Sorry, I mean their users.
Sorry, I mean their users.
"fastest to 60" is not top fucking speed.
If you're going to be pedantic at least be accurate.
Grumpy rather than angry
Shrug. Any cunt can build a vehicle that goes fast in a straight line when the US government hands them $4.9billion.
Most have too much self respect to bleat on about it.
Hmm, one of them may be a 2015 car, depends how you count. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is a good start point, learn to use Google or DuckDuckGo if you'd like other references.
That caveat also makes a difference. Two 2014 production cars were faster to 60, and I suspect there'll be a few that are rather faster around a track and significantly faster in a 2 hour race.
Uber as a franchise model would probably be a lot better than their current approach.
No, you messed up.
Your bakery needs to ignore food hygiene laws, force your bakers to provide their own ovens and refuse to pay minimum wage.
Then you'll be an innovating GENIUS!
For real fun, wear a burqa while male. After all, gender equality and religious freedom must support this.
You do realise that this is very much not the case?
Yes, their vocabulary tends to be excellent but their grammar definitely follows different rules. It's particularly noticeable in written form.
The law as written is not racist. The way the law was applied was assessed and determined to be racist - and that's the old fashioned use of the term, not the new-age internet one.
The races of those involved is entirely incidental, as is the relative percentages-by-race of those involved.
You have a published paper on why we should entirely disregard race when assessing the implementation of the policy? Just that 'entirely incidental' implies there are other factors at play, and that those negate the racial biases. This would contradict other research.
There seems to be a strong correlation between restrictions on the carry of self defense tools and violent crimes
Unlike, for instance, the relationship between mental health issues and use of guns against human targets?
Oh, wait. Does that completely wreck your entire argument?
In homes where both spouses work, the woman still ends up with more than the fair share of housework.
And far fewer hours spent actually working.
Additionally, people who say that lifetime earnings are the same after adjusting for things like fewer years worked because of child and family responsibilities miss the point - overall earnings still are less, so less savings, etc.
If it makes you feel any better, the men wont get to benefit from the savings - they'll be dead. Don't go expecting sympathy for widows.
Caring for aged parents falls mostly to the woman - another financial hit, and emotionally and physically draining.
That's a choice. Women could say no.
And the more kids, the less equally the housework and child rearing is shared.
..because the man is now working longer hours to pay for the family.
So, debate it all you want, but you're still wrong.
So women under 30 don't earn more than men?
Women don't get a higher proportion of NHS funding?
Charity research into cancer doesn't favour women?
Women don't receive more money in total from the state pension?
No, women are not disadvantaged. Women's life choices may lead to adverse outcomes but so do those of men. Don't go blaming gender equality for people choosing to work less, spend more time with their family and suffer lower physical stresses.
Incidentally your transgender references aren't terribly helpful. For instance, it could be suggested that they demonstrate how much more freedom women have than men, in that someone born a woman can choose her public facing gender without penalty whereas men must societally stay male or face discrimination. I've certainly seen no loss of authority, opportunity or pay for the MTF transexuals I've worked with.
Most of us don't read instructions. Instructions are for the weak, the incapable and the badly designed UI.
She sells cshs by the cshore.