Vancouver (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Wow! Way to twist words, Fog.

"I am not pointing a finger. To point a finger would have been to say that marijuana is the cause; I never said it was. I simply pointed out that it is a strange coincidence that violent riots only seem to happen in communities that have a rich drug culture here."

Bullshit. You're dancing the lawyer's dance. The intent of your comments was clear to anyone reading them that you were connecting the riots following the Stanley Cup final with marijuana. You're simply being dishonest to pretend otherwise after readers point out the absurdity of such comments. Let me give an example of what you're doing:

~~~ Hey, I'm not actually saying that you're a pompous, egotistical a*w&*$~ ... I'm just saying that sometimes a pompous, egotistical a~^z@~y might say the things you say. ~~~

Okay, did I just call you a pompous, egotistical a%^*z#x, or not?

(Not that I'm actually calling you a pompous, egotistical aw^@&~& ... unless you think I am ... but I'm not, because I didn't actually call you that, did I? ... get the idea?)

You're comparing Vancouver to Camrose - population 10 - to support the stupid premise that cannabis causes rioting???!!!???

Fog says:
"Vancouver has smoke shops; but it doesn't mean they are legal. The culture of Vancouver is vastly different to that of Amsterdam."

Yet you insist on blaming cannabis use in Vancouver for the riots there instead of considering any of the other cultural aspects that might differ between those two cities. You latched onto a dumb, factually incorrect idea, and won't let go. It's a habit of yours.

Fog says:
"I couldn't help but notice SITS that you did not explain how the riots not occurring for a few years in Berkeley has to do with this culture not rioting; as you admit they did in the past. Your only statement was that any violence occurring in anti-war protests 'in the last couple decades'…"

This is partially twirling around the meaning of the word "riot," a word with very specific legal meaning and dictionary definition, but a rather broad and ambiguous colloquial use. The usage here was established by introspec's initial post for this thread: "Why the riot?" What happened in Vancouver is the kind of "riot" I refer to.

I said: "... Berkeley has had little in the way of rioting since the end of the war in Vietnam. That was ... what? Thirty-six years or so ago?"

There's been one significant "riot," the so-called "People's Park" riot that occurred since then, twenty years ago, in 1991. So in that respect, my statement was inaccurate. I stand corrected.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Further down, I said: "Any violence occurring in anti-war protests in the last couple of decades has been perpetrated by so-called "Anarchists." That is essentially a correct statement taken in the context of this thread.

Looking over the sfgate dot com article you referenced, there are mention of "scuffles" and a police officer that was "slapped." So while that certainly qualifies as "violence" in the technical or legal sense, in the context of this thread, it's absurd to compare that "violence" to the severe violence that occurred over the Vietnam war, or even the hockey game riot in Vancouver. As the article pointed out, the most significant act of violence was when a counter-demonstrator pulled a knife on the protesters.

The "violence" was the sort of "violence" that typically occurs when Operation Rescue blocks a Planned Parenthood clinic. It's uncalled for, wrong, but trying to cite that as the continuation of the extremely violent anti-war protests of the Vietnam War era is ... well ... stupid.

As for the February 26, 2010 "riot," it was essentially a drunken party of students that spilled out into the street. It had nothing to do with any anti-war sentiments, or anything like that. It was a bunch of drunk students. It occurred at around the same time that a huge increase in student tuition had been announced, but had far more to do with the alcohol than tuition.

You ascribe me as saying:

"violence and rioting does not occur in Berkeley anymore"

I never said that.

"violence occurring is not from anti-war protestors"

Other than "scuffles" that can be equally blamed on non-protesters, it's basically correct.

"Protestors do not support violent actions against the government/troops"

I never said that.

"present day anti-war protestors are not stoned hippies"

That is essentially correct.

Your video "evidence" of the protesters being "stoned hippies" is absurd. First off, where's the drugs? Secondly, the lens of the camera shows only what it shows, and nothing else. By that token, you could go to a football game, find a drunken idiot to video, and use that as "evidence" that all football fans are drunken idiots.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: "Bullshit. You're dancing the lawyer's dance. The intent of your comments was clear to anyone reading them that you were connecting the riots following the Stanley Cup final with marijuana."

