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

[msj]

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.

And BINGO. We have a winner.... thanks for playing everyone.

[blueblood]

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.

Exactly, just as your assuming that ol' jackie was only out having a beer with the common folk, and just "happened" to get on TV. Your as guilty of conjecture as I am.

To say he didn't weasel his way into a primo spot to get on TV is being naive of the first order. This is Jack Layton, as MDancer would put it as the guy playing the cancer card. For someone playing the cancer card, its only logical to assume he would weasel his way into the most opportunistic spot to get his mug on TV.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly, just as your assuming that ol' jackie was only out having a beer with the common folk, and just "happened" to get on TV. Your as guilty of conjecture as I am.

Ummmmm. I never assumed anything; I said how do you know he wasn't just doing that? I never said that's the way it was. I never tried to pass my opinion off as anything other than my opinion. I merely refuted what was being said with 'how do you know?' and 'it could have been this way.'

To say he didn't weasel his way into a primo spot to get on TV is being naive of the first order. This is Jack Layton, as MDancer would put it as the guy playing the cancer card. For someone playing the cancer card, its only logical to assume he would weasel his way into the most opportunistic spot to get his mug on TV.

Again, with the conjecture and the bias and the trying to pass off anything other than your view, your opinion, as "naive in the first order." In other words, wrong.

Back to square one, eh?

[msj]

Yep, back to square one.

I give this one to AW because, from the beginning, she has had the decency to attempt to stand back and look at the video and evidence objectively.

From the very beginning she has made it clear that there is too much conjecture and too little fact.

As for playing the "C card" I think it's being played by Jack Layton's opponents in a very nauseating and hypocritical way. Take a bow m dancer and Mr. Canada.

Look folks, there are many reasons to dislike Jack and his politics based on actual policies and real substance.

This silly thread ain't one of them.

[blueblood]

Ummmmm. I never assumed anything; I said how do you know he wasn't just doing that? I never said that's the way it was. I never tried to pass my opinion off as anything other than my opinion. I merely refuted what was being said with 'how do you know?' and 'it could have been this way.'

And by stating your opinion about Laytons comings and goings that day, your as guilty as I am of assuming. The only way either of us will know Layton's motives is to hook him up to a polygraph machine and post the results. I'd be willing to put the odds on my side of the story and go to vegas with that.

Again, with the conjecture and the bias and the trying to pass off anything other than your view, your opinion, as "naive in the first order." In other words, wrong.

Back to square one, eh?

You can have your legal mumbo jumbo and naivity, I'll have my logic. I am a cowboy, not a court judge, I don't have to assume innocent until proven guilty.

[msj]

And by stating your opinion about Laytons comings and goings that day, your as guilty as I am of assuming. The only way either of us will know Layton's motives is to hook him up to a polygraph machine and post the results. I'd be willing to put the odds on my side of the story and go to vegas with that.

If you were to take a fair look at what she said versus what you have said, any reasonable person would come away thinking AW is closer to being objective than you are.

So, no, she is not "as guilty" as you.

You can have your legal mumbo jumbo and naivity, I'll have my logic. I am a cowboy, not a court judge, I don't have to assume innocent until proven guilty.

That legal "mumbo jumbo" is what protects regular citizens from real harm due to the lynch mob mentality of a bunch of gossip queens.

That's all this thread is - a bunch of gossip queens applying an ad hominem attack against Jack Layton and people like you defend such nonsense on the grounds of it just being opinion.

Yes, it's opinion.

But there's informed opinion like what AW has presented and then there is the crap which is virtually everyone else.

[Smallc]

Well, I'm glad at least a couple other people aren't willing to just hang Layton for his alleged crimes against humanity.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Smallc

[msj]

Well, I'm glad at least a couple other people aren't willing to just hang Layton for his alleged crimes against humanity.

I think blueblood would disagree with the word "alleged," ihhco.¹

^{1) In his humble cowboy opinion}

[blueblood]

If you were to take a fair look at what she said versus what you have said, any reasonable person would come away thinking AW is closer to being objective than you are.

So, no, she is not "as guilty" as you.

She surmised that CTV was there to film Layton not the crowd. I don't think she counts that is a hard fact.

She made her allegations, I made mine.

Of course the reasonable person gets that AW is more objective. She gets the easy defence of "oh he just happened to be there." I have to base my attack on circumstancial evidence, theory, and logic - while sound, just doesn't cut it in a court of law.

I'm not out to put Layton in jail, I'm out to call him a weasel.

That legal "mumbo jumbo" is what protects regular citizens from real harm due to the lynch mob mentality of a bunch of gossip queens.

That's why I'm not a judge, I get the luxury of assuming guilt, the judge does not (and rightfully so I may add).

