More importantly though, the democrats claimed those were the things that caused them to lose the vote. They did not claim they did win, and those things were the things that point out that they did win.
"These are the things that made us lose" =/= "These are the reasons we didn't lose"
I think you'll find that Kennedy is the one that really ramped up the Vietnam war/conflict. He even knew the intervention would fail, but committed more troops anyway. Many southern democrats did indeed try to stop democracy also, during reconstruction. I realize that both of these things are decades or more old, but this goes back to the overconfidence in our group that the article was just describing.
Probably could, if there were better computers to parse the images. But due to the fact that there's not a computer as good as the brain is at moving physical body through space, you need to use other tools at the moment.
And putting money in the bank is just rent for living? The money is used to increase your home's value. But I see we are at an impasse, and will be done discussing it.
It's nothing like a landlord, as the person living in the apartment owns said apartment. The owner makes the money off it when it's next sold.
While often HOAs are abusive, and I don't want to ever be a part of one, I also don't want to live in a condo/apartment again. Someone needs to take care of the building, so they set up HOAs which, when run well, are democratic. You elect the board, you can go to the meetings and make your voice heard. If you speak well you can convince all the people in the building to get behind the idea you're championing. Condos require a Home Owner's Association due to the fact that no one person should get to dictate how the common area is run, and no one should be on the hook to fix, say, an elevator. Everyone pays dues, and those dues pay for the repairs.
If people elect to hire a company to be the head of the HOA, well they're choosing to be lazy, and for that reason, the HOA will be paying the company to run it's affairs. If the HOA is run by the residents, no money is going to enrich any one person, the money is being used to enrich everyone that lives there, through keeping the building in good shape to raise the value of their personal property.
It's possible, but it's mostly scammers, and possibly a real company verifying that the number is actually an active one, that they should call back in the future when a scammer is available. Also makes the phone number more valuable when they sell it on to the next scamming "company".
There's a company that owns the land, and it's sole purpose is to maintain the land and common areas of the building. All the units could be individually owned, and that company exists to have a bank account that can pay for repairs/repaints. In this situation I'm describing, while the company would own the building, they have no ability to raise rents, as all the units would be owned by the tenants.
I think it's due to them both being the same thing. But one is bigger, quite a bit more girthy. The other appears to be quite mobile though, and can respond to needs much quicker.
Hardcore pounding, vs hitting right where you need it. (giggity)
I believe there's a good number of tribes near the equator that don't wear much, so not sure it's even universally NSFW, esp. if your job is a hunter/gatherer. But people wear clothes to protect from sun/pests/plants also. Would imagine we started wearing clothes as soon as we learned how, as it has many benefits, and then the sexualization came as a result of no longer seeing all the parts, and being curious.
It is a bit demoralizing, as a human, to see leaders in the free world doing this. I don't think I know of a time the Ukrainians have been ungrateful. I know they've been impatient, but that happens when you see children dying from the army that's invading. NATO weapons are finally being used in the purpose they were manufactured for, defeating the Russian army.
Send the clerks to make sure the weapons aren't being diverted, and let them fight for their lives.
Well, first you did exactly pull a whatabout-ism.
More importantly though, the democrats claimed those were the things that caused them to lose the vote. They did not claim they did win, and those things were the things that point out that they did win.
"These are the things that made us lose" =/= "These are the reasons we didn't lose"