|
|
Post by franko on Mar 27, 2014 9:21:12 GMT -5
first debate yesterday. absolutely astounding. [it's the political junkie in me that watches this train wreck].  where's the "none of the above" button [and Richard Pryor when you need him]? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 27, 2014 11:25:09 GMT -5
Good ole Monty Brewster. What about Jerry Boyle?
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Mar 27, 2014 11:34:05 GMT -5
Everyone knows Rob Ford is going to win!! It's crazy!!
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 27, 2014 12:02:48 GMT -5
Good ole Monty Brewster. What about Jerry Boyle? where's CH's rim shot? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 27, 2014 13:52:30 GMT -5
That never went away. Ford for re-election ... and winning ... despite being a lightning rod for controversy and a poster-boy for embarrassment.
But, the guy balances the books for Canada's most influential city. Toronto is doing fine under his administration, but there's always something hanging over his head.
Not living in Toronto, I honestly don't know if I'd vote for him if I had the chance. I'd have to read more on what Rob Ford has done in his tenure. He balances the books, but I'd like to know more about that process.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Mar 27, 2014 14:29:59 GMT -5
That never went away. Ford for re-election ... and winning ... despite being a lightning rod for controversy and a poster-boy for embarrassment. But, the guy balances the books for Canada's most influential city. Toronto is doing fine under his administration, but there's always something hanging over his head. Not living in Toronto, I honestly don't know if I'd vote for him if I had the chance. I'd have to read more on what Rob Ford has done in his tenure. He balances the books, but I'd like to know more about that process. Cheers. Does he really balance the books or does he just say he does. I find that he & his brother just throw out numbers & nobody challenges them on what they say. He needs to show me hard facts. Just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 27, 2014 14:44:26 GMT -5
Does he really balance the books or does he just say he does. I find that he & his brother just throw out numbers & nobody challenges them on what they say. He needs to show me hard facts. Just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it so. that what Olivia Chow and the Toronto Star keep saying . . . but he still maintains, without proof. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 27, 2014 16:18:35 GMT -5
That never went away. Ford for re-election ... and winning ... despite being a lightning rod for controversy and a poster-boy for embarrassment. But, the guy balances the books for Canada's most influential city. Toronto is doing fine under his administration, but there's always something hanging over his head. Not living in Toronto, I honestly don't know if I'd vote for him if I had the chance. I'd have to read more on what Rob Ford has done in his tenure. He balances the books, but I'd like to know more about that process. Cheers. Does he really balance the books or does he just say he does. I find that he & his brother just throw out numbers & nobody challenges them on what they say. He needs to show me hard facts. Just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it so. Yes, this is why I asked about the process. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 27, 2014 23:57:08 GMT -5
first debate yesterday. absolutely astounding. [it's the political junkie in me that watches this train wreck]. where's the "none of the above" button [and Richard Pryor when you need him]? Is that a scientific poll, or just responses to a talk in show? It probably doesn't matter. All the leaf fans in the city know Ford is a favourite of Don Cherry's so they're voting with their butts instead of their heads. It's hard enough to take the centre of the universe seriously at any time, but if they vote back a crack head and think he's a good choice to look after their interests, it says more about them than about Ford. His own family doesn't trust him to have any decision making authority over their company, but Toronto residents give him the checkbook to the city. Double duh. I just want one thing made clear. There's no way the rest of the country is bailing out Toronto when they come whining. They can suffer through their consequences. You can't have a twit running anything and expect something good to come out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 28, 2014 1:23:54 GMT -5
Ford is the white Marion Barry. He should run for GM of the leafs instead of mayor. He makes more sense than any recent Toronto GM or any Quebec premier. (Add in the current president of the United States). It's meant as a joke but it's so true it isn't funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 28, 2014 5:07:08 GMT -5
