Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Rob Ford loses it again


Recommended Posts

Debating policies and issues are one thing, attacking a politician or anyone because of their weight is another. Hatred of Ford has gone beyond policy and issues it's way beyond normal discourse, it's just visceral hatred with little or no logic to it.

Like I said earlier, it's telling no one bothers to defend the guy except when it's about the fat jokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I said earlier, it's telling no one bothers to defend the guy except when it's about the fat jokes.

Well, this thread isn't about policy and issues, it's about a reporter and a paper with a personal vendetta.

I'm with Ford on this one and see the Star losing integrity over it, the have lost it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ford on this one and see the Star losing integrity over it, the have lost it.

Feel free to say I have Ford Derangement Syndrome in your response if you feel you are over your head in discussing actual issues, but don't you think it's appropriate for a reporter to investigate a land sale between the city and the mayor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't you think it's appropriate for a reporter to investigate a land sale between the city and the mayor?

I want to chime in here, since although I think The Star was highly unprofessional in how they acted, I do think they had a 'right' to cover the story.

However, there was no real need to visit the property to cover a 'zoning issue'. Especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that Rob Ford will even get his request approved. (since the city rarely agrees to sell off parkland) So run a print story and be done with it. Don't go to the guy's house and peek in his yard.

If worse comes to worse, go to his house during the day. The Star *knows* that they and Ford don't get along. Why antagonise him further? There was no need to 'poke around' at his house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there was no real need to visit the property to cover a 'zoning issue'. Especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that Rob Ford will even get his request approved. (since the city rarely agrees to sell off parkland) So run a print story and be done with it. Don't go to the guy's house and peek in his yard.

It's not a "zoning issue;" it's a proposed land sale. If a reporter is going to write an informed story about it, he should make himself aware of what's actually being sold. According to his story, he was clearly unaware of the precise piece of land they were talking about, so it makes sense that he would be investigating further.

And if it's true that he actually did (heaven forbid) look at Ford's yard, do you really think it's appropriate for Ford to mug the guy for his phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, it's telling no one bothers to defend the guy except when it's about the fat jokes.

I don't live in Toronto (thank God) so I rarely take notice of Ford except when the dogs on the left start howling and baying about this or that "outrageous" happening. I've defended him not going to a gay rights parade. So far as the rest goes I don't know that he's done anything that needs defending other than trying to reign in spending.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Ford is just an honest guy trying to reign in reckless government spending is just so stunningly naive I find it hard to believe it's coming from an arch-cynic like Argus.

Well, I admit to not spending an awful lot of time considering the municipal political mudfest in Toronto.

Why don't you recite a brief list of the awful things he's done?

Leave off the not going to the gay pride parade. I've already dealt with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread isn't about policy and issues, it's about a reporter and a paper with a personal vendetta.

Actually it's about yet another inappropriate overreaction by a gaffe-prone rageaholic.

I'm with Ford on this one and see the Star losing integrity over it, the have lost it.

Of course you are. Would there be any situation in which you wouldn't be?

Well, I admit to not spending an awful lot of time considering the municipal political mudfest in Toronto.

Why don't you recite a brief list of the awful things he's done?

Leave off the not going to the gay pride parade. I've already dealt with that one.

Just read the numerous Ford threads if you give a damn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to chime in here, since although I think The Star was highly unprofessional in how they acted, I do think they had a 'right' to cover the story.

However, there was no real need to visit the property to cover a 'zoning issue'. Especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that Rob Ford will even get his request approved. (since the city rarely agrees to sell off parkland) So run a print story and be done with it. Don't go to the guy's house and peek in his yard.

If worse comes to worse, go to his house during the day. The Star *knows* that they and Ford don't get along. Why antagonise him further? There was no need to 'poke around' at his house.

Really? YOU saying "Why antagonise ... "?

That's rich! :lol:

YOU don't think a person has a right to stand on public property regardless of the reason?

:lol:

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Star *knows* that they and Ford don't get along. Why antagonise him further?

The Star and their reporter knew full well what Ford's reaction would be in advance of the reporter showing up. Regardless of the parkland purchase angle, they knew they would get a story simply from the anticipated interaction between the reporter and Ford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the parkland purchase angle, they knew they would get a story simply from the anticipated interaction between the reporter and Ford.

So you're saying people should know better than to go in the park near Ford's house, and if they do it's all their fault if he attacks them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying people should know better than to go in the park near Ford's house, and if they do it's all their fault if he attacks them?

Define attack. He never laid a hand on Mr. Dale. He's verbally accosted him but that's not against the law.

This issue is about perception. No reason for the reporter to be where he was, for the purpose he said he was there.

The assumption is that he was looking into Ford's home paparazzi style to see if he could unearth something. No way to prove that, unless there's a photo on his phone that indicates that's what he was doing.

I doubt any charges will be filed either way. It's a battle of public opinion more than a legal battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying people should know better than to go in the park near Ford's house, and if they do it's all their fault if he attacks them?

If they were only interested in checking out the land, could they not have given him a courtesy call to relay their intentions, rather than skulking around freaking out him and his neighbors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were only interested in checking out the land, could they not have given him a courtesy call to relay their intentions, rather than skulking around freaking out him and his neighbors?

What part of "public park" is confusing to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that one could purchase land in a public park in Toronto.

I believe the city land Ford wants to purchase is beside his lot, and the park is behind it. The reporter was in the park trying to determine where the land was when Ford (allegedly) mugged him for his phone.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of "public park" is confusing to you?

Ya no kidding ... Anybody wanting to use the community centre or the public land it stands on better call Ford first for an invitation?

UNbelievable !

What I can't figure out ... where was Ford when he threatened the reporter and stole his camera?

Since there's a high fence around his yard, I assume he too must have been on public property?

So the mayor ... because he's the mayor ... can threaten somebody and tell them to drop their camera ... on public property? ... and he's done nothing wrong?

Something wrong with that picture ...

I wonder if protesters will show up to make that point ... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the city land Ford wants to purchase is beside his lot, and the park is behind it. The reporter was in the park trying to determine where the land was when Ford (allegedly) mugged him for his phone.

At any rate, what I'm saying is that instead of skulking around out behind his house in the bushes, they simply could have let him know as a courtesy that they were doing a story on the potential purchase,and were sending someone over to check out the property. Not that they had an obligation to do so, just saying if they had nothing to hide, might as well avoid any potential misunderstandings.

It's obvious that someone building a cinder block platform and peering into his backyard is a little more than checking out the scenery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya no kidding ... Anybody wanting to use the community centre or the public land it stands on better call Ford first for an invitation?

UNbelievable !

What's unbelievable is your inability to comprehend how someone who's privacy is being invaded would upset them.

What I can't figure out ... where was Ford when he threatened the reporter and stole his camera?

I thought the frightened little victimized reporter dropped the phone (sounds like that's not all that was dropping).

Since there's a high fence around his yard, I assume he too must have been on public property?

So the mayor ... because he's the mayor ... can threaten somebody and tell them to drop their camera ... on public property? ... and he's done nothing wrong?

Yeah, that's exactly it. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a "zoning issue;" it's a proposed land sale. If a reporter is going to write an informed story about it, he should make himself aware of what's actually being sold. According to his story, he was clearly unaware of the precise piece of land they were talking about, so it makes sense that he would be investigating further.

And if it's true that he actually did (heaven forbid) look at Ford's yard, do you really think it's appropriate for Ford to mug the guy for his phone?

He didn't mug him for his phone for pete's sakes, he just chased after him so the reporter threw it down. If I caught someone skulking around my property taking photos I'd chase after him too. There's a difference between reporting and stalking someone and their family, including his 78 year old mother.

If the reporter had any integrity he'd ask Ford first, the Star is being simply inappropriate in it's actions. Filming Ford going into a KFC and making it a lead story is hardly hard news and decent reporting, it's just over the top behaviour we've come to expect from this paper.

The Toronto Star loses all control of its bodily functions today in its determination to meet the world’s demand for more information on its inane tiff with Mayor Rob Ford.

Edited by scribblet
Link to post
Share on other sites

At any rate, what I'm saying is that instead of skulking around out behind his house in the bushes, they simply could have let him know as a courtesy that they were doing a story on the potential purchase,and were sending someone over to check out the property. Not that they had an obligation to do so, just saying if they had nothing to hide, might as well avoid any potential misunderstandings.

It's obvious that someone building a cinder block platform and peering into his backyard is a little more than checking out the scenery.

Ford HATES the Star, won't talk to them, won't even send them official city press releases. They have no such obligation and I doubt he'd consider it a courtesy.

The reporter was doing his job. Call that "skulking" if you want but the fact is he had every right to be where he was.

Somebody built that pile of blocks but the reporter says it wasn't him and he wasn't on it. Proof otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...