You may hate Rob Ford . . .

[Spiderfish]

He broke the law to save himself a measly $3,000. Not sure how his opponents look bad here.

I can't imagine you would. But from someone who has no investment in the daily politics of Toronto and who is not currently dancing in the streets because of the ruling, the optics aren't as clear cut to some as they are to you. Regardless, I do agree with you that what he did was wrong.

[Black Dog]

I can't imagine you would. But from someone who has no investment in the daily politics of Toronto and who is not currently dancing in the streets because of the ruling, the optics aren't as clear cut to some as they are to you. Regardless, I do agree with you that what he did was wrong.

I'm not super happy about it either. He could come back, after all.

[PIK]

How many non-sequitors can you come up with?

Since you asked tho, George wouldnt nor couldnt be as dumb as your guy.

Take a look at All the scandal from dalton's gang, Geo's prints are all over them.

[Black Dog]

Take a look at All the scandal from dalton's gang, Geo's prints are all over them.

Which excuses Ford how?

[bleeding heart]

Which excuses Ford how?

Get with the program, BD: this Ford thread is supposed to be about Dalton's wrongdoings.

[jacee]

No doubt our esteemed ( Ha!) Mayor is regretting his stance as a pompous ass not to mention being a moron, make that an entittled moron who thought he could get away with whatever he felt he needed to do.

The issue here, as much as those who support him, be it talk radio or news or here deny it (take your pik should you wish) is not so much what he did since he had an easy out to rectify it , it was his arrogance on the stand in court, his denials as naseum that was his undoing.

Serves him well and I sincerely hope he tucks tail between his legs and goes back to work for Deco and coach football. He is suited for that. Not for Mayor.

Of course this is no black eye for the city, nor did the Star do anything to assist this hassle going forward. Good choice to pick an independant judge

Scoop is Rob isn't smart enough to run the family business either ... and he doesn't work during the football season.

[jacee]

Take a look at All the scandal from dalton's gang, Geo's prints are all over them.

We'll "take a look" at all corruption. It's not a partisan issue.

And no one is 'innocent' just because the other guys do it too.

(Try that argument with a cop while he's writing your speeding ticket.)

But we welcome the information they can provide about the other corrupt guys.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[Argus]

He broke the law to save himself a measly $3,000. Not sure how his opponents look bad here.

To begin with, It now seems questionable if he broke the law. Second, council had no right to order him to pay any money back when he didn't receive any. That was clear on reading the guidelines. I invite you to examine the opinions of two lawyers in two columns below.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/28/christie-blatchford-controversy-grows-over-why-judge-took-nuclear-option-in-rob-ford-ruling/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/marni-soupcoff-maybe-were-the-ones-who-owe-rob-ford-an-apology/

[cybercoma]

To begin with, It now seems questionable if he broke the law. Second, council had no right to order him to pay any money back when he didn't receive any. That was clear on reading the guidelines. I invite you to examine the opinions of two lawyers in two columns below.

http://fullcomment.n...ob-ford-ruling/

http://fullcomment.n...ord-an-apology/

It's not questionable at all. He voted on a council motion that he benefitted from directly. He's going to appeal and he will lose.

[Guest Peeves]

It's not questionable at all. He voted on a council motion that he benefitted from directly. He's going to appeal and he will lose.

Yup this here guy what wouldn't claim a cent of expenses on his office budget of over $50,000 made a financial killing on the money that was used solely fer that thar football team of kiddies. Got it.

