News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
pud99 said:
As Sid Jeffers, in Humoresque (the film version). As wonderful as Oscar was, I think that this line was in the Clifford Odets play that was adapted into the film.

Another gem from Oscar's character: "Tell me, Mrs. Wright,
[*] does your husband interfere with your marriage?"

[*Helen Wright, played by Joan Crawford]
Click to expand...

I believe Joan Crawford / Mrs. Wright may have had an on-screen orgasm in that movie as she watched John Garfield play in rehearsal.

View attachment 34339
 
Last edited:
pud99 said:
I think that merely having been named in an ITO would not have gotten Ford into any police or border security database. All that the border control agent at the private flight terminal in Chicago needed in order to tell Robbie that he would be at risk of being expelled if he did not accept the offer to be allowed to withdraw voluntarily were the widely published/broadcast reports of Robbie admitting to using crack. (Just as all that the US border control agent posted at Heathrow needed to refuse entry to Nigella Lawson were the widely published/broadcast reports of her testimony admitting to using blow.)
Click to expand...

So let's say I posted a YouTube video loudly proclaiming that I'm a heroin addict, even though I've never even seen the stuff, would US Customs treat me similarly? ie refuse me entry due to*this (false) information being spread far and wide?

Just wondering how this virtual self thing works... Thx
 
Lamport Davenport said:
So let's say I posted a YouTube video loudly proclaiming that I'm a heroin addict, even though I've never even seen the stuff, would US Customs treat me similarly? ie refuse me entry due to*this (false) information being spread far and wide?

Just wondering how this virtual self thing works... Thx
Click to expand...

A border control agent could, indeed, exclude you or, taking the softer route, offer you the chance to withdraw voluntarily. (Amongst other things, a person can be excluded for having done something outside of the US that would be illegal if done in the US - such as possession of heroin.) You could try, but I think you would have a steep uphill battle trying to get a US border patrol agent to accept that the information was false if you put it out there yourself as a proclaimation of fact.
 
Lamport Davenport said:
So let's say I posted a YouTube video loudly proclaiming that I'm a heroin addict, even though I've never even seen the stuff, would US Customs treat me similarly? ie refuse me entry due to*this (false) information being spread far and wide?

Just wondering how this virtual self thing works... Thx
Click to expand...

They can refuse entry based on suspicions. You are not a citizen of the country you are entering, and they don't really need evidence that would hold up in a court of law. eg: You can be refused entry for carrying a resume because you might be looking for work.
 
nfitz said:
Isn't that exactly what most people would assume?

What does Jimmi think is embarrassing about this?
Click to expand...

Jimmi T I'm sure will speak for himself; my guess is that his source may have not had the full story and so mistakenly believed that the ITO showed a reporter "outing sources" when, with all of the story to hand, one can see that was not actually the case.
 
pud99 said:
A border control agent could, indeed, exclude you or, taking the softer route, offer you the chance to withdraw voluntarily. (Amongst other things, a person can be excluded for having done something outside of the US that would be illegal if done in the US - such as possession of heroin.) You could try, but I think you would have a steep uphill battle trying to get a US border patrol agent to accept that the information was false if you put it out there yourself as a proclaimation of fact.
Click to expand...

Wow! Be careful of the rhetorical devices you use. Scheiss!
 
Iola doesn't get why she was ejected from the debate:

(from FB)

Iola Fortino 3 hours ago
Ironic isn't it...the media!!!! I m the one that brought up fatal shooting and violence in the schools for the debate and how mayor can help provincial govnt to help situation...and they make me look like the crazy and kick me out cause i m...entioned to put the universal "Our Father" and national anthem back ..put God back ...replace the gay clubs ..the radical sex education with morality and bible teaching ...here I was telling police I think that this is a democratic society is it not? Lol the real hecklers the crooked police ignored...one female officer ha ha ha said I'm watching you..was afraid I'd cross the line ...Lol I told her God is watching you"..ps anyone known a pro bono lawyer lol
 
Kilroy said:
They can refuse entry based on suspicions. You are not a citizen of the country you are entering, and they don't really need evidence that would hold up in a court of law. eg: You can be refused entry for carrying a resume because you might be looking for work.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
dforthandbview said:
So Project Brazen II was not going anywhere, then a 2nd crack video is made and the police consider arresting Ford for drug possession and assault. Does that explain why Ford made the quick escape to "rehab"? Because he felt the "heat" and was worried an arrest would happen? Maybe that's why he tried to flee to the US, perhaps thinking an arrest could be avoided, but the TPS contacted customs and told them not to let Ford through?
Click to expand...

As a society we shouldn't be charging people for simple possession of drugs - that's a medical issue. Just busting him on possession for the second video would either be a Hail Mary play to get more evidence or a last grasp at getting something out of Brazen II. In either case it would be pretty weak.
 
nfitz said:
Isn't that exactly what most people would assume?

What does Jimmi think is embarrassing about this?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the words the police used to describe the meeting in the ITO. Their words suggested she called the police to disclose information, which is not done. Robyn is characterizing the meeting as an interview to gather info, which sounds more likely to me.
 
animatronic said:
As a society we shouldn't be charging people for simple possession of drugs - that's a medical issue. Just busting him on possession for the second video would either be a Hail Mary play to get more evidence or a last grasp at getting something out of Brazen II. In either case it would be pretty weak.
Click to expand...
Maybe Ford didn't know what the charge the cops were contemplating busting him for was. Maybe all he heard from his police connection was "Cops are after you, get out of town" and he bolted. For all we know, he could have had a million scenarios running around in his mind. Or maybe I'm just dramatizing this whole thing for my own selfish desires.
 
I'm trying to come up with a personal plan about "What to do if Doug Ford wins".

I think the only way I'll be able to cope is to completely disengage from municipal politics.

This is all very hard to take and so terribly disillusioning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top