ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

As a resident of Boston, I sure do hope some of this snow melts before 60,000+ people descend on the city. The trains/bus service has been broken during this storm.

Some of the best food in the city is in the "old north end", which is above the Boston commons on that map (note: not Beacon Hill). If you walk across that bridge by the convention center you may find yourself wandering around China Town, which is "ehhhh" in my book.

#2 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@manmadegod: Was it really Reigns they were directly booing? I saw it as them booing them the event and how the rumble was managed. Think Roman was just the fall guy.

Yes, they were booing Reigns. The second his music hit, they booed. When he did anything in the ring, they booed. When he won, they booed.

#3 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@redyoshi said:

As has been said in this thread many times already, it wasn't the outcome, but the execution of it that has everyone so angry. After Bryan got eliminated all of the air just got sucked out of the building and the rest was filled with as many calculated and almost blatant middle fingers to the fans that they could cram into a match. They knew that no one would be happy with it so they decided to force it that way anyway in the bluntest manner possible, confident that everyone will still be on board with their ten dollars because it's The Road to Wrestlemania. Not me.

I don't see why we should believe this. The crowd last night was going to boo Reigns no matter what. People turned on him long ago.

Do you really think that if D Bryan and Roman were the last two guys, and Roman chucks him over the top, everyone would cheer? No way.

#4 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

I'm glad Kane was given the elimination record. He deserves it.

But still, the end of the PPV had the Rock beating up Big Show and Kane. 1999 flash back. WWE needed to build new stars years ago.

#5 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@manmadegod: Ok lets just say he punched the cop in the face. Should the consequences for punching someone in the face be death?

That question cannot be answered in a yes/no fashion. It does not matter what should be the consequences. If you assault another person you are putting your life in their hands. If a cop feels like his life is in danger, then it may be appropriate to use force. Other-times it may not be.

#6 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@rebel_scum: Should the penalty for being a thief/bully be death?

Are you insinuating that all he did was "bully" a police officer?

@truthtellah

You can't drink in the Boston commons. The tree lighting and decorating event in Boston is family friendly and was planned well in advanced. Is this picture suppose to show some type of odd contrasts? Not everyone wanted to participate in those protests.

#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@andymc1888: it's not going up on his feed until Tuesday.

#8 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@hippie_genocide said:

@milkman said:

@manmadegod said:

@milkman said:

@athleticshark said:

@milkman: I'm not about to justify the news but at some point these are people making the decisions. Our culture and our country.

Also generalizing and relating the founding of our country to rioting leaves me speechless. A little thing called the revolutionary war happened.

Obviously, I would prefer if people didn't riot. But I'm not going to let that distract from the real issue here.

I'm not sure your point with your last statement. The United States of America was literally founded on riots and protest over taxes.

Just reading through the thread to catch up, and I can't help but comment on this. Comparing what happened in colonial America to Ferguson is disingenuous. I assume you are alluding to events such as the Boston Tea party, an event with a clear goal and message. Ferguson is chaos and looting as the family of the victim calls for peace. The concerns of the colonists were being aired for years before war broke out (ex: Virginia house of burgesses). These grievances were levied against a Parliamentary Monarchy, which is a far cry from means in which people in our society today can protest/change government. The events in Ferguson are a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice.

If Ferguson is in some way equivalent to the founding of the United States, then what protest isn't it comparable to.

Sorry, you are one hundred percent wrong here. Ferguson is not a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice. It's a reaction to hundreds and hundreds of years of injustice. If it wasn't Michael Brown, it would have been Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or Trayvon Martin. You are missing the big picture.

That being the case, Michael Brown is a bad jumping off point to bring into light police brutality towards minorities. Michael Brown isn't worthy of anyone's rage. He assaulted a police officer and got shot in the scrum that ensued. There's too much grey area here. Surely there are more clear cut examples of police wrongdoing than someone assaulting an officer and possibly trying to reach for his gun, isn't there? Something with no plausible deniability that everyone, black and white, can rally behind.

I won't call Michael Brown a victim, nor Officer Wilson a culprit. It was a tough situation that he was in. And I think it's a slippery slope to expect every police officer involved in a fatal shooting to have to go before a jury and acquit himself of his actions just so he can go back to work again.

Do you know what would have provided a clearing in some of the grey area surrounding this situation? A real trial.

I agree that there should have been a trial, but a jury acquitted Zimmerman, and people are still convinced of his guilt. Trayvon's name even came up in this topic.

#9 Edited by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@milkman said:

@manmadegod said:

@milkman said:

@athleticshark said:

@milkman: I'm not about to justify the news but at some point these are people making the decisions. Our culture and our country.

