Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.
)
This dog ain't a he, Dodge.Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.
I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.
(Yap Yap...
Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?
No, he's addressing your stoopidity POGO. NBC called the police for permission. First mistake. The exception was not granted, so they ask the ATF, which can only speak to federal law. Third mistake. Took the word of ATF, Fourth mistake. Put the magazine on air. Fifth mistake.
Good to know the "press" finds enforcement of gun control laws as frivolous.Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.
The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:
"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."
It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."
On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBCs David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked
She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBCs David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.
David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren
This dog ain't a he, Dodge..Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.
I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.
(Yap Yap...
Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?
No, he's addressing your stoopidity POGO. NBC called the police for permission. First mistake. The exception was not granted, so they ask the ATF, which can only speak to federal law. Third mistake. Took the word of ATF, Fourth mistake. Put the magazine on air. Fifth mistake.
Well then he's misread the names because what he's saying is the same thing I was saying.
Once again, police cannot give "permissions" or "variances", therefore asking for it is moot. And what they were really asking for was a support statement, which is by their position unofficial. That's why I said way back that the proper entity to ask would have been the DA. And maybe they did that -- we don't know.
But the difference is, absent that information, I'm not going to assume it.
No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.This dog ain't a he, Dodge..I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.
(Yap Yap...
Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?
Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.
No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.This dog ain't a he, Dodge..
Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.
I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.
I should just write s/he to be correct in future
(/offtopic)
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.
I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.
I should just write s/he to be correct in future
(/offtopic)
No offense or implication intended.
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.
I should just write s/he to be correct in future
(/offtopic)
No offense or implication intended.
You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.
I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.
I should just write s/he to be correct in future
(/offtopic)
No offense or implication intended.
Some snazzy Christmas jammies for Si Modo!
Well, I am barefoot.....No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.
I should just write s/he to be correct in future
(/offtopic)
No offense or implication intended.
You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.
No offense or implication intended.
You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.
Sexist pig!!
No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.
No offense or implication intended.
Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.
The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:
"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."
It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."
On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBCs David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked
She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBCs David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.
David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren
Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.
The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:
"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."
It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."
On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBC’s David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked
She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.
David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren
