Edit: Mayor Rob Ford admits to smoking crack

DarthMaeglin

polaris_x said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

on the contrary, I saw loads and loads of coverage of exactly why, even amidst all of his nonsense, people still had his back. no doubt he was a man of the people. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I think some even gravitated towards him even more after all this came out. he became a human being with flaws, and people identify with that.

it's funny you say his behaviour didn't affect the city at all, yet seem to give him credit for all of the growth that toronto enjoyed during his tenure. that doesn't happen overnight with one guy as mayor. people don't just up and leave their homes and move their business because of the mayor of a city. toronto is a big player on the global scale. It can be argued that growth would have happened with or without him.

I didn't give him credit for all the growth...in fact I specifically said it wasn't his doing...I just said that he managed the city well during the period of growth despite all his buffoonery. Conservatives like me believe it is the citizenry that creates growth where as politicians can either unwittingly restrict it, through the consequences of good intentions, or promote it by getting the government out of the way. Ford believed in getting government out of the way.

again ... he basically was taken off the job a year into his term ... he DID NOT manage the city well ... if anything, we should thank council and norm kelly from preventing him from doing anything that could have messed things up ...

Sorry to nitpick, but he was "taken off the job" with basically a year left in his term, roughly 3 years into his term. Also, please see my above reference to Drake's hype man Norm Kelly, he was far from an ideal replacement, abandoning the city at a time when many, many residents were experiencing a crisis.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'm by no means suggesting the man be deified. However, every statement made about his crack-smoking, gangbanging, murderous (that one's a load of horseshit, sorry) ways should be immediately followed by something to the effect of "by all reports he reformed those behaviours," which isn't happening.

Yes, the man was a buffoon of sorts, and his personal behaviours (which weren't known at election time) became increasingly embarrassing and indefensible as time went on. That said, his policies remained unchanged, many of which were successfully implemented (and some of which the current mayor and council are turning into jokes, such as the Scarborough subway).

Policy-wise, he remains admirable to many. As far as his personal life, I would say that while there is much past cause for embarrassment, he did make some positive changes to his life and lifestyle.

And just a reminder, that the man chosen to "replace" Ford as mayor flew off to Florida for a couple days while tens (if not hundreds) of thousands were without power in the city (ours was out for a full week). So, from my perspective, one fool was replaced with another.

One more suggestion I'd like to make is to wonder whether we would talk about our own family members who have gone through similar struggles in the same way, regardless of what job they might hold/have held? While I'm the first to agree that public figures are open to heightened scrutiny, at the end of the day they're just humans, being. Or human beings, lol.

The only reason he reformed those behaviours is because he got cancer though. He was obviously a man of low moral character (and I'm not saying that because he was an addict). He didn't reform from that. He just got too sick to run rampant with it.

Again, I'm sorry to nitpick, but while he likely had the cancer during his rehab, it wasn't diagnosed until well after he'd completed the program, while he was running for a second term as mayor. I remain convinced that had he relapsed on the crack-smoking, certainly we residents of Toronto would have known, likely the world via Jimmy Kimmel.

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I'm by no means suggesting the man be deified. However, every statement made about his crack-smoking, gangbanging, murderous (that one's a load of horseshit, sorry) ways should be immediately followed by something to the effect of "by all reports he reformed those behaviours," which isn't happening.

Yes, the man was a buffoon of sorts, and his personal behaviours (which weren't known at election time) became increasingly embarrassing and indefensible as time went on. That said, his policies remained unchanged, many of which were successfully implemented (and some of which the current mayor and council are turning into jokes, such as the Scarborough subway).

Policy-wise, he remains admirable to many. As far as his personal life, I would say that while there is much past cause for embarrassment, he did make some positive changes to his life and lifestyle.

And just a reminder, that the man chosen to "replace" Ford as mayor flew off to Florida for a couple days while tens (if not hundreds) of thousands were without power in the city (ours was out for a full week). So, from my perspective, one fool was replaced with another.

