Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News9 Oklahoma)   DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with breaking the law. Finally, a rich affluent white person can get justice in America   (news9.com) divider line 409
    More: Followup, Wayne LaPierre, David Keene, Oklahoma City, school massacre, Admonition, d.c. police, NBC, attorney generals  
•       •       •

7288 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



409 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-12 03:33:25 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.


It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.
 
2013-01-12 03:37:12 AM  
In December of 2012, David Gregory: deliberately violated D.C. gun law for financial and political gain.

In September of 2011, Adam Meckler: inadvertently violated D.C. Gun law.

David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.

Adam Meckler possessed a few 9mm cartridges, without the proper D.C. permit.

David Gregory has not been charged, arrested, or taken to jail.

Adam Meckler was arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail, eventually was released and plead a plea bargain that included a fine, probation, and being registered on the D.C. gun offender list.

David Gregory has been lauded by his peers, defended on numerous media sites, and been invited for an exclusive interview with President Obama.

Adam Meckler took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

David Gregory does not appear to have taken such an oath.

Adam Meckler is a combat veteran.

David Gregory is a member of the ruling elite. His children go to school with President Obama's children, where they enjoy the security of armed guards.


1 law for you, something else for them.This isn't isolated. Diane Feinstein carries guns. Had a carry license for years. When that came to light, she dropped the license, but became a deputized US Marshal (doesn't need the license now), yet fights to ban all firearms from everyone else. One law for you.
 
2013-01-12 03:37:14 AM  

gweilo8888: but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.


He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?
 
2013-01-12 03:37:31 AM  

untaken_name: ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.

It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.


Cool, thought y'alled just call me a schlemiel.
 
2013-01-12 03:40:26 AM  

truthseeker2083: That's funny, because as a gay pothead, I'm seriously considering purchasing a gun sometime soon. Maybe we are the future.


As a gay pothead gun owner - I'm surprised you don't already own one.
 
2013-01-12 03:40:46 AM  

enochianwolf: Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public?


What is different about a news personality that makes him or her less likely to commit violent crimes than any other citizen? Has no television personality ever committed a violent crime? Is that your claim?
 
2013-01-12 03:40:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe: untaken_name: ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.

It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.

Cool, thought y'alled just call me a schlemiel.


Nah, you're a W.A.S.P. just like Jesus!

/Or perhaps a Goy?
//As I said, certain slurs just amuse me.
///Are these actually used as slurs anymore?
 
2013-01-12 03:41:13 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".


It's not as simple as this word is okay and that word is offensive. It depends on the context. I think the salient question in any situation is not whether the listener was offended but whether the speaker intended offence.

Some of my black friends call each other n*gger all the time, in informal conversation. And some of my white friends embrace the label of redneck. But context and intent of the speaker are everything. For example, even if you refer to your friends as n*gger, but you get in a fender bender with a stranger and they step out of the car and angrily call you n*gger - one is offensive in intent, the other is not. This is obvious, and probably close to inarguable.

Simply put, if you use a word offensively, then it is offensive by definition. Even if you didn't manage to offend anyone. That seems pretty clear. If you consciously intend to offend your grandmother by saying "shiat" to her, then it is, by definition, offensive language. Even if you normally say "shiat" all the time with your friends who aren't offended. Likewise if you consciously intend to upset someone by saying "whitey" then it is, by definition, offensive language.

And yes I agree, some people are far more easily offended than others.
 
2013-01-12 03:42:27 AM  

Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns


She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.
 
2013-01-12 03:43:42 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bonzo_1116: Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

It's not as simple as this word is okay and that word is offensive. It depends on the context. I think the salient question in any situation is not whether the listener was offended but whether the speaker intended offence.

Some of my black friends call each other n*gger all the time, in informal conversation. And some of my white friends embrace the label of redneck. But context and intent of the speaker are everything. For example, even if you refer to your friends as n*gger, but you get in a fender bender with a stranger and they step out of the car and angrily call you n*gger - one is offensive in intent, the other is not. This is obvious, and probably close to inarguable.

Simply put, if you use a word offensively, then it is offensive by definition. Even if you didn't manage to offend anyone. That seems pretty clear. If you consciously intend to offend your grandmother by saying "shiat" to her, then it is, by definition, offensive language. Even if you normally say "shiat" all the time with your friends who aren't offended. Likewise if you consciously intend to upset someone by saying "whitey" then it is, by definition, offensive language.

And yes I agree, some people are far more easily offended than others.


Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then? And what happens in the case of someone who is offended by people getting offended?
 
2013-01-12 03:44:27 AM  

untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?


Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?
 
2013-01-12 03:44:36 AM  

enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.


