Occupy Toronto Protestors

[blueblood]

99.87% of people that are born into the 1% remain in the 1% for the rest of their lives.

How's that for mobility?

That would be called smart money management.

[CPCFTW]

99.87% of people that are born into the 1% remain in the 1% for the rest of their lives.

How's that for mobility?

99.92763% of all stats are made up.

[Shwa]

Adding fuel to the warmth of the oil drum...

Hacker group Anonymous threatens cyber attack if city evicts Occupy Toronto

TORONTO—A hacker group is standing up for Occupy Toronto protesters, threatening to unleash a cyber attack on the city if it interferes with the month-long demonstration.

In a video released on YouTube (see it below), the group Anonymous said Toronto will be “removed from the Internet” unless the city promises to leave the protesters alone.

Mayor Rob Ford asked the occupiers this week to dismantle their tent city in St. James Park.

Anon has been threatening a lot lately, but have they actually done anything or are they riding the reputation of some old news?

Then again, if they do decide to have a go at the City of Toronto it goes to show that there are some people highly invested in ensuring that the Occupy movement in Toronto continues according to their own timetable.

[dre]

Thanks for this.

I would never consider someone making, in the low 6 figure someone who's incredibly wealthy. What's shocking about that stat is about 40% of Canadians make $20,000 or less. I'm curious if that takes into account all workers or everyone. Like say a student who works part-time, retired people or stay-at-home moms with a side gig.

Also the more valuable statistic would be household income.

I agree. This whole 1% vs 99% is an awkward way to frame this debate.

It should really be framed as people who favor the traditional western economy VS people that favor the new era of endless debt and corporate control.

Its not wealthy people that are the problem for the most part. If someone got wealthy providing the products and services that people like having, then thats a great thing, but if the system is out of balance and unsustainable thats a problem for EVERYONE eventually including the wealthy.

[CPCFTW]

I agree. This whole 1% vs 99% is an awkward way to frame this debate.

It should really be framed as people who favor the traditional western economy VS people that favor the new era of endless debt and corporate control.

I disagree. The people who favour endless public debt are mostly the ones who favour the occupy movement.

I'd frame it as people who believe that: 1. corporations creates jobs and taxpayers and is the most efficient production method. And 2. that capitalism and globalization are the most impartial allocators of wealth and scarce resources.

vs

People who believe that there are enough resources in the world for everyone to have guaranteed jobs for life, free health care and education, and have a home, food, clothing, etc. And if there isn't enough resources for that, then we should at least keep borrowing from Chinese relative slave labour to construct our fantasy utopian society until it all collapses spectacularly in a massive default on our debts. And if borrowing from China isn't enough, then we should seize the wealth of the top 1% to pay for it too. Oh and the billions of 99% outside of the developed world don't matter, they're not people. Aka people who want to live the good life now and let their children and grandchildren suffer.

Edited November 13, 2011 by CPCFTW

[dre]

I disagree. The people who favour endless public debt are mostly the ones who favour the occupy movement.

I'd frame it as people who believe that: 1. corporations creates jobs and taxpayers and is the most efficient production method. And 2. that capitalism and globalization are the most impartial allocators of wealth and scarce resources.

vs

People who believe that there are enough resources in the world for everyone to have guaranteed jobs for life, free health care and education, and have a home, food, clothing, etc. And if there isn't enough resources for that, then we should at least keep borrowing from Chinese relative slave labour to construct our fantasy utopian society until it all collapses spectacularly in a massive default on our debts. And if borrowing from China isn't enough, then we should seize the wealth of the top 1% to pay for it too. Oh and the billions of 99% outside of the developed world don't matter, they're not people. Aka people who want to live the good life now and let their children and grandchildren suffer.

Thats just a strawman. The system that allows us to fund our governments and our programs with debt is the global financial system. The exact same system people are protesting. Its a quasi private/public system thats made up of the worlds money authorities and private commercial banks.

Up until they closed the gold window this kind of behavior was impossible because its all financed not by real investment but by monetary expansion. It allows countries to spend money they dont have by rapidly increasing the money supply, and spending that new money quickly before the inevitable inflation that monetary expansion causes.

Almost every country involved in the system has rapidly aquired debt since it was created, but all that "debt" really is is monetary expansion.

