Time to ban cars for racism.
(twitter.com)
That's not even a pond. It's nasty stormwater runoff from the highway.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
26 comments:
17
8 hours ago
17 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+17Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
Niggers often do this (foreign nations) to force cars to stop so they can steal the car and rob the driver.
Often monkey lay a thick tree branch on the road in the hope the motorist will stop, get out and remove it. That's when the chimpout begins.
Motorists often just drive over the niggers rather than risk getting murdered.
Often monkey lay a thick tree branch on the road in the hope the motorist will stop, get out and remove it. That's when the chimpout begins.
Motorists often just drive over the niggers rather than risk getting murdered.
I'm pretty sure this is just outside Rio de Janeiro, which is 54% "Pardo" (vaguely black+white+native), which is probably what these kids are.
Also of course, just like everywhere else, the white population of Brazil is going down the drain and the Pardo population is booming. Used to, brazil was a fairly common place for catholics in Europe to go to because the US and canada were weird about them and almost every spanish colony fucking sucked. So they went to Brazil. Mostly portuguese (obviously), italians, and Spaniards. Some Poles and greeks. The geographic distribution of pardos was always much larger in general because of Brazil's status as a slave colony, but the settler patterns of Brazil were almost exclusively on the coast and the southeast. Also where the most white people live. Thus majority of the population. Brazil was created and settled like the American south, actually. It's almost analogous (hence why so many confederates moved there), with a very wide distribution of blacks/mixed (technically, american niggers can classify as pardos) but very concentrated and (formerly) numerous areas of white settlement.
Actually, just recently the Pardo population surpassed the white population. In around the last 2 years or do. Soon america will do the same with its "pardos" (Hispanics as they are known).
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Actually, just recently the Pardo population surpassed the white population. In around the last 2 years or do. Soon america will do the same with its "pardos" (Hispanics as they are known).
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Yeah, white people aren't having kids. What can you do. The white women take birth control and distrust men, while the white men "go their own way" in response. The future will be much browner.
Though in a way that's been inevitable ever since the invention of the airplane. Eventually appearance won't be tied to geography anymore and students will find it quaint and amusing that people used to give a shit about how easy it was to get a tan.
Though in a way that's been inevitable ever since the invention of the airplane. Eventually appearance won't be tied to geography anymore and students will find it quaint and amusing that people used to give a shit about how easy it was to get a tan.
>The white women take birth control and distrust men, while the white men "go their own way" in response
I don't even really think it's that. Of course, that forms a small part of it, but really white people have been having fewer children since forever. The nuclear family was tiny compared to the standard that existed before it. The nuclear family is also incapable of keeping up with population trends all the same.
Having fewer children is fairly normal. Once a society gets to a certain point, you don't *need* anywhere near as many. First off: you probably don't work in agriculture and so you don't need other farmlands. Second off: child mortality is significantly lower than it used to be so as to be considered almost nonexistent. This happened to whites first, then to east asians, and now the fertility decline is happening in the middle east. These are across many different cultures, of course Arabs aren't exactly known for their proclivity for birth control but here they stand at the same summit.
The truth is that we see fertility decline across the board almost regardless of internal politics. The soviet union had programs similar to natsoc Germany for mothers, it had illegal birth control and abortion and supported the nuclear family structure, and it was a pretty decent country to live in, all things considered, after ww2. Its fertility rate fell off a cliff in the 60s and 70s anyways just like everywhere else. Specifically because it was a decent place to live, not in spite of it. Even apart from that, hitlers Germany didn't exactly have people with giant families either. Certainly the german fertility rate during his rule was markedly better than during Weimar, but still far less than the days of the german empire. And if he had won, they'd probably drop even more even earlier than they did otl because he built a veritable paradise for germans.
The problem: when a naturally declining fertility rate among whites meets the enormous growth of an outsider group. And, coupled with what you already said, this presents quite the conundrum. Though as I stated prior, the nuclear family wouldn't do anything to quell this either, and for most people having the same number of children as the outsider groups is simply not within their means. After all, white people don't get welfare for simply existing like they do.