Not under the law as written, there isn't.
 
2013-01-12 03:44:43 AM  
So he gets threatened for pointing out that there are millions of Americans violating the 2nd Amendment by buying arms while not being part of a well-regulated militia? How nice.
 
2013-01-12 03:45:33 AM  

gingerjet: untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?

Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?


I understand that the DA chose not to move forward, but that is a completely different thing than the DA not having enough to proceed with the case, which is what the person I was responding to asserted.
 
2013-01-12 03:45:34 AM  

enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.


Can I get on the Metro today with one and show people what it looks like for three minutes?
I'm not gonna try. But can I?
 
2013-01-12 03:47:21 AM  
Those of you who are blowing off this Gregory deal, can you all please articulate how he is so special compared to this man?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/4/if-youre-not-david-gre g ory/
 
2013-01-12 03:47:33 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.


Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.
 
2013-01-12 03:49:16 AM  

untaken_name: Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then?


"Wrong" is more of a philosophical question. Is it wrong to offend a rapist by calling him "assh*le scum"? It is definitely intended to cause offense, but perhaps not "wrong". My answer was merely what was offensive. Going on the offensive isn't necessarily wrong if someone has already gone on the offensive against you or others first.
 
2013-01-12 03:49:23 AM  

ThisIsntMe: enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.

Can I get on the Metro today with one and show people what it looks like for three minutes?
I'm not gonna try. But can I?



News show with hundreds of thousands of viewers across the country =/= you scaring a few people on a subway
 
2013-01-12 03:51:01 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in d. eciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


This is a cogent argument. The Judiciary is tasked with that ability. The executive branch seldom sees shades of grey.
 
2013-01-12 03:51:35 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:07 AM  

cameroncrazy1984:
The simple fact that you're not in jail right now proves that the first amendment isn't "effectively dead"

Or that the powers that be have mastered the insidious art of ignoring shiat that doesn't matter.


Also, how DO other countries have freedom of speech without gun ownership? I mean, how does Spain and Germany, France, Britain and all those other countries that have a free and private press get by without a second amendment-type provision?


They don't really. At least not in the same sense that the US does.* But then, as i said, i don't buy into a causal link here anyway.

*also, the press in these on-paper less private and less free press institutions seem to do a lot better than the US's junk. I mean, the BBC has its problems but it ain't Fox.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:30 AM  

twistofsin: Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


Ha, that would be a great party, it would be a libertarian party without the Randians! That would get 1/3 of the vote if it was real (obviously making that number up, I have no idea).
 
2013-01-12 03:53:16 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: untaken_name: Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then?

"Wrong" is more of a philosophical question. Is it wrong to offend a rapist by calling him "assh*le scum"? It is definitely intended to cause offense, but perhaps not "wrong". My answer was merely what was offensive. Going on the offensive isn't necessarily wrong if someone has already gone on the offensive against you or others first.


I've always heard that the best defense is a good offense. Also, shock and awe - defend yourself before you're attacked, it's the American way. I don't really have a point here. But I had too much coffee so I feel compelled to post.
 
2013-01-12 03:53:40 AM  

Mikey1969: gweilo8888: All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.

Except that he DIDNT say it was a replica, he didn't say it got thrown out, and they DID call the police beforehand, and we're told that it wasn't legal in any way. What part of that makes you think it was a prop magazine?


Nothing at all makes me think that, but before you can arrest and try somebody, you need to have sufficient real proof to do so.

Was it real? Almost certainly so. Does a phone call and a video clip constitute proof that it was real? Not even slightly.

"Well, we phoned you to ask if it was OK, you said no, so we got a replica. Of course we didn't say it was a replica on air because the viewers don't need to know that. And we didn't keep it afterwards, because the segment was done. We had no need for it. No, we don't have an invoice showing proof, because we made it ourselves. Yes, we do have an art department. Why do you ask?"

And then Bill in the art department gets a nice holiday bonus, for playing along and protecting the "talent".
 
2013-01-12 03:54:56 AM  
Poorly written Law or ordinance is poorly written. That's all I'm saying. sorry to spread the timeline.
 
2013-01-12 03:55:59 AM  

untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?


Because people can say anything they want on air; it doesn't have to be true, and it's not under oath.

I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.
 
2013-01-12 03:59:20 AM  

gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.


What about libel?
 
2013-01-12 04:00:49 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.

Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.


You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why? because they are simply reporting on what the magazine is to their viewers, they aren't carrying it around in their pickup on the streets of D.C. "Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm", not sure what this means? How is showing the magazine in public to your viewers the same as carrying it around in your vehicle with you on the street?
 
2013-01-12 04:01:37 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.

