Saw them in Bend, OR last month. Even after the crazy shit in Vancouver they still play a kick-ass show.

>> ^laura:

Also, maybe people who see a poor dog chained up in their neighbor's yard all bloody would be motivated to turn the neighbor in after seeing this. Maybe.


This.

There have been a few stories lately out of the Vancouver area of dogs being rescued after years, and even in one story after a decade, and in these stories many neighbors acknowledge they knew/saw the abuse over the years and did nothing about it. Those people, even if it isn't 100% their business to do something, are just as much to blame. In my opinion, anyway.

I'd join you but Canada (where I am is still a little far North for the trek.
"I" how-ever will be in Vancouver BC this weekend! Goin' to the PNE (Pacific National Exhibition)

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-riot-kissing-couple-video-before-the-photo

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Yes... yes it is... *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-riot-kissing-couple-video-before-the-photo

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
So what really happened? This is the same video we've seen a dozen times before.

Is this already on the sift? I thought it was interesting context to that cool photo.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

Thank fuck we've got you to mother hen us all to death with your constant pecking.

>> ^bareboards2:

Hey! Don't blame yourself for posting that video!
There was nothing racist about that video -- it was a group of assholes breaking the law. It was interesting information about life in the big city -- and a scary reminder of the shadow side of instant technology.
It only became racist when someone made it so.
After all, Tailhook was all white men of privilege. The riots in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup were white men. Nobody looked at those incidents and said.... what? What is the white equivalent to "nigger"?
The rest of your comment? Right on, brother, right on. (Except I think we should be able to ban folks -- the threat of banishment is the only thing that works with some personalities. Because, unfortunately, this is still kindergarten in a lot of ways. It's the anonymous nature of the interwebs, I think -- brings out the naughty kid in some folks.)

>> ^MrFisk:
I blame myself for posting the video.
The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.
I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.
Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.
After all, this isn't kindergarten.

Hey! Don't blame yourself for posting that video!

There was nothing racist about that video -- it was a group of assholes breaking the law. It was interesting information about life in the big city -- and a scary reminder of the shadow side of instant technology.

It only became racist when someone made it so.

After all, Tailhook was all white men of privilege. The riots in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup were white men. Nobody looked at those incidents and said.... what? What is the white equivalent to "nigger"?

The rest of your comment? Right on, brother, right on. (Except I think we should be able to ban folks -- the threat of banishment is the only thing that works with some personalities. Because, unfortunately, this is still kindergarten in a lot of ways. It's the anonymous nature of the interwebs, I think -- brings out the naughty kid in some folks.)



>> ^MrFisk:

I blame myself for posting the video.
The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.
I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.
Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.
After all, this isn't kindergarten.

More footage of the aftermath of that hockey game here: http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-Celebrates-Boston-Stanley-Cup-Victory-With-Riots

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
So what really happened? This is the same video we've seen a dozen times before.

Is this already on the sift? I thought it was interesting context to that cool photo.


Ah, now I see where you're coming from. Don't know if this is on the sift already but I've seen this video. I came in expecting to get more info relating to this video so, in my mind, this was a very wtf title.

I hadn't considered that, at this point, someone would still only be familiar with the photo.

I rescind my prior douchiness.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

So what really happened? This is the same video we've seen a dozen times before.


Is this already on the sift? I thought it was interesting context to that cool photo.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Vancouver, hockey, riot, couple, kissing' to 'Vancouver, hockey, riot, couple, kissing, stanley cup' - edited by xxovercastxx

I don't mean deaths. I meant injuries to the riotters.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?

Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).
Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.
Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.
Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?


Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).

Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.

Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.

Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.