Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

Rue · February 5, 2014

Ghost you make a good point about the quiet buses. From what I hear though everyone in Vancouver is high and so they have a hard time walking in straight lines and so jaw walking is important for that reason. Also you think about it. If a bus got into a collision with Ford, you hit something that big you could well you know destroy the bus.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Rue

BubberMiley · February 5, 2014

Fat jokes and barely comprehensible jokes about everyone in Vancouver being high are hilarious.

GostHacked · February 5, 2014

Fat jokes and barely comprehensible jokes about everyone in Vancouver being high are hilarious.

I may have to get Rue to do some satire writing for me. I've been trying to think of a way to satire Ford, but there is just no way to do it. Ford IS satire.

Rue · February 6, 2014

Fat chance Ghost. Go Canucks go. Ok come on a city that depends on those two Swedish twin meat balls for hockey players is going to be grumpy and take it out on anyone from Toronto. Poor Rob. They picked on him because the Leafs are doing better than the Vancouver Torture-ellas.

Ok let's get serious, if he wants to Jay Walk, leave the Blue Jays out of it. They have enough problems

Black Dog · February 7, 2014

Fat jokes and barely comprehensible jokes about everyone in Vancouver being high are hilarious.

I remember how, back when Rue was defending Team Ford from the media pack, jokes about Ford's weight were no-nos. Funny how that's changed.

Since I'm not Rue and don't tell lies about posters, here's a few examples...

Ses this is how liberalism works. If you hate Ford that is o.k. and you can tee hee and giggle giggle at his fatness.

Now take your two faced sanctimonious criticism of Ford and look at your own folds of fat coming back in the mirror.

That is precisely the kind of nyah nyah goo goo name calling that makes so many of us writing in wanna puke. Yah Ford is a big nasty blubber boy. Just say it. Say he is a nasty fat boy. Go on. You'll feel better. Someone comment that he has big breasts and six chins. At least that you can substantiate.

You are making fun of someone because they are fat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is incorrect. shame.

GostHacked · February 7, 2014

Newsflash, it's not his weight that is his problem. Ford is in the spotlight because he is an absolute idiot in public.

cybercoma · February 7, 2014

Ford is in the spotlight because he starts fights over things that have no purpose. All this stuff over the last couple days about Pride and the flag at city hall? I mean, come on. Grow up, Rob Ford. Those "fags" pay taxes that go towards you paycheque too. And there's absolutely no purpose to being so offensively pigheaded about these issues, since they have no political end.

Edited February 7, 2014 by cybercoma

On Guard for Thee · February 7, 2014

I just happenned to see on the news that Ford has agreed to fly the rainbow flag at city hall. So I'll not be surprised if the next candid video of him we see will be him gooned in some greasy fast food joint bashing gays and trying to remember how to spell LGBT.

BubberMiley · February 7, 2014

I just happenned to see on the news that Ford has agreed to fly the rainbow flag at city hall.

Someone must have reminded him he doesn't have the power to remove it anymore. :lol:

Black Dog · February 7, 2014

Ford is in the spotlight because he starts fights over things that have no purpose. All this stuff over the last couple days about Pride and the flag at city hall? I mean, come on. Grow up, Rob Ford. Those "fags" pay taxes that go towards you paycheque too. And there's absolutely no purpose to being so offensively pigheaded about these issues, since they have no political end.

Locking down the base and his "anti-elitist" bona fides.

On Guard for Thee · February 7, 2014

Someone must have reminded him he doesn't have the power to remove it anymore.

Which could well be enough of an impetus to launch the next bender.

On Guard for Thee · February 8, 2014

Turns out I got a bit misled by the news. He tried to order the flag taken down but found he didn't have the authority. When will Torontonian's wake up and send this bozo where he belongs. Perhaps hand him a shovel and let him go fix potholes, he seems to like that. And then get back on track with someone responsible.

On Guard for Thee · February 8, 2014

I just heard Doug Ford interviewed on TV. He assures us Rob is not homophobic and that, wait for it "some of his best friend's are gay" We need to keep that pair around for comic relief. I wonder, does Rob wipe his own butt or does Doug take care of that as well?

Big Guy · February 8, 2014

Which could well be enough of an impetus to launch the next bender.

Too late - It appears his worship went back to that pub in B.C. after getting ticketed, disappeared into a washroom for an hour and then proceeded to go on another incoherent bender. Yes - more pictures are available. Bottoms up your worship.

On Guard for Thee · February 9, 2014

Too late - It appears his worship went back to that pub in B.C. after getting ticketed, disappeared into a washroom for an hour and then proceeded to go on another incoherent bender. Yes - more pictures are available. Bottoms up your worship.

