Aceticon

"He was licking my balls from behind and his nose accidentally touched my butthole, so in clenched my cheeks and said 'got your nose Donald' and he kept coming back for more"

Your denial of the Jewishness of all those people who are Jews and are against Zionism or simply do not agree that Zionism represents them, is the true antisemitism here.

It's not up to you and it's not up to Zionists to decide that Zionism represents all Jews, it's up to all Jews and a lot of them think Zionism doesn't represent them, hence "Zionism" is not at all equivalent to "Jew" and hence anti-Zionism is not at all equivalent to antisemitic.

The previous poster's metaphor is spot on illustrating your inherent anti-semitism in how you defend your beloved flavour of ethno-Fascist political ideology: Zionists claim that they represent an entire ethnicity - even against statements of members of that ethnicity that they do not - and then claim that criticism of Zionism is actually an attack on the ethnicity, going so far as explicitly calling actual Jews who are critical of Zionism "anti-semites", all of which is exactly as the Nazis did using "the Arian Race" (including the detail of accusing members of the Arian Race of being "against the Arian Race" or "not real Arians" when they voiced opinions critical of Nazism) which is why the previous poster's metaphor was perfect - how you and your ideological brothers position yourselves in relation to the Jewish People and use that self-proclaimed relation in your "arguments" is straight out of a Himmler manual on Propaganda.

You're the only Racist in this room and by making arguments in the same style as Nazi Propaganda you out yourself as a rabid, Nazi-style kind of Racist.

In my professional experience it's most specifically people with a sales and sales-like background (which includes grifters).

People whose speciality is "wheeling and dealing" are horrible at managing anything whose success criteria is not purely based on convincing other people of something, so basically anything were actual things must be created, made, distributed and so on.

Since they can't actually make things work, they instead try and manipulate perception around it to convince others that things are working or for them to do it for them, and the former only holds for a while whilst problems accumulate and things eventually fail in an too-big-to-be deniable way (at which point they try to dump the blame on somebody else), whilst the latter when done by somebody supposedly leading something just yields a parasite manager that doesn't manage and whose selection of manpower is based on how easy it is to manipulate their "underlings" rather than competence, so things get badly done but said "manager" can't actually tell until it's too late.

I don't think criticizing large cars in a post or two qualifies as "dwelling" on large cars.

Also the margin is irrelevant for a vehicle's danger to pedestrians or its consumption, only its mass and velocity (because the energy of a moving object is proportional to the mass and to the square of the velocity), which is why even a bicycle can be deadly to a pedestrian if going at a high enough speed.

My point is that large cars are generally worse than small cars (significantly so when the mass is 3x or 4x), not that small cars are not bad or that use of small cars can be excused by there being people using large cars.

I can get it if your detesting of cars is an absolute thing with no specific reason, but I suspect that for most of us our detesting of cars is anchored on various very concrete reasons, and personally danger to pedestrians and other road users such as cyclists and polution are two of the biggest ones for me, in which case it makes sense to detest even more a trend in car use that makes them more dangerous and more poluting (and even electric cars are poluting because of tire microparticle emission - which by the way is proportional to weight - and energy generation still not being 100% renewable so indirectly cars fueled by electricity still polute)

These "" seem to have fallen from around the word convenience, so I picked them up for you.

The expertise overlap between Biomedical Scientist and Grilled Steak Cook is probably significative, though not in the value-added complex parts of the former.

(Mainly I'm expecting that knowledge of biology might actually be useful for the latter, but I might just be totally wrong).

Food Porn!

There has always been lots of Corruption in the US (IMHO), but now there is also a feeling of impunity and no shame, so both more Corruption and it being done in more visible ways.

I think a point could be made that larger cars are environmentally more damaging as well as more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users, in both cases due to there being a lot more weight of metal being moved around in larger cars (so, more fuel consumption - which in the case of electric cars is still indirectly causing some polution - and more momentum that needs to be removed to stop a collision or involved in the actual collision).

Not really the way the other poster was making his point but still provides a "Fuck cars" reason to complain about "government buys lots of large cars".

I've also made an argument elsewhere about how the higher values involved in corruption in the Procurement of Car Fleets compared to non-Car options might be incentivising state officials to go for cars and car-friendly policies, but that's not relevant for this specific thread.

The superior yield for corruption in the procurement of fleets of cars for a State seems like a Fuck Cars issue to me.

I mean, I can see how there could be corruption in the procurement of State Bicycles or State Employee Walking Shoes, but the values involved would be way lower.

And this is without going into the whole point made by somebody else that Governments having and using fleets of cars (especially State officials) incentivises them to have pro-car policies.

In all fairness, it's a Corruption Perception Index, so this doesn't mean that Corruption before wasn't horribly bad, just that people did not perceive it so.

It's not by chance that this index has the curious effect that when the Justice System in a country starts cracking down on Corruption that country's position on this index gets worse (probably because there are a lot more news about corrupt people being arrested during such a crack down, hence the perception of corruption goes up).

Judging by how these things are managed in the UK, the secret to look good on the index is for the Justice System to not even investigate allegations of Corruption (much less prosecute and convict) so officially there is no Corruption and if the Press ever publishes articles about Corruption they get sued for Defamation by the Corrupt and lose since the de facto Corrupt have never been convicted hence are not de jure so and in the eyes of the Law cannot be publicity said to be Corrupt, so the Press never points out Corruption and people tend to think everything is squeaky clean (mind you, this doesn't work in countries with lots of low level corruption - say, coppers demanding money for not seeing traffic infractions - because low level corruption is evident in day to day life whilst high level Corruption is not).

I suspect that the Perception of Corruption has been managed in the US in s similar way to how it's managed in the UK.

Mind you, I'm not saying the US isn't even more Corrupt now than before, only that the perception of it probably severely underestimated the reality (and quite likely still does).

Ah, yes, the "I don't trust experts" argument.

If my explanation so far on how the Glass-Steagal forced separation of Retail banking from speculative investing and in doing so protected retail depositors' money from the bank's speculative investments blowing up, and the nonexistence of said protections was exactly why the 2008 Crash was so bad and had such widespread effects hence why we can directly trace most of the problems of that Crash to the repealing of said act, then me talking to you is a real life illustration of the pearls to pigs saying.

Your ignorance is 100% willful and there is no point in feeding such trolls.