"I'm not going to point a finger at the cause; but here's an interesting fact. Vancouver is one of the largest marijuana rich places in the country. The city even has 'smoke shops' like the cafes you hear about in Amsterdam. High drug use...a history of civil unrest and meaningless riots: 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2010 Olympics, 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs…coincidence?"

The intent was clear; in the wording: "HIGH DRUG USE". Please do show were I specifically stated that marijuana was the cause; or that any drug was the cause. You will notice I didn't….for a reason. I'm pretty sure I know what my intent was SITS, thank you.

"Hey, I'm not actually saying that you're a pompous, egotistical a%&w&%$ ... I'm just saying that sometimes a pompous, egotistical a&#&%$% might say the things you say."

Valid point. Would a pompous, egotistical ayw#w&% specifically say it was marijuana that caused the riots; and is this why you assume that I did?

"You're comparing Vancouver to Camrose - population 10 - to support the stupid premise that cannabis causes rioting???!!!???"

Camrose has a population of 17,236. Having lived in the city; I can tell you that there is a fair amount of drug use among the youth. The community does not tolerate it. There are no 'smoke shops' set up (illegally), and the police confiscate and fine a individual for carrying even a single joint. The town is almost 90% conservative voters in the past 3 elections; as opposed to Vancouver, which displays far more support to the liberal party. Because of this very conservative view in Camrose; there are also an excess of police and an increase in the budget for them; in order to remove the drug culture as much as possible. It still persists; but it is not heavily tolerated. The closest thing to a 'rally' the druggies in Camrose came up with was a group of maybe 15 kids with signs; and no real message. Their 'protest' ranged from legalizing pot; to taking over the USA. It was held outside a Tim Horton's.

Another example is Sherwood Park; a suburb of Edmonton; where the bylaws make it illegal to litter of swear in public. Another community that does not have a big drug culture; and ironically; little violence. Imagine that.

Another example is St. Albert, Olds, Cochrane, etc. etc. Why is it that these places that do not have a big drug culture never suffer from the same riots; mass 'protests' (which more often than not result in riots), heavy crime rate, etc. that places that do have bid drug cultures have? Hmm….


"Yet you insist on blaming cannabis use in Vancouver for the riots there instead of considering any of the other cultural aspects that might differ between those two cities."

Actually; I specifically stated that it was the culture; and not cannabis.

"You latched onto a dumb, factually incorrect idea, and won't let go. It's a habit of yours."

Actually, you latched on to an idea that you had of what you thought I said; when in actuality, I never said it.

"What happened in Vancouver is the kind of "riot" I refer to."

So riots never occurred in Berkeley? Looting never took place? People were not assaulted?

I said: "... Berkeley has had little in the way of rioting since the end of the war in Vietnam. That was ... what? Thirty-six years or so ago?"
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: "There's been one significant "riot," the so-called "People's Park" riot that occurred since then, twenty years ago, in 1991. So in that respect, my statement was inaccurate. I stand corrected."

It's not important when the riots were. You have yet to explain why these riots occurring in the past are irrelevant to the fact that the cultural similarities seen in regions of Berkeley and Vancouver have both led to riots. Please explain why riots being thirty years ago from drug crazed movements means it is not in their culture.

"it's absurd to compare that "violence" to the severe violence that occurred over the Vietnam war, or even the hockey game riot in Vancouver."

Which you still have not explained why the time laps between these two makes them different. Please explain.

"As for the February 26, 2010 "riot," it was essentially a drunken party of students that spilled out into the street. It had nothing to do with any anti-war sentiments, or anything like that."

So essentially what you are saying is that it was like the drunken party of fans that spilled out into the streets of Vancouver? Gotcha


""violence and rioting does not occur in Berkeley anymore"

I never said that."

My point exactly. It still does occur.


""violence occurring is not from anti-war protestors"

Other than "scuffles" that can be equally blamed on non-protesters, it's basically correct."

And the anti-war protestors holding signs reading:

"I support the forced sterilization of Christian fundamentalists"

or

"I support the slaughter of US Marines"

…yelling out "HIT HIM! HIT HIM! This is gonna get violent!" To a high school kid for going into the Marine Recruitment Centre is not anti-war protestors demonstrating violence?



""Protestors do not support violent actions against the government/troops"

I never said that."


