Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on November 07, 2018, 09:44:02 PM
-
I'm loving this. Acosta is a miserable piece of excrement.
I wonder how long it will take before a lawsuit is filed
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnns-jim-acosta-press-pass-suspended-by-white-house-sarah-sanders-announces (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnns-jim-acosta-press-pass-suspended-by-white-house-sarah-sanders-announces)
-
I'm surprised. I thought Trump was just keeping him around because he made him and Sarah look even more reasonable and intelligent by comparison.
-
To bad the chick that took the microphone didn’t “accidentally” pop him in the nose with it.
Would have made some great headlines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would love, love, love to see him charged with assault. Hard to argue, when there is clear videotape of him striking that woman.
#metoo
#believeallwomen
-
I guess CNN is trying to spin this as happening as retaliation for "tough" questions. Honestly, if the questions were the reason, this would have happened months ago or more. This is what happens when you act like a jerk. You get no slack when you cross the line.
-
To bad the chick that took the microphone didn’t “accidentally” pop him in the nose with it.
Would have made some great headlines.
They need to teach the interns that move.
I think the first 5 or 6 or 12 reporters would be surprised, but eventually they'd learn. Maybe not Acosta and Ryan, but most of them.
-
Build a teaser into the mic the reporters pass around.
I said your time was up! >>>zaaaappp<<<
-
Build a teaser into the mic the reporters pass around.
I said your time was up! >>>zaaaappp<<<
Don't tease me bro!
-
Don't tease me bro!
https://youtu.be/_AkjouysL1g
-
Does anyone think that banning Acosta was unwarranted? I have a non liberal but also non Trump fan zuckbook friend who thinks it's the end of the republic.
Me, I have other ideas for Acosta, none polite.
-
Does anyone think that banning Acosta was unwarranted? I have a non liberal but also non Trump fan zuckbook friend who thinks it's the end of the republic.
Me, I have other ideas for Acosta, none polite.
The man refused to stop after his allotted questions, pushed and physically struggled with a young woman only trying to do her job.
Completely justified in booting the grandstanding "martyr".
-
The man refused to stop after his allotted questions, pushed and physically struggled with a young woman only trying to do her job.
Agreed.
Also: attending a White House press conference is a privilege, not a right. Attendees are expected to behave themselves. There are consequences for not doing so.
-
Does anyone think that banning Acosta was unwarranted?
Nope.
Late, perhaps, even overdue, but ... unwarranted? No way, Jose.
-
My opinion is this whole thing centers around decorum. Some idea has sprung forth that to prove we have a free press reporters have to be jackasses. Whatever happened to take the BS answer, thank you Mr. President, sit down, and then roast him on the Sunday talk shows?
Orange man bad took about seventy questions from the assembled throng, I am struggling to see the free press suppression.
I guess I come down a little bit on an authoritarian side with this, too much military learning to respect the uniform, position, office what have you, even if you despise the man.
Someone needs to do a compilation video of press vs. Obama compared to press vs. Trump. I seem to remember Obama could go for ten minutes of beautiful speaking, never answer the question and the reporter sat down happy. Now we have Trump getting a 90% unfavorable coverage? Is he really doing that bad?
-
If CNN were banned, that would be another debate. A loudmouthed bully that works for CNN? No problem.
-
I heard some NBC drone is accusing the young girl of assaulting Acosta.
-
I heard some NBC drone is accusing the young girl of assaulting Acosta.
I also saw that CNN and others are running with "Trump doctored the video to make it look lke Acosta hit her harder than he did" while ignoring Acosta telling everyone that he never laid a hand on her.
-
Since when does freedom of the press mean that someone *HAS* to answer them?
I've never seen anything that says the President has to even let them into the White House or talk to them at all.
That said, I'm kind of disappointed they gave Acosta the boot. I want to see more Trump verbally bitch slapping the press and Acosta gives him plenty of opportunities.