One more suggestion I'd like to make is to wonder whether we would talk about our own family members who have gone through similar struggles in the same way, regardless of what job they might hold/have held? While I'm the first to agree that public figures are open to heightened scrutiny, at the end of the day they're just humans, being. Or human beings, lol.

The only reason he reformed those behaviours is because he got cancer though. He was obviously a man of low moral character (and I'm not saying that because he was an addict). He didn't reform from that. He just got too sick to run rampant with it.

Again, I'm sorry to nitpick, but while he likely had the cancer during his rehab, it wasn't diagnosed until well after he'd completed the program, while he was running for a second term as mayor. I remain convinced that had he relapsed on the crack-smoking, certainly we residents of Toronto would have known, likely the world via Jimmy Kimmel.

I meant that was the only reason he didn't act like an idiot after rehab (plus he was feeling very bad - he was having serious stomach problems before diagnosis, which I'm sure can put a dent in partying and hanging out with dealers). Yes, that means I'm saying I had absolutely ZERO faith that he would have suddenly remained on the straight and narrow had he not become ill. I mean, only about 11 - 17% of all people who go to rehab stay straight, and Ford gave no one any reason at all to think that he would have been in that group. He obviously had absolutely no self-control. The guy couldn't even keep out of the fried chicken joint for longer than 3 days during a very public weight loss challenge for crying out loud. Nor should I or anyone else be expected to assume the best when it comes to him, since he never gave us any reason whatsoever to have any faith in his ability to act like a responsible person or mayor.

DarthMaeglin

^^I get what you're saying, however while I'm not saying we should assume the best in him, neither should we assume the worst.

Yes, he was an addict, an illness that yields low recovery rates, and is extremely difficult to overcome (I can attest to that, given my current attempt(s) to quit cigarettes). However, an open hand is far more helpful to the addict than a closed fist (though I do acknowledge sometimes drastic measures are necessary. Thankfully cigarettes are as far as my addictions go, so I can't truly speak to the more extreme cases of drug addiction).

Personally I found the fried chicken incident pathetic, and one of the first instances of the very public humiliation of Rob Ford. If you watch the video, the woman filming it is sitting in her car with her 3 year-old child (after visiting the fried chicken joint herself, speaks volumes about her own parenting), while cackling at the mayor. Again, her behaviour speaks volumes about her parenting, what nice behaviour to expose their young child to (by the way, I feel that if one is going to do something like she did, she has opened herself up to criticism).

Yes, Ford had impulse issues, but absent of proof, we both have to accept that both our points of view (whether or not rehab was successful in Ford's case) are equally valid.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

^^I get what you're saying, however while I'm not saying we should assume the best in him, neither should we assume the worst.

Yes, he was an addict, an illness that yields low recovery rates, and is extremely difficult to overcome (I can attest to that, given my current attempt(s) to quit cigarettes). However, an open hand is far more helpful to the addict than a closed fist (though I do acknowledge sometimes drastic measures are necessary. Thankfully cigarettes are as far as my addictions go, so I can't truly speak to the more extreme cases of drug addiction).

Personally I found the fried chicken incident pathetic, and one of the first instances of the very public humiliation of Rob Ford. If you watch the video, the woman filming it is sitting in her car with her 3 year-old child (after visiting the fried chicken joint herself, speaks volumes about her own parenting), while cackling at the mayor. Again, her behaviour speaks volumes about her parenting, what nice behaviour to expose their young child to (by the way, I feel that if one is going to do something like she did, she has opened herself up to criticism).

Yes, Ford had impulse issues, but absent of proof, we both have to accept that both our points of view (whether or not rehab was successful in Ford's case) are equally valid.

PJ soul is just going with the stats, as far as I'm concerned. not a bias against RF.

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

^^I get what you're saying, however while I'm not saying we should assume the best in him, neither should we assume the worst.

Yes, he was an addict, an illness that yields low recovery rates, and is extremely difficult to overcome (I can attest to that, given my current attempt(s) to quit cigarettes). However, an open hand is far more helpful to the addict than a closed fist (though I do acknowledge sometimes drastic measures are necessary. Thankfully cigarettes are as far as my addictions go, so I can't truly speak to the more extreme cases of drug addiction).

