Category Archives: Life is stranger than fiction
I have no idea, but one has been charged with such… Must still be in possession of a dick, one must conclude.
(BTW, if you still have a dick, doesn’t that just make you a transvestite, not ‘transgendered’, if you wear chicks’ clothes? I know nobody uses the term ‘transvestite’ any more, nor its successor ‘cross-dresser’, since the mainstream media decided we’re to refer to all such by the blanket term ‘transgendered’, but it sure allowed for more clarification as to exactly what exactly someone is; an asterisk after ‘trans’ explains nothing. Confusing.)
Jealous woman gets eight friends to help smash romantic rival’s house windows, beat her up, steal her purse, and empty a box of rats into her home
PHILADELPHIA – How do you get the attention of a girl who has everything – including your boyfriend?
One woman seeking revenge on a romantic rival smashed the windows of her South Philadelphia home and dumped a box of live white rats inside, police said.
In a long-running dispute over a man, the jealous lover and about eight other women friends used a baseball bat to break the glass and toss the rodents inside at about 11 p.m. Wednesday in the Grays Ferry neighborhood, Philadelphia police said.
The gang also punched the 30-year-old victim, inflicting cuts and bruises, and stole her purse containing identification and about $200, police said.
What I find incredible, is that she was able to convince eight of her friends to help her out, to be accomplices in her rather elaborate revenge plot.
I guess the boyfriend must have been worth it – they all agreed! :)
Bitchez be crazy…
So there was this young married couple I knew, who I typically didn’t get to see all that often because they lived somewhere I didn’t (except last summer). Both Christians, at least by upbringing and church affiliation. I’d been friends with them for some time – not super close, but I’d stayed over at their basement apartment a couple times, had dinner there, had been around for birthday and other parties, and the like. A bit over a year and a half ago, I heard from a friend that their marriage was ‘on the rocks’, that she’d apparently been unfaithful to him. I didn’t see any obvious indication this was so, when I saw them once subsequently, but I trusted the source. I saw them again last summer; things seemed largely fine between them. In fact, they ended up buying a new house together that summer, out in the sticks. Looked like a good sign.
Recently, I learned that some three months or so after that, now six months or so ago, they split. She lives in the home; he got another apartment somewhere. She’d cheated on him again. In fact she has a new boyfriend, already – presumably the last guy she cheated with. He’s moved in with her, into her and hubby’s new home.
What I have learned, which I’d heard part of the details beforehand but only now know more of the picture, is that buddy had insisted on an ‘open marriage’, presumably because he wanted the freedom to have some ‘tail’ on the side. Wifey had accepted – whether reluctantly or not, I have no idea. Guess what? Far as I can tell, it ended up that it was easier for wifey to find guys than hubby to find gals – though I think they did find a gal once for a threesome; I once met a new ‘friend’ of theirs at a party who was flirting with BOTH of them, and I was sure they were grooming her for a threesome, though I could be wrong. (Previously, accompanying both of them to a dance club in their city, had noticed them both being flirtatious with others.) Anyway, though, turns out hubby couldn’t handle wifey getting strange cock; got jealous. And not entirely unreasonably, as it looks like she ended up getting feelings for the last guy, as women tend to do for men by whom they get schtupped. Now she and new boyfriend live together in the house that hubby helped pay for.
Not other women’s.
And never give her permission to have other men!
If you’re gonna marry, both be ‘all in’, just for each other. Else, why bother?
This is another of those instances where I am unsympathetic to all sides; ugh. (oogenhand, this one’s for you.)
Denmark’s government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of campaigning from welfare activists.
The change to the law, announced last week and effective as of yesterday, has been called “anti-Semitism” by Jewish leaders and “a clear interference in religious freedom” by the non-profit group Danish Halal.
European regulations require animals to be stunned before they are slaughtered, but grants exemptions on religious grounds. For meat to be considered kosher under Jewish law or halal under Islamic law, the animal must be conscious when killed.
Yet defending his government’s decision to remove this exemption, the minister for agriculture and food Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion”.
Commenting on the change, Israel’s deputy minister of religious services Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan told the Jewish Daily Forward: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colours across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.”
Al Jazeera quoted the monitoring group Danish Halal, which launched a petition against the ban, as saying it was “a clear interference in religious freedom limiting the rights of Muslims and Jews to practice their religion in Denmark”.
The ban has divided opinions in the country, particularly after it recently made headlines for animal welfare policy after Copenhagen Zoo slaughtered the “surplus” young male giraffe Marius.
