Occupy protests

[Private Ear]

Aren't they supposed to start issuing tickets today at noon? I'm gonna take a walk down there.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

LOL wow, that's an amqazingly astute mispelling! LOL

oh it wasn't a misspelling. I was kinda proud of that one.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Redfrog is typically a troll in these threads and offers nothing beyond one liners.

BeeGee killing the messenger is so passe. But typically when you have no valid argument or are stuck for the normal party answers you resort to name calling. I could be offended but then I consider the source and ask myself " Do you really care what this guy thinks" Sorry to report my "givadamn" is broken.

BTW notice I didn't stoop to calling you a Liberal, NDP hack, or commie. NOt my style.

BTW I told my wife what you called me and she said "Yes, but you're my troll"


A person with no job and no financial management skills and no assets goes into a bank and says I want to buy a nice house but I have no idea how to pay for it.

A person, who is smart enough to hold down a job and raise a family,goes in to a bank and says I have no money, I want to buy a house. I have no idea how I can afford to pay for it. I manage my household finances and there is NO money left after I pay MOST of my bills. My CC are maxed out but I make the minimum payment most months.

The banker, who is supposed to be a professional money manager says no problem. Everyone is entitled to own a house. Find a house worth $50,000 and we\ll lend you enough to buy the house for $100,000 and we'll throw in a free toaster, cause the gov't wants you to feel good.

The gov't says the rest of the countries in the world are living beyond their means and are headed for a disaster, but we're ok, just look at the housing market and all the homes that are being sold.

Then the day of reckoning arrives. Things are so bad Disneyland is forced to offer discounts to families who have had their homes foreclosed on.

The SHTF and the Obamanation formerly known as America [ See what I did there LOL| says don't worry be happy. We\ll double the national debt overnight and pay the large banks and corps money to cover their losses and then the economy will jumpstart and all will be well.

The corps said well it finally happened.The SHTF. We're still afloat and looking good, thanks to bailouts. but sooner or later the tax payers will realize the emperor has no clothes. In the meantime we'll continue to manage with the mismanagement that got us here and make sure we choke every cent there is available so when it implodes we'll be ok.

Meanwhile in a land far away a group of stinky hippy misfits gather to worship the beginning of the Canadian winter, not cognizant that winter means cold weather. They also have a much more altruistic goal in mind. It is to let the general populace, the tax payers, the working poor, and anyone else who will listen that the system is broken. If not for this band of unemployed freeloading stinky misfits we would never had known there was even a problem. Thank goodness for the clarity of free thinking spirits.

So who's to blame, the people who just wanted a home that was free, the banks who are too stupid to actually be responsible for the money they hold in trust, the gov't who buy votes, from the voters with the voter's money, the car companies who bow to union demands of 40 plus dollars an hour to bolt a POS car together, the people who can't be bothered to learn the electoral process and partake in it? Or do we listen to the protestors. Do nothing and demand more support from the gov't?

It's complicated and will get much worse before it gets better. Times they are a changing.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

LOL wow, that's an amqazingly astute mispelling! LOL

Nice spelling your self. You need to get your wifey to tutor you.


"Redfrog contributes deep inciteful commentary "

PURE GOLD. It's so hard to find a skilled wordsmith in these days of "Yo Momma"

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by dragon

I would not

Federal law states you have the right to protest. Who are you to tell them that protesting can only be in the form of signs while walking up and down a sidewalk?

The law says so. You can't use freedom of speak to circuvent laws. You can't say...well the law allows me to protest where ever I want...therefore I am parking my car across the Deerfoot and starting a 2 day sleep in.

There are silly arguments...and then there are just plain ridiculous.

I am fine with you taking the devil's advocate approach to an argument...but just like it is not your RIGHT to speed down a highway...it is also not your RIGHT to camp anywhere you want.

The courts in the US have stated...you have a right to protest in the park...stand around...chant, sing, shout...whatever. But you don't have the right to camp. There are many synergies in the US/Canada legal system. I would be very surprised if I am allowed to take up residence and live in City hall if I call it a protest.

If we let them stay too long...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession then adverse possession could eventually apply. That would be silly and you can't have someone claiming ownership of public property because of squatting on it.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

oh it wasn't a misspelling. I was kinda proud of that one.

Good one. I should have credited you with more smarts. Very well played.

And I have to quit typing so fast. LOL

Relax RedF. We are both just having you on. We adore you, you old geezer.

[dragon]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The law says so. You can't use freedom of speak to circuvent laws. You can't say...well the law allows me to protest where ever I want...therefore I am parking my car across the Deerfoot and starting a 2 day sleep in.

There are silly arguments...and then there are just plain ridiculous.

I am fine with you taking the devil's advocate approach to an argument...but just like it is not your RIGHT to speed down a highway...it is also not your RIGHT to camp anywhere you want.

The courts in the US have stated...you have a right to protest in the park...stand around...chant, sing, shout...whatever. But you don't have the right to camp. There are many synergies in the US/Canada legal system. I would be very surprised if I am allowed to take up residence and live in City hall if I call it a protest.

If we let them stay too long...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession then adverse possession could eventually apply. That would be silly and you can't have someone claiming ownership of public property because of squatting on it.

On the first quote you are right about saying that many of the arguements of this movement are american you are correct. Unfourtunately we, as canadians can not ignore the fact that what happens south of the border affects us... to what extent we are tied... well we can debate that until were both blue in the face. Simply it does affect us and to the protesters, enough to set up camp.

I would agree that parking your car across the deerfoot is not reccomended as it endangers the public. You would be removed pretty swiftly. I recall in edmonton a while back, dumptruck drivers were protesting and during rush hour they all went on the major arteries and drove at a snail's pace.

I believe the point I was trying to make is that walking up and down the street protesting and chanting likely breaks loitering bylaws, noise bylaws, heck disturbing the peace potentially.

Local bylaws do not trump our consituitional right, however which bylaws and laws society and the government will discretionally ease upon to allow a protest is not you or my decision. We can have our opinions as we obviously both do. And as you said if the alberta courts say it's time to shut it down then we as society must either agree with it or dispute it.

[Redfrog]

OKie if i were any more relaxed. someone would throw a slip cover over me.

I liked your use of the silent 'q'. For some reason pqeople don't use it mquch these days. Not reqally sure wqhy. I thinqk it adds a certain je ne se qua.

BTW it isn't silent in Je ne se qua.

[FishingMOM]

[QUOTE=dragon;1163105I believe the point I was trying to make is that walking up and down the street protesting and chanting likely breaks loitering bylaws, noise bylaws, heck disturbing the peace potentially.

Local bylaws do not trump our consituitional right, however which bylaws and laws society and the government will discretionally ease upon to allow a protest is not you or my decision. We can have our opinions as we obviously both do. And as you said if the alberta courts say it's time to shut it down then we as society must either agree with it or dispute it.[/QUOTE]

They can march all they want up and down the sidewalks.

Get the damn tents out of the park.

They are causing damage! Which none of them can afford to have fixed so it is the rest of us working SOBS who have to food the bill for their activities.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Actually...GM was financially supported due to strong union pressure. Jobs...jobs...jobs...where their argument. Same with the big3. This is not a corporation issue...but a union issue and pressure tactic.

Unfortunately there is no "protest" of union influence on government decisions. That should be added to the other million things the movement is complaining about...corporate greed, 99% versus 1%, Global warming, bank bailouts, capitalism, stock investments, jobs, insurance whatever else.

As for your general statements...you still need to acknowledge...the problems you complained about were 99% American problems...that just spilled over into Canada insofar as trading and jobs.

For Canadians to be protesting US policy and problems at Olympic Plaza...is just silly IMHO.

businesses overwhelmingly benefitted more than unions did so that argument is just partisan hackery as far as im concerned, union pension funds too a good beating in the stock market crash aswell and alot pushed back minimum retirement ages by a few years if not more, the start and end of the problems was corporate greed the unions played a role to protect their members, but they didn't benefit nearly as much as corporation did.

[TheKi]

Any one watch the news today, my dad and Cory were on it again, my dad had the bright orange safety jacket, started arguing with a protester and than ended up offering him a job(Face Palm)

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by dragon

On the first quote you are right about saying that many of the arguements of this movement are american you are correct. Unfourtunately we, as canadians can not ignore the fact that what happens south of the border affects us... to what extent we are tied... well we can debate that until were both blue in the face. Simply it does affect us and to the protesters, enough to set up camp.

I would agree that parking your car across the deerfoot is not reccomended as it endangers the public. You would be removed pretty swiftly. I recall in edmonton a while back, dumptruck drivers were protesting and during rush hour they all went on the major arteries and drove at a snail's pace.

I believe the point I was trying to make is that walking up and down the street protesting and chanting likely breaks loitering bylaws, noise bylaws, heck disturbing the peace potentially.

Local bylaws do not trump our consituitional right, however which bylaws and laws society and the government will discretionally ease upon to allow a protest is not you or my decision. We can have our opinions as we obviously both do. And as you said if the alberta courts say it's time to shut it down then we as society must either agree with it or dispute it.

What happens south...does affect us to a degree but still you can justify a long term protest over another countries problem.

I agree and so does 99% of AOF...that walking up and down the street protesting is fine...sleeping in public area...messing it up...treating it like you own slum away from home is not.

The US has much stronger civil liberty laws and lobby groups than Canada and their courts don't allow camping. It has reached the court in NY. I will be very surprised if Toronto allows it to continue. The precedent is horrible for the average person. Imagine...any deems a protest started...and they can live in the rec centre, city hall, public rink, park, zoo...you name it...it is just too ridiculous to imagine.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

businesses overwhelmingly benefitted more than unions did so that argument is just partisan hackery as far as im concerned, union pension funds too a good beating in the stock market crash aswell and alot pushed back minimum retirement ages by a few years if not more, the start and end of the problems was corporate greed the unions played a role to protect their members, but they didn't benefit nearly as much as corporation did.

Sorry but if you don't understand the biggest lobby for bank rolling the car companies was unions...you are just blind to the facts.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Sorry but if you don't understand the biggest lobby for bank rolling the car companies was unions...you are just blind to the facts.

That statement is a bit of an overkill.

Local business and unions are pretty closely matched on that one.

Think Magna. It's tendrils reach long and deep, and are intimately tied to our political and banking systems.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

It's complicated and will get much worse before it gets better. Times they are a changing.

Agreed!

[rugatika]

OK you two...now I think I am goqing to staqrt using the sileqnt "qq" in more of my wriqtings. I quite likeq it.

Sorry forq the hiqjack

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Sorry but if you don't understand the biggest lobby for bank rolling the car companies was unions...you are just blind to the facts.

what about the banks did unions benefit from their bailout?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

That statement is a bit of an overkill.

Local business and unions are pretty closely matched on that one.

Think Magna. It's tendrils reach long and deep, and are intimately tied to our political and banking systems.

Just go back to the news of the time...the constant press conferences by unions demanding job protection. Unions of both Magna and the Big 3. So maybe...the big powerful union and the big powerful companies were all in cahots to screw us? But wait...that means the people and the corporations were working together...so who is wrong? Who is right? My oh my do I have a headache.

[FishingMOM]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

so who is wrong? Who is right? My oh my do I have a headache.

I'm right and I say you Sundancefisher need a time out. Like out fishing.


Get away from all this occupy crap.
Don't worry the city of calgary will protect these fools from themselves and declare a weather emergency and force them into a shelter.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

what about the banks did unions benefit from their bailout?

Banks got an influx of capital to lend to consumers because the money was tied up elsewhere. Remove that source of lending money and many, many mortgages would of been called on to pay back in full just to keep the banks solvent. Let the banks fail and all the savings with it...what do you think would happen.

You have to make sure you look at the issue at hand from the correct vantage point.

Are you assuming the money was given to the banks to keep them from going out of business because they were broke...or because they could just not liquidate enough available money to cover their outflow.

This is a different scenario than the car companies. A company failing because they can't sell product and are heavy in debt so that their assets are worth less then their debt is a different beast than a company with lots of assets relative to debt...but can't access it without destroying families.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by TheKi

Any one watch the news today, my dad and Cory were on it again, my dad had the bright orange safety jacket, started arguing with a protester and than ended up offering him a job(Face Palm)

So did the guy show up for the job? What was the job? Maybe someone on the forum that wants to work will take it.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Banks got an influx of capital to lend to consumers because the money was tied up elsewhere. Remove that source of lending money and many, many mortgages would of been called on to pay back in full just to keep the banks solvent. Let the banks fail and all the savings with it...what do you think would happen.

You have to make sure you look at the issue at hand from the correct vantage point.

Are you assuming the money was given to the banks to keep them from going out of business because they were broke...or because they could just not liquidate enough available money to cover their outflow.

This is a different scenario than the car companies. A company failing because they can't sell product and are heavy in debt so that their assets are worth less then their debt is a different beast than a company with lots of assets relative to debt...but can't access it without destroying families.

im not saying the union's didn't have an involvement im saying that you were wrong saying unions benefitted as much as corporations.it's just a way for the right to justify something saying the left wing unions are as much to blame as the right wing corporations when it's clearly not the case.

[Dakota369]

Originally Posted by pophouseman

Ummmmmmm okay.....

In edmonton $75000 a year IS "working poor"

Good luck paying for a decent house, decent vehicle, gas, insurance, property taxes, utilities and the basics of life. food prices alone have SKYROCKETED in the last 3 years. Add to this trying to save some money so one day when I am old I may not have to work or one day cannot work......... I have no stuff to sell, but thanks for the comment!!!

Who are you kidding!!!??? I live in Edmonton, am in the process of paying for the second house that I have owned, and make less then that! I also own my vehicle's (yes plural) and have a boat too?? How much money are you spending on things you don't need? Were you foolish enough to rush out and buy a house in the backward real estate market of 3 years ago? How could you possibly not make ends meet????? Or are you a caviar and champagne kinda living person??

What absolute crap.........................

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

im not saying the union's didn't have an involvement im saying that you were wrong saying unions benefitted as much as corporations.it's just a way for the right to justify something saying the left wing unions are as much to blame as the right wing corporations when it's clearly not the case.

I disagree. I believe if there was not the huge union backlash that there would of been no bailout. We can agree to disagree on this point...but that is how I saw it unfold in the media. First came the talk of letting the companies go bankrupt and having a solid company rise from the ashes...then the Unions screamed about people, family, jobs, community...and the bailouts happened soon thereafter.

Coincidence. I think not. Did it likely work out okay? Don't know the latest information but I thought most money was paid back...any other soon to be...companies doing better, unions still employed.

So was it right or wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.

[mooseknuckle]

Well I wonder how the protestors are doing in Edmonton today with a couple inches of snow and 50-60km winds?

[TheKi]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So did the guy show up for the job? What was the job? Maybe someone on the forum that wants to work will take it.

He didn't show up

[209x50]

Originally Posted by mooseknuckle

Well I wonder how the protestors are doing in Edmonton today with a couple inches of snow and 50-60km winds?

Probabaly as dedicated as Regina where they abandoned the camp

[TomE]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OAOrT0O...de=transparent

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by TomE

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OAOrT0O...de=transparent

This guy is full of it.

The "asymptote" hypothesis he proposes is bull.

There is a thing called carrying capacity. It's a simple concept.


When you move all your manufacturing to third world countries, is it really a surprise to have unemployment go up and develop a huge trade imbalance?

This whole subject is becoming very tiring.

1. People have the right to protest. It should not matter what they are protesting for, or how they are doing it (within reason).

2. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they improve.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

This guy is full of it.

The "asymptote" hypothesis he proposes is bull.

There is a thing called carrying capacity. It's a simple concept.


When you move all your manufacturing to third world countries, is it really a surprise to have unemployment go up and develop a huge trade imbalance?

This whole subject is becoming very tiring.

1. People have the right to protest. It should not matter what they are protesting for, or how they are doing it (within reason).

2. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they improve.

Makes sense to me. Bill Whittle is a smart man. What part of the "asymptote" hypothesis don't you understand...maybe I could explain it better and help you catch on. What does carrying capacity have to do with the protests??

Of course people have the right to protest. It's just funny when the people protesting are stupid lazy hypocrites that can't even comprehend their own fortune and who and what provided them that fortune.