Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals

[CdnFox]

On 8/14/2023 at 3:40 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Wait a second. It becomes my business if something illegal is being discussed. 

It becomes your business if something illegal is being done.  That's it.  And for that you need checks and balances.

At the end of the day gov'ts will get away with whatever the public lets them.  We all knew about aga khan and that justin trudeau broke the law, we knew about the whole SNC scandal, we lknew he'd sexually harassed women in the past, and his excuse is 'sometimes women experience things differently", and we've known about the other scandals as well.

But people still elected him.  So... what will you knowing anything more than you do right now achieve? If we're not going to punish gov'ts when the DO do something wrong then there is NO POINT to increased knowledge.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 8/26/2023 at 11:14 PM, CdnFox said:

Me:

Followed by You:

Me again:   Sigh. 

 

 

I should be the one who is sighing.  Where did I say anything like“somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes.” 
 

To recap, the deals to develop these greenbelt parcels were done PRIVATELY AND OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOUING STRATEGY, NOT AS PART OF IT. 

Stop pretending that a dog is a cat just because everything would super conveniently explained if only it was a cat. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I should be the one who is sighing.  Where did I say anything like“somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes.” 
 

To recap, the deals to develop these greenbelt parcels were done PRIVATELY AND OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOUING STRATEGY, NOT AS PART OF IT. 

Stop pretending that a dog is a cat just because everything would super conveniently explained if only it was a cat. 

Meow

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I should be the one who is sighing.  Where did I say anything like“somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes.” 
 

SIGH!  - right where i pointed it out the first time when i made the comment. It hasn't changed .  FFS.  If you can't be bothered to read what you write i'm not sure why the rest of us should.

Quote

To recap, the deals to develop these greenbelt parcels were done PRIVATELY AND OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOUING STRATEGY, NOT AS PART OF IT. 

To recap - it appears they ABSOLUTELY will bolster their housing promise of a million homes. As per the article i posted, and other evidence. 

Quote

Stop pretending that a dog is a cat just because everything would super conveniently explained if only it was a cat. 

No, it wouldn't.  Your argument is that these developers COULD have developed on existing lands just as easily - and for some reason did a back room deal to acquire these lands and allow them to be built on... but they're not going to build on them. And the fod gov't did it for no benefit to itself.

That's a pretty Effed up cat.

It makes far more sense that ford cut loose the land with the understanding they would build on it quickly - and it does appear that they are moving to do so.  It still takes a few years to get through the paperwork to build anything (which is another problem) but it's clear developers are planning massive projects in those areas.

Sure - it'ss clearly corrupt to do it that way and slimy as hell, but ontario signed off on gov'ts being corrupt under dalton and wynne - way too late to complain about THAT now. So all that's left is "Is this a good deal"?  IF they build homes faster on that property as a result, considering how badly ontario needs new homes it seems like its a pretty low cost way to achieve a much needed outcome

[eyeball]

On 8/14/2023 at 3:47 PM, ExFlyer said:

If something illegal is being discussed, there are systems in place.

Bullshit. Whistleblowing is not a system.

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It becomes your business if something illegal is being done.  That's it.  And for that you need checks and balances.

What checks and balances did you have in mind? A system of them it just the hope some whistleblower emerges?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit. Whistleblowing is not a system.

Sure it is.  And talk is not a crime.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - it'ss clearly corrupt to do it that way and slimy as hell, but ontario signed off on gov'ts being corrupt under dalton and wynne - way too late to complain about THAT now

You're just using this as an excuse to sanction future corruption because you support coorruption as a means of getting things done.

Imagine if every Canadian employed the same ethos in their day to day dealings with one another or with their governments.

It would be like the epitome of the survival of the fittest ethos most conservatives subscribe to.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What checks and balances did you have in mind? A system of them it just the hope some whistleblower emerges?

Depends on what we're talking about. We already have lots of checks and balances to prevent gov't abuse, But the largest one by far is the voter.  If the voter learns that there is likely something fraudulent or criminal going on they must vote that party entirely out of power as soon as possible.  As we saw with the PC party for example when conservative voters utterly destroyed them.

SO if for example a prime minister was found to be taking bribes in the form of helicopter rides or free vacations, or of trying to fix a large donor's legal issues, or single sourcing large gov't contracts to their buddies who employ their familiy, something crazy like that - the supporters of that party must do the right thing as the conservative supporters did and destroy that party in the next election.

IF the supporters of that party are so corrupt they'll allow that - and even reward that party with additonal terms - then NOTHING ELSE - NOTHING - will make any difference.

IF you want to know the problem with our system - go look in the mirror.  You who spend so much time defending such a party.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure it is.  And talk is not a crime.

