns out that way, Ford will have succeeded in reforming the law....with integrity and accountability still paramount. And I'm out on the topic. Good discussion, HA! Interested to see how it all turns out. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 30, 2012 10:34:21 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...... And because of them....we WILL be more polarized in time. Right on ... the press making their point is nothing new. However, it does offer up debate on the term "freedom of the press." Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2012 11:47:55 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . interesting article on why this was not a left-wing conspiracy: “Rob Ford was taken down by earnest, correct-thinking downtowners” |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2012 11:53:19 GMT -5
Right on ... the press making their point is nothing new. However, it does offer up debate on the term "freedom of the press." For how long? This week, at about the same time that a U.K. judge was recommending that British politicians establish an independent media regulator with the power to discipline the country’s press, the UN was busy holding talks on whether the Internet should be regulated by the United Nations. Both developments signal a threat to free speech. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 30, 2012 12:02:16 GMT -5
IMO, there's a sliding scale from left to right in the media...mainly dependent upon the politics of the owning interests....and, of course, people have a strong tendency to prefer the media that matches their view and to ridicule the rest. Freedom of the press, freedom of opinion. Dialectic is embraced. The way it should be. The best journalism occurs when the truth is pursued, and the evidence is weighed against interest. Hard to find. The best politics occurs then, too....but that's really hard to find.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 14:51:27 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. From the Ministry Of Freedom. By 2050, we must adopt the language of social and environmental justice in order to help people better understand the world. We must not let politics and un-helpful language interfere with people thoughts. It only brings about unwanted controversy and disagreement to our great society. The duckspeak of those with libertarian anarrchist ill-thinking must be exposed to our Community Servers by our great citizens. Those who persist to be thought criminals must be helped and transitioned into a greater level of understanding. Right on ... the press making their point is nothing new. However, it does offer up debate on the term "freedom of the press." For how long? This week, at about the same time that a U.K. judge was recommending that British politicians establish an independent media regulator with the power to discipline the country’s press, the UN was busy holding talks on whether the Internet should be regulated by the United Nations. Both developments signal a threat to free speech.When is it too late to pick up a gun? There is a very serious discussion to be had of where "social and environmental justice" indoctrination will lead with the younger crowd. Most of them will face chronic unemployment after their advance indoctrination studies (university). One example is Greece where hundreds of thousands of well educated left winger indoctrines can no longer depend on the gooberment for easy jobs. They are disillusioned and angry to the point that they want to destroy/eliminate/hang those same lefty politicians that got them there. Be careful what you breed....... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 15:00:19 GMT -5
IMO, there's a sliding scale from left to right in the media...mainly dependent upon the politics of the owning interests....and, of course, people have a strong tendency to prefer the media that matches their view and to ridicule the rest. Freedom of the press, freedom of opinion. Dialectic is embraced. The way it should be. Does the above statement match the statement below? The best journalism occurs when the truth is pursued, and the evidence is weighed against interest. Hard to find. The best politics occurs then, too....but that's really hard to find. Are you going to argue that the mass media in general does not have a left tilt? Or is it in my mind after I kissed Palin on the lips? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 30, 2012 15:45:41 GMT -5
I don't see any problem with the two....perhaps I can clarify.
I think the media takes on the slant of the interests of their individual owners. As long as there's dialectic involved, that's the way it is in a free society...and the citizens are free to choose which stance to agree with and adhere to.
So, as that choice pertains to me....I think the best journalism is one that is as free from the obvious slant of that interest. I prefer being told the truth...which unfortunately is tough to find. So I enjoy reading all bias (forms of personal truths). Makes it easier to pick out the slant, and get to the essence of the matter, to form my opinion. Not always...but most of the time. I just can't say, "He's a Liberal, so whatever he says is nonsense."
As far as lefty media...yeah, there seems to be a lot more ever since the Save the Earth/Everything Green started up.