Personally I found the fried chicken incident pathetic, and one of the first instances of the very public humiliation of Rob Ford. If you watch the video, the woman filming it is sitting in her car with her 3 year-old child (after visiting the fried chicken joint herself, speaks volumes about her own parenting), while cackling at the mayor. Again, her behaviour speaks volumes about her parenting, what nice behaviour to expose their young child to (by the way, I feel that if one is going to do something like she did, she has opened herself up to criticism).

Yes, Ford had impulse issues, but absent of proof, we both have to accept that both our points of view (whether or not rehab was successful in Ford's case) are equally valid.

PJ soul is just going with the stats, as far as I'm concerned. not a bias against RF.

I realize that the success rate in treating addiction is relatively low, but it would be nice to also acknowledge the legitimate struggles ALL addicts go through in trying to control their compulsions. By no means do I mean for anyone to take anything personally, sorry if I came across that way.

At this point in the discussion, I'm genuinely curious about the Ford-bashers' take on another former mayor, Mel Lastman. He of the racist comments, threats to kill a reporter (on council floor no less) and philandering. Was his "erratic" behaviour less bad, because he didn't own up to his actions until well after he was out of office, and claimed it was because of medications he was on? Personally I see them both as equally bad, but I'm wondering what others think of Lastman in relation to Ford.

HughFreakingDillon

ford bashing? ford truth telling.

I don't know anything about Lastman except what you typed here.

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

ford bashing? ford truth telling.

I don't know anything about Lastman except what you typed here.

When people are asserting things such as Ford's rehab being unsuccessful with zero proof to back up their claim, I call that bashing, sorry. If there were any facts being cited, I could then agree with it being truth-telling.

As a resident, Lastman was as embarassing as Ford, except we didn't know at the time why he was doing what he was doing or saying what he was saying. I guess threatening to kill a reporter (who had exposed Lastman's wife's kleptomania) wasn't salacious enough for national, much less international press coverage. Locally, Lastman did receive some unfair press, such as when he was caught shaking hands with a member of the Hell's Angels (who were having a convention/gathering in town, Lastman was just doing a politician's job of shaking the hand of someone who approached him), and it was portrayed as if Lastman should have known who's hand he was shaking. I might suggest googling him, hopefully it's at least worth a chuckle, and might help explain how a man like Ford got elected to the same office.

I do live in the town where in the 90s a local band was banned from playing a city function because of their name, The Barenaked Ladies.

PJ_Soul

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.
But anyway, it is not just his addiction problems that were the issue. Not even remotely close. I actually said earlier in the thread that that was the least of his problems as far as what kind of person he came off as. He did a LOT of really creepy and slimeball shit in his life. He never once showed himself to be a good, stand up kind of guy. He did many, many things to prove the opposite. His fraternizing with drug dealers, his connections to other illegal activity, were just a few of those thing (btw, just because someone has an addiction it doesn't mean that it's reasonable to befriend the dealers, use them as lackies, etc etc. Ford went a LOT further than just getting on to crack. But FWIW, I absolutely DO judge people who make the decision to do a drug like crack in the first place. There is a kind of drug tier, and crack is way down at the bottom. Most people would never consider trying it, especially not those in his position. That he even had a "first time" with crack was pretty ominous in terms of his character.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.

Yet, by all known accounts, his rehab was successful. Applying statistics to an individual case starts us on a very slippery slope, I feel, though I do get the point you're trying to make.

Again, being from Vancouver you may not realize the toxic media environment of those days that we were forced to endure locally, with the media camped out on his front lawn, reporters skulking around their property. I remain convinced (as you seem equally unconvinced) that had Ford relapsed, we would have known, but it seems he stayed clean for the last year of his life, even prior to the cancer diagnosis. Don't forget, it was through people that purported to be his friends that much of this was discovered, thanks to the hidden camera videos. I just can't see it NOT coming out had he relapsed.

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.

Yet, by all known accounts, his rehab was successful. Applying statistics to an individual case starts us on a very slippery slope, I feel, though I do get the point you're trying to make.

