Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Rue]

All you can do is attack his weight? There are so many other legitimate reasons to complain about him. His obesity is the least of his faults.

I was being sarcastic to show how absurd attacking him has gotten. Its called tongue n cheek response something you and some others need to lighten up and laugh at. Have you not noticed how absurd the attacks have gotten? Half the attacks deal with his appearance and its precisely why I poke fun of them by stating them. It may have been missed by you but the sarcasm is towards self righteous people attacking Ford but pretending its not his fat face that fuels their righteousness.

If this was some pretty boy leftist there would be no story. Where were any of these critics with Smitherman who by the way was also a fatso baldy? where were they with Layton who was a little short baldy? Hmmm? Oh wait, we shouldn't laugh? Of course.

This entire matter is hilarious the way the righteous come on this board in the name of leftist propriety. Me? I find everyone on both sides equally as funny including myself. Get serious and lighten up. That was also a play on words in case you did not notice.

[WWWTT]

Hi Rue,it looks like you are also an advocate of the "out to get Ford" conspiracy theory.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Uh oh looks like Rob Ford is "doing it again"!

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/06/06/toronto_mayor_rob_ford_should_explain_his_phantom_1_billion_savings_editorial.html

I guess the Ford brothers are so desperate for some good news,they will even make numbers up.

WWWTT

[Rue]

This comment is a big departure from your previous position.

WWWTT

Of course its not. The fact that you think it is shows you never understood the first point I made and have continued to make. You might want to try read what I wrote. I never stated simply selling videos is illegal. How about you try go back and read the context and the conditions I then attached to explain when their selling could make their sale illegal. Its no wonder you engage in personal attacks and suggest I am not a lawyer-you can't understand the basic condition the law predicates to make the selling of a video illegal in the context I presented. Zip over your head. Go on back and read what I said.

[WWWTT]

Today you may have read quotes of Doug Ford claiming to know nothing about that house on Windsor.

Check out the link I provided,and you be the judge!

http://bit.ly/13nzxxQ

WWWTT

[Rue]

Hi Rue,it looks like you are also an advocate of the "out to get Ford" conspiracy theory.

WWWTT

Looks? I do believe the Star makes no secret, particularly their municipal reporter that they want Ford to resign. Its no conspiracy. They have stated so in their editorials. You might want to read them and in particular the commentaries by their municipal reporter and their Editor calling for Ford to resign. That is a public position they have stated over and over again. Its not a conspiracy. You are being absurd to say the Star which has asked for Ford to resign is not out to get him. They want him to resign. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Are there people out to get him. You bet. Its called politics. He has a long list of political enemies. That is not conspiracy, its the nature of politics and the direct result of his combatitive and adversarial approach to dealing with people.

You treat people with adversity, they get their nose out of joint and want to get even. It aint rocket science. The politicians that last the longest try talk out of both sides of their ass cheeks at the same time to try avoid contraversy. Take a look how a certain member of Harper's go to 3 cabinet members has all but disappeared as Baird and Moore take all the heat these days for Harper.

[WWWTT]

Of course its not. The fact that you think it is shows you never understood the first point I made and have continued to make. You might want to try read what I wrote. I never stated simply selling videos is illegal. How about you try go back and read the context and the conditions I then attached to explain when their selling could make their sale illegal. Its no wonder you engage in personal attacks and suggest I am not a lawyer-you can't understand the basic condition the law predicates to make the selling of a video illegal in the context I presented. Zip over your head. Go on back and read what I said.

So when someone questions your points you start to play the "victim card"

Why do you feel like you are a victim?Because someone challenges the credibility of your comments?

WWWTT

[Rue]

Today you may have read quotes of Doug Ford claiming to know nothing about that house on Windsor.

Check out the link I provided,and you be the judge!

http://bit.ly/13nzxxQ

WWWTT

Personally I find what he said questionable of course WWTT. I have a real hard time with what has happened. The point though is, I want proper proof.

If in fact that house exists and Ford was at that house, i.e., the photo is not fake, he has to explain. As it is he now has to explain to the press what that picture is. I personally believe he has an obligation to directly respond to the photo and the house.

I think most of us who are arguing due process would agree he has to be more forthright. Please do not assume those of us arguing due process are saying Ford is untouchable. He's not. He's a public politician. Its your right to butcher him if you want. Me personally, I want proper proof before I "Judge" anyone. I am not comfortable "judging" people with unsufficient proof. I don't want to be another member of the mob crying out for a lynching. I have mobs and self appointed judges.

