Fordtopia: Year Two

[cybercoma]

Not if only one silly City Council does it. Mississauga is thinking about it though. Charging people is better because it gives people an incentive to bring in their own bags and it allows the company to generate income.

People get really mad when companies charge them for bags. I've seen customers get verbally abusive with employees for charging them. They feel entitled to plastic bags for shopping there. A lot of times employees, who really aren't being paid enough to put up with that garbage, just give them the bags for free anyway. If companies are literally banned from distributing them, they won't even buy them from the wholesalers. The wholesalers will then make less. At least this moves in the right direction towards eliminating more plastics out of the environment.

quote name='Boges' date='06 September 2012 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1346959092' post='826947']

I use plastic grocery bags for lunches then when I'm done I keep them in my trunk for when I have to buy groceries. On garbage days I use the grocery bags for as garbage bags. 5 cents a grocery bag is a lot cheaper than Glad garbage bags so I save money.

Who do you know that hordes them or just throws them away as they come home?

You're just throwing them away, using them as garbage bags. Several smaller grocery bags is a lot more plastic than one large glad bag. Also it's nice that you find a way to reuse them as lunch bags, but a reusable lunch pail or paper lunch bag is obviously better, right?

Frankly, I'm not militant about it. My wife carries two reusable bags in her purse that fold up small into pouches and we try to always bring grocery bags into the grocery store. There are occasions though where she doesn't have the reusable bags on her and we get plastic bags if we can't carry the stuff we've purchased.

I think the ban is really effective at getting people to stop getting bags for small purchases. I worked at a bookstore for awhile and I would always ask customers if they wanted a bag. You wouldn't believe how many people are averse to carrying a single paperback out of a store. "Yeah, give me a bag. I'm going to be walking around," they would say, as if holding a single paperback book is such a chore. The ban on bags will be wholly unnecessary when people begin thinking differently about bags and realizing that they're not a necessity and they can really manage without them. I think a lot of the resistance is just due to habit. Banning the bags force people to form new habits.

[Boges]

People get really mad when companies charge them for bags. I've seen customers get verbally abusive with employees for charging them. They feel entitled to plastic bags for shopping there. A lot of times employees, who really aren't being paid enough to put up with that garbage, just give them the bags for free anyway. If companies are literally banned from distributing them, they won't even buy them from the wholesalers. The wholesalers will then make less. At least this moves in the right direction towards eliminating more plastics out of the environment.

quote name='Boges' date='06 September 2012 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1346959092' post='826947']

I use plastic grocery bags for lunches then when I'm done I keep them in my trunk for when I have to buy groceries. On garbage days I use the grocery bags for as garbage bags. 5 cents a grocery bag is a lot cheaper than Glad garbage bags so I save money.

Who do you know that hordes them or just throws them away as they come home?

You're just throwing them away, using them as garbage bags. Several smaller grocery bags is a lot more plastic than one large glad bag. Also it's nice that you find a way to reuse them as lunch bags, but a reusable lunch pail or paper lunch bag is obviously better, right?

Frankly, I'm not militant about it. My wife carries two reusable bags in her purse that fold up small into pouches and we try to always bring grocery bags into the grocery store. There are occasions though where she doesn't have the reusable bags on her and we get plastic bags if we can't carry the stuff we've purchased.

I think the ban is really effective at getting people to stop getting bags for small purchases. I worked at a bookstore for awhile and I would always ask customers if they wanted a bag. You wouldn't believe how many people are averse to carrying a single paperback out of a store. "Yeah, give me a bag. I'm going to be walking around," they would say, as if holding a single paperback book is such a chore. The ban on bags will be wholly unnecessary when people begin thinking differently about bags and realizing that they're not a necessity and they can really manage without them. I think a lot of the resistance is just due to habit. Banning the bags force people to form new habits.

Charging people for helps do that too.

My municipality picks up non-recyclable garbage every two weeks so it's nice to have smaller bags so they don't stay in the catcher that long. Plus considering I have compost and blue bin recycling most of the stuff I'm throwing in the plastic bag is other packaging like plastic and styrofoam. That being said packaging for meat can start to stink pretty quickly.

People who bitch about having to pay for grocery bags are daft BUT I would find it troublesome doing Christmas shopping and having to bring canvas bags for every store I go into.