That's all this thread is - a bunch of gossip queens applying an ad hominem attack against Jack Layton and people like you defend such nonsense on the grounds of it just being opinion.

He's a big boy and in the spot light. Price of fame.

Yes, it's opinion.

But there's informed opinion like what AW has presented and then there is the crap which is virtually everyone else.

This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. The rules are completely different. All sides of the political spectrum are guilty in exploiting potential foilbles, that's part of the game that is politics.

As far as this goes, I am simply connecting the dots. Some people will agree with me, some people won't.

Would you be willing to give Rahim Jaffer and his little shenanigans the same benefit of the doubt, and don't worry your not a juror in that case? I'm not, and I could care less.

[msj]

This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. The rules are completely different. All sides of the political spectrum are guilty in exploiting potential foilbles, that's part of the game that is politics.

As far as this goes, I am simply connecting the dots. Some people will agree with me, some people won't.

Would you be willing to give Rahim Jaffer and his little shenanigans the same benefit of the doubt, and don't worry your not a juror in that case? I'm not, and I could care less.

Yes, it's easy to be a gossip queen and pass the cucumber sandwich please.

Basing an ad hominem attack on such flimsy evidence as has been presented, is, imo, pathetic.

And that's based on the evidence of reading the posts in this thread for which AW has posted substance and people like you have not.

As for Jaffer - my concern has been presented in that thread separately, and, no, my opinion is not based on my personal opinion of Jaffer but, rather, the incompetence of the Crown that leads one to hold one's nose and wonder many questions.

[Guest American Woman]

If you were to take a fair look at what she said versus what you have said, any reasonable person would come away thinking AW is closer to being objective than you are.

So, no, she is not "as guilty" as you.

Thank you. Nice to know that there are people here who recognize the difference between 'this is the way it is, and if you think otherwise, you're an idiot!!' and 'perhaps it's this way, who knows?'

She surmised that CTV was there to film Layton not the crowd. I don't think she counts that is a hard fact.

I "surmised" no such thing. I brought it up as a possibility.

She made her allegations, I made mine.

No, I didn't. I refuted your allegations with other possibilities; allegations you posted as fact.

Of course the reasonable person gets that AW is more objective. She gets the easy defence of "oh he just happened to be there." I have to base my attack on circumstancial evidence, theory, and logic - while sound, just doesn't cut it in a court of law.

"logic?" There's not even any circumstantial evidence. It's all your allegations, your opinion. Pure and simple.

Yes, it's opinion.

By George, I think you've got it!

[blueblood]

I "surmised" no such thing. I brought it up as a possibility.

And I brought up my possibilities, not my fault Layton put himself on the trolley tracks.

No, I didn't. I refuted your allegations with other possibilities; allegations you posted as fact.

Where did I say it was 100% scientific fact. Layton's optics look like garbage. So allegations are now possibilities when its convenient for you.

"logic?" There's not even any circumstantial evidence. It's all your allegations, your opinion. Pure and simple.

Just too many "convenient" coincidences happening at once, that's all. What are you too PC to play connect the dots?

Edited March 14, 2010 by blueblood

[Smallc]

Here's the thing. Many politicians love cameras, and cameras usually love politicians. We don't know who put Layton at the centre of the shot, and we probably never will.

[blueblood]

Yes, it's easy to be a gossip queen and pass the cucumber sandwich please.

And it's even easier to be uber PC and look the other way.

Basing an ad hominem attack on such flimsy evidence as has been presented, is, imo, pathetic.

There was enough "convenient" coincidences to label him a weasel. Evidence enough. I'm calling him a weasel, not sending him to jail.

And that's based on the evidence of reading the posts in this thread for which AW has posted substance and people like you have not.

Your entitled to your opinion. You like to give the benefit of the doubt, I don't. Your a nice guy, I get it.

As for Jaffer - my concern has been presented in that thread separately, and, no, my opinion is not based on my personal opinion of Jaffer but, rather, the incompetence of the Crown that leads one to hold one's nose and wonder many questions.

Like the question's I'm wondering for Layton...

[blueblood]

Here's the thing. Many politicians love cameras, and cameras usually love politicians. We don't know who put Layton at the centre of the shot, and we probably never will.

Just ponder these questions:

1. Why did Layton not get a plug from the announcers like Vince Vaughn and Micheal J. Fox?

2. Why do they put cameras in bars in the first place?

3. Why did Layton have to be in the prime location of the shot, when he could have been anywhere else in the bar like at the women's game?

the optics look bad for Layton.

And like I've said before, any politician no matter what party that would go on with that type of nonsense is a weasel no matter what stripe they are.

[Smallc]

the optics look bad for Layton.

To you they do, but I don't see it that way at all.

[jbg]

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

And you're to dictate how people respond to some of your posts?

How convenient.