Well now isn't that a little harsh of the police? He was probably just going to the car to get his crack pipe.

jacee · February 9, 2014

-rob-ford-was-drinking-and-talking-gibberish-in-b-c-bar/

The Star report says Ford went into a single-toilet bathroom used by male staff and did not emerge for more than an hour.When Ford emerged shortly after 2 a.m., he was "talking gibberish in what sounded like another language," scratching his chest and the back of his neck and making "weird twitch-like movements non-stop with his hands," the Star quotes the eyewitness as saying.

Doing crack again. So sad.

.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jacee

On Guard for Thee · February 9, 2014

-rob-ford-was-drinking-and-talking-gibberish-in-b-c-bar/

The Star report says Ford went into a single-toilet bathroom used by male staff and did not emerge for more than an hour.When Ford emerged shortly after 2 a.m., he was "talking gibberish in what sounded like another language," scratching his chest and the back of his neck and making "weird twitch-like movements non-stop with his hands," the Star quotes the eyewitness as saying.

Doing crack again. So sad.

.

Well to be totally honest, and with full disclosure, I tend to do some of those same things and look sort of those same ways when I come out of my first visit to the lav of the day. However around my place that happens at home around 7am. I have some coffee and maybe a piece of toast and then I try to get it together. I bet it's easier to shake off the effects of sleep than the effects of crack.

Rue · February 9, 2014

Black dog you have a problem with me take it off line. Your little dig was pointless.

When the press was making accusations about Ford's behaviour with no direct proof I challenged that and still would.

When people criticized his wanting to make cuts, I challenged that.

When people wanted to avoid discussing his political views and instead just stick to attacking him as a person to avoid having to discuss the tax cuts, I challenged that.

Now that Mayor Ford has admitted to lying, breaking the law, and openly mocked the law then has continued to ingest alcohol and crack cocaine, he has removed himself from deserving any benefit of the doubt.

I now challenge him because he turned on even the members of the municipal government trying to push for conservative fiscal management.

He has clearly shown he has no vision for Toronto-his only position is to repeat he is against spending. He has nothing else to offer forcing even his conservative allies to say, uh no Rob, you can't bury your head in the sand and live in the moment.

I criticize him for trying to suggest because people call him out for being mentally ill in public its because they don't agree with his politics. It has nothing to do with his politics.

As for the fat jokes. from the get go I have been sarcastic and deliberately politically inappropriate. I laugh at those sanctimonious snit faces who think its inappropriate to make fat jokes about him but in fact also attack him personally instead of discussing his views.

He's a pig. I don't couch it with veiled passive aggressive references.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Rue

BubberMiley · February 9, 2014

You supported media attacks on Ford when they had no direct proof.

You're not trying to claim the high road for calling the Star reporters liars, are you?

Rue · February 9, 2014

Definitely not. Also I did not call them liars. I questioned their right to run certain stories without direct evidence and relying on heresay.Still do.

Show me a post where I called the Toronto Star liars and I will apologize. to the best of my knowledge and you can look for yourself I never called anyone a liar.

Now that Ford himself has admitted pretty much all the Star said, I state they have been proven right. I still do not like or think anyone should rely on heresay evidence.

I come from the school of journalism where anything that runs has to be directly corroborated. I stand by that standard. Its nolonger used by the media. The Star was one of the first papers to discard it going the way of the British and American gossi tabloids. Now all the media does it wide-spread and no I do not like it or agree with it. But it is the standard now.

I will say it again, any benefit of doubt Ford was entitled to has been vitiated by his own public actions subsequent to the Star articles. They are the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

In fact had they used direct evidence from the get go or waited for it, he could not have posed as long as he did as an innocent victim of their smeer,

If you ask me should people be given the benefit of the doubt, yes of course.

For me I heard from his own mouth he breaks the law and everyone else does it. That was his answer. I also heard him insult his police chief. End of story for me at that point. That's just my subjective opinion but I am like a lot of fiscal conservative social progressives who feel betrayed by this man.

I have said it many times I think David Crombie was the ideal mayor, a complete middle of the road guy balancing fiscal prudence with required spending.

I don't think since his departure we have seen a mayor of his strength. I thin John Tory if given the chance could be a Crombie but it sounds like he shot himself in the foot the other week with his comments on women needing to learn to play golf to get ahead.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Rue

bleeding heart · February 9, 2014

Just to clarify, the reporters were not relying on hearsay evidence. They had personally seen the evidence.

