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

[blueblood]

What makes you think he didn't? How do you know it wasn't the media that focused in on him rather than the other way around?

I don't remember seeing a camera set up in a fixed location during the women's game, and if there was, I didn't see Layton plant himself in primo position for a camera shot. When they have the cameras at those bars, there is one angle of the shot, no panning around looking for celebrities.

Since he attended the women's gold game without receiving any media fanfare and still chose to go there for the men's gold game, makes me wonder why people accuse him of only going to Gretzky's for the men's game to get attention. His being there for the women's game obviously didn't result in media attention since people didn't even know he was there, so why would he think the men's game would?

Oh I don't know, the feed from CTV being incentive for him to get a primo spot right in the middle of the camera shot.

Seems to me there's nothing to indicate that he attended one game with different ulterior motives than the other. More than ever it looks as if he just wanted to watch the games at Grezky's along with all the other fans.

Had the camera not been there, and had he not got himself conveniently in the middle of the camera shot I would agree with you. It would have been far better optics for him too.

[Smallc]

Whatever happened, I don't think it hurt him at all. You weren't going to vote for the NDP anyway.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

You come here and complain about people bullying you, and that your going to the mods and that they will side for you, well its a two way street.

Trolling and flame baiting are also against the forum rules as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You want to troll and flame bait, deal with the consequences.

I do nothing of the sort. I did that once before and got suspended for it. I no longer do that. Now I post my own opinions. I have very conservative view points and people here don't like it as they seem to be fairly left wing here. People here don't like it when view points are different from their own it seems sometimes.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Guest American Woman]

I don't remember seeing a camera set up in a fixed location during the women's game, and if there was, I didn't see Layton plant himself in primo position for a camera shot. When they have the cameras at those bars, there is one angle of the shot, no panning around looking for celebrities.

I realize that there is no panning by the cameras under such circumstances, but evidently there was a camera at Gretzky's for the women's game, too: Alta4ever, on 01 March 2010 - 04:58 PM, said: Why wasn't he there for the womens gold game when they cut to it during that game?

Oh I don't know, the feed from CTV being incentive for him to get a primo spot right in the middle of the camera shot.

It would have been a primo spot during the women's game too, right? The same incentive would have applied if that's all he were after. Yet evidently, according to the post I was responding to, he wasn't there in front of the camera.

Had the camera not been there, and had he not got himself conveniently in the middle of the camera shot I would agree with you. It would have been far better optics for him too.

Once again, you don't know that the camera wasn't set up to include him in the shots. You don't know that it wasn't CTV wanting him in the shots, and not the other way around.

So again, the fact that he didn't get media coverage during the women's game, yet returned for the men's, would indicate to me that he was not going there for the express purspose of media coverage; that he would have no basis for expecting it.

[jbg]

Whatever happened, I don't think it hurt him at all. You weren't going to vote for the NDP anyway.

But for Layton's conduct I was planning on voting NDP in the next election.

[blueblood]

I realize that there is no panning by the cameras under such circumstances, but evidently there was a camera at Gretzky's for the women's game, too: Alta4ever, on 01 March 2010 - 04:58 PM, said: Why wasn't he there for the womens gold game when they cut to it during that game?

That is what he should have done for the men's game. Perhaps he figured out he should weasel his way onto TV for the men's game when the camera was switched on. Another theory is that a regular fan got the primo spot thus buffaloing Layton's attempt to get on TV for the women's game. As it should be.

It would have been a primo spot during the women's game too, right? The same incentive would have applied if that's all he were after. Yet evidently, according to the post I was responding to, he wasn't there in front of the camera.

See above. which is what any celebrity with a shred of dignity should be doing when there are no plugs being given out during the hockey game. The camera was looking for Vince Vaughn in Vancouver, and he was credited with a plug, the camera was not looking for layton, and the anouncers did not give him a plug, but the audience knew who Layton was. That is weaselry at its finest.

Once again, you don't know that the camera wasn't set up to include him in the shots. You don't know that it wasn't CTV wanting him in the shots, and not the other way around.

You did not watch the game on CTV. The camera was not set up to include him specifically in any shot. They panned for Vince Vaughn, but not for Layton. Layton had to weasel his way through a crowd to get on TV, ol' Vince sat in his seat in the press box none the wiser.

So again, the fact that he didn't get media coverage during the women's game, yet returned for the men's, would indicate to me that he was not going there for the express purspose of media coverage; that he would have no basis for expecting it.

