Canada RIOTS!

[BrettA]

average, typical, spoiled young hockey fans. The true canadian youth.

Wait a minute here... there's a whack of true canadian youth who couldn't give a shit about hockey - and there always has been.

true, hockey sucks, I never liked it...but, in general, canaduh=beer and hockey (and riots)

I'd similarly disagree with "in general". They're loud and obnoxious fucks, perhaps, but they're not the general population in my experience. I don't even know a 'hockey fan' and even my kids (young, at 18 & 19) never follow hockey. And with 3 riots in a hundred or so years of hockey... yerself re 'in general'.

[sandinista]

average, typical, spoiled young hockey fans. The true canadian youth.

Wait a minute here... there's a whack of true canadian youth who couldn't give a shit about hockey - and there always has been.

true, hockey sucks, I never liked it...but, in general, canaduh=beer and hockey (and riots)

I'd similarly disagree with "in general". They're loud and obnoxious fucks, perhaps, but they're not the general population in my experience. I don't even know a 'hockey fan' and even my kids (young, at 18 & 19) never follow hockey. And with 3 riots in a hundred or so years of hockey... yerself re 'in general'.

you live in canaduh and don't know anyone who likes hockey? I call re:you.

[BrettA]

average, typical, spoiled young hockey fans. The true canadian youth.

Wait a minute here... there's a whack of true canadian youth who couldn't give a shit about hockey - and there always has been.

true, hockey sucks, I never liked it...but, in general, canaduh=beer and hockey (and riots)

I'd similarly disagree with "in general". They're loud and obnoxious fucks, perhaps, but they're not the general population in my experience. I don't even know a 'hockey fan' and even my kids (young, at 18 & 19) never follow hockey. And with 3 riots in a hundred or so years of hockey... yerself re 'in general'.

you live in canaduh and don't know anyone who likes hockey? I call re:you.

Call what you want... but you're wrong (Oh - really, I should say "don't even know a 'hockey fan' who has indicated that in some way" - i.e.: that I can know (s)he likes hockey). And note the present tense - when I worked in a normal working environment with others, I knew some. And at bars, etc., I see some and avoid the fucks.

[Tyrannical]

I don't know why they just don't go in with a bunch of tasers. Use the old British rifleman tactics like in Zulu, but a constant zap, bag, and tag.

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't know why they just don't go in with a bunch of tasers. Use the old British rifleman tactics like in Zulu, but a constant zap, bag, and tag.

They don't understand the stakes. The authorities are in denial about where things are going.

[BrettA]

Wait a minute here... there's a whack of true canadian youth who couldn't give a shit about hockey - and there always has been.

true, hockey sucks, I never liked it...but, in general, canaduh=beer and hockey (and riots)

I'd similarly disagree with "in general". They're loud and obnoxious fucks, perhaps, but they're not the general population in my experience. I don't even know a 'hockey fan' and even my kids (young, at 18 & 19) never follow hockey. And with 3 riots in a hundred or so years of hockey... yerself re 'in general'.

you live in canaduh and don't know anyone who likes hockey? I call re:you.

Call what you want... but you're wrong (Oh - really, I should say "don't even know a 'hockey fan' who has indicated that in some way" - i.e.: that I can know (s)he likes hockey). And note the present tense - when I worked in a normal working environment with others, I knew some. And at bars, etc., I see some and avoid the fucks.

It's just one more guy, but (a while before you "called BS") out of curiosity I asked the closest Canuckistani Ratzite if he was a hockey fan... "No."

[JimC]

I once had a theory that off-field violence by fans is inversely proportional to the violence on the field.

Soccer - not much violence on the field, lots of soccer hooligans rioting.

Aussie Rules - much delicious on-field violence, little violence by fans, even when drunk (which is frequent...)

But Ice Hockey busts my hypothesis!

Fucking violence everywhere!

[SPMaximus]

well, the Canucks fans are like the only hockey fans that riot, and the Canucks are a bunch of diving soft pansies, so it sort of fits your theory

[sandinista]

It's just one more guy, but (a while before you "called BS") out of curiosity I asked the closest Canuckistani Ratzite if he was a hockey fan... "No."

well, I guess that proves it then.

[BrettA]

It's just one more guy, but (a while before you "called BS") out of curiosity I asked the closest Canuckistani Ratzite if he was a hockey fan... "No."

well, I guess that proves it then.

'Prove'??? Ha! WTF is there to 'prove'? My post just got me wondering if people I know - but may not realise they're fans - might in fact be fans. I'm sure there are some and I've asked others as well. Thought it might be of interest since you raised a similar point but since you're apparently an idiot thinking something's applicable for proof (RU of those Ratz theists I hear about? - *Rhetorical warning*), I won't update you... Yer welcome.

