# Not many "occupiers" actually spending the night in St. James Park



## Latiator (Jul 18, 2007)

According to Sun News' Ezra Levant, who used a heat sensing camera, he has discovered that the vast majority of occupiers at St. James Park weren't in fact sleeping overnight in their tents, are they cheating? Is their occupancy less legitimate now?

[video=youtube;W7Z8fl1KhUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=W7Z8fl1KhUI[/video]


----------



## fudb (Dec 8, 2010)

Ahh yes, kudos to the fair and balanced reporting of the Sun Media Co. 

Instead of wondering if this makes their protest valid, why not look into whether or not their COMPLAINT is valid? Oh right, because your boss is the 1% and will fire your a$$ if you do....


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

This is just as sensitive a situation out here in Vancouver as any where else, there are the rah, rah onward occupiers and there are the shoot the bastards and clean up the mess group and the supposed 1% don't really give a damn


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

To borrow an oft used post from one of our regular members

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzZZZ


----------



## Jeff B. (Feb 20, 2010)




----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I live in the country so I don't use any of these occupied spaces. I do wonder about the people that do and whether or not "their" rights are being being violated. If someone pitches a tent on my property, they would be charged with trespassing and removed. Since it's public property that they are occupying, do they have the right to do so? If they do, and the courts support them, everyone who lives near a park or public green space better be prepared for some new neighbours moving in.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Ya, that's what's being said by the courts in the US now...essentially, you're welcome to express your first amendment rights to free speech and peaceful gathering, you do NOT have the right to live here so come back tomorrow.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Free speech and the right to protest are fine, but setting up tents and generators is going too far.


Anyway, as exciting as all this may be for some, personally I'm too busy WORKING every day to spend time sleeping in a public park.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

I say roll in the tanks!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> Free speech and the right to protest are fine, but setting up tents and generators is going too far.
> 
> Anyway, as exciting as all this may be for some, personally I'm too busy WORKING every day to spend time sleeping in a public park.


I can dig that


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm too busy working to participate in the Occupy thing too. 

The biggest reason that I don't participate isn't because I disagree with them. I completely agree with them HOWEVER...here some observations:

1. It will never make a difference unless say, 40% of the population showed up. That's a far cry from the less than 1% that is taking part and saying that they are the 99%. Most of the 99% are still going to work and heading home after work because it has been a pattern for years that they are getting less for working more while having less of a 'life outside of work'. That's exhausting and they want time with their families. 

2. It is much more difficult to take someone seriously who has dirty clothing, dreadlocks and a lip ring. Fact.

3. The 1% aren't going to give up anything because they made their money under the system and if that's the way that the system worked then they just happened to be able to 'optimize their performance within the parameters of the system' - in other words, they could take advantage of it. Even the 'costs' associated with the Occupy stuff for 'policing' and clean up are being charged predominantly to...you guessed it...the 99%.

4. Bloodless revolutions achieve nothing.

5. There will be a HUGE 'reset' soon. It will flatten the playing field somewhat but it will devastate many. I have felt like it has been building for some time now and I get the impression that it is getting much closer.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

smorgdonkey said:


> I'm too busy working to participate in the Occupy thing too.
> 
> The biggest reason that I don't participate isn't because I disagree with them. I completely agree with them HOWEVER...here some observations:
> 
> ...



i soooo agree, but with one small little nit.
#3, you're totally correct. that's exactly how it is, _to my perception_.
but it's wrong to bully people economically, and set up a system designed to coerce/force them to aid you in doing it. i think #5 is something important to mention. i think you're right there too, but i am hoping that whoever holds the football when the dust clears will develop a system based on different principles and values. i know that's blue skyin, but wth, right? there is another member i am waiting to see if they post in this thread. that person is usually pretty insightful also, whether i agree or not. it's been interesting so far.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> To borrow an oft used post from one of our regular members
> 
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzZZZ


...is apathy the noblest ideal?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...the suggestion that all or even most of the occupy protestors are too lazy to look for work is part of the problem, not part of the solution. nonetheless, that is precisely what right wing media wants us to believe, and they have been very, very successful in achieving that goal.



