Occupy Toronto Protestors

[Boges]

There is not point. These overdoses, etc open the door him to make the discussion about the character of the protesters, and avoid real discussion about the structural problems in the system.

Its sort of the same thing the left in the US tried to do with the teapartiers. By focusing on the odd nut chanting racist slogans you shift the discussion towards the character of the protesters and away from the real issues.

I think that boat has already sailed dood.

Not a single news report I've read about the Occupy Protests say much about the "Real Issues" It's about the potential evictions.

[dre]

I think that boat has already sailed dood.

Not a single news report I've read about the Occupy Protests say much about the "Real Issues" It's about the potential evictions.

Yup. Thats the kind of stuff that the news media is good for.

Im seeing some different results though. Our local paper has a lot of discussion on our economic system since these protest movements have been underway. Theres been an increase of discussion about the financial system here on MLW as well, although much if it gets drowned by this really low quality and pointess argument about the character of protests and whether or not tents should be allowed, or mindless rants by idiots about communism and such.

[grogy]

Yup. Thats the kind of stuff that the news media is good for.

Im seeing some different results though. Our local paper has a lot of discussion on our economic system since these protest movements have been underway. Theres been an increase of discussion about the financial system here on MLW as well, although much if it gets drowned by this really low quality and pointess argument about the character of protests and whether or not tents should be allowed, or mindless rants by idiots about communism and such.

There is nothing idiotic about it, our system has flaws, but it has still been the best system, if you can prove that any other system of government and economics provides people with more opportunity then im sure we would all be interested. This movement is at its heart a movement of Marxist ideology, there are winners and losers in our system, sometimes through no fault of your own, some seem to think that there should be no losers. I take care of myself and my family, for better or worse everyone should be expected to do the same, help those who truly can't help themselves, but no more.

[dre]

There is nothing idiotic about it, our system has flaws, but it has still been the best system, if you can prove that any other system of government and economics provides people with more opportunity then im sure we would all be interested. This movement is at its heart a movement of Marxist ideology, there are winners and losers in our system, sometimes through no fault of your own, some seem to think that there should be no losers. I take care of myself and my family, for better or worse everyone should be expected to do the same, help those who truly can't help themselves, but no more.

No this is all bogus.

When our system was created the founders took steps to make sure it did not concentrate wealth. Thats why we have land taxes, progressive taxation, social programs, etc. They had lived through a time when a tiny percentage of people owned everything, and they knew where that leads (political instability).

And nobody is saying their shouldnt be winners and losers. Thats nothing more than a strawman. There has been winners and losers, and rich and poor for a long long time without people taking to the streets.

The fact is... the system we have now in many ways is brand new. The rapid concentration of wealth we see today has not happened since the aristocracies and the gilded age.

This movement is at its heart a movement of Marxist ideology, there are winners and losers in our system

The only possible way to believe that would be to know absolutely nothing about "marxist ideology".

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Yup. Thats the kind of stuff that the news media is good for.

Im seeing some different results though. Our local paper has a lot of discussion on our economic system since these protest movements have been underway. Theres been an increase of discussion about the financial system here on MLW as well, although much if it gets drowned by this really low quality and pointess argument about the character of protests and whether or not tents should be allowed, or mindless rants by idiots about communism and such.

That's what happens when talking to the the ideologues who have no interest in actually discussing points but, pushing their ideology at all costs.

--------------------------------------------

I'm for letting the people protest. What harm are they causing? Really? Bringing attention to the issue of corporate welfare and the imbalance of wealth that western capitalism creates? If you feel that everything is great, then why care about a few protester's? Every thing is great and they'll be of no consquence.

That being said, I do take issue with a lot of the people part of OCCUPY who never took the time to make themselves marketable. The people with "hobby academic" degrees instead of career potential degrees. The world does not owe you a job for pursuing a degree in philosophy.

But, let them protest. I've even considered sending some assistance of sorts (Food, sleeping bags) and why not? In my opinion, Canadians need to protest things we feel are injust more often than we currently do.

Edited November 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[charter.rights]

Judge grants stay of eviction to 'Occupy' protesters

Looks like Occupy Toronto is in St James until at least the weekend. Court hearing on Friday....

[jacee]

Plus, I don't think anyone at the City of Toronto would be terrified if their website went off line for a couple of hours or someone hacked a funny message into the content.

