StrangeSox

That doesn't seem like much in the context of FB's revenue stream.

Start here and move everything afterwards: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2600342

They've been having to deal with these tax subsidy cycles for a long time now, and it really does stifle development.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 17, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) LAST WARNING, since you folks apparently didn't read the first one. This is the end of the political B.S., or else I'm moving the thread. Why not just split out the active political discussion and be done with it?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) Or even the non-violent but illegal "peaceful protest" that happened 2 days ago, when people bumrushed into the AON building towards Obama's NATO HQ. Totally peaceful. They had every right to enter the building! That's peaceful and non-violent. That doesn't mean non-disruptive, as the goal of protests is to create tension. The intent is to 100% get into a confrontation, except all those times that doesn't really happen, or all those times that people are pepper sprayed with no justification. People standing in a public area were beaten last fall at OWS protests (I forget which city, maybe Balta remembers and can link). People at UC Davis were unjustly pepper sprayed for forming a line on the sidewalk in the quad. People in NY were unjustly sprayed in the face while doing nothing more than shouting beyond a barricade. These things don't "almost always" end up with violence.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) So would you have posted the UC Davis report if it didn't support your POV? Why didn't you pick a report that demonstrated that there were violent elements in these groups? If you are being so neutral and unbiased that is. If I had come across it, yes. I've posted updates to threads/discussions months after the original discussions that show I was wrong. Did it recently regarding a SCOTUS ruling in the Dem thread, though I don't remember the details. But we had a long, multi-page discussion over the UC Davis incident in which you tried coming up with justification after justification. When the report was released, I read the entire thing. Yeah, I felt vindicated, because I was completely right and you were completely, unequivocally wrong. Now you refuse to even read the damned thing, dismissing it as "propaganda" without knowing anything about it. And I'm supposed to take your identical statements on this protest with any amount of credibility because...? What about it? Does it prove your contention that all these protesters are hoping it turns violent? That people taking precautions by wearing bandannas know they're about to do something to warrant being pepper sprayed? edit: I mean, we know the answers to those questions: unequivocally no, because it didn't turn violent yesterday and nobody was pepper sprayed or did anything to warrant that response. Those people in the photos that pissed jenks off didn't end up doing anything wrong and so the anger was much ado about nothing.

more leftist protest destruction: Gee, it's almost like the potential for violence and rioting is something inherent to large-scale protests regardless of ideological alignment! And that non-violent organizers will try to curtail this potential, but smart people know to otherwise Be Prepared in case it gets out of hand and they're exposed to pepper spray.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Or groups trying to blow up bridges... Or abortion clinics, or organizing militias to kill local cops to draw in the real targets: federal LEO's.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) But then you also wind up with things like Oakland. Vancouver is an excellent example of the violence inherent in left-wing protest movements.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) I love how hung up on the one report of the one instance you are. If it didn't agree with you, you wouldn't be talking about it, which is why you keep trying to switch the subject back to it, I'm bringing it up because it so completely contradicts your fundamental view of leftist protests; because of how hilariously wrong you were in that previous thread where you were making the same claim; and how you proudly announced your refusal to even look at the facts of the case because it's "propaganda." Yes, organizers telling people to not be violent and not get arrested is proof positive of people organizing violent protests. This is iron-clad logic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) That funny, because I can't recall many of the protests I have been a part of being told not to act violently or get arrested, such as the teachers union or the tea party. Yet that is a necessity here. Why is that? Scale, scope and expected response post-Seattle. Why are you dismissing an objective, fact-based, apolitical report on UC Davis as propaganda? It isn't just some website that supports my point of view but a professional report led by a former California Supreme Court Justice and aided by an independent research firm. How is this "propaganda" that you can hand-wave away to continue "they were asking for it!" naïveté?

It's proof that uncoached, inexperienced people may act stupid (or be ignorant of what "passive resistance" means and general protest and police tactics) and that coaching them can eliminate violence, just like in the May Day protests you think support your claims of inherent violence. Why are you dismissing an objective, fact-based, apolitical report on UC Davis as propaganda? It isn't just some website that supports my point of view but a professional report led by a former California Supreme Court Justice and aided by an independent research firm. How is this "propaganda" that you can hand-wave away to continue "they were asking for it!" naïveté?

JPM's loss may be getting much worse than the initial $2B reported

"Been around" or actually "been involved with?" Know people who organize? Been questioned by the FBI for loose affiliations with people who are harassed for being organizers? Nonviolent protest workshops are routinely held and routinely preach nonviolence--it's sorta the point! That people are coached on non-violent protesting and non-violent, passive resistance isn't proof that they're violent. That is an absurd conclusion. Why are you dismissing an objective, fact-based, apolitical report on UC Davis as propaganda? It isn't just some website that supports my point of view but a professional report led by a former California Supreme Court Justice and aided by an independent research firm. How is this "propaganda" that you can hand-wave away to continue "they were asking for it!" naïveté?