No, that shows me he didn't get his way at the women's game or the thought of going on camera didn't click at that time. He was definetely expecting it for the men's game, front row centre. He must be peeved at Vaughn - Vaughn gets a full plug, on the camera, and vince was none the wiser.

[blueblood]

I do nothing of the sort. I did that once before and got suspended for it. I no longer do that. Now I post my own opinions.

Bulls***, starting threads off with "PM Harper, friend to all Jews" is blatantly trolling and flame baiting. Posting your opinions in your manner is trolling and flame baiting, and that's why everyone on this board skewers you. You called for the thunder, well here it is.

I have very conservative view points and people here don't like it as they seem to be fairly left wing here.

No you have nutbar view points, you claim to be a conservative, but your Walmart arguments say otherwise. No, your a fascist, that about sums it up.

There were more centre right posters years ago, but they moved on, and they weren't as bush league as you are. However, this board is not left wing in spite of the centre right posters leaving.

People here don't like it when view points are different from their own it seems sometimes.

No, your viewpoints are crazy and poorly defended.

[Mr.Canada]

Bulls***, starting threads off with "PM Harper, friend to all Jews" is blatantly trolling and flame baiting. Posting your opinions in your manner is trolling and flame baiting, and that's why everyone on this board skewers you. You called for the thunder, well here it is.

I see any opinion I have isn't valid because it doesn't meet your standards. PM Harper is friendlyto Jews and defends them so what's the problem? I'm not saying anything that's untrue.

No you have nutbar view points, you claim to be a conservative, but your Walmart arguments say otherwise. No, your a fascit, that about sums it up.

No, your viewpoints are crazy and poorly defended.

I see so wanting Jews and Israel to not be victims of anti semitism is a nutbar view point?

Not approving of people having public sex in front of children is another nutbar v.p right?

I didn't know i had to vigorously defend these two view points. Are they that crazy? So do you approve of anti semitism and public sex in front of minors then? Is that your point here? Explain how these two view points make me a nutbar?

If you're going to call me out kid you'd better be ready.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[blueblood]

I see any opinion I have isn't valid because it doesn't meet your standards. PM Harper is friendlyto Jews and defends them so what's the problem? I'm not saying anything that's untrue.

Your opinion isn't valid because you have ruined your crediblity and the credibility of centre right posters with your nonsense.

I see so wanting Jews and Israel to not be victims of anti semitism is a nutbar view point?

Not approving of people having public sex in front of children is another nutbar v.p right?

Yet you are wanting to videotape said alledged sex acts ruins makes that a nutbar viewpoint. Your excessive baiting and trolling about jews makes you have a nutbar viewpoint.

here's another nutbar viewpoint of yours, you want canada to have a civil war.

I didn't know i had to vigorously defend these two view points. Are they that crazy? So do you approve of anti semitism and public sex in front of minors then? Is that your point here? Explain how these two view points make me a nutbar? If you're going to call me out kid you'd better be ready.

No, your just crazy. My point is that you take viewpoints that a sizeable proportion of people have, and express them stupidly.

You advocate that Canada should enter a civil war, you sir are a nutbar.

As for me being worried about you defending yourself, I'm quiverring in my cowboy boots.

[Mr.Canada]

Your opinion isn't valid because you have ruined your crediblity and the credibility of centre right posters with your nonsense.

Truth is many here don't like my strong right wing perspective and most here who claim to conservatives are really just red Tories, which is in fact just a Liberal who's pretending to be conservative.

I am not asking you or anyone to take my word for it here. I'm not introducing new self found facts I am presenting already existing facts. Since when does someone need to be credible when they are presenting independant, already existing facts?

I'm really sorry if you don't like my true blue conservative view points but that really isn't my problem. Also name calling over the internet is really weak and it just shows that you are really just trying to bully me. Nothing more.

I think that your personal issues with me can be better handled through PM's so if you want to continue this conversation just PM me or is it that you enjoy having an audiance?

Edited March 14, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Alta4ever]

Truth is many here don't like my strong right wing perspective and most here who claim to conservatives are really just red Tories, which is in fact just a Liberal who's pretending to be conservative.

I am not asking you or anyone to take my word for it here. I'm not introducing new self found facts I am presenting already existing facts. Since when does someone need to be credible when they are presenting independant, already existing facts?

