Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

And 'gutless' Patrick Brown has a multi-million dollar lawsuit against CTV and the reporters. People are expecting the biggest penalty ever in Canadian libel law.


People = Bugs.

Thats it. One person, You. Well done!

Any lawyer will tell you not to go to court for libel, and in fact most are settled prior to . Thats what PB is trying to do. He wants money, not to be free of the allegations.

If he does go thru, he gets opened up to the scorched earth policy whereby everything that CTV may have, true or not, gets out in the open in court

Its called absolute privilige and it means that anything CTV says in court, no matter how vile or amusing is exxempt from further prosecution.

And no, there are no 'people' (apart from PB, you and his family) who are expecting a huge payout.
Why? Because CTV vetted the info and if it turns out the accuser lied, then its on them .
Stay tuned !
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The suit is for defamation ... they're asking for $8 million, plus whatever added penalties that the judges think appropriate. There is a 'restitution' part, and then there's the 'penalty' part.

If CTV can't prove this was responsible journalism -- that is, all possible sources were verified, etc -- they have a problem. If there was malice involved, it notches up. If they can't reveal the name of the complainant, where are they?

My bet is that this goes to court, that the blackmail material won't be juicy, and that Brown will get stiffed in the remedy because ... after all ... Canadian judges being the lapdogs they are.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
The suit is for defamation ... they're asking for $8 million,

Like I said, libel .
May as well be for $80M for all that matters. (and it doesnt)
Quote:
plus whatever added penalties that the judges think appropriate. There is a 'restitution' part, and then there's the 'penalty' part.

IF ...IF...IF...it gets to court, and it likely wont as most dont.
Quote:

If CTV can't prove this was responsible journalism -- that is, all possible sources were verified, etc -- they have a problem.

And CTV is well versed in how to ensure they are not caught up in stuff like this and if they are to be on the right side.
They have teams of dedi cated lawyers and Sr Editors who know how to play that game.
Quote:
If there was malice involved, it notches up. If they can't reveal the name of the complainant, where are they?

They may not have to other than identifying her/him/it as Person A . And then to show transcripts of conversation whereby the person alleging said " such and such re PB" and voila, perhaps off the hook .
We both know this was not in any way manufactured by CTV .
Quote:

My bet is that this goes to court, that the blackmail material won't be juicy, and that Brown will get stiffed in the remedy because ... after all ... Canadian judges being the lapdogs they are.

Fine. How much ?

We already know PB has some ghosts, insofar as he has already been admonsihed for indiscretions re his finances.
One can surely bet CTV will pull out all the stops and lay out anything they find on him. And PB will know thus not go to court and settle with no admission of wrongdoing .

An educated person will know that there are no lapdogs in Justice in Canada. Some of course have a particular vendetta against the justice system for reasons that must include being smacked down by same .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, we will see then ... hope this works out better for you than your Everyone in Trump World knows he's an idiot thread.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Well, we will see then ... hope this works out better for you than your Everyone in Trump World knows he's an idiot thread.


In which case I will be 2-0 !

Everyone knows trump IS an idiot. His staff , his mentors , his lawyers, his Sr executives. Hell, it runs in the family if one looks at idiots #2 and 3, Don Jr and Eric. Dad is idiot #1.

Thankfully, Ivanka got the smarts enough to not say too much, inherited from her mother no doubt.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Except ... he keeps finding new solutions ...

Or perhaps you are too meanspirited to acknowledge that, however it turns out, Trump is trying to find an accommodation with Korea, which involves China as well, and ultimately Japan. More than the smart guys could do ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Except ... he keeps finding new solutions ...

Or perhaps you are too meanspirited to acknowledge that, however it turns out, Trump is trying to find an accommodation with Korea, which involves China as well, and ultimately Japan. More than the smart guys could do ...

You know a blind squirrel finds the odd nut.

No one should hang anything other than this being worked out on his watch, which is good, dont get me wrong, but from little input from Trump .

