I don't get what this statement is getting at in relation to the above post?
Cheers! Half of the time I understand jokes every time.
This is what happens the other 50%.
Is that an intentional bread pun? I'm not getting the relation.
The assumption that every person looking for a quirky domain was conscious of and complicit in the fraught relationship of the claimaint countries is absolutely untenable.
I don't know Paxton but I learned all I needed to when I saw he is suing because an animal was labeled "endangered" (and not because it should be something more like "critically emdangered")
Sure, the Earth channel has other shows but Humanity has become the main pull of the channel such that it's pretty much the Earth show. I've tried watching some of the other stuff Earth puts out but it hasn't held my attention like Humanity has, even if the last few seasons have been absolute dogwater.
Title feels like clickbait. Would be more convinced it was deliberate clickbait if the thumbnail didn't directly show the sign saying "negro" and not the actual slur.
But that just makes the choice of title more confusing.
Perhaps you could say that if you arbitrarily remove any nuance or qualifications at all from the statement.
A reasonable person would see a message advising women to hide who they vote for from their signficant others and question why they (Harris's advisors) thought the message would land. And what that says about the people those women are married to.
They'll unleash such violent violence that women's voice won't ever again.
Did any famous people dodge the draft (and also underachieve their whole life) and succeed? I need a more achievable role model.
Yeah, he could refuse to finish even a single thought.
Made significantly more difficult because the American president is the one doing the asking.
No need for (a). That's barely a cover and certainly not part of his racist mathematics.
I'll give him a select list of hearts I want him to dance-fight his way through.
Subtitle A: "The dancing just went from 'dirty' to 'deadly'."
Subtitle B: "Watch out, he's changed his shoes."
Talibangelical cats. Like Rumtumtugger, Mr. Mistoffelees, and the Nefarious Netanyahu.
If my tail wouldn't be prehensile, then I'd want it remove too. It's a sartorial mess with no upside.
I imagine the difference is a between "why" and "why not".
A generally educated couple might encounter the question of "Is there I reason why I should have kids?", decide "yes, because I'd like to", and have 1-3 kids. More poorly educated couples encounter the question "is there a reason why I should not have kids?", decide "no", and have 2-3 more.
And tolerant people should be tolerant, except when met with intolerance. If people are leveraging other people's good will both selfishly and expansively, why should you let them continue to do it?
This stifles the project in no way, the small individuals that use it will still use be able to use it.