What about libel?


It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.
 
2013-01-12 04:01:54 AM  

ThisIsntMe: [legalinsurrection.com image 620x359]


No you wouldn't, those aren't illegal here.
 
2013-01-12 04:03:40 AM  
I just want to point out that those of on the gun nut side of the Gun Control Wars of 2013 clearly have some truly crazy assholes on our side. Alex Jones (long known crazy asshole) and James Yeager (recently off the seriously deep end crazy asshole). We are pretty embarrassed by their antics.

The anti-gun types though, are being led by people (and defending!) some of the most blatant hypocrisy that has ever existed in this nation, insofar as the very mouth pieces who lead your movement actually break the very firearm laws they seem to champion. Gregory here committed an offense that plenty of good citizens have been severely prosecuted for, often times having violated the law by complete accident and with zero intent. Gregory (and his staff) full up knew the law, and were even told by the police that their planned activities were illegal. They committed the crime anyhow.

DiFi is happy to dance on the graves of the dead to push her agenda to strip Americans of their firearm rights. She's said it herself; her overarching goal is to remove all firearms from private ownership. At the same time, she has had one of the rare as hen's teeth San Francisco CCW permits. Now, there is evidence that she has a de facto national CCW permit through this Honorary US Marshall fiasco. All this, while she is afforded the privilege of taxpayer funded security that would make a 3rd world junta dictator jealous (provided by the US Capital Police).

So please continue the one liners about our crazy uncles in the closet. We are far more embarrassed for having them on our side than you can possibly imagine. At least though, we aren't turning a blind eye to outright elitist, and likely quite illegal, hypocrisy.
 
2013-01-12 04:05:03 AM  

Alphakronik: ThisIsntMe: [legalinsurrection.com image 620x359]

No you wouldn't, those aren't illegal here.


Nor where I am,    Yet.
 
2013-01-12 04:05:39 AM  

dr-shotgun: Those of you who are blowing off this Gregory deal, can you all please articulate how he is so special compared to this man?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/4/if-youre-not-david-gre g ory/


Context.  One guy was on a tv show.  The other guy driving near the White House.  The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.
 
2013-01-12 04:06:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.


I thought that if you went on air or whatever media and made up something about a non public figure that would discredit them, it would be considered libel. I obviously am not a lawyer, so correct me where I'm wrong.
 
2013-01-12 04:07:03 AM  

enochianwolf: Jesus christ, are you gun fellators never ashamed? The law is meant to keep these kinds of magazines away from criminals, a news personality is demonstrating them on his show to the nation and you are hoping some DC prosecutor is retarded enough to think David Gregory might use it in a shooting? Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public? are you really that retarded?


Well, first, the law prohibits ANYONE from even holding one of these. Not just criminals.

Second, consistency would be nice. Other people have called ahead, been told by the police exactly what conditions they would have to follow if they even needed to transport a high capacity magazine, have complied with this, have been arrested while in total compliance, and have not only been charged, but have been taken all of the way to court before a judge threw the case out.

Third, we are continually told how laws like this will help keeps magazines like this off of the streets, yet when someone flaunts that very law on international TV, nothing is done. Yeah, 'more laws' are obviously the answer, aren't they?

Fourth, many people dislike the hypocrisy of the "You have to comply with the law, but I don't." crowd. For obvious reasons.

Fifth, there should be no difference between a "regular person" owning something and a "news personality showcasing it to the public". "News personalities" don't get a special set of rules to follow that lets them off the hook for breaking the law, and the whole "first amendment" argument is a bullshiat claim in this situation as well.
 
2013-01-12 04:09:29 AM  
Progressive hypocrisy is shining bright in this thread. You Dems really need to purge those things from your ranks.
 
2013-01-12 04:10:31 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.

I thought that if you went on air or whatever media and made up something about a non public figure that would discredit them, it would be considered libel. I obviously am not a lawyer, so correct me where I'm wrong.


Nah, or Conan couldn't make fun of that moron with the fake hair.Or Leno or Craig Son-Of_Ferg couldn't make fun of whoever he wants. The Costitution allows you to pretend to be (Tina Fey I'm lookin' at ya') anybody.And you can claim parody pretty liberally.
 
2013-01-12 04:11:30 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.

What about libel?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s

Relevant. ;-)
 
2013-01-12 04:11:48 AM  
You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why? because they are simply reporting on what the magazine is to their viewers, they aren't carrying it around in their pickup on the streets of D.C. "Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm", not sure what this means? How is showing the magazine in public to your viewers the same as carrying it around in your vehicle with you on the street?