Now, one can look at say....how many people have quit on him since inaugaration? More than anyone elses Presidency? (yes)
Far more scandal than anyone elses Presidency? Oh yea
More lies than all Presidents put together? Yup
Garbling a message with zero knowledge of that message?Only daily.
Theres more, as you know, but this is not the thread for it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Point by point ... resignations. This is an NY Times talking point as if it proved anything. Did Tillerson resign or was he fired? Ditto with others -- did Corey Lawandowski resign, or was he fired? Bannon the same. People get asked for their resignation, but they could be being fired. Besides, what's wrong with that?

... scandal. Do you actually think that Stormy Daniels is a scandal? That is so small potatoes that it hardly counts. If Daniels were actually sexy, it might be more of an achievement than a scandal.

... Lies? I don't follow his tweets, and so on, but he does go hyperbolic in praising himself ... but are you ever actually misled? You have to be naive to take him literally at such moments, and few do. The more consequential lies are those like " ... you'll be able to keep your doctor ..." or “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America”. Trump isn't really deceiving like Obama did.

Actually, a lot of people think Trump speaks more candidly and openly than most politicians.

... garbling? Maybe you had to be there.

But none of this explains the intensity of your (and others in your ilk) negative feelings. It seems as if nothing he could ever say or do would earn your praise. And that's just close-mindedness.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The story gets more interesting. This is, admittedly, a doubly hot potato for Singh to juggle since the NDP is so deeply embedded in identity politics.

But, in one case, there was actual sex, and in Weir's case .... his bete noire didn't like him. And he has been expelled forever, which looks like a double standard to me.

Quote:
Allegations against NDP MP Christine Moore ‘not relevant’ to Weir case: Singh
By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — May 9 2018

OTTAWA — New Democrat Leader Jagmeet Singh waved off the suggestion Wednesday of any link between the allegations of sexual misconduct against NDP MP Christine Moore and her history of bringing forward similar complaints against other members of Parliament.

Moore was temporarily suspended from her caucus duties pending the results of an investigation after a former soldier and Afghan war veteran accused her this week of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

The allegations surfaced less than a week after fellow MP Erin Weir was kicked out of the NDP caucus based on the results of an investigation that was launched when Moore flagged concerns about his behaviour in January.

But Moore was also at the centre of a high-profile sexual misconduct case in late 2014 and early 2015 that saw two Liberal MPs expelled from their caucus.

The Canadian Press sought and received permission Wednesday to identify Moore as a complainant in that case after media reports identified her as having levelled accusations.

Singh said Wednesday that retired corporal Glen Kirkland's allegations against Moore were "not relevant at all" to the Weir case, or to her role three years ago in the controversy that ultimately ended the political careers of then-Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti.

"An allegation that has now arisen, which we take seriously, in no way should cast any question of credibility about other allegations," Singh said Wednesday in his first public comments since Moore's suspension.

"This notion has happened far too often to women and is not an acceptable line of argument."

The NDP leader specifically defended the investigation by University of Ottawa law professor Michelle Flaherty into the harassment complaints against Weir, which he described as impartial and independent.

Flaherty's final report concluded that there was evidence to support three complaints of sexual harassment and one of harassment; Weir has disputed the latter, and blames the former on his being a "close talker."

A sanguine Pacetti told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that he doesn't believe that the allegations against him, which Moore first raised with then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in October 2014, were handled properly.

But while he questioned some of the public statements that Moore made at the time, the former Montreal MP — who opted not to run for re-election after being booted from Liberal caucus — refused to cast aspersions on her version of events.

"Everybody has a different interpretation and I think that is still what society is dealing with," he said, adding: "I've never mentioned her name and there's no need to go down that road."

On the latest allegations against Moore, Pacetti said: "It's unfortunate, and I'm not going to get any enjoyment out of somebody else's misery."

Kirkland has said many people were aw are of Moore's alleged behaviour towards him, but he believes it was not taken as seriously, because of their respective genders.

Singh said he and his team did not know about the allegations until Kirkland spoke to the media on Tuesday, at which point the NDP leader suspended Moore and began looking for an independent investigator. [....]
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/05/09/allegations-against-ndp-mp-christine-moore-not-relevant-to-weir-case-singh/#.WvOFvIgvzIW


You should know about these 'objective' inquiries, done on the hop by a feminist lawyere, invariably a woman, who specializes in so-called "human rights law", which is where all these double standards and gender-hate are generated. There is no objectivity to it. It's just that the lawyer doesn't know the principals.