-
I also saw that CNN and others are running with "Trump doctored the video to make it look lke Acosta hit her harder than he did" while ignoring Acosta telling everyone that he never laid a hand on her.
They seem to be running hard with the "doctored video" line, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.765381243c69
I don't even see a difference between the "doctored" and undoctored version.
They seem to be going into Alex Jones territory. :lol:
-
Since when does freedom of the press mean that someone *HAS* to answer them?
I've never seen anything that says the President has to even let them into the White House or talk to them at all.
That said, I'm kind of disappointed they gave Acosta the boot. I want to see more Trump verbally bitch slapping the press and Acosta gives him plenty of opportunities.
I think that's why the White House tolerated him for so long. It's been clear for some time that he intentionally disrupts by grandstanding. This was a good time to smack him around, and spin it as defense of the weaker sex.
-
They seem to be running hard with the "doctored video" line, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.765381243c69
I don't even see a difference between the "doctored" and undoctored version.
They seem to be going into Alex Jones territory. :lol:
Fake news. I don't even buy that Acosta was particularly mean to the girl. The fact that he refused to surrender the microphone, physically resisted, and still disrupted proceedings after relinquishing it, is what counts.
And how about revoking the press pass of any organization that tries to spin this as "punishment"? (jk) I've about lost patience with every reasonable result of one's actions being labeled "punishment." Acosta is not a child (though he acts like one). Acosta is not being punished. He's being kept away from the White House press gaggle so that it can be carried out with some kind of order. Flipping snowflakes...
-
Fake news. I don't even buy that Acosta was particularly mean to the girl.
I can agree with that. It was more like brushing her away, which, if an old white guy did that, would have feminists raging about disrespecting women.
-
I can agree with that. It was more like brushing her away, which, if an old white guy did that, would have feminists raging about disrespecting women.
It doesn't help that she didn't have a good poker face. She knew how that altercation was going to get played the second it happened. *shrug* I have no doubt that's why they had a pretty young thing assigned to that task. Hold enough press conferences, eventually one of the contentious reporters wasn't going to relinquish the mic and *viola* instinct scandal.
*shrug* It's all a game and I think the Trump won this round, despite CNN's bitching.
-
I can agree with that. It was more like brushing her away, which, if an old white guy did that, would have feminists raging about disrespecting women.
He knocked her arm away. The APS law team can double check me, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered either assault or battery.
-
The aide should have played like a democrat, drop to the floor holding her arm and wailing in pain.
-
The aide should have played like a democrat, drop to the floor holding her arm and wailing in pain.
Wow, that's tougher than Adam Carolla's old Germany or Florida game. Democrat or Premier league footballer, who faked it better?
-
He knocked her arm away. The APS law team can double check me, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered either assault or battery.
Harsh words/threats = assault.
Physical contact = battery.
-
I don't even buy that Acosta was particularly mean to the girl. The fact that he refused to surrender the microphone, physically resisted, and still disrupted proceedings after relinquishing it, is what counts.
Fistful is correct. (huh?!)
There is no need to pretend he karate chopped her or anything, his actual conduct was more than enough reason to revoke his privileges.
Calling that assault/battery is absurd and I would hope anyone with common sense could that see after watching video of it.
-
Calling that assault/battery is absurd and I would hope anyone with common sense could that see after watching video of it.
The law often doesn't mesh with what we call "common sense." He laid a hand on her -- I believe that does constitute assault in most states. (Not certain about Washington, DC).
https://www.shouselaw.com/assault.html
-
Fistful is correct. (huh?!)
There is no need to pretend he karate chopped her or anything, his actual conduct was more than enough reason to revoke his privileges.
Calling that assault/battery is absurd and I would hope anyone with common sense could that see after watching video of it.
Had that been say a Fox News Reporter during a Democrat administration, the reporter's head would already be out the basket and mounted on a pike in front of the White House....
-
He knocked her arm away. The APS law team can double check me, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered either assault or battery.
