You’re really deepthroating Elon’s Nazi loving cock lately.
You claimed you sold all your “all in on one” stock before the crash (you said that after the crash to pretend you didn’t lose your shirt, not before or during)…it’s pretty obvious that was another lie or you wouldn’t be such a fan boy still pushing everything Tesla.

Wait for actual customer reviews of the cybertruck, not Tesla propaganda. They never come close to their own hype. Customers of their cars complain about build quality constantly…that’s going to be a killer in a pickup that needs great construction to take the abuse a pickup is designed to take…especially at over $100k.

This truck is years behind promised delivery, with 2/3 the towing capacity, less range, and double the price promised. No bullet proof windows (what a failure that was), and there are MULTIPLE better options available. This idiotic looking truck won’t sell 1/2 what Ford does of the lightning, which costs 1/2 the price and looks great, not like an origami project.
Also, Fords aren’t publicly tied to Naziism, fascism, or extremist far right lies like Elon is…and electric vehicles are clearly marketed towards people who believe in issues like climate science, so liberals. Liberals are less likely to buy a car from a company who constantly and nastily uses their money to advance politics they abhor, which explains the poor Tesla sales since Elon came out as a far right extremist, racist, abusive boss with a 4 year old’s temperament.
Driving a Tesla today is literally funding racist fascism, and the customer base doesn’t support fascism, and you fascists don’t buy EVs.

Ohhhh….Trump was just caught illicitly moving $40 million out of his NY businesses for personal use without reporting it to the court appointed monitor he has been ordered to report any transfers to. Expect a huge fine or remand. 😂

Like, "So?" It's a commercial for Tesla, it's not like the driver of the 911 is the Stig.

Besides, Porsche has electric car models too, use those in the same price bracket for a more apple-to-apple comparison.

Some people is drinking too much Musk-Aid to think this is in any way significant.

It’s not like he didn’t warn them.
They got off lucky, a hippo can flip a car.

19' is nothing. For a Burmese Python that's good, but Monty Python measured almost twice that at 35'9 1/2" end-to-end.

Not like it's a competition or anything....

(Skip to 1:30 on https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ymzrq and then find the end of the sketh for yourself)

You going to CPAC?
Prepare for Covid.
So many got covid from the last two when they denied it was a thing that now you must sign a waiver waiving your rights to sue them if you get Covid and die, and stating that you 100% accept the risk of exposure, contracting, and spreading covid…and include your children in that waiver so when you bring home covid and they die, CPAC isn’t liable.

CPAC, where cons go to share memes and rant now, is SO important it’s worth your children dying or being severely disabled for life, and yourself, and your wife, and your workplace, and your community. That’s the right for ya. “Our right to party outweighs your right to live”.

You must be proud.

Er mer gerd the Elon move is hilarious. Couldn’t stand that Biden’s tweets were more popular so he rewrote the algorithm to force/push his tweets to everyone, followers or not, by bypassing all the filters that personalize recommendations and raising his ranking by a factor of 1000 artificially….because he’s a little baby who can’t stand that he’s not liked! ROTFLMFAHS!!
This has resulted in #blockelon trending.
So much for caring if Twitter plays favorites, right? Doesn’t matter one bit if they favor right wing stupidity, but call a congressional hearing if they follow their own terms of service in favor of a liberal. You people are not serious people, you’re infants.
🤦‍♂️

Edit: it sounds like Trump was just subpoenaed in criminal court….BY THE PROUD BOYS as a co-conspirator! LOL! Not good for him, they have the pictures and texts from Trump and Co both at the White House Residence (where no one goes without personal invitation from POTUS) and the coup headquarters at the Willard hotel with other administration officials (like Stone, Giuliani, Flynn).

D’oh. Tesla fired dozens of workers who were organizing a union. These were people who code the autopilot system….a system just recalled and badly in need of an update. Multiple deaths and dozens of serious crashes. Not good when unemployment is this low and you’ve already turned off any and all workers by treating them as easily replaceable or worthless.

Professional economist here (hence, perceived as right wing) who began studying economics due to concern about climate change (hence, perceived as left wing).

[1] The classic statement of when markets 'work' is the 'first fundamental theorem of welfare economics'.

[2] 'work' in this sense means 'leads to a Pareto-optimal outcome', which means an outcome in which no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. This is a low standard: an outcome in which I have everything is Pareto-optimal.

[3] the conditions for the welfare theorems are generally not satisfied in practice. Here, as alluded to in the ad, carbon emissions are 'externalities': if an oil company sells you gas, which you then use, both of you are better off, because you're assumed to have taken into account the effects of your exchange, and decided to proceed; other parties have not, so may be worse off.

[4] in general, failure of the welfare theorem conditions isn't enough to make the case for government intervention: the outcome may still be 'constrained' efficient - meaning that, given the inherent constraints in the problem (e.g. asymmetric information), the market outcome is Pareto efficient.

[5] again, even if it is, you may not like the particular constrained efficient outcome the market yields (e.g. I get everything).

[6] in the case of externalities, the theory is pretty well established - if we want efficient outcomes, we need to align the private and social costs. There are two basic market-based tools for doing that: quantity tools (e.g. carbon permits) and price tools (e.g. carbon taxes). Which performs better depends on the sort of market imperfections.

[7] obviously, we will never have a perfect estimate of the efficient price or quantity of carbon to emit in a given year. Equally obviously, to me at least, this is a classic case of an externality with a well developed body of theory pointing in the direction of some level of controls.

[8] in my experience: people familiar with the economic theory tend not to be 'pro-market' or 'anti-market': they tend to want to understand how the market can be used to deliver societal objectives and, when it can't, how to correct its imperfections.

I mean... it's not likely to be worse than Clerks 2...(?)

Nope not at all, You just not liking to look into you leftest mirror.

It is real. Men posing as woman in sports is bananas.

Lia Thomas becomes first transgender woman to win an NCAA swimming championship.

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

It's not like there's ever going to be a ball there to bother it.

Does anyone know the aftermath?

Did his house (or building) burn down?

Did he succeed in putting it out? (not likely)

Did he succumb to smoke inhalation?

In an ironic twist, is he the captain of the local fire department?

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.