A caveat: the fertility drop will also eventually affect the outsider group. Hispanic fertility rates in the US have almost halved in the past decade or so. The issue to demographics is a steady stream of first-generation immigrants that still believe in having 50 children as a default. That's likely why the immigration "meta" of sorts has shifted to India and Africa over Hispanics and Arabs. Apart from that, indians and niggers are simply more retarded and easier to herd than Hispanics and Arabs. Secondly, the fertility rate in Latin America itself is going to shit, as it is in the middle east, so these immigrants aren't having enough kids for replacement anymore. Let's take Mexico because it's the most common country of origin for immigration in the US: the fertility rate is barely higher than the US. If you import one million Hispanics, they aren't going to have any more children than the white average, thus they can't really replace anything. The days of Jose and Juanita with 15 children packed into a mini van living in a trailer park are gone, it isn't the 2000s anymore. Now it's OogaBoogaDooga from Somalia and his 3 wives named *Clicking sounds*, UngaBungaChaka and Uvweveweveve with 20 children per wife that are all propped up by h1b visas and massive welfare because they're brilliant astrophysicists and engineers that just need a little help. Right now their numbers are small, they don't remotely compare to Hispanics, but wait for the future
So here's the solution: get rid of all of them
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
I don't even really think it's that. Of course, that forms a small part of it, but really white people have been having fewer children since forever. The nuclear family was tiny compared to the standard that existed before it. The nuclear family is also incapable of keeping up with population trends all the same.
Having fewer children is fairly normal. Once a society gets to a certain point, you don't *need* anywhere near as many. First off: you probably don't work in agriculture and so you don't need other farmlands. Second off: child mortality is significantly lower than it used to be so as to be considered almost nonexistent. This happened to whites first, then to east asians, and now the fertility decline is happening in the middle east. These are across many different cultures, of course Arabs aren't exactly known for their proclivity for birth control but here they stand at the same summit.
The truth is that we see fertility decline across the board almost regardless of internal politics. The soviet union had programs similar to natsoc Germany for mothers, it had illegal birth control and abortion and supported the nuclear family structure, and it was a pretty decent country to live in, all things considered, after ww2. Its fertility rate fell off a cliff in the 60s and 70s anyways just like everywhere else. Specifically because it was a decent place to live, not in spite of it. Even apart from that, hitlers Germany didn't exactly have people with giant families either. Certainly the german fertility rate during his rule was markedly better than during Weimar, but still far less than the days of the german empire. And if he had won, they'd probably drop even more even earlier than they did otl because he built a veritable paradise for germans.
The problem: when a naturally declining fertility rate among whites meets the enormous growth of an outsider group. And, coupled with what you already said, this presents quite the conundrum. Though as I stated prior, the nuclear family wouldn't do anything to quell this either, and for most people having the same number of children as the outsider groups is simply not within their means. After all, white people don't get welfare for simply existing like they do.
A caveat: the fertility drop will also eventually affect the outsider group. Hispanic fertility rates in the US have almost halved in the past decade or so. The issue to demographics is a steady stream of first-generation immigrants that still believe in having 50 children as a default. That's likely why the immigration "meta" of sorts has shifted to India and Africa over Hispanics and Arabs. Apart from that, indians and niggers are simply more retarded and easier to herd than Hispanics and Arabs. Secondly, the fertility rate in Latin America itself is going to shit, as it is in the middle east, so these immigrants aren't having enough kids for replacement anymore. Let's take Mexico because it's the most common country of origin for immigration in the US: the fertility rate is barely higher than the US. If you import one million Hispanics, they aren't going to have any more children than the white average, thus they can't really replace anything. The days of Jose and Juanita with 15 children packed into a mini van living in a trailer park are gone, it isn't the 2000s anymore. Now it's OogaBoogaDooga from Somalia and his 3 wives named *Clicking sounds*, UngaBungaChaka and Uvweveweveve with 20 children per wife that are all propped up by h1b visas and massive welfare because they're brilliant astrophysicists and engineers that just need a little help. Right now their numbers are small, they don't remotely compare to Hispanics, but wait for the future
So here's the solution: get rid of all of them
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
>really white people have been having fewer children since forever.
Since the Boomers, specifically.
By my age, my grandparents had 5 and 6 kids, respectively, my parents had two.
They had eight and thirteen grandkids respectively, my parents have two.
>Once a society gets to a certain point, you don't need anywhere near as many.
