Hey, man. You dropped this: 👑
Isoprenoid
Ah, it's one of those time based locks.
- Upvote one
- Downvote the repeats
- Block the user
- Move on with my life.
- Smile
No. Did you read step one?
“Line go up” is the animating force of the ~~age~~ the rich and powerful, the critical philosophical principal around which ~~our entire society~~ their lives ~~is~~ are arranged.
I choose not to confuse their values as mine or that of my community.
Let me reply in a language you will understand:
01000100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01001100 01100101 01101101 01101101 01111001 00101110
the replies would be filled with ~~people~~ bots claiming it is the best customer service
There are no ~~women~~ people on the internet.
You're using the New York Times to support the idea that the New York Times didn't support the war.
What do you think could be an issue with using that evidence?
Edit: I find it amusing that the article you shared is partially blocked (censored) unless I sign up to the NYT.
These sources show that the New York Times supported the war because it poorly reported the idea that Iraq had WMDs. The NYT did not do its due dilligence, intentionally mislead the public, or a mix of factors.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-york-times-role-in-promoting-war-on-iraq-20040323-gdilbl.html
Better. I'd rather work with reality than endlessly chase fantasies which I'll never reach.
Wake me up when the fines overshadow the profits.
Rest of the World: Sweet as. More for us.