Turning tables on Occupy Toronto
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
OnTheIce @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:34 am
Judge rules against Occupy Toronto encampment
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ ... ntoNewHome
Bye-bye beards!
Brenda @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:39 am
Vancouver has to be cleared out by 2 pm PT too.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:27 pm
Macguyver Macguyver:
I've got plenty of money. I've got a job, a truck, a car, a motorcycle, a motor home, a business...I'm still agitated that we can't get the rich to pay their fair share.
And they are not protesting "corporations" they are protesting corporate greed...greed like hiring all part time staff to avoid labour costs like health care insurance.
And they are not protesting "corporations" they are protesting corporate greed...greed like hiring all part time staff to avoid labour costs like health care insurance.
So the various city administrations are responsible for the actions of corporations?
Starting to sound like a broken record here but, HOW ABOUT DEMONSTRATING IN FRONT OF THOSE BUSINESSES? HOW ABOUT BOYCOTTING THEIR PRODUCTS INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF CONSUMERIST PIRHANAS?
How about buying food at the grocery store instead of being a bunch of lazy fucks and hitting McD's or Timmies for a single serving meal?
Dumb fucks will happily shell out $5 bucks for a Big Mac then complain about corporate greed because they are either too lazy or too stupid to make their own burgers.
They'll happily shell out $2.50 for one coffee at Timmies because they can't be bothered brewing their own coffee at home for what, about 25 cents a cup?
I bet if you took the average Timmy's coffee drinker and wrote down the amount every single time they bought a coffee, they'd shit their pants at the end of the year when you showed them the total. An average of one per day every day at $2.50 per, totals over $900 in a year. Now, how many people out there drink multiple cups of Timmy's coffee every day?
Now, I realize that those amounts are tiny, comparatively speaking. But this group is so willing to point fingers everywhere else that they just can't be bothered taking a long time out for some self-reflection.
The consumer is just as responsible for corporate greed as the corporations themselves. I'd be willing to bet you know at least a few people in the "99%" that insist on buying a new car every 2-3 years. That grab up the latest tech and gadgets the moment they come out. That dine out or order in more times a week than eating a home cooked meal.
In past years, I've even seen newspapers waste space with stories about how hard done by some people were. One was a nurse making $40K/yr at the time(early 90s) and living in Windsor, a city where one could live fairly decently making that kind of scratch at the time. She lamented that being able to take her son to McD's once a month was was a "luxury" and that some months she couldn't afford to take him. However as soon as the article mentioned her monthly BMW lease, I quit reading.
Then there was the family in Quebec with a household income of $48K/yr that was having "trouble" making ends meet. Their rent was only in the $400-$500/month rage and they had no expenses associated with a car. Schools and shopping were all close by and in easy walking distance. Their problem? Brand name addiction, constant dining out and not being able to say "no" to their kids.
Now, I realize that 2 families aren't exactly representative but their situations are far from being isolated incidents.
Personal responsibility isn't supposed to be some abstract concept that only applies to "the other side".
Seems kind of counter-productive to continue feeding the very beast you protest.
Zipperfish @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:29 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Macguyver Macguyver:
I've got plenty of money. I've got a job, a truck, a car, a motorcycle, a motor home, a business...I'm still agitated that we can't get the rich to pay their fair share.
And they are not protesting "corporations" they are protesting corporate greed...greed like hiring all part time staff to avoid labour costs like health care insurance.
And they are not protesting "corporations" they are protesting corporate greed...greed like hiring all part time staff to avoid labour costs like health care insurance.
So the various city administrations are responsible for the actions of corporations?
Starting to sound like a broken record here but, HOW ABOUT DEMONSTRATING IN FRONT OF THOSE BUSINESSES? HOW ABOUT BOYCOTTING THEIR PRODUCTS INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF CONSUMERIST PIRHANAS?
How about buying food at the grocery store instead of being a bunch of lazy fucks and hitting McD's or Timmies for a single serving meal?
Dumb fucks will happily shell out $5 bucks for a Big Mac then complain about corporate greed because they are either too lazy or too stupid to make their own burgers.
They'll happily shell out $2.50 for one coffee at Timmies because they can't be bothered brewing their own coffee at home for what, about 25 cents a cup?
I bet if you took the average Timmy's coffee drinker and wrote down the amount every single time they bought a coffee, they'd shit their pants at the end of the year when you showed them the total. An average of one per day every day at $2.50 per, totals over $900 in a year. Now, how many people out there drink multiple cups of Timmy's coffee every day?
Now, I realize that those amounts are tiny, comparatively speaking. But this group is so willing to point fingers everywhere else that they just can't be bothered taking a long time out for some self-reflection.
The consumer is just as responsible for corporate greed as the corporations themselves. I'd be willing to bet you know at least a few people in the "99%" that insist on buying a new car every 2-3 years. That grab up the latest tech and gadgets the moment they come out. That dine out or order in more times a week than eating a home cooked meal.
In past years, I've even seen newspapers waste space with stories about how hard done by some people were. One was a nurse making $40K/yr at the time(early 90s) and living in Windsor, a city where one could live fairly decently making that kind of scratch at the time. She lamented that being able to take her son to McD's once a month was was a "luxury" and that some months she couldn't afford to take him. However as soon as the article mentioned her monthly BMW lease, I quit reading.
Then there was the family in Quebec with a household income of $48K/yr that was having "trouble" making ends meet. Their rent was only in the $400-$500/month rage and they had no expenses associated with a car. Schools and shopping were all close by and in easy walking distance. Their problem? Brand name addiction, constant dining out and not being able to say "no" to their kids.
