Question:

Should the rabid right-wing be successful in changing this City into what they want it to be, what will they have to moan, whine and complain about THEN....after they have accomplished their goal?

I ask that because from reading the comments on SFHate over the years, the majority of the rabid trash on there despise this City and anything about it. Many of them don't even live here and they slip and let that be known on occasion, yet they pretend to live here. They despise the BoS. They despise "lib" [sic] San Francisco. Sit-lie is part of the rabid right-wing agenda for changing the City, along with this "Secure Communities" crap which Mr Political Opportunist (Newsom) has "no reservations about." And I have no doubt that there will be more regressive, backward-thinking stuff cooked up by the haters of "liberal" San Francisco to make it like any other City. The rabid right-wing trash have a national agenda. Period.

To me, San Francisco is very special. I don't want this City to look like or be like any other place here in this nation. I like being this little "island" (almost). Can't the rabid regressives just leave us alone---this one place---and obsess on the hell hole they live in? Can't Nevius find a job in Walnut Creek so he will never have to come here again? Can't migratory sit-lie addict Evans find a place to live someplace he really likes and won't have to moan, whine, and complain about 24/7?...while out of the other side of his mouth he has talked about how much he likes the neighborhood he lives in. Uh huh.

But again, should these rabid people (many of whom will say, "I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm not a conservative. This isn't about tolerance.") be successful in turning this City into some right-wing place, what will the rabid trash who don't give a damn about the US Constitution or the oppression of people who are not like themselves have to moan, whine and complain about THEN?

I was on another site earlier---not based in San Francisco---and I see that someone has started a page (part of a website) with a form letter addressed to Newsom and Chiu urging them to reject sit-lie.

Apparently people from all over the nation cannot believe that progressive San Francisco is even considering something like sit-lie. (Me either). It's a petition. So far they have 200 signatures and their goal is 500 signatures. I doubt it will do anything considering Newsom being who and what he is.

Granted, many of the people who have signed the petition don't live here, but if the rabid trash group can play that game, why can't the progressive group oppose them using the same tactics? That seems fair to me. If some right-wing nut in Walnut Creek wants to change this City backwards, it seems only fair that someone in New York or the District of Columbia should have their say on opposing the rabid trash. What’s fair for one group is fair for the other. But the rabid right-wing "apples, blapples, crapples and slapples" paid political trolls won’t agree with this at all.

But it's good to know that there are some people who don't agree with the regressive, rabid trash in our society, and I consider anyone who wants to take away the rights of other people and oppress people: TRASH. Period. And we have a lot of trash in our society...much of it charading as D and R politicians.

Speaking of trash, the baiting paid political trolls seem to favor these rabid regressive draconian laws. Not surprising though. I would expect that.

Ex: friend, often used between females. Often used in the possessive, as in "my bitch."

Now if I referred to someone as a "rabid bitch" then I'd take being called out on that point. But it's generally accepted within my circles, as a black, feminist, lesbian - that it's entirely OK for wimmin or gay men to use the word "bitch" with one another.

Now bum - I shouldn't have used that. Good on you for calling me out on that. I apologize.

I hope many people read the post above by Sam. He equates the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law in SF with the vicious assault on immigrants in AZ.

He views supporters of the Civil Sidewalks Law as "fascist right wingers."

He approvingly mentions a friend who fantasizes about using his gun against supporters of the Civil Sidewalks Law.

And all in the name of progressive politics.

Anybody see anything disturbing here?

It is immaterial what other cities have "sit-lie." Two wrongs of oppression (two or more cities who have sit-lie or something equivalent to it) do not justify oppression HERE. Oppression is wrong, period, no matter who else likes to engage in oppression. It doesn't justify it here. This is San Francisco. To some people, if the majority of those who vote, voted "yes" for slavery, that would be fine too.

Wrong is wrong, and you know it. If one has a problem when one is on the streets or sidewalks, just call the police. That's all one has to do.

In a post above, Sam says:

"the fascist right-wing trash in this nation are attacking people's civil liberties and trying to oppress people. They come up with oppressive sit-lie and oppressive immigration laws"

According to the last poll, 71% of SF voters would support a civil sidewalks type of law.

So 71% of San Franciscans are fascist right-wing trash, eh?