Also generalizing and relating the founding of our country to rioting leaves me speechless. A little thing called the revolutionary war happened.

Obviously, I would prefer if people didn't riot. But I'm not going to let that distract from the real issue here.

I'm not sure your point with your last statement. The United States of America was literally founded on riots and protest over taxes.

Just reading through the thread to catch up, and I can't help but comment on this. Comparing what happened in colonial America to Ferguson is disingenuous. I assume you are alluding to events such as the Boston Tea party, an event with a clear goal and message. Ferguson is chaos and looting as the family of the victim calls for peace. The concerns of the colonists were being aired for years before war broke out (ex: Virginia house of burgesses). These grievances were levied against a Parliamentary Monarchy, which is a far cry from means in which people in our society today can protest/change government. The events in Ferguson are a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice.

If Ferguson is in some way equivalent to the founding of the United States, then what protest isn't it comparable to.

Sorry, you are one hundred percent wrong here. Ferguson is not a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice. It's a reaction to hundreds and hundreds of years of injustice. If it wasn't Michael Brown, it would have been Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or Trayvon Martin. You are missing the big picture.

Sorry, you are one hundred percent wrong about me being one hundred percent wrong :)

Regardless if it is or is not a reaction to one single event, your attempt to link Ferguson to the protest over British Colonial rule in the 1700's needed to be corrected. That was the main purpose of my post, and I'm glad you seem to have dropped that point.

@extomar said:

@manmadegod said:

@milkman said:

@athleticshark said:

@milkman: I'm not about to justify the news but at some point these are people making the decisions. Our culture and our country.

Also generalizing and relating the founding of our country to rioting leaves me speechless. A little thing called the revolutionary war happened.

Obviously, I would prefer if people didn't riot. But I'm not going to let that distract from the real issue here.

I'm not sure your point with your last statement. The United States of America was literally founded on riots and protest over taxes.

Just reading through the thread to catch up, and I can't help but comment on this. Comparing what happened in colonial America to Ferguson is disingenuous. I assume you are alluding to events such as the Boston Tea party, an event with a clear goal and message. Ferguson is chaos and looting as the family of the victim calls for peace. The concerns of the colonists were being aired for years before war broke out (ex: Virginia house of burgesses). These grievances were levied against a Parliamentary Monarchy, which is a far cry from means in which people in our society today can protest/change government. The events in Ferguson are a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice.

If Ferguson is in some way equivalent to the founding of the United States, then what protest isn't it comparable to.

So a little history lesson: The Seven Years War had a branch in the New World called by us as "French and Indian War" which was an astounding success. If you lived in the colonies out on the frontier, you were probably weeping for joy at the British Army breaking the back of French colonial aspirations in your backyard. The problem was that this success was expensive and labor intensive. Now they had a bunch of British troops stationed over here and spent a lot of money to win where the sensible thing to do from London's view was to order the states to host the army and apply taxes to help pay for the gigantic expense. For a lot of colonists, this made sense: American Colonies where the beneficiaries of the war where they should pay something for it isn't crazy or unreasonable.

At the start, it wasn't that any of the states were unhappy to host troops and pay taxes or that they weren't represented (as far as Parliament was concerned, states could ask Parliament to pass laws and acts just like any other constituents). The problem was a state would say "Lets do this tax" or "This is the best place to station troops" and some general or London would "We'll do this instead". Up until the final break a lot of people considered themselves British subjects and had no interests in breaking with 'home'. There is a lot of evidence lying around that if London had just said "Massachusetts (or whatever colony), you need to give us 1 million pounds. Raise it how ever you want" and negotiated like that then a lot of the problems and unrest would have been reduced.

Fun side note: This "mistake" was the basis of The English Civil War years before which is why a lot of left for America in the first place...

So now we see there is a place where the citizens have some complaints and suggestions but those in power appear to not listening or care about it. When the protests get bigger, instead of trying to find a solution and bring in those leaders to work out a solution, those in power bring in bigger troops. Yeah..its totally different.

I'm well aware of the history/build up to the American Revolution. I wasn't making the call of whether the "concerns of the colonists" were justified or not, just stating that they existed. But I agree with your last sentence, it is/was totally different.

#10 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

Reports of patrol rifles (M4s) being stolen from police cruisers

"Patrol rifle". Fucking hell, how is that a thing?

@manmadegod If you actually believe this is over a single injustice, and not decades of institutionalised injustice, you haven't been paying attention. This shit is the result of something much bigger than Michael Brown.

I would say that verdict of the grand jury regarding Darren Wilson is the reason for the protests in Ferguson right now. I'm paying 100% attention.