Police release G20 "Most Wanted List" complete with photos

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

You're missing the point.

Clearly I'm not missing the point.

I mean I want to damage some property damnit, I'm not hurting anything.

There is no difference between damaging your propert, and damaging a police car which is the property of the City of Toronto. And because I want to do it as part of a violent protest, maybe you can ensure that your neighbours aren't home so that I can throw rocks through thier windows. Just like the protestors threw rocks through the windows of businesses that had nothing to do with the G20, with the exception that they were street level businesses.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Clearly I'm not missing the point.

I mean I want to damage some property damnit, I'm not hurting anything.

There is no difference between damaging your propert, and damaging a police car which is the property of the City of Toronto. And because I want to do it as part of a violent protest, maybe you can ensure that your neighbours aren't home so that I can throw rocks through thier windows. Just like the protestors threw rocks through the windows of businesses that had nothing to do with the G20, with the exception that they were street level businesses.

That car does not belong to an individual.
The car belongs to the government, which has no problem spending money on useless things, so like I said earlier, they wont have a problem covering it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Yea, anarchist protestors are really going to affect what goes on behind closed doors at the G20, its not as if they ever got close to any of the "leaders"

Gee, really? Maybe next time there is a G20 meeting instead of spending money on security, the government should just tell the violent protestors, that the heads of state don't care they think. You're a freaking genius, you could have saved the government a ton of money.

You were saying that there was less spent on security for the Olympics than the G20. But the two are apples and oranges.

Whether or not the protestors will actually affect the outcome of the meeting is pointless. They are going to be there and they are going to be doing violent things like setting cars on fire. Were those people at the Olympics? No, so comparing security costs of the two events is irrelevant.

No matter how much is spent some people are going to get through the cracks and do things like set cars on fire. But the more you spend, the more you can reduce the chances of major problems.

To go around thinking that people who set cars on fire should go free because the security plan wasn't 100% effective is about as assinine as thinking that setting cars on fire isn't a violent act.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

I have no problem with the police car being set on fire.

Again,

Cram it hippy.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

That car does not belong to an individual.
The car belongs to the government, which has no problem spending money on useless things, so like I said earlier, they wont have a problem covering it.

I think Captain has a point.

You're posts in this thread have kind of proven that you're decison to pay money for a computer was a pretty useless expediture.

So to protest that usless expenditure he should be able to light your car on fire, as you've shown that you have no problem on spending money for stupid reasons, and shouldn't have a problem covering it.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Gee, really? Maybe next time there is a G20 meeting instead of spending money on security, the government should just tell the violent protestors, that the heads of state don't care they think. You're a freaking genius, you could have saved the government a ton of money.

You were saying that there was less spent on security for the Olympics than the G20. But the two are apples and oranges.

Whether or not the protestors will actually affect the outcome of the meeting is pointless. They are going to be there and they are going to be doing violent things like setting cars on fire. Were those people at the Olympics? No, so comparing security costs of the two events is irrelevant.

No matter how much is spent some people are going to get through the cracks and do things like set cars on fire. But the more you spend, the more you can reduce the chances of major problems.

To go around thinking that people who set cars on fire should go free because the security plan wasn't 100% effective is about as assinine as thinking that setting cars on fire isn't a violent act.

Funny, the "leaders" that the security money was spent on have done far worse crimes then torching some cop cars and breaking some windows.

Yet they remain free..

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Funny, the "leaders" that the security money was spent on have done far worse crimes then torching some cop cars and breaking some windows.

Yet they remain free..

Just quit now. You're changing the subject rather than justifying your position.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

That car does not belong to an individual.
The car belongs to the government, which has no problem spending money on useless things, so like I said earlier, they wont have a problem covering it.

Is the car property?

Who ultimately pays for the car?

Of course they'll have to replace it?

You can argue that insurance will cover the cost.

Your house and car are property

You will ultimately have to pay for your house and car

You can argue that insurance will pay for the destruction.

Now about the violence inflicted on businesses by the "Violent protestors"

What the hell do they have to do with the protests?

