“That prompted another mother to ponder the bitterness of critics complaining about a woman struggling to cross the road with her child. “Should we be confined to our apartments? Or not have children at all?”

no you dumb cunt, look both ways like anyone with a clue that a several thousand pound vehicle would turn you and your baby into spam. I mean is that a serious question? Unfortunately it probably is.

Generalizations never work.

“The answer is: who fucking cares? Like most things women get away with, women slapping anyone isn’t a big deal. As a man, you’re likely to not even notice. Just like when a woman gets a promotion. Nothing changes because she never did anything in the first place and isn’t about to start.

Do you smack a dog who spills your drink with its tail? No. You just pour another drink and feel sorry for the stupid thing.”

As always. another classic piece of random Dick.

omi said:

Somewhat on unrelated topic.

I think someone should start a car insurance company where men pay less than women. Out of all accidents that I’ve witnessed, 95% of them were caused by women… driving carelessly. Some were painting nails or doing other things that people shouldn’t be doing while driving.

What do you guys think?

It’s a marvellous idea. There is already a car insurance broker in the UK that think women are better drivers (Diamond) and absolutely nothing has been said against it. surprise, surprise.

Somewhat on unrelated topic.

I think someone should start a car insurance company where men pay less than women. Out of all accidents that I’ve witnessed, 95% of them were caused by women… driving carelessly. Some were painting nails or doing other things that people shouldn’t be doing while driving.

What do you guys think?

James said:

well dick your again. a woman does something absolutely rediculous and the world seems to give her the title as liberator. this is how the world is now. if a man did that he would of automatically went to prison for such stupidity.

But you see, men are smart and would not ever do that. If you’ve noticed, a high percentage of cops are males. They were just taking pity on the poor being for being so foolish. Unfortunately. :(

That’s rich!

You missed the most important point, what kind of beans were they? chili-beans or pork & beans?.

Any man worth his salt would have grabbed up a few of them cans and had lunch before filing an insurance claim for the window for the repairs.

As far as mommys rage, it could have been “PMS”.

Women apparently suffer from all kinds of malladies like post pardom, bi-polar, “OCD” (obsessive compulsive disorder), anorexia/bulimia, the list goes on and on, so it’s likely the cunt had some chemical imbalance (like they all do).

If she was schlepping around a child, where did she get all those beans anyways?

Jesus, a woman eating so many beans, I’d hate to be in that house and light up a cigarette!

We’re manly men and light our farts. Something to do when the power goes out at night.

The only thing I’ve ever suffered from was “lack-o-nuckie” easily remedied by rosie palm and her five sisters, a well rendered fart and then nap time.

To me, like everything else, the biggest car wins!

Intersections “beware”, “Heeeeeres Johnny”

sonyad said:

You didn’t really need to quote the whole thing.

Was being thorough. And it was 4 or 5 AM.

Volenti non fit in iuria.
It’s your very own, democratically representative feminist yoke.

I don’t follow what messages and obedience to said has to do with much of anything, particularly law and law enforcement.

The law is not some non binding fortune cookie prediction to nonchalantly disregard at will.

Civilised society means, among others, living under the rule of law. If the laws are flawed/wrong/evil/unconstitutional/etc. then change them democratically, using the procedural mechanisms in place.

You didn’t really need to quote the whole thing.

- Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport - 01 - time (original mix)

sonyad said:

It’s not the executive branch’s place to act as ad hoc legislature or court. Nor is it its fault for that which it has to enforce and uphold.

It is the legislature and judiciary’s duty in the first place to do a proper job to begin with while it is the policing organisms’ job to be incorruptible, vigilent, competent, resourceful, lawful and relentless but use minimum necessary force in their pursuit of enforcing the law by uncovering purported infringements upon same and bringing them to prosecution by the judiciary then upholding the sentences.

Policing should, however, be highly structured into distinct layers decreasing in size but with increasing official prerogatives and investigative powers. Each layer should be open to scrutiny and external inquiry, at any time and for any or no reason, by layers oversighting it.