Listening may as well be if it's the public is trying to hear what's being said.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're just using this as an excuse to sanction future corruption because you support coorruption as a means of getting things done.

Future corruption in ontario is already sanctioned.

Sorry kiddo - that's the way it works.  If liberal voters allow corruption they can't complain if other parties eventualy get tired of playing by the rules and do the same thing. Why would the other side keep playing by the rules and losing as a result?

Nope - if the liberal supporters - federal or provincial - want to claim that corrupt behavior is a bad thing they have to punish it in their OWN party FIRST.  THEN they can demand others do it.

Too late now federally - justin has already been rewarded twice for corruption.  You'll have to wait till the next time the libs are in power, and that might be a long wait.

Provincially again  - you can't just 'allow' it for a decade or more then complain. Period.  Sorry if you thought it was ok to do that - it's not

Clean up your act - then you can ask others to clean up theirs.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you want to know the problem with our system - go look in the mirror.

You're full of crap. You're only interested in shooting the messenger.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Listening may as well be if it's the public is trying to hear what's being said.

What does that even mean?  Are you talking about wiretapping or something?

Doing something is a crime. So all you need in place are systems to check of something criminal or out of the ordinary took place.  Like we do with any crime.

But in politics the judge at the end of the day is the people.  ANd if they won't do their jobs then nothing else matters.  STAAAAAAAARRREEEE

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Clean up your act - then you can ask others to clean up theirs.

Like I said you're full of crap.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're full of crap. You're only interested in shooting the messenger.

You're not the messenger. I'm the messenger.  You're the problem.  Get the message?

Just now, eyeball said:

Like I said you're full of crap.

Like you said - you want to shoot the messenger.

Sorry kiddo - that's the way life is

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What does that even mean?  Are you talking about wiretapping or something?

Nope, just being in the room listening to your representatives discuss your business.

Why are you so afraid of this?

Edited August 28, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope, just being in the room listening to your representatives discuss your business.

 

So being in a room listening to people talk is a crime.

I'll file that under "trudeau sent tanks to the protests" along with the other stupid things you believe.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So being in a room listening to people talk is a crime.

You certainly seem to act as if it is. The very thought of citizens wanting to know how public business is being conducted is an insulting affront to your sensibilities.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You certainly seem to act as if it is.

Ahhh - so you were just lying again and realized you sound like a m0ron and want it to somehow be my fault.  got it.

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit. Whistleblowing is not a system.

 

 

An employer cannot retaliate against you for exercising your rights under the Department of Labor's whistleblower protection laws.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

 

An employer cannot retaliate against you for exercising your rights under the Department of Labor's whistleblower protection laws.

This is Canada.  

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

This is Canada.  

Yes it is.

The quote is from a Canadian law firm

https://www.kcyatlaw.ca/what-is-whistleblowing-guide-whistleblowing-in-canada/

[CdnFox]

Whistleblower legislation, gov't departments like the ethics commissioner, the budgetary officer (conservative inventions i'd note ),   The opposition party - and lets not forget a LOT of scandals and corruption are exposed by the opposition parties noticing something and digging - and various other agencies and sources (including the media in some cases) all serve to expose corruption and dirty dealing, and offer SOME penalty for wrongdoing.

But at the end of the day the final boss guardian is the voter. Voters must always be willing to punish the hell out of parties that are corrupt or excessively slimey.

When they don't then no matter what the law is the corrupt politician will get away with it.

And if some party members DO hold their parties to account for it (such as conservatives did with the PC federally), and other party's members DON'T and allow their party to get away with corruption, pretty soon all parties say "whats the point - we might as well let our guys be corrupt too" and the whole system falls apart.

NDP voters have destroyed ndp parties when they were corrupt provincially, and conservative voters do it provincially and federally fairly regularly

Liberal voters need to get with the program.  When that happens we'll have a lot less corruption.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes it is.

The quote is from a Canadian law firm

https://www.kcyatlaw.ca/what-is-whistleblowing-guide-whistleblowing-in-canada/

Your link doesn’t contain that quote.  
 

Canada doesn’t have a Department of Labor, nor does Canada have the Whistleblower Protection Act.  

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Your link doesn’t contain that quote.  
 

Canada doesn’t have a Department of Labor, nor does Canada have the Whistleblower Protection Act.  

Bottom line is whistle blowers have protection in Canada dude, (or dudette).

"Section 425.1 of the Criminal Code, for example, states that employers may not threaten or take disciplinary action against, demote or terminate an employee in order to deter him or her from reporting information regarding an offence he or she believes has or is being committed by his or her employer to the relevant law enforcement authorities.

In short, an employer cannot threaten an employee with negative repercussions to deter them from contacting law enforcement with information about their employer’s offence. Punishment for employers who make such threats or reprisals can include up to five years imprisonment and/or fines."