He’s not even hiding it.

I’m sorry, but repeating the words associated with an actual murder, but not saying “I am going to kill you” is a bit of a stretch to claim terrorism.

Here is the definition of domestic terrorism from the FBI’s website: “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

What about this incident is violent?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am in no way defending these people. I just think the terrorism charge is overdoing it. Sure, a threat, but terrorism?

There there are the kind that are the crime, aka political assassins.

I saw John Wick last month for its 10 year anniversary.

I’m more concerned about the kid behind the cat. They are sitting on the paper.

First time I ever played, I stated it was my first time. Team lost. Got called homophobic slurs. Never played again.

Horror as in the sense a werewolf was psychically in love with the child before it was born.

People really hate the Marcos family. When he died (which was in Honolulu, where he was being treated), the government initially didn’t allow his body to be brought to Philippines. It took four years till the next administration before his body was returned.

I’m no scientist, but I think so.

Well it would be bad if we began eating soap. Right?

Apparently being the victim of genocide gives you a free pass.

At this point, looking at this vehicle with your naked eyes is bound to cause damage.

So would Sonic give someone rings to purchase stocks?

Still, don’t like that the name is shared.

Fuck Lovecraft.

Anyways, I started reading The Light Fantastic and I spotted a parody called “Necrotelicomnicon” which is described of pages made of lizard skin.

Does he mean the poor that are educated or people who have a lack of education?

I like to point to Idiocracy (a movie you couldn’t make today but I saw for the first time in 2024; I think it was good) which Crocs are used as shoes for the future because they were not widely available and the costume designer said “There’s no way people will wear them.”

I stand vindicated that Crocs are idiotic.

I’m not speaking from a place of facts, but I think the sentiment is if you don’t purposefully vote for someone within the two-party system that isn’t Trump, your vote will mathematically be a negative towards votes against Trump.

Not voting/third-party vote = one less vote against Trump/more possible votes for Trump

I’m pretty sure this is in response to a recent California bill that forces digital storefronts to disclose if it is a license you are getting. Otherwise the storefront is not allowed to use words like “buy” or “purchase”.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

65 sounds correct since it aired only between 1999-2001.