I'm really sorry if you don't like my true blue conservative view points but that really isn't my problem. Also name calling over the internet is really weak and it just shows that you are really just trying to bully me. Nothing more.

I think that your personal issues with me can be better handled through PM's so if you want to continue this conversation just PM me or is it that you enjoy having an audiance?

You are confused. You aren't being berated because of where you fall on the political spectrum. (blueblood is far from a liberal or a red tory, and understands small c conservatism far better then you). You are getting ridiculed because you post silly things like a civil war would be good for Canada. Your posting nonsense most of the time.

Like this thread, assault come on buddy a little far fetched. Why this is any kind of minor issue is because to some like me it shows the depths desperation he will go through to get his cheesy smile on Tv.

[Smallc]

Mr. Canada, both Alta4ever and blueblood are far more conservative than you. You may be socially conservative, but you wouldn't know about fiscal conservatism if it walked up and kicked you in the stomach.

[blueblood]

Truth is many here don't like my strong right wing perspective and most here who claim to conservatives are really just red Tories, which is in fact just a Liberal who's pretending to be conservative.

You don't have a strong right wing perspective, you have a fascist perspective. Your attitude concerning civil liberties and your attitude concerning economics and business are proof of that.

I am not asking you or anyone to take my word for it here. I'm not introducing new self found facts I am presenting already existing facts. Since when does someone need to be credible when they are presenting independant, already existing facts?

If you want to be taken seriously and to persuade others to your views, you need credibility, unfortunately the way you present your arguments damages that.

I'm really sorry if you don't like my true blue conservative view points but that really isn't my problem. Also name calling over the internet is really weak and it just shows that you are really just trying to bully me. Nothing more.

I am not trying to bully you, I am succeeding. I don't care if your pissing and moaning about being "bullied", your problem not mine.

I think that your personal issues with me can be better handled through PM's so if you want to continue this conversation just PM me or is it that you enjoy having an audiance?

I don't PM, anything I say to one person can be said to others. My issue with you is that your ridiculous methods in arguments are ruining not only your credibility, but other centre right posters/Canadians. Ordinary Canadians are turned off from people with your perspective, and there is a fear of the centre right that breeds untrue stereotypes, when you are that stereotype, that fear in ordinary Canadians is confirmed and it ruins things for Centre-right Canadians. You are Cancer. Go Home.

[blueblood]

Mr. Canada, both Alta4ever and blueblood are far more conservative than you. You may be socially conservative, but you wouldn't know about fiscal conservatism if it walked up and kicked you in the stomach.

At least with you I can have an intelligent debate that benefits those who read this site as they get both sides of the story.

With Mr. Canada its bye bye centre right credibility...

[Mr.Canada]

Please keep the Mr.Canada specific bashing confined to this thread. Let's keep the topics for the issues.

[Smallc]

At least with you I can have an intelligent debate that benefits those who read this site as they get both sides of the story.

I know sometimes I give the impression that I don't agree with anything you say. I often do, as I am in some ways fiscally conservative. I just have a different view on social issues and the things we have to pay for...and that ends in us having quite vigorous debates, which I usually enjoy.

[Smallc]

Please keep the Mr.Canada specific bashing confined to this thread. Let's keep the topics for the issues.

Yeah, lets talk about Jack Layton's assault instead.

[Mr.Canada]

Yeah, lets talk about Jack Layton's assault instead.

The real story is that he loves to be on TV and doesn't want his smiling face obstructed by anyone or anything and will take action to correct it if these problems persist.

[Alta4ever]

The real story is that he loves to be on TV and doesn't want his smiling face obstructed by anyone or anything and will take action to correct it if these problems persist.

Really is that what you think because its not what you said earlier in the thread.

I said technically it was an assault. I've never wavered from that.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

The law is pretty clear, it was an assault. What I said was that judges don't have to follow this to the letter that their are exceptions judges can make which would most likely be the case here.

Layton directly applied force intentionally. That is an assault.

[Mr.Canada]

Really is that what you think because its not what you said earlier in the thread.

He did intentionally apply force. It was on TV for cripes sakes we all saw him do it.

I've tried to make the assault the story but people weren't having it.

[Alta4ever]

He did intentionally apply force. It was on TV for cripes sakes we all saw him do it.

I've tried to make the assault the story but people weren't having it.

So it is still what you think?