In fact I could never be a Judge. Its probably one of the most diffficult jobs in the world. The amount of time you need to spend reading and considering all sides of the issues requires a hell of a lot of training. I admire Judges for their discipline and ability to concentrate and assimilate all of the info before they make conclusions. I admire their use of rational process to shape their conclusions.

I have a friend who is a Judge. She is smart as hell and by that I mean she can absorb all kinds of info and organize it. It is a skill.

Anyone can claim to be a judg, but few can actually be judges.

[guyser]

That's funny! Hah! Again. Write something else.

How about this?

You think smoking crack on video is a crime.

Now THAT is funny.

Not funny in a ha ha way,. funny in a facepalm I am a lawyer way.

Still laughing? I have lots more from this thread.

Want more? We could talk about the video being evidence of.....hmm....wait . a crime ?

Give up/....please. Its embarassing

[guyser]

I see that our esteemed mouthpiece, Doug Ford up and boldly lied about cancelling yesterdays meeting......while sitting in same meeting.

These two are so stupid they cant recall where they were the day before.

Pathetic idiots the two of them.

[g_bambino]

That is not the issue.

See the post to which I was replying.

[Black Dog]

No its not. For those of us who have worked as journalists, we do not report things without verifying what we see. That is the point. Its easy to jump to conclusions. Responsible journalists verify what they see, not merely pass it on. That is the crucial point you deliberately choose to ignore and its central to how some of us postulate the lack of ethics with these journalists. We have contended its precisely they because they merely reported what they saw without taking the time to properly verify it they violated a basic code of journalist ethics and no its not the job of a journalist to to be a mindless parrot and print anything. This is why we have Editors and Editorial boards. Its not the black and white simplistic exercise you depict it as.

As a former journalist myself, I'm well aware of the grey area that exists. I am also aware that the Star journalists sat on the story precisely because they didn't have the chance to verify it (or because they feared legal retribution). Once the story came out, though, it was important they reported what they saw to corroborate the Gawker story simply as a matter of public interest. It would have been easy for Ford to dismiss one account by a U.S.-based gossip web site, it's a little harder when the story of the tape is backed up by two other reporters from a legit local paper.

In fact, I would argue the Star did as best they could under the circumstances by having two reporters view the video separately, having them compare notes only after the fact on what they saw. They also made it quite clear they were reporting what they saw.

Basically, your argument hinges upon the Star being able to perform a forensic analysis of the video which we know was not possible under the circumstances.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Black Dog

[Boges]

In fact, I would argue the Star did as best they could under the circumstances by having two reporters view the video separately, having them compare notes only after the fact on what they saw. They also made it quite clear they were reporting what they saw.

Basically, your argument hinges upon the Star being able to perform a forensic analysis of the video which we know was not possible under the circumstances.

I read Gawker blamed the Star for the disappearance of the video because they published details of where they viewed the video, perhaps making finding the people involved easier.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Boges

[scribblet]

I read the latest Gawker thing and notice a comment about them having 'blood on their hands'.

Drug dealers or no I'm not sure it's a good thing to identify private homes and put lives at risk. One comment says Gawker should apologize to the victims' families.

http://gawker.com/ill-preface-this-comment-by-saying-that-i-understand-ga-511692974

[Black Dog]

I read the latest Gawker thing and notice a comment about them having 'blood on their hands'.

Drug dealers or no I'm not sure it's a good thing to identify private homes and put lives at risk. One comment says Gawker should apologize to the victims' families.

http://gawker.com/ill-preface-this-comment-by-saying-that-i-understand-ga-511692974

So now you care about the well being of drug dealers?

[scribblet]

So now you care about the well being of drug dealers?

Where did I say that. I would think privacy is an issue, why don't you care about the privacy of citizens.

[Black Dog]

Where did I say that.

"Drug dealers or no I'm not sure it's a good thing to identify private homes and put lives at risk. One comment says Gawker should apologize to the victims' families.

I would think privacy is an issue, why don't you care about the privacy of citizens.

I would think if one wants to safeguard their privacy, smoking crack with the mayor of Toronto is not an awesome way to maintain that.

[scribblet]

If that is so, I would agree.

[WWWTT]

I read the latest Gawker thing and notice a comment about them having 'blood on their hands'.

Drug dealers or no I'm not sure it's a good thing to identify private homes and put lives at risk. One comment says Gawker should apologize to the victims' families.

http://gawker.com/ill-preface-this-comment-by-saying-that-i-understand-ga-511692974

LOL!

The conservative paper in Brampton "The Brampton Guardian" was publishing the names of people who were charged with impaired driving,not convicted!