Again, being from Vancouver you may not realize the toxic media environment of those days that we were forced to endure locally, with the media camped out on his front lawn, reporters skulking around their property. I remain convinced (as you seem equally unconvinced) that had Ford relapsed, we would have known, but it seems he stayed clean for the last year of his life, even prior to the cancer diagnosis. Don't forget, it was through people that purported to be his friends that much of this was discovered, thanks to the hidden camera videos. I just can't see it NOT coming out had he relapsed.

Vancouver and BC politics are absolutely vicious, and has had its fair share of scandal. We are seasoned warriors when it comes to a toxic political environment, which leads to what the media reports. We have simply not have a Rob Ford. Who has??? I honestly do not feel that any of what TO experienced was the fault of anyone other than Ford though. Yes, he caused a media storm, but that was his doing. Blaming it on the media just excuses his own bad behaviour.
Again, I didn't say he relapsed. He didn't have a chance to because he got cancer and died. If you consider getting cancer and dying to be a good way to avoid addiction relapse, well, okay then. But maybe you didn't read my post about his addiction not even being the real problem? There was a lot more wrong with that guy than a crack addiction.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.

Yet, by all known accounts, his rehab was successful. Applying statistics to an individual case starts us on a very slippery slope, I feel, though I do get the point you're trying to make.

Again, being from Vancouver you may not realize the toxic media environment of those days that we were forced to endure locally, with the media camped out on his front lawn, reporters skulking around their property. I remain convinced (as you seem equally unconvinced) that had Ford relapsed, we would have known, but it seems he stayed clean for the last year of his life, even prior to the cancer diagnosis. Don't forget, it was through people that purported to be his friends that much of this was discovered, thanks to the hidden camera videos. I just can't see it NOT coming out had he relapsed.

Vancouver and BC politics are absolutely vicious, and has had its fair share of scandal. We are seasoned warriors when it comes to a toxic political environment, which leads to what the media reports. We have simply not have a Rob Ford. Who has??? I honestly do not feel that any of what TO experienced was the fault of anyone other than Ford though. Yes, he caused a media storm, but that was his doing. Blaming it on the media just excuses his own bad behaviour.
Again, I didn't say he relapsed. He didn't have a chance to because he got cancer and died. If you consider getting cancer and dying to be a good way to avoid addiction relapse, well, okay then. But maybe you didn't read my post about his addiction not even being the real problem? There was a lot more wrong with that guy than a crack addiction.

In the very first days of his mayoralty (in fact during the campaign), certain media outlets (most notably the Toronto Star) made it clear there would be no positive press for Ford, regardless of what he did or didn't do. While he was responsible for his own behaviour, the stage was certainly set for him by some of the media. When he spoke up in defence of his marriage, that was sidelined (in fact, ignored) because of the language he used.

At the height of the "crisis," I had to laugh when the throngs of media tried to blame Ford for them stumbling all over themselves as he moved about city hall.

Now, I clearly have a different take on addiction recovery than you. In my mind, knowing a little something of addiction, 1 day not feeding the addiction is an accomplishment, and when one dies has little or no bearing on their success or failure in combating their issues. Personally I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, despite what statistics might say (and believe me, this point of view has bitten me in the ass numerous times, but I will do my best to hold on to this belief moving forward).

He did also have traits that others use to malign him, however we need to acknowledge that this is largely a case of one person's trash being another's gold, I think, and I'd suggest again the names Sanders and Trump (or even our new PM Trudeau).

Edited for sloppy punctuation, lol.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ford bashing? ford truth telling.

I don't know anything about Lastman except what you typed here.

When people are asserting things such as Ford's rehab being unsuccessful with zero proof to back up their claim, I call that bashing, sorry. If there were any facts being cited, I could then agree with it being truth-telling.