Expenses claimed last year by the four main councillors involved in this issue were:

* Rob Ford -- $0;

* Doug Holyday -- $1,471;

* Howard Moscoe -- $10,636; and

* Giorgio Mammoliti -- $49,795

There is more salvation and security in wheat, than in all the political schemes of the world -- Ezra Taft Benson

Also: "In June 2010, Ford and fellow councillors criticized retiring Kyle Rae for holding a retirement party at the Rosewater Club and billing the $12,000 cost to his office budget. Rae said that unspent campaign funds he was forced to turn over the city more than covered the cost, but critics pointed out that the campaign money was not his to spend. This example was used by Ford as an example of the "gravy train" at City Hall.^[28][29][30]"

He broke a law that law is an ass, Judged true, Those pillorying him are moral cowards.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Peeves

[jacee]

Yup this here guy what wouldn't claim a cent of expenses on his office budget of over $50,000 made a financial killing on the money that was used solely fer that thar football team of kiddies. Got it.

Expenses claimed last year by the four main councillors involved in this issue were:

* Rob Ford -- $0;

* Doug Holyday -- $1,471;

* Howard Moscoe -- $10,636; and

* Giorgio Mammoliti -- $49,795

There is more salvation and security in wheat, than in all the political schemes of the world -- Ezra Taft Benson

Also: "In June 2010, Ford and fellow councillors criticized retiring Kyle Rae for holding a retirement party at the Rosewater Club and billing the $12,000 cost to his office budget. Rae said that unspent campaign funds he was forced to turn over the city more than covered the cost, but critics pointed out that the campaign money was not his to spend. This example was used by Ford as an example of the "gravy train" at City Hall.^[28][29][30]"

He broke a law that is an ass true, Those pillorying him are moral cowards.

Ya play by the rules or ya don't play ... with taxpayer money.

Here the rule is no personal attacks.

[Guest Peeves]

Ya play by the rules or ya don't play ... with taxpayer money.

Here the rule is no personal attacks. Glad you get that.

To be clear I refer to the Toronto left that pilloried him, not those discussing it here. We are debating. They are skulking around looking for a pimple to make into a mole hill.

Those here had no part in his being pilloried unless they were in concert with Ruby and his cronies.

[Guest Peeves]

It's not questionable at all. He voted on a council motion that he benefitted from directly. He's going to appeal and he will lose.

Oh get off it there was NO benefit to him either directly or indirectly that's crap.

[cybercoma]

Yup this here guy what wouldn't claim a cent of expenses on his office budget of over $50,000 made a financial killing on the money that was used solely fer that thar football team of kiddies. Got it.

Expenses claimed last year by the four main councillors involved in this issue were:

* Rob Ford -- $0;

* Doug Holyday -- $1,471;

* Howard Moscoe -- $10,636; and

* Giorgio Mammoliti -- $49,795

There is more salvation and security in wheat, than in all the political schemes of the world -- Ezra Taft Benson

Also: "In June 2010, Ford and fellow councillors criticized retiring Kyle Rae for holding a retirement party at the Rosewater Club and billing the $12,000 cost to his office budget. Rae said that unspent campaign funds he was forced to turn over the city more than covered the cost, but critics pointed out that the campaign money was not his to spend. This example was used by Ford as an example of the "gravy train" at City Hall.^[28][29][30]"

He broke a law that law is an ass, Judged true, Those pillorying him are moral cowards.

This post has nothing to do with him voting on a motion that involved him personally. You don't get to be a juror at your own trials. That's the issue. Not the money or how much or where it was going.

Edited December 1, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Oh get off it there was NO benefit to him either directly or indirectly that's crap.

There wasn't? If an NDP MP got caught doing something wrong and there was a vote in the House about whether or not that MP should pay back the money, do you think that MP should be allowed to vote on that? Because that's what this is about, but you don't seem to get that.

[Guest Peeves]

There wasn't? If an NDP MP got caught doing something wrong and there was a vote in the House about whether or not that MP should pay back the money, do you think that MP should be allowed to vote on that? Because that's what this is about, but you don't seem to get that.

No I don't think anyone should speak on nor vote on an issue of conflict. I, for the umpteenth time say he was wrong to do that.

Now I ALSO say that what he did was far nobler than those that attacked him for a minor issue that even the judge thought came about because of a poor law.

Getting to the 'crime' he benefited naught!

