• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

Or we could do the democratic thing and wait until the next election in two years, which isn't even that long a period of time. The city will get their chance to decide soon enough.

All of these calls for circumvention of due process really are annoying coming from the same leftist types.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Or we could do the democratic thing and wait until the next election in two years, which isn't even that long a period of time. The city will get their chance to decide soon enough.

All of these calls for circumvention of due process really are annoying coming from the same leftist types.
Click to expand...

It's not "calls for circumvention of due process."

He's being prosecuted under laws that have been around for quite a while, for which the penalty is him being removed from office. The due process is his right to continue to hold office being on trial. The calls for circumvention were the people suggesting that if a court found that he had to leave office, council should just re-appoint him.
 
And the same arbiters of aforementioned laws did not consider the offence to be worthy of the punishment that you are so transparently gleefully advocating.

Your side lost this one. Suck it up and get behind a commendable candidate in two years' time.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
And the same arbiters of aforementioned laws did not consider the offence to be worthy of the punishment that you are so transparently gleefully advocating.

Your side lost this one. Suck it up and get behind a commendable candidate in two years' time.
Click to expand...

The first arbiters did, the second arbiters didn't. So yeah, that's the end of that.

What I was saying was that he's being investigated on campaign financing issues that would see him kicked out. "If" he's convicted of that offense, it'll start to look pretty onerous if he's been convicted twice of offenses that, by the book, would have him removed from office but gets it overturned again. When you hear most of the counsellors talk, it's pretty clear that they consider him a lame duck because of that.


But whatever, the guy you campaigned won the right to not be shitcanned for conflict of interest on appeals by pleading ignorance of basic procedure. Hurrah for the city.
 
And the guy you advocated for cost this province $1 billion over a health care scandal that he claimed no knowledge of despite being the Health Minister at the time.

Hurray for shitty candidates. I was a Ford supporter out of necessity, not necessarily choice. I've always been a backer of Tory and expressed that sentiment in the past. The fact of the matter is that it would have been a fundamentally costly and unnecessary financial burden on the city to have spent between $7.5 and $10 million on an election with just two years remaining in Ford's term. It would have also fundamentally undermined the democratic process to have appointed an interim mayor in his stead. The punishment clearly did not meet the standard required by the offence and the judges thankfully recognized that.

This is not a post defending Ford's ignorance, but it is defending financial accountability for the city. We cannot afford to be tossing around millions left and right pointlessly.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
And the guy you advocated for cost this province $1 billion over a health care scandal that he claimed no knowledge of despite being the Health Minister at the time.

Hurray for shitty candidates. I was a Ford supporter out of necessity, not necessarily choice. I've always been a backer of Tory and expressed that sentiment in the past. The fact of the matter is that it would have been a fundamentally costly and unnecessary financial burden on the city to have spent between $7.5 and $10 million on an election with just two years remaining in Ford's term. It would have also fundamentally undermined the democratic process to have appointed an interim mayor in his stead. The punishment clearly did not meet the standard required by the offence and the judges thankfully recognized that.

This is not a post defending Ford's ignorance, but it is defending financial accountability for the city. We cannot afford to be tossing around millions left and right pointlessly.
Click to expand...

Oh come on.

10 million is jack shit compared to the amount an incompetent mayor can/has cost the city. Hell he cost multiple times that when he cancelled the now mostly re-booted transit city stuff on the first day. The cost issue with an election was always a dumb, dumb reason to not run a by-election for an empty mayors chair. It was an even dumber reason to keep a mayor convicted of something that the law says should oust him from office. It's the equivelant of US Congress making a big show of cutting their office budgets or pensions. A drop in the bucket for a city with a budget in the billions.
 
Ah, the real reason that you want him removed comes out: personal ideological differences. As should have been obvious from your posts on this matter all along.

Sorry, but disliking a public official is not grounds for removing them, Spinderella. Despite the fact that you clearly have no respect for the tax dollars of the public and would have them spent frivolously in order to impose a more "ideologically appropriate" figure on this city.