But the right to far right has strong broadcasters with big followings, too....especially in the States. Fox News (O'Reilly, Hannity), Rush Limbaugh, to name a few. Toronto radio has John Oakley at AM640....and Jerry Agar at CFRB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 30, 2012 15:48:36 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . interesting article on why this was not a left-wing conspiracy: “Rob Ford was taken down by earnest, correct-thinking downtowners” Good find, Franko. This is exactly what I was trying to explain earlier. Ezra Levant presented his theory extremely well and the guest he had on agreed with him. This article pretty much postulates Levant's opinion last night. He even mentioned Paul Magder, a citizen who got the ball rolling with activist lawyer, Clayton Ruby. As an outsider looking in, I found it an interesting point of view. Right wing, sure ... but like I was saying before, I need to hear that sometimes. Good article, man. Right on ... the press making their point is nothing new. However, it does offer up debate on the term "freedom of the press." For how long? This week, at about the same time that a U.K. judge was recommending that British politicians establish an independent media regulator with the power to discipline the country’s press, the UN was busy holding talks on whether the Internet should be regulated by the United Nations. Both developments signal a threat to free speech.Nothing surprises me coming out of the UK nowadays. They're a divided society as it is and now they don't want to punish the press, but control it. News media can be held accountable for errors in facts, or misquotes, but attempting to regulate what they print is one step away from dictatorship. Mind you, Franko, we've seen it here in our country. It's not uncommon for papers here to openly promote a specific political party. Why? Because they're told to do just that (from the owners?). How about TSN? They worked on Brian-Burke-to-Toronto for about two years. They would have kept working on that story for five years if the had to. But, in the end it worked, eh? Burke is Toronto. Regulating the Internet? Sounds like someone is crusading to save the world from itself. I think such an initiative, if successful, would divide the UN (yet again). Societies built on the premise of freedom of speech would feel smothered, while countries that rely on an ignorant society would applaud it. Besides, why stop there? What else would you like to control? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 30, 2012 17:00:52 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. Part of my teacher's training dealt with "teachers as agents for social change." We all remember the good ones and the bad ones, but it's the good ones that can be very influential. One of my history teachers in high school gave us a homework assignment. Put together a project on the provincial election. This was when Stephen Lewis formed the official opposition. We had to identify each party platform, etc. However, even given all of that research (news media mostly) our teacher told us how he was voting. He was an NDP supporter. Mom was Tory and Dad a grit. So, the first time I voted NDP. Why? Because my history teacher was a cool guy. He wasn't trying to sway my, or any other students', vote at all. He was asked a question and he gave us his reply. But, the thing is he was well-respected by his students. He was one of the 'cool' teachers so, yeah ... I'll vote NDP. Now, if educators are doing this deliberately it has to be dealt with by the institution as well. If it isn't addressed then it becomes a reflection of the institution. Then we're into scandal and dictation freedom of the press ... Does it ever stop? ;D Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2012 17:24:07 GMT -5
Besides, why stop there? What else would you like to control? I'd start with banning HA from wearing his cammo thong in public. as to BC . . . lost cause,K hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 30, 2012 17:38:58 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . interesting article on why this was not a left-wing conspiracy: “Rob Ford was taken down by earnest, correct-thinking downtowners” To validate Levant's opinion and your news link, Franko. Here is the City of Toronto electoral results by riding by riding. Looks like Ford won 47% of the popular vote.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 20:12:50 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . interesting article on why this was not a left-wing conspiracy: “Rob Ford was taken down by earnest, correct-thinking downtowners” To validate Levant's opinion and your news link, Franko. Here is the City of Toronto electoral results by riding by riding. Looks like Ford won 47% of the popular vote. Absolute proof of the downtown urban leftist core and just plain working class people all around Toronto. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 20:21:33 GMT -5
Part of my teacher's training dealt with "teachers as agents for social change." Teachers are agents for social change. The more those words rattle in my head, the more frightened I become. Obviously I'm naive enough to think that teachers are there to teach children math, history, science and the usual suspect of courses, not social engineers. I thought that values was the parents responsibility. Obviously, I need re-education. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2012 21:07:48 GMT -5
it's "values neutral" education, Cranky . . . which means teachers don't teach values, uh, no way, no how . . .though they do encourage certain thought-patterns through the curriculum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2012 21:24:56 GMT -5
Value neutral.....
Children sent home to "audit" parents on how much they recycle.