Otherwise, how could Weir be guilty, and the rogue feminist not? All he did was 'trigger' the rogue without knowing it, and that's his fault because ... because??? ... because he stands to pee!

See, thinking like an idiot is easy.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
See, thinking like an idiot is easy.

You do that quite easily on issues such as this.

Ill ask,but of course do not expect any response (or one that is focused and relevant) from you but here goes.

What evidence do you have she is a feminist lawyer ?
What else does she specialize in ?
Does she work both sides? (employer/employee)
What principles does she not understand , yet you are well versed on? (so idiotic to say that but hey..you be you)


Its tiresome to have to read your ignorant comments about things that you constantly have no understanding of nor any interest to delve into.
You are the worst of male thinking , always someone of colour/woman/feminist fault. I sincerely believe if you have daughters and were this way around them that they would disown you for being a dumb fucking troglodyte. ( but then again....apple tree scenario)

You happily show this each and every day. Congrats.

When i watch the video of that stupid woman in Alberta from a day ago....she reminds me of you.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll lalk to you for a moment seriously, though I fear it's love's labour lost.

This is a case where a woman is blithely going about free-fucking, and when the opportunity arises, makes a 'rape' claim, seriously altering the course of (now) three men's lives -- and their families, if you just stop to imagine what it's like when your wife finds out that you've got a doxy on CTV's morning show?

She provides a condom and says she didn't consent?

I don't think this has anything to do with a sex crime. Sorry. Honestly, do you?

Why would she do something like that? Repeatedly? She even lodged one complaint as an uninvolved third party. What makes a woman like that tick? It isn't as if she was courted, with promises to be transported out of her bran-muffin world into a NBA-star level of luxury. She a typical modern young woman. She comes with her own condom. She probably followed him in her car to his hotel room. Who's kidding who? She's not there under compulsion. She's free-fucking when the whim strikes her, and if she sees a way of exploiting it later, she'll take it without a care.

Why does she do it? Because she is trying to inspire other young women to do the same!. She is being a feminist role-model!

Don't you agree?

This incident shows what Canada is weaponizing when it 'goes out seeking convictions without concerning itself about guilt. Why do we think we're doing something good when we back up this woman's delusions with the power of the state? -- because if she would have gone to the police, what would they have done? Interesting question.

But if he were charged, he would have no defence. That's the point.

The legal point I have is the Liberal MPs had no real chance to defend themselves. They are in a reverse onus situation. Worse, the definitions are unworkably vague. If something is a crime, the public ought to know where the line is, what behaviour is criminal, and what behaviour isn't. (It's the same with these 'behaviour codes'.)

But you can't do that under Canadian law because the woman defines the crime on an ad hoc basis on purely subjective grounds. In effect, it gives every woman the power to have a man arrested and charged with no questions asked.

What has this to do with making the streets safer for women? Or breaking the glass ceiling, if you want? Nothing! I think you have to agree.

It's legally sanctioned occupational terrorism, admit it. This is a serious point. I have blown raspberries at these attacks on men from the second I knew about them, because I 'know it is far more common that people accept, and getting more prevalent all the time. I knew, on the balance of probabilities and the shocking way Trudeau mishandled it, that this not anything a normal person would call a sexual assault.

I would love to see you go beyond mocking my conclusions as -- what -- in bad taste? Too far outside the box? Deal with the consistent points I raise, and which you have so stoutly tried to deny. We have a case, with a lot of facts out in the open. Explain to me why she shouldn't be treated just like a man who did these same things.

In the meantime ...

It won't stop until it is stopped.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I'll lalk to you for a moment seriously, though I fear it's love's labour lost.

And now we talk. Thank you.
Quote:

This is a case where a woman is blithely going about free-fucking, and when the opportunity arises, makes a 'rape' claim, seriously altering the course of (now) three men's lives -- and their families, if you just stop to imagine what it's like when your wife finds out that you've got a doxy on CTV's morning show?