Milkman said:


> Free speech and the right to protest are fine, but setting up tents and generators is going too far.
> 
> 
> Anyway, as exciting as all this may be for some, personally I'm too busy WORKING every day to spend time sleeping in a public park.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...we could sit around forever and debate about whether the occupy protesters are going about it the right way, or whether they have met the recognized standards of the international association of protests, or whether they bathe, or whether they should have chosen nicer outfits, or whether they use proper grammar, or whether they should have used power point presentations, or whether they should have waved professionally designed placards, or whether they should have gotten a haircut, or whether they should have come up with a logo that everyone agreed with and signed off on, or whether they should have taken assertiveness training, or whether should have hired a fashion consultant, or whether they have homes or jobs, or whether they should have come up with a method of protest that would please everyone, or whether they should have tried to condense their message into a concise, digestible and, especially, SIMPLE, sound byte that we could all more easily dismiss...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...the suggestion that all or even most of the occupy protestors are too lazy to look for work is part of the problem, not part of the solution. nonetheless, that is precisely what right wing media wants us to believe, and they have been very, very successful in achieving that goal.


I didn't say or imply anything about anyone being lazy. That's a case of "if the shoe fits.....".

I can only say that since I was a teen, I have not had the spare time or resources I would need to spend days or weeks camping in a park as a part of a protest.

Whether I'm a part of the 1% or the 99% is a matter of perspective I suppose, but I'm too busy trying to make my life and the lives of those I am directly responsible for, better. The way I do this is not by carrying a sign or yelling catchy slogans at people, but by working.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...is apathy the noblest ideal?


If they start to put some viable solutions on the table I will start to pay attention. Bitching at the rich wont solve anything


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> If they start to put some viable solutions on the table I will start to pay attention. Bitching at the rich wont solve anything


...the ows movement is trying to alert us to the fact that there are problems. it is up to us, not them, to come up with solutions. 

for some reason, they don't seem to have the same powers, the same access to the media, the same organizational skills, the same access to marketing, the same access to highly paid consultants, the same access to fund$, the same fashion sense as the 1%.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...the ows movement is trying to alert us to the fact that there are problems. it is up to us, not them, to come up with solutions.
> 
> for some reason, they don't seem to have the same powers, the same access to the media, the same organizational skills, the same access to marketing, the same access to highly paid consultants, the same access to fund$, the same fashion sense as the 1%.


LOL, well I can appreciate that, but it's always easy to point out that things are F%$ked, but much harder to actually propose viable alternatives or suggestions.

I think these protests will have very little impact. It's akin to somebody suggesting that we "all just get along" in the midst of peace talks in the middle east.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...the ows movement is trying to alert us to the fact that there are problems. it is up to us, not them, to come up with solutions.
> 
> for some reason, they don't seem to have the same powers, the same access to the media, the same organizational skills, the same access to marketing, the same access to highly paid consultants, the same access to fund$, the same fashion sense as the 1%.


Thanks for the alert, I kinda figured out there were some problems with employment and wages about 10 years ago. Let me know when they come up with something we dont already know


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that's kinda what i mean. i know things suck. i want to hear some someone offer a plan to fix it that makes sense. until then, it seems pointless. as for expecting a solution to come from from those "1%" that makes no sense to me. that's like expecting the taxman to pass me by because i've explained to him how i don't like taxes. what incentive do thy have to make changes? none that i can see.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thanks for the alert, I kinda figured out there were some problems with employment and wages about 10 years ago. Let me know when they come up with something we dont already know



...i'll get right on that.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> that's kinda what i mean. i know things suck. i want to hear some someone offer a plan to fix it that makes sense. until then, it seems pointless. as for expecting a solution to come from from those "1%" that makes no sense to me. that's like expecting the taxman to pass me by because i've explained to him how i don't like taxes. what incentive do thy have to make changes? none that i can see.


