Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WWWTT

Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

Recommended Posts

And now RoFo's EA has quit. It's just gonna be him and Doug in the end, isn't it? Like Butch and Sundance.

Edit: also gone, his policy advisor which is especially shocking because I had no idea Rob Ford had a policy advisor.

Edited by Black Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know I wrote that I would not post any more links in this thread but....

I called this one!

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/05/30/ontario_tories_distance_themselves_from_doug_ford.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

If Doug does decide to stay on as a councilor in the next election,he may find himself only defending the Rob Ford circus that may grow after Rob Ford loses.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now RoFo's EA has quit. It's just gonna be him and Doug in the end, isn't it? Like Butch and Sundance.

Edit: also gone, his policy advisor which is especially shocking because I had no idea Rob Ford had a policy advisor.

How come his faciliators aren't wondering why his inner circle is participating in this lynching? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come his faciliators aren't wondering why his inner circle is participating in this lynching? :lol:

I dunno, but I do know a Hitler in the bunker video can't be far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence? I see no evidence . Did you see him smoke or did you see the video. And if the star can do this to him without evidence they can do it to anybody

LOL you are willing to accept and be outraged about a Liberal senator having offshore accounts based upon someone's report, but pictures of Rob Ford smoking crack are clearly fake... Hypocrite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What differentiates a witch hunt from an investigation?

I suppose if it's "your guy" being looked at or the "other guy"... simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they say emails were deleted? Or did they say someone said emails were deleted? Big difference.

A source told me that Justin Trudeau is a Nazi, Olivia Chow is really a man and Stephen Harper was castrated.

You mean like this? :)

If a new organization does no investigation and rely on unreliable sources, then it's no more trustworthy than the above statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told me that Justin Trudeau is a Nazi, Olivia Chow is really a man and Stephen Harper was castrated.

You mean like this?

Yes, exactly like that. Except, you neglect to factor in the credibility of the source. If Stephen Harper's brother said Stephen was castrated, he'd be taken as more credible than a shopkeeper in Sarnia who said the same thing.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited by g_bambino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a new organization does no investigation and rely on unreliable sources, then it's no more trustworthy than the above statement.

And you are in a position to know the reliability of their sources and the extent of their investigations how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newspapers seem to be able to say anything they like based on allegations, innuendo and anonymous sources.

nope. There are strict libel laws in Canada. If the Star is manufacturing a story, they would have to face the music. Ford doesn't seem to be too quick to prosecute though, does he?

I expect Ford Nation will be bitter for a while after this humiliation, but you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. There are strict libel laws in Canada. If the Star is manufacturing a story, they would have to face the music. Ford doesn't seem to be too quick to prosecute though, does he?

I expect Ford Nation will be bitter for a while after this humiliation, but you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Which is why the media couches everything in legalize and he alleges etc. etc. Don't include me in 'Ford Nation', I can't vote for him and he would not have been my pick. I just find the media are crossing the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why the media couches everything in legalize and he alleges etc. etc. Don't include me in 'Ford Nation', I can't vote for him and he would not have been my pick. I just find the media are crossing the line.

I'm not including you in anything, although you did say you would still vote for him. Personally, I think it would have been irresponsible for the Star reporters to say nothing after seeing such a video. But whatever. Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who are trying to blame the media for all the Ford problems,I believe have a large disconnect with the reality of western politics.And in particular the relation of media with politics.

Anyone entering politics in today's age,with a weak grasp of how this relation works,BEWARE!!!

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly like that. Except, you neglect to factor in the credibility of the source. If Stephen Harper's brother said Stephen was castrated, he'd be taken as more credible than a shopkeeper in Sarnia who said the same thing.

[ed.: c/e]

So if it were, say, an anonymous crack dealer, that would not be considered a credible source then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it were, say, an anonymous crack dealer, that would not be considered a credible source then?

Well there would need to be some verification of what said crack dealer is claiming... For example, viewing a video first hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly like that. Except, you neglect to factor in the credibility of the source. If Stephen Harper's brother said Stephen was castrated, he'd be taken as more credible than a shopkeeper in Sarnia who said the same thing.

[ed.: c/e]

Since we do not know the source, it has no credibility. The only credibility on the line is the Toronto Star's.

And you are in a position to know the reliability of their sources and the extent of their investigations how?

In this particular case, the story was proven to be false. Assuming the Star didn't lie intentionally, we know that

1. The source is not reliable.

2. The Star didn't do enough investigation before they publish the story.

Of course, it's also possible that the city lied. However, the Star seems to quote new sources now: "Two people familiar with the system said the emails of specific political staffers cannot be permanently erased from the system." Why didn't they check with these two people before they publish the story?

Edited by Archanfel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they check with these two people before they publish the story?

The story was that Ford wanted the emails and phone records destroyed. He probably did and found out later he wasn't able to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story was that Ford wanted the emails and phone records destroyed. He probably did and found out later he wasn't able to do that.

The title of the story is still "Concerns raised over safety of email records". What's the "concern" if you can't physically do it? Even if the story was purely about Ford's order (which was denied by the city), I would think that's relevant information, instead of raising "concerns". For a newspaper to be credible, it needs to do the due diligence checks.

Now, I understand that headline sells newpapers regardless the truth. Since the only responsibility of a private company is to its shareholders, I understand why they did it. Star readers wouldn't care one way or the other. But it does hurt Star's credibility to a more neutral audience, which again the Star pobably doesn't care anyway. I laugh everytime I eat at my local Burger King reading the free Toronto Sun, but I am sure they know it's laughable too, they just don't care as long as it sells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who are trying to blame the media for all the Ford problems,I believe have a large disconnect with the reality of western politics.And in particular the relation of media with politics.

I believe it too.

Anyone entering politics in today's age,with a weak grasp of how this relation works,BEWARE!!!

WWWTT

Beware the one who knows how to exploit this weakness even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not including you in anything, although you did say you would still vote for him. Personally, I think it would have been irresponsible for the Star reporters to say nothing after seeing such a video. But whatever.

. I did say I would vote for him just to see heads explode. It's moot because I can't vote or him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we have so much trouble with crime is that a lot of people admire people who break the law. I have never understood this attitude. Ford gets a lot of sympathy because they think the papers are picking on him. It never enters these peoples minds that people engaged in crime are really robbing them because they don't directly see it. The attitude, its not my any of my business, lets these crooks get away with what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of the story is still "Concerns raised over safety of email records". What's the "concern" if you can't physically do it? Even if the story was purely about Ford's order (which was denied by the city), I would think that's relevant information, instead of raising "concerns". For a newspaper to be credible, it needs to do the due diligence checks.

Now, I understand that headline sells newpapers regardless the truth..................

It's hard to believe the veracity of any of the stories these days.. I heard one guy saying on an interview that the 'anonymous source' had an axe to grind... who knew huh..

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10551513

Warmington also quotes the mayor's interim press secretary Sunny Petrujkic as flatly denying Thursday's story in the Toronto Star, that the mayor and his senior staff had a meeting the day after this story broke and the Mayor supposedly told them not to worry about the video, that he knew precisely where it was located. This meeting was, according to the Star, not attended by Ford's then chief-of-staff Mark Towhey.

Petrujkic says that story "was all made up."

In his words, "it's the furthest thing from the truth. It never took place."'

The National Post quotes an unnamed senior staffer in the mayor's office as saying that the former chief of staff, Mark Towhey is out to "kill the mayor, politically and otherwise."

The Post source says of the supposed meeting where the Mayor said he knew where the video was, "the wildest fabrication I've ever, ever, seen anyone in the media write."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are in a position to know the reliability of their sources and the extent of their investigations how?

Really?...and I say that not with emotion but in the tone of Commander Spock.

You really need that answered?