But you do need *some*. Populations naturally adjust to meet the level of resources/need present. In our case, (((somebody))) pushed a ton of "overpopulation" propaganda while we were in the middle of our natural adjustment, causing a full blown collapse, allowing them to make the ludicris claim that we "need immigrants".
Since the Boomers, specifically.
By my age, my grandparents had 5 and 6 kids, respectively, my parents had two.
They had eight and thirteen grandkids respectively, my parents have two.
>Once a society gets to a certain point, you don't need anywhere near as many.
But you do need *some*. Populations naturally adjust to meet the level of resources/need present. In our case, (((somebody))) pushed a ton of "overpopulation" propaganda while we were in the middle of our natural adjustment, causing a full blown collapse, allowing them to make the ludicris claim that we "need immigrants".
>Since the Boomers, specifically.
While the boomers were a notable trend downward, population graphs going back as far as to the 1800s show a marked decline starting by the early 1900s (from several times replacement rates to just a bit over it, especially in Europe). It wasnt the boomers that started it, they just intensified the trend. This really *started* with the lost generation, or even the unnamed generation before it.
>. In our case, (((somebody))) pushed a ton of "overpopulation" propaganda while we were in the middle of our natural adjustment, causing a full blown collapse, allowing them to make the ludicris claim that we "need immigrants".
Honestly they probably didn't even need to push the overpopulation myth. They could have claimed that we needed immigrants anyways, we were already well below replacement by the time that they started coming. Plus, the countries in *europe* worst affected by the fertility crisis are actually the ones with the people who care about that propaganda the least. Spain, Italy, and Greece have absolutely abysmal birth rates and nobody is refusing to have children because of overpopulation, or even because of birth control/social liberalism, but rather because of economic issues, which are very real in this area (coupled with the fact that they would have fallen anyways). But on the ground if you ask someone here why they don't have kids, almost nobody will give you the answer of overpopulation. They will just say that they can't afford it, which is usually unfortunately true.
I feel like the overpopulation propaganda wasn't really followed much except by a small group of the most liberal people in a given nation. I think that the impetus for this, actually, was a greater focus on the control of energy and pushing "green" policies, because every time overpopulation was mentioned, it would be tied in with something about human impact on the environment or what have you. The white population and fertility rates were never an issue for what they wanted to do, they could've done it anyways. The fact that they're advocating for immigrants, I believe, is an aside, but it serves to point out blatant hypocrisy. They would have advocated for immigrants regardless. Even if they never pursued the overpopulation narrative at all.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
While the boomers were a notable trend downward, population graphs going back as far as to the 1800s show a marked decline starting by the early 1900s (from several times replacement rates to just a bit over it, especially in Europe). It wasnt the boomers that started it, they just intensified the trend. This really *started* with the lost generation, or even the unnamed generation before it.
>. In our case, (((somebody))) pushed a ton of "overpopulation" propaganda while we were in the middle of our natural adjustment, causing a full blown collapse, allowing them to make the ludicris claim that we "need immigrants".
Honestly they probably didn't even need to push the overpopulation myth. They could have claimed that we needed immigrants anyways, we were already well below replacement by the time that they started coming. Plus, the countries in *europe* worst affected by the fertility crisis are actually the ones with the people who care about that propaganda the least. Spain, Italy, and Greece have absolutely abysmal birth rates and nobody is refusing to have children because of overpopulation, or even because of birth control/social liberalism, but rather because of economic issues, which are very real in this area (coupled with the fact that they would have fallen anyways). But on the ground if you ask someone here why they don't have kids, almost nobody will give you the answer of overpopulation. They will just say that they can't afford it, which is usually unfortunately true.
I feel like the overpopulation propaganda wasn't really followed much except by a small group of the most liberal people in a given nation. I think that the impetus for this, actually, was a greater focus on the control of energy and pushing "green" policies, because every time overpopulation was mentioned, it would be tied in with something about human impact on the environment or what have you. The white population and fertility rates were never an issue for what they wanted to do, they could've done it anyways. The fact that they're advocating for immigrants, I believe, is an aside, but it serves to point out blatant hypocrisy. They would have advocated for immigrants regardless. Even if they never pursued the overpopulation narrative at all.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Brazil was never as European as, say, Argentina or Costa Rica. Even the Integralistas, Brazil's fascist-inspired movement, laughably believed that miscegenation would create a Master Race - as though today's average brown Brazilian is even *remotely* near Master Race material - the exact inversion of the racial purity usually attributed to fascist movements, probably wrongly, given that it definitely did not hold true for most if not all Latin American fascist-inspired movements, of which there were quite a few at the time.
The Vargas regime, similar to the Romanians and the Franco regime, also tried to co-opt fascist policies, symbols, etc. as fascism was rapidly gaining in popularity during the 1920s-30s. Vargas also tried to break down ethnic enclaves, effectively helping along this miscegenation and dysgenics whether or not that was his intent.
Argentina declined under similarly race-blind Peronismo. In Argentina's case, they imported the nons into a majority White country, prefiguring today's immigration stupidity. Brazil, by contrast, was always substantially non-white: the Europeans largely only conquered parts of the coastline, their mixed descendants were the ones who actually did most of the inwards expansion. Brazil thus never really had a chance to succeed like Argentina once did (e.g. wealthier per capita than the United States) before it became inundated with nons from neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, bad ideas, leaders, and decisions made Brazil decline faster than it otherwise might have.
Brazil's last chance was probably with the ARENA military government (1964-1985). Gangsterism already seemed to be on the rise in the 1970s, the drug problems (esp. with cocaine) rapidly rose in the 1980s, and most of the major cartels (PCC, CV, etc.) were already founded by the mid-1990s at the very latest. Given that the Bolsonaro administration was unable to make any real inroads in moving Brazil away from that way of life (and the current idiot in charge is practically idolized by many criminals), I think that Brazil is simply condemned to sink to Haitian levels of dysfunction, indeed, in some senses worse, such as that it is already noticeably more homosexual, transsexual, and drug-addicted than Haiti, even if it is at present also averagely wealthier and less violent.
The Vargas regime, similar to the Romanians and the Franco regime, also tried to co-opt fascist policies, symbols, etc. as fascism was rapidly gaining in popularity during the 1920s-30s. Vargas also tried to break down ethnic enclaves, effectively helping along this miscegenation and dysgenics whether or not that was his intent.
Argentina declined under similarly race-blind Peronismo. In Argentina's case, they imported the nons into a majority White country, prefiguring today's immigration stupidity. Brazil, by contrast, was always substantially non-white: the Europeans largely only conquered parts of the coastline, their mixed descendants were the ones who actually did most of the inwards expansion. Brazil thus never really had a chance to succeed like Argentina once did (e.g. wealthier per capita than the United States) before it became inundated with nons from neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, bad ideas, leaders, and decisions made Brazil decline faster than it otherwise might have.
Brazil's last chance was probably with the ARENA military government (1964-1985). Gangsterism already seemed to be on the rise in the 1970s, the drug problems (esp. with cocaine) rapidly rose in the 1980s, and most of the major cartels (PCC, CV, etc.) were already founded by the mid-1990s at the very latest. Given that the Bolsonaro administration was unable to make any real inroads in moving Brazil away from that way of life (and the current idiot in charge is practically idolized by many criminals), I think that Brazil is simply condemned to sink to Haitian levels of dysfunction, indeed, in some senses worse, such as that it is already noticeably more homosexual, transsexual, and drug-addicted than Haiti, even if it is at present also averagely wealthier and less violent.
>the exact inversion of the racial purity usually attributed to fascist movements
The ironic reality is that virtually none of them *actually* had this. Even hitler, by the standards of the 1930s and 40s, was one of the least racial politicians around in his day. The US and UK pursued a far more racial policy than hitler could have ever dreamed of. While hitler was out pursuing alliances with blacks, arabs, asians, and indians, churchill was busy exterminating the population of india (rare churchill w). Even Stalin, the leader of the grand beacon of worldwide tolerance, was probably more racist than hitler, stalin *actually* killed off ethnic minorities. Hitler didnt, as we know. The only thing hitler advocated was the german race living in germany. He didn't view anyone as subhuman, this is a giant and very enduring lie. To be entirely fair, the bizarre fascistic Latin American partied actually followed european fascism quite to the letter, just in a very odd, and also strangely more racist way. They believed in their race, they believed that their race should live and be predominant where they were, and it just so happens that they are mostly mestizo/pardo. So they believed that everyone else should be absorbed into the mestizo/pardo race, as the others were outliers that were not part of the majority.
The reason that Brazil is unique in comparison to, say, the american southeast, despite being settled in nearly identical ways for nearly identical reasons and with nearly identical racial demographics (this is still probably the best analogy I can give. There are legitimately a notable amount of similarities) is because Portugal effectively designed Brazil to fail without the existence of Portugal, whereas the American south achieved independence from Britain before this arrangement could have (disastrous) consequences for it. Of course the south had its own issues with the union, which is well known, but even with that it still had a much larger presence and much greater degree of autonomy than it did under Britain. Under Britain, the south had almost nothing worthwhile if you don't include Virginia and it was just a an endless money printer for the crown. The only city that anyone gave a fuck about was Charleston. Like how the only cities anyone ever cared about in Brazil were Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.
This was also how Brazil functioned, but on a larger scale, and it did not achieve any sort of independence until 1822. It was not fully independent until 1889 (it was still headed by a portuguese king). Brazil was simply set up to not function without metropolitan Portugal, it was exclusively a money making venture for the portuguese. When it threw off portuguese institutions completely in 1889, they were already so entrenched that the country basically threw off every lifeline that existed within it. Which led to rampant corruption and gangsterism almost as a necessity. In comparison to spanish america, which could at least *exist* without spain and even grow pretty powerful (Mexico was quite a force when it was first independent), Brazil just couldn't do it. Everything was connected to Portugal by design. When Portugal and everything portuguese were gone, it just imploded on itself. And Brazil achieved independence at an inconvenient time, because almost everyone around them already was and had already grown further than Brazil could compete. Brazil also speaks portuguese, which creates a networking issue when all of its neighbors speak Spanish. It really could have still had quite the showing even though the population was half pardo/half white. White people are good at that. We made up a tiny percentage of south Africa and Zimbabwe but made them comparable to the west. However, Brazil became independent at a terrible time and its independence was predicated on shattering the bonds that Portugal had it under that were unfortunately entirely necessary for the state to function at all. Hell, Brazil didn't even become independent (as a part of portugal, not the monarchy of portugal) because they *wanted* to but rather just because of internal portuguese political issues and the portuguese prince declaring himself the emperor of Brazil.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
The ironic reality is that virtually none of them *actually* had this. Even hitler, by the standards of the 1930s and 40s, was one of the least racial politicians around in his day. The US and UK pursued a far more racial policy than hitler could have ever dreamed of. While hitler was out pursuing alliances with blacks, arabs, asians, and indians, churchill was busy exterminating the population of india (rare churchill w). Even Stalin, the leader of the grand beacon of worldwide tolerance, was probably more racist than hitler, stalin *actually* killed off ethnic minorities. Hitler didnt, as we know. The only thing hitler advocated was the german race living in germany. He didn't view anyone as subhuman, this is a giant and very enduring lie. To be entirely fair, the bizarre fascistic Latin American partied actually followed european fascism quite to the letter, just in a very odd, and also strangely more racist way. They believed in their race, they believed that their race should live and be predominant where they were, and it just so happens that they are mostly mestizo/pardo. So they believed that everyone else should be absorbed into the mestizo/pardo race, as the others were outliers that were not part of the majority.
The reason that Brazil is unique in comparison to, say, the american southeast, despite being settled in nearly identical ways for nearly identical reasons and with nearly identical racial demographics (this is still probably the best analogy I can give. There are legitimately a notable amount of similarities) is because Portugal effectively designed Brazil to fail without the existence of Portugal, whereas the American south achieved independence from Britain before this arrangement could have (disastrous) consequences for it. Of course the south had its own issues with the union, which is well known, but even with that it still had a much larger presence and much greater degree of autonomy than it did under Britain. Under Britain, the south had almost nothing worthwhile if you don't include Virginia and it was just a an endless money printer for the crown. The only city that anyone gave a fuck about was Charleston. Like how the only cities anyone ever cared about in Brazil were Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.
This was also how Brazil functioned, but on a larger scale, and it did not achieve any sort of independence until 1822. It was not fully independent until 1889 (it was still headed by a portuguese king). Brazil was simply set up to not function without metropolitan Portugal, it was exclusively a money making venture for the portuguese. When it threw off portuguese institutions completely in 1889, they were already so entrenched that the country basically threw off every lifeline that existed within it. Which led to rampant corruption and gangsterism almost as a necessity. In comparison to spanish america, which could at least *exist* without spain and even grow pretty powerful (Mexico was quite a force when it was first independent), Brazil just couldn't do it. Everything was connected to Portugal by design. When Portugal and everything portuguese were gone, it just imploded on itself. And Brazil achieved independence at an inconvenient time, because almost everyone around them already was and had already grown further than Brazil could compete. Brazil also speaks portuguese, which creates a networking issue when all of its neighbors speak Spanish. It really could have still had quite the showing even though the population was half pardo/half white. White people are good at that. We made up a tiny percentage of south Africa and Zimbabwe but made them comparable to the west. However, Brazil became independent at a terrible time and its independence was predicated on shattering the bonds that Portugal had it under that were unfortunately entirely necessary for the state to function at all. Hell, Brazil didn't even become independent (as a part of portugal, not the monarchy of portugal) because they *wanted* to but rather just because of internal portuguese political issues and the portuguese prince declaring himself the emperor of Brazil.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
I think that this video is at least a couple of years old. Not sure where I saw it, probably some gore site. I think it was Brazil, probably Rio. I don't know whether or not the idiot kid died.
One to two years ago, a study was conducted on sharks off the coasts of Rio, and the study found that all of the examined sharks had high levels of cocaine inside them. Interestingly, cocaine enervates rather than stimulates sharks, and so the sharks were essentially lethargic and underactive.
How did Brazilian cocaine sharks come about? The sewer systems in Rio don't even filter properly, such is the dilapidation and ineptness of Brazil, and so significant amounts of unmetabolized cocaine goes right into the ocean. That's right, it's not from cocaine packages dumped in the water from boats at risk of being apprehended or anything like that. Rio's inhabitants are so drugged up that large amounts of cocaine are being excreted into the sewage, and the sewer systems eventually dump it into the ocean without removing enough of it.
In conclusion, sharks are literally high on cocaine that has already been through the body of some Brazilian buffoon.
These Brazilian bakrichod benchods are but half a step removed from Zambian kids huffing Jenkem (fermented sewage) and all of the other comical behaviour that goes on in Africa.
One to two years ago, a study was conducted on sharks off the coasts of Rio, and the study found that all of the examined sharks had high levels of cocaine inside them. Interestingly, cocaine enervates rather than stimulates sharks, and so the sharks were essentially lethargic and underactive.
How did Brazilian cocaine sharks come about? The sewer systems in Rio don't even filter properly, such is the dilapidation and ineptness of Brazil, and so significant amounts of unmetabolized cocaine goes right into the ocean. That's right, it's not from cocaine packages dumped in the water from boats at risk of being apprehended or anything like that. Rio's inhabitants are so drugged up that large amounts of cocaine are being excreted into the sewage, and the sewer systems eventually dump it into the ocean without removing enough of it.
In conclusion, sharks are literally high on cocaine that has already been through the body of some Brazilian buffoon.
These Brazilian bakrichod benchods are but half a step removed from Zambian kids huffing Jenkem (fermented sewage) and all of the other comical behaviour that goes on in Africa.
That's depressing. It's like humans are de-evolving into some kind of mud creature that isn't much above an ape.
Not sure where you live, but it’s everywhere now, and the closer you get to any major city, the worse it gets of course. All kinds of creatures various shades of brown with misshaped thick skulls covered in brillo wool breathing with their mouth ajar as drool rolls down their chinless lower malformed overbitten jaws. 🤮
#1 Road Safety Rule : [Never forget this is real life, not a Moonman GTA music video.](https://files.catbox.moe/nh2ngd.mp4)
I do suspect that car half-wanted to hit him tbh.
> Oh someone is running across this road I am driving on. They are running in a straight path of travel to the left. Instead of swerving to the right, which is also the direction this exit lane is heading, I will angle to the left, intercept his path of travel, and then monster-truck-derby over the center island to get back on the highway I just tried to exit from.
> Oh someone is running across this road I am driving on. They are running in a straight path of travel to the left. Instead of swerving to the right, which is also the direction this exit lane is heading, I will angle to the left, intercept his path of travel, and then monster-truck-derby over the center island to get back on the highway I just tried to exit from.
Toast message