Spiderfish

I agree.

Did you say something Waldo? Sorry, I usually just tune you out. Speaking of optics, JT was apparently a little short-sighted on this one. He obviously felt compelled to give back the charity money, so he apperently isn't toltally clueless.

No slimier than the accusation that someone who was appointed to the board of a museum is trying to somehow make JT look bad by inviting him to a fundraiser to try and raise money for a seniors home, and orchestrating the failure of the event so that she could ask for the money back. Gee, I wonder if it was all Conservative supporters on the Grace Foundation, or could their possibly be Liberal and NDP supporters involved in the organization as well? Maybe there are disgruntled Liberals who supported Mark Garneau during the leadership run who are now orchestrating this elaborate charity smear scheme...Hmmm. Regardless, this story is a non-story. JT has promised to make it right... as he should. The bigger issue moving forward is whether MP's of any stripe should be charging for public speaking gigs, especially charities.

And the keynote speaker has Liberal ties, including deriving his income from being an MP, a position which includes public speaking as part of the duties expected from him. The more I think about this, the more I feel that this guy needs to decide if he wants to be a professional paid public speaker, or an MP serving the public, because he can't be both. This goes for all MP's from all parties.

Are you lost??

Particularly when you're a public servant and public speaking forms part of your job description as an MP.

Trudeau obviously felt uneasy with the optics, if not the whole idea of collecting his fee from a charity. He isn't so much trying to score political points however, as salvage them.

I made no such suggestion. I said someone has to keep him honest, meaning keep him honest with himself. His own words were that he was going to " make it right" which suggests that he felt what he did was wrong. And what about all of the other charities he vowed to pay back and "make it right." They didn't ask for their money back.

Trudeau would be better able to field that question, he's the one who felt compelled to give the money back.

Someone has to keep him honest.

I heard he was dropping acid shortly before this incident and he ran down a couple of children crossing the street. Apparently theres a video out there somewhere showing the whole incident. This man should be in prison.

I fear you may be confusing apologist sentiments for reasonability. I'll be the first one at the hanging tree if and when conclusive evidence comes out. But haven't seen anything convincing yet. To be honest, I've lost interest in this story a while ago. Any headline that would grab my interest at this point would have to be pretty bold and damning. Your extreme hatred and contempt for the Ford brothers, and overzealous drive to conviction based on heresay is quite sad and more than a bit troubling. Just because others don't share your lynch mob mentality and utter contempt for the concept of innocence without proof, doesn't necessarily mean they are apologists. Maybe they are just waiting for something solid and tangible to be revealed, if it ever does.

How can you think this is funny? According to your accusations, Ford is guilty of murder and aggrevated assault, that's pretty serious stuff.

I hope something solid is found one way or the other, might breathe some new life into this dead horse.

The CPC does certainly have some housekeeping to do, no question. I am hopeful that a thorough investigation and audit of all Senate expenses results, I think it's high time that the entire Senate be held accountable.

goosefraba, Tom...goosefraba.

If the RCMP are investigating the $90,000, something should come out. It will be interesting to see what they find. A police investigation does not necessarily equate to a scandal, the results of the investigation may or may not.

You're accusing the mayor of Toronto of murder, aggrevated assault, and home invasion now?? Don't you think your goofy accusations are going a little over the top?

Do you seriously think that the Star is an unbiased, unjaded party just trying to remain neutral and get a story out? I looked on their website this morning and counted no less than 61 stories written in the last 7 days about Rob Ford alone, every one of them derogatory and negative in nature trying to fuel the fire they have created. They keep throwing shit just hoping something will stick. It's gutter journalism at the very least, and quite possibly defamatory at worst. I don't care what comes out of this in the end, as I am not from Toronto, and never will be. If a video comes out and Ford is guilty then he will pay the price, and I suspect his career would be finished, as it should be. Regardless of what happens, any shred of respect for the Star and their journalistic practices I held before this circus has most certainly dissolved, I wouldn't accept an issue of their rag to start my campfire for fear that someone might think I actually give credence to their schlock.

I don't know...not sure what you would find amusing, but to each their own. Saying what, that they have responsibilities to act within the law? That they may have a background that they may want to keep from authorities? I don't know who these guys are, if they want to try and sell the video, all the power to them. I would love to see it.

Well, they do have it a little easier. They don't have to worry about all that inconvenient evidence gathering in order to convict an individual.

If the video even exists, and if it contains evidence of criminal activity, then I would say there are better ways to try and "make a living" than trying to gain financially off of evidence to a crime. Sure they have rights. They also have responsibilities that go along with those rights. If they are involved in anything unlawful related to this video (or unrelated, such as selling drugs as is their alleged choice of profession), they will have to deal with the consequence. I'm quite sure the authorities would be very interested in investigating their involvement.

With freedom comes responsibility. Do we really want to give someone back the reigns of moral responsibility that go along with living free in society knowing that their fragile perception of moral responsibility depends on whether they took their medication or not?

Yes, it must have been terrible. It likely paled in comparison, however, to the unimaginable fear, confusion, horror, and other unthinkable emotions that Carol de Delley has had to face every single day since, knowing how her son met his fate and suffering such a horrible loss. Losing a son at the hands of someone who cut off his head and cannabalized him may come close. Mr. Li is a victim of his condition, and that's unfortunate and sad. But he is not the only one affected by his condition, everyone around him is a victim of his condition as well. The fear that is associated with his name and infamous actions will follow him for the rest of his life. It's not his fault, but it's not the fault of society either. As long as he has a certain quality of life on his medication, and is constantly supervised for the rest of his days to ensure public safety, I think that's the best that can be done for him. Unfortunately, I believe there is every intention of granting him eventual full unsupervised release. I think this is inevitable, and I believe if he is given his full freedom, it will be at the expense of public safety.

Is this practice suddenly unacceptable to you?