Hatred is love.
 
And while we're on that topic of wasteful spending by city councillors, how has it never come up that Ford has never spent a single cent on his own office expenses?

He's always used his own personal funds to reimburse whatever he has taken from the city, an extraordinarily commendable act of personal responsibility and kindness to the taxpayers.

Particularly when the council is littered with entitled twats such as Michael Layton or Adam Vaughn, who feel compelled to spend tens of thousands of dollars on champagne dinners for their sycophants, or on limousine rides, that they then file under "office expenses," while at the same time lambasting Ford for his supposed irresponsibility in raising money for a charitable organization that he actually puts time and effort into. But no, we're going to attack a man and try to have him removed from office based on a simple procedural error that in reality did not lead to any substantive harm to the city in any respect, and in fact was so minor that the ensuing court proceedings were a laughable waste of city funds.

Honestly, people's priorities in this world are often so ****ed up it beggars all rational thinking.
 
774670_10152484015320026_1352268019_o.jpg
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Ah, the real reason that you want him removed comes out: personal ideological differences. As should have been obvious from your posts on this matter all along.
Click to expand...
I want him removed because he's incompetent, and saw the fact that he'd been convicted of something for which the punishment was his removal as a good thing. I make no excuses for that.

Sorry, but disliking a public official is not grounds for removing them, Spinderella.
Click to expand...

Good thing the courts weren't charging him with "dislike" but instead "conflict of interest", for which the set punishment was removal from office.

Despite the fact that you clearly have no respect for the tax dollars of the public and would have them spent frivolously in order to impose a more "ideologically appropriate" figure on this city.
Click to expand...

Never have I suggested that my dislike of him is reason to remove him. My dislike of him means that I'd have been happy if he had been removed for breaking the law, just like your positive feelings towards him makes you unhappy that he was almost removed.

It's like if you hated someone, and they were your boss. You probably wouldn't do anything to get them fired aside from pointing you think they should lose their job if someone asked (ie. voting). But if said person was fired because they were doing something which their contract said they'd be fired if they did (ie. he broke the rules of city council and the set penalty is removal from office), you'd be happy about it.

This is pretty simple stuff here.
 
johnunit said:
I want him removed because he's incompetent, and saw the fact that he'd been convicted of something for which the punishment was his removal as a good thing. I make no excuses for that.
Click to expand...

So long as you're being transparent and honest about your true motives I have no objections to your position, flawed though it may be.

Good thing the courts weren't charging him with "dislike" but instead "conflict of interest", for which the set punishment was removal from office.
Click to expand...

And the arbiter of the aforementioned courts saw that the punishment was excessive and it appears that Ford has been vindicated in that regard, as have his supporters who have long made that argument.

Never have I suggested that my dislike of him is reason to remove him. My dislike of him means that I'd have been happy if he had been removed for breaking the law, just like your positive feelings towards him makes you unhappy that he was almost removed.
Click to expand...

You confuse my dislike for the vehement vitriol and whining of the crusading anti-Ford camp as being indicative of support for the man himself. You would be in error here. I merely considered Ford the best of a sorry bunch, as I have repeatedly illustrated on here time after time, which you seem intent on ignoring for your own personal purposes of painting a narrative on which to argue against.

It's like if you hated someone, and they were your boss. You probably wouldn't do anything to get them fired aside from pointing you think they should lose their job if someone asked (ie. voting). But if said person was fired because they were doing something which their contract said they'd be fired if they did (ie. he broke the rules of city council and the set penalty is removal from office), you'd be happy about it.
Click to expand...

I think Ford has been a disappointment at best and a tremendous embarrassment to the city at worst, however there are plenty of people out there who are largely incapable of performing their jobs well (look at Layton, Giambrone, Stintz, and Vaughn for examples on City Council/TTC). But that doesn't mean that they should lose their jobs because of procedural technicalities. They are elected officials and while I would look for some of those people to be removed from office, that remains at the discretion of the public.