...i'm working on it. perhaps you and guitarscanada could give me your cell phone numbers. i really want you guys to be the first to know. and, no, i don't think anyone is expecting the 1% to come up with a solution.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Part of the reason these people are protesting is that they DON'T have jobs.
Do you really think that there would be a need for mass protests if all, or most of these people were employed?

The unfair influence that corporations have on the political scene, deregulations due to the influence of these corporations,
the rampant push for profits at all costs, that the taxpayer usually ends up paying to clean up. 

These people are just trying to cause awareness, open other peoples eyes to the unbalance.
The system is broken and we're going to hell in a handbasket if something isn't done, sooner than later.


----------



## fudb (Dec 8, 2010)

I think the 1% don't really have their finger on the pulse of the 99% at this point. People are angrier and growing in number as more and more get cut off and dropped down a hole. A few of them see the problem, and are trying to fix things on that end.. But the fox is completely running the henhouse at this point, and eating so much damned chicken it can't stop.

This kind of income disparity has happened many times in history and always ends up the same way, pitchforks and fire. Once the situation becomes dire enough, a solution will be found. The problem is that this solution won't be too popular with a small percentage of the public.... about say 1% of them, in fact.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

fudb said:


> I think the 1% don't really have their finger on the pulse of the 99% at this point. People are angrier and growing in number as more and more get cut off and dropped down a hole. A few of them see the problem, and are trying to fix things on that end.. But the fox is completely running the henhouse at this point, and eating so much damned chicken it can't stop.
> 
> This kind of income disparity has happened many times in history and always ends up the same way, pitchforks and fire. Once the situation becomes dire enough, a solution will be found. The problem is that this solution won't be too popular with a small percentage of the public.... about say 1% of them, in fact.


Oh just keep in mind that here in Canada, our military boys and girls wont be using pitch forks or fire. They will point their fingers and say bang! those that have boots on that is. The barefooted ones will just have to wait till the ones pointing come back to swap boots with.

Truth is, the bigger reason why governments have been worried about places like Libya and Syria and Egypt is that these nations can give us the common person the idea that YES WE CAN TAKE CONTROL BACK with pitchforks and fire and up against army's without morals and all the guns.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

you can, but a whole lotta people have to die and go to prison along the way, and i don't think people are fed up to that point yet, here in n. america. i know i'm not, and i don't have a job myself right now.
thing is to those "1%" the rest of you are an insignificant speck. they have no reason to accommodate anyone's wishes but their own. why should their attitude be anything other than_ let them eat cake_? rush is cool but bastille day on this side of the pond isn't even close to happening. you see, those "1%" they know something. they know that if they ignore things, they'll go away. people will get tired of not having any effect. they'll go back to their lives. the media's attention will shift to something more flashy. all they have to do is throw people a cookie, and all will be forgotten. let's face it, no one was complaining like this from about 1994 up to the last couple years. all of you will see over the next few years what revolution usually begets. it's usually dictatorship. watch the middle east. it's unstable now, and everyone wants freedom. eventually, a military dictator will assume power, and it will be biz as usual, with a new face and a new name. 
we over here are no different jmo, ymmv


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think this movement will fade into oblivion as soon as something interesting happens in the world.

It's just too vague. Yes there are some things that are screwed up with the world, but this is a bit like the dog chasing the car. He doesn't know what the F#%k to do once he catches up with it.

The people who actually might be able to do something about it are all too busy working to take part in any of this. No, that's not an insinuation that the protestors are lazy. I think it's a simple factual statement.

