Things that piss me off!

Off-Topic Off Topic
#241

Ok, so like I’m reading the Newspaper about George Galloway and I wonder, Why Does AMERICA allow this guy in their Country and Canada doesn’t?? hello??..If the guy is such a threat then I assume we have better Terrorisim laws to protect us then America? This doesn’t make sense. The guy is giving a speech in New York City. I don’t understand why America allows this guy in their country when Canada choses not to allow him to enter Canada. America should be the one that is more stricter, not Canada! Wake up America!

http://news.sky.com/skynews
Canada blocked Mr Galloway from entering the country on national security grounds earlier in March, saying he provided money to Hamas, a banned terrorist organisation in Canada.
Federal Court Justice Luc Martineau denied a request for an emergency injunction to allow the British MP in to begin a speaking tour of the country.
Mr Galloway is well known for his ardent opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Earlier this month, he was awarded an honorary Palestinian passport in a secret meeting with prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas figure.
Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney has said those who support, promote and help terrorist organisations should not visit the country.

Galloway hugs Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza
A spokesman for Mr Kenney said Canadian border officials made the decision on the grounds Mr Galloway was a national security threat.
The government declined to overturn the decision because of his financial support for Hamas, Alykhan Velshi said.
In a letter to Mr Galloway, the government said he had delivered humanitarian goods to war-torn Gaza and gave $45,000 (£31,500) to Hamas.
Judge Martineau said in a written ruling he is not willing to exempt Mr Galloway from Canada’s immigrations laws.
Tour organiser James Clark said the British MP will not attempt to enter Canada because he has no intention of breaking the law.
Instead, he said Mr Galloway will deliver video speeches to the Canadian cities Mississauga, Ontario, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa this week from a studio in New York.
Mr Galloway has denied suggestions he supports terrorism, insisting he gave money and aid to help the people of Gaza, not for terrorism.
“I am not a supporter of Hamas,” he said. “But I am a supporter of democracy.”

#242

Well for starters, here in the States we have a group of very well funded morons who collectively call themselves the ACLU and their job is to find legal means to block common sense. In this case I am sure they would scream discrimination. To them the fact that he has ties to a terrorist group is superseded by the fact that he should have the same full rights as any citizen.

They also do lovely things like sue for illegal immigrants right to stay in this country and file lawsuits against airports for searching Arab men boarding airplanes despite the fact that the given people are acting suspicious.

#243

Ya, I hear you!..We got this case now in the courts about this woman who insists she wear the Niqa (not sure of spelling) but its the thing that covers your entire face so only your eyes show) in court!..Well as you knowm one of the premises of our Democratic laws, is that the Accuser has the right to see his victim and vice versa, in court…so this woman, who doesn’t even wear the Niqa on her own time, CHOOSES to insist she be allowed to wear it, on religious grounds in court…and if the judge refuses then he can be sued based on freedom of religious practice!..What is this world coming too!!!This doubly pisses me off!!!..

#244

Religion shouldn’t be above the Rule of Law. The fact that she’s allowed to wear it in court (obviously to hide her identity) is ridiculous.
The court is above the religion, the most they should possibly do is ban reporters/pictures from the courtroom, but not more.
If she has committed a crime and stands in court for it, she should have to face the consequences, no matter what her religion may be.

#245

Yep that is something that the ACLU would be supporting if that was in the States.

Right now in my state the ACLU is fighting a bill that would require voters to so some sort of identification before voting in elections. Now the obvious reason for this would be to help curb people from voting under the names of deceased people but according to the jack @sses at the ACLU having to show id before you vote is discrimination against minorities and the poor…how they even manage to make that type of claim I don’t know but since they are so well funded and stocked full of lawyers they will probably defeat the law. :evil:

#246

I think that has more to do with a certain amount of American Militarism.

#247

:lol: Of all the cops I know very, very few have shaved heads. Even most of the cops that are ex military have hair but maybe the ones that do shave their heads do it because they got used to it in the service.

Or maybe they are like me and just enjoy not having to deal with hair on your head and it keeps your head much cooler in the summer
(and no i am not a cop:D)

#248

It happens everytime I pick up the paper. ANOTHER Charity SCAM!..and for all those Bone Heads out there that believe in giving to Charity, I hope you continue to give, because without you, there would be no con artists in this world.
Someone once said…Every minute, there is a Bone Head born…and that Bone Head is the bleeding heart goody Two shoe people out there.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/apr/06/090406kelly-denies-selling-toys-witch-hunt/?metro

April 6, 2009
SAN DIEGO — A 73-year-old San Ysidro woman accused of selling thousands of donated toys for personal profit proclaimed her innocence Monday at the steps of the downtown Hall of Justice.
Virginia Kelly, who is charged with grand theft and embezzlement, spoke briefly at a news conference held by her two attorneys.
When asked how she felt about the accusations, Kelly said, “I feel OK because I’m not guilty of anything. I’m innocent.”
Authorities seized more than 11,000 toys from Kelly’s home, a storage unit and her daughter’s home in Chula Vista. She was arrested April 1 at her home and has pleaded not guilty.
Investigators said she collected about 1,700 toys per year for the past five years from the Marine Corps Toys for Tots program and the Child Abuse Prevention Foundation, then gave about half of them to foster parents for their children and kept the rest to sell for profit at garage sales.
Attorney Michaela Curran, who stood beside Kelly, said the items not donated were in poor condition and not usable. They included expired medicine, expired baby food, broken toys and dolls without arms and legs, she said.
The items not donated were “properly kept in a storage unit,” Curran said. Some were kept in a rented unit at Kelly’s daughter’s house, Curran said.
“The only thing she’s guilty of is being 73 years old and getting a little bit overwhelmed with the number of toys and things to be distributed,” Curran said.
When asked why she kept the items instead of disposing of them, Kelly said, “I didn’t have time.”
Curran called the charges a “witch hunt” by the District Attorney’s Office and said that the case “makes for a good story.”
Kelly, president of the Latino Foster Parents Association, had about two dozen supporters standing behind her as she spoke.
She reiterated that she did not sell any toys or have anyone help her sell them.
“I never sell anything,” Kelly said.

#249

Buzz words. (Ignoring the fact that the term was itself a buzz word when introduced into the language in the 1980s)

  1. Iconic.

I am at the point of vomiting every time some journalist refers to something as ‘iconic’.

The world isn’t big enough to hold all the icons those drones accord the title ‘iconic’.

  1. Going forward.

Can’t anyone in public life construct a sentence without that phrase in it?

I amuse myself at compulsory meetings and so on by writing down how often some dickhead uses ‘going forward’ and its derivatives.

I do this very intently, so people think I am taking bullshit presentations seriously. I am, but not as intended.

(I did the same in the 1980s when the equally pointless phrase substituted for UMM was ‘moving on’.)

#250

I’ve rarely ever heard ‘Going Forward’ as a replacement for ‘Moving On’. I hear the latter one at leas 20 times a day, though - One would think that the Professors are into a certain routine by now.

I hate it when people try to be so annoyingly politically correct and say ‘Happy Holidays’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’.

That just pisses me off…

#251

Well, going forward, this suggests that, going forward, Canada isn’t going forward at the same rate that, going forward, Australia is going forward. Not that, going forward, I’m trying to be sarcastic about people who, going forward, use ‘going forward’ as being, going forward, at the cutting edge of going forward in any nation, going forward.

And if you think that, going forward, that sounds like bullshit, you ought to go to a heavyweight corporate or compulsory professional education ‘presentation’ by, going forward, a heavyweight corporate or compulsory professional education ‘consultant’ down here who, going forward, can’t, going forward, utter twenty words, going forward, without saying a meaningless phrase like, say, ‘going forward’.

Oh, yes!

Fortunately, after a brief period of currency down here a while back under pressure of the gender/ religion / culture / brain-neutral fuckwits who siezed the gender/ religion / culture / brain-neutral fuckwit area of government-funded stupidiy, we seem to have abandoned that in mainstream government-funded neo-Nazi groupthink culture of the sort imposed upon the majority by a noisy trivial minority, who actually didn’t speak for the supposed minorities they were supposedly defending.

For example, the rabid Anglo-revolutionary types who, when not getting all wound up in their keffiyahs in solidarity with the Arabs due to their expensive private schools not giving instruction in the differences between a tie and a scarf and a garotte, went to university and got all wound up about ham sandwiches being served at local government functions at which Muslims were present and wanted to bring the nation to its knees to ensure that ham sandwiches were banned. Yet the Muslims who, going forward, were the only people who, going forward, were affected by it said they couldn’t care less if ham was served as long as they had other food acceptable to them, which was always served.

However, going forward and going back to ‘going forward’ as a pain in the arse to those of us who still speak an approximation of English, we are routinely pissed off by the intrusion of the American preference for using long or many words when fewer words or a short word will do. Such as:

American / English

Negative / No

Affirmative / Yes

At this point in time / Now

#252

Well, I’ve only ever heard ‘Negative’ and ‘Affirmative’ by military types/wannabe military types…

And I hate it when they say ‘You should learn American’/‘I only speak American’.

Unless they talk about the English with 1/4 Spanish, they are retards…

#253

This

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9335

Is he some sort of wuckfit ?

Richie

#254

well it is printed by a Canadian company owned by a German company…welcome to globalism

http://www.babanknote.com/

dieter

#255

Many of the recruits entering Police forces are ex-military, and little hair is the norm for them these days, (we always pushed the limits on hair in my day,) but, shaved heads are not allowed in the services of the U.S. Regulations require at least 1/8 inch(if I remember rightly) of hair upon each Govt issued scalp. It is to prevent sunburn. So many who want some degree of protection have hair on top, but the back, and sides are to the minimum length.
Skinheads were the only ones actually shaving their heads, until it became fashionable for men to go chrome.(Though I have never been all that fashionable, Nature seems to be taking care of the situation for me.)

#256

I always knew there was something wrong with Kevlar.

And now we know that it can’t stop sunburn. :smiley:

#257

I never knew there was a minimum for ‘government-owned’ hair… and I doubt 1/8 inch is going to prevent a head from getting sunburned :smiley:

#258

Mabye not on the hair length, but if I got 1/8 inch of head someone else is going to get the sunburn. :smiley:

#259

Its true, there is a regulation concerning minimum hair length, I caught Holy Hell for shaving my noggin on my own in Basic training, it may have been 1/4 inch, I dont recall exactly.but as I did my first of many sets of 25 push-ups, the D.I. was telling me in his usual sensitive and dulcet tones,that if I got chafed, or sunburned, I would then know why there was such a regulation. Such promises of doom everlasting never materialized, and my hair grew quickly, nevermore to be shaved,except by natures tonsorial grim reaper. Nowadays, I am asked to wear a hat so the glare will not blind local drivers, and other passersby. :slight_smile:

#260

Just out of curiosity, which army are we talking about? I assume either British or US?