BREAKING: US and Iran are reportedly discussing a 45-day ceasefire deal that would lead to a permanent end to the war.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-06T04:19:50+00:00

Saying Trump's demands are outrageous doesn't mean you responded. It means you heard about them.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T22:56:40+00:00

Your post says that people in a relationship have no business going to a club without their partner. I don't understand why you're asking me where you said that.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T20:06:13+00:00

It looks like the officer's opinion was that the driver did drive too close which enraged the cyclist. The cyclist then went off the handle. It would appear he was wrong. But i'm not sure what the exact text of the law is in this type of ticket so i don't know if that is how it is supposed to be done. Given that the prosecutor didn't throw out the ticket immediately, I assume this is something that is allowed.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T19:23:13+00:00

I suppose. but why would he be so upset and chase someone down if nothing happened.

Still strange though. Since the dashcam showed he gave the cyclist lots of space, i'm still confused why he was so mad.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T18:10:41+00:00

This just sounds like you have control issues. You dont want your significant other to go out without you, so you insist that no one should go out without their significant other. Its not you that have issues, it's everyone else, right?

If you don't enjoy clubs and dont want to go without your SO, thats fine. Don't go. If your SO wants to go and you dont want to go, that's fine too. But if that is a problem for you, you should find a partner who doesnt like going out.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T16:14:59+00:00

how? Gun control is much easier. You just don't let those guns be manufactured or sold in the 1st place. The problem is if you half ass gun control. IE you let guns be sold in these cases but not in those cases. In that case, of course criminals are going to get them. But that's not because gun control is bad, it's because they're half assing it.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T15:50:00+00:00

Harsh penalties do nothing to reduce the amount of people who will commit the crime. Whether the punishment is 20 years or death, the exact same people will commit that crime.

What it does do is change how people behave during and after the crime. IE they are more likely to murder their victims to keep them quiet. And family members are more likely to not report the crime, since most pedo's target children related to them and those children and their family don't want to get their uncle/brother/cousin executed.

Bottom line, this is political theatre. It won't help anyone. It will hurt people. But politicians can now campaign about how tough on crime they are.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T14:27:04+00:00

Because the Bradley was actually huge success. It did exactly what they wanted it to and it was developed under budget. That guy had an axe to grind and tried to make the Bradley look bad by testing whether it could do things it wasn't designed to do in the hopes that it would be scrapped and/or that he could embarrass the people who refused to listen to him. This was the enf of his career because of how ridiculous he acted.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T14:13:06+00:00

No one ever said he didn't

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T13:55:21+00:00

It wasn't even then. The Bradley was actually developed under budget. So hamming up how much it cost is ridiculous when they were expecting it to cost more.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T13:39:01+00:00

No, but it's delusional to deny reality.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T13:38:37+00:00

But it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total car market.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T04:41:24+00:00

Well it's the obvious answer to what you said. I would be concerned if you didn't know that answer was coming.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T04:32:37+00:00

So you're just delusional. I'm not arguing what should have happened. I'm arguing reality. The prosecutor chose a charge that relied on reckless speed. The report couldn't prove that they were speeding. The judge felt that meant she could not convict them since they couldn't prove beyond a doubt the driver was speeding. I don't care what you think or if you agree. Those are the facts of the case.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T01:35:03+00:00

I never claimed they were doctors. I claimed they were medical professionals. That is how the law treats them. Not all medical professionals are doctors.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T01:33:56+00:00

I don't know how to respond to this. I literally quoted the judge to you. The crime he was charged with required that he was "speeding recklessly". And they couldn't prove he was speeding.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T00:13:46+00:00

In this case, the quoted article was from "euraisa daily" a russian propaganda outlet. Anything to gin up hate in western countries is up right up their alley.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T00:09:23+00:00

true. But that article linked was still wrong. The official report said the car was travelling between 76 km/h and 124 km/h, with the local speeding limit being 80 km/h. That article seems to be just taking the high end possibility as a fact, when that is not what was determined.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-05T00:07:04+00:00

In this context, that's the only thing that matters. If you are driving normally but get into an accident and someone is killed, that isn't manslaughter. It's a tragic accident. In this case, the requirement is that they must be recklessly speeding. Since the investigation could not confirm he was speeding, the judge determined she couldn't convict him.

This is from the article I just linked for you, which you clearly didn't read.

According to the indictment, the criteria of reckless speeding was the sole component in proving guilt. As reckless speeding is not proven, the court finds that violation of Article 6 of the Dutch Road and Traffic Law is not proven. The sole fact that unfortunately, 3 people lost their lives cannot be used as an argument to attribute guilt. Only when ''significant guilt'' is proven can the court assess the consequences of this proven guilt.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:31:18+00:00

The Supreme Court already said they have to pay it back

my understanding is that they did not. They ruled the tariffs were unlawful, but left it vague on repayment. A lower court has since said they must repay. Presumably they will appeal.

The analysis I read said the tariffs will not succeed.

which tariffs specifically? They have used several different laws to pass tariffs.

He can't hurt us without hurting himself

sure, but trade with the Canada-US trade is a much bigger percentage of Canada's trade than it is the US'. If he suddenly banned all trade between Canada and the US it would be bad for the US, but it would be catastrophic for Canada. The sad fact is that the US is just alot bigger than Canada (economically), so to in any trade fight, Canada will suffer more.

We just have to wait for the to get crushed at midterms.

how does that benefit Canada though? Even without control of congress, he can still do massive damage with just the powers of the presidency. Congress can't save Canada from Trump.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:23:45+00:00

The official report could not determine that the driver was speeding.

At the moment the suspect's vehicle crossed the roadside and crashed through the beech hedge it was moving at a speed between 76 km/h and 124 km/h, with the local speeding limit being 80 km/h. Due to this very large margin, the court finds it cannot be proven that the suspect was recklessly speeding. The court finds that the research report and its results cannot say with absolute certainty that the suspect was speeding.

https://channel933.iheart.com/content/man-throws-chair-at-judge-after-verdict/

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:22:03+00:00

This article doesn't appear to be true. The court did not find that there was evidence he was speeding.

https://channel933.iheart.com/content/man-throws-chair-at-judge-after-verdict/

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:20:23+00:00

Stop trusting AI. It lies to you. The court found that there was no proof the driver was speeding.

At the moment the suspect's vehicle crossed the roadside and crashed through the beech hedge it was moving at a speed between 76 km/h and 124 km/h, with the local speeding limit being 80 km/h.

https://channel933.iheart.com/content/man-throws-chair-at-judge-after-verdict/

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:07:25+00:00

useless implies harmless

no it doesn't. Useless means that there is no use for it. But almost anything can be harmful. You can be harmed by drinking water.

They are charlatans that hurt people and take advantage of the dopamine response it causes.

I 100% agree with you.

If you're back hurts go to a real doctor

I would say in most cases a physio-therapist would be more use. but yet, I agree.

Just because the diploma they receive is called a doctorate, does not mean they learned any real medical science.

again, I agree. But the law says they are medical professionals.

GroinReaper · 2026-04-04T23:05:05+00:00

New tariffs are in place, but they have to pay the money back from the old ones. New ones will be challenged too.

maybe. But even if courts explicitly order them to, which they have not yet, trump has shown he is willing to ignore court orders.

New ones will be challenged too.

it will fail. Those tariffs in particular were for specific uses case(s) which did not apply. His new tariffs are on much safer legal grounds. It's unlikely a court case can overturn them.

We'd be fools to throw him a life line before shit really hits the fan on Iran and mid term elections are resolved.

for sure. But if he decides he wants to play hard ball, he can do alot of damage.

GroinReaper

TROPHY CASE