With China, mostly yes. With Russia, only in very specific contexts, otherwise they are VERY critical of it (as they are with most burgeois government, but particularly more due to the reactionary nature of the Russian government from what I’ve seen).
mamotromico
joined 3 years ago
Yeah I noticed this too when I read it yesterday but couldn’t type a reply at the moment. Thanks for bringing it up.
Thankfully.
People underestimate how powerful stickers are to the average person
I still miss the days of MSNPlus where I could add text shortcuts to display reaction images/gifs
As far as I know that’s the case in Japan.
It’s also very reminiscent of the kind of content that 2000s newgrounds would host.
The article doesn’t really dismiss the argument even if the initial paragraphs make it seem like it, it just concludes that it seems unlikely to reach a point where the US could leverage the influence on a future local government, which is true but does not exclude/invalidate the previous proposition
No, no, please, downvoters, inform me as to the history of Afghanistan’s booming oil industry.
No one said it was due to a booming oil industry, but it was because of oil, I'm not sure how you're not aware of this.
Reporting at the time: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11
Marlow Briggs and the Mask of Death.
It’s not as bad as I expected.
How were they weasel words? Honestly.
I’ve commented about something I remember but that I wasn’t completely sure on. I’ve further clarified what I meant and specified the context of it. I also mentioned I intend to verify the information but just can’t right now (I’ll be able to later today, as I mentioned).
I still don’t get why are you so aggro on me. Are you sure you are not mixing me with someone else? I still don’t get what you meant by “constantly”.
I don’t understand what you mean by “constantly”, I made one comment here and clarified when questioned. I prepended my comment with “as far as I know” is exactly because I wasn’t 100% sure on it.
And I only made the “that doesn’t mean he wasn’t” because they literally aren’t exclusionary conditions, and I cited an example as to why I’m stating that that wouldn’t necessarily contradicts my previous comment.
And I also immediately clarified that I messed up and didn’t mean “well off” in the billionaire sense. The example I had in mind wasn’t also a billionaire, but he was still from a rich family.
I’ve made a bunch of conditionals for my statement exactly so that is didn’t pass as you are describing, and made it clear that while I was remembering something about Gaben but I could be misremembering the specifics, which is why I mentioned I would be looking it up later, I just don’t want to do an extensive search on a cellphone. Which is just making me more confused as to your replies to me. Did you read my second comment fully? Are you mixing me up with someone else?
view more: next ›
Yes, last time I read on it they still want to have all of it at some point, but scaled back a lot of the immediate requirements, so that the companies don’t crash THAT hard :’)