Yet they were attacked.

If your arguing that the protestors weren't acting in a criminal fashion when they burned the police cars, then I have to question your thought process.

These were crimes of violence by the protestors, thats unexceptable no matter what the situation.

They should have to pay for the damages.

The ones that came from other countries to join the protests should be banned from Canada.

The ones that travelled from other provinces should be jailed

The local protestors should be jailed.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Is the car property?

Who ultimately pays for the car?

Of course they'll have to replace it?

You can argue that insurance will cover the cost.

Your house and car are property

You will ultimately have to pay for your house and car

You can argue that insurance will pay for the destruction.

Now about the violence inflicted on businesses by the "Violent protestors"

What the hell do they have to do with the protests?

Yet they were attacked.

If your arguing that the protestors weren't acting in a criminal fashion when they burned the police cars, then I have to question your thought process.

These were crimes of violence by the protestors, thats unexceptable no matter what the situation.

They should have to pay for the damages.

The ones that came from other countries to join the protests should be banned from Canada.

The ones that travelled from other provinces should be jailed

The local protestors should be jailed.

Yet the corrupt government gets a free pass?

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Just quit now. You're changing the subject rather than justifying your position.

What more do I have to justify?
Post it and ill reply.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

The "leaders" that the security money was spent on have done far worse crimes then torching some cop cars and breaking some windows.

Yet they remain free..

Yeah, agreeing to spend 5 billion dollars for maternity aid in third world countries is a hanging offense.

Working towards getting their countries out of the ressession by agreeing on global strategies should be a flogging offense.

Yes, the whole leadership meeting was an evil meeting of the Skulls and the Bilderbreig group.

If World Leaders were that scary there's no way that I would be protesting anywhere near them and calling attention to myself.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

The "leaders" that the security money was spent on have done far worse crimes then torching some cop cars and breaking some windows.

Yet they remain free..

Okay, just so we're understand each other if you could anser the following questions I'd be very greatful.

1) do you consider setting a car on fire to be a violent act?
2) do you think people who set cars on fire should be punished?
3) what crimes specifically are the world leaders guilty of?
4) what relevance do those crimes have on the criminality of what was going on outside. to illustrate if a murder lives 2 blocks away from me, why does that have any bearing on whether or not I should be punished for lighting my neighbours car on fire?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

That car does not belong to an individual.
The car belongs to the government, which has no problem spending money on useless things, so like I said earlier, they wont have a problem covering it.

Do you pay taxes?

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Gotta love how the governement spends a billion dollars on security and this still happens.

Its no ones fault but the governement, if they condone spending that much money on protecting "leaders" and they allow a situation to arise like this its no ones fault but themselves.

I hope no one on the "wanted list" gets caught.

I hear ya but you wont win this argument on Right-wing CP.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Yet the corrupt government gets a free pass?

Wow so that justifies attacking businesses that have nothing to do with "Corrupt Governments" (See I can use brackets to)

Burning a police car and other violent criminal actions sure go their attention.

Its equivalent to me punching out your wife because you built your fence on my property and then bribed the city to redraw the property line.

Besides, I still remember hearing the exchange from one girl protestor and a guy dressed in black after he smashed a window.

She asked him why he was doing this and ruining their rights to protest. His answer was it was fun.

You have a right to protest. You don't have a right to destroy property or violently attack something that has nothing to do with your "cause"

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I hear ya but you wont win this argument on Right-wing CP.

Perhaps it has less to do with CP being right wing, and more to do with the fact that argument is flawed and ridiculous.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I hear ya but you wont win this argument on Right-wing CP.

What the f$$$ does this have to do with political orientation?

Oh yeah, its the blanket argument.

For the record me disagreeing with violent protest and property damage has nothing at all to do with my political orientation.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Again,

Cram it hippy.

Again, how does this make me a hippy?

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Do you pay taxes?

Yes, I do.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I hear ya but you wont win this argument on Right-wing CP.

No, he won't win this argument because he has no idea what he's talking about. He's getting absolutely owned.