As a resident, Lastman was as embarassing as Ford, except we didn't know at the time why he was doing what he was doing or saying what he was saying. I guess threatening to kill a reporter (who had exposed Lastman's wife's kleptomania) wasn't salacious enough for national, much less international press coverage. Locally, Lastman did receive some unfair press, such as when he was caught shaking hands with a member of the Hell's Angels (who were having a convention/gathering in town, Lastman was just doing a politician's job of shaking the hand of someone who approached him), and it was portrayed as if Lastman should have known who's hand he was shaking. I might suggest googling him, hopefully it's at least worth a chuckle, and might help explain how a man like Ford got elected to the same office.

I do live in the town where in the 90s a local band was banned from playing a city function because of their name, The Barenaked Ladies.

well if you were only talking to one person, then say so.

BS44325

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

^^I get what you're saying, however while I'm not saying we should assume the best in him, neither should we assume the worst.

Yes, he was an addict, an illness that yields low recovery rates, and is extremely difficult to overcome (I can attest to that, given my current attempt(s) to quit cigarettes). However, an open hand is far more helpful to the addict than a closed fist (though I do acknowledge sometimes drastic measures are necessary. Thankfully cigarettes are as far as my addictions go, so I can't truly speak to the more extreme cases of drug addiction).

Personally I found the fried chicken incident pathetic, and one of the first instances of the very public humiliation of Rob Ford. If you watch the video, the woman filming it is sitting in her car with her 3 year-old child (after visiting the fried chicken joint herself, speaks volumes about her own parenting), while cackling at the mayor. Again, her behaviour speaks volumes about her parenting, what nice behaviour to expose their young child to (by the way, I feel that if one is going to do something like she did, she has opened herself up to criticism).

Yes, Ford had impulse issues, but absent of proof, we both have to accept that both our points of view (whether or not rehab was successful in Ford's case) are equally valid.

PJ soul is just going with the stats, as far as I'm concerned. not a bias against RF.

I realize that the success rate in treating addiction is relatively low, but it would be nice to also acknowledge the legitimate struggles ALL addicts go through in trying to control their compulsions. By no means do I mean for anyone to take anything personally, sorry if I came across that way.

At this point in the discussion, I'm genuinely curious about the Ford-bashers' take on another former mayor, Mel Lastman. He of the racist comments, threats to kill a reporter (on council floor no less) and philandering. Was his "erratic" behaviour less bad, because he didn't own up to his actions until well after he was out of office, and claimed it was because of medications he was on? Personally I see them both as equally bad, but I'm wondering what others think of Lastman in relation to Ford.

No one on here will know about Lastman because he didn't govern during the internet age...It is amazing what people could get away with prior to the phenomena of twitter/youtube shaming. Your analysis of Lastman's behaviour though is pretty correct but remember he was also relatively beloved by the people of North York and governed it pretty successfully. I know that my parents were pretty big supporters of his irrespective of his "buffoonery".

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.

Yet, by all known accounts, his rehab was successful. Applying statistics to an individual case starts us on a very slippery slope, I feel, though I do get the point you're trying to make.

Again, being from Vancouver you may not realize the toxic media environment of those days that we were forced to endure locally, with the media camped out on his front lawn, reporters skulking around their property. I remain convinced (as you seem equally unconvinced) that had Ford relapsed, we would have known, but it seems he stayed clean for the last year of his life, even prior to the cancer diagnosis. Don't forget, it was through people that purported to be his friends that much of this was discovered, thanks to the hidden camera videos. I just can't see it NOT coming out had he relapsed.

Vancouver and BC politics are absolutely vicious, and has had its fair share of scandal. We are seasoned warriors when it comes to a toxic political environment, which leads to what the media reports. We have simply not have a Rob Ford. Who has??? I honestly do not feel that any of what TO experienced was the fault of anyone other than Ford though. Yes, he caused a media storm, but that was his doing. Blaming it on the media just excuses his own bad behaviour.
Again, I didn't say he relapsed. He didn't have a chance to because he got cancer and died. If you consider getting cancer and dying to be a good way to avoid addiction relapse, well, okay then. But maybe you didn't read my post about his addiction not even being the real problem? There was a lot more wrong with that guy than a crack addiction.

