News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 626     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
News Roundup for April 25, 2024
 518     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 765     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just get annoyed when the same posters that get banned keep returning with a new user name. They are too obvious about it.
Click to expand...

Obvious? Can you give the rest of us a few markers to look for? Let's make a game out of it.
 
spider said:
Obvious? Can you give the rest of us a few markers to look for? Let's make a game out of it.
Click to expand...

How 'bout... derailing an argument/discussion about Rob Ford's domestic dispute into a rant about the CBC, despite the fact the CBC didn't break the story. Ergo, the next time you're arguing about the merits of the GBC health building and someone with a very long compound name says something like, "the GBC building is a classic example of misspent government dollars, just like the CBC... etc, etc, etc." That'll be your clue.
 
PopsiclePetesCajunHoedown said:
I'm not defending Ford, but calling the CBC out on their double standard. Ford was a fool for calling the police.

The CBC rips on Ford for not being "transparent", which is perfectly fine, however, they are the least transparent, publicly owned entity in this country. If they expect Ford to be open with the public, then they should be held to the same standard, no? They refused to comply with access to information requests until 4 different judges demanded that they cooperate and share how they spend public tax dollars. Then before finally being coerced to obey the law they went ahead and blacked out certain expenditures that they didn't want to be made known. Basically they're taking our money and saying we have no business knowing what they do with it. Lacroix should be thrown in jail for this. The public has the right to know what their money is being used for. This is supposed to be a free country, not a dictatorship.

The CBC is hypocritical for making fun of Ford for calling the police over such a petty issue, yet they authorized a 911 call in response to Levant for essentially the same thing (they didn't want to deal with him). The CBC is publicly owned, therefore he had every right to stand in the building as long as he wanted, so long as he didn't hurt anyone. What did he do that justified having him thrown out of the building?

In case you haven't seen the video, here it is.

[video=youtube;bwFUU8wpKcc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwFUU8wpKcc[/video]

What he did was the exact same thing Marg pulled on Rob Ford (he caught them off guard, unprepared), hence their desperate attempt to have him removed from the building. Who was that guy in the black suit with the wire in his ear? Was that a secret agent?

No, I don't expect the CBC to grant interview requests to anyone at anytime, however, the security guard that Levant spoke to could have at least put in a call to said people and and asked if they had any free time to answer some questions or at least a secretary could have answered on their behalf and scheduled an appointment. Clearly they never want to speak to Levant as he called them several times, well before showing up at the CBC building and they never responded. They're utterly scared of Levant as they know he would expose them for the crooks that they are. Why else would they be so ambivalent towards him if they have nothing to hide? He only showed up at their building because they wouldn't return his phone calls.

Levant leaving on his own initiative isn't evidence that he was trespassing. He knew he wasn't going to get to speak with any of the higher ups, therefore I suppose he left to avoid being questioned by the police, which ultimately would have been a waste of time and a nuisance that wouldn't have solved anything. He most likely didn't want to give them the satisfaction of forcibly removing him from the building so he left before they inevitably tried to do so.

Everything the CBC owns is/was funded by public tax dollars, including their headquarters. Does Levant not have a right to use public space? What grounds did the CBC have for asking him to leave the building? He wasn't inflicting harm or threatening anyone. He simply asked for an interview and that constitutes the right to make him leave the premises? Why didn't they tell him that he cannot speak to Lacroix or Keay at that moment but ask if he would like to make an appointment to speak with them at a later date? I agree that showing up, unannounced isn't typical protocol to conduct an interview. He was just letting them know what it must have felt like for Ford to be surprised by a camera crew on his own driveway. He knew he wasn't going to be allowed to speak with any executives. Do you think Lacroix or Keay should grant Levant's wish and speak with him in the future? If Ford is expected to speak to the Toronto Star and CBC, who abhor him, shouldn't Lacroix, whose paycheck is provided by the Canadian public, give Levant the same respect? Is that not a fair compromise? If the CBC, which is supposed to represent all Canadians, continues to hide how they spend our money, then shouldn't Ford be allowed to ignore the requests of the left wing media? Personally, I think both parties are at fault and they ought to be open with everybody. The CBC has no right to hammer Ford for being sneaky or reclusive as long as they handle the money of Canadians in a stealthy manner.

Does the CBC have 'no trespassing' signs infront of entrances to their headquarters? The public is allowed to step foot inside. Notice how Levant was harassed outside before entering the building? He just as easily could have laid charges against them. People brushed up against him and his camera man, which could be argued as battery.
Click to expand...

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Foghorn_Leghorn/ltfl_085.mp3
 
Justin10000 said:
Yes, let's get back to talking about our mayor being an abusive drunk, and ban the troll!
Click to expand...

Who are you?! We are the inheritors of 8 centuries of liberty. Is your answer to those you disagree with to censor them? That may work in a socialist dream world but Canada is a free nation. Criticize my opinions, don't extinguish my voice.
 
PopsiclePetesCajunHoedown said:
A person with a contrarian opinion isn't a troll. Perhaps you should get out more and you'd see that many people share the same sentiments as I.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like "many people" might think this is an exemplar of urban architecture in Toronto over the past decade.

FrenchQuarter115RichmondstE120Lombardst.jpg


It doesn't mean those kinds of cheap McMansion-taste Cletusses should be put in charge of urban planning in Toronto.
 
How 'bout... derailing an argument/discussion about Rob Ford's domestic dispute into a rant about the CBC, despite the fact the CBC didn't break the story. Ergo, the next time you're arguing about the merits of the GBC health building and someone with a very long compound name says something like, "the GBC building is a classic example of misspent government dollars, just like the CBC... etc, etc, etc." That'll be your clue.
Click to expand...

So this stance makes the poster a re-badged previously banned individual, who is it? Are there others? How 'bout posting a message that isn't dripping with unrelenting, almost pathological hate for the mayor, would that also be a characteristic to look for in outing a banned member returning under cover of an alias? There are no discussions about Mr. Ford's progress or lack thereof as Mayor, positive thoughts are not allowed.
 
PopsiclePetesCajunHoedown said:
Who are you?! We are the inheritors of 8 centuries of liberty. Is your answer to those you disagree with to censor them? That may work in a socialist dream world but Canada is a free nation. Criticize my opinions, don't extinguish my voice.
Click to expand...

Yet the irony of your statement (and others like it) is: wouldn't the optimum "liberty" allow us the freedom to extinguish your voice? In other words, in the name of "freedom of expression", I can reserve the right to kill you. Literally. And brutally; like, dismembered body parts and all. And you think that's heinous and beyond the pale? Uh, don't. That's censorship. You can't censor me.

That's all rhetorical, of course. But it's also a measure of how pindicked and mediocre these angry-troll arguments are; they have no idea of the abject extremes that can trip said arguments up and blow back into their faces...
 
adma said:
Yeah, just like "many people" might think this is an exemplar of urban architecture in Toronto over the past decade.

FrenchQuarter115RichmondstE120Lombardst.jpg


It doesn't mean those kinds of cheap McMansion-taste Cletusses should be put in charge of urban planning in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Can you prove to me that there is a proper method of urban planning? Do your personal preferences trump others? If so, show me the proof. I agree with you that those buildings are bland, as are McMansions, however, are said "Cletusses" wrong for liking something we view as synthetic? Many people also believe that Katy Perry is greater than Led Zeppelin. Are they not allowed to have that point of view?

I don't think our current urban planners are doing a stellar job of building the city.
 
PopsiclePetesCajunHoedown said:
Can you prove to me that there is a proper method of urban planning? Do your personal preferences trump others? If so, show me the proof. I agree with you that those buildings are bland, as are McMansions, however, are said "Cletusses" wrong for liking something we view as synthetic? Many people also believe that Katy Perry is greater than Led Zeppelin. Are they not allowed to have that point of view?

I don't think our current urban planners are doing a stellar job of building the city.
Click to expand...

Extinguishing one's voice is censorship; censorship doesn't allow for freedom of expression. Like I said, one is free to criticize thoughts, but when they try to cut off the voice of their opponent(s) they have shown themselves to be against democracy. Only a totalitarian would try to stop someone from saying something they don't want to hear. Sure, anyone can try to muzzle someone they disagree with, but they can't genuinely do so while calling themselves a liberal or believer in freedom. Do you believe in silencing those that hold opinions that clash with yours?

Under the law one does not have the right to kill another person. Anyone 'can' kill another human being, but the law prohibits them from acting on their own idea of what is fair and moral.

I get the impression that you don't like dissenting points of view.
 
PopsiclePetesCajunHoedown said:
The Magna Carta.
Click to expand...

The Magna Carta has little to do with modern liberty, and it existed largely to protect England's feudal barons by limiting the power of King John. Modern liberty was borne out of the enlightenment.

Also you should read about logical fallacies, because your arguments are full of them. If you want to make strong arguments that aren't ignored then you should make them logically sound. The world doesn't exist in absolutes so telling someone they're either a liberal or totalitarian is illogical.

I'm not bashing you outright, but bring a sound argument and we can discuss it.
 
Ak2809 said:
The Magna Carta has little to do with modern liberty, and it existed largely to protect England's feudal barons by limiting the power of King John. Modern liberty was borne out of the enlightenment.

Also you should read about logical fallacies, because your arguments are full of them. If you want to make strong arguments that aren't ignored then you should make them logically sound. The world doesn't exist in absolutes so telling someone they're either a liberal or totalitarian is illogical.


I'm not bashing you outright, but bring a sound argument and we can discuss it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the original purpose of the Magna Carta, but it was a stepping stone that led to the freedom we have today.

Omitting the term liberal and totalitarian...do you believe that all have the right to express themselves freely, minus threatening gestures? I suppose anyone can choose to be threatening, but the law doesn't condone it and it ought to be upheld. I feel that all opinions should be respected, however, when one utters threats, that courtesy should not be given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top