Rob Ford, Bev Oda and Peter 1

So, surprise, surprise. Sometimes there are consequences for your actions when you're a "conservative." It seems though, that you have to be bone-stupid and meth-addict reckless before you get nailed. Rob Ford solicited for donations to his charity from lobbyists using his City of Toronto Councillor card ("city letterhead"), which, to anyone with half a brain, is a big step on the slippery slope to using your position to obtain personal benefit. Ford was asked by the city's Integrity Commissioner, several times, to return the money and stop doing that. He ignored her. She asked City Council to order him to pay the money back. Then, when he became mayor, there was a vote to overturn the Council order. He voted for letting himself off the hook. A clear conflict of interest. Clear as mud. That's what cost him his job. How obvious does it have to be? Politicians don't vote on matters where they have a personal (especially financial) interest. Bank officers don't approve their own loans. Physicians don't prescribe themselves drugs.

No surprise Ford is too stupid to grasp how difficult giving him a pass on this would make it for legislating against other conflict of interest cases. No surprise Ford is too stupid to see how this is a crisis all of his own making. And no surprise that his deluded fanatics are too stupid to grasp this as well. Ford's enemies are bullies. We don't like him because he's "chubby."

Every day it seems as if our right-wing enemies are intent upon de-legitimizing themselves. There are no crimes they wouldn't defend. There are no consequences for their dim-witted heroes.

In a similar vein, a plurality of the good voters in Durham Region have shown that they simply don't give a shit for election fraud, contempt of Parliament, secret government, official corruption and lies. When their team falls from power, expect them to SQUEAL! SQUEAL! SQUEALLLLL!!! when they get their comeuppance. Oh! It's going to be glorious!

Finally, in a bit of personal pique, I just want to point out that Dr. Dawg's BFF, Peter1 is also continuing to disgrace himself.  In response to Alison's post about the harpercons' election fraud he says:

If you are still trying to argue that this somehow does or should affect the legal legitimacy of the election outcome, you are making an argument similar to the one Rob Ford is making or at least letting others make on his behalf, which is to try and make a legal question a matter of partisan politics. It's either: A) votes were changed or supressed in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome or B) they weren't. If it's A, then there might be a basis for some kind of judicial review of the outcome. It it's B, it's either a political issue for the next election or the subject of charges against specific operatives. As there is absolutely no evidence of A, no court is going to set anything aside.
an illegal move ignored by the ref because in his opinion it didn't change the outcome of the play
Do you think sports leagues overturn games because of missed calls when there are no grounds for believing it made a difference to the outcome?

I'm not even going to bother responding to that bit of intellectual garbage. I'll just let it sit there in its sleaze.

I genuinely admire a whole LOT of the way Dawg thinks and writes. That's why i continue to visit his blog on a daily basis despite having elected not to comment there. I admire Dawg except for his brain-dead (and ultimately hypocritical) calls for "civility." I treat scum the way they deserve to be treated. And I will make no apologies for it.