Edited November 14, 2011 by dre

[charter.rights]

Thats just a strawman. The system that allows us to fund our governments and our programs with debt is the global financial system. The exact same system people are protesting. Its a quasi private/public system thats made up of the worlds money authorities and private commercial banks.

Up until they closed the goal window this kind of behavior was impossible because its all financed not by real investment but by monetary expansion. It allows countries to spend money they dont have by rapidly increasing the money supply, and spending that new money quickly before the inevitable inflation that monetary expansion causes.

Almost every country involved in the system has rapidly aquired debt since it was created, but all that "debt" really is is monetary expansion.

Yes.

In fact our system depends on the creation of debt to make more money. After all currency is debt based.

[cybercoma]

And when you create debt that debt has to be paid back with interest. So, the amount of debt you create the following year has to be at least enough to cover the interest. It's a race to the bottom.

[grogy]

There is no doubt that the middle class could be doing better and some government policies aren't helping, but at the heart of this protest is a generation of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that socialism/Marxism is the best system. I wonder how many arts degrees are in those crowds of protestors, i would rather have the opportunity to better my situation than be told by the government how I was to live. It's amazing how many people do just that.

[CPCFTW]

Thats just a strawman. The system that allows us to fund our governments and our programs with debt is the global financial system. The exact same system people are protesting. Its a quasi private/public system thats made up of the worlds money authorities and private commercial banks.

Up until they closed the gold window this kind of behavior was impossible because its all financed not by real investment but by monetary expansion. It allows countries to spend money they dont have by rapidly increasing the money supply, and spending that new money quickly before the inevitable inflation that monetary expansion causes.

Almost every country involved in the system has rapidly aquired debt since it was created, but all that "debt" really is is monetary expansion.

That's like saying it's smith & wesson's fault that people shoot each other, and ford's fault that people drive drunk, and McDonald's fault that people are fat, and teletubbies fault that people are gay.

Loans and other financial instruments are just tools. It's the people's fault if they choose to elect leaders who spend the most borrowed money and make the most empty promises (cough McGuinty cough).

[charter.rights]

There is no doubt that the middle class could be doing better and some government policies aren't helping, but at the heart of this protest is a generation of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that socialism/Marxism is the best system. I wonder how many arts degrees are in those crowds of protestors, i would rather have the opportunity to better my situation than be told by the government how I was to live. It's amazing how many people do just that.

That would be obtusely wrong.

The occupy movement is about true democracy and reals at the aristocracy that has taken over.

[Boges]

That would be obtusely wrong.

The occupy movement is about true democracy and reals at the aristocracy that has taken over.

Really? So is that why only about 500 people have been camping out? That's not exactly an example of a popular uprising.

[Shwa]

Really? So is that why only about 500 people have been camping out? That's not exactly an example of a popular uprising.

If only 500 people were left to stand up for your Constitutional Rights, would you support them?

Tell me something Boges, since this is an important question: should city bylaws and provinicial laws and such be able to modify your Constitutional Rights?

[Boges]

If only 500 people were left to stand up for your Constitutional Rights, would you support them?

Tell me something Boges, since this is an important question: should city bylaws and provinicial laws and such be able to modify your Constitutional Rights?

What? Occupy is about Constitutional Rights Now? And are you saying that camping out in a park is a constitutional right?

I thought it was about the erosion of the Middle-Class, No wait I thought it was about bringing bankers in another country to justice, No wait I thought it was about Aboriginal rights, No wait It's about taxing the rich right?

[Shwa]

What? Occupy is about Constitutional Rights Now? And are you saying that camping out in a park is a constitutional right?

I thought it was about the erosion of the Middle-Class, No wait I thought it was about bringing bankers in another country to justice, No wait I thought it was about Aboriginal rights, No wait It's about taxing the rich right?

Can't answer the questions, eh? Thought so.

[Boges]

Can't answer the questions, eh? Thought so.

You have to clarify the question. Which Constitutional Rights are being threatened.

[Shwa]

You have to clarify the question. Which Constitutional Rights are being threatened.

Any of them.

[Boges]

Any of them.

Ok, I'll play ball.

No.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

[charter.rights]

RECAP:

Tell me something Boges, since this is an important question: should city bylaws and provinicial laws and such be able to modify your Constitutional Rights?