1-if someone won't stand by their comments and allow themselves to be quoted that in itself necessarily brings into

question the reliability of their statement(s);

2-the fundamental precept of fairness in law is that for evidence to be reliable it must be able to be tested and/or cross examined

in this case since the alleged witnesses won't allow themselves to be tested or cross examined there testimony is only heresay, it

remains untested let alone the originator remains anomymous and therefore not having to account for that he/she claimed and that

makes the whole scenario both the evidence and witness unreliable and that is why credible journalists do not run a story unless they have at least one and preferably two revealed sources;

3-subjective opinions are not reliable because they can not be measured and proven as accurate, right now all you rely on is second hand inneuendo necessarily subjective in content-not one shred of corroborated evidence;

4-it is absolutely irresponsible for any journalist let alone the Star to have run the story of that video without having first tested it to prove its authenticity-it is absolutely irresponsible to tell readers-oh take my word for it, on anything-no I am not going to take any one's word about anything-prove it or shut the phack up until you can-it is the height of irresponsibility running a story about a video you have never tested if we are to assume you even saw one;

5-what is irresponsible is running a story from people you know are seeking money for their video-that very vested financial interest renders the video lacking in credibility even if it exists knowing its originator's motive is to be paid financially;

6-if the Editor and the Star are so responsible do explain it-explain the reasoning that you have no problems with who you claim are drug pushers, known criminals seeking to profit off of a video-do explain how that makes it responsible to give these known criminals a platform to make money showing they are engaging in crime....please for once finish what you start and use something other than your feelings...and lol, I say that with no feelings just pure cynical sarcastic tone dripping with dry sardonic melatoned inferences as to your moral outrage at fasto for flipping off a child and keeping in mind I "adore" W.C. Fields. (go look him up)

7-The Globe has run a story with not ONE source revealed, not one making it impossible for anyone to test the accuracy or reliability of what is allegedly claimed-its bad enough the accusations are heresay and untested-its worse people like you jump on them and demand a lynching of Ford-this is absolutely no different than the method of operation used to burn alleged witches at the stake, lynch black men in the South for allegedly looking at white women or engaging in pogroms. Its frenzy pack behavuiour where people inflate themselves and puff up with alleged moral outrage based on an esclating series of untested claims, and like you suggesting they are reliable even though they have never been proven.

The analogy is exact. Its trying someone as guilty without trial. That is exactly what a lynching or burning of a witch at the stake is. That is exactly what fueled the Dreyfuss Affair, the pogroms and the slurs of so many people that start with unsubstantiated accusations that are spread by hysterics. To point out hysterical people as foaming at the mouth does not make me hysterical Black Dog just an unemotional spectator who would hope all of you lined up demanding Ford's fat patoot get rabies shots.

I repeat again, Ford is his own worst enemy the way he communicates and the way his brother communicates. They are walking p.r. disasters. However until someone proves at least one damn poison pen gossip accusation I say again, put up or shaddup and don't select your moral outrage. Right the fat boy hates kids. He flips them off.

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.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it were, say, an anonymous crack dealer, that would not be considered a credible source then?

The video was the credible source, I believe. Credible enough for three journalists to put their careers on the line (and vulnerable to defamation suits).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video was the credible source, I believe. Credible enough for three journalists to put their careers on the line (and vulnerable to defamation suits).

Nonsense. There is zero exposure to defamation. The 3 can turn around and say they never tested the video for its authenticity, and merely reported what they saw. That is not credible, its cowardly. Credible would have been to test the video to verify it before relying on it. Cowardly and irresponsible is what it is to run a story that you know is based on evidence you never tested. Its nothing more than he said she said poison pen inneuendo sleeze journalism. The kind of yellow journalism one would expect from trash tabloids. But then that exactly is what the Globe and Star are. Toilet paper. They have lowered themselves to rag papers. You find that credible wait until someone produces a film of you, doesn't produce that film, never tests that film and says it shows you....

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...