LBGT "studies" to children.
Children "protesting" teacher union issues.
Value neutral......
We are appalled at the audacity of Islam fundamentalist to use madrasah to indoctrinate children...........
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2012 9:43:59 GMT -5
Part of my teacher's training dealt with "teachers as agents for social change." Teachers are agents for social change. The more those words rattle in my head, the more frightened I become. Obviously I'm naive enough to think that teachers are there to teach children math, history, science and the usual suspect of courses, not social engineers. I thought that values was the parents responsibility. Obviously, I need re-education. The purpose of the training was to make potential educators aware that they exert a huge amount of influence over their students and to be careful not only what you say, but how you say it. However, there are teachers out there who either thing they're doing the right thing, or even some who simply don't care how their message comes out. At one point, grade 4 I think, I remember Mrs Dis and I have problems with Dis Jr. It's normal kids to sass or 'just act like kids'. It's all part of growing up. However, at one point I remember him just being impossible. Stuff like this sometimes comes up when you get a few other parents/friends. It was then that we found out that his grade 4 teacher was telling her class that if they didn't agree with their parents they were to stand up for themselves and make an argument. Upon hearing this we confronted the teacher (a young, attractive, very open and focused teacher) and all she could say to us was, "... I'm teaching the kids how to be good citizens ..." I said, "... that's all well and fine, but ..." And we weren't the only parents who were miffed with this. Now, imagine if there are teachers out there who say, "... Mr Ford has the working man's best interests at heart." If it's a well-respected teacher those kids/teenagers, etc, could possibly grow up under the influence that, 'whoever has the working man's best interest at heart will get my vote.' However, it's the phrase that they'll remember if anything at all. The candidate may be a nincompoop, but because they heard that he's the 'working man's choice' nincompoop will get the vote. Eventually these kids grow up and many are able to make their own choices. But, like a few of us being influenced by my cool history teacher in the 70's, kids of today are being influenced by their teachers as well. And in many cases the teacher doesn't know he/she is doing it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2012 11:31:47 GMT -5
I don't know, Dis, I think they do know and are doing it intentionally. stealth activism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2012 12:22:55 GMT -5
I don't know, Dis, I think they do know and are doing it intentionally. stealth activism. Probably more than we care to admit to, Franko. From personal experiences, I had to check myself on more than one occasion. I'm in touch with quite a few of my former students and I sometimes wonder what I'd do if one of them asks me, "... sir, do you remember saying ..." However, with regards to Ford, I keep going back to my cool high school teacher who voted for the NDP. That triggered some other memories, more specifically just how many others voted for Stephen Lewis' NDP juggernaut. Here's something else, though. I read recently that Ford could be eligible to run in the next byelection.. Anyone think he can pull it off? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2012 13:06:52 GMT -5
I don't think that voting map will change very much. reading some of the comments in the Star you can see the polarization.
actually, I can hear some now: "he may be an buffoon, but he's our buffoon." as opposed, I guess, to the next buffoon that will be elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2012 19:26:10 GMT -5
Here's something else, though. I read recently that Ford could be eligible to run in the next byelection.. Anyone think he can pull it off? Cheers. Time to wax my chest, paint my hair and go door to door again.....or at least act as a bodygaurd for a nice woman who clearly less frightening them me. People who voted for him are angry. REALLY angry. The unions will come out en mass like you never seen before to crush him but I still think he will win....by a landslide. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2012 10:58:58 GMT -5
An in-depth, documentary-style, lengthy piece on Ford from Toronto Life magazine, May 2012. ArticleWorth a read. And if it's deemed to have a lefty slant by some here....here's a blog from a hard-line righty, who thinks it'd be better for Toronto-conservatism's future if Ford was no longer able to tarnish it in the voters' eyes. In other words, you can still love the team while objectively acknowledging, and wanting to limit/stop, the damage being done by its captain. Blog |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2012 12:32:41 GMT -5
