Jack Layton pushes a woman in order to get on camera!

March 1, 2010

Nobody was watching the women's game. So no...that doesn't go against the theory.

So why did Alta4ever ask why he wasn't there then? And why didn't you respond to his post asking why he wasn't there? <_<

That would make perfect sense if you squeezed your eyes shut, jammed your fingers in your ears and refused to view the evidence presented. The mens hockey final is by far more watched than any other event, including womens hockey.

So why didn't you tell that to Alta4ever, since he's the one who asked why he wasn't there? :rolleyes:

Layton isn't watching the TV, he is staring directly at the static camera and making sure he can be seen. He occasionally glances at the TV, which would have a delay of a few seconds, to make sure he can ne seen gazing at the fixed camera. That is why there is a little delay in him pushing down the girls arm, it takes that long to loop back to him.

The whole clip barely lasted more than a few seconds. :lol:

I don't know why you have a problem admitting Layton is an egomaniacal attention whore like nearly all politicians.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe all are, maybe all aren't. But in this particular instance the accusations seem rather silly to me.

Edited March 1, 2010 by American Woman

Alta4ever · March 1, 2010

So why did Alta4ever ask why he wasn't there then? And why didn't you respond to his post asking why he wasn't there?

If you read the thread you would have seen smallc say

"Maybe they cut to the bar multiple times partly because Layton was there? "

It was rhetorical question in response to this. Why would they have bothered with the camera at other games if no celebs were there to be on screen.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Alta4ever

Moonbox · March 1, 2010

So why did Alta4ever ask why he wasn't there then? And why didn't you respond to his post asking why he wasn't there?

So why didn't you tell that to Alta4ever, since he's the one who asked why he wasn't there?

Because you tried to tell us that since he wasn't at the Russia or women's game, then he couldn't be at the men's gold game for media attention. I was addressing YOUR bad logic.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe all are, maybe all aren't. But in this particular instance the accusations seem rather silly to me.

It's pretty obvious he was. It is silly and worth a good laugh at Jack's expense. He looked like a tool.

Alta4ever · March 1, 2010

There it is American Woman the video proof that he sought the camera.

March 1, 2010

Because you tried to tell us that since he wasn't at the Russia or women's game, then he couldn't be at the men's gold game for media attention. I was addressing YOUR bad logic.

There was nothing "bad" about it. If he wanted attention, he would have been there. If no one watches them,* then it seems to me no one would be at Gretzky's for it, and he would have had the camera all to himself.

*I'm pretty sure some Canadians tuned in to watch women's hockey. More than 19 million viewers watched some part of last night's gold medal win for the Canadian Women's Hockey squad over Team USA. link

Moonbox · March 1, 2010

There was nothing "bad" about it. If he wanted attention, he would have been there. If no one watches them,* then it seems to me no one would be at Gretzky's for it, and he would have had the camera all to himself.

There were no cameras at bars for women's hockey. That's why.

*I'm pretty sure some Canadians tuned in to watch women's hockey. More than 19 million viewers watched some part of last night's gold medal win for the Canadian Women's Hockey squad over Team USA. link

I watched it...but the women only had a fraction of the viewer's the men's hockey had. No body contact. It's not real hockey...

Michael Hardner · March 2, 2010

I found this video hilarious yesterday. I watched it live and had to look at it again as I couldn't believe what I was seeing. During Sid the kids game winning goal in OT the crows at Wayne Gretzky's went nuts but a womans arm was blocking Jack Laytons face from the camera so he pushes her arm down while still smiling and looking directly at the camera.

Jack has reached a new low. We all knew he loved the camera but I never thought I'd see the day when he would assault a woman in order to get on his mug on TV.

Ha ha. Not assault, but it makes him look bad all the same... Any good politician has to know all the angles... camera angles that is...

msj · March 2, 2010

What is pathetic is you Conservatives grasping at straws like this to paint the opposition parties in a bad light. You have nothing of substance to critisize so this is where your desperation leaves you.

Au contraire, my good Dr.

Mr. Layton should certainly have been tested for excessive alcohol drinking.

Or maybe he was on a big coke binge and overly excited.

Cause, you know, I can just tell from the few pieces of information provided from the story that either could be the case.

Oh, and I'm not being libelous 'cause it's just my little opinion.

:rolleyes:

punked · March 2, 2010

HAHAHAHAHA All the talk of the NDP leader but yet no mention from the conservatives here of the PM paying his own private photographer to follow him around at the games in hopes he gets the perfect shot for the next election. While CTV is good enough for Jack it isn't for Stevie.

http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/stephen-harper-brought-his-own-official.html

Moonbox · March 2, 2010

HAHAHAHAHA All the talk of the NDP leader but yet no mention from the conservatives here of the PM paying his own private photographer to follow him around at the games in hopes he gets the perfect shot for the next election. While CTV is good enough for Jack it isn't for Stevie.

It was obvious with Harper too. He doesn't give a crap about curling we all know that.