He raised money for kids.

The city were correct in pointing his use of the letterhead as being wrong.

I don't believe that given his purpose, with no financial benefit to himsel. His history of financing his own expense budget with thousands benefiting the city.

His well known good intentions for kids!

SO>>>

The friggin city should have dropped it at that point, forgetting the few measly dollars involved.

He should not have been asked to return money...period. that was then and there ENOUGH!

Now our lefty pals from without or within the City or Council, or both took a noble intended act by an otherwise innocent (perhaps too innocent) sponsor of kids sports and attacked as it were a morally corrupt act. IT WASN"T! Then an unelected judge, with or without bias? Treated the offense as if it were a conflict over a corrupt matter, WHICH IT WASN"T.

The judge knows the law is wrong and said so. He should have ruled " Robby boy, ya done wrong,go forth and sin no more...fini!

I consider the entire fiasco as beyond reason.

I consider the Judge incompetent to address the issue reasonably and most of all I consider the law firm of Ruby and co. to have a left wing agenda and as cowards that took a simple issue and chose to use it as an unjustifiable attack for vile and iniquitous intent.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Peeves

[jacee]

No I don't think anyone should speak on nor vote on an issue of conflict. I, for the umpteenth time say he was wrong to do that.

Now I ALSO say that what he did was far nobler than those that attacked him for a minor issue that even the judge thought came about because of a poor law.

Getting to the 'crime' he benefited naught!

He raised money for kids.

The city were correct in pointing his use of the letterhead as being wrong.

I don't believe that given his purpose, with no financial benefit to himsel. His history of financing his own expense budget with thousands benefiting the city.

His well known good intentions for kids!

SO>>>

The friggin city should have dropped it at that point, forgetting the few measly dollars involved.

He should not have been asked to return money...period. that was then and there ENOUGH!

Now our lefty pals from without or within the City or Council, or both took a noble intended act by an otherwise innocent (perhaps too innocent) sponsor of kids sports and attacked as it were a morally corrupt act. IT WASN"T! Then an unelected judge, with or without bias? Treated the offense as if it were a conflict over a corrupt matter, WHICH IT WASN"T.

The judge knows the law is wrong and said so. He should have ruled " Robby boy, ya done wrong,go forth and sin no more...fini!

I consider the entire fiasco as beyond reason.

I consider the Judge incompetent to address the issue reasonably and most of all I consider the law firm of Ruby and co. to have a left wing agenda and as cowards that took a simple issue and chose to use it as an unjustifiable attack for vile and iniquitous intent.

Ford admits NO wrong.

If there are no consequences, he'll continue doing it.

Is that ok with you?

[Black Dog]

Oh get off it there was NO benefit to him either directly or indirectly that's crap.

Again: he benefitted by not parting with $3,000 of his own money. A sum, it must be pointed out again, that Ford himself considered a not-insignificant amount. This is not difficult to understand. The cause he was raising the money for is completely, utterly irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

No I don't think anyone should speak on nor vote on an issue of conflict. I, for the umpteenth time say he was wrong to do that.

Well, it's good to see you agree with the judgment then.

[Big Guy]

I fear that much of the argument minimizing what Ford was convicted of doing are bordering on the “the end justifies the means” rationale. It is a rationale that has been proven to be unsupportable in the past, in the present and hopefully in the future. It is a slippery slope down which one embarks with the best intentions only to find the footing increasingly hazardous to a point where one finds oneself supporting unsupportable actions.

[Black Dog]

No I don't think anyone should speak on nor vote on an issue of conflict. I, for the umpteenth time say he was wrong to do that.

Now I ALSO say that what he did was far nobler than those that attacked him for a minor issue that even the judge thought came about because of a poor law.

Getting to the 'crime' he benefited naught!

He raised money for kids.

The city were correct in pointing his use of the letterhead as being wrong.

I don't believe that given his purpose, with no financial benefit to himsel. His history of financing his own expense budget with thousands benefiting the city.