Sam also says:

"You remind me of a very sour, old man who---because of his age---has become rabid right-wing..."

Apparently Sam has never heard of the word "age-ism."

And the kicker is, he puts forward all of the above murkiness in the name of progressive politics!

Let's stand up against obscurantism posing as progressivism, and bring civility and safety to the city's sidewalks.

Arthur Evans uses a linguist and semantic tongue-twister here to conceal that fact.

Mr Henderson does not state in his testimony that complaints require a civilian complaint. He states that he's aware of the Orders and goes on to say that the DA's have never had a complaint about that from SFPD.
Posted by TheLaw on May. 25, 2010 @ 10:34 am

Unblocking the Sidewalks Requires a Civilian Complaint
Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 23, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

sfbg.com/politics/2010/05/11/sit-lie-proponents-criticize-their-allies

We don't dislike or mistrust senior citizens.
Just you.
We are not against civility.
Just you and your fantasy of a fascist Sit-Lie Law.
We will not be told what behavior, or language, is acceptable by you.

By what authority do you dictate how people behave, talk, and think?
Your only license is your personal madness and self absorption.

Lastly, we are not "progressives".
So you can stick that label up your ass.

There was a guitarist playing and singing last night outside the Castro Muni metro station (Harvey Milk Plaza). I enjoyed his music. He had a nice voice and particularly good falsetto range. I listened for a while. He was quite talented and his style was sort of jazz/Brazilian. His music was very nice to listen to. Many people seemed to notice him (he was amplified but he wasn't that loud) and their faces showed that they enjoyed him. I was waiting for the police to show up and shut him down---as has been happening under this new "bad news" guy---but fortunately that didn't happen, at least while I was there. Some people were giving him $$ to help him out. One guy was sitting on the sidewalk listening to him over by Diesel. I thought: well, under oppressive sit-lie you wouldn't be able to sit on the sidewalk and listen to this good musician and get into the music and the musician might not even be allowed to stand there even though he's not sitting. Who knows how this law would be abused by some thug cops on a power trip?! That's another reason why we don't need this draconian sit-lie law, no matter how the proponents gift wrap it. And even under sit-lie, if there is a problem, one will still have to call the police....just as it is now.

Have a problem? Call the police. We don't need yet another law to oppress people.

The other day someone referred to migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans as a "disgusting troll."

He certainly fits the description of an Internet troll, especially the baiting that he does and half-way quoting people, the half-truths and the lies as well as deliberately and intentionally missing someone's point. Lots of baiting of people though. That's one of the trademarks of an Internet troll.

I have previously asserted that AE is a paid troll---he denied it of course---because the last time I Googled Arthur Evans and sit-lie, something like 9 (yes, nine) pages of Google entries came up with stuff that he had written on various sites supporting oppressive sit-lie.

So I have to agree with the person from the other day and....

Don't Feed The Trolls. Just ignore Arthur Evan's ubiquitous shit. (The same for the other trolls on here who bait and consistently deliberately miss the point that people make in their comments). No matter what Arthur Evans says. He's just baiting you to get a rise out of you and he will continue to do so. Ignore him. He just wants attention so he can get paid for baiting people and missing their points on purpose and acting like a skin fungus that won't go away. According to an article I read recently, paid Internet trolls get paid for getting a response/reaction to the bait they put out. One has to respond to the troll in order for the troll to get paid by the person or people paying them to troll around on message forums to promote their agenda.

Imagine getting paid to piss people off. A true "patriot" eh?

I was over on Fog City Journal and they have an article (05.26.10) about sit-lie written by Luke Thomas. It's a good article. Informative.

(By the way, Jorge Gascón has endorsed Kamala Harris in the race for California Attorney General. Interesting. Luke talks about it.)

And you'd never guess who's over there (at Fog City) too. LOL. Yeeeeeeeeeees, migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans. Oh yes why not?! Why wouldn't he be over there TOO?

I noticed one person in particular over there commenting. Some nose-in-the-air snot by the name of Ruth R. Snave. I thought to myself: This woman is a piece of work. I don't think she could get her nose any higher.

