Loser Protesters

[Shady]

Waste of time and money and a complete lack of common sense on all those who participated this weekend.

Unfortunately for you, Canadians don't agree.

Most Canadians say G8/G20 summits important

Three-quarters of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll said this week’s G8 and G20 summits in Ontario are important and worth the expense of their country hosting.

Link

It was so poorly organized and you saw the results of that in the streets on Saturday.

Actually, it was very well organized. Unfortunately, if certain people want to commit violence, there isn't much you can do about it. Unless you want to completely lock down the city.

I still don't think we should let thug protestors dictate to us where and when we can host international summits.

[Army Guy]

Yes I know, they're no different or better than their enemies really.

Galvanizing who you mean. People like you, and Argus, Mr. Canada, lukin, the list goes on and on and on. The sorts of people who always have a big hard-on for increasing the State's capacity for crackin' down and gettin' tough.

Wonder if this thing happened in BC and those same protestors trashed your boat...would you be singing the same tune....or calling for more police action....these so called violent protestors are punks, out for a good time on our dime....what they need is a good crack in the skull with a baton....in fact they are begging for it....i say crack em, give a couple of weeks in the hospital to think about just how retarded their actions where....

Edited June 28, 2010 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

Unfortunately for you, Canadians don't agree.

From your link...

Most Canadians say G8/G20 summits important...

...Of those polled who expressed awareness of the summits, 61 per cent said they were “too expensive to be worth it,” while 32 per cent said the summits’ costs were justified.

I say again...WTF am I supposed to make of this? Is this why so many people think the Star is a useless source of information?

[Wilber]

Yes I know, they're no different or better than their enemies really.

Galvanizing who you mean. People like you, and Argus, Mr. Canada, lukin, the list goes on and on and on. The sorts of people who always have a big hard-on for increasing the State's capacity for crackin' down and gettin' tough.

I would much rather not have the need to "crack down and get tough" but if "cracking down and getting tough" on the A holes will make it easier for those who are trying to get a message across in a legitimate manner, I'm all for it.

[madmax]

Do you expect blue collar workers to all be millionaires? What exactly do you expect wages for people who largely haven't finished high school to be? In line with CEO wages?

I am asking a serious question as I want to learn exactly what you socialists want.

And you wonder why the Conservatives are going to lose the blue collar vote LOL.

Blue Collar wages are falling from the $40,000 -$60,000 range to the $20,000 to $40,000 range.

CEO salaries have increased during the recession from an Average of $350,000 to an average of $800,000.

Its been tough on those CEOs.

Stand up for them. They need your support and ours. Government handouts are required to help them make it, but I know its coming and they will be able to protect those Mercedes, Mazorotties, and why I am not certain, Jaguar, but they will make it through these tough times.

With your help.

[eyeball]

Wonder if this thing happened in BC and those same protestors trashed your boat...would you be singing the same tune...

I'd still be asking the same thing, who's brainwave was it to host this shit magnet where the shit would be so guaranteed to fly?

[dre]

At the end of the day, these protesters dont really seem to have a coherent message so I cant say I agree with them on anything.

But if the protests indirectly result in these people not being such wasteful pigs that will be a good thing. These events definately need to be scaled back, and they need to join the rest of us in the digital age... the fact is that most of the business done at these meetings could have been done without a zillion dollar conference. The business world is proof of this.

[madmax]

Unfortunately for you, Canadians don't agree.

Better you read what you post...

The Poll states that when people see the costs of the G20/G8 their opinion reverses

Of those polled who expressed awareness of the summits, 61 per cent said they were “too expensive to be worth it,” while 32 per cent said the summits’ costs were justified.

For those who don't know the cost, yes is an easy answer.

When they do know the cost, support becomes difficult to obtain.

Of course I am sure you already know that you were trying to snow us with that poll the same way paid polster snowed the media with its timely release and questionable outcome.

Edited June 28, 2010 by madmax

[Argus]

Why have the meeting at all? Its pretty clear that these meetings could be held via video conferencing cheaply and easily. Assuming that the meetings have any actual value at all...

So they should never meet because whenever they do a few hundred punk ass loserboys will smash windows?

[madmax]

So they should never meet because whenever they do a few hundred punk ass loserboys will smash windows?

Hey Federal Servant. Are you on the Clock using the internet again??

[Argus]

We are all expected, in our jobs to find ways to do things effectively with the lowest cost possible. There's no reason to give the government carte blanche. Because tbe fact is, unchecked they will take it all, as they've done before.

Even the visiting leaders of other countries were astonished and criticized the cost of security for this meeting in Canada.

Conservative, my eye

I'd really like to see the itemized expenses. I'm reasonably sure this could have been done a lot cheaper. For one thing, how much did that godawful fence cost? Why spend millions on a giant, strong fence to hold back crowds when you're tactics are to keep all crowds blocks away from it anyway? Why did they need to block off a security zone behind the fence some ten or twenty blocks long? Why not establish a much smaller zone around the conference centre which would be much easier to defend and require far fewer cops to man and monitor the perimeter? Establish one demonstration route, let all protesters use it and scatter hundreds of cops among them. The moment some group of black masked idiots gets together, converge and grab them. Few of the rest of the demonstrators would have interfered.

[dre]

So they should never meet because whenever they do a few hundred punk ass loserboys will smash windows?