An in-depth, documentary-style, lengthy piece on Ford from Toronto Life magazine, May 2012. ArticleWorth a read. And it it's deemed to have a lefty slant by some here....here's a blog from a hard-line righty, who thinks it'd be better for conservatism's future if Ford was no longer able to tarnish it in the voters' eyes. BlogNice find, CH. I haven't read too much of it just yet, but the comments are interesting. I also found the comments to be similar to another dysfunctional system. While Ford is not getting any support from the city council, Obama is getting railroaded by Congress. Here's the thing about city councils, though. I think the Toronto council might be exercising a bit more of the democratic process than ours do here in K-town. More specifically, I can't remember our city council ever really voting independently on an issue. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, far from it, but just about week I hear or read that "the city council has unanimously agreed ..." And based on a few other personal experiences I can honestly say that my city councilors tow the line more than anything else. While the TO City Council looks like it's divided, the councilors seem to vote independently a lot more often AND they seem to be sticking to their convictions. Back to the contents; there is support for both sides of the fence, but a lot of it looks like there's a lot of despondent people with Ford's performance. On to page two ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2012 15:18:48 GMT -5
Pure unadulterated hack piece and another "we are ashamed that fat guy calls himself a conservative". I need somethig stronger to go with my coffee. Perhaps something along this vein..... Clayton Ruby: “Well it can’t. We all understand when we run for office in a democracy, that it’s a democracy. The lovely example recently is Egypt, of course, where the man was elected by a considerable majority, and then immediately became, as some people put it, a Pharaoh making his own edicts, purporting to overturn the court’s decisions.”We ALL know that football fundamentalist Ford. much like his Islamicist brother Morsi will suspend the Canadian Constitution any day now and put marauding 14 year old football players terrorizing our streets. Yup...... Blunt reality is that Ford is neither cool nor the smartest knife in the drawer when it comes playing politics. And I use playing in a very deliberate way. EVERYTHING he did was subject to scrutiny. He took an afternoon off to coach kids, that was a crime to humanity, Miller took weeks off at taxpayers expense to some exotic destination to shill sky falling and he was a mommy earth saviour worthy of Nobel Prize. Gore told us so. He cut back million in spending and that was a sad day for the poverty industry, and yes, there is a thriving poverty industry, but dare he spend a few hundred bucks too much on cards and it was worthy of a forensic audit. For God's sake, the guy was driving a freaken CADILLAC. With TINTED WINDOWS no less. What does he have to hide? WE all know that only Mafia bosses do that. Oh wait.....might as well bring up another Ford crime. Yup...... and here is solid, unassailable proof of how anally deep Ford must be examined by our beloved media.....for our own good. www.globaltoronto.com/video/rules+about+tinted+windows/video.html?v=2304312063#storiesNope, that is not another character assassination piece like the other 16,008 assassination pieces. Nope. It simply points out the true nature of the criminal disregard by Ford. Is a date with the Hague that far behind? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2012 16:19:30 GMT -5
An in-depth, documentary-style, lengthy piece on Ford from Toronto Life magazine, May 2012. ArticleWorth a read. And it it's deemed to have a lefty slant by some here....here's a blog from a hard-line righty, who thinks it'd be better for conservatism's future if Ford was no longer able to tarnish it in the voters' eyes. BlogNice find, CH. I haven't read too much of it just yet, but the comments are interesting. I also found the comments to be similar to another dysfunctional system. While Ford is not getting any support from the city council, Obama is getting railroaded by Congress. Here's the thing about city councils, though. I think the Toronto council might be exercising a bit more of the democratic process than ours do here in K-town. More specifically, I can't remember our city council ever really voting independently on an issue. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, far from it, but just about week I hear or read that "the city council has unanimously agreed ..." And based on a few other personal experiences I can honestly say that my city councilors tow the line more than anything else. While the TO City Council looks like it's divided, the councilors seem to vote independently a lot more often AND they seem to be sticking to their convictions. Back to the contents; there is support for both sides of the fence, but a lot of it looks like there's a lot of despondent people with Ford's performance. On to page two ... Cheers. The majority of TO councilors are lefty Millerites. After they pieced back their exploded heads when Ford won, they vowed and executed a rear guard action against Ford. In council, they will thwart any discussion or vote that does not include spending more of other peoples money or caving to unions. Every piece that was Ford driven had to go through hell and back to reach every incremental step. Ford does not know how to back down. Part of this "hard hardheadedness" was the Millerites constant harassment of him. Like any normal human being, he felt that he was under seize, which he was, so he dug in. There was really no reason to demand that Ford pay back the $3150 because he didn't profit from it. And the Millerites and their fawning tried to tie him paying it back to personal corruption. Which it wasn't. And he didn't. Imagine if you or me where in his shoes. We are white guys, no visible minority status, no victim card to play with (wives don't count) and worse, had money and driving Cadillacs. Constantly defending ourselves from character assassination and diatribe by our "fellow workers" and media. The ONLY reason that we did the job was because we had a conviction that things were wrong and we believed that there was a better way. How cool under fire would you be? How would you take some asshole reporter peeping over your fence? Or an idiot confronting you in your house and calling it comedy? See CBC piece. How about endlessly hostile fellow workers? How about personal attacks based on your weight? Or something you did that you felt helped people? Like coaching? Or whatever community service you did? By people who don't know what "community service" means without a paycheck attached to it? How about endless articles on stupid AND fat you are? No matter what you did, how would you like your name and your character to be the butt of "investigative" hack "reporting" and jokes in the press? How would you fare? How about you HC? How would you fare if every day your character was assassinated with such leading causes as your voice and your looks? And acting? How would you fare if a hostile press started articles with "a third rate actor with a voice not worthy of the muppets"? Every single day? How about a constantly hostile working environment? Would you quit of fight back? If we say quit, then respect that he didn't. If we say, too bad, it's part of the job description, then we are throwing stones on those who have bigger stones between their legs to do the job that we can't or wont do or incapable off. Yup...that rich fat guy....that Rob Ford. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2012 17:38:10 GMT -5
Pure unadulterated hack piece and another "we are ashamed that fat guy calls himself a conservative". I need somethig stronger to go with my coffee. Perhaps something along this vein..... Clayton Ruby: “Well it can’t. We all understand when we run for office in a democracy, that it’s a democracy. The lovely example recently is Egypt, of course, where the man was elected by a considerable majority, and then immediately became, as some people put it, a Pharaoh making his own edicts, purporting to overturn the court’s decisions.”We ALL know that football fundamentalist Ford. much like his Islamicist brother Morsi will suspend the Canadian Constitution any day now and put marauding 14 year old football players terrorizing our streets. Yup...... Blunt reality is that Ford is neither cool nor the smartest knife in the drawer when it comes playing politics. And I use playing in a very deliberate way. EVERYTHING he did was subject to scrutiny. He took an afternoon off to coach kids, that was a crime to humanity, Miller took weeks off at taxpayers expense to some exotic destination to shill sky falling and he was a mommy earth saviour worthy of Nobel Prize. Gore told us so. He cut back million in spending and that was a sad day for the poverty industry, and yes, there is a thriving poverty industry, but dare he spend a few hundred bucks too much on cards and it was worthy of a forensic audit. For God's sake, the guy was driving a freaken CADILLAC. With TINTED WINDOWS no less. What does he have to hide? WE all know that only Mafia bosses do that. Oh wait.....might as well bring up another Ford crime. Yup...... and here is solid, unassailable proof of how anally deep Ford must be examined by our beloved media.....for our own good. www.globaltoronto.com/video/rules+about+tinted+windows/video.html?v=2304312063#storiesNope, that is not another character assassination piece like the other 16,008 assassination pieces. Nope. It simply points out the true nature of the criminal disregard by Ford. Is a date with the Hague that far behind? I watched the first and second stories. It's one thing after another with Ford but the other side is almost taking it personally. This is nasty. Still think he'd get back in? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2012 22:27:53 GMT -5
How about you HC? How would you fare if every day your character was assassinated with such leading causes as your voice and your looks? And acting? How would you fare if a hostile press started articles with "a third rate actor with a voice not worthy of the muppets"? Nice try. Not a parallel to Ford at all. What you've described is a critique of my work. I could handle it. To make it a direct parallel, I would have to be reprimanded and ultimately let go by my employers (i.e. the various voice directors, producers) because I..... a. continually refused to play by the rules in place... b. showed nothing but contempt and offered denials and/or weak excuses when informed of my infractions. Common sense says I would be acting like a total a-hole in regards to the job I was being paid to do, and therefore not worthy of being hired any longer....no matter how long and loud I yelled foul. ======================================================== What do the Millerites/lefties have anything to do with Ford..... a. being informed of breaking the code of conduct--no matter WHAT the cause--and defying the order to pay it back a total of 8 times? b. being informed of breaking the conflict-of-interest law and doing it anyway? This guy clearly thinks he's above the rules in place. He has his own definitions...and a history of denials and feeble excuses. That cannot be allowed to be the MO of politicians of any stripe...it will eventually be their undoing. It's the same behaviour exemplified when he was pulled over for DUI in Miami in 1999, refusing a breathalyzer, and the cops finding a joint in his back pocket...a possession charge which was dropped for some reason. Community service followed. He denied it when reporters asked him about it years later....then admitted to it, saying he had erased it from his memory. Was Miller in his back seat, force-feeding him alcohol through IV, placing a doob in his back pocket, then making him deny it? And getting drunk at a Leafs' game and being ushered out for verbally abusing a couple sitting near him--a charge which he vehemently denied, calling it a "hatchet job", but later admitting to with a half-hearted apology. Was Miller sitting beside him, with that Miami IV, hypnotizing him to berate the couple near him? Did Miller then suggest he deny it? And reading while driving on the Gardiner Expressway, and sloughing it off. Was Miller sitting in the passenger seat, forcing him to read the report to him at that instant? And taking two city buses off their routes to pick up his football team. Did Miller place those calls then run away? IMO, these events illustrate a pattern of behaviour that makes perfect sense as to why he would act the way he did in this conflict-of-interest case. He considers himself above reproach, and if caught, he will deny before he delivers a weak apology. He could've avoided this whole mess by reaching into his multi-million-dollar wallet for $3150 when the Integrity Commissioner told him he was in violation of the code-of-conduct. No lefty coerced him to break municipal law. No sir....nobody tells Rob Ford how to roll....except Rob Ford. And I don't care if he's left, centre, or right. I'd have the same opinion if it was Trudeau, Hudak, or Chow. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2012 22:44:30 GMT -5
I watched the first and second stories. It's one thing after another with Ford but the other side is almost taking it personally. This is nasty. Still think he'd get back in? Cheers. Personally? Nasty? Ugly? You have no idea how much. See below. I hope he does but.......probably not. He's so thoroughly vilified by the left, so thoroughly hacked and sawn by the daily character assassinations that even some on the right are distancing themselves from him. Whatever church level discussion is in here is NOTHING in comparison with what goes on in other sites/discussions. The common theme is "fat", "white", "conservative", "rich" by the tolerant left. Some on the right wants to be see be as cool and pseudo intellectual as the latte urban left so they are distancing themselves from him. Born with a stupid stubborn personality trait of not leaving the fight just because it got ugly, so if he runs, I will help in any modest way I can. You know, us plain old stupid smelly folk, with dirt under our fingernails who don't drink 4 buck coffee gotta have a voice! Even it's a fat guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2012 22:55:16 GMT -5
I think it's reprehensible to base any opinion of his work on his appearance.
That's as low as it gets...and no side has the patent on that. Remember the PC's attack ad on Chretien's appearance in 93?
I think Ford should lose weight for health reasons, sure...but that's ultimately up to him and has nothing to do with his job performance.
Doesn't NOW magazine also have a cover featuring a spray-painted red X over Ford's face...like Time magazine did using Hitler in 1945?
WAAAY out of line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 3, 2012 13:52:24 GMT -5
There is more then that. "Reporters" are whispering in the kids ears, asking if Ford slaps them on the bum. You know, because they are "doing their job", because, we ALL know that in the end, Ford HAS to be a doing something.....SOMETHING.... working with kids. SOMETHING! Big fat white closet toucher who simply hasn't been caught yet.
All out 24/7 smear campaign by unions and the coolz urban lefties.
Tell me again how any of you guys would stand up? Or not be stubborn?
|
|