The comments over there were a bit confusing because this Ruth R. Snave would write her drivel and then Luke responded to her by addressing her (Ruth) as "Arthur." Also, this Ruth writes about the "Civil Sidewalks Law" [sic].

So then I Googled "Ruth R. Snave and Arthur Evans," and I found this complementary closing from Arthur Evans in the cache of one site:

Quote:

Yours for rationality in government, Arthur Evans ...... the two of us (for this website, I use the whimsical handle Ruth R. Snave)

End Quote

Oh, so migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans also goes by the name of "Ruth R. Snave" on other sites. That's Arthur's other screen name/handle. Okay.

And this "Ruth" wrote some of the same stuff over there as "Arthur" does over here, such as this:

Quote:

Thank you for your intelligent contributions to this topic, marc.

When the Civil Sidewalks Law goes to the voters in November, I sincerely hope that you will be the one to write the argument in the voters’ pamphlet opposing the measure.

End Quote

Where have you read that last paragraph before? HERE on this site from Arthur Evans to some of the opponents of oppressive sit-lie.

Today, I (and a friend) were walking down 18th Street in The Castro. We weren't too far from Brandy Ho's. The local merchants had put little signs on the sidewalk from Castro all the way past Brandy Ho's.

Farther down, there were children playing on the sidewalk...playing hopscotch and drawing stars on the sidewalk with chalk. I thought: how terrible this is! These children should not be scrawled out all over the sidewalk and writing all over the sidewalk with chalk, just like protesters. What is this world coming to? This should not be allowed. It's time to sanitize the neighborhood. That's what the uptight prudes like migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans/Ruth R. Snave---and whatever else aliases Arthur and Ruth go by when they're trolling around on the Internet---would likely say, along with using the words "civil" and "safe" over and over and over and over, like the professional propagandists they are.

Under oppressive sit-lie, what these children were doing would not be allowed. Because they were sitting and lying on the sidewalk. "We" can't have that because "sidewalks are for walking," we are told by the professional propagandists who want to oppress people. So where the hell are these children supposed to play in the minds of these uptight, prudish, regressive, oppressive, pretentious, nose-in-the-air trash?

From my experience, people who are truly secure with themselves and who they are---regardless of their economic situation----don't act like uptight prudes or supposed intellectual snots. They don't try to control the behavior of other people. The proponents of oppressive sit-lie might have more credibility if they were capable of notching down their nose a few miles. And why don't the proponents of oppressive sit-lie be open and honest about their regressive and oppressive agenda? Their agenda is to change the Board of Supervisors into a more "moderate/conservative" (regressive, all white) governing body. The proponents will not be satisfied until this City more closely resembles stuffy, boring, mostly all white Walnut Creek where another member of the migratory pack of sit-lie addicts resides. That's what this is really about....in the name of "civil" and "safe" patronizing propaganda.

"Let's make sure" we keep this dangerous legislation out of progressive San Francisco and keep our current laws "civil" and "safe" for all, not just the bourgeois elite (or those who pretend to be).

I wouldn't expect any of you "progressives" to care at all about my issues (since I, as a middle-aged working taxpayer, represent The Enemy) but for the record, I am a 22-year survivor of HIV; I work 2 jobs to make ends meet in The City and pay for my health insurance and meds; and I would rather like to be able to walk down the streets of my own neighborhood without inhaling pneumonia, TB, fecal bacteria, and God knows what else is out there -- courtesy of Chris Fucking Daly and his ongoing campaign to transform District 6 into a slightly cooler version of Calcutta. (Apologies to the people of Calcutta, who work hard for a living -- which is more than can be said for most of you No on Sit/Lie bleaters or your enablers on the BoS.)

On behalf of others like me, and on behalf of my landlord who constantly has to have graffiti removed upon penalty of City fines, and in protest against being verbally assaulted by street people blocking the entrances to my building, and against the piles of trash and stolen shopping carts that usually adorn my block, I intend to vote Yes on Sit/Lie. Squawk all you like, indulge your bizarre obsession with Arthur Evans (whom I hate to agree with, as he comes across as a colossal horse's ass in his constant stream of letters to the Bay Times), insult and berate me... but unless you can convince a majority of San Francisco voters to agree that nothing needs to be done, then all your online venting will be for naught.

See you in November.