Now, I realize that 2 families aren't exactly representative but their situations are far from being isolated incidents.
Personal responsibility isn't supposed to be some abstract concept that only applies to "the other side".
Seems kind of counter-productive to continue feeding the very beast you protest.
Well said, sir. Well said.
andyt @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:50 pm
Not well said at all. Just more of "the peasants aren't bad off because they still have enough to eat" crap. You guys really have no problem with ever increasing income/wealth inequality and what that does to social cohesion?
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
Zipperfish @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:52 pm
andyt andyt:
Not well said.
Yes, well said.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:13 pm
andyt andyt:
Not well said at all. Just more of "the peasants aren't bad off because they still have enough to eat" crap. You guys really have no problem with ever increasing income/wealth inequality and what that does to social cohesion?
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
Nice loony left philosophy. It's everybody else's fault but my own.
Are you going to sit there and tell me not one, not one single protestor was standing there with a Timmy's coffee at some point? Or that not one of them ate a fast food sandwich since this movement started?
andyt @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:23 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
andyt andyt:
Not well said at all. Just more of "the peasants aren't bad off because they still have enough to eat" crap. You guys really have no problem with ever increasing income/wealth inequality and what that does to social cohesion?
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
Nice loony left philosophy. It's everybody else's fault but my own.
Are you going to sit there and tell me not one, not one single protestor was standing there with a Timmy's coffee at some point? Or that not one of them ate a fast food sandwich since this movement started?
OMG, some Occupy protesters drank Timmies - invalidates the whole concern about increaing inequality in society. How dare the peasants want Timmies and McDs.
It certainly isn't these guys' fault that we have ever increasing inequality. How is it? Your Joe the Plumber attitude tho, is part of the problem.
Zipperfish @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:33 pm
andyt andyt:
It certainly isn't these guys' fault ...
Yes it is.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:44 pm
andyt andyt:
OMG, some Occupy protesters drank Timmies - invalidates the whole concern about increaing inequality in society. How dare the peasants want Timmies and McDs.
You know, sometimes yer a real idiot. Enjoy all the Timmy's and McD's you want. Fucking OD on it for all I care, just don't bitch about corporate greed while you continue to feed the beast.
andyt @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:44 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
andyt andyt:
It certainly isn't these guys' fault ...
Yes it is.
Drinking again or what? With what you've posted here previously, you can't be serious. The problem of inequality is because people are drinking Tim's coffee and eating Big Macs?
andyt @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:46 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
andyt andyt:
OMG, some Occupy protesters drank Timmies - invalidates the whole concern about increaing inequality in society. How dare the peasants want Timmies and McDs.
You know, sometimes yer a real idiot. Enjoy all the Timmy's and McD's you want. Fucking OD on it for all I care, just don't bitch about corporate greed while you continue to feed the beast.
And you don't feed the beast? How do you manage that and still live in our society? Personally I don't like Tim's coffee, nor a big fan of the Big Mac. But if you think people buying those are what causes the every widening spread of inequality in this country and the US, well then right back at ya slick, about being an idiot.
Gunnair @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:57 pm
andyt andyt:
Not well said at all. Just more of "the peasants aren't bad off because they still have enough to eat" crap. You guys really have no problem with ever increasing income/wealth inequality and what that does to social cohesion?
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
Holy fuck, what part of punish the corporations by boycotting their products and cutting into their profit margin to show how much you dislike their questionable business practices can't you get through your fucking skull?
Gunnair @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:57 pm
andyt andyt:
Not well said at all. Just more of "the peasants aren't bad off because they still have enough to eat" crap. You guys really have no problem with ever increasing income/wealth inequality and what that does to social cohesion?
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
And then, nice conflation of the consumer and the occupy movement. The idea for Occupy came from the Adbusters guy - ie it is an anti consumption movement. The people who PA described are the ones that Brenda said just want to get home after work, ie the ones with their heads down and not paying attention.
I agree with demonstrating in front of corporations. But that's why it's called occupy Wall Street - that was their original destination until prevented by police. And there's already been plenty of tightie rightie bleating on this forum about how the protesters are impacting the enconomy. It they really followed PA's advice, I'm sure he'd be setting his hair on fire about that. It seems these poor guys can't win - whatever they do, the tighties say they would only have cred if they did the opposite.
Holy fuck, what part of punish the corporations by boycotting their products and cutting into their profit margin to show how much you dislike their questionable business practices can't you get through your fucking skull?
sandorski @ Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:00 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
andyt andyt:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Glad these turds have the money to go rent the camera and make a cool video for us.
Right, 'cause if they've got money, what are they bitching about? Their protest would only be legitimate if they had no money and no jobs. No wait, if they have no jobs they're just lazy and have no cause to bitch about, they would only be legitimate if they had jobs and money. No wait, it's the hight of hypocrisy to bitch about conditions if you've got a job and hence money, they only have a right to bitch if they don't have money. No wait.....
Phew. What a confusing place rightie tightie world is.
When you volunteer at the homeless shelter, do you lecture them about about having cell phones and such OTI?
When you have money to piss away on making a bogus video and renting a camera, their involvement in the protest seems somewhat funny to me. Let's protest the lack of equality & poverty but let's piss away money on a camera.
Haven't seen a homeless man or woman at the shelter with a phone, leading me to believe not many of them do. I don't seem them renting cameras to make movies in order to make the media look bad.
Can you offer any proof this is a bogus Video? You went from Suggesting it could be to Claiming it is in a few Posts.
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next