"Actual protesters are horrified by their antics."

Am I just insinuating that you said this on page 2?


""violence occurring is not from anti-war protestors"…it's basically correct."

So now you are saying that they weren't horrified and opposed to it; but that they just don't do it; even though they agree with it?


""present day anti-war protestors are not stoned hippies"

That is essentially correct."

I take it you never watched the videos huh? One can only wonder what a drug test of these protestors would turn up…hmmm

The videos are absurd. They are absurd to think that someone could come to the conclusions of these morons WITHOUT being stoned out of their tree. We invaded Iraq for water? What the hell were we doing in Hawaii anyway? WWII was wrong? You make me laugh SITS.
It doesn't take much to tell if someone is a habitual user of drugs; you can see it in their actions; their responses; and their appearance. There will always be one or two people who do not fit the norm; but for 99.*******9*******9*******9*******9*******9% of them; you can tell.

Yes, the lens does show what it wants; anti-war protestors holding signs promoting the slaughter of US Marines; the forced sterilization of their own countrymen; their claims that WWII was unjustified and wrong; that the US had no business in Hawaii; their own territory; and that the US invaded Iraq for water.

…compelling argument SITS.

Yes, you can take a video camera to a football game and tape lots of drunken idiots; just like you can tape a bunch of stoned hippies protesting the war…mmmaan.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: You continue to play word games, drawing this out into one of those epic stupidities like you and Jack typically engage in. It won't change the fact that you clearly tried to associate the post-game riot in Vancouver with marijuana and have a grotesquely inaccurate view of anti-war protesters in general, and in Berkeley, in particular, which you apparently base on a few selected YouTube videos which prove nothing.

By the way, my error about the population of Camrose occurred because of a hurried examination of the wiki page on that town:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camrose

Not being particularly interested in Camrose, I hurriedly glanced at the table located to the right, and saw the word "census" apparently followed by the number "10," and assumed you were being facetious in making a comparison between metropolitan Vancouver and a town of ten. Apologies for the error.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Yup…because we all know stoned out hippies don't resort to rioting SITS. You've made that clear huh?



…amazing what happens when you rely on wikipedia for sources huh?

http://www.camrose.ca/

Pretty sure that would have been faster to search.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: ...and for making accusations of me making assumptions; you clearly stated an assumption of me in this last post did you not?

Again; where have I ever stated that marijuana was the cause?
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Correct. You didn't state that.

And you didn't state that in exactly the same way that I didn't state that you were a pompous, egotistical ayxz@#z.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Read what you want out of it SITS.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Followin' your lead.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: If you say so.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Ever consider your quick assumption about Camrose may in fact be the same as your quick assumption of what I initially said?
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Clearly.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Are you working on your "Exercise in Futility" merit badge, Boy Scout?
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Are you working for the defending stoned hippies award?
12 years ago Report
0
younlee
younlee: i just want to know if anyone who gets stoned is a hippie!!
12 years ago Report
0
Dalai Mama
Dalai Mama: OMGOSH! Go camping for a week and I miss soooo much!

Fog...you're right...BC does have a |'rich" drug culture...I lived there for 5/6 years in my early 20s....but I really do honestly see more of a connection with alcohol than marijauna for the riot...

I'm sure you have had the "beer" at Rexall...draft is poison!
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Beer at Rexall is hardly gonna cause a riot...it's 99% water.

The connection to the riots isn't beer or marijuana; it's stupidity. I merely pointed out the fact that riots and 'protests' that often turn to riots seem to have a connection with American places that have drug culture. Like i said; it isn't the drug; it's the stupidity.
12 years ago Report
0
Dalai Mama
Dalai Mama: It is...sigh...

I guess it's just me that can't handle the beer...probably why I avoid it..
12 years ago Report
0
introspec
introspec: Fog--'seem to have connection with AMERICAN places that have'.........

Except for Boston Bruins defeating Canucks, what is connection?

Don't follow hockey, but bet majority of Bruins are Canadian...

Riot in Vancouver with torching, robbing almost unthinkable...

In Detroit, sure.....burn, baby, burn.....(not really funny)....intro
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: what?
12 years ago Report
0
gidiprincess
(Post deleted by staff 11 years ago)