In the very first days of his mayoralty (in fact during the campaign), certain media outlets (most notably the Toronto Star) made it clear there would be no positive press for Ford, regardless of what he did or didn't do. While he was responsible for his own behaviour, the stage was certainly set for him by some of the media. When he spoke up in defence of his marriage, that was sidelined (in fact, ignored) because of the language he used.

At the height of the "crisis," I had to laugh when the throngs of media tried to blame Ford for them stumbling all over themselves as he moved about city hall.

Now, I clearly have a different take on addiction recovery than you. In my mind, knowing a little something of addiction, 1 day not feeding the addiction is an accomplishment, and when one dies has little or no bearing on their success or failure in combating their issues. Personally I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, despite what statistics might say (and believe me, this point of view has bitten me in the ass numerous times, but I will do my best to hold on to this belief moving forward).

He did also have traits that others use to malign him, however we need to acknowledge that this is largely a case of one person's trash being another's gold, I think, and I'd suggest again the names Sanders and Trump (or even our new PM Trudeau).

Edited for sloppy punctuation, lol.

I totally disagree about your comments about your take on addiction vs mine. I have actually said nothing at all about my own take on addiction recovery, so you have no idea what it is. All I've said is that I have no reason to think that Ford would have stayed in recovery if he hadn't gotten cancer and died. And FYI, I also know a little something about addiction too. This is not a conversation about addiction or our level of understanding about it. It's about Rob Ford, who was a lot more (and a lot worse) than just his addiction to crack.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

His rehab was neither successful nor unsuccessful because he got cancer and died instead of having the chance to show us if it would have worked. It is not bashing, however, to say that his track record gives us no reason to think it would have been successful otherwise. It's common sense.

Yet, by all known accounts, his rehab was successful. Applying statistics to an individual case starts us on a very slippery slope, I feel, though I do get the point you're trying to make.

Again, being from Vancouver you may not realize the toxic media environment of those days that we were forced to endure locally, with the media camped out on his front lawn, reporters skulking around their property. I remain convinced (as you seem equally unconvinced) that had Ford relapsed, we would have known, but it seems he stayed clean for the last year of his life, even prior to the cancer diagnosis. Don't forget, it was through people that purported to be his friends that much of this was discovered, thanks to the hidden camera videos. I just can't see it NOT coming out had he relapsed.

Vancouver and BC politics are absolutely vicious, and has had its fair share of scandal. We are seasoned warriors when it comes to a toxic political environment, which leads to what the media reports. We have simply not have a Rob Ford. Who has??? I honestly do not feel that any of what TO experienced was the fault of anyone other than Ford though. Yes, he caused a media storm, but that was his doing. Blaming it on the media just excuses his own bad behaviour.
Again, I didn't say he relapsed. He didn't have a chance to because he got cancer and died. If you consider getting cancer and dying to be a good way to avoid addiction relapse, well, okay then. But maybe you didn't read my post about his addiction not even being the real problem? There was a lot more wrong with that guy than a crack addiction.

In the very first days of his mayoralty (in fact during the campaign), certain media outlets (most notably the Toronto Star) made it clear there would be no positive press for Ford, regardless of what he did or didn't do. While he was responsible for his own behaviour, the stage was certainly set for him by some of the media. When he spoke up in defence of his marriage, that was sidelined (in fact, ignored) because of the language he used.

At the height of the "crisis," I had to laugh when the throngs of media tried to blame Ford for them stumbling all over themselves as he moved about city hall.

Now, I clearly have a different take on addiction recovery than you. In my mind, knowing a little something of addiction, 1 day not feeding the addiction is an accomplishment, and when one dies has little or no bearing on their success or failure in combating their issues. Personally I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, despite what statistics might say (and believe me, this point of view has bitten me in the ass numerous times, but I will do my best to hold on to this belief moving forward).

He did also have traits that others use to malign him, however we need to acknowledge that this is largely a case of one person's trash being another's gold, I think, and I'd suggest again the names Sanders and Trump (or even our new PM Trudeau).

Edited for sloppy punctuation, lol.

