CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 When someone makes themselves into a public leader, the standard, with all due respect, is higher than lack of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree. But innuendos and assumptions are not evidence. That's what I have seen so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Why? The same reason pro atheletes, ceo's, and other high profile people live in the fishbowl. Their name is so powerful its to the point of they don't get to take the night off. Tiger woods doesn't take a break from being tiger woods, and a benefit of that is the ridiculous amt of money he makes. For politicians its power. The fact that these people are so handsomely compensated gives credence to what they are giving up. The ceo of hp got canned because he fooled around on his wife. It had nothing to do with his performance at the company (which was outdtanding btw), its that the board didn't want a philanderer running the company and making it look sleazy to shareholders, and the fear if he cheats on his wife what else is he cheating? Stephen harper doesn't get to take a night off from being stephen harper. Whatever he does away from the hill can influence public opinion of him, even if it has nothing to do with his job description. As compensation he gets to essentially run the country. Layton also being famous has the same dilemna/benefits as other people in the public eye. It even applies to yourself. Are you going to go around town and act like a d bag? I don't think so because you need customers. Welcome to the world of branding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I understand all of that, but when it comes to matters of legality, if there weren't even any charges laid....15 YEARS AGO....why are we even talking about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I understand all of that, but when it comes to matters of legality, if there weren't even any charges laid....15 YEARS AGO....why are we even talking about this? Kimmy and myself and hydraboss aren't talking about legallity, we're talking about the optics and stuff like that is how rumors get started. Layton would easily win in court. However its optics, and if optics aren't good people talk. Its like sponsorhip scandal, and the bp ceo being a jackass during the oil spill. Layton is lucky because this came out at the end of the campaign when nobody of significance is paying attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 And you know he knew because? Anything in the FACTS that are KNOWN lend to that conclusion? So far, I see nothing but innuendos and assumptions. I'm not sure you actually understood my post. Settle down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I understand all of that, but when it comes to matters of legality, if there weren't even any charges laid....15 YEARS AGO....why are we even talking about this? I told you the answer yesterday. We're talking about it now because 15 years ago Jack Layton chose to hide it from the Canadian people. He chose to hide the fact that he was found naked on a bed in a suspected bawdy house with a suspected Asian hooker during a police raid. He hid that from Canada for 15 years hoping Canada would never find out. Well Jack, Canada has found out and Canada demands an explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) I told you the answer yesterday. We're talking about it now because 15 years ago Jack Layton chose to hide it from the Canadian people. He chose to hide the fact that he was found naked on a bed in a suspected bawdy house with a suspected Asian hooker during a police raid. He hid that from Canada for 15 years hoping Canada would never find out. Well Jack, Canada has found out and Canada demands an explanation. He chose to hid the fact that he got a massage? Seriously? I would also like to point out that if there is Illegality the city will revoke a licence in Toronto. How long did this one operate for? 5 years, never charged anyone in any raid at the place. Edited May 2, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I'm not sure you actually understood my post. Settle down. Settling down? Me? I am having far too much fun right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I told you the answer yesterday. We're talking about it now because 15 years ago Jack Layton chose to hide it from the Canadian people. He chose to hide the fact that he was found naked on a bed in a suspected bawdy house with a suspected Asian hooker during a police raid. He hid that from Canada for 15 years hoping Canada would never find out. Well Jack, Canada has found out and Canada demands an explanation. The only people talking about it are us on mlw, and were typically decided voters at week 1 and are just asking questions. Not an issue in the msm where it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I told you the answer yesterday. We're talking about it now because 15 years ago Jack Layton chose to hide it from the Canadian people. Nope. A non-event was treated 15 years ago as a non-event. Well Jack, Canada has found out and Canada demands an explanation. And Canadians got it. If you have facts that contradict it, show them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 The only people talking about it are us on mlw, and were typically decided voters at week 1 and are just asking questions. Not an issue in the msm where it matters. Actually, quite a few people are commenting on this story at the CBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Fwiw, a quick Google search on "velvet touch massage" does reveal a number of 'exotic massage' places but also some that seem completely legitimate (not that I'm an expert): http://velvetouchmassage.com/ http://sites.google.com/site/vtmtherapy/home/info and even an equine massage place: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Velvet-Touch-Equine-Massage/189524391068609 Yeah, but they're not massages given by young Asian women! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Yeah, but they're not massages given by young Asian women! Cybercoma, do you think this is a bigger story than what we are being led to believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Yeah, but they're not massages given by young Asian women! The parlor operated for 5 years with out a single bust. Just thought I would point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 The parlor operated for 5 years with out a single bust. Just thought I would point that out. You know a lot about this particular parlour. Why isn't it in business today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 You know a lot about this particular parlour. Why isn't it in business today? Feel free to tell us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Yeah, but they're not massages given by young Asian women! Cybercoma, I can't even tell which level of irony you're operating on anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Feel free to tell us. Actully it closed down after the raid. The authorities found it to be TOO legitimate. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/30/mammoliti-had-suspicions-about-velvet-touch Edited May 2, 2011 by lukin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Really? 57 pages of this garbage? Glad the important issues are getting the much needed attention /sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I'll say this: I kind of wish this would just go away. It's a real non-issue (other than the obvious aggravation factor for dippers - which is fun). And no doubt, it will. For now. If John actually becomes PM due to a CPC minority, I'll wager this comes back full force. And then it will be the CPC, the Libs and the Bloc doing it in the HoC (with parlimentary privilege of course). John Layton will regret this little "indiscretion" if that's what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 This should answer your question. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/30/mammoliti-had-suspicions-about-velvet-touch Found and read before you psted the link. Soo, it was so well known as a bawdy house that it closed 3 years after the raid. But my favorite part is about how suspicious that, 15 years later, some people involved are no longer there. Guess only people involved with bawdy houses ever move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Settling down? Me? I am having far too much fun right now. To explain my previous post, I was just clarifying the assumption behind Kimmy's post. I wasn't taking that as my position. I believe it's a big assumption, but not an invalid one. It's not one that I've considered, but disagree with. However, I think it's entirely fair that she believes what she does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I'll say this: I kind of wish this would just go away. It's a real non-issue (other than the obvious aggravation factor for dippers - which is fun). And no doubt, it will. For now. If John actually becomes PM due to a CPC minority, I'll wager this comes back full force. And then it will be the CPC, the Libs and the Bloc doing it in the HoC (with parlimentary privilege of course). John Layton will regret this little "indiscretion" if that's what it was. The oppositions parties will not touch it with a ten foot pole unless there's a smoking gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 To explain my previous post, I was just clarifying the assumption behind Kimmy's post. I wasn't taking that as my position. I believe it's a big assumption, but not an invalid one. It's not one that I've considered, but disagree with. However, I think it's entirely fair that she believes what she does. Whoever's position it was, I still find the whole issue to be a riot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Cybercoma, do you think this is a bigger story than what we are being led to believe? No I don't. I think Sun Media is trash and I think it's telling that their channel has to be called Sun "TV" rather than Sun "News" like other news channels: ie. Fox News, CTV News, etc. They're a tabloid organization there for entertainment rather than information. I think if this is where you get your knowledge from, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror because it's really no better than someone that gets their news from the National Enquirer. In other words, no. I don't think there's a bigger story. However, at the same time, I'm not saying that there isn't. This is just my opinion. It may come out that there is a bigger story and I won't deny it if there is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.