Ok, you're pissed. Now what exactly do you want us or anyone for that matter, to do about it?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think this movement will fade into oblivion as soon as something interesting happens in the world.
> It's just to vague. Yes there are some things that are screwed up with the world, but this is a bit like the dog chasing the car. He doesn't know what the F#%k to do once he catches up with it.
> The people who actually might be able to do something about it are all too busy working to take part in any of this. No, that's not an insinuation that the protestors are lazy. I think it's a simple factual statement.
> Ok, you're pissed. Now what exactly do you want us or anyone for that matter, to do about it?


...change our thinking. not that hard, really. not a lot to ask. change what we will accept. change who we vote for. what we vote for.

the occupy movement is destined to "fade into oblivion" as a media event, absolutely. as soon as another car comes along that the media dogs can chase.

but the occupy message is out there. and the movement itself will probably evolve, as most things human tend to do.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've probably mentioned it before, but Cheech and Chong used to have a bit illustrating why marijuana would never be legalized. The bit was a public service ad in which Chong, as spokesperson for the legalize marijuana lobby starts "A lotta people say that pot wrecks your......................................memory, man. Well all I gotta say, man, is those people are F****ED!!". 

Sometimes the people who speak for your cause are the very last people you *want* or _*need*_ to be speaking for your cause.

Unfortunately, as the more rational people have left the Occupy campsites, ostensibly for their homes, those who remain, to be interviewed, may end up being some of the worst examples of "the cause".


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I've probably mentioned it before, but Cheech and Chong used to have a bit illustrating why marijuana would never be legalized. The bit was a public service ad in which Chong, as spokesperson for the legalize marijuana lobby starts "A lotta people say that pot wrecks your......................................memory, man. Well all I gotta say, man, is those people are F****ED!!".
> Sometimes the people who speak for your cause are the very last people you *want* or _*need*_ to be speaking for your cause.
> Unfortunately, as the more rational people have left the Occupy campsites, ostensibly for their homes, those who remain, to be interviewed, may end up being some of the worst examples of "the cause".


 
...and it is just way too easy to predict that right wing media will point to these folks and proclaim: "see! this is who the OWS protesters are!"


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

I've always liked Winston Churchill's line, to the effect, that he would rather live in a capitalist society, as imperfect as it is, where you have the chance to succeed, than in a socialist society where one is forced to be poor like everyone else.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

washburned said:


> I've always liked Winston Churchill's line, to the effect, that he would rather live in a capitalist society, as imperfect as it is, where you have the chance to succeed, than in a socialist society where one is forced to be poor like everyone else.


 
...i think that, at the time, that made sense. it was relevant to that era.

we don't live in the past. both socialism and capitalism have evolved, as these things usually do. 

we have come to realize that unregulated, unrestrained capitalism benefits a tiny minority, and is capable of destroying the lives of billions of people.

the next realization that we come to will be this: capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, partners is what might be an ideal marriage.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have used this one many times over the years. Problem is, you cant get anyone to get off their asses and away from their video games (or out of their tents) and do it. I have tried to visualize even my own kids with a jackhammer in their hands, just cant see it. When I see the kids that come into the shop they are all soft. It's our fault. We turned a whole generation into a "me" world. 12 year old kids walking around with $600 cell phones. We made the mess, now what do we do about it?

Personally I like to put a lot of the blame on Tiger Woods, On-line Poker and the UFC

[video=youtube;eiRGRvE_Wqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiRGRvE_Wqg[/video]


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have used this one many times over the years. Problem is, you cant get anyone to get off their asses and away from their video games (or out of their tents) and do it. I have tried to visualize even my own kids with a jackhammer in their hands, just cant see it. When I see the kids that come into the shop they are all soft. It's our fault. We turned a whole generation into a "me" world. 12 year old kids walking around with $600 cell phones. We made the mess, now what do we do about it?
> Personally I like to put a lot of the blame on Tiger Woods, On-line Poker and the UFC.


 
...thing is, though, since the beginning of time, people have been lamenting that the younger/current generation is not as (insert appropriate adjective) as they were, and that society is in some kind of awful decline.

and i would wager that you can travel to any country in the world, get in a taxi or turn on the local radio station, and hear the same thing, along with non-stop complaints about the weather, government and taxes.