Animosity between the layers is to be embraced and encouraged with the higher up you go the better the remuneration, equipment and working conditions afforded law enforcement personnel being.

Accountability and standards of ethics and morals, both on and off duty, should be increasingly stringent and more exacting the demands for results. The highest level (the FBI for example), consisting of only the cream of the crop, should also be liable for infringements of law and ethics by subordinate layers they fail to uncover or successfully (inadequately prepared cases, power of prosecution should be granted it) bring to prosecution that should be uncovered by lower forms of policing.

A parliamentary commission of inquiry into its general record of performance should take place yearly, with unimpeded coercive and reprimanding powers pertaining.

Naturally, all laws ratified by the legislature should never alienate from fundamental human rights or impinge on just legal liberties; and fully abide by the fundamental principles of law such non backwards applicability, compliability, constitutionality etc.

That there are laws on the books that violate these some of these requirements in one way or another is none the police’s concern.

You don’t cherrypick those laws you fancy and have only them enforced while disregarding those laws incongruous with your views or apply coercive power to all but who you fancy.

Elect instead the proper people to helm the state’s executive and legislative and constantly watch over (free press) and, if needs be, periodically prosecute with utmost severity and purge individuals from the judiciary for the slightest infringements of law or ethics as well as generally hold them to highest standards of morality and accountability applicable.

Alternatively, run for parliament yourself or gather enough signatures to propose passing a referendum for repealing what is most abhorrent to you of current legal statutes.

Just cause you’ve got a piss poor legislature doesn’t mean you ought to have piss poor police as well.

Unless that’s what you want. But is that what all your countrymen to one want?

You’re probably not gonna mend one tremendous clusterfuck with a colossal hack. Likely only make things worse.

So yes, of course.

- Yin Yang Twins Ft. Trick Daddy - What’s Happening

If I understand your point correctly, is it the old saying: It is not the message which is important but our obediance to it?

It’s not the executive branch’s place to act as ad hoc legislature or court. Nor is it its fault for that which it has to enforce and uphold.

It is the legislature and judiciary’s duty in the first place to do a proper job to begin with while it is the policing organisms’ job to be incorruptible, vigilent, competent, resourceful, lawful and relentless but use minimum necessary force in their pursuit of enforcing the law by uncovering purported infringements upon same and bringing them to prosecution by the judiciary then upholding the sentences.

Policing should, however, be highly structured into distinct layers decreasing in size but with increasing official prerogatives and investigative powers. Each layer should be open to scrutiny and external inquiry, at any time and for any or no reason, by layers oversighting it.

Animosity between the layers is to be embraced and encouraged with the higher up you go the better the remuneration, equipment and working conditions afforded law enforcement personnel being.

Accountability and standards of ethics and morals, both on and off duty, should be increasingly stringent and more exacting the demands for results. The highest level (the FBI for example), consisting of only the cream of the crop, should also be liable for infringements of law and ethics by subordinate layers they fail to uncover or successfully (inadequately prepared cases, power of prosecution should be granted it) bring to prosecution that should be uncovered by lower forms of policing.

A parliamentary commission of inquiry into its general record of performance should take place yearly, with unimpeded coercive and reprimanding powers pertaining.

Naturally, all laws ratified by the legislature should never alienate from fundamental human rights or impinge on just legal liberties; and fully abide by the fundamental principles of law such non backwards applicability, compliability, constitutionality etc.

That there are laws on the books that violate these some of these requirements in one way or another is none the police’s concern.

You don’t cherrypick those laws you fancy and have only them enforced while disregarding those laws incongruous with your views or apply coercive power to all but who you fancy.

Elect instead the proper people to helm the state’s executive and legislative and constantly watch over (free press) and, if needs be, periodically prosecute with utmost severity and purge individuals from the judiciary for the slightest infringements of law or ethics as well as generally hold them to highest standards of morality and accountability applicable.

Alternatively, run for parliament yourself or gather enough signatures to propose passing a referendum for repealing what is most abhorrent to you of current legal statutes.

Just cause you’ve got a piss poor legislature doesn’t mean you ought to have piss poor police as well.

