Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
One I don't need to address it, one doesn't justify the other. False equivalency.
Two, situations are different. Admitting past fault is very different than being influenced at the time. Many examples of that on both sides, you're just picking the ones you want.
Three, it's Quebec, anything goes. 
You're the one not being consistent. What else you got? |
Ford only admitted past fault. Based on the evidence presented it is the sameas the Bosclaire situation. Bosclaire said he snorted coke from 96-03 when he was running for leadership in 05. Ford smoked crack a year ago and doesnt now per available evidence.
You might not believe Ford doesnt smoke crack now but then I dont really believe Bosclaire stopped either. Job performance should be the only factor. As a note I agree he should resign but not because of this ridiculous notion that he is comprimised. Everyone with a skelaton is comprimised. He should resign because his addictions are affecting job performance.