According to you, my bad attitude is one of asking Questions which makes me an internet bully. Fair enough. With that in mind, I too have come to conclusion on my opinion of you.
Did you read past that sentence?
Vanguard being private ≠ Blackrock's motives
In addition, I do not ask rhetorical Questions. And I do expect an answer to this one:
Which rules guidelines or laws do you think they are following to come to that conclusion?
Vanguard is not a public stock and is owned by its funds/customers. So no, Blackrock would have no reason to be a significant owner of Vanguard since that would mean being Vanguard's customer.
That logic doesn't follow:
Vanguard being private, does not equate to Blackrock not having a reason to invest in Vanguard. Nor does it shed light on their overlapping investments in each other meant to obscure ownership from the masses. Which rules guidelines or laws do you think they are following to come to that conclusion?
With their overlapping investments in each other,? You could have fooled me.
Kind of looks like the author of the article.
Are they breaking away from Blackrock?
They own more stock of Walmart than Blackrock does.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060416/top-4-walmart-shareholders-wmt.asp
*Which could cause major changes to society.
It's not very clear what's happening in the image. In addition, a 3D mixed media installation, when he is known best for straight graffiti art?
The fridge goes. It's that simple.
She's seems to be trying to appeal to Hollywood. Most likely she is angling for a role in a Marvel film. I can't think of any other explanation.
Honestly though, who wants to drive a truck named TuRD?
You can not unsee what I have said.
Playing First Person Shooters on OnLive was like steering a boat.
502 Bad Gateway
It's important to note that we are not actually having a conversation. Text is interpreted differently to spoken word in the brain. All of your assumptions are things you have read into the text. Text that was not meant for you.
You can see why I am confused by your statement, context of the royals aside.
On the contrary. I don't think you are confused at all.
Do you actually think the Royal family is good? Do you think your parents are going to live forever? Do you think a family home has more then 8 bedrooms?
Reminder, I'm replying to someone who thinks getting married, relinquishing a corrupt monarchy and having children, is "Getting some tail".
So, your interjections on the possibility of a healthy generational family isn't really relevant here is it? Nor are you're assumption of my beliefs.
Maybe you don't have kids. If that’s the case, then I’m sorry for you.
You think getting married and having kids is "getting tail". You're understanding of relationships is that of a child's.
You think getting married, and having kids is "getting some tail". I can stress enough your incomparable ignorance. His children take precedence over his parents, as well as the title, prestige and wealth that comes along with it.
So choose your Mother over your wife and kids? Sure thing Momma's boy.
Just so you're aware.
Blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb.
It means to leave your family, and to create your own.
Everyone renounces their family for their new life with their wives and kids. It's literately the point of marriage.
“It wasn’t that big of a deal,” she said. “And Leonard wasn’t shy at all! In the middle of shooting, I just completely forgot I didn’t have clothes on.”
They are seeking damages “believed to be in excess of $500 million.”
What damages?
Your title implies American's embracing American ideals is wrong, where as the video is about WEF controlled forced diversity.
I'll give you this much. TITS!
You will often find that tone is not readable in modern text communications, and that emotions are actually being read into by the observer. Or as often projected onto, to sway a conversation.
To be honest, I can't even say if I was even annoyed by anything taking place in this thread. Though it was an amusing quagmire to try and unravel.
OH, I'm a guy alright. And there is no reason to be sorry, or Politically Correct about any of this. I however do see things differently from most everyone here in this thread, as it's all just background noise and propaganda for the personal gain of others.
To me, this is all false outrage for aggregate tracking and political means, either to gain traction on a pointless false narrative or to further division. It's tits on a bull to me. And I'm just here trying to point that out to anyone that will listen.
And there are even large muscular Chinese men. But they are the outliers. Now read through all my replies in this thread and ask yourself, Is the image on the right really something created for a modern audience? Does it offend or disgust you? Is it actually notable in any way what so ever? And most importantly of all, what was the actual point of this thread and this topic? /\/\
Unmanned drones have no rights over international waters.