I had to double check this, but there was no rape claim other than Kirkland saying "I’m not claiming rape or anything,” Kirkland said."

Ok so Ill move off that.

But yes, it would appear she is free fucking around. She , at first blush on all this, seems to relish in destroying some mens lives for who knows what. Perhaps she was jilted in the past? Really doesnt matter anyway. She seems hell bent on making a name for herself.
Incredibly stupid way to go about it.
Quote:

She provides a condom and says she didn't consent?

I don't think this has anything to do with a sex crime. Sorry. Honestly, do you?

No , I agree it does not appear as a sex crime.

Caveat please....condom? Consent? Are we on the same page and talking about MP Moore NDP? If so, I dont see the consent/condom in my sources. (Star-DiManno, Nat'lPost-Blatchford)

But note, Mr Kirkland is a bit of his own worst enemy. Yes, he was wise to engage w Moore for the help she could provide as a member of the committee. He gets a pass on the first night of drunk sex .
But he also allowed/put up this woman for three nights at his house.

And then..... we enter the he said she said territory. We do not know what went on in there, ya know apart from the obvious.
Quote:

Why would she do something like that? Repeatedly?

Jilted, vendetta,cat lady level of F**ked up? I do not know.
Quote:
She even lodged one complaint as an uninvolved third party. What makes a woman like that tick? It isn't as if she was courted, with promises to be transported out of her bran-muffin world into a NBA-star level of luxury.

In cases like this, the agressor (Moore it would seem) thinks they are infallible and no one will see through the web of lies and deceipt. Thankfully, she stepped on her own pettycoat and is likley exposed going forward.
Thats the good news. No one going forward is willing to take her at face value. And she is done, finished kaput....once her mandate runs out.

Good riddance.
Quote:

She a typical modern young woman. She comes with her own condom. She probably followed him in her car to his hotel room. Who's kidding who? She's not there under compulsion. She's free-fucking when the whim strikes her, and if she sees a way of exploiting it later, she'll take it without a care.


See, this is where we part on the road.

I am not trying to troll you on this, but am serious here. I recall , perhaps incorrectly , that you have daughters.

If that is the case, then you cast the same aspersion on them as you do Moore. I am willing to bet your offspring arent this way, yet they are modern young woman.

In the first part, have a condom, good for her/them.
In the second part, if her/them are enjoying sex freely, good for them.

In the last part, exploitation of the act, then her/them should be heavily admonished and if crossing the line of criminality her/them should face the consequences.
Quote:

Why does she do it? Because she is trying to inspire other young women to do the same!. She is being a feminist role-model!

Don't you agree?

No, not at all.

She appears as a truly horrible, vindictive woman hell bent on destroying something (men generally) for who knows why? Jilted lover in her past or whatever. Its no excuse but perhaps it is her own reasoning.

She is no more inspiring to any rational woman since the same rationality in other women is to NOT do any of this. If it were, we would all be knee deep in trouble, and we arent.
I know I could show this to all the young woman I know, late teens and up to early 30's and I have no doubts that the response would be vulgar and direct at Moore. They would rip her a new one in 10 seconds flat. From her appearance to her mannerisms to her vindictive ways towards men. It would not be PC in any way shape or form.

And this is in the age of #metoo . It is, in my limited exposure to these fine women, starting to appear that the #metoo issue is welcome but I am told by these same women that it should not, and better not, catch up those who are actually innocent or criminality.
In other words, they are saying to me that its good to expose but efforrts are needed to ensure innocent oversteps are not included.
Quote:

This incident shows what Canada is weaponizing when it 'goes out seeking convictions without concerning itself about guilt. Why do we think we're doing something good when we back up this woman's delusions with the power of the state? -- because if she would have gone to the police, what would they have done? Interesting question.

I dont, and cant find prrof, that this is happening. Theres a gray area here on this one with Moore. Ones past doesnt necessarily carry over guilt to the next charge.

BUT...it appears to me Jagmeet is caught in a conundrum. Thus the "well we dont know if the past is in play on this charge" He cannot be seen tossing the baby with the bathwater, even if it is the right call. To be able to prove the right call will take time.
Then he can toos that bathwater and baby off the highest roof he can find. Parliament Hill Centre Block is fine should it come to that.