They were able to do this because of "Freedom of Information"

In other words,people have the right to know!

Here's another link that sinks a few more nails in the political careers of the Ford brothers.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/07/rob_ford_crack_scandal_resident_of_home_in_photo_trafficked_cocaine.html

You are implying the Gawke/Star is part responsible for a violent crime.And this is false.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Nick Kouvalis, Ford's campaign manager from the last election, refuses to help with his campaign again until Ford checks into rehab. All of his closest advisors are quitting and being fired for trying to get him into rehab, but I'm sure all this talk of drug problems is still just hearsay.

[Rue]

How about this?

You think smoking crack on video is a crime.

Now THAT is funny.

Not funny in a ha ha way,. funny in a facepalm I am a lawyer way.

Still laughing? I have lots more from this thread.

Want more? We could talk about the video being evidence of.....hmm....wait . a crime ?

Give up/....please. Its embarrassing

Give up please? Give me a break, How about you read. You claim to be a lawyer and you write that? You need someone to explain to you why possession of crack cocaine not smoking it would be the possible crime evidenced? Give me a break. You want to come on this forum and do a witch hunt on the fat boy and find him guilty without sufficient evidence that is one thing I was arguing, Now to deny the law prohibits anyone from possessing or selling crack cocaine does not exist and you will giggle about it?

Grow up. You want to discus this issue be my guest you want to pull that attitude give it a rest, Either present the legal argument you have or save the attitude.

[Rue]

As a former journalist myself, I'm well aware of the grey area that exists. I am also aware that the Star journalists sat on the story precisely because they didn't have the chance to verify it (or because they feared legal retribution). Once the story came out, though, it was important they reported what they saw to corroborate the Gawker story simply as a matter of public interest. It would have been easy for Ford to dismiss one account by a U.S.-based gossip web site, it's a little harder when the story of the tape is backed up by two other reporters from a legit local paper.

In fact, I would argue the Star did as best they could under the circumstances by having two reporters view the video separately, having them compare notes only after the fact on what they saw. They also made it quite clear they were reporting what they saw.

Basically, your argument hinges upon the Star being able to perform a forensic analysis of the video which we know was not possible under the circumstances.

Yes, and because they knew it was not possible, they had no business running the story until it was possible.

It is a grey area. Papers like the Star have no qualms not waiting for proper analysis. Its why I argue they are nothing but a gossip or scandal tabloid. There was a time they would never have run such a story without corroboration-they would have waited.

The erosion of ethical standards today is not isolated to the Star either. I think it would be a fair criticism to say the newspapers in general sensing they are going the way of extinction to 10 second sound bites and inter-net will do anything to get readership and if it means turning themselves into trash tabloids so be it.

The Sun is not innocent. They have depended for years on sensational front pages and Sunshine girl titties. I am not singling out any one paper. They all have their faults.

I personally have found the Star has become a trash tabloid. I also think the Globe's standards have noticeably slipped in desperation to compete with the Star.

Now if we can continue to be serious because finally you responded to me with a response worthy of one, the issue here is how does someone report about Ford's escapades in an ethical manner. Is it possible? I think so. I think its possible to criticize Ford's adversarial style, lack of accountability, etc., without so much of the gratuitous attacking.

Is it really relevant to suggest his family are a bunch of drug pushers? Really? Is that what a paper does when it has no hard proof? Run a story with not one source's name based on heresay? Come on let's get real. Ford is no angel but the press feeding off him is no better and what I am arguing is that some of the people pointing the finger are not angels either. How long was it for Ainsley to get caught drinking after calling Ford a drunk. Give me a break.

Ford pissed off a lot of people pointing fingers at their spending. Now its pay back time by them and if you think this is not what its about, slinging crap back for perceived slights from Ford in the past give me a break. He made a career pointing fingers at city politicians as being corrupt and wasting money-now those same nose out of joint politicians want revenge.

The fact is he was voted in with a direct majority precisely because he was anti-politician, i.e., people were fed up with the municipal government raising taxes. That was the message. Going back to Olivia Chow or another politician who believes in having the government raise taxes and initiate everything is not what people want in Toronto.

I do not doubt there is an elite circle of rich socialists living on benefits and not worried about being unemployed who think government control is the way to go but today's tax payer in Toronto is no longer elite baby boomers retired living in 600,000 to 1,000,000 + homes calling themselves socialists. Its stressed out in debt people.

What this city needs is a focus on mass transit quickly and then on someone examining what the phack is going on downtown with the glut of condo high rises going up. T hat condensed population is a recipe for social disaster in terms of insufficient roads to move its people and the fact that when you over condense people, rates of mental illness and crime sky rocket.