It's much funnier with Layton though, because he's so desperate to show people he's an 'everyman' type of guy that he has to push women out of the way to get his face on camera.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Moonbox

Wild Bill · March 2, 2010

There was nothing "bad" about it. If he wanted attention, he would have been there. If no one watches them,* then it seems to me no one would be at Gretzky's for it, and he would have had the camera all to himself.

You're at a bit of a disadvantage, AW. You see, you seem to be looking at Jack just this time, with new eyes.

You have to have followed Jack through his political career. He has ALWAYS had a reputation as a publicity hog! It has been joked about many times before.

If this were an isolated case you would have a logical argument but as Judge Judy says, "...the preponderance of the evidence..."

blueblood · March 2, 2010

You're at a bit of a disadvantage, AW. You see, you seem to be looking at Jack just this time, with new eyes.

You have to have followed Jack through his political career. He has ALWAYS had a reputation as a publicity hog! It has been joked about many times before.

If this were an isolated case you would have a logical argument but as Judge Judy says, "...the preponderance of the evidence..."

How big is Gretzky's in T.O. a thousand square feet, more? Less? With all of that room there, Layton could have stood anywhere else in the bar, but nope he had to be conveniently right in front of the camera. That's weak. Let the ordinary joes sit in front of the bar cameras and let them celebrate, we get to see enough politicians on TV. That's just poor.

msj · March 2, 2010

How big is Gretzky's in T.O. a thousand square feet, more? Less? With all of that room there, Layton could have stood anywhere else in the bar, but nope he had to be conveniently right in front of the camera. That's weak. Let the ordinary joes sit in front of the bar cameras and let them celebrate, we get to see enough politicians on TV. That's just poor.

Yes!

Those self-entitled politicians! How dare they go down to a public place to watch a game!

Surely they should seek out anonymity and watch events from home without their personal photographers in tow.

:rolleyes:

blueblood · March 2, 2010

Yes!

Those self-entitled politicians! How dare they go down to a public place to watch a game!

Surely they should seek out anonymity and watch events from home without their personal photographers in tow.

:rolleyes:

He was front row centre in front of a camera in a massive bar. There's a thousand other places he could have stood in the bar, but he "conveniently" stood right smack in the middle of the camera view. That's classless.

If your a celebrity the camera follows you, you don't follow the camera. I'd have been embarassed if Preston Manning pulled a stunt like that.

kimmy · March 2, 2010

People will form their own opinion if they see this. Their opinion will be based on what they already think of Layton as much as anything.

Personally, yeah, I'm of the view that Layton wanted to make sure he got on TV.

-k

March 2, 2010

You're at a bit of a disadvantage, AW. You see, you seem to be looking at Jack just this time, with new eyes.

You have to have followed Jack through his political career. He has ALWAYS had a reputation as a publicity hog! It has been joked about many times before.

I don't see that as a disadvantage, I see it as an advantage, because I'm seeing the clip with an unbiased mind. You are basically saying it's his rep that has you thinking he moved the woman's arm to be in the camera shot. Not being biased, not being a Canadian (and I wouldn't be a member of the NDP if I were), I'm not convinced he wasn't just wanting to see the screen.

As I pointed out, he had people in front of him. If he wanted to be a camera hog, he could easily have been truly front and center, and not in the middle of the crowd. He didn't stand out in the crowd by any means.

If this were an isolated case you would have a logical argument but as Judge Judy says, "...the preponderance of the evidence..."

When Judge Judy says that, she's only going my the evidence in that case, which is what I'm doing.

People have him guilty of assault and "pushing" the woman, which couldn't be further from the truth, and in this instance, based on what we have seen and read (the woman had been sitting with them and they'd shared a few beers together), I'm confident Judge Judy would have to find him 'not guilty as charged.'

Furthermore, people are questioning why he was even in Gretzky's, which is where I would want to be if I were watching the game in Toronto with friends, and why he wasn't hiding from the camera. So now he should have made it a point NOT to be anywhere near the camera? As I pointed out, the camera could have very well been set up after he and his friends were already there. And even if it weren't, so what? He and his friends have a right to sit where ever they feel like sitting, and as I pointed out, it wasn't right in front of the camera. People have preconceived ideas about Layton and are going to think whatever they think. But as I've pointed out, it's only their opinion. No one "knows" why he did what he did, and to say it was assault and/or pushing the woman is ludicrous.

bjre · March 2, 2010

Many politicians are so ugly that they always try their best to damage others in person. There are so many big problems in Canada need to be solved, so many people need to be helped, they don't want to do anything on that. They always blame others. They always think of destroy and damage others. They don't do anything constructive. They are the real pests.

Shwa · March 2, 2010

Furthermore, people are questioning why he was even in Gretzky's, which is where I would want to be if I were watching the game in Toronto with friends...

Yes you would. Especially if this most popular hockey bar is located in the heart of Trinity-Spadina, which is the riding of your NDP MP wife Olivia Chow. I mean, gold medal game, where else would you go?

I surmise the camera was parked directly underneath or above the actual screen showing the game so it could capture the faces of the crowd during the game and expecially when Canada scored. Similar to how the camera was set up in Kandahar. They do this all the time.