Oh I'm sure he doesn't care. Vocal tea party member Curt Schilling is asking the state of Rhode Island to fund his struggling game studio. Government welfare is cool if its going to the 'right' people.

This is funny coming from a family who is begging the state and city to subsidize their big-kid playground.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) The sad thing is, I am sure you will get the incident you so badly want during NATO. That is exactly why they had to tell people not to get arrested during May Day. If a protest is supposed to be peaceful, why do organizers have to explicitly tell people not to get into trouble? Because peaceful protests don't make the news like violent ones do. That is why illegal acts have to accompany them to some extent. Do just enough to get the reaction you are looking for, and then start the cameras. I want no incidents. It's good leadership to coach people on passive resistance and remaining non-violent at protest workshops. This is always done, and it's a good thing, yet you're trying to use it as evidence that everyone is just itching for a riot. But look at what you're doing: after flailing around for a bunch of nonsense justifications in the UC Davis case and not getting a foothold at the time, you refuse to even look at the compilation of the facts of the case because it doesn't fit your narrative. If you don't have to reevaluate what you think you know about protest movements, you can always justify any reaction to them. It's all right here. Why are you dismissing an objective, fact-based report on the UC Davis incident as "propaganda?"

lol, yes, independent investigations done at the behest of the university by apolitical research groups into the facts of the UC Davis case are "propaganda."

Curt Schilling's video game studio is struggling

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2012 -> 08:53 PM) When protestors have to be told not be arrested by the organizers, like they did on May Day, that pretty well explains what the point has become. Then again, part of the challenge is seeding just enough violent protesters to provide the opportunity to get the "gotcha" moment. I guess you never did read it. It could have been subtitled "why everything ss2k5 used to try to excuse unwarranted, excessive force is wrong."

Well you dismissed his claims out of hand or so it seemed. People usually don't do that with something they see as honest.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) The whole goal is to attract attention by becoming the "victim". I'm pretty sure non-violent protesters would prefer not being sprayed, but explicit victim blaming is cool. Did you read the uc Davis report?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 16, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) That really is the bottom line. You know when you are going to something that is going to be a riot as opposed to a peaceful protest. Ignorance is bliss, but these people know what they are signing up for. I can only speak personally, but back in the days of my youth at Madison, I was around plenty of riots, etc, and every time I knew I was going to bad situation. But that was the point. If you are going with masks, etc, you arent going just to have a fun time. But you can be sprayed at peaceful protests!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) I'll add too that i'm 100% behind the right to peaceably assemble in protest (obviously). I went to many a tea party gatherings in the City, and you know what? They were all peaceful. They were people talking on a microphone while others stood around and listened. I didn't see too many people feeling the need to cover their faces in fear of being pepper sprayed. There isn't a history of police response to tea party protests regardless of how peaceful they are that would make it a good idea to prepare for being sprayed. You insist on ignoring very recent examples of people being sprayed by police for no justifiable reason. In case you're actually curious and not just pissed off at lefties, here's a summary and some excerpts from the UC Davis report: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459368.html http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf The legality of the decision to remove tents and arrest resisters has questionable legal basis: The protesters in this case naively believed that remaining peaceful and non-violent would prevent the use of chemical weapons:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) Exercising their first amendment rights while violating various other laws in the process. Sorry, the UC case doesn't dissuade my opinion here. They were trespassing and wouldn't leave. It might have been excessive, but use of pepper spray in that situation was not wrong. Please read the two independent commissions' reports on this issue. They are the most recent posts in the OWS thread. You are factually wrong and even the legality of the order to vacate is not clear. Nothing done there justifies the use of pepper spray. Nor does anything done here: You indicted those wearing bandanas as being cowards unwilling to reveal their identity and thugs who know they're about to do something to warrant being pepper sprayed. Your position is not supportable. Nobody is bringing furniture in Citi in those shots that pissed you off so much, but you still seem sure that they're just about to do something illegal. I also am doubtful of claims of throwing bags of excrement at people, though those people should be arrested if this is a thing that actually happened. We've seen in the past when actually peaceful protesters are assaulted by police for no legitimate reason, yet you insist on ignoring that and slandering all the protesters as people just waiting to break s*** and hurt others. Recent history belies your claim as almost all of the OWS protests were handled without force and, with the exception of one in Portland, did not riot and did not get out of control.