So where's all the "Cyber Terrorism?"

More like Cyber Hyperbole if you ask me.

Update:

Stay of eviction ...

To rule on Constitutional rights

Peaceful assembly ...

And they've done that.

Well done!

And it's not over yet...

A Toronto judge has postponed the eviction of Occupy Toronto protesters while he rules on constitutional issues raised by applicants for an injunction against city by-law officers. Superior Court of Justice, said everything at the St. James Park site of the protests must remain the same until his decision is made, no later than 6 p.m. on Saturday.

“I think the most appropriate way to balance the interests of all concerned is to maintain the status quo for a very short period of time,” Justice Brown stated, in granting a temporary stay of the eviction notice. He will hear arguments on Friday.

[Shwa]

Update:

Stay of eviction ...

To rule on Constitutional rights

Peaceful assembly ...

And they've done that.

Well done!

And it's not over yet...

A Toronto judge has postponed the eviction of Occupy Toronto protesters while he rules on constitutional issues raised by applicants for an injunction against city by-law officers. Superior Court of Justice, said everything at the St. James Park site of the protests must remain the same until his decision is made, no later than 6 p.m. on Saturday.

“I think the most appropriate way to balance the interests of all concerned is to maintain the status quo for a very short period of time,” Justice Brown stated, in granting a temporary stay of the eviction notice. He will hear arguments on Friday.

And people wonder what their 'coherent' message is....

[cybercoma]

Then I expect a court order preventing their impending eviction at midnight tonight.

Why hasn't the London, Ontario eviction been struck down as unconstitutional?

Your wish is the court's command:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/15/occupy-toronto-protesters-call-for-reinforcements-to-pack-the-park-ahead-of-looming-eviction/

[cybercoma]

I think that boat has already sailed dood.

Not a single news report I've read about the Occupy Protests say much about the "Real Issues" It's about the potential evictions.

Your problem is with the media then. There's tons of discussion about wealth is power and the growing disparity in wealth, thus a growing disparity in power. Of course, the MSM would rather put eyeballs on the screen to sell ad space, so they engage in what I like to call WWE-style Reporting. That's when the news is more concerned with cutting inflammatory promos than actually researching and reporting.

[cybercoma]

There is nothing idiotic about it, our system has flaws, but it has still been the best system, if you can prove that any other system of government and economics provides people with more opportunity then im sure we would all be interested. This movement is at its heart a movement of Marxist ideology, there are winners and losers in our system, sometimes through no fault of your own, some seem to think that there should be no losers. I take care of myself and my family, for better or worse everyone should be expected to do the same, help those who truly can't help themselves, but no more.

There are some very important differences between Marxist ideology and Occupy, the least of which being Marx believed the Revolution would only happen through violence. Occupy, on the other hand, condemns any and all violence. Marx believed the entire system had to be ripped down and rebuilt from scratch, as a classless society. Occupy believes that the system can be reformed, such that money is not the primary influence in a political system where all people are supposed to be equal. Wealth is political power and there is a growing disparity in wealth. Occupy is being mischaracterized as an attempt to redistribute wealth, when the original Occupiers never claimed that. What they did advocate for was money to lose its influence in the legislative process because the government should work for the poor and the rich alike. When a politicians are bought and paid for by the highest bidders, there's a problem and it's not that the bidders have more money. The problem is that the politicians are for sale. In short, Occupy is at its heart a reform movement, rather than a Marxist Revolutionary one.

[blueblood]

There are some very important differences between Marxist ideology and Occupy, the least of which being Marx believed the Revolution would only happen through violence. Occupy, on the other hand, condemns any and all violence. Marx believed the entire system had to be ripped down and rebuilt from scratch, as a classless society. Occupy believes that the system can be reformed, such that money is not the primary influence in a political system where all people are supposed to be equal. Wealth is political power and there is a growing disparity in wealth. Occupy is being mischaracterized as an attempt to redistribute wealth, when the original Occupiers never claimed that. What they did advocate for was money to lose its influence in the legislative process because the government should work for the poor and the rich alike. When a politicians are bought and paid for by the highest bidders, there's a problem and it's not that the bidders have more money. The problem is that the politicians are for sale. In short, Occupy is at its heart a reform movement, rather than a Marxist Revolutionary one.