His well known good intentions for kids!

SO>>>

The friggin city should have dropped it at that point, forgetting the few measly dollars involved.

He should not have been asked to return money...period. that was then and there ENOUGH!

And it would have gone away. But the idiot in question ignored numerous warnings and spoke/voted on the issue. Someone that stupid shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.

Now our lefty pals from without or within the City or Council, or both took a noble intended act by an otherwise innocent (perhaps too innocent) sponsor of kids sports and attacked as it were a morally corrupt act. IT WASN"T! Then an unelected judge, with or without bias? Treated the offense as if it were a conflict over a corrupt matter, WHICH IT WASN"T.

Judge treated the offence by the letter of the law. Something Ford would be familiar with had he bothered to read the law at any point in his decade-plus career in office. Again: too stupid.

The judge knows the law is wrong and said so. He should have ruled " Robby boy, ya done wrong,go forth and sin no more...fini!

So the judge should have taken an activist role and ignored the prescriptions set down in law? Nice can of worms, that.

I consider the entire fiasco as beyond reason.

Agreed. How could someone as staggeringly ignorant as Ford achieve public office? How does he even remember how to breathe?

I consider the Judge incompetent to address the issue reasonably and most of all I consider the law firm of Ruby and co. to have a left wing agenda and as cowards that took a simple issue and chose to use it as an unjustifiable attack for vile and iniquitous intent.

Yes: facts have a left wing bias. The law has a left wing bias.

[Boges]

We still talking about this?

Shelly Carroll says she'll run so if Olivia runs that immediately splits up the Left-wing vote. That is if council decides for a Bi-Election, which would be a giant waste of money. Good thing I don't have to pay for it.

[Black Dog]

We still talking about this?

Shelly Carroll says she'll run so if Olivia runs that immediately splits up the Left-wing vote.

John Tory, Karen Stintz and (giggle) Giorgio Mallmolitti are also being mentioned as possible candidates, which splits the vote on the right.

[Boges]

John Tory isn't running. He's had enough of political foolishness. A column in the Sun yesterday opined that he enjoys more influence as a radio host a civic leader than he ever did as Opposition leader.

Stintz might but she could always wait until 2014. Haven't heard any evidence she's thinking of running.

Giorgio isn't a right-wing candidate. He's a whatever he thinks can get him elected candidate. When his campaign was going nowhere in 2010 he threw his support behind Ford, even though they were enemies previously.

Once the court ruling came down he jumped shit on the Ford bandwagon as fast as he could.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Boges

[jacee]

The judge knows the law is wrong and said so. He should have ruled " Robby boy, ya done wrong,go forth and sin no more...fini!

I consider the entire fiasco as beyond reason.

I consider the Judge incompetent to address the issue reasonably and most of all I consider the law firm of Ruby and co. to have a left wing agenda and as cowards that took a simple issue and chose to use it as an unjustifiable attack for vile and iniquitous intent.

My how your tune changes!

Peeves:

Hearing the decision, I can't fault it.

Ford was stupid to take the position he did voting on the motion etc. He won't win the next election and it's his own fault.

Those who think what Ford did was "ok" because it was "for charity", "for kids" need to think again:

There are lots of deserving causes, charities, kids programs that could benefit from public employees spending taxpayer money to do fundraising for them.

But that's not what we pay public employees to do.

And it's not fair that some 'charities' get special favours on the taxpayer's tab.

I do think removal from office was too harsh and the MCIA needs revision to include lesser penalties for lesser offenses, but Ford needed the wakeup call to stop abusing his public position and taxpayers ' money.

Let's not forget that Ford's football team (and the Catholic secondary school) also got $75,000 in Section 37 funds for new dressing rooms, money that should have gone to something that would benefit the whole community.

I think Ford's sense of entitlement in using public funds for his own personal purposes needed the attention it's getting.

Edited December 3, 2012 by jacee