On Twitter, David Krikler (@davekriks) wrote: “In Denmark butchering a healthy giraffe in front of kids is cool but a kosher/halal chicken is illegal.”
Byakuya Ali-Hassan (@SirOthello) said it was “disgusting” that “the same country that slaughtered a giraffe in public to be fed to lions… is banning halal meat because of the procedures”.
Mogens Larsen (@Moq72), from Aalborg in Denmark, tweeted: “Denmark bans the religious slaughter of animals. Not even zoo lions are allowed a taste of halal giraffe.”
Last year politicians in Britain said they would not be outlawing religious slaughter despite “strong pressure” from the RSPCA, the National Secular Society and other activists.
Danish government: they’re just animals; who cares? Ban the hijab if it’s the Muslims you’re after.
Jews: It’s not always about you, don’t be paranoid; this is just either pandering to sentimental animal-rights types and/or anti-Islamic-immigration types – I hope the latter, because animals have no rights, that’s crazy. As for y’all, you’re just caught in the cross-fire. But you can go live in Israel if you want to live somewhere where you can live in line with your Jewish law - or perhaps Brooklyn. ;)
Muslims: You don’t belong in Europe, get the hell out if you don’t like their laws, and go back to your own countries: there are many of them, where you can follow Sharia. Or Britain, or Dearborn. ;)
Animal rights activists, vegetarians, vegans: Real men eat meat, don’t care about fur, nor how animals are slaughtered; besides, aren’t y’all against all slaughter of animals, anyway? Why care about how it’s done?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
There was no kiss for the bride. No honeymoon away. And no chance of a happy-ever-after. Just a woe-heavy wedding service that segued neatly into a funeral.
In Florida in 1881, a love-struck man by the name of Bradley married a corpse.
He was a salesman from Utah, who had met the woman of his dreams on his travels. Alas, she was dying of consumption.
Undeterred, he proposed and she accepted. Plans were made for a speedy union. But the poor bride-to-be died before the date they had set.
“Now comes the most remarkable, and what has been, with justice, termed the most unpleasant and discreditable part of the tale,” sniffed the Illustrated Police News.
Bradley had solemnly promised he wouldn’t let his sweetheart go to the grave unmarried.
And so her coffin was taken into the church – bridesmaids rubbing shoulders with pallbearers – where a clergyman pronounced them husband and wife, before burying the bride.
You’d have to have a heart of stone to read the following (from here) and not laugh.
Life hadn’t been kind to Jack McKenna. His wife ran off with his best friend and left for America. His daughter was dying of influenza. He, too, was struck down with the flu. Only a few shillings stood between him and starvation.
Even when fate finally smiled on him, it was more of a mischievous grin.
In January 1892, a well-dressed woman breezed up to the workhouse in Deptford, London and asked for Jack by name. When shown to his room, the Leeds Mercury reported, she fell to her knees and begged his forgiveness. It was his estranged wife, back from California, where his ex-best friend had made a fortune in the gold-fields. He was now dead, and his wife wanted to pick up where they’d left off.
But in a plot twist worthy of Thomas Hardy, she, herself, caught influenza while nursing her husband back to health. She died of pneumonia, leaving him £62,000 in her will.
But for everyone bar the wealthiest men in Victorian Britain, divorce was out of the question. That may explain, if not excuse, why a navvy in Stacksteads, Lancashire who’d grown tired of married life, reverted to an old English custom.
He offered up his wife for auction to the highest bidder, staging the sale – as an additional insult – at the home they’d shared together.
“Despite Solomon’s testimony as to a woman being more precious than rubies, and notwithstanding that the spectators were numerous, the highest offer was only 4d,” said the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent in 1879.
“The seller wanted to ‘throw in’ three children, but the buyer objected, and the bairns were left on hand. The wife, however, went joyfully to the home of her new owner, and seemed to be quite glad to get away from her late liege lord as he was to part with her.”
And the buyer? His next-door neighbour.
Surely Ms. Cohen would not object. ;)
There may be more to come, though; after all, I tweeted for twice as long as under my previous account!
I hate when you respond ‘Good, thanks’ to ‘How is your meal?’, and the waitperson says, ‘Perfect!’ No, it’s not, else I’d have said so, idiot.
Vin Diesel talks like a retard, like he’s taken one too many blows to the head. He can’t act, either. and the FandF series is BS PC agitprop…
When did teenagers start clapping in movie theatres? They can’t hear you, you idiots; it’s not the theatre! Shut the hell up! Kids today…
A woman who likes to say she’s a ‘daughter of the King’ means she thinks she’s a princess. There’s no other way to interpret that mentality.