----------



## Latiator (Jul 18, 2007)

David, What we're experiencing in society is no different than the effects felt in previous generations that span hundreds of years. Society moves in cycles. Greed does not evolve, it is embedded in our genetic make-up, it can not and will not be washed out by any means or with any amount of time. If you've read about historical figures and leaders and their beliefs, you'll know that nothing has changed in this regard. Socialism is in no way an acceptable way to live when human greed has anything to do with it. The people are too susceptible to oppression. Capitalism, although potentially oppressive, it only becomes so when you allow it to. You are in charge of your destiny in this great nation, the decisions you make will affect how the road ahead pans out. As a young man, who grew up with my father playing both roles under the roof, we were on the receiving end of societies fatal blow. Off and on, we were utilizing the government's programs such as food banks, social assistance, E.I., job banks, etc. and it benefited my father big time. There were occasions when we didn't have two pennies to rub together and were living in a car that my father would be contemplating the sale of to put food in our mouths (which he did once). When I graduated high school I made the decision to attend college for skilled trades, I applied for a loan so I could attend. I'm now in possession of a home that I purchased at 22 years of age and own a vehicle that is only a few years old. I have plenty of recreational toys and instruments to keep my hunger for thrill and creation satisfied for years to come. I did all of this on my own, I've worked hard and continue to do so, so that I can live a life of relative comfort and support my fiancee and a family if we're blessed enough to be graced with children. There is lots of room in Canada for people who want to work hard. Sure, we're in a recession, and this can be felt, but as Guitars Canada has pointed out, we will ALWAYS need trench diggers. Without delving in to too much politics, if Canada was a Socialist society as the far "lefties" would have it be, I and millions of others wouldn't be able to possess the things that we desire and wouldn't have the freedom to pursue career changes whenever we're inclined, and that's only the half of it. I will fight just as hard for freedom as my father did for our survival when I was a boy, and my grandparents did before him.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...if what you say is true, why are so many countries, including canada and the USA, benefitting from socialistic policies?



Latiator said:


> David, What we're experiencing in society is no different than the effects felt in previous generations that span hundreds of years. Society moves in cycles. Greed does not evolve, it is embedded in our genetic make-up, it can not and will not be washed out by any means or with any amount of time. If you've read about historical figures and leaders and their beliefs, you'll know that nothing has changed in this regard. Socialism is in no way an acceptable way to live when human greed has anything to do with it. The people are too susceptible to oppression. Capitalism, although potentially oppressive, it only becomes so when you allow it to. You are in charge of your destiny in this great nation, the decisions you make will affect how the road ahead pans out. As a young man, who grew up with my father playing both roles under the roof, we were on the receiving end of societies fatal blow. Off and on, we were utilizing the government's programs such as food banks, social assistance, E.I., job banks, etc. and it benefited my father big time. There were occasions when we didn't have two pennies to rub together and were living in a car that my father would be contemplating the sale of to put food in our mouths (which he did once). When I graduated high school I made the decision to attend college for skilled trades, I applied for a loan so I could attend. I'm now in possession of a home that I purchased at 22 years of age and own a vehicle that is only a few years old. I have plenty of recreational toys and instruments to keep my hunger for thrill and creation satisfied for years to come. I did all of this on my own, I've worked hard and continue to do so, so that I can live a life of relative comfort and support my fiancee and a family if we're blessed enough to be graced with children. There is lots of room in Canada for people who want to work hard. Sure, we're in a recession, and this can be felt, but as Guitars Canada has pointed out, we will ALWAYS need trench diggers. Without delving in to too much politics, if Canada was a Socialist society as the far "lefties" would have it be, I and millions of others wouldn't be able to possess the things that we desire and wouldn't have the freedom to pursue career changes whenever we're inclined, and that's only the half of it. I will fight just as hard for freedom as my father did for our survival when I was a boy, and my grandparents did before him.