Except violence towards women, police officers, and firefighters.

People are born equal, that's it, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. These kids pissed theirs away, who's fault is that.

The final problem isn't the influence of money, it's the fact that there is such a large volume of power for sale in the first place, which goes to the sale to the highest bidder. If there wasn't so much power for sale, what would the "corporations" be buying?

[dre]

Except violence towards women, police officers, and firefighters.

People are born equal, that's it, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. These kids pissed theirs away, who's fault is that.

The final problem isn't the influence of money, it's the fact that there is such a large volume of power for sale in the first place, which goes to the sale to the highest bidder. If there wasn't so much power for sale, what would the "corporations" be buying?

The same system the results in all this corporate cronyism is the one that has resulted in government having so much influence for sale. The size and scope of government can only grow because the financial system lets them fund operations with money that doesnt exist.

You cant have limited government without sound money. I assure you thats an utter impossibility, because the natural check on big government is that for the government to get big, they have to keep raising taxes. The reason government has gotten large is because now they can grow without raising taxes by extracting funding from currency holders and further generations.

The reason that happens is people dont understand the system. When the government through the central bank expands the money supply to fund its operation its actually a tax on all holders of existing currency. MONETARY EXPANSION = TAXATION.

Until we either impelment sound money or people understand how the system works, government will keep growing.

[blueblood]

The same system the results in all this corporate cronyism is the one that has resulted in government having so much influence for sale. The size and scope of government can only grow because the financial system lets them fund operations with money that doesnt exist.

You cant have limited government without sound money. I assure you thats an utter impossibility, because the natural check on big government is that for the government to get big, they have to keep raising taxes. The reason government has gotten large is because now they can grow without raising taxes by extracting funding from currency holders and further generations.

The reason that happens is people dont understand the system. When the government through the central bank expands the money supply to fund its operation its actually a tax on all holders of existing currency. MONETARY EXPANSION = TAXATION.

Until we either impelment sound money or people understand how the system works, government will keep growing.

You forgot that the gov't keeps making more and more regulations, rules, and creating power based on election promises.

You can have sound policy, but you need sound people to follow that policy. U fortunately there hasn't been very many smart people in gov't for quite some time, they all went to the private sector.

[cybercoma]

Except violence towards women, police officers, and firefighters.

You just look like an uninformed idiot when you keep saying things that are simply not true. Occupy has always been against violence. The entire point is to expose the corruption and violence inherent in the system. They do not endorse nor resort to violence as a means for achieving their goals because it's antithetical to their goals. In Oakland, there were protesters that linked arms and tried protecting banks from being damaged by certain provocateurs. Oakland is the home of a large violent anarchist contingent and Occupy there has worked overtime to ensure that they don't take over the movement.

All of the violence that you list were committed by individuals on their own behalf that are not representative of the Occupy movement. Saying that represents OWS is like saying Wall Street stands for beating their wives because of the endemic problem of spousal abuse amongst the bankers. Or it would be like saying Wall Street stands for doing coke because there has been estimates that upwards of 38% of them snort coke. It's simply not the case, no matter how many times you say it. In fact, they've continuously condemned it via Twitter and have called for NYPD to help. NYPD refused to do their jobs.

The final problem isn't the influence of money, it's the fact that there is such a large volume of power for sale in the first place, which goes to the sale to the highest bidder. If there wasn't so much power for sale, what would the "corporations" be buying?

So now you agree with OWS? Funny that.

[dre]

You forgot that the gov't keeps making more and more regulations, rules, and creating power based on election promises.

You can have sound policy, but you need sound people to follow that policy. U fortunately there hasn't been very many smart people in gov't for quite some time, they all went to the private sector.

You forgot that the gov't keeps making more and more regulations, rules, and creating power based on election promises.

Ummmm. I just went over this. All those rules and regulations cost the government money. In a sound money system government cant grow like that, because it has to keep going back to the taxpayers and asking for more money, and the taxpayers get pissed off.

Whats the ultimate check on spending? Running out of money!!! And that doesnt happen if the government can just expand the money supply at will through private banks.

