Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, they have a reason for protesting (atleast initially). The message is just really poorly articulated, and they didn't do themselves any favours by not clariyfing it over the last month.

Whether you think they're 'ego-driven, self-centered [and] grandstanding' is pretty much irrelevant; they started protesting because of the movement inspired in New York, which was about income inequality and the gap that continues to widen (and other things like crony capitalism, excessive big government intervention, etc).

They don't have a clear message. They need one. However, I don't think it's smart to discredit them in the same way you think Ozy's over-crediting them (atleast initally why they started protesting, which might have seemed somewhat legitimate). But we can definitely all agree that now, they have no message, they are not willing to take that responsibility on, and their gig is up.

So essentially...they have a reason for protesting they just arent sure what that reason is?

Sounds about right actually.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, they have a reason for protesting (atleast initially). The message is just really poorly articulated, and they didn't do themselves any favours by not clariyfing it over the last month.

Whether you think they're 'ego-driven, self-centered [and] grandstanding' is pretty much irrelevant; they started protesting because of the movement inspired in New York, which was about income inequality and the gap that continues to widen (and other things like crony capitalism, excessive big government intervention, etc).

They don't have a clear message. They need one. However, I don't think it's smart to discredit them in the same way you think Ozy's over-crediting them (atleast initally why they started protesting, which might have seemed somewhat legitimate). But we can definitely all agree that now, they have no message, they are not willing to take that responsibility on, and their gig is up.

I think the problem for occupy is that at its heart it is harkening back to the social justice left wing movements of the 60's and 70's that lost all credibility with the fall of communism.

When you get right down to it what they want is old fashioned state control of wealth, with its associated undercurrent of 'if we just had all the rich peoples money we would all have wonderfull lives and not have to work that much, there is enough wealth for us all to do what we want'.
We all know that as an ideology that was shot to pieces in the 60's but there is a small stupid element of the far left that still harkens for the complete fall of capitalism and the establishment of a 'peoples state'.
This has become their wedge issue, unfortunatly for them they are morons and so overplayed their hand because in their heart of hearts they still foolishly think the 'working class' are itching to join them on the baricades instead of itching to get a new flat screen 60 inch tv.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I think that removal of empty tents was executed perfectly for the city's/CPS' perspective. Low key, no media scrum, and obviously knowing there would be even fewer protestors than usual. Nicely done.

Yeah they definitely did a good job of catching the protesters off guard. The put up the "24 hour" notice last week, and when 24 hours came & went the protesters probably thought they were in the clear. So the city completely caught them off guard.

From gleaming twitter today it sounds like the protesters are gonna have to pay some kinda processing fee to get their impounded tents back to boot! Although they will also be allowed to return to the plaza and set their tents up again...

But honestly a song and dance of "tent gets packed up, go pay fee to get it back, return to plaza, repeat" would get old pretty fast. So it'll be interesting to see how many of the squatters follow through with that song & dance before declaring the Plaza is not worth their time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Yeah they definitely did a good job of catching the protesters off guard. The put up the "24 hour" notice last week, and when 24 hours came & went the protesters probably thought they were in the clear. So the city completely caught them off guard.

From gleaming twitter today it sounds like the protesters are gonna have to pay some kinda processing fee to get their impounded tents back to boot! Although they will also be allowed to return to the plaza and set their tents up again...

But honestly a song and dance of "tent gets packed up, go pay fee to get it back, return to plaza, repeat" would get old pretty fast. So it'll be interesting to see how many of the squatters follow through with that song & dance before declaring the Plaza is not worth their time.

Why would the city allow them to set up again? As soon as they show up at the plaza and drive the first tent peg into the ground, confiscate it and the tent, camping is illegal, and tents are not instruments of expression.

This is where the city has to get tough, they also have to charge more then the cost of a tent at Canadian Tire for example for the impound fee.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Yeah they definitely did a good job of catching the protesters off guard. The put up the "24 hour" notice last week, and when 24 hours came & went the protesters probably thought they were in the clear. So the city completely caught them off guard.

From gleaming twitter today it sounds like the protesters are gonna have to pay some kinda processing fee to get their impounded tents back to boot! Although they will also be allowed to return to the plaza and set their tents up again...

But honestly a song and dance of "tent gets packed up, go pay fee to get it back, return to plaza, repeat" would get old pretty fast. So it'll be interesting to see how many of the squatters follow through with that song & dance before declaring the Plaza is not worth their time.

When does the Occupy Group have to declare their income for their fund raising?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But you understand that the demands that were published by occupy Vancouver and all of the jingoism that Occupy Calgary and to an extent Canada is spouting out is really related to the American problems and not the Canadian problems.

I completely understand that is the jist of their reasons for protesting. Which is why I don't know why these protests are going on in Canada.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So essentially...they have a reason for protesting they just arent sure what that reason is?

Sounds about right actually.

They had a message initially (sort of), but it's just an extension of the OWS movement. There's really no basis for this in Canada, let alone Calgary, as we can all agree.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

This has become their wedge issue, unfortunatly for them they are morons and so overplayed their hand because in their heart of hearts they still foolishly think the 'working class' are itching to join them on the baricades instead of itching to get a new flat screen 60 inch tv.

Personally, I actually don't think the movement is anti-capitalist (atleast not the main representative groups - fringe elements, maybe). I think it's more anti-cronyism and a call to regulate an industry that unfortunately put America in the proverbial toilet where it is today (that being the finance / banking industries). People are mad at the back-scratching / closed door activities going on that benefit only a select few at the expense of many. That said, I still don't think their message is clear enough. Wall Street is a symbolic protesting area, but Washington clearly would be better.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When does the Occupy Group have to declare their income for their fund raising?

That's a good question! I certainly don't know the answer, an accountant my know the answer. But Canada Revenue Agency would know for sure!

Almost tempting to kicking em a $10 donation via cheque/paypal (something traceable) and then give the CRA a call...

[CaptainCrunch]

According to the CRA article that I found, unregisterred fund raising efforts are not tax exempt, the income does have to be declared.

But I'm not a tax guy so I could have totally misread it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Personally, I actually don't think the movement is anti-capitalist (atleast not the main representative groups - fringe elements, maybe). I think it's more anti-cronyism and a call to regulate an industry that unfortunately put America in the proverbial toilet where it is today (that being the finance / banking industries). People are mad at the back-scratching / closed door activities going on that benefit only a select few at the expense of many. That said, I still don't think their message is clear enough. Wall Street is a symbolic protesting area, but Washington clearly would be better.

There's nothing closed door about anything though, and in the end the Goverments of the world bailed out the banks (with make believe money that hasn't cost us a thing in reality) to save us poor schmoes who are in debt up to our eyes and couldn't handle a 7 or 8 percent increase in the interest rates. We are beholden to the finance sector because we live in a fiat system of deficit finance, if the goverments actually listened to the OWS you would have to see all of our goverments massively scale back on social programs, the issue I have with the OWS lot are they don't really want what they are protesting for, what they really want is deficit finacing with no repayments.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There's nothing closed door about anything though

I dunno about that... I'm pretty sure much lobbying / back-door dealing / back-scratching is going on behind closed doors between the boys in Washington and the boys on Wall Street. Too much smoke there across many stories / channels not to believe some of that was going on (and might still be going on). The video mikey_the_redneck posted in the US Political Discussion thread and the documentary Inside Job are but two examples that touch on this right off the top of my head.

[CaptainCrunch]

How does that matter to Occupy Canada though?

We've had major investigations into lobbying efforts because of the rules set in the Accountibility act.

Combine that with the campaign donation rules in place and lobbying is no where near the issue that it is in the States.

so the confusion continues with Occupy Canada stealing terminology from american problems and attempting to attach it to their beefs in Canda.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How does that matter to Occupy Canada though?

We've had major investigations into lobbying efforts because of the rules set in the Accountibility act.

Combine that with the campaign donation rules in place and lobbying is no where near the issue that it is in the States.

so the confusion continues with Occupy Canada stealing terminology from american problems and attempting to attach it to their beefs in Canda.

Cap, you may be misunderstanding... I'm completely agreeing with you here.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why would the city allow them to set up again? As soon as they show up at the plaza and drive the first tent peg into the ground, confiscate it and the tent, camping is illegal, and tents are not instruments of expression.

This is where the city has to get tough, they also have to charge more then the cost of a tent at Canadian Tire for example for the impound fee.

This is why the city is taking legal action. The protesters who were there last night were given court summons.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so the confusion continues with Occupy Canada stealing terminology from american problems and attempting to attach it to their beefs in Canda.

1. A lot of hippies & deadbeats are ignorant of or cognitively dissociated from reality.

but:

2. The effects of Wall Street have a worldwide effect in this globalized world. When Wall Street bankers ##### up the world economy due to their greed and then get a giant payout, it doesn't mean Canada is insulated from those effects. We have all experienced that in the past few years. In fact, Canada being so closely tied to the US economy probably means that the Canadian protesters would have a legitimate beef with the corporate greed and practices of the U.S. if only they could properly articulate it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There's nothing closed door about anything though, and in the end the Goverments of the world bailed out the banks (with make believe money that hasn't cost us a thing in reality) to save us poor schmoes who are in debt up to our eyes and couldn't handle a 7 or 8 percent increase in the interest rates. We are beholden to the finance sector because we live in a fiat system of deficit finance, if the goverments actually listened to the OWS you would have to see all of our goverments massively scale back on social programs, the issue I have with the OWS lot are they don't really want what they are protesting for, what they really want is deficit finacing with no repayments.

Umm, even as someone who defends a lot of what is criticized in the financial sector I can say that that statement is completely ridiculous.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Muta

Cap, you may be misunderstanding... I'm completely agreeing with you here.

Yeah, I know, but its just what I do.

Occupy Calpuck.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Occupy Calpuck.

I'm in! At least while I'm at work, after that I have better things to do...

[Resolute 14]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/11/22...ays-bylaw-boss

Earlier, one protester who claimed to be seven months pregnant and a diabetic said bylaw officers had taken her insulin when they removed her tent which had been vacated when she went into false labour.


“I had a physical meltdown when I got here this morning,” said the woman, who’d only give her name as Linda.


“I lost my job because I believed in this occupation but now it’s falling apart.”