Is that a scientific poll, or just responses to a talk in show? totally unscientific, I imagine. on-line or twitter vote. people actually watch this stuff? sure I look in on the federal debates, but a suppertime city debate? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 1, 2014 14:42:49 GMT -5
ROB FORD TAKES LEAVE FOR PROFESSIONAL TREATMENTAdmitting to "alcohol abuse" only. Apparently, alcohol is what leads him to crack. Whatever. Get some REAL help, man. Stop the lies, denials, and deflections. And if being Mayor is too stressful, then go back your office at Deco Labels and Tags and enjoy getting wealthier. The latest video (taken by yet another extortionist drug dealer) is from this past Friday/Saturday. Taken in his sister's basement....smoking from what is usually used as a crack pipe. Stills from the video are now viral.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 1, 2014 15:54:21 GMT -5
Globe and Mail editorial. If anyone knows anything about addiction, it's that many denials and lies will occur before the bottom is reached/the need for help is admitted. I see the writer's point re: Come on, this guy's the mayor of Canada's largest city...the ramifications are different. Enough is enough. I think the voters should know what steps he's taking. We know what he does in privacy...he lies, denies, and continues on. If he has any chance of convincing his naysayers, he needs to be 100% transparent now. That is, IF the police investigation doesn't come up with something. Fraternizing with drug dealers is never a good starting point for anybody, let alone a mayor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 1, 2014 18:18:15 GMT -5
Ford is killing me. As much as I love his shove it to the self proclaimed elites and hashtag mob, I can't support his never ending side show antics.
He has a problem with alcohol and drugs. Period. He should of gotten help years ago.....but didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 1, 2014 19:41:46 GMT -5
He has a problem with alcohol and drugs. Period. Not quite "period". The criminal element inherent in such activities is completely inappropriate for an elected official and could come back to bite him. Exceptionally poor judgment. But addictive behaviour involves recklessness. He should of gotten help years ago.....but didn't. Yes, he's his own worst enemy. One can only hope he gets real help this time. But, again, the family is calling for "privacy". He's flown to Chicago...where his brother has a home, and their Deco Label and Tags has an office/plant. If he's just going there to "dry out" in relative anonymity, that's not getting help. This move could be simple political optics. He needs a clinic's professional help. I wish him all the best on that front. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 1, 2014 20:28:09 GMT -5
The guy is a sleaze , pure & simple.
He says he wants to "f---ing jam" Karen Stintz & he doesn't even offer an apology to a council colleague.
There's more than drugs & alcohol involved here. I'm just stunned that voters keep making excuses for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 1, 2014 21:28:47 GMT -5
The guy is a sleaze , pure & simple. He says he wants to "f---ing jam" Karen Stintz & he doesn't even offer an apology to a council colleague. There's more than drugs & alcohol involved here. I'm just stunned that voters keep making excuses for him. No question....there are other negative personality traits at work here...and they all come out very easily under the influence. The article I've cited above quotes the 20-year-old drug dealer who shot the video. He was invited by Ford's sister, Kathy (an admitted addict)...to come over and "meet the Mayor". Nice "code". Everything that has been reported concerning Rob's behaviour has been true, regardless of sources named or anonymous. Help for his health's sake, yes. His political life should be over, regardless. Let's face it....the ONLY reason he's ostensibly going to rehab now is because he knew he was caught on video again. If I've seen any pattern at work in this saga, it's that he'll come back and play the "100% sober, second-chance hero" card....and his enabling brother will spearhead it. Doug's already said Rob is in a 30-day treatment centre. You can't do that much work in 30 days...especially when you'll be rushing the procedure because you have to get back to a re-election campaign. Bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 2, 2014 14:01:38 GMT -5
The cynical side of me says that the ONLY reason he's going to rehab now is because he got caught smoking crack on video again.
One time could be, "Oh, I just did it once...".
But twice on camera...hiding away in his sister's basement (quite likely not a first-time hangout, considering she's an addict and made the call to the dealer).....the dude's hooked, no question IMO.
But he's copping only to the booze...which causes him to make these bad (crack) decisions. Ah, good ol' booze....full of accepted social misbehaviour.
Still in denial...at least political spin-wise.
Saying you're a crack-head....geez...political suicide...almost as bad as saying you're an atheist!
Ha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 2, 2014 14:10:27 GMT -5
Saying you're a crack-head....geez...political suicide...almost as bad as saying you're an atheist! Interesting that you brought that up. Atheism is a no-no in American politics and probably not that far behind Canadian politics. After all, we know how ethical and moral pious politicians are. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 2, 2014 14:24:31 GMT -5
Saying you're a crack-head....geez...political suicide...almost as bad as saying you're an atheist! Interesting that you brought that up. Atheism is a no-no in American politics and probably not that far behind Canadian politics. After all, we know how ethical and moral pious politicians are. Oh yeah, I'm well aware of atheism/anti-theism/agnosticism being a political taboo in North America. Cheat, steal, lie, and worse....as long as you show up for weekly services.... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 2, 2014 14:42:35 GMT -5
Interesting that you brought that up. Atheism is a no-no in American politics and probably not that far behind Canadian politics. After all, we know how ethical and moral pious politicians are. Oh yeah, I'm well aware of atheism/anti-theism/agnosticism being a political taboo in North America. Cheat, steal, lie, and worse....as long as you show up for weekly services.... nope, don't even have to do that. at least in Canada you can be Catholic to lead the federation [JFK the only Catholic; most others were nominally religious]. funny that the left thinks that Harper is too religious and that he right thinks that he isn't religious enough. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 7, 2014 11:13:36 GMT -5
One week into rehab, we get this. Colour me not surprised. He's rushing and demeaning/insulting the process. Making rehab seem like a quick fix...a walk in the park. The ONLY reason he's there in the first place is because he was caught on camera AGAIN! Sadly, he's not only trying to fool his supporters, he's fooling himself by continuing the denial and lies. Rehab is Amazing! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 7, 2014 14:04:52 GMT -5
Of course, Ford reaches out to Sun media shill, Joe Warmington"He sounded a little tired but he also sounded empowered," said Warmington. "The stuff coming out of his mouth wasn't as dark and miserable as the stuff we've seen in some of his videos."
Warmington said Ford claims to be benefiting from the treatment he's receiving.
"He's really enjoying it," said Warmington. "He talked about it being like a football camp, with lots of structure. I don't know if fun is the word but it's certainly something he's bought into. He really did sound genuine and reflective."
Warmington said he was not able to verify Ford's location or confirm that the mayor is actually undergoing addiction treatment.
"I was taking him at his word," Warmington said. "I don't have any reason to not believe it, but he wouldn't tell me [his location]."Right...nothing in Ford's past behaviour would give you any reason to not believe him. Journalism needs a reset. They ALL do it. It's becoming less objective and more PR spin-Entertainment Tonight. Too deep into the corporate pockets. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 7, 2014 14:39:12 GMT -5
Of course, Ford reaches out to Sun media shill, Joe Warmington"He sounded a little tired but he also sounded empowered," said Warmington. "The stuff coming out of his mouth wasn't as dark and miserable as the stuff we've seen in some of his videos."
Warmington said Ford claims to be benefiting from the treatment he's receiving.
"He's really enjoying it," said Warmington. "He talked about it being like a football camp, with lots of structure. I don't know if fun is the word but it's certainly something he's bought into. He really did sound genuine and reflective."
Warmington said he was not able to verify Ford's location or confirm that the mayor is actually undergoing addiction treatment.
"I was taking him at his word," Warmington said. "I don't have any reason to not believe it, but he wouldn't tell me [his location]."Right...nothing in Ford's past behaviour would give you any reason to not believe him. Journalism needs a reset. They ALL do it. It's becoming less objective and more PR spin-Entertainment Tonight. Too deep into the corporate pockets. Warmington doesn't have any reason not to believe him? How naive is this guy? Ford has lied his way through his entire term. It's his go to strategy. How about that for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 8, 2014 0:10:30 GMT -5
Journalism needs a reset. They ALL do it. It's becoming less objective and more PR spin-Entertainment Tonight. Too deep into the corporate pockets. It depends what you mean by "corporate pockets"... There is NO journalism, there is NO "just the news", there is no integrity anymore. I doubt it has to do with any grand or developed industry bias, but rather, about profit and survival. Over the years, I have seen papers and tv turn more and more into biased reporting and at first, it infurated me. Then it made sense. As the internet had closed in on them, they had to becomed more biased to draw in the segment they were going after. Ask someone who has the most biased news and invariably, it's the station/paper someone else is watching. What that in itself means is that people are watching or reading what is to them confirmational bias. So they watch the CBC which is neutral to them and not the biased Sun Media. Or vice versa. And so it goes. With ALL the media. The medias have to survive and have no problem in skewring the news/propaganda to whatever biased audience their sponsors profit from. This not a chicken or egg issue. The audience drives the media and the media responds to it's bias. Then corporations simply pay for the exposure to the media whose audience suits their product or brand. If you mean corporate pockets as in the ones who own the media, then I agree. If you mean corporate pockets as in some wider corporate driven agenda, then I disagree. The masses did it to themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 8, 2014 8:28:04 GMT -5
Journalism needs a reset. They ALL do it. It's becoming less objective and more PR spin-Entertainment Tonight. Too deep into the corporate pockets. It depends what you mean by "corporate pockets"... There is NO journalism, there is NO "just the news", there is no integrity anymore. I doubt it has to do with any grand or developed industry bias, but rather, about profit and survival. Over the years, I have seen papers and tv turn more and more into biased reporting and at first, it infurated me. Then it made sense. As the internet had closed in on them, they had to becomed more biased to draw in the segment they were going after. Ask someone who has the most biased news and invariably, it's the station/paper someone else is watching. What that in itself means is that people are watching or reading what is to them confirmational bias. So they watch the CBC which is neutral to them and not the biased Sun Media. Or vice versa. And so it goes. With ALL the media. The medias have to survive and have no problem in skewring the news/propaganda to whatever biased audience their sponsors profit from. This not a chicken or egg issue. The audience drives the media and the media responds to it's bias. Then corporations simply pay for the exposure to the media whose audience suits their product or brand. If you mean corporate pockets as in the ones who own the media, then I agree. If you mean corporate pockets as in some wider corporate driven agenda, then I disagree. The masses did it to themselves. Great post. It's a very strange age that we live in. Never before have so many people had so much access to so much information. We've never, in the history of mankind, been able to learn as much about anything as we can today. You're average Western ten year old knows more about the world than probably 99% of the people who have ever lived. And yet maybe it's just too much? Maybe we just aren't "ready" to absorb that much information? To objectively see both sides of an argument and come to understand the "truth?" Does such a thing even exist? Cue the philosophers... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2014 9:37:27 GMT -5
If you mean corporate pockets as in the ones who own the media, then I agree. If you mean corporate pockets as in some wider corporate driven agenda, then I disagree. Yes, I mean not only the corporate owners' interests....but in the owners' corporate interests as well, which can't help but include a political stance. They go hand-in-hand. And the resulting news goes slant-in-slant. BC...I think the most important thing we can try to instil in ourselves and successive generations is "critical thinking" which includes "inquiry" and "skepticism". Ah...but the rat race of life. Who has the time to think critically about such things? Life's tough enough....you want me dissect motives and research business ties, etc.? Just give me my diversions.....music, movies, TV, sports, drink, fun! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 8, 2014 13:11:32 GMT -5
It depends what you mean by "corporate pockets"... There is NO journalism, there is NO "just the news", there is no integrity anymore. I doubt it has to do with any grand or developed industry bias, but rather, about profit and survival. Over the years, I have seen papers and tv turn more and more into biased reporting and at first, it infurated me. Then it made sense. As the internet had closed in on them, they had to becomed more biased to draw in the segment they were going after. Ask someone who has the most biased news and invariably, it's the station/paper someone else is watching. What that in itself means is that people are watching or reading what is to them confirmational bias. So they watch the CBC which is neutral to them and not the biased Sun Media. Or vice versa. And so it goes. With ALL the media. The medias have to survive and have no problem in skewering the news/propaganda to whatever biased audience their sponsors profit from. This not a chicken or egg issue. The audience drives the media and the media responds to it's bias. Then corporations simply pay for the exposure to the media whose audience suits their product or brand. If you mean corporate pockets as in the ones who own the media, then I agree. If you mean corporate pockets as in some wider corporate driven agenda, then I disagree. The masses did it to themselves. Great post. It's a very strange age that we live in. Never before have so many people had so much access to so much information. We've never, in the history of mankind, been able to learn as much about anything as we can today. You're average Western ten year old knows more about the world than probably 99% of the people who have ever lived. And yet maybe it's just too much? Maybe we just aren't "ready" to absorb that much information? To objectively see both sides of an argument and come to understand the "truth?" Does such a thing even exist? Cue the philosophers... Aww shucks, I'm blushing.......  Those who are willing or pre-disposed to questioning their beliefs, it's never been easier. There is so much bias sources in all the media forms that one does not have to work at it at all. The "truth"? It's a process with relative results. In order to get any headway to any truth, one has to admit to oneself that whatever they see as truth is biased.....then see whatever they read or hear as biased and try to filter it not as "right or wrong", but as information on a ledger. Right away, the problem becomes where on the mental ledger one puts it and that in by itself becomes a another level of questioning one bias. How are those columns different? How does one morals and ethics shape those columns? Does everything fall into those columns? Why a ledger to begin with? Why not weigh the information as one reads it? Because it's no longer seeing it through the second chamber of sorting bias to seek some relative truth, but rather confirming it as truth to ones bias. More often then not, the quandary becomes greater then the value of the information. Ultimately, one MUST come to some level of peace with their bias otherwise it devolves into a perpetual waste of questioning. Of course in the end, there is no absolute "truth" if anything has to interpreted or sorted through bias to arrive to it. Aside from fact or reality, truth is no more then a belief whose quality should always be self-questioned. Perhaps that in by itself has a higher value then the "truth". Back to the media....as I said, it irks me that the media has become so biased. I come from a technical and machine world. I want facts and answers, not opinions. I don't want to spend all that energy to filter out someone else's bias from my bias. But that is not going to happen.... I figure I have another 5 to 10 years before I'm walking down the road, head down, talking to myself...... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 8, 2014 13:57:23 GMT -5
I learned about media bias back in high school. The teacher focused on content from the major news outlets and she was able to show how the media conveys it's message more often than the actual message. What concerns me is just how easy it is for the media to flip flop. I need only look at the Ottawa Citizen newspaper to see this. From Wikipedia: The editorial view of the Citizen has varied with its ownership, taking a reform, anti-Tory position under (William) Harris and a conservative position under (Robert) Bell. Under the Southams, it moved to the left, supporting the Liberals largely in opposition to the Progressive Conservative Party's support of free trade in the late 1980s. Under (Conrad) Black, it moved to the right and became a supporter of the Reform Party. It endorsed the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 federal election.In each case, political direction for the Citizen wasn't based on research, debate or critical thought ... politics was determined on who owned the paper ... and the Citizen sells a lot of newspapers ... 900,000, plus (2008) ... they ship across Canada ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2014 14:15:15 GMT -5
In each case, political direction for the Citizen wasn't based on research, debate or critical thought ... politics was determined on who owned the paper ... and the Citizen sells a lot of newspapers ... 900,000, plus (2008) ... they ship across Canada ... isn't that just life, though, Dis? if not directed by the owner, then by an editorial board; if not by the editorial board, the articles come out slanted by the writer's point of view. it's natural -- is it possible to have an unbiased viewpoint [present company excluded?]? |
|