"You have to carry that sweater around the mall without a bag sir because the government says you do."

BTW the Toronto plastic bag banning doesn't ban all bags, you can still get paper bags which, I'm told, have a larger carbon footprint. I reuse paper bags as well in the green bins.

[Black Dog]

Ford skips work to coach football.

I wish I could blow off most of my work day to do my hobbies.

[Boges]

Ford skips work to coach football.

I wish I could blow off most of my work day to do my hobbies.

You should run for office then.

[Black Dog]

You should run for office then.

I suppose, I hear the current mayor's chair is empty.

[guyser]

Ford skips work to coach football.

I wish I could blow off most of my work day to do my hobbies.

Come on now BD, there is a handbook being sent out about the meeting and then Rob can read.....oh nevermind.

I suppose, I hear the current mayor's chair is empty.

Even with you in that chair it would still be empty. No one can fill that chair, not since Jo Pants was a councillor

Edited September 11, 2012 by guyser

[jacee]

Under cross-examination from lawyer Clayton Ruby over conflict-of-interest charges that could see him thrown out of office, the mayor told the judge that he couldn’t possibly be guilty because he didn’t know what conflict-of-interest laws actually mean.

It's easy to poke fun at how dense Rob Ford is to believe he wasn't in a conflict of interest.

The real question, though, is whether he is that stupid ... or whether he lied in court.

As is always the case, it's up to the Judge, based on the evidence, to determine what the truth is, and who's lying.

Ford had three choices:

- Admit to an "error in judgement" and the case is over. (He refused to admit any error, so now it's up to the judge to decide

- Maintain innocence and his own version of the law (ie, Plead that only he, not the judge, knows what the law really means - ie, incompetence, stupidity, ignorance of the law, but not 'error'.

OR

- Lie on the stand, claiming ignorance of the law while knowing that he was in error according to the law.

The question I've been pondering is this:

Strip away the 'kumbaya' I-was-only-helping-kids.

Ignore the fact that he misused taxpayer funded staff time and resources.

The bald fact is this ... Rob Ford participated in a vote to save HIMSELF some money.

Can Rob Ford really believe that's not a conflict of interest?

I don't think he's THAT dumb.

I think he's lying.

And I think the Judge knows he's lying.

And because Ford refused the easy-out of 'error in judgement, the Judge now has to expose him as a liar.

Although not central to the court's decision, I have to ask this of Ford's supporters here:

You claim it's all OK because Ford was 'just-helping-kids'.

Is it really OK?

Is it OK for a public employee to use his taxpayer-funded time and his taxpayer funded influenceas mayor and his taxpayer funded staff and resources ... to solicit money from city clients/contractors for his personal interests?

Because if that's 'ok' ... I'm going to go back to work as a public employee so I can get pay and benefits will I do my (currently) volunteer work raising funds for charity.

Because if that's 'ok' ... we'll have to decide how much taxpayer funded time a public employee can use for fundraising ... 10%? 50%? Because we'll have to in erase the size of the public service to cover fundraising time along with the time needed to carry out public business.

Where I stand ... fundraising for charity is a laudable personal volunteer activity, but doing it on the taxpayer's dime is fraudulent use of public funds.

Rob Ford may stupidly think he's doing the right thing .

Does his charity think he's doing them a favour with all this bad publicity?

Does his charity want to be associated with misappropriation of public funds, violation of conflict of interest, ignorance of the law, and lying to the court?

Is he really doing ANYONE any favors ... or is he just trying to cover his own ass?

Because if Ford really wanted to protect his charity, he would have admitted his error and repaid the money that was raised by misusing taxpayer's money.

Missing an important meeting to participate in a private function on taxpayer time?

He's spitting in our face.

And we're paying him for it.

[guyser]

The bald fact is this ... Rob Ford participated in a vote to save HIMSELF some money.

Can Rob Ford really believe that's not a conflict of interest?

I don't think he's THAT dumb.

Wanna bet?

[Wild Bill]

Actually, plastic bags are the easiest bags of all to recyle! And we ALL recycle, don't we?

Still, I miss paper bags. They never charged us for them. If left outside they will recycle themselves. No need to put them out in your Blue Box.

