Michael Colom

13.2K posts

Michael Colom banner
Michael Colom

Michael Colom

@mmcolom

Politically idiosyncratic. — Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.

Katılım Ağustos 2013
1.1K Takip Edilen1K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@shannonrwatts @academic_la If you’re still arguing about politics through the lens of the Left vs. the Right or Democrats vs. Republicans, you’re just not going to make it!
Michael Colom tweet mediaMichael Colom tweet mediaMichael Colom tweet media
English
1
4
15
708
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@kenklippenstein Israel absolutely had means and motive, and possibly also had the opportunity to murder Kirk.
English
0
0
0
8
Ken Klippenstein
Ken Klippenstein@kenklippenstein·
the belief that a foreign government had a role in charlie kirk's death is a crackhead view
English
765
102
2.1K
1.9M
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@CptAncapistan I agree with Dave Smith's position, but from the standpoint of a neutral observer, it wasn't his best debate performance.
English
0
0
0
23
Captain Ⓐncapistan
Captain Ⓐncapistan@CptAncapistan·
The reason every Zionist likes to latch onto Dave Smith’s debate with Coleman Hughes is A) they are not open to changing their minds on Israel, and B) Coleman is the only person to debate Dave on this subject that didn’t utterly embarrass himself. Dave won.
English
24
19
517
8K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@TheLaurenChen eh, for Filipinos and Koreans I'd say it is about 50/50. That might also be because those demographics tend to be Christian.
English
0
0
0
6
Lauren Chen
Lauren Chen@TheLaurenChen·
Asians in the west tend to be liberal because 1) They're often from major cities - SF, LA, NY - all very liberal 2) They often attend elite schools, which are also overwhelmingly liberal 3) They have high institutional trust, which in the west is leftwing coded
Diane Yap@RealDianeYap

I’m often asked why Asians, especially Asian women, tend to be liberal. If I had to guess I’d say it’s a lesser of two evils thing. “Sure, the left is bad on crime, but the right keeps saying I eat cats and should be deported and they want to take away my right to vote.”

English
214
163
2.5K
130.3K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@JosephJakeKlein @ThomasEWoods tbh the peak woke era was typified by such obvious, absurd lunacy that it was rather low-hanging fruit for someone to be against it. "in the land of the blind...", etc.
English
0
0
0
27
Joseph (Jake) Klein
Joseph (Jake) Klein@JosephJakeKlein·
He spoke very well against identity politics during the woke era. Really one of the best at that time. And doing so while being a member of the relevant minority group necessarily gets you extra attention. But that moment is over, during it he ended up surrounding himself with neocons, and he doesn’t have any worthwhile personal perspective on foreign policy like he did on identity politics.
English
3
0
9
700
Tom Woods
Tom Woods@ThomasEWoods·
I never understood what people were seeing in "Coleman Hughes," and Glenn only confirms that
Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

I think it's rather odd behavior to tape a 2-hour debate with me only 2 days ago, where I never interrupted you once and so you could say everything you wanted about my arguments, all while heralding the civility of the discussion (which I agreed with), only to then release this lengthy screed on the day you release the debate using all kinds of accusatory language and insulting rhetoric that you didn't use when I was in front of you, and where you to try re-cast all my arguments into something they weren't, and then repeat the same claims you made in the debate, but in a separate article about the debate where I can't respond to them, all to convince everyone that you really won. It would never have occurred to me to write a long article trying to explain to everyone why I was really right about everything in a debate that we just taped two days ago, that was just released today, and which everyone can go watch for themselves. I thought that was why we did it. Now, beyond all that, you're reduced to claiming I'm "lying," all by radically distorting what I said? I explicitly referred to the rather-famous Nixon tapes (you can Google those), not that interview you cited, although I'm glad you published that interview excerpt because I think it's a good thing for people to hear about how the lobby works. You made what I believed were false claims in that discussion, including one about Joe Kent's claims about Israel and the Butler assassination attempt, but I went out of my way to say I assumed you did it in good faith. Anyway, I'm sorry so much of your own audience at the Free Press and on your personal YouTube page thought that I had the better case, and that you had to spend your day in your own comment section arguing with them. I'm willing to let the debate stand on its own because I'm confident in what was demonstrated.

English
67
29
938
45.5K
Alexandros Marinos 🏴‍☠️
Coleman Hughes is black Sam Harris without the PhD. Sad but true.
Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

I think it's rather odd behavior to tape a 2-hour debate with me only 2 days ago, where I never interrupted you once and so you could say everything you wanted about my arguments, all while heralding the civility of the discussion (which I agreed with), only to then release this lengthy screed on the day you release the debate using all kinds of accusatory language and insulting rhetoric that you didn't use when I was in front of you, and where you to try re-cast all my arguments into something they weren't, and then repeat the same claims you made in the debate, but in a separate article about the debate where I can't respond to them, all to convince everyone that you really won. It would never have occurred to me to write a long article trying to explain to everyone why I was really right about everything in a debate that we just taped two days ago, that was just released today, and which everyone can go watch for themselves. I thought that was why we did it. Now, beyond all that, you're reduced to claiming I'm "lying," all by radically distorting what I said? I explicitly referred to the rather-famous Nixon tapes (you can Google those), not that interview you cited, although I'm glad you published that interview excerpt because I think it's a good thing for people to hear about how the lobby works. You made what I believed were false claims in that discussion, including one about Joe Kent's claims about Israel and the Butler assassination attempt, but I went out of my way to say I assumed you did it in good faith. Anyway, I'm sorry so much of your own audience at the Free Press and on your personal YouTube page thought that I had the better case, and that you had to spend your day in your own comment section arguing with them. I'm willing to let the debate stand on its own because I'm confident in what was demonstrated.

English
48
24
761
33.3K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@JeffreyOrdaniel Well, I'm talking an expeditious solution that's in line with the constitution. I don't know how realistic it is, but the point is that if something isn't done soon, the Philippines could be looking at an existential crisis much more urgent than a territorial dispute with China
English
0
0
0
83
Jeffrey Ordaniel
Jeffrey Ordaniel@JeffreyOrdaniel·
The problem is, even kowtowing to China now—and violating the Philippine Constitution—will not deliver fuel to Filipinos. It will only cause Marcos to commit an impeachable offense, give Beijing more leverage to coerce Manila in the future, and still do nothing to address the current crisis.
English
2
0
3
273
Jeffrey Ordaniel
Jeffrey Ordaniel@JeffreyOrdaniel·
Except, President Marcos can’t really do that without violating his oath of office: 1) Article XII, Section 2 of PH Constitution is clear: the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources must remain under the full control and supervision of the State, and may be undertaken only by the State itself or through Filipino citizens or corporations that are at least 60% Filipino-owned. 2) Hence, any “joint exploration” in Philippine EEZ, even if inside the nine-dash line, cannot simply be a politically convenient 50-50 arrangement with China. It must comply with constitutional requirements, including Filipino control. 3) The Philippines could again propose a service contract or some form of technical/financial assistance arrangement—but that would still have to operate under Philippine law and within a legal framework that recognizes Philippine sovereign rights in its EEZ. 4) That is precisely the problem: China is unlikely to accept any arrangement that places its activities under Philippine law or implies recognition of Philippine jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea. How many times has PH tried to do this? I wonder why the President wasn’t briefed… or why the DFA’s institutional memory is not working here.
Tristan Nodalo@TristanNodalo

MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT MAY DRIVE PH, CHINA JOINT OIL AND GAS TALKS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA President Bongbong Marcos says the Middle East conflict could push the Philippines and China to revisit joint oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea. In an interview with Bloomberg, Marcos says shifting geopolitical dynamics may prompt a recalibration of ties, while stressing that peace and national interest remain the country’s guiding principles. @newswatchplusph

English
11
67
205
20.1K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@MJTruthUltra He also shows a lot of wisdom and humility here about his encounters with foreign cultures that are much more ancient than his own. The people mocking him for this reveal their own chauvinism and ignorance of the world.
English
0
0
0
19
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@Slatzism There's something I can't quite place my finger on where the libtards in the Commonwealth countries are especially absurd in their enthusiasm for globohomo in a way that their American counterparts can never match
English
5
2
13
494
Michael Colom retweetledi
Archaeo - Histories
Archaeo - Histories@archeohistories·
In 850 AD, Arab traders introduced durum wheat to Sicily, a moment that would forever change Italian cuisine. Unlike softer wheat varieties, durum wheat produced semolina, ideal for making dried pasta due to its high protein content and extended shelf life. This innovation allowed pasta to be preserved for long journeys, making it a highly tradable commodity across the Mediterranean. By 11th Century AD, under Norman rule, Sicily had become a major pasta producer, with historical sources mentioning "itriyya," an early form of dried pasta known in Arab cultures. This pasta was lightweight, non-perishable, and easy to transport, fueling its expansion across Italy and beyond. Genoese and Venetian merchants helped spread dried pasta further, cementing its role in European trade networks. As pasta-making techniques evolved, Italy perfected its craft, incorporating local flavors and creating regional varieties. By the Renaissance, pasta was deeply embedded in Italian culinary traditions, paving the way for the global pasta industry we know today. What began as an Arab agricultural innovation in Sicily eventually turned Italy into the undisputed pasta capital of the world, a title it still holds. #archaeohistories
Archaeo - Histories tweet media
English
28
349
1.6K
171K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@CardinalDolan @BishopBarron Cardinal Dolan, if you wholeheartedly agree, then consider addressing these questions clarifying what is meant by anti-Semitism, Zionism, and "Israel's right to exist" x.com/mmcolom/status…
Michael Colom@mmcolom

.@CarriePrejean1 or anyone else who's able to get Bp. Barron to speak on the record needs to ask him: 1. What exactly does he define as anti-Semitism? Is it simply the same as any other form of religious or ethnic bigotry, etc., or does he define it how the IHRA defines it—e.g. is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? 2. How does Bp. Barron define "Israel's right to exist" if that existence comes at the expense of the rights of millions of others? Israel has held the Palestinians under apartheid for decades, committed genocide in Gaza, and has now undertaken a war of aggression against Iran. These aren't just fringe Left-wing activist talking points: Very prominent Catholic clergy have spoken out in condemnation of such atrocious crimes. How does His Excellency define a political state's "right to exist" in this context? 3. Does Bp. Barron regard the belief that modern Israel "represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies" to be rooted in a dangerous heresy (i.e. premillennial dispensationalism and "Christian Zionism")? There are many individuals serving in top positions in the US government right now who do believe this, and they see this current war with Iran as part of fulfilling that prophecy to bring Armageddon. What are His Excellency's views on this?

English
1
1
37
1.7K
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
Tucker Carlson shows a lot more wisdom and humility here about his encounters with foreign cultures that are much more ancient than his own. The people mocking him for this reveal their own chauvinism and ignorance of the world.
English
0
0
1
25
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
Glenn Beck is such an absurd individual. That recent bit he did interviewing A.I. George Washington is just so funny because he tries to play it off as if he's earnestly seeking Washington's advice because he's genuinely conflicted about fighting foreign wars. But in reality, this is all a ridiculous charade. Everyone knows you're a diehard religious Zionist, Glenn, and will always support Israel unconditionally, so what is even the point of asking A.I. Washington?
Glenn Beck@glennbeck

In the British bunker map room, behind Winston Churchill’s wartime microphone. Crazy me, I still think WC was the good guy.

English
0
0
1
38
Michael Colom
Michael Colom@mmcolom·
@FatherAltman Bishop Barron should be put on the spot to answer these questions about Israel and Zionism x.com/mmcolom/status…
Michael Colom@mmcolom

.@CarriePrejean1 or anyone else who's able to get Bp. Barron to speak on the record needs to ask him: 1. What exactly does he define as anti-Semitism? Is it simply the same as any other form of religious or ethnic bigotry, etc., or does he define it how the IHRA defines it—e.g. is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? 2. How does Bp. Barron define "Israel's right to exist" if that existence comes at the expense of the rights of millions of others? Israel has held the Palestinians under apartheid for decades, committed genocide in Gaza, and has now undertaken a war of aggression against Iran. These aren't just fringe Left-wing activist talking points: Very prominent Catholic clergy have spoken out in condemnation of such atrocious crimes. How does His Excellency define a political state's "right to exist" in this context? 3. Does Bp. Barron regard the belief that modern Israel "represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies" to be rooted in a dangerous heresy (i.e. premillennial dispensationalism and "Christian Zionism")? There are many individuals serving in top positions in the US government right now who do believe this, and they see this current war with Iran as part of fulfilling that prophecy to bring Armageddon. What are His Excellency's views on this?

English
1
0
4
85
Fr. James Altman
Fr. James Altman@FatherAltman·
THANKS BE TO GOD FOR A REAL CATHOLIC VOICE: Carrie Prejean Boller. Bob Barron concocted a false narrative of her words and actions, using precisely chosen inflammatory adjectives to give false characterization of what actually transpired. I expect nothing less from Bob Barron. JESUS SAID: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first." Jn 15:18 Remember the word I spoke to you,* ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." Jn 15:20 The fact that the world does NOT hate Bob Barron tells you all you need to know about him. PRAY FOR CARRIE PREJEAN BOLLER.
Sign of the Cross@CatholicSOTC

Carrie Prejean Boller: Asking me to deny Catholic teaching in order to satisfy Zionism is a violation of religious freedom. lifesitenews.com/news/carrie-pr…

English
58
123
782
17.1K
Michael Colom retweetledi
Father Joseph DeMarzo
Father Joseph DeMarzo@Joseph_DeMarzo·
In recent days, @CarriePrejean1, a Catholic, was removed from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. She was not given notice as to why she was removed, but it is highly plausible that it was because of comments she made during a hearing. I wish to note both a question she asked and a statement she made. In essence, one of the questions she asked was whether a person who is not a Zionist is therefore antisemitic. The statement she made was that Catholics are not Zionists. Bishop Robert Barron posted on X that she was removed for “browbeating witnesses, aggressively asserting her point of view, hijacking the meeting for her own political purposes.” I must disagree with this statement, having viewed the meeting myself. The purpose of the meeting is to promote religious liberty and to speak out against discrimination and injustice against any person, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. Defense of religious liberty under the First Amendment is the defense of all human life. Her comment was fitting for the meeting, and for the following reason. Carrie asked an important question, which was directed to Yitzchok Frankel. She asked whether one could reject antisemitism and at the same time condemn the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, reject political Zionism, or not support the political state of Israel. Carrie was fulfilling her duty as a member of the board in speaking not only for the protection of Jews, but also for Palestinians. It is also a fair question to ask in light of the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed since October 7. As Catholics, we decry the killing of all innocent human life. Her comment and question were also fitting in helping the committee address the evil of antisemitism. In other words, her words can be interpreted as a caution that, in light of evil antisemitic actions, one must not resort to uncontrolled violence against Palestinians in Gaza. There is a fire that was lit, and she was simply pointing out that another fire has been lit, and one cannot put out fire with fire. She wished to hold all persons accountable for violence against innocent human life. Furthermore, defining terms is crucial in arriving at proper justice for all. In resolving the issue of antisemitism, it is important to define exactly what that constitutes. It is not foreign to public discussion to speak of Christian Zionism as it pertains to the present conflict in Iran. She, as a defender of all faiths, must be able to defend her own. That she did courageously in noting that Catholics are in fact not Zionists, and that this should not be remotely part of the definition of antisemitism. The reason this is important is that if rejection of Zionism is equated with antisemitism, it opens the door to the persecution of Catholics, or of people in general. Since this language is part of the current political context when speaking about Israel’s actions, it is just that Catholics, having their own religious liberty under the First Amendment, be able to disagree with religiously or politically motivated actions which do not reflect what it means to be Catholic. Otherwise, we run the risk, as a nation, of gaslighting Catholics as antisemitic, which would itself be a form of religious persecution. The committee cannot serve the purpose of defending religious liberty by denying it to another group, namely Catholics. Therefore, I support Carrie as a fellow Catholic and American for her bravery, and I am proud of her. In fact, she was recently awarded the Catholic Champion Award at the Catholics for Catholics Prayer for America Gala only a few days ago. Countless Catholics from all over the country viewed this moment, where Catholics came together in solidarity to pray for our nation and to support fellow Catholics in responding to our Lord’s command: “Let your light shine.”
English
266
474
2.8K
128.4K