He living there means nothing though, and he has totally lost it. Just like those protesters, he cried about it online, and tried to package everything like it was his 'pride' home town or something. Why would the host have more rights? That makes no sense at all. Trying to use G20 as your first understanding of corruption is pretty pathetic. -- You see, some are angry because events violated their 'hometown' representation. People should be angry at the violence and vandalism; they shouldn't just look at their hometown being vandalized as a reason to get angry. That's the difference. That's the exact perplexed and naive complaint he has shown himself to be. He totally lost it, and went on a tirade about how he was 'wronged', how his money went to waste because of these protests. All his remarks were to isolate demographics, calling people 'outsiders', torontorians, etc. He is confused obviously, in fact he is blurred by what's going on. The protests could very well be people from that area that are fighting against the G20, that is, people from Toronto/Montreal. In what regards did he really believe these people to be from another country? Me thinking the world is innocent? LOL The point isn't that. The point is, people do not realize why people are protesting, nor understand what the G20 is about. People have always protested against gov't, and have done it in unacceptable ways, but some people here and about are acting as if they created this overnight. They've only become aware because it walked into their park and made news. I am not for violence, some ignorance is fine, but Dan's demeanor and lack of control is just immature, like the protesters. Look at the way he writes, dropping F BOMBS, making claims about 'torontonians' and angry that it was held in Toronoto instead of somewhere else. LOL Obviously, he's suggesting that if this happened in New York, he wouldn't give a crap. He's one of those 'rep your city' type guys. Being angry at the G20 or violent protesting? Obviously confused.. Im done w/ this.. *I will learn to Multi-Quote or the next series of unquoted replies will be removed*
im angry because my tax money is being wasted, lol maybe when you start paying taxes, and your city gets vandalized and you realize that your money is being wasted, maybe then you'll understand why those of us who live here are angry. and before you open your trap, maybe try to understand the financial issue toronto is going through, wasting millions of dollars unnecessarily on this g20, plus millions more on vandalism. until then, just shut the fuck up, please
So what you are saying is if this happened in your hometown, you wouldn't care that your money is being sent to repairs of pointless violent protests compared to something more useful? You basically work your ass off for your paycheck and you always send away a portion of that earned money to taxes. It's the same as some little kid stealing your money to buy some fucking pokemon cards. You get what I'm saying? Would you like to know one of the issues people are protesting? People are angry at the city and the nation for spending so much money on the G20. More specifically, people are angry about the amount of money that went into security. How did these people express their views? By damaging property and injuring people. Which more than justified all the money spent on security. Do you get why people would be pissed off by this utter stupidity? Of course there are people who protest peacefully and are fighting for important causes, but all that stuff has to the shits. You can thank the violent protesters for that. All the real issues are being ignored because of these violent protesters. Not only are they pointlessly damaging property, but they are creating more and more opposition to ALL protesters at the G20. I honestly have no idea what is wrong with you. I don't know if Dan hurt your feelings or something... You're just telling us to turn a blind eye to these protesters, which is stupid...
I also understand your rationale vis a vis your comments on Dan's position; that his displeasure over the summit is generated by self serving reasons. I agree with your reasoning (that he should show the same regard for every other possible venue aside from his own), though I would hardly blame him for being personally upset that his city is being trashed. In fairness to Dan, host cities do undergo considerable expense to facilitate these events; one can easily understand the rise in local political anger over the attendant costs (both in monies and effect) of such things. Aside from that, your remarks (highlighted in the red text) is what I'm replying to, of people having no knowledge of what the summit AND the protest was about; a worldly "innocence" if you will. I disagree. My point was, that people do know; they know why people are protesting, and do know what they're protesting. But my complaint isn't about the summit discussions, or the protests in general; rather it is about the effect that the combination of the two has, in regards to the surrounding community. Again, this is similar to Dan's position, but without his parochial focus. That is, whether it happened in New York, Toronto, or anywhere else, I would still feel the same. My complaint has alway been regarding the authorities. With full knowledge that these types of events can easily escalate into the recent chaotic displays that we have witnessed, the powers that be (not just in Toronto, but elsewhere to) should take heed and remove the volatile combination of Summit and Protest. While peaceful protest is a legitimate legal voice in civilized societies, it should not come at the expense of violence and destruction to the life, liberty, and or property of others. My position has always been, to remove one from the other, so that innocents won't be subjected to anarchy. Hence, my previous suggestion that these things be held in remote, not easy to reach places. Protest can still place, whether on line, or in distributed locations and gatherings, but not in crowded city centers where the venue itself will allow for maximized damage. Protest? Yes. But we need to rid ourselves of these annual blood letting scenarios. I don't think Espresso is telling anyone to turn a blind eye, but rather, I think he's offering food for thought and other points to consider; that not all of the protesters have the same political agenda and that we should not focus on simply one rationale for their participation. However, Dan's reaction can be expected. It all falls onto the tremendously prescient anecdote by the late Thomas (Tip) O'Niell (former US Speaker of the House), that "...all politics is local."
^ lol at the guy in brown...hes like "uhh..should i grab something? (pause, looks at the guy in black getting beat up), oh shit" *run*