Now, I agree that, for the rest of us, who hadn't, it was reasonable to wait to see t for ourselves. But the reporters were not vindicated in that they happened, luckily, to be correct; they always knew they were correct, even if the rest of us couldn't be 100% sure.

Also, journalistic assertions have never had to be directly corroborated. "Anonymous sources"--usually, though not always, meaning bland assertions by government officials--have always been given the shiny gloss of "objective truth"....for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

that's why we "knew" that Reagan was not involved in intentionally funding terrorist groups in Latin America, and that France's hopes and dreams for the Algerians was always based on humanitarian principles, and that the UK would never knowingly send weapons to Generals committing genocide....

.....because of the uncorroborated claims made by the government, and often presented as "fact" in the press.

Are things worse now than before? Maybe...I honestly couldn't say.

BubberMiley · February 9, 2014

Definitely not. Also I did not call them liars. I questioned their right to run certain stories without direct evidence and relying on heresay.Still do.

A video is direct evidence of Ford smoking crack, and they saw it firsthand. That has nothing to do with hearsay. You should consult a legal dictionary before throwing around basic legal terms.

Because they saw the video themselves, the only question was whether they were lying. When you gave Ford "the benefit of the doubt", that was the doubt he was benefiting from. By doing that, you questioned the integrity of their testimony. In layman's terms, that's calling them liars.

jacee · February 9, 2014

Definitely not. Also I did not call them liars. I questioned their right to run certain stories without direct evidence and relying on heresay.Still do.

Show me a post where I called the Toronto Star liars and I will apologize. to the best of my knowledge and you can look for yourself I never called anyone a liar.

Now that Ford himself has admitted pretty much all the Star said, I state they have been proven right. I still do not like or think anyone should rely on heresay evidence.

I come from the school of journalism where anything that runs has to be directly corroborated. I stand by that standard. Its nolonger used by the media. The Star was one of the first papers to discard it going the way of the British and American gossi tabloids. Now all the media does it wide-spread and no I do not like it or agree with it. But it is the standard now.

I will say it again, any benefit of doubt Ford was entitled to has been vitiated by his own public actions subsequent to the Star articles. They are the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

In fact had they used direct evidence from the get go or waited for it, he could not have posed as long as he did as an innocent victim of their smeer,

I agree with bleeding heart: They DID use direct evidence.

The Star reporters told us what they had seen with their own eyes - the video of Ford smoking from what appeared to be a crack pipe, making homophobic and racist comments.

That's NOT hearsay: That's not what someone else told them.

If you didn't believe what they said they saw, then you were effectively calling them liars, certainly impuning their journalistic integrity and that of the Star editorial/management team as well. What they printed WAS directly corroborated by their reporters.

You believed it only from Ford's mouth? :blink:

I'd have to question your 'school of journalism'.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jacee

jacee · February 10, 2014

Tag team of idiots. Now it's Doug's turn.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2525629/

He's not homophobic. He has friends that are gay," said Ford of his brother.The councillor said he himself would not attend the Pride Parade because he objects to the nudity of participants."Do I condone men running down the street buck naked? No I do not," said Ford. He repeated six times he does not want to see men "buck naked."

Rue · February 10, 2014

1. Anonymous sources provided heresay evidence that was reported in the Toronto Star-that is a fact. That is heresay and its bs to run from an anonymous source that they heard from someone else that Ford was farting. That is called yellow journalism and that is what was run in Star stories and you bet I object to it.

2. Running a story on a video you watched but did not verify as being authentic from someone charging you money for that video is bs journalism. Until that tape was first verified as having not been doctored it was not direct evidence. It was never direct evidence because

it was never tested. In fact it would have been inadmissible in a court of law precisely because it was not tested first, and therefore remained indirect and heresay.

Blubber you want to try twist the heresay evidence rule be my guest. Until evidence becomes its direct its considered inadmissible. Seeing something someone gave you without ascertaining for a fact what it is you saw is indirect evidence until you verify it was not doctored.

Since you have a bee in your bonnet with moi go ask someone else or better still go find out the laws of evidence before you accuse me of using the law of evidence and standards of admissibility incorrectly.

As for the attempt to twist and say because I contend the above it makes the Star reporters liars is also absolute tripe.

I call it yellow journalism or unethical journalism. I can't call it and never called anyone a liar.

You want to infer, be careful on what you infer. Your assumptions are false. My position is based on the above not that anyone is a liar.

If you can't understand why a paper should not run a story until it properly verifies it so be it. I am not so worried in this case with Ford. I am however if this kind of bs journalism is used to take down an innocent person.

The ends does not justify the means.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Rue