If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox DC)   I was totally on your side. I hate speed cameras too. I could have even gone with the 'HERO' tag. But then swastika   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 97
    More: Stupid, speed cameras, religious slurs, County Police, undress  
•       •       •

9941 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:57 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 01:59:45 PM
Someone please help me. I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera. Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them. But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop? If yes, why? If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?


Thanks Toastmaster, I've always been the same way, If I'm driving like I should be, then why do i care if they use cameras to catch the idiots. If it makes the roads safer then I say use more of them.

Lack of the corrective benefit of an officer asking you how fast you are going- instead you just receive a ticket a week later with little recourse because how many people remember their exact speed when travelling some podunk road a week before.

Locally the cops will sit 1 car on an overpass with the radar or laser gun & radio to cars waitng farther up the road. Perfectly legal, and if you ask to see the gun for proof they will tell you they don't have to show it to you, and you still get the ticket. My BIL got caught that way a few years back.
 
2013-11-20 01:59:53 PM
My thoughts: use something not quite as obtrusive as paint. Something which will neutralize the camera's ability to generate photographic evidence, yet not be as visibly evident. It could be as easy as paint balls filled with egg whites. All you have to do is make the glass go from transparent to slightly translucent. Just a little cloudy, and you've thrown a spanner in the cogs.
 
2013-11-20 01:59:53 PM
the vandal isn't promoting nazism, she is calling the cameras nazis.
 
2013-11-20 02:02:16 PM

thurstonxhowell: FrancoFile: Who, exactly, is your accuser?

The cop who signs the ticket. He is accusing you based on the evidence given to him by the camera.

I don't like the cameras, either, but that's a very simple question with an obvious answer.


And if i set up a monitoring station on my street and took evidence of a civil offense to the police would they chase you down and issue a ticket?
 
2013-11-20 02:02:49 PM

FrancoFile: ToastmasterGeneral: Someone please help me.  I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera.  Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them.  But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop?  If yes, why?  If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Because the Constitution gives you the right to confront your accuser in open court, and to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Who, exactly, is your accuser? The guy who assembled the camera, or installed the camera?  The guy who processes the photos? The last guy to calibrate the camera?

Madison, Jefferson, et al didn't realize it when they wrote the thing 200+ years ago, but those rights have turned out to be a great way to help rein in the temptation to monitor everyone, all the time.  If there has to be an individual human citing you for breaking the law, that means there's no force multiplier.

/NSA, you're next



The cop who reviews the image and sends the ticket on its way.

I know its cool to think everyone in government is dumb, but when it comes to them getting the money they are suprisingly clever.
 
2013-11-20 02:03:18 PM

trappedspirit: Because swastika?


Yeah, people might rally behind you when you get all anti-state opression or big brother. But when you start associating swastikas with it, you start to lose people.  See, there was this group back in the 1940's that used it as their symbol, and they did some pretty farked up shiate.  Now people shy away from that symbol to avoid association with that group.
 
2013-11-20 02:04:40 PM

ShamanGator: Locally the cops will sit 1 car on an overpass with the radar or laser gun & radio to cars waitng farther up the road. Perfectly legal, and if you ask to see the gun for proof they will tell you they don't have to show it to you, and you still get the ticket. My BIL got caught that way a few years back.


Your BIL could have gotten that ticket thrown out as "hearsay evidence ".
 
2013-11-20 02:04:49 PM
ikanreed:

Yeah, it's not like there's a naturally recognizable symbol for big brother,

Well, there's always the Democratic donkey, which is synonymous with authoritarianism...
 
2013-11-20 02:05:33 PM

Squigley: I was more interested in "NUDE PICS: Teacher Sends Naked Pics to Students!!!!" at the bottom:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23778668/college-teaching-assistant-acc id entally-sends-nude-pictures-to-students

Unfortunately it's SFW.


Yeah, I scroll down and get Nude pics, sex assault, Revenge porn bill, Murder after admiting HIV, and sharks caught near DC.......

What the farking hell is this site?
 
2013-11-20 02:10:36 PM

EdNortonsTwin: seems like paint balls would be more effecient.

ker-splat, move on...ker-splat, move on...kersplat etc


Not sure about the state you live in, but you do NOT want to do that in Michigan.  That's covered by the state's drive-by shooting law and can get you 4 years in prison.
 
2013-11-20 02:13:12 PM

FrancoFile: ToastmasterGeneral: Someone please help me.  I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera.  Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them.  But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop?  If yes, why?  If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Because the Constitution gives you the right to confront your accuser in open court, and to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Who, exactly, is your accuser?  The guy who assembled the camera, or installed the camera?  The guy who processes the photos? The last guy to calibrate the camera?

Madison, Jefferson, et al didn't realize it when they wrote the thing 200+ years ago, but those rights have turned out to be a great way to help rein in the temptation to monitor everyone, all the time.  If there has to be an individual human citing you for breaking the law, that means there's no force multiplier.

/NSA, you're next


I don't see the 4th Amendment problem.  If it's not an improper search to have a live officer hit me with radar on a public street, it's not going to be if a camera does it.

As for the 6th Amendment, it's the right to face your witnesses, which you have as you can contest both the validity of the photo/camera/operators in court.

I"m not sure there's any Constitutional violation.  However, I get your creep/force multiplier concern.  Perhaps not good public policy from that standpoint.  I'll have to think on it a bit more (for my own opinion) but definitely something to keep in mind.

Thanks!
 
2013-11-20 02:13:49 PM
When you have a road where everyone speeds, including the cops, ambulances, city workers, etc...by a good 10 to 30KM/h over,  it's time to rethink that speed limit.

Problem is, it'$ fairly common that when it'$ time to fill the quota of the month, that's where they'll have cops all over the place.
 
2013-11-20 02:14:37 PM

meanmutton: EdNortonsTwin: seems like paint balls would be more effecient.

ker-splat, move on...ker-splat, move on...kersplat etc

Not sure about the state you live in, but you do NOT want to do that in Michigan.  That's covered by the state's drive-by shooting law and can get you 4 years in prison.


But regular balloons filled with paint is still fine?
 
2013-11-20 02:16:46 PM
I'd have used 2 part epoxy and sand.
 
2013-11-20 02:17:16 PM

Fano: ToastmasterGeneral: Someone please help me.  I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera.  Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them.  But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop?  If yes, why?  If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Lack of the corrective benefit of an officer asking you how fast you are going- instead you just receive a ticket a week later with little recourse because how many people remember their exact speed when travelling some podunk road a week before.


I don't think it matters whether the officer asks you anything, since they don't have to do so.  It's Constitutionally enough for them to say they clocked you at X, the speed limit was X-15, and therefore you're getting a ticket.  But I do see the public policy on recollection.  If I knowingly receive a ticket at the time of the alleged infraction, I'm going to remember more of the details for a better defense, than if I'm informed afterwards.  Food for thought.

Thanks!
 
2013-11-20 02:17:53 PM

Tricky Chicken: groppet: I live down the road from whre this happend. It is very easy to go real fast on that road. It wasnt me though, honest I was at home.

Montgomery County Represent!  These tickets are only like $40.  At least the one I got on Farher Hurley Blvd was $40.  Really not worth risking jail time.


In a lot of place you cant get jail time, even if you don't pay. Where I am they can't even block yearly registration. Basically the ticket should just say "pretty please" at the top.
 
2013-11-20 02:21:05 PM

mbillips: Nobody gradually winds up in a totalitarian state.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Political_program

1968 to 1979... how gradual is gradual?
 
2013-11-20 02:22:52 PM
LOST TAG
 
2013-11-20 02:23:03 PM
This was a correct use of the Swastika.
 
2013-11-20 02:24:03 PM

ShamanGator: Someone please help me. I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera. Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them. But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop? If yes, why? If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Thanks Toastmaster, I've always been the same way, If I'm driving like I should be, then why do i care if they use cameras to catch the idiots. If it makes the roads safer then I say use more of them.

Lack of the corrective benefit of an officer asking you how fast you are going- instead you just receive a ticket a week later with little recourse because how many people remember their exact speed when travelling some podunk road a week before.

Locally the cops will sit 1 car on an overpass with the radar or laser gun & radio to cars waitng farther up the road. Perfectly legal, and if you ask to see the gun for proof they will tell you they don't have to show it to you, and you still get the ticket. My BIL got caught that way a few years back.


They don't need to show you the gun, but the officer writing the ticket has to witness the infraction. When he signs the ticket, that is what he is asserting.
 
2013-11-20 02:29:33 PM

jaybeezey: thurstonxhowell: FrancoFile: Who, exactly, is your accuser?

The cop who signs the ticket. He is accusing you based on the evidence given to him by the camera.

I don't like the cameras, either, but that's a very simple question with an obvious answer.

And if i set up a monitoring station on my street and took evidence of a civil offense to the police would they chase you down and issue a ticket?


If you signed a deal with them saying that the monitoring you were doing was a service that you were providing for them, then yes. Otherwise, no. If you're under the impression that these cameras were placed with no such agreements in place, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
2013-11-20 02:35:16 PM

aseras: Locally the cops will sit 1 car on an overpass with the radar or laser gun & radio to cars waitng farther up the road. Perfectly legal, and if you ask to see the gun for proof they will tell you they don't have to show it to you, and you still get the ticket. My BIL got caught that way a few years back.

They don't need to show you the gun, but the officer writing the ticket has to witness the infraction. When he signs the ticket, that is what he is asserting.


Depends on the applicable laws. Your laws might allow an officer to write a ticket for an infraction which he's been told of by another officer. For speed cameras, many states have passed laws which changed the rules -- such as making the owner be responsible for the speeding vehicle.
 
2013-11-20 02:43:56 PM

under a mountain: groppet:
I really hate the ones they have like in the fourth picture. If you are in the other lane the flash from that is almost blinding and can startle the hell out of you. Last I heard they have put over 100 red light/speed cams in Montgomery county and most of them are in the Bethesda/Rockville area.


Agreed they have these in my area...it can startle the crap out of you.  It's also distracting when driving on an expressway overpass and the are popping off on the surface streets below.


hmmm how long before one of them causes an accident and the person in question sues the unholy crap out of the red light camera company?   Hmmm maybe time to pay my MD bar dues....
 
2013-11-20 02:50:23 PM
You know, it being MD, swastikas are absolutely not the right thing to be painting on the speed cameras. The hammer and sickle would be far, far more appropriate.
img35.imageshack.us
 
2013-11-20 02:51:41 PM
As a result, the cameras are not working right now and not expected to be fixed until later this morning.

Actualy the cameras are working just fine. They are taking excellent pictures of the blacked over viewport.
 
2013-11-20 02:54:42 PM

thurstonxhowell: FrancoFile: thurstonxhowell: FrancoFile: Who, exactly, is your accuser?

The cop who signs the ticket. He is accusing you based on the evidence given to him by the camera.

I don't like the cameras, either, but that's a very simple question with an obvious answer.

Except there is no cop in the loop for most of these systems.

They are processed by some guy in a cubicle who works for the outsourced contractor, often in another state, that actually owns and operates the cameras.  The city just gets paid their vig every month.

Read up on the situation in Elmwood Place, Ohio.

In Maryland, the tickets always come signed by a cop. It neatly gets around that issue. I'm surprised Ohio didn't figure that one out.


Ok, the cop signs the ticket, but is he the one actually watching the video deciding if there is reason to ticket an individual?  If he isn't, that is hardly confronting your accuser, but rather confronting a Guy Who Can Sign His Name.
 
2013-11-20 03:32:39 PM

Tricky Chicken: Squigley: I was more interested in "NUDE PICS: Teacher Sends Naked Pics to Students!!!!" at the bottom:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23778668/college-teaching-assistant-acc id entally-sends-nude-pictures-to-students

Unfortunately it's SFW.

This gave me an interresting idea.  If you were to hang up a poster in the line of sight of the camera with an explicit sexual photo on it. Would they still send you a ticket?  Even if it included a graphic sexual photograph?  Could you then sue them for the 'emotional distress' such a shocking photo would cause?

"Fark lawyers to the white courtesy phone."


Disseminating pornography, perhaps.
 
2013-11-20 03:40:05 PM

ToastmasterGeneral: Fano: ToastmasterGeneral: Someone please help me.  I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera.  Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them.  But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop?  If yes, why?  If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Lack of the corrective benefit of an officer asking you how fast you are going- instead you just receive a ticket a week later with little recourse because how many people remember their exact speed when travelling some podunk road a week before.

I don't think it matters whether the officer asks you anything, since they don't have to do so.  It's Constitutionally enough for them to say they clocked you at X, the speed limit was X-15, and therefore you're getting a ticket.  But I do see the public policy on recollection.  If I knowingly receive a ticket at the time of the alleged infraction, I'm going to remember more of the details for a better defense, than if I'm informed afterwards.  Food for thought.

Thanks!


Don't forget, even these machines can make a mistake now and then.  And, how thrilled would you be to get a ticket for 110mph in a 45 zone with no way of discussing the matter before a trial?
 
2013-11-20 03:49:16 PM
How does this "cop signing the ticket" know that I am the person driving the vehicle???
 
2013-11-20 03:55:25 PM

ToastmasterGeneral: FrancoFile: ToastmasterGeneral: Someone please help me.  I'm completely fine with the concept of speed cameras.

If I assume that it's ok to have a speed limit, then I don't care who catches me, live cop or camera.  Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

Now if there's data that the cameras routinely get people who weren't speeding then ditch them.  But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop?  If yes, why?  If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?

Because the Constitution gives you the right to confront your accuser in open court, and to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Who, exactly, is your accuser?  The guy who assembled the camera, or installed the camera?  The guy who processes the photos? The last guy to calibrate the camera?

Madison, Jefferson, et al didn't realize it when they wrote the thing 200+ years ago, but those rights have turned out to be a great way to help rein in the temptation to monitor everyone, all the time.  If there has to be an individual human citing you for breaking the law, that means there's no force multiplier.

/NSA, you're next

I don't see the 4th Amendment problem.  If it's not an improper search to have a live officer hit me with radar on a public street, it's not going to be if a camera does it.

As for the 6th Amendment, it's the right to face your witnesses, which you have as you can contest both the validity of the photo/camera/operators in court.

I"m not sure there's any Constitutional violation.  However, I get your creep/force multiplier concern.  Perhaps not good public policy from that standpoint.  I'll have to think on it a bit more (for my own opinion) but definitely something to keep in mind.

Thanks!


Well would it be a 4th amendment thing if there was a camera right next to every house, so you would be ticketed for not wearing your seatbelt when you pulled the car into the garage after washing it in your driveway? Or every 50 feet along the road, so you would be ticketed for an improper lane change if you were a half-second late putting on your turn signals?

The technology makes it far too easy to implement a Demolition Man-style 'benevolent dictatorship'.
 
2013-11-20 03:57:48 PM
What would be funny would be if someone bought a super cheap media player, something that couldn't be traced back of course, put some videos on it, then place it in front of the camera and let them enjoy a couple of movies.

If possible, using a solar panel to keep it powered for a while.
 
2013-11-20 04:08:23 PM
The swastikas aren't necessarily religious slurs in this case.  The Nazis did do things other than fark with the Jews, y'know... they were also a famously fascist police state.  Which is kind of the way automated traffic cameras trend, so that's probably what the reference here is.  I doubt the vandal is trying to tell us that Jews are watching you speed.
 
2013-11-20 04:14:14 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: how thrilled would you be to get a ticket for 110mph in a 45 zone with no way of discussing the matter before a trial?


I probably would be happier with that than one for doing 60. It's the same cost to me, but I'm way more likely to be able to convince a judge I probably wasn't doing 110. In MD, which is where this article is from, the ticket doesn't care if you are going 60 or 600. The fine is still $40 and you get no points.

kzspam: How does this "cop signing the ticket" know that I am the person driving the vehicle???


They don't. They will ask you to rat out whoever was, though. They probably won't buy that someone stole your car, got a camera ticket, and returned it.
 
2013-11-20 04:21:23 PM

thurstonxhowell: Dr Jack Badofsky: how thrilled would you be to get a ticket for 110mph in a 45 zone \
kzspam: How does this "cop signing the ticket" know that I am the person driving the vehicle???

They don't. They will ask you to rat out whoever was, though. They probably won't buy that someone stole your car, got a camera ticket, and returned it.


This is one of my biggest problems with ticket cameras.  I am presumed guilty, until I can prove my innocence.  By naming names.  Cause that's not fascist or anything.
 
2013-11-20 04:27:04 PM
static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-11-20 04:41:16 PM
Painting the sign is destruction of property and vandalism.

Just spike this in the ground in front of it

thumbs.dreamstime.com
 
2013-11-20 04:43:29 PM
Or if you want to be a bit more discreet about it

img.diynetwork.com
 
2013-11-20 04:45:59 PM

ToastmasterGeneral: Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding.

"


There are areas near me where the speed limit changes 5 times in less than a mile.  The cops go hang out in those areas when they are short their quota.  Has nothing to do with protecting and serving their community, just need to make the quota so they go to where it is easy to catch people going 5 miles an hour over.  The speed limit varies from 35 to 50 on that road, but as soon as it hits the county line it goes up to 60.


ToastmasterGeneral: But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop? If yes, why? If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?"



A live police officer is able to use common sense in regards to whom and when they issue a ticket.  A speed camera cannot.   Can you imagine a judge being replaced with a computer program that looked at the evidence and issued a judgment based on it's programing and not based on its years of experience?

Police officers will often take a very long time issuing tickets in areas prone to speeding and accidents so that people can see he is enforcing the speed limit, which slows people down.  In areas where it is just easy to write a ticket they'll have it done in under five minutes and be off on the next car.   The question is are these speed cameras at spots where it is just easy to write tickets or are these areas where they are actually needed to save lives?
 
2013-11-20 04:49:47 PM

imfallen_angel: What would be funny would be if someone bought a super cheap media player, something that couldn't be traced back of course, put some videos on it, then place it in front of the camera and let them enjoy a couple of movies.

If possible, using a solar panel to keep it powered for a while.


As long as it plays Cannonball Run.
 
2013-11-20 05:03:57 PM

Jeng: ToastmasterGeneral: Whether or not the motivation is revenue, if I'm speeding, I'm speeding."


There are areas near me where the speed limit changes 5 times in less than a mile.  The cops go hang out in those areas when they are short their quota.  Has nothing to do with protecting and serving their community, just need to make the quota so they go to where it is easy to catch people going 5 miles an hour over.  The speed limit varies from 35 to 50 on that road, but as soon as it hits the county line it goes up to 60.


ToastmasterGeneral: But otherwise, is a speed camera any worse than an intersection constantly manned by a live cop? If yes, why? If not, then isn't the real argument on whether we should ever ticket for speeding or not?"


A live police officer is able to use common sense in regards to whom and when they issue a ticket.  A speed camera cannot.   Can you imagine a judge being replaced with a computer program that looked at the evidence and issued a judgment based on it's programing and not based on its years of experience?

Police officers will often take a very long time issuing tickets in areas prone to speeding and accidents so that people can see he is enforcing the speed limit, which slows people down.  In areas where it is just easy to write a ticket they'll have it done in under five minutes and be off on the next car.   The question is are these speed cameras at spots where it is just easy to write tickets or are these areas where they are actually needed to save lives?


Also, this.
 
2013-11-20 05:04:06 PM

ReverendJynxed: imfallen_angel: What would be funny would be if someone bought a super cheap media player, something that couldn't be traced back of course, put some videos on it, then place it in front of the camera and let them enjoy a couple of movies.

If possible, using a solar panel to keep it powered for a while.

As long as it plays Cannonball Run.

"


Wouldn't a previously recorded day in loop be less noticeable and thus being more effective?
 
2013-11-20 05:09:58 PM

Tricky Chicken: groppet: I live down the road from whre this happend. It is very easy to go real fast on that road. It wasnt me though, honest I was at home.

Montgomery County Represent!  These tickets are only like $40.  At least the one I got on

Führer Hurley Blvd was $40.  Really not worth risking jail time.

Jesus what is with you people from that area and Nazi shiat?
 
2013-11-20 08:38:28 PM

scottydoesntknow: Well everyone knows the quickest way to get something fixed is to spray paint nazi symbols on it. It's how I get potholes fixed around my neighborhood.

[images1.cliqueclack.com image 425x331]


I agree. Works like a charm. Finally, the Nazis can do some good.
 
2013-11-20 10:21:31 PM
 Swastikas have also been used in various other ancient civilizations around the world including Turkic,  ,,,,, and. It remains widely used in, specifically in,, and, primarily as a symbol to evoke or the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" (meaning "good" or "auspicious") combined with "asti" (meaning "it is"), along with the diminutive suffix "ka." The swastika literally means "it is good." The name "" is sometimes given to the left-facing arms symbol, which is a mirror image of swastika ()

assets.diylol.com
 
2013-11-20 10:31:12 PM

HAMMERTOE: My thoughts: use something not quite as obtrusive as paint. Something which will neutralize the camera's ability to generate photographic evidence, yet not be as visibly evident. It could be as easy as paint balls filled with egg whites. All you have to do is make the glass go from transparent to slightly translucent. Just a little cloudy, and you've thrown a spanner in the cogs.


HF
 
2013-11-20 11:00:22 PM

jnapier: Swastikas have also been used in various other ancient civilizations around the world including Turkic,  ,,,,, and. It remains widely used in, specifically in,, and, primarily as a symbol to evoke or the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" (meaning "good" or "auspicious") combined with "asti" (meaning "it is"), along with the diminutive suffix "ka." The swastika literally means "it is good." The name "" is sometimes given to the left-facing arms symbol, which is a mirror image of swastika ()

[assets.diylol.com image 510x435]


That's neat. What do you think the chance is that this usage of the swastika wasn't about the Nazis? If you answer anything other than "no chance", you're either lying or an idiot.
 
2013-11-21 12:19:08 PM

twiztedjustin: Tricky Chicken: groppet: I live down the road from whre this happend. It is very easy to go real fast on that road. It wasnt me though, honest I was at home.

Montgomery County Represent!  These tickets are only like $40.  At least the one I got on Führer Hurley Blvd was $40.  Really not worth risking jail time.

Jesus what is with you people from that area and Nazi shiat?


Wow, what an improbable misspelling of Father.
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report