----------



## Latiator (Jul 18, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...if what you say is true, why are so many countries, including canada and the USA, benefitting from socialistic policies?


Please explain David, we don't need anecdotal information.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Latiator said:


> Socialism is in no way an acceptable way to live when human greed has anything to do with it.



...so it's not socialism that is the problem, then, but human greed. you could just as easily claim that CAPITALISM is in no way an acceptable way to live when human greed has anything to do with it


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Latiator said:


> Please explain David, we don't need anecdotal information.


...perhaps you could re-phrase this?


----------



## Latiator (Jul 18, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...so it's not socialism that is the problem, then, but human greed. you could just as easily claim that CAPITALISM is in no way an acceptable way to live when human greed has anything to do with it


Indeed, in fact, this is one of the messages that "occupy" is attempting to get across as I understand it. However, the way I see it we're still in control. The more we push for government control and intervention, the more rights we give up and that is in no way, shape or form what we want having being accustomed to constitutional monarchial type governance and freedom.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Latiator said:


> Indeed, in fact, this is one of the messages that "occupy" is attempting to get across as I understand it. However, the way I see it we're still in control. The more we push for government control and intervention, the more rights we give up and that is in no way, shape or form what we want having being accustomed to constitutional monarchial type governance and freedom.


..it has been my own observation that "government control and intervention" is an extremely subjective concept. 

for some, it means government telling them that they can't speed, or smoke in the presence of children, or that they have to wear a seat belt or helmet.

and often the very same anti-government folks have no problem whatsoever with laws that limit the rights of gays, women or immigrants.

the way i see it, in a democratic system, we are always in control. we can vote one government out, and another one in.

because, in a democratic system, we are the government.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

People too often mistake bad policy for the system that happened to generate the policy. "Large" government can generate good and bad policy, just as small government can.

The assumption that government intervention is synonymous with "giving up rights" is, in my experience, based on taking the under-informed view, and all too often viewing things through the lens of one's own personal desires, and often in a very narrow way. A great deal of what government does is very much _intended_ to assure your rights. But like I say, you have to distinguish between good and bad policy. There is policy intended to assure your rights that does a lousy job and may inadvertently undermine them, and there is policy intended to assure your rights that does a good job of doing so. Generally speaking, policy developed in response to isolated or individual events tends to be poorer policy, and policy developed in response to enduring challenges/needs stands a better chance of being coherent, well-integrated and not conflicting with other policies, minimally intrusive, and able to achieve its intended goals.

And then there is also policy that does a great job of assuring your rights only you don't realize how it does so, because it is either too complex or intricate, or because the individual hasn't thought about it enough.


----------



## Latiator (Jul 18, 2007)

david henman said:


> ..it has been my own observation that "government control and intervention" is an extremely subjective concept.
> 
> for some, it means government telling them that they can't speed, or smoke in the presence of children, or that they have to wear a seat belt or helmet.
> 
> ...


Anti-government "folks" are anarchists not right-wingers David. 
In an idealized democratic system or more accurately a republic, and a platform on which all parties are bound by a law or constitution which holds government and citizens equally accountable, we are in control but in socialism, we are not so the two terms are not in fact, interchangeable.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> If they start to put some viable solutions on the table I will start to pay attention. Bitching at the rich wont solve anything


The viable solution is level out the wages. The CEO gets $3.5 million while the guy who sweats loses his job because $20 per hour is 'no longer fiscally competitive'...perhaps it would be if the CEO didn't get $3.5 million.

In this province we put $7 in to a pension fund for every $1 that our politicians put in.