I totally disagree about your comments about your take on addiction vs mine. I have actually said nothing at all about my own take on addiction recovery, so you have no idea what it is. All I've said is that I have no reason to think that Ford would have stayed in recovery if he hadn't gotten cancer and died. And FYI, I also know a little something about addiction too. This is not a conversation about addiction or our level of understanding about it. It's about Rob Ford, who was a lot more (and a lot worse) than just his addiction to crack.

Fair enough, but Rob Ford was also much more than the criticisms he faced. Two sides to every coin and all.

While we have differing takes on Ford's recovery from his addiction, I truly feel that you're being unfair in your assessment (as I may be being overly optimistic in mine). Again, absent of any proof, both viewpoints are correct, I suppose.

PJ_Soul

TBH, I don't think it makes any difference either way. I honestly wouldn't have a better opinion of that man if he had lived and never touched drugs again. He's still a slime ball, and that has nothing to do with his addiction.

polaris_x

DarthMaeglin said:

polaris_x said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

on the contrary, I saw loads and loads of coverage of exactly why, even amidst all of his nonsense, people still had his back. no doubt he was a man of the people. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I think some even gravitated towards him even more after all this came out. he became a human being with flaws, and people identify with that.

it's funny you say his behaviour didn't affect the city at all, yet seem to give him credit for all of the growth that toronto enjoyed during his tenure. that doesn't happen overnight with one guy as mayor. people don't just up and leave their homes and move their business because of the mayor of a city. toronto is a big player on the global scale. It can be argued that growth would have happened with or without him.

I didn't give him credit for all the growth...in fact I specifically said it wasn't his doing...I just said that he managed the city well during the period of growth despite all his buffoonery. Conservatives like me believe it is the citizenry that creates growth where as politicians can either unwittingly restrict it, through the consequences of good intentions, or promote it by getting the government out of the way. Ford believed in getting government out of the way.

again ... he basically was taken off the job a year into his term ... he DID NOT manage the city well ... if anything, we should thank council and norm kelly from preventing him from doing anything that could have messed things up ...

Sorry to nitpick, but he was "taken off the job" with basically a year left in his term, roughly 3 years into his term. Also, please see my above reference to Drake's hype man Norm Kelly, he was far from an ideal replacement, abandoning the city at a time when many, many residents were experiencing a crisis.

he lost all mayoral standing at that point but he lost control of council after year 1 ... the second budget under his term was not one he wanted ...

DarthMaeglin

polaris_x said:

DarthMaeglin said:

polaris_x said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

on the contrary, I saw loads and loads of coverage of exactly why, even amidst all of his nonsense, people still had his back. no doubt he was a man of the people. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I think some even gravitated towards him even more after all this came out. he became a human being with flaws, and people identify with that.

it's funny you say his behaviour didn't affect the city at all, yet seem to give him credit for all of the growth that toronto enjoyed during his tenure. that doesn't happen overnight with one guy as mayor. people don't just up and leave their homes and move their business because of the mayor of a city. toronto is a big player on the global scale. It can be argued that growth would have happened with or without him.

I didn't give him credit for all the growth...in fact I specifically said it wasn't his doing...I just said that he managed the city well during the period of growth despite all his buffoonery. Conservatives like me believe it is the citizenry that creates growth where as politicians can either unwittingly restrict it, through the consequences of good intentions, or promote it by getting the government out of the way. Ford believed in getting government out of the way.

again ... he basically was taken off the job a year into his term ... he DID NOT manage the city well ... if anything, we should thank council and norm kelly from preventing him from doing anything that could have messed things up ...

Sorry to nitpick, but he was "taken off the job" with basically a year left in his term, roughly 3 years into his term. Also, please see my above reference to Drake's hype man Norm Kelly, he was far from an ideal replacement, abandoning the city at a time when many, many residents were experiencing a crisis.

he lost all mayoral standing at that point but he lost control of council after year 1 ... the second budget under his term was not one he wanted ...

I guess that's one barometer, however he did manage to pass policies through council, which lends a different perspective.

It really is too bad that everyone's right, and everyone's wrong, lol.

BS44325

Ford Nation alive and well!

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/michael-ford-wins-toronto-byelection-to-take-over-his-late-uncle-rob-fords-council-seat