This is pretty simple stuff here.
Click to expand...

It really is. Which is why you need to accept that he won his legal battle and now moves on to the next one.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
And while we're on that topic of wasteful spending by city councillors, how has it never come up that Ford has never spent a single cent on his own office expenses?

He's always used his own personal funds to reimburse whatever he has taken from the city, an extraordinarily commendable act of personal responsibility and kindness to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Because he's a wealthy man and it's a drop in the bucket and an obvious act of grandstanding. So he saves something like 50 grand a year. Sure, that's nice I guess kinda, but he mentions it every ****ing chance he gets, and berates people who don't have 50 grand a year to spend for not doing the same. 50 grand a year is NOTHING when you're overseeing a yearly budget of 14 billion dollars. It'd be like the head of a household with an income of 100,000 a year constantly bragging about the 30 cents he saves by once a year buying a small coffee instead of medium. It's 1/280,000 of the city budget. Who the **** cares, honestly? It's nice, I guess, but again he clearly uses it as a campaign talking point, so it's not like it's some beautiful selfless act.

Particularly when the council is littered with entitled twats such as Michael Layton or Adam Vaughn, who feel compelled to spend tens of thousands of dollars on champagne dinners for their sycophants, or on limousine rides, that they then file under "office expenses," while at the same time lambasting Ford for his supposed irresponsibility in raising money for a charitable organization that he actually puts time and effort into. But no, we're going to attack a man and try to have him removed from office based on a simple procedural error that in reality did not lead to any substantive harm to the city in any respect, and in fact was so minor that the ensuing court proceedings were a laughable waste of city funds.
Click to expand...

I think you're the one letting YOUR opinions on the people involved cloud your judgment.
The fact of the matter is, he voted in his own direct financial interest when he, by all reasonable measures, should have known that he can't do that. It's not a "minor procedural error". It's ethics 101. If a vote comes up that's about you specifically paying a chunk of change out of your pocket, you don't get to vote, period. That's gotta be the most obvious rule in city hall short of don't throw poop.
 
johnunit said:
Because he's a wealthy man and it's a drop in the bucket and an obvious act of grandstanding. So he saves something like 50 grand a year. Sure, that's nice I guess kinda, but he mentions it every ****ing chance he gets, and berates people who don't have 50 grand a year to spend for not doing the same. 50 grand a year is NOTHING when you're overseeing a yearly budget of 14 billion dollars. It'd be like the head of a household with an income of 100,000 a year constantly bragging about the 30 cents he saves by once a year buying a small coffee instead of medium. It's 1/280,000 of the city budget. Who the **** cares, honestly? It's nice, I guess, but again he clearly uses it as a campaign talking point, so it's not like it's some beautiful selfless act.
Click to expand...

I certainly care about a person respecting personal tax dollars given by many people with less income than Ford. It's important that civic officials should due respect to those who are contributing funds.

You may not care about that, which reflects incredibly poorly on you in my opinion, but I was brought up a certain way and I would never be as callous with other people's money as officials like Vaughn and Layton are.

And Layton does come from a wealthy family himself. What's his excuse? You don't think the combined 400+ grand that Chow and Jack were bringing in through their federal salaries was substantial?

The fact Ford does something that he is not obligated to do, in the interest of being an accountable and fair official to the public, is commendable. Full stop.

I think you're the one letting YOUR opinions on the people involved cloud your judgment.
The fact of the matter is, he voted in his own direct financial interest when he, by all reasonable measures, should have known that he can't do that. It's not a "minor procedural error". It's ethics 101. If a vote comes up that's about you specifically paying a chunk of change out of your pocket, you don't get to vote, period. That's gotta be the most obvious rule in city hall short of don't throw poop.
Click to expand...