“They died so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today” sounds too much like an echo of “He died for our sins”.
Somebody oughta organize hobo wine tours for hipsters: trips to Thunderbird and Gallo (Nighttrain) vineyards, among others. Why not? :)
Women in combat? Why not? Let the Empire start losing wars, and kill off as many combat-volunteer women as possible! Fuck ‘em! #winwin
Rob Ford is an elected version of Don Cherry: a politically incorrect guy hated by the chattering classes, liked by ordinary Canucks anyway.
The only way to tell apart a clubgoing skank from a streetwalker at night in the city is that the clubber is busy looking down at her iPhone.
I loathe rich guys who go to a craft beer place and order shit domestic swill. Try something new, for Pete’s sake! Won’t kill you…
Grandmothers, stop dying your hair to try to look young, unless prepared to have all your wrinkles / stretch-marks straightened out, too.
“Sex is a traditionally a taboo topic in China, leaving some adults w. no idea how procreation works.” 1.4 billion Chinese suggests otherwise…
Why is flatulence called ‘breaking wind’, yet a ‘windbreaker’ is a name of a type of jacket?
There are no well-known songs about bacon. I suppose people are too busy simply enjoying it to bother writing about it. :)
‘Controversy’ is just a way of saying that Leftists / liberals don’t like something someone said/did; doesn’t mean anything other than that.
It’s called ‘the friend zone’, but those who come to see they’re in it, realize the other isn’t really that much of a friend, if one at all.
Why do single women in cyberspace tout their being ‘crazy’ as if it were a virtue? ‘Crazy, sexy’, blablablah…
Opposition to trans fats is fat-phobic and cis-normative!
Iceland is ethnically and racially homogeneous; the people are generally Christian, and mostly middle class; thus, crime is rare.
Why do men, esp. young guys, refer to their equipment as ‘junk’? Stop it. Unless it’s not working properly; in that case seek medical help.
One great thing about growing older, is one feels less of a need to aggressively overassert; no more need for pissing / dick-waving contests.
Only in America do people get as weird names as ‘Chase Rice’ and ‘Dutch Sheets’.
Vegan cheese is an oxymoron. Either you have a cultured milk product or you don’t. End of story. Ground cashews do not constitute cheese.
If, as per the website above, vegans think dairy is rape, then ‘vegan cheese’ is ‘simulated rape’, or ‘rape fantasy’. 50 Shades of Veganism?
If, as vegetarians say, “Meat is murder”, then veggie hot dogs, Quorn, Tofurkey, are ‘simulated murder’ or ‘murder fantasies’.
Canadian Blood Services lifts lifetime ban on blood donations from homos, who still complain about remaining restrictions
You really can’t make this shit up.
Canadian Blood Services has announced that they’re lifting their lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men, provided they’ve been abstinent from homosexual relations for five years.
Their reasoning is thus:
The change announced Wednesday will open the door to men who may have had an experimental sexual encounter with another male when they were young, as well as men who were raped when they were boys, Devine said. The lifetime ban applied to any man who had had a sexual encounter with another man, encompassing as a result some men who did not live as gay men, she noted.
But that major concession isn’t good enough for Canada’s gay activists.
“But it certainly doesn’t go far enough. It should still be behaviour based,” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada.
And a similar note from a gay activist in Canada’s socialist party:
NDP health critic Libby Davies called the policy change a step in the right direction.
“I think they should have gone that little bit further and really based their policy on behaviour rather than sexual orientation,” Davies said.
Ah, actually, Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Davies, the new policy IS ‘behaviour-based’; what else would you call a requirement that requires them to be abstinent for a lengthy period of time? (Not long enough, IMO; I think the lifetime ban was sound, and in the public interest, and that only social pressures have forced CBS to cave in this matter, unfortunately. I couldn’t care less about queers’ feelings; I want to know, if I have to receive blood, that it’s going to be safe; I don’t trust even a five-years abstinent gay man, or even a man who was raped, to be necessarily safe. But PC trumps all, today…)
Of course, what Kennedy and Davies really mean, is that they object to ANY restrictions based on behaviour, whatsoever…
The various articles on this news story all quote various supposed ‘experts’ who think Canada should follow the route of some other countries and reduce the required abstinence period to only one year, saying that there’s no justification for making it five instead of one.
They’re no doubt right, but not in the sense they intend; a lifetime ban was, and remains, a sensible idea; unfortunately one which is too unPC to stand, in our ever-more ‘progressive’ times, alas…