I don't have a lot of respect for efforts to FORCE citizens to do these sorts of things! Seems sort of eco-fascist to me. This whole idea of "separation at source" to force some sense of "togetherness" has caused problems of its own. Expecting people to separate all their recyclables, with inspectors to stick "OOPS!" notes on the bags if you make a mistake is just to good an attraction to those anal retentive personalities that tend to end up in the civil service.

Worse yet, in my town there is almost no recycling of commercial enterprises or apartment buildings. Standalone homes were the easy and first target. Much harder to get pickup systems for restaurants and apartment buildings on board.

Just across the border in Niagara Falls NY, the separation is done at DESTINATION! This means the source doesn't have to do anything but just put it all out for pickup. It is all hauled to one central processing plant, with machines and people to sort it all out. These plants employ a lot of people and make a profit, bidding against others for a city's garbage! They take it ALL, restaurants and commercial alike!

How well does Toronto compare, while sending hundreds of trucks every day down the 401 to pay Michigan for the right to dump their garbage?

And I'm a criminal for using plastic bags? Give me a break!

More bonehead approaches!

[jacee]

Under cross-examination from lawyer Clayton Ruby over conflict-of-interest charges that could see him thrown out of office, the mayor told the judge that he couldn’t possibly be guilty because he didn’t know what conflict-of-interest laws actually mean.

http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-toronto-2/363635/fordcourt-vs-ford-fest-mayor-highlights-the-divide/

It's easy to poke fun at how dense Rob Ford is to believe he wasn't in a conflict of interest.

The real question, though, is whether he is that stupid ... or whether he lied in court.

As is always the case, it's up to the Judge, based on the evidence, to determine what the truth is, and who's lying.

Ford had three choices:

- Admit to an "error in judgement" and the case is over. (He refused to admit any error, so now it's up to the judge to decide)

- Maintain innocence and his own version of the law (ie, Plead that only he, not the judge, knows what the law really means - ie, incompetence, stupidity, ignorance of the law, but not 'error'.

OR

- Lie on the stand, claiming ignorance of the law while knowing that he was in error according to the law.

The question I've been pondering is this:

Strip away the 'kumbaya' I-was-only-helping-kids.

Ignore the fact that he misused taxpayer funded staff time and resources.

The bald fact is this ... Rob Ford participated in a vote to save HIMSELF some money.

Can Rob Ford really believe that's not a conflict of interest?

I don't think he's THAT dumb.

I think he's lying.

And I think the Judge knows he's lying.

And because Ford refused the easy-out of 'error in judgement', the Judge now has to expose him as a liar.

Although not central to the court's decision, I have to ask this of Ford's supporters here:

You claim it's all OK because Ford was 'just-helping-kids'.

Is it really OK?

Is it OK for a public employee to use his taxpayer-funded time and his taxpayer funded influence as mayor and his taxpayer funded staff and resources ... to solicit money from city clients/contractors for his personal interests?

Because if that's 'ok' ... I'm going to go back to work as a public employee so I can get pay and benefits while I do my (currently) volunteer work raising funds for charity.

Because if that's 'ok' ... we'll have to decide how much taxpayer funded time a public employee can use for fundraising ... 10%? 50%? Because we'll have to increase the size of the public service to cover fundraising time along with the time needed to carry out public business.

Where I stand ... fundraising for charity is a laudable personal volunteer activity, but doing it on the taxpayer's dime is fraudulent use of public funds.

Rob Ford may stupidly think he's doing the right thing .

Does his charity think he's doing them a favour with all this bad publicity?

Does his charity want to be associated with misappropriation of public funds, violation of conflict of interest, ignorance of the law, and lying to the court?

Is he really doing ANYONE any favors ... or is he just trying to cover his own ass?

Because if Ford really wanted to protect his charity,, he would have admitted his error and repaid the money that was raised by misusing taxpayer's money.

Missing an important meeting to participate in a private function on taxpayer time?

He's spitting in our face.

And we're paying him for it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by jacee

[Black Dog]

How well does Toronto compare, while sending hundreds of trucks every day down the 401 to pay Michigan for the right to dump their garbage?

That hasn't happened for about two years.

[Shakeyhands]

I suppose, I hear the current mayor's chair is empty.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!

[jacee]

That hasn't happened for about two years.

No Toronto's garbage is in 320 acres of Elgin County now..