Quote:

The legal point I have is the Liberal MPs had no real chance to defend themselves. They are in a reverse onus situation. Worse, the definitions are unworkably vague. If something is a crime, the public ought to know where the line is, what behaviour is criminal, and what behaviour isn't. (It's the same with these 'behaviour codes'.)

First off, booting an MP is done all the time for reasons we do not know. So, yes, they may not be able to defend themselves but this is not a court of law. Its what is essentially a private company. The Libs want them out on reasons that we do not know enough about. But he has that power.
Quote:

But you can't do that under Canadian law because the woman defines the crime on an ad hoc basis on purely subjective grounds. In effect, it gives every woman the power to have a man arrested and charged with no questions asked.

Grossly untrue.

Quote:

It's legally sanctioned occupational terrorism, admit it. This is a serious point. I have blown raspberries at these attacks on men from the second I knew about them, because I 'know it is far more common that people accept, and getting more prevalent all the time. I knew, on the balance of probabilities and the shocking way Trudeau mishandled it, that this not anything a normal person would call a sexual assault.

It isnt sexual assault because if it were, charges would have been laid.
Quote:

I would love to see you go beyond mocking my conclusions as -- what -- in bad taste? Too far outside the box? Deal with the consistent points I raise, and which you have so stoutly tried to deny. We have a case, with a lot of facts out in the open. Explain to me why she shouldn't be treated just like a man who did these same things.

The problem from my end is the constant llanket assumptions ascribed to all women, all Muslims, all Blacks , all left handed short legged bald on one side of the head people.

The Law, you have great disdain for it all, yet if you looked into it as closely as I have it would appear to do an amazing job. Issues.... galore but it does work and works well.

Quote:
In the meantime ...

It won't stop until it is stopped.

And I am serious when I say....define "its" .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5994
Reputation: 289.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am trying to make myself graphically clear in one of these 'back-at-cha' things you do.

I am expecting to you actually respond, not pass my comments off with a wisecrack. This could be a good discussion. You seem firm in your convictions, and I know you are wrong. I don't mind your elbows being out, as long as you take this discussion seriously.

I am not talking about the particulars of Christine Moore's antics. Kingman isn't asking for anything but to be free of this tarbaby What I see is a guy who sees this hypocrisy and wants to call it out for what it is. But his description of her behaviour is instructive.

She is not unique. In Toronto, the recent mayoral candidate charged that Steve Paikin, the Mr Clean of Ontario, had asked her for a taste before putting her on air. (I can't judge, being or a narrow-gauge sexually ... or was ... just a standard Kama Sutra guy, so I don't respond to her reptilian appeal. In fact, she's repulsive as a human being, so it's easy to believe that Paikin was an unlikely target.

I admit my bias. But whether I side with Paikin or not, the fact remains that this kind of feminist role model are scattered out there, and getting denser and denser on the land.

This is what seems to me to be the truth. Back in the 1950ies and 'before, families were the main focus of social policy, as much as there was. I mean everything from taxes, military service, job access, etc depended to some degree on marital status. Dads got breaks. There were other things too. Outside the family, the sexes were sexes were segregated occupationally and socially. There were 'events' at which the sexes met to have fun. Supervised fun. By the Church. (Though it might have been a church with a basketball court in the basement.)

People were pretty much corraled into courtship relationships as if practising for the moment when the Princess descends from the coach and the young man just knows ... he loves her, she's the one meant for him, the one he must have. And when he got her, he had a load of responsibility loaded onto his plate.

No welfare state in those days. No divorce, just about.

And the further back, in the 19th century you go, the more it's like that. Having sex almost required one having a family, which was a load of responsibility. So "love" and "responsibility" became welded into male socialization from the time you were in Grade three.

So how does 'courtship' happen, even when individuals can pick their own partners and have no marriage is in mind?

First, women signal that they are approachable through non-verbal means ... and the male responds at the verbal level. Courtship involves the male comforting the woman, exciting her enough to invite another level of intimacy. But she knows she is looking for a producer, someone who can give her the life she wants.

