Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Shady]

I was going to leave it alone, but you brought it up again so I guess I have to point out how ridiculous it is to say the video is an illusion. It's almost as ridiculous as saying the video makers could have faked it with fancy digital technology.

You can't fake something that doesn't exist.

[BubberMiley]

You can't fake something that doesn't exist.

That's true. It may not anymore. Once the home was invaded and people got shot, it may well have been recovered and destroyed.

But wait. Is it an illusion or does it not exist? It can't be both.

Edited June 20, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

That's true. It may not anymore. Once the home was invaded and people got shot, it may well have been recovered and destroyed.

Of course, along with Saddam's WMDs and Obama's birth certificate.

[BubberMiley]

Obama's birth certificate was elusive for a time, but I wouldn't be surprised if you birthers think it's illusive. Blame voodoo!

[Black Dog]

If I didn't question the motives of the eyewitnesses. But even the Star said they can't verify the video's authenticity. It's not like you could go to court with this.

You're moving the goalposts. The question at hand is whether there is a video at all.

Nope. Poetic licence.

The world doesn't need more bad poets.

Little is always relative. Anyways, I can provide 3 people that say they saw bigfoot, and would swear to that in a court of law. Nobody has any idea what 3 people saw in terms of a video.

Sure we do. We have very detailed and closely matching accounts from three different people who saw the video separately.

We're suppose to just take their word for it? Nice try.

On the balance of things, I'd say I'm willing to weigh the probability that there is a video based on the fact three people saw heavier than the possibility that no such video exists based on whatever the hell it is you're blathering about.

Nobody's guilt or innocence should be weighed that way. Like I've already said, it's completely ridiculous and absurd.

We're not talking about guilt or innocence. We're talking about the actual existence of a video. The circumstantial evidence points strongly to the answer to that question being a big yes. You'd be better off fighting the battle over its authenticity instead of its existence, but it wouldn't be the first time you picked the wrong hill to die on.

[Topaz]

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada will accept or reject application to hear the case again Ford of "Conflict of Interest" application. This hasn't been a very good year for the mayor and I'm surprised it not affecting his health more. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/19/rob_ford_case_could_get_supreme_court_green_light_tomorrow.html

[Rue]

Now Black Dog no one is blathering are they? Hey now with such language tsk. What he said and I said and Shady has said and we

keep saying is you are relying on second hand heresay to assume something us authentic and now demand based on that-that we simply assume what they saw is in fact what they saw and that we prove its not what they saw. Hah.

Oh come now.

Listen a lot of people see the vision of Mary on mountain tops and before you know it bus tours stop there. Far be it for me to rain on their parade. If you see the face of Jesus in your tea leaves, all power to you...or in this case a big pink guy sucking on something.

rated x-this response not suitable for NDP and Olivia Chow supporters

Edited June 20, 2013 by Rue

[BubberMiley]

I'm relying on second-hand hearsay when they tell me that James Gandolfini died. I haven't seen a body. I didn't see him die. It's crazy that I still believe it.

[Boges]

I'm relying on second-hand hearsay when they tell me that James Gandolfini died. I haven't seen a body. I didn't see him die. It's crazy that I still believe it.

Multiple sources, including the family and hospital have come on the record saying he died of a massive heart attack.

Now if 3 reporters were reporting that an anonymous source showed them a video of James Gandolfini's body and were charging 6 figures for obtaining the video and that was the only read evidence of his death, I would share your skepticism.

[Boges]

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada will accept or reject application to hear the case again Ford of "Conflict of Interest" application. This hasn't been a very good year for the mayor and I'm surprised it not affecting his health more. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/19/rob_ford_case_could_get_supreme_court_green_light_tomorrow.html

Breaking News: The Supreme Court won't hear this case. Was a major long shot in the first place.

There's no real national interest in turfing the mayor from office.

Also, apparently, they dismissed the case "with cost" meaning Ford can go after Magder for legal costs.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Now Black Dog no one is blathering are they? Hey now with such language tsk. What he said and I said and Shady has said and we

keep saying is you are relying on second hand heresay to assume something us authentic and now demand based on that-that we simply assume what they saw is in fact what they saw and that we prove its not what they saw. Hah.

Except, again, I'm not talking about the authenticity of the video. That's a claim even the Star didn't make.

[WWWTT]

Of course, along with Saddam's WMDs and Obama's birth certificate.

I thought conservatives and republicans steered clear away from George Bush's mess ups?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Little is always relative. Anyways, I can provide 3 people that say they saw bigfoot, and would swear to that in a court of law. Nobody has any idea what 3 people saw in terms of a video. We're suppose to just take their word for it? Nice try. Nobody's guilt or innocence should be weighed that way. Like I've already said, it's completely ridiculous and absurd.

I doubt it.

Maybe if you can provide a link?

Lets start with the link about how you claim that the woman that gave Jack Layton a massage was a prostitute.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Breaking News: The Supreme Court won't hear this case. Was a major long shot in the first place.

There's no real national interest in turfing the mayor from office.

Also, apparently, they dismissed the case "with cost" meaning Ford can go after Magder for legal costs.

Finally - common sense prevails. The real story is about how it's possible for politically motivated people to game the system with technicalities that disrupt democracy. This attempt by Magder - a proxy for Adam Challeff-fredenthaler and Clayton Ruby - was a perfect example of how unscrupulous people can try to overturn a decision made by voters. I hope Ford gets every dollar of costs that these Leftist buffoons have thrust upon him.

[guyser]

With other forensic evidence. Like say the victims blood on a knife found with the suspect's finger prints on it.

Not even blood or any personal forensic evidence.

[Boges]

Finally - common sense prevails. The real story is about how it's possible for politically motivated people to game the system with technicalities that disrupt democracy. This attempt by Magder - a proxy for Adam Challeff-fredenthaler and Clayton Ruby - was a perfect example of how unscrupulous people can try to overturn a decision made by voters. I hope Ford gets every dollar of costs that these Leftist buffoons have thrust upon him.

Last week Mississauga's Mayor Hazel McCallion was cleared of all charges in a similar Conflict of Interest case. Except it was a family member that stood to gain from her questionable move. In Mayor Ford's case, only disadvantaged football players stood to gain.

The conflict of interest law needs to be modified and the penalty of automatic removal of office needs to be revised.

[Black Dog]

Last week Mississauga's Mayor Hazel McCallion was cleared of all charges in a similar Conflict of Interest case. Except it was a family member that stood to gain from her questionable move. In Mayor Ford's case, only disadvantaged football players stood to gain.

The conflict of interest law needs to be modified and the penalty of automatic removal of office needs to be revised.

That is incorrect.

[guyser]

. The real story is about how it's possible for politically motivated people to game the system with technicalities that disrupt democracy.

NO that isnt the real story.

Read Boges..."The conflict of interest law needs to be modified .."

The problem was the way the law was written. It was flexible, far too much so. It needs to be tightened up. The penaltys should range depending on severity and should include expulsion should it warrant it,

Poor Rob will be stuck with his legal bills, almost a half mill I hear, not to mention another $200,000 on top of that for other stuff.

But that too is another problem. For many things one may do in office, they should not be personally liable for defence and this includes our round mound of a Mayor. The problem is no one will want to be involved in politics if the chance of financial ruination is on the table.

[Boges]

That is incorrect.

Regardless if you think that's the case, The court has ruled that votes forcing elected officials to payback private donations is out of the purview of a city council.

[guyser]

...keep saying is you are relying on second hand heresay to assume something

Could you please enlighten us as to what the word hearsay means?

[Boges]

Poor Rob will be stuck with his legal bills, almost a half mill I hear, not to mention another $200,000 on top of that for other stuff.

It's been ruled that Ford CAN go after Magder for costs.

[guyser]

It's been ruled that Ford CAN go after Magder for costs.

Uh....No , they didnt.

They said Ford can go after part of the costs for the appeal to the Supreme Court, but the rest of his case Ford will be stuck with.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Guyser2

[Boges]

You're right, I read a story that he was awarded partial costs for the Boardwalk Pub lawsuit.

So many Rob Ford scandals, it's hard to keep them all straight.

[guyser]

You're right, I read a story that he was awarded partial costs for the Boardwalk Pub lawsuit.

So many Rob Ford scandals, it's hard to keep them all straight.

No probs. I initially misunderstood too.

As for the last part, yes it is. Bound to be a new one soon, so stay tuned.

[Black Dog]

Regardless if you think that's the case, The court has ruled that votes forcing elected officials to payback private donations is out of the purview of a city council.

That's fine, but not what we were talking about, which was your mischaracterization of the nature of the charges against Ford. Other beneficiaries here included the people and businesses Ford hit up for donations (who would reasonably be expected to require something in return) and of course Ford himself through his self-promotion (his football work is a big part of his public personae) and through the $3,000 he saved when council asked him -incorrectly as it turned out, but that wasn't clear at the time- to pay back.