Korean Job Discussion Forums

Mr. BlackCat · Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Location: Insert witty remark HERE

$900 million to keep the masses at bay while a bunch of ridiculously wealthy men discuss how to cut services to those poor masses. The thing is, the more outraged people become over this the more these jerks believe it is justified. I know it's a cliche, but it's cliche for a reason; this is the military industrial complex at its best. Use the opposition to its existance to justify continued and increased funding for it. The could just use that $900 million to solve many of the problems that they are meeting in an effort to whitewash, but who profits off that?

thomas pars · Joined: 29 Jan 2009

Guess who's coming to dinner?

http://www.summitcouncil.org/outcome-of-g-20-summit-seoul-to-host-g-20-meeting-in-2010_1329/

rollo · Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China

Someone got rich, probably very rich. Money like that brings in the sharks.

No_hite_pls · Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:16 am Post subject:

Mosley · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Look, I'm against the fortune spent on this gabfest as much as anyone, but, puuuuuhlease, Black Cat...the "military industrial complex"? Rolling Eyes

Or, "ridiculously wealthy men"(you mean like Ger. Chan. ANGELA Merkel? PM Harper likely doesn't have trouble paying off his Mastercard bill every month, but "ridiculously wealthy"?!).

And it's not the "masses" who have to be kept at bay. The "masses" don't show up to protest-in fact they despise the protesters. No, it's not the ''masses'' who destroy property and instigate violence. Rather, that's the domain of professional agitators who are well-funded and well-organized.

peppermint · Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 1:23 pm Post subject:

The opposition parties are using this summit as a bit of a tool to keep Harper from pushing through a lot of legislation surrounding the budget. It wouldn't look very good for the host of the G20 to be facing a no confidence vote after all. That's about the only upside that I can see

Koveras · Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Mosley · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

"Implied threat to the public"? That borders a bit on the conspiracy theory side of things. I just wonder why existing venues(e.g. UN, Camp David, etc.) can't be used to host these gabfests. Those of us old enough *ahem* Cough, cough!...to remember the first G-7(or was it G-6, hmmm....) summits remember them as very humble events compared to now.

Koveras · Joined: 09 Oct 2008

The Happy Warrior · Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Koveras · Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Mosley · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

I'm not against political big shots having a big gabfest, per se, but I agree that a billion bucks(!) expense is BS and holding the talks in TO is just inviting the "radicals" to demonstrate.

mises · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired

Mosley · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Ha, ha mises! That's just about the size of it....

goreality · Joined: 09 Jul 2009

Mr. Harper is marching to the beat of his own drum, saying one thing and doing another. He is also a hypocrite, specifically when it comes to overspending. Canadians should demand an audit of expenses the bill for security can't have risen 40 or so times in less than one year. Have the meeting up in Nunavut, and problem solved little to no security necessary. The majority of world leaders can freeze their butts off for all I care.

Isn't Korea up next? I remember they were absolutely thrilled to win the bid after a very aggressive campaign to host it. I wonder how much it will cost Korea?