Unless that’s what you want. But is that what all your countrymen to one want?

You’re probably not gonna mend one tremendous clusterfuck with a colossal hack. Likely only make things worse.

So yes, of course.

- Yin Yang Twins Ft. Trick Daddy - What’s Happening

sonyad said:

Enforcing the law.

Even if its full of feminist bullshit?

Enforcing the law.

Actually, what is more manly than survival of the fittest?

You, sir, are a fool.

sonyad said:

Now, if accidentally running people over off the crosswalk might not give you pause, I suppose you, as I, are a staunch supporter then of impromptu, on the spot relieving drivers of their license for disallowing pedestrians to cross in marked places for such as the law clearly states it is their mandatory obligation to do?

Sonyad, I find reading your posts tends to cross my eyeballs and gives me a headache.

I am against the institution of state licensing, including drivers licenses. The economic term for a “license” is a “price cap”. And price caps always pervert the economic surplus of the intended industry, rather than help.

sonyad said:

And it’s certainly not population control if it’s your own child or spouse lying limp on the asphalt, now is it?

The same people who can’t cross walks on their own will be driving cars when I’m crossing the walk.

Besides, it’s not my job to pay for the fatal mistakes of the ill-bred among our society.

Pedestrian laws are idiotic. The more massive object should always have the right of way, for safety’s sake. Hey, tell St. Peter the law was on your side, and ask him for a second chance.

What are you going to do, save everybody with your insessant laws? Laws are bullshit. Contracts, guns, and brains are for men.

sonyad said:

On or off the crosswalk. That would still be a tad too callous for your own loved ones, wouldn’t it?

My sperm are not that stupid. I was taught to look both ways when crossing and I learned from my man-senses to always give way to the object with more mass. I will teach the same to my children when the time comes. If the runt of the patch doesn’t get it, I’m not about to pick a fight with 4.6 billion years of mother nature.

I am against breeding stupidity, and against laws that support breeding stupidity, like welfare, feminism, and pedestrian right-of-way laws.

If an animal is born with a serious life-ailing deformity, the merciful thing to do is put the sorry creature down. Same goes for people. Try teaching a special-ed class sometime.

Police take such infringements quite seriously.

Well, there is such a thing as crosswalks. Maybe I should take a camcorder down to the street just below my balcony, offer you the priviledge of seeing just how well the law is abided when its keeping to the letter really merits unspilled blood.

You literally have to jump in front of the traffic to get anyone to stop, hopefully in time. They’ll swoop right by you with you halfway along the crosswalk. Don’t even get me started on the woman drivers…

Now, if accidentally running people over off the crosswalk might not give you pause, I suppose you, as I, are a staunch supporter then of impromptu, on the spot relieving drivers of their license for disallowing pedestrians to cross in marked places for such as the law clearly states it is their mandatory obligation to do?

Or maybe just not enough people with driver’s licenses have witnessed brains being spilled over the pavement ‘Live and in the blood™’ to conscientise that the rules are there for a reason, written in blood so that no blood is spilled.

I may have my own failings behind the wheel, but stupidly enhancing the risk of running people over, on their right, because of selfish contemptuous disregard for the law is not one of them.

And it’s certainly not population control if it’s your own child or spouse lying limp on the asphalt, now is it?

On or off the crosswalk. That would still be a tad too callous for your own loved ones, wouldn’t it?

There’s a police officer at the airport wearing a cheap neon yellow vest who stands in the road stopping cars at the crosswalk. I asked him, “Why are you stopping cars?” Of course, he predictably explained so that people don’t get run over, to which I replied, “If someone can’t cross the road on their own without getting run over, that’s population control”. The officer didn’t get it.

Clearly, the world would be better off if the been-throwing woman had been hit. The man did her a favor by swerving, and look what he gets for his courtesy. And to think, she’s breeding…

wolfe said:

Women infect each other with hate like they’re rats with smallpox. They’re like magnets for it

That’s sadly very true in my observations. I wish that it were not, I really do.
-wolfe

I agree as well, it’s disheartening to say the least.

-Strength and Honor-