Ironically, I don’t think I’d call Milo a grifter for that. A dummy? Sure. Or crass, or an opportunist, or at the very least someone who made a really dumb decision on that specific occasion.
But the thing about “grifter” is that it implies he isn’t actually doing what he says. Milo, for all his faults, absolutely did deliver the commentary, spectacle, and media pushback against the left that he claimed to. If there are specific things he promised for money that never happened—like Shill Bitchell’s scammy GoFundMe campaigns—I’m unaware of them.
He can't stop talking about it!
Oh, I see. In that case, yes, the modern “Catholic Church” cannot legitimately claim to be the Catholic Church, since they don’t actually follow its doctrine.
But the conversation was about the modern church, so your comment didn’t come across the way you wanted it to.
Good luck finding churches worth their salt behind blue lines.
To be fair, that was only true of the first king in a given line. Most kings were just hereditary rulers—that’s the kind of bullshit that led to 1776 in the first place.
This is from 2019
No they wouldn’t, because they’d never actually prosecute anyone, regardless of how blatantly they broke the law.
That said, the laws should still exist. The fact that this (theoretically) isn’t already illegal is stupid.
(I say theoretically, because it seems to me that any rational interpretation of the Constitution and due process should throw civil forfeiture without charges—at the absolute least—out the window).
And yet we can easily see just by evaluating the current Catholic Church that that is no longer true.
I haven’t seen this picture before, but it is the same costume as in some of the others. I’m not if it’s known whether he wore it on multiple occasions, or if they all come from the same party.
I totally trust that human rights commission.
“Aerial footage? In this part of the country? At this time of night? Localized entirely within this one street?”
He looks like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man got a gritty reboot.
The Monopoly Man is an example of such a caricature, yes, but he is by no means the only valid way to draw the caricature. The comment I was replying to, with its parent comment, implied that this was an “incorrect” rendition of the character. I was correcting that, not saying that he is not himself such a caricature.
I don’t think it’s actually supposed to be the monopoly man, just a typical “rich guy/fat cat” caricature.
Which one is the CERN conspiracy? Is that the one about us being shifted into a parallel, retarded universe or something?
Good lord, it’s like they’re all clones.
It wasn’t even random kids, it was the relatives of an interpreter (and I believe the interpreter himself) that had worked with the US. Morally, off course, there’s no difference in the assumed absolute value of those lives from random other people... but in terms of responsibility to our people, I mean, holy fuck.
“Work with us, then we won’t just suddenly withdraw and leave you defenseless as the people who hate you for working with us take over—we’ll drone strike you and your family, too.”
What a great message to send.
Also, it sure does lend credence to a theory I saw on here that the source of the “intel” was the Taliban themselves, and that they used us to essentially commit a terror attack against our own aides.
There’s no way Franklin said this. “The bad guy” is far too modern and informal.
Because “Communists who hate America” is what they want in their leadership.
If it was a “know thy enemy” thing, I’d accept that.
We all know it isn’t.
I haven’t heard that before, and would be interested in hearing more. In fairness, though, it does seem like that could be coincidental. Navigation and course setting by stars is the oldest form of navigation—that’s what I assumed it was a reference to.
"incredibly sympathetic to Ritttenhouse." Oh, you mean "recognizes the right to self-defense"?
The fact that charges are even being brought is a travesty.
Remember all those articles about how “you shouldn’t do your own research” or “why critical thinking makes you vulnerable to misinformation” about people not trusting “the experts” on the vax?
Funny how it doesn’t apply when your “research” leads you to be pro vax....
She certainly does in the metaphorical sense.
Or maybe she had writers/oversight/constraints before that she doesn’t now. You assume it goes one way, when it could easily go the other.
Also, people can adapt to their audience or some niche they find without getting writers or fundamentally changing their ideas. The fact that her message has become more effective and well-delivered over time is no proof of anything.