The time has come for someone to surface who is not about personal greed and MAKE stuff happen. If only Castro were Canadian and 27 years old.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> the way i see it, in a democratic system, we are always in control. we can vote one government out, and another one in.
> 
> because, in a democratic system, we are the government.


in my mind this is the biggest flaw in the whole deal. you seem to have this pie in the sky idea that it's still a government of the people, by the people, for the people. number one, canada was never that, ever. it's free-er here cuba but your gov here was set up with it's own interests in mind, and not the peoples. sure it has soften and evolved in 200 yrs to become much closer to a democracy. but it's not the gov model that we started with in the states. it never was intended to be that. expecting it to act as if it is, is ludicrous. in the states we allowed certain people to corrupt and pervert our government into something ugly. in it's infancy it was what we intended it to be. but we couldn't maintain it. 
we allowed greed and a fear of personal responsibility to corrupt what was once great. still there are many americans who think they can vote in a better government. 
i think those people are deluded. 
i don't see any logic in expecting a corrupt self serving system to somehow right itself and become benevolent. 
would you expect godzilla to protect tokyo? 
this is no different, imo.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Latiator said:


> Anti-government "folks" are anarchists not right-wingers David. .


...then how do you explain the ubiquitous right wing push for less/smaller government and constant complaints from the right that there is too much government interfence in their lives?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i find it fascinating that people like am640s arlene bynon describe the occupy protest as an epic failure. 

oh, by the way, since it began, she has spent virtually every one of her daily talk shows talking about it....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Per the original documentary, the "1%" were the percentage of the U.S. population that controlled almost half of the wealth of the country - approximately 30 trillion dollars. This is an extremely elite group of people - not your boss, or MPP, neighbour, or local grocery store owner. These aren't the people who just have jobs - or even make 200 G's a year. You will never meet these people - or get within a mile of one. Outside of a few we probably don't even know their names. 

The whole debate seems to have shifted away from targeting these people to "I am against anyone who has more than me".


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> The whole debate seems to have shifted away from targeting these people to "I am against anyone who has more than me".


 
...there are those who feel that way - always have been, always will be. but i don't believe that they are in any way representative of the movement, or indicative of a shift in the debate.

i do think that there are many interested parties who want us to believe that is the case, however...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Pushing for smaller government is not a right wing idea, or an anti-government idea. Its just some people who want the government to concentrate their efforts on core services rather than the activities that are causing us to grow so much debt, such as handing money out to big business, competing against the private sector, funding patronage and nepotism executive jobs. When all that the occupiers are arguing against fits what big business and the government are both doing, there is a huge problem. I think the problem with the occupiers is they just dont have anybody who understands the system to speak for them, so they become an easy target.......


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Per the original documentary, the "1%" were the percentage of the U.S. population that controlled almost half of the wealth of the country - approximately 30 trillion dollars. This is an extremely elite group of people - not your boss, or MPP, neighbour, or local grocery store owner. These aren't the people who just have jobs - or even make 200 G's a year. You will never meet these people - or get within a mile of one. Outside of a few we probably don't even know their names.
> 
> The whole debate seems to have shifted away from targeting these people to "I am against anyone who has more than me".


not true, entirely. many of those people practice economic bullying just like the "elite 1%" i have no argument with someone who is wealthy because they worked hard. but many employers i have worked for, both in the states and here in canada seem to feel that their employees are barely human. these people ooze a contempt for those they feel are "beneath" them. they use strong arm tactics and monetary incentives to enlist the help of one employee to bully another. that's a tactic i see here in canada more than i ever saw it in the states. when you consider that i work in a loud sweaty sheetmetal shop it becomes all the more ludicrous. the bottom line is, greed is out of hand at every level of the game, and until people individually learn to check themselves it won't stop. 
can you convince a single drop of rain it's responsible for a flood?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> not true, entirely. many of those people practice economic bullying just like the "elite 1%" i have no argument with someone who is wealthy because they worked hard. but many employers i have worked for, both in the states and here in canada seem to feel that their employees are barely human. these people ooze a contempt for those they feel are "beneath" them. they use strong arm tactics and monetary incentives to enlist the help of one employee to bully another. that's a tactic i see here in canada more than i ever saw it in the states. when you consider that i work in a loud sweaty sheetmetal shop it becomes all the more ludicrous. the bottom line is, greed is out of hand at every level of the game, and until people individually learn to check themselves it won't stop.
> can you convince a single drop of rain it's responsible for a flood?


...better, then, to simply accept the fact that we are prone to greed and put in place measures and regulations to prevent our greed from harming us.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

sdsreLast time I thought I could make a difference I had flowers in my hair ................................ and hair


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

david henman said:


> ...better, then, to simply accept the fact that we are prone to greed and put in place measures and regulations to prevent our greed from harming us.


This is not hard to do really. I love to down on KRAFT because they really do scare the nuts off me. One rogue trader/CEO/financier in that company and half the food in shops across the planet would disappear. They are huge, way huge, they give huge a small name because they are that huge. To me they are simply way too huge. If you want a threat to any nations national security, that would have to be KRAFT. No company should ever be allowed to ever get that big. Be it by regulations or taxation but no company should be in a position to tank the planets economy.



allthumbs56 said:


> sdsreLast time I thought I could make a difference I had flowers in my hair ................................ and hair



HAHAHA


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> This is not hard to do really. I love to down on KRAFT because they really do scare the nuts off me. One rogue trader/CEO/financier in that company and half the food in shops across the planet would disappear. They are huge, way huge, they give huge a small name because they are that huge. To me they are simply way too huge. If you want a threat to any nations national security, that would have to be KRAFT. No company should ever be allowed to ever get that big. Be it by regulations or taxation but no company should be in a position to tank the planets economy.


Yet Kraft is unable to get shelf space for peanut butter in the States (they conceded to Skippy and Jiff a long time ago) ................ one reason I couldn't live in the States


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Yet Kraft is unable to get shelf space for peanut butter in the States (they conceded to Skippy and Jiff a long time ago) ................ one reason I couldn't live in the States


can't say as i blame for that. skippy is sweeter than it should be and jiff is just nasty. i'm a no name peanut butter kinda guy


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> This is not hard to do really. I love to down on KRAFT because they really do scare the nuts off me. One rogue trader/CEO/financier in that company and half the food in shops across the planet would disappear. They are huge, way huge, they give huge a small name because they are that huge. To me they are simply way too huge. If you want a threat to any nations national security, that would have to be KRAFT. No company should ever be allowed to ever get that big. Be it by regulations or taxation but no company should be in a position to tank the planets economy.


Then does it please you to hear they are splitting into 2 companies, an old school staples company (low growth, higher dividend) and a growth division that's mainly snack foods with lots of markets to open internationally?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

keto said:


> Then does it please you to hear they are splitting into 2 companies, an old school staples company (low growth, higher dividend) and a growth division that's mainly snack foods with lots of markets to open internationally?


That's a good start. I like to single out KRAFT. You know, KRAFT Singles.  however they are by no means the only monster corporation out there. One 'for instance', in North America in the 1970s you could be a writer and you could have a choice of any of a dozen different independent publishers. Now easily 90% of all books/ebooks are produced buy one of just three companies in North America. There was a massive flurry and heyday of mergers and acquisitions that resulted in such megalithic (is that the right word?) multinationals. Another famed one is Walmart about which there is many documentaries made; about how it walks into a town, drives all the small business under then decides the town is no longer profitable and leaves... duh you unemploye everyone of course no one will shop at your store. 

In the hindsight that is I can say I see nothing that has benefited the common person from this, and in fact can see many things that have been to the common persons detriment.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i thought this was funny, cause of the old saying sometimes a truth gets told as a joke. don't worry about the url, it's not a religious video

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KGL...ideo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11/25/2011


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That was freaking hilarious cheezy. LMAO


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

sulphur said:


> That was freaking hilarious cheezy. LMAO


Sadly, you could sing that in just about any country, in any language, in any time period ................. and it would still ring true ................


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that's why it's funny, i think


----------