No.

So according to Boges, the occupiers can stay in the park....

[Boges]

It's a black-white question. If I had said yes then you'd have moaned about how bylaws could be passed infringe on human rights. The constitutional right to protest means people can do whatever they what on public property? Why are their bylaws in place to begin with then?

I don't really care about these protesters. Don't live near them so it doesn't affect my life. Just an interesting debate.

It's interesting that if they don't leave to allow for winterizing of the park the City's public purse will take a massive hit for the damage that is done. Do the protesters care about this considering the current mayor is looking at cost-cutting?

[Shwa]

It's interesting that if they don't leave to allow for winterizing of the park the City's public purse will take a massive hit for the damage that is done. Do the protesters care about this considering the current mayor is looking at cost-cutting?

Then let me ask you a question Boges, should the costs of Charter rights be factored in when maintaining them?

[Boges]

Then let me ask you a question Boges, should the costs of Charter rights be factored in when maintaining them?

IMHO yes. Cost should be factored into many things.

But I find this whole protest a giant waste of time, so I'm sort of biased. The attention this debate is getting is based on the problems caused by the protest not the messages they are trying to pass on to people.

To go back to my response to charter.rights asserting this protest is about Democracy. I don't see the huge multi-thousand-people protests going on to support these campers. So is their support really all that great?

Let me ask you Shwa. If this protest means so much to you, would you get on the GO-Train and try and stop the police from evicting them?

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

[Shwa]

IMHO yes. Cost should be factored into many things.

Just so I am clear, you are saying that if some Charter Rights are "too expensive" they shouldn't be maintained?

But I find this whole protest a giant waste of time, so I'm sort of biased. The attention this debate is getting is based on the problems caused by the protest not the messages they are trying to pass on to people.

Really? So income disparity and consitutional rights aren't worthy of attention or discussion?

To go back to my response to charter.rights asserting this protest is about Democracy. I don't see the huge multi-thousand-people protests going on to support these campers. So is their support really all that great?

Do Charter Rights only apply where there are multi-thousand people protests?

Let me ask you Shwa. If this protest means so much to you, would you get on the GO-Train and try and stop the police from evicting them?

It depends on the reason for evicting them which ought to be reasonable and demonstrable reasons. But if it is avoid inconveniencing a few people, I am there.

[Boges]

Just so I am clear, you are saying that if some Charter Rights are "too expensive" they shouldn't be maintained?

I'm assuming you were referring to the costs incurred by the damages caused by not allowing proper winterization of the park. I think this is a good instance where a pragmatic approach should be taken. Even if they uproot to allow the maintenance to be done and come back the next day.

Really? So income disparity and consitutional rights aren't worthy of attention or discussion?

Sure they are! But the MSM news regarding Occupy a month+ out really have nothing to with those things. It's about the protest itself, not the message.

Do Charter Rights only apply where there are multi-thousand people protests?

Well when people like charter.rights talk about this being about democracy. . . then yeah!

It depends on the reason for evicting them which ought to be reasonable and demonstrable reasons. But if it is avoid inconveniencing a few people, I am there.

Inconvenience = local businesses losing money and massive costs associated with not doing proper maintenance to a park the city owns? If that's your take I hope you enjoy you're trip later this week when they are evicted for those reasons.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

[Shwa]

I'm assuming you were referring to the costs incurred by the damages caused by not allowing proper winterization of the park. I think this is a good instance where a pragmatic approach should be taken. Even if they uproot to allow the maintenance to be done and come back the next day.

Puh-leaze. "Winterization" of a park as reason for denying the freedom of peaceful assembly. Gimme a break.

Sure they are! But the MSM news regarding Occupy a month+ out really have nothing to with those things. It's about the protest itself, not the message.

Perhaps the medium is the message. A famous Canadian said that.

Well when people like charter.rights talk about this being about democracy. . . then yeah!

Would you deny people their democractic rights, also guaranteed in the Charter, to winterize a park?

Inconvenience = business losing money and massive costs associated with not doing proper maintenance to a park the city owns? If that's your take I hope you enjoy you're trip later this week when they are evicted for those reasons.

So you are saying yes, a little bit of inconvenience is worth trampling on people's constitutional rights. Thought so.