[Guest American Woman]

That is what he should have done for the men's game. Perhaps he figured out he should weasel his way onto TV for the men's game when the camera was switched on. Another theory is that a regular fan got the primo spot thus buffaloing Layton's attempt to get on TV for the women's game. As it should be.

And yet another theory is that Layton wasn't the one choosing to be in front of the camera for the men's game, just as he wasn't in front of the camera for the women's game; perhaps CTV set up the camera in front of him.

See above. which is what any celebrity with a shred of dignity should be doing when there are no plugs being given out during the hockey game. The camera was looking for Vince Vaughn in Vancouver, and he was credited with a plug, the camera was not looking for layton, and the anouncers did not give him a plug, but the audience knew who Layton was. That is weaselry at its finest.

You have no idea who the camera "was looking for" when CTV set it up. If you think the camera didn't know Layton was there, that he was setting up in front of Layton's spot, I think you must think the CTV camera man is less intelligent than I think he is.

You did not watch the game on CTV. The camera was not set up to include him specifically in any shot. They panned for Vince Vaughn, but not for Layton. Layton had to weasel his way through a crowd to get on TV, ol' Vince sat in his seat in the press box none the wiser.

Again, the CTV camera wasn't "panning" for anyone at the men's game at Gretzky's, according to you, so if they wanted to set it up so Layton would be in the shots, that was their peroggative.

No, that shows me he didn't get his way at the women's game or the thought of going on camera didn't click at that time.

That's pure conjecture on your part, based on your preconceived opinion of Layton.

He was definetely expecting it for the men's game, front row centre. He must be peeved at Vaughn - Vaughn gets a full plug, on the camera, and vince was none the wiser.

Again, pure conjecture. Your opinion of Layton is obvious from that statement, and therefore your opinion regarding his being at Gretzky's in camera range for the men's game, which you erroneously state as fact, is obviously biased.

[blueblood]

And yet another theory is that Layton wasn't the one choosing to be in front of the camera for the men's game, just as he wasn't in front of the camera for the women's game; perhaps CTV set up the camera in front of him.

Nope, Layton got no plug. CTV did however want Vince Vaughn to be on camera, and gave him a "Oh look Vince Vaughn is in the crowd". Layton did not get that curtosy. Ergo, CTV did not plan for him weaseling his way onto TV.

You have no idea who the camera "was looking for" when CTV set it up. If you think the camera didn't know Layton was there, that he was setting up in front of Layton's spot, I think you must think the CTV camera man is less intelligent than I think he is.

They said who the camera was looking for right when it was set up, a crowd of patrons at Gretzky's. No mention of Layton at all. Why weren't politicians at Cole Harbour Nova Scotia weaseling their way onto TV. The camera was being set up in a location that got a good crowd shot and a little bit of the bar to show it was a bar. Layton weaseled his way in when he could have taken the classier option.

Again, the CTV camera wasn't "panning" for anyone at the men's game at Gretzky's, according to you, so if they wanted to set it up so Layton would be in the shots, that was their peroggative.

Except they didn't want Layton in their shots, they wanted ordinary people. The announcers did not acknowledge Layton was there, they did acknowledge Vince Vaughn and Micheal J. Fox.

That's pure conjecture on your part, based on your preconceived opinion of Layton.

No, this goes for any politician, that's just dirty. I save my harshest criticism of CPC blatant mess ups because they ruin the credibility of the centre right.

Again, pure conjecture. Your opinion of Layton is obvious from that statement, and therefore your opinion regarding his being at Gretzky's in camera range for the men's game, which you erroneously state as fact, is obviously biased.

Yet you don't get CTV and didn't watch the game in its entirety on CTV. The video evidence doesn't lie, he is front row centre, when he didn't have to be. The camera wasn't panning for him, the announcer didn't acknowledge him. That to me says he weaseled his way in to get his mug on the Canadian equivalent to the super bowl. That's gutterball for a politician who can get on TV whenever he wants.

[Mr.Canada]

So it is still what you think?

Do I think he intentionally applied force? Yes we all saw him apply force to that womans arm. Are you trying to say he didn't apply force?

[Guest American Woman]

The video evidence doesn't lie....

The "video evidence" doesn't show anything that you've surmissed. The video evidence only shows Layton in front of the camera, lowering a woman's arm that was waving in front of him/his view. That's it. Everything else is nothing but opinion, conjecture. Nothing that you've suggested/stated as fact is anything more than your take on it, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it fact.