Minor procedural error on a non-issue. Give him a slap on the wrist, don't count the vote, save all this time and irritation. Move on to more important issues.

Boom. Done.
 
And the arbiter of the aforementioned courts saw that the punishment was excessive and it appears that Ford has been vindicated in that regard, as have his supporters who have long made that argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, so now on to his next court case.

You confuse my dislike for the vehement vitriol and whining of the crusading anti-Ford camp as being indicative of support for the man himself. You would be in error here. I merely considered Ford the best of a sorry bunch, as I have repeatedly illustrated on here time after time, which you seem intent on ignoring for your own personal purposes of painting a narrative on which to argue against.
Click to expand...

I guess I just have a hard time imagining someone looking at counsel and considering him preferrable to anyone not pushing a mop.



I think Ford has been a disappointment at best and a tremendous embarrassment to the city at worst, however there are plenty of people out there who are largely incapable of performing their jobs well (look at Layton, Giambrone, Stintz, and Vaughn for examples on City Council/TTC). But that doesn't mean that they should lose their jobs. They are elected officials and while I would look for some of those people to be removed from office, that remains at the discretion of the public.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't lose their jobs because they haven't been told by the courts to GTFO. Ford narrowly avoided such a fate, so he shouldn't lose his job right now. However, it seems unlikely that he'll avoid that fate the next time around, while none of the people you listed have come even close. You might find them incompetent, but the fact is none of them are in office only because the courts decided that punishment was too heavy for something they were convicted of doing. I mean, it's hard to imagine anyone coming closer to getting shitcanned than Ford did today. I guess if he'd lost this appeal and appealed to another court, but that option wasn't even going to be open to him.



It really is. Which is why you need to accept that he won his legal battle and now moves on to the next one.
Click to expand...

I've said just that multiple times in this thread already.
 
Last edited:
JaysCyYoung said:
I certainly care about a person respecting personal tax dollars given by many people with less income than Ford. It's important that civic officials should due respect to those who are contributing funds.

You may not care about that, which reflects incredibly poorly on you in my opinion, but I was brought up a certain way and I would never be as callous with other people's money as officials like Vaughn and Layton are.

And Layton does come from a wealthy family himself. What's his excuse? You don't think the combined 400+ grand that Chow and Jack were bringing in through their federal salaries was substantial?
Click to expand...
substantial enough to give their son 50 grand a year for office expenses? No. Not at all.

The fact Ford does something that he is not obligated to do, in the interest of being an accountable and fair official to the public, is commendable. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Ok, but it's a commendable token of respect which he's been rambling on about for over a decade now, and it's nothing more. It has almost literally no practical value to the city. It buys the city, what, one janitor? Maybe a rookie cop? It's a nice thing, but pretending it has any noteworthy positive effect on the city is silly. Same with him not having a driver. They budget for a driver, and for office expenses, for a reason. It's more efficient to just give them the money that amounts to less than a cent per torontonian per year than it is to have them scrimp by on their own money, or get 'help' from people, or anything else. Again, it's 50 grand in a 14B

Oh and, by the way, he spent 44,000 this year, of CITY money. Woops. And my 50,000 dollar number was double the actual average others at city hall claim. see below

http://app.toronto.ca/tcer_web/Controller?action=1&selectedYear=2011



Minor procedural error on a non-issue. Give him a slap on the wrist, don't count the vote, save all this time and irritation. Move on to more important issues.

Boom. Done.
Click to expand...

I still don't get how you can justify it as a "procedural error." Not stamping something is a procedural error. Voting to save your own ass thousands of dollars is misuse of office.
 
BubbleTurd update: UK heading for Triple Dip recession as GDP shrinks in the last quarter of 2012. All that austerity, and apparently they are still at risk of losing their AAA rating!

More quality work from the mensa club on the right. :thumbsup(22):
 
Nice to see that johnunit has no respect for the judicial system. You know we have an appeals process, right? You don't get to choose which judgement you like based on your feelings of a person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top