No they should scale the meetings back, and use modern technology like the rest of the business world does when negotiating transactions, so they dont undermine their message when these very same governments need to go to voters and explain that now is the time to be frugal, avoid defecit spending, and cut lots of programs.

They should practice what they preach... most of the government in the G8 are preaching defecit reduction, cuts, and efficiency of spending. Its hard to be effective with this message when youre snorting coke of a 10 thousand dollar hookers tits at a billion dollar meeting.

[Argus]

No they should scale the meetings back, and use modern technology like the rest of the business world does when negotiating transactions,

Among the main reasons for these things are getting to know each other (not just leaders but senior staffers), establishing relationships which might short circuit all sorts of future problems between countries. In addition, an awful lot of things are set in candor behind closed doors which would not be said over a video phone due to the certainty it would be recorded by someone.

[dre]

Heres another idea as well that would make for very smart PR.

Each summit split the hosting costs between the 8 G8 nations, and the 20 G20 nations. This would reduce the ammount of sticker shock, and it would balance the costs out over the long term. Our costs this time around would have probably been around 80 million, and people would have found that easier to stomach... even though over the long term it would have cost the same over 8/20 summits.

Also, theres probably some countries that can put these things on a lot cheaper. Maybe because of demographics, or the availability of "non down town" venues. Have more of the summits in these places.

[eyeball]

Why spend millions on a giant, strong fence to hold back crowds when you're tactics are to keep all crowds blocks away from it anyway?

To create a galvanizing event - to help maintain, sustain and grow the illusion that we need to be afraid and that we need more police with more authority to keep us safe. We can never be diligent enough.

[dre]

Among the main reasons for these things are getting to know each other (not just leaders but senior staffers), establishing relationships which might short circuit all sorts of future problems between countries. In addition, an awful lot of things are set in candor behind closed doors which would not be said over a video phone due to the certainty it would be recorded by someone.

In addition, an awful lot of things are set in candor behind closed doors which would not be said over a video phone due to the certainty it would be recorded by someone.

You just hit on the best reason of all to have the meetings by videophone. People tend to behave themselves if they think people might be watching, where as private/secret meetings are inherently corruptive. These people are CIVIL SERVANTS... we SHOULD be watching them.

[sharkman]

It's much more than the meetings over the last couple of days that 'could be done with modern technology. For the last several months their underlings have been using this technology in negotiations and meetings to set up the G20 event. I agree that they could have spent somewhat less, but events like this have protocols and a template of sorts as to what kind of safeguards and ready responses are in place in case of any emergency or event that may take place. And remember there are those who would want some of these leaders dead and these threats have to be taken seriously.

Something else that liberals and lefties will not recognize is that Harper is becoming quite the statesman. His world rep is quite good and the successful weekend this turned out to be only adds to his prestige. And of course that translates to world influence. Too bad that leftwingers that make up a third of our population are unable to see the good work that Harper does. Oh well, the rest of us can see what's going on.

[sharkman]

To create a galvanizing event - to help maintain, sustain and grow the illusion that we need to be afraid and that we need more police with more authority to keep us safe. We can never be diligent enough.

Hilarious!!! Now I understand you, you're a conspiracy theorist. Better batten down that tinfoil hat!

Edited June 28, 2010 by sharkman

[eyeball]

Among the main reasons for these things are getting to know each other (not just leaders but senior staffers), establishing relationships which might short circuit all sorts of future problems between countries. In addition, an awful lot of things are set in candor behind closed doors which would not be said over a video phone due to the certainty it would be recorded by someone.

You don't think a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean or a Buddhist temple on top of a mountain would be a better place to do this, especially if they only plan on meeting once every few years?

Kyself I'd rather see these leaders working face to face day after day in a proper global parliament or world congress. The world's problems are certainly vast enough to warrant a hell of a lot more effort on their part to work together. Given the volume of news stories devoted to the police/protester spectacle however...they may have just as well stayed home.

[Born Free]

..... . Too bad that leftwingers that make up a third of our population are unable to see the good work that Harper does. Oh well, the rest of us can see what's going on.

...only with rose coloured glasses...

[Jack Weber]

You don't think a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean or a Buddhist temple on top of a mountain would be a better place to do this, especially if they only plan on meeting once every few years?

Kyself I'd rather see these leaders working face to face day after day in a proper global parliament or world congress. The world's problems are certainly vast enough to warrant a hell of a lot more effort on their part to work together. Given the volume of news stories devoted to the police/protester spectacle however...they may have just as well stayed home.

Are you advocating for some sort of One World Government???

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou saw the results of that in the streets on Saturday.

Yes, less destruction and violence than usual for these meetings.

[dre]

Notice nobody commented on this idea. WOuldnt it make a lot of sense?

Heres another idea as well that would make for very smart PR.

Each summit split the hosting costs between the 8 G8 nations, and the 20 G20 nations. This would reduce the ammount of sticker shock, and it would balance the costs out over the long term. Our costs this time around would have probably been around 80 million, and people would have found that easier to stomach... even though over the long term it would have cost the same over 8/20 summits.

Also, theres probably some countries that can put these things on a lot cheaper. Maybe because of demographics, or the availability of "non down town" venues. Have more of the summits in these places.

[eyeball]

Are you advocating for some sort of One World Government???

It makes sense in a One World Economy don't you think?

Are you afraid of black helicopters or something?

[Jack Weber]

It makes sense in a One World Economy don't you think?

Are you afraid of black helicopters or something?

No!!!

My home made tin foil hat protects me from those choppers....