Using Ford as a scapegoat to stop working on such issues is b.s.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Rue

[guyser]

Give up please? Give me a break, How about you read. You claim to be a lawyer and you write that? You need someone to explain to you why possession of crack cocaine not smoking it would be the possible crime evidenced? Give me a break. You want to come on this forum and do a witch hunt on the fat boy and find him guilty without sufficient evidence that is one thing I was arguing, Now to deny the law prohibits anyone from possessing or selling crack cocaine does not exist and you will giggle about it?

Grow up. You want to discus this issue be my guest you want to pull that attitude give it a rest, Either present the legal argument you have or save the attitude.

I am not a lawyer , never said I was.

Witch hunt ? Fat Boy?

He is guilty, of a lot of things, lying for one, being a moron for two , .....but he isnt guilty of any criminal stuff.....yet, but lets give that some time shall we? He is the type who doesnt think things through so who knows.

I dont need to present any legal arguement, no one is on trial. Maybe you should focus on the issue instead of coming here and pontificating such shite as you have.

Attitude? LOL , take a look at your own off point diatribes.

[Black Dog]

Yes, and because they knew it was not possible, they had no business running the story until it was possible.

Except Gawker ran with it, at which point sitting on it was no longer an option.

It is a grey area. Papers like the Star have no qualms not waiting for proper analysis. Its why I argue they are nothing but a gossip or scandal tabloid. There was a time they would never have run such a story without corroboration-they would have waited.

They did wait. Not sure why I have to keep repeating that fact.

Now if we can continue to be serious because finally you responded to me with a response worthy of one, the issue here is how does someone report about Ford's escapades in an ethical manner. Is it possible? I think so. I think its possible to criticize Ford's adversarial style, lack of accountability, etc., without so much of the gratuitous attacking.

Ford brings most of this stuff on himself precisely because he's not doing the work of a mayor.

Is it really relevant to suggest his family are a bunch of drug pushers? Really? Is that what a paper does when it has no hard proof? Run a story with not one source's name based on heresay? Come on let's get real. Ford is no angel but the press feeding off him is no better and what I am arguing is that some of the people pointing the finger are not angels either. How long was it for Ainsley to get caught drinking after calling Ford a drunk. Give me a break.

if you can't see why there's different behavioural standards for political leaders than members or the press, i'm not sure what to say.

Ford pissed off a lot of people pointing fingers at their spending. Now its pay back time by them and if you think this is not what its about, slinging crap back for perceived slights from Ford in the past give me a break. He made a career pointing fingers at city politicians as being corrupt and wasting money-now those same nose out of joint politicians want revenge.

Or he's just a blundering boob who is in his element pointing fingers at others but too incompetent to get things done when placed in a position of leadership.

the fact is he was voted in with a direct majority precisely because he was anti-politician, i.e., people were fed up with the municipal government raising taxes. That was the message. Going back to Olivia Chow or another politician who believes in having the government raise taxes and initiate everything is not what people want in Toronto.

Ford didn't get a majority.

I do not doubt there is an elite circle of rich socialists living on benefits and not worried about being unemployed who think government control is the way to go but today's tax payer in Toronto is no longer elite baby boomers retired living in 600,000 to 1,000,000 + homes calling themselves socialists. Its stressed out in debt people.

And?

What this city needs is a focus on mass transit quickly and then on someone examining what the phack is going on downtown with the glut of condo high rises going up. T hat condensed population is a recipe for social disaster in terms of insufficient roads to move its people and the fact that when you over condense people, rates of mental illness and

crime sky rocket.

Using Ford as a scapegoat to stop working on such issues is b.s.

Except Ford isn't doing anything on this either. He's not leading. He's not doing anything. Half the time he's not even working. And that's not the media's fault, it's his own. Because he's incompetent.

[The_Squid]

T hat condensed population is a recipe for social disaster in terms of insufficient roads to move its people and the fact that when you over condense people, rates of mental illness and crime sky rocket.

How do you explain that Toronto, the most densely populated city in Canada, has the rank of #52 when it comes to crime? And #1? Prince George, BC. Sparsely populated city of ~75,000 people.

http://www2.macleans.ca/crime-chart/

Trotting out this silliness that crime skyrockets because of population density is shown to be utter nonsense by the statistics.

More senseless tripe is your assertion that more densely populated centers are bad for moving people around. Having people spread out and commuting into the city for work is what causes transportation issues. It isn't the people that are already living in the city who are causing the traffic congestion!