[Black Dog]

Respect for taxpayers!

One week after Toronto Mayor Rob Ford testified under oath that he no longer uses taxpayer-funded staff and resources for football, fresh evidence has emerged that suggests he continues to do just that.

Mr. Ford appears to have relied on at least two mayor’s office employees and their taxpayer-funded cellphones to help administer the summer football teams he founded after winning Toronto’s top political job.

[cybercoma]

It's ok, Black Dog. He doesn't know it's wrong, so it's legal.

[Black Dog]

Football fumbles continue, now pitting brother against brother

Mayor Rob Ford won’t let his staffers speak to reporters to clarify their roles in the mayor’s office and on the football field.

The mayor’s office quickly blocked the notion — suggested by Councillor Doug Ford on AM640 Thursday — that the staff at the centre of the current controversy swirling around the mayor would be brought out to tell their story.

“That will not happen,” Ford’s press secretary George Christopoulos told the Sun Thursday.

Councillor Ford continued his blistering defence of his mayoral brother in an interview with AM640’s John Oakley early Thursday.

“We’re going to have to bring the staff out to speak to the media which we hate doing,” Ford told Oakley. “They volunteer their time.”

Ford vowed the two staffers that help the mayor with his football team would be brought out.

“We’ll get these two folks out, they’ll clear the air and then I’d like to see what they say after that,” he said.

[Black Dog]

I'd love to be able to stop talking about high school football, but our pigskin-obsessed chief won't let me:

Ford skips council meeting for football game; wrangles TTC bus for players

[jacee]

Ahh ... More fraud and corruption by the mayor, abusing taxpayer trust, misusing taxpayer money for his personal interests, peddling his influence.

He's incapable of learning, and thus incapable of holding public office, a position of public trust.

Some taxpayers might think what he does is ok: I think they should pay for the bus.

[Black Dog]

I like how Ford constantly touts his football program as a good thing for keeping youth out of trouble, yet in the presser on the question of his missing council for a game, he basically suggests that they are out of control animals.

Ford: You know what? If I wasn't there, it could've have gotten really ugly. I think you should talk to the school board or the police. I controlled my team. Very few people can control these kids.

[Black Dog]

I just can't I don't even:

TTC left riders stranded to ferry mayor’s football team

Two Toronto Transit Commission buses dropped off passengers mid-route at the start of rush hour so the vehicles could be re-routed to a nearby football field to drive Mayor Rob Ford’s team back to their school, the TTC has confirmed.

When the driver of the first bus couldn’t immediately find the football field at Father Henry Carr Catholic Secondary School in Etobicoke Thursday afternoon, Mr. Ford called TTC CEO Andy Byford directly to ask about the delay.

[guyser]

I just can't I don't even:

Frankly I am glad His Lardship Lordship did this,

Now he is open season for abuse from voters.

Open season. I would love for Warrior Princess to strike again.

Edited November 2, 2012 by guyser

[Mr.Canada]

Frankly I am glad His Lardship did this,

Now he is open season for abuse from voters.

Open season. I would love for Warrior Princess to strike again.

I thought everyone was equal to the left but now you're making jokes about his weight. Would you make fun of a heavy woman to her face in a restaurant who ordered dessert? I'd like to know how far your dislike for people who struggle with weight goes. Do you hate all overweight people? Why?

[guyser]

I thought everyone was equal to the left but now you're making jokes about his weight.

Spelling mistake.

Would you make fun of a heavy woman to her face in a restaurant who ordered dessert? I'd like to know how far your dislike for people who struggle with weight goes. Do you hate all overweight people? Why?

A fat woman is of no concern of mine, Thats her problem.

I dont hate all overweight people, Just those who are slovenly slobs prone to embarassing the city they represent.

Nice try though Mr C !

[Argus]

I like this guy, if for no other reason than he drives all the lefties into fulminating fury over the most piddling of things!

[Mr.Canada]

A fat woman is of no concern of mine, Thats her problem.

I dont hate all overweight people, Just those who are slovenly slobs prone to embarassing the city they represent.

Nice try though Mr C !

Ok then now we have it. If some one is in politics and guyser doesn't agree with them apparently it's ok to personally attack them. Do I have this right?

Why not instead try to focus that razor wit on the issues hmm? Perhaps then we have can some meaningful argument.