[sandinista]

[Coito ergo sum]

VANCOUVER -- Roving bands of anarchists and troublemakers bent on havoc set fires, broke windows and whipped up booze-fuelled mobs to create the worst riot in Vancouver’s history, Mayor Gregor Robertson said Thursday.

The mayor said there was no advance warning of the strategy, which caught police and city officials off guard, and may force them to take a different approach to security plans for large public gatherings in the future.

“There had been absolutely no signs of this coming,” Robertson said Thursday afternoon. “Both during the G-20 [leaders’ summit in Toronto] and the 2010 Olympics these thugs were well known to be organizing and preparing to take action and criminal activities on the streets. There were no indications of that leading into last night,” he said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancou ... z1PXEAruPq

They're not very specific on what proof they have. The only thing I can glean from the article is that the presence of hammers and molotov cocktails is being seen as an indication that some folks had the intent to riot beforehand. That does stand to reason. Of course, that doesn't mean they were anarchists....

Ahh... The Vancouver Sun.... lol. Now you must just be having a laugh. Criticizing the Nation for having an agenda and then linking to the Vancouver Sun? Do you think before you post?

I do, but apparently you don't. Yes, I linked to the Vancouver Sun, but if you'll actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I expressed skepticism about what the Vancouver Sun wrote. To wit: "Of course, that doesn't mean they were anarchists." The presence of molotov cocktails and hammers does SUGGEST that some planning was involved, but of course, that is no proof that they were "anarchists." Got it? i didn't cite the Vancouver Sun as proof of anything - I criticized the Vancouver Sun's unwarranted conclusion.

from wiki...but well known otherwise.

The Vancouver Sun is a daily newspaper first published in the Canadian province of British Columbia on February 12, 1912. The paper is currently published by the Pacific Newspaper Group, a division of Postmedia Network. It is published six days a week, Monday to Saturday. In more recent years, its opinions have been considered by scholars to be more right-wing and conservative

An editorial quoting the mayor of Van and the police chief. The two people most desperately trying to do damage control to protect the reputation of the city and the cops. You criticized the Nation for talking to "activists" and then print this piece of trash. The irony is

I DIDN'T OFFER THE VANCOUVER SUN AS PROOF OF ANY POSITION I'VE TAKEN. I criticized it. Are you out of your mind?

[sandinista]

I DIDN'T OFFER THE VANCOUVER SUN AS PROOF OF ANY POSITION I'VE TAKEN. I criticized it. Are you out of your mind?

I never said you offered it as "proof" of anything. I never offered the Nation article as "proof" of anything either. I was simply saying that quoting the Vancouver Sun after whinging about the bias in "The Nation" is ludicrous. Why so defensive?

[Coito ergo sum]

I DIDN'T OFFER THE VANCOUVER SUN AS PROOF OF ANY POSITION I'VE TAKEN. I criticized it. Are you out of your mind?

I never said you offered it as "proof" of anything. I never offered the Nation article as "proof" of anything either. I was simply saying that quoting the Vancouver Sun after whinging about the bias in "The Nation" is ludicrous. Why so defensive?

Not defensive at all. Simply frustrated at the idiocy that it takes for someone to say that quoting the Vancouver sun after whinging about the bias in the Nation is ludicrous.

I didn't whing about the Nation in general. I whinged about what the author of the article himself wrote. And, it doesn't matter what you offered it for - the nation article said what it said, and I attacked it because what it said was unbecoming of a publication of the Nation's stature. I find myself opposing the Nation on most things, but the article you posted isn't even deserving of respect.

Now, posting the Vancouver Sun article, if I vouched for it or agreed with it, then you might be able to suggest that I am biased towards them or ignoring their bias. However, I didn't do that. I posted it as part of the search for what is supposed to have happened here, and the Vancouver Sun seems to have posted the "official" view on the matter - the more conservative/right leaning view. Only, I criticized it, stating that they made an unwarranted conclusion, essentially stating that the Vancouver Sun hadn't produced any proof of what they were suggesting. Thus, it is not in any way "ludicrous" or even incongruous to have cited it. By your logic, it would be ludicrous to cite a Wall Street Journal article and proceed to critique it in some way.

[sandinista]

Only, I criticized it, stating that they made an unwarranted conclusion, essentially stating that the Vancouver Sun hadn't produced any proof of what they were suggesting

selective memory you've got there coito

They're not very specific on what proof they have. The only thing I can glean from the article is that the presence of hammers and molotov cocktails is being seen as an indication that some folks had the intent to riot beforehand. That does stand to reason.

It only stands to reason if it were true. Which I have yet to see any proof of.

bwahahaha check this one out

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... -riot.html

Canucks insist fans not to blame for Vancouver riot

The Vancouver Canucks insisted Friday that their fans are not to blame for the violent, destructive riot that broke out following the team's Stanley Cup loss to the Boston Bruins, and called for swift justice for those responsible.

Not their fans? Funny how almost everyone involved had a cancks jersey.