[CPCFTW]

Your problem is with the media then. There's tons of discussion about wealth is power and the growing disparity in wealth, thus a growing disparity in power. Of course, the MSM would rather put eyeballs on the screen to sell ad space, so they engage in what I like to call WWE-style Reporting. That's when the news is more concerned with cutting inflammatory promos than actually researching and reporting.

Of course wealth is power. Why would someone who employs hundreds or thousands of Canadians with his own business, and who has millions of dollars invested in other Canadians businesses, land, real estate, and other assets have the same power as a hobo who begs for change outside Tim Horton's?

I much prefer wealth is power to the alternative: everyone has equal power whether rich or poor, smart or dumb, lazy or productive. And there's a simple solution for anyone who wants more power: acquire wealth. What's the solution for the 1% when the lazy, but equally empowered majority votes to seize their wealth for "equitable" redistribution? I'll choose wealth is power over mob rule every time.

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

You would have fit in nicely with the pre universal suffrage crowd.

[dre]

Of course wealth is power. Why would someone who employs hundreds or thousands of Canadians with his own business, and who has millions of dollars invested in other Canadians businesses, land, real estate, and other assets have the same power as a hobo who begs for change outside Tim Horton's?

I much prefer wealth is power to the alternative: everyone has equal power whether rich or poor, smart or dumb, lazy or productive. And there's a simple solution for anyone who wants more power: acquire wealth. What's the solution for the 1% when the lazy, but equally empowered majority votes to seize their wealth for "equitable" redistribution? I'll choose wealth is power over mob rule every time.

I much prefer wealth is power to the alternative: everyone has equal power whether rich or poor, smart or dumb, lazy or productive.

Thats because you dont know shit. Youve never lived anywhere but in the modern mixed economy welfare state. If you lived through the aristocracies or the french and russian revolutions you might feel a little bit different.

[CPCFTW]

Thats because you dont know shit. Youve never lived anywhere but in the modern mixed economy welfare state. If you lived through the aristocracies or the french and russian revolutions you might feel a little bit different.

Yes if I had lived through the Russian or French Revolutions like you I suppose?

Hippies are so cute!

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

You would have fit in nicely with the pre universal suffrage crowd.

And you would fit in nicely with the overdosing heroine addicts crowd.

[grogy]

Thats because you dont know shit. Youve never lived anywhere but in the modern mixed economy welfare state. If you lived through the aristocracies or the french and russian revolutions you might feel a little bit different.

lol..

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stop the childish banter and personal attacks. It only brings down the quality of the forums.

If that nonsense continues, posting privileges will be temporarily suspended.

Ch. A.

moderator

[Shwa]

Fish meet barrel:

Of course wealth is power. Why would someone who employs hundreds or thousands of Canadians with his own business, and who has millions of dollars invested in other Canadians businesses, land, real estate, and other assets have the same power as a hobo who begs for change outside Tim Horton's?

Is that how you see things? In sweet little false dichotomies that your mind can digest so you still feel that you have something to add?

So should the wealthy - or their corporations - have the power to usurp individual freedoms as given to us through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Or should the wealthy, through the offices of their corporations, have greater access to justice?

I much prefer wealth is power to the alternative: everyone has equal power whether rich or poor, smart or dumb, lazy or productive.

Yet you whine and complain and obfuscate with invective all because a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to exercise a Constitutional right. The amount of power they have over you, just by getting you to pay attention to their many causes, is simply outstanding. Obviously, you lack the wealth to be powerful enough to ignore their actions.

And there's a simple solution for anyone who wants more power: acquire wealth. What's the solution for the 1% when the lazy, but equally empowered majority votes to seize their wealth for "equitable" redistribution?

Are you talking about the vast amount of wealth acquired through inheritance?

I'll choose wealth is power over mob rule every time.

Be careful what you wish for, because chances are you would be on the losing side should there ever come a conflict between the wealthy and the mob. Or do you ignore history books too?

[Boges]

Well the Occupy Toronto will get boring for the next few days. Does the judge really need 4 days to decide this issue?

Curious if they judge comes down on the side of the City, will the protesters leave on their own or will they force the cops to turf them.

Interesting perspective I heard on this from Josh Matlow who's a Toronto City Councillor. His claim is that there are many destitute homeless people in the camp and someone needs to be done about them before the encampment is removed.

I thought this protest was only about people that wanted to stick it to the 1%?