The whole thing is men proving themselves to their intended. She is treated as the prize, and she loves being treated that way.

There is a kind of meta-conversation that takes place where the women use gestures, as well as words, and the men stumble around with words. It isn't "appropriate" to go to gestures for the male. She must touch him, for example, before he should touch her. The first touch is often a signal and taken as such. He is reading the verdict from the gestures. He is supposed to take initiative at the verbal level -- by which I mean he is always asking her, inviting her, paying for her, making her laugh ... you know the drill.

There are a lot of "Victorian" notions about womanhood and sex that are still around. We are still pretending that 'chastity' is a real thing, for instance, when it comes to these sex laws. The assumption throughout is that she has something valuable that should be protected. That was true when fertility was socially dlesireable.

But now, sex is a recreational activitiy more than anything else. What is being 'protected' and why don't men get the same protection? It becomes a valid question as gender supposedly disappears.

This is the situation I am talking about. All our cultural maps, as far as men are concerned, are outdated and are filled with social and legal land-mines. Nobody knows when the application of the law changes -- you know what they do. They look 'for an example, and you take them down with it. Rape disappears as a charge ... we think it's a mere terminological change, but it isn't. It 'greatly broadens the scope of sexual offences without the law changing. And thirty years later, we have judicial proceedings in which men are limited in their ability to cross-examine the evidence ... and there need be no collaborating evidence whatever ...

There is a kind of fetish out n the land, the old Victorian attitude that it doesn't do to speak of women without taking your hat off. Why hasn't that disappeared amidst all these assertions that women can do everything a man can do, blah, blah, blah .., if only men would get out of the way.

I refuse to let this ideology get in the way. I know, from experience, that women are on a whole different track when it comes to social situations, that they control the private social space almost entirely, and that they can be as nasty and vile -- moreso -- than men.

The other thing about women is they follow the crowd. They would call it fashion, but it doesn't just affect hairstyles and hem lengths. Trust me, when the girls of New York see Stormy squeezing Donald for more, will they be inspired or detered?

So giving women this superpower, the power to make any man's life hell at the snap of their fingers is like setting out an "Ice-nine" of injustice and pain upon the world. There is no satisfying this urge for the feminine need to have more, to feather the nest just in case.

I don't these trends producing more happiness for women, by the way.

That's my big view. Where am I wrong?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1211
Reputation: 120.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without a shred of hyperbole or mocking, I cannot discern what you are talking about in your post bugs.

I truly cannot decipher it.

My post proceeding had no wisecracks intended nor applied.

So, if I may, if you could edit that post I would be happy to respond.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8100
Reputation: 323.7Reputation: 323.7
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

And no, there are no 'people' (apart from PB, you and his family) who are expecting a huge payout.
Why? Because CTV vetted the info and if it turns out the accuser lied, then its on them .
Stay tuned !


Want to Apologize for hopping in the middle here!

Nothing to add to the greater conversation but I did want to add myself to PB, Bugs, and His family to the list of people who are expecting a huge payout for Brown from CTV.

While we don't have all the information just a mismash of what was reported from various sources.

If there was (and the if is key here) in fact someone interviewed for the story (Prior to release) who stated that the accuser was not present, or the event did not occur, or that the story is altered, or the various versions of rumor and conjecture of who was interviewed and what they said by CTV and what was left out:

http://torontosun.com/news/pro.....n-accusers

CTV is going to pony up yuuge

While you correct in stating that if they vetted the story and the accuser just lied they can make the argument that they made every reasonable attempt to validate the information.

However, if they excluded interviews and information that conflicted with the narrative they opt for Or even if there is is a hint of concern that maybe they had some reservations at their internal pitch meeting they disregarded, its simply a matter of how much and when.

I agree that I can't see a situation where this see light in a courtroom;
However I think its for very different reasons.

If Brown and CTV settle that is a reflection on CTV more so than Brown (IMO)
To use the same benchmark we used for Brown, if you are not guilty what are you running away from?

BUT it all depends on that "If"
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


It's just the start: more tales of the sexual pogrom

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB