Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

Slightly different smell, but still shit from the same arse.

Two people spring to mind on seeing a black Range Rover.

Paul Golding in his Britain First motorcade.

That Australian cokehead with the tiny dick who went off on one at some cyclist a few years ago.
 
Two people spring to mind on seeing a black Range Rover.

Paul Golding in his Britain First motorcade.

That Australian cokehead with the tiny dick who went off on one at some cyclist a few years ago.
To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.
 
I made a light hearted remark based on the words in your post and received a foul mouth torrent of abuse (and no answer to the question). Who's stressed? I'm chilling in the garden with my kids.

And my potatoes arriving at the supermarket by lorry is pretty unavoidable whereas you're on record saying you'd choose a private car over public transport even when public transport is quicker and start slinging abuse when challenged on it. Yep, lazy, selfish, entitled wanker. Seen no evidence otherwise yet
Ah, new insults added up to laziness. Keep up the good work :thumbs:
 
You're really obsessed with this.
Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.

Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone seriously viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.

So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.
 
Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.

Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone seriously viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.

So if one asks for moderating lesser car use but without an actual ban, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use of them yourself at all times, or GTFO. It's only fair.
I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.
 
Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.

Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone seriously viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.

So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.
Your argument is is total bollocks. The argument being presented by most people who want to see cars banned is that we need a wholesale transformation of our cities and infrastructure, so that a car ban could become workable.

I sometimes drive a car. I wish I didn’t have to, and look forward to the day it can be thrown on a scrapheap. This is not a hypocritical position.
 
Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.

Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone seriously viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.

So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.
There's so much stupidity in this post I can't be bothered to reply to it. But in any case it's all been replied to many times over throughout the last 67 pages of this thread.
 
To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.

We'd each take a car, twice the pollution, but it's worth it so we can have a bit of a sportive, (not a race, cos that's illegal on the UK's roads, for cyclists too).

I refuse to drive vehicles under 300bhp, on principle.


Any vehicle with fewer than two turbo chargers is just a danger. Had Spy or I been humming along that country lane there would have been no crash as we'd have been long-gone before the bellend in the SUV showed up.
 
Last edited:
It has to be said though that the anti-car brigade on here has changed my mind on some issues. For my next car I thought I wanted an RS6, but it is entirely thanks to a thread on here that has shown me the error of my ways and that I should be more responsible as a parent and that and get an RSQ8 instead. So thanks to you for setting me on the right path here.
 
I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.
Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.
 
Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.
It's not unwarranted. You really are a thick cunt.
 
Seeing as T & P wants to ban pedestrians from jaywalking I hope he's hacked both of his own legs off. Bet he hasn't though, the hypocrite.
That’s a particularly pisspoor analogy and you know it. It would have worked if I advocated banning pedestrians from the streets, which of course isn’t remotely the case.
 
I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.

Formatting error.

The last sentence looks like your sign-off.

It's not unwarranted. You really are a thick cunt.

Better.

There is no argument. You clearly are a thick, selfish wanker.

Cracked it :thumbs:
 
Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.
Again, you’re on the wrong thread. Look at the title
 
That’s a particularly pisspoor analogy and you know it. It would have worked if I advocated banning pedestrians from the streets, which of course isn’t remotely the case.
It actually is pretty much the case in many American cities
 
There's no such thing as jaywalking in this country. I hope you have self-flagellate appropriately for having used an Americanism.
You're right.

However, in the context I think it's reasonable to nominate T & P to self-flagellate on my behalf. He probably won't even do it, the hypocrite.
 
Back
Top Bottom