If our humble Father, Sir Stephen Harper the Good, wasn't comfortable with publicity, he should have not been the guest of the actual Wayne Gretzky during the game in a private box. Then again, he certainly couldn't risk sitting in the cheap seats ($1000.00 + per seat!) with the mass of unwashed and maple leaf bedecked regular fans. Too low brow and someone might "assault" his perfect hair.

At any rate, now that the Hyperbole of the Week has been cleared away, it is interesting to note that Harper was with the Great One; Layton was at the Great One's Great Bar, but where was Ignatieff during this momentous sporting occasion? Probably in the library of the Canadian Club researching Canadian colloquialisms to be able to seem more Canadian in the next Canadian election.

Meh.

Wayne Gretzky for PM!

Wild Bill · March 2, 2010

I don't see that as a disadvantage, I see it as an advantage, because I'm seeing the clip with an unbiased mind. You are basically saying it's his rep that has you thinking he moved the woman's arm to be in the camera shot. Not being biased, not being a Canadian (and I wouldn't be a member of the NDP if I were), I'm not convinced he wasn't just wanting to see the screen.

As I pointed out, he had people in front of him. If he wanted to be a camera hog, he could easily have been truly front and center, and not in the middle of the crowd. He didn't stand out in the crowd by any means.

When Judge Judy says that, she's only going my the evidence in that case, which is what I'm doing.

People have him guilty of assault and "pushing" the woman, which couldn't be further from the truth, and in this instance, based on what we have seen and read (the woman had been sitting with them and they'd shared a few beers together), I'm confident Judge Judy would have to find him 'not guilty as charged.'

Furthermore, people are questioning why he was even in Gretzky's, which is where I would want to be if I were watching the game in Toronto with friends, and why he wasn't hiding from the camera. So now he should have made it a point NOT to be anywhere near the camera? As I pointed out, the camera could have very well been set up after he and his friends were already there. And even if it weren't, so what? He and his friends have a right to sit where ever they feel like sitting, and as I pointed out, it wasn't right in front of the camera. People have preconceived ideas about Layton and are going to think whatever they think. But as I've pointed out, it's only their opinion. No one "knows" why he did what he did, and to say it was assault and/or pushing the woman is ludicrous.

I'm not one of those who claimed assault. In fact, if you read what I wrote I did say that the idea of assault was "a bit of a stretch". Don't put other people's words in my mouth and I'll extend you the same courtesy.

I'm simply saying that Layton has a long standing rep as a cheesy publicity hog and that this video clip seems consistent with his history.

Topaz · March 2, 2010

Again, what is the big deal? Would you also come down on Harper if he did the same thing, I doubt. Jack has cancer couldn't go out west because of his treatments so he went to the bar. I would think the Harper supporters would give Jack a break due to his health and he's the only reason Harper is still in the PMO.

DrGreenthumb · March 2, 2010

Again, what is the big deal? Would you also come down on Harper if he did the same thing, I doubt. Jack has cancer couldn't go out west because of his treatments so he went to the bar. I would think the Harper supporters would give Jack a break due to his health and he's the only reason Harper is still in the PMO.

This criticism is pretty pathetic coming from the supporters of Harper, who during campaign speeches and publicity stops brings his own crowds of supporters and a ton of security guards and RCMP, at the taxpayers expense to make sure nobody who opposes him can get within a city block of his photo-ops. You people are as pathetic as the Harpercrite.

M.Dancer · March 2, 2010

Jack has cancer couldn't go out west because of his treatments so he went to the bar.

:lol:

That is not the reason the Jack (fighting bravely) Layton have given.

The NDP’s absence from the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games has been a source of criticism for the Tories – in part provoked by its decision to decline purchasing tickets at face value that were set aside for MPs, saying that was privileged access.

If layton thought he could play the C card he would have.

M.Dancer · March 2, 2010

Yes you would. Especially if this most popular hockey bar is located in the heart of Trinity-Spadina, which is the riding of your NDP MP wife Olivia Chow. I mean, gold medal game, where else would you go?

If it was, but it ain't. The heart of trinity spadina is China Town. Gretzky's is on its south eastern fringe in the entertainment (tourist) area.

Shwa · March 2, 2010

If it was, but it ain't. The heart of trinity spadina is China Town. Gretzky's is on its south eastern fringe in the entertainment (tourist) area.

Not during hockey season it ain't.

Moonbox · March 2, 2010

This criticism is pretty pathetic coming from the supporters of Harper, who during campaign speeches and publicity stops brings his own crowds of supporters and a ton of security guards and RCMP, at the taxpayers expense to make sure nobody who opposes him can get within a city block of his photo-ops. You people are as pathetic as the Harpercrite.

Harper's the PM. He brings RCMP to keep him safe. That's what most country's leaders do.

The criticism is that Layton's a publicity whore. It's apt criticism. Harper was too. He made sure he was seen at all sorts of Olympic events. The only one that wasn't was Ignatieff, but every time the camera is on him the polls go down so w/e.

Layton looked like a desperate amateur. People are making fun of him. That's all. Harper got made fun of when he was doing his sweater by the fire election adds. This isn't unfair. This is Jack being Jack and people laughing at him.