He is not the majority owner of Parler - he is a minority stakeholder.
Edit: CEO refers to him as a strategic investor apart from the small group of owners
Edit 2: source: https://archive.vn/doTth
Additionally, it doesn't make you a persona non grata for life, it's just disrespectful.
This doesn't make the girl a bad person. She just did something that we shouldn't defend.
I am aware of the history of the concept, but I contest your categorization.
You aren't "good Catholics" if you do not believe the tenants of the Catholic Church, because the Vatican clearly has the monopoly on defining a good "Catholic". (Note, not a good Christian, good follower of Christ, not a good person, but the defining of a good Catholic).
That's just picking and choosing which beliefs you want to hold so you can hang on to a "Catholic" identity
It's a Catholic belief, so how can any "good Catholic" not believe it? That just sounds like No True Scotsman, but it's simultaneously inconsistent to be Scottish and not believe it.
I'm really not trying to be rude, I'm just very confused.
How is this an acceptable status of faith?
The concept of papal infallibility didn't exist until the 13th century and has no scriptural basis.
The Papacy (temporal power) did not exist until nearly 500 ad - it's plainly a retcon to claim that the Papacy predates the New Testament. Anything prior to that point is merely a Bishop serving as "First among equals"
As much as I hate this, I also dislike a lot of early Christian art for it's incredible inaccuracies - look up "biblically-accutate angels" to see what I mean.
Linguistically and historically, nothing about that verse justifies the pope, let alone papal infallibility.
The verse essentially vests Peter with the duty to spread the gospel, granting him the keys to Christ's kingdom (note, not church as the word is different than the word used for church a line or two back). That's granting Peter the capacity to bring new souls into the kingdom of God through spreading the Gospel, not giving Peter the ability to absolve sin.
He was appointed to a judicial oversight board with practically no teeth.
I joined .win because they didn't ask for anything. And that's how it should be
Tom Fitton isn't a lawyer.....
She wore it as clothing in violation of the flag code. Also, they restrict any and all props in yearbook photos. They allow photos with the flag as a backdrop, but not as a prop, particularly in violation of the flag code.
There is nothing wrong with what happened here.
The primary financial backers behind Parler are swampy, Bonigno is just a face for it. He has no good answers to any criticisms of the platform, just redirects the criticism back on twitter.
Get ready to hear the same about Parler when it turns out the Mercer's are less interested in free speech and more interested in data farming
A corrupt pope?!? How shocking?
Perhaps there's no scriptural basis for an infallible pontificate and vesting that power and status in an individual will inevitably lead to problems.
Bad troll, last name "copemore"
Deport and ignore pedes
Is there a legal society for based attorneys?
Not to my knowledge, just three alternative domains
Yes, the sticky note on your desk is the best option here
there are three backup domains. You should know them
Please stop freaking out about "prejudice" in this context. It just means that the ruling is dispositive and cannot simply be amended and re-filed. It does not mean that they harbor any prejudice or ill-will toward the losing party.
You keep posting as "Guantanamo Bay Employee" today but never before today. Bad larp
We are better than this.
Facts don't care about your feelings. I also feel betrayed by Kav, but we cannot invent facts that he's a rapist just to make ourselves feel better.
Hagedorn is a conservative
It's data farming for the Mercer's. The whole new right is giving away their info to Parler, allowing the Mercer's to create a substantial database of patriots in the US. I don't think that's a good idea, any more than giving your info away to Facebook or Twitter