If Meet the Press wanted to "show the viewers" what a NATO standard, 30 round, 5.56mm aluminum magazine with a green follower and a phosphate finish was, they very well could have sent a small field crew 20 minutes outside of DC to Virginia. Hell, they even could have gone to the range and shot some scary video of the mass murder magazine being loaded with baby killer bullets. A really nice slow shot of it being erotically inserted into the luscious magazine well of a beastly black Colt 6920. Than they could have shown some gun nut getting his rocks off as the carbine unleashed just buckets of white hot 62 grain instant death down the line of a dingy indoor range, where they would savagely attack an FBI standard Q target, ripping it to shreds with their murderous power designed expressly to exsanguanate as many hapless, cowering, unarmed civilians in the room as is humanly possible.

Of course, the rifle could have easily turned on the crew. Or the range officer operating it could have been so overwhelmed with the erotic thumping of the Colt's new Rodgers collapsable stock (now standard equipment) that the blood lust would have taken over at that very moment and he could have accidentally executed the film crew.

But it woulda made a better visual AND not have broken any laws.
 
2013-01-12 04:12:07 AM  

gweilo8888: Mikey1969: gweilo8888: All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.

Except that he DIDNT say it was a replica, he didn't say it got thrown out, and they DID call the police beforehand, and we're told that it wasn't legal in any way. What part of that makes you think it was a prop magazine?

Nothing at all makes me think that, but before you can arrest and try somebody, you need to have sufficient real proof to do so.

Was it real? Almost certainly so. Does a phone call and a video clip constitute proof that it was real? Not even slightly.

"Well, we phoned you to ask if it was OK, you said no, so we got a replica. Of course we didn't say it was a replica on air because the viewers don't need to know that. And we didn't keep it afterwards, because the segment was done. We had no need for it. No, we don't have an invoice showing proof, because we made it ourselves. Yes, we do have an art department. Why do you ask?"

And then Bill in the art department gets a nice holiday bonus, for playing along and protecting the "talent".


The "art department" consists of some guys with Photoshop skills and segment editors, they don't have a prop house on site, sorry. It's a cable news show, not a special effects studio in Hollywood.
 
2013-01-12 04:13:16 AM  
If David Gregory had been caught with this magazine in his vehicle, driving around DC, I wouldn't be defending him. The fact that all he did was show it to people on his show is the difference, the principle of having a free press that is able to report on things without consequence. Calling for Gregory to be prosecuted for airing a segment about a gun magazine doesn't seem very American, especially since if he was showing the magazine in favor of loosening gun laws, you wouldn't hear half of the criticism from the pro-gun side, they only want him to be arrested because he's for tightening the gun laws. As for hypocrisy, again, if he had it on his person driving around the street, i'd be ok with him getting arrested, the fact that he possessed it on his show, in my mind, should automatically give him a free pass as that is called journalism.
 
2013-01-12 04:13:25 AM  
Context. One guy was on a tv show. The other guy driving near the White House. The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm glad to know that this is how we run parts of our country now.
 
2013-01-12 04:14:17 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Nah, or Conan couldn't make fun of that moron with the fake hair.Or Leno or Craig Son-Of_Ferg couldn't make fun of whoever he wants. The Costitution allows you to pretend to be (Tina Fey I'm lookin' at ya') anybody.And you can claim parody pretty liberally.


I know but wouldn't all those people be public figures? I'm thinking of it like what if you went on the radio and made up a bunch of stuff about some random schmuck you knew and made him look really bad? I believe the OP was related to that kind of situation.
 
2013-01-12 04:14:33 AM  
Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth, 
Fifth,


Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.
 
2013-01-12 04:15:26 AM  
/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.

Hey, what about the 3rd?

You never hear ANYONE really giving a vigorous defense of the third...
 
2013-01-12 04:15:38 AM  

gweilo8888: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s


Well so far this is already teaching me a good deal, thanks.
 
2013-01-12 04:16:05 AM  

dr-shotgun: Context. One guy was on a tv show. The other guy driving near the White House. The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm glad to know that this is how we run parts of our country now.


Technically it's a protectorate.
 
2013-01-12 04:16:44 AM  

The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.


I wish we cared about them all. Our 4th is the one really on the ropes.
 
2013-01-12 04:18:10 AM  

Mikey1969: The "art department" consists of some guys with Photoshop skills and segment editors, they don't have a prop house on site, sorry. It's a cable news show, not a special effects studio in Hollywood.


You're telling me that NBC News, a division of NBC, itself owned by NBCUniversal and one of the six largest media conglomerates in the country, doesn't have access to an art department somewhere in one of its divisions that could "supply" a prop? (Remember, they don't even need to supply it; they just need to have somebody ready to say they did if the question's asked.)
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report