Assault is when an attempt to hit, or punch someone but it misses. Battery is actually striking someone. A lot of jurisdictions will charge one who actually strikes someone with "assault and battery" because it was an attempt and actually succeeded.
I used to live in Connecticut, where I once discussed this with a police officer , who said this particular crime doesn't exist in that state. I asked him if he came upon a scene where a person had punched another, what he'd charge the offender with, and he replied "disturbing the peace."
Different jurisdictions do it differently.
-
I used to live in Connecticut, where I once discussed this with a police officer , who said this particular crime doesn't exist in that state. I asked him if he came upon a scene where a person had punched another, what he'd charge the offender with, and he replied "disturbing the peace."
Different jurisdictions do it differently.
Never ask a cop about the law.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm
Start at 53a-59 and keep reading down from there. I'd say assault exists in Connecticut.
-
Had that been say a Fox News Reporter during a Democrat administration, the reporter's head would already be out the basket and mounted on a pike in front of the White House....
Maybe so but I don't play the "democrats would do it" hypothetical game to determine how I see things and I don't see assault there.
I do admit that's from a common sense perspective, I don't know the nuance of every law and an ambulance chaser may see things differently.
-
Maybe so but I don't play the "democrats would do it" hypothetical game to determine how I see things and I don't see assault there.
I do admit that's from a common sense perspective, I don't know the nuance of every law and an ambulance chaser may see things differently.
Pursuant to this thread, I looked up the laws on assault for several states, and they vary widely. In some states, "assault" requires not just an intent to strike but also an intent to do harm or to injure. In those states, a left jab or a right cross that misses would be assault, but putting your hand an a young lady's arm to prevent her from taking the microphone probably would not be. In other states, as I posted above, even harsh words can be construed as assault, and physically laying hands on another person (as Acosta did) would be assault, and possibly battery.
One of the joys of living in a republic, with 51 separate and different sets of laws.
Try it yourself. Just Google "[state] statutes assault" using different states for the first search word, and see what you come up with.
-
I'm no fan of Acosta, but I also don't think he meant any harm to the staffer and if anyone were criminally charged for that type of interaction I'd consider it to be unjust.
-
Never ask a cop about the law.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm
Start at 53a-59 and keep reading down from there. I'd say assault exists in Connecticut.
I don't know when that list you attached became law .... but the conversation I had with that amateur Perry Mason-in-a-uniform took place 30+ years ago.
So, either
A.) Ct. Law has been significantly updated since the Reagan Era, or,
B.) That police officer was amazingly wrong. Possible....I suppose ....but ???... heck, I'd only be guessing.
-
A friend at work, who is a NPC, was up in arms about how this uncivility is all Trumps fault and how he is embarrassed by Trumps behavior.
Most every day “Joes” are so far gone I don’t even know what to say to them.
They think the USA is magic and will just keep rolling right along as if civilization just happens.
Meanwhile vampires, zombies and Orcs are running the media, the permanent government and working feverishly to regain the power they lost in ‘16.
And the NPC is worried about how realspeak looks.
-
He knocked her arm away. The APS law team can double check me, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered either assault or battery.
I saw some idiot female talking head claiming that she assaulted him by grabbing the microphone, which was ". . . an extension of his arm . . . " :facepalm:
-
I don't know when that list you attached became law .... but the conversation I had with that amateur Perry Mason-in-a-uniform took place 30+ years ago.
So, either
A.) Ct. Law has been significantly updated since the Reagan Era, or,
B.) That police officer was amazingly wrong. Possible....I suppose ....but ???... heck, I'd only be guessing.
Disturbing the Peace is a good catch-all for arresting someone who's causing trouble (certainly ripe for abuse, too). In the few states where I've checked, it's a more serious misdemeanor than one would expect. The DA can choose what to actually charge.
-
I don't know when that list you attached became law .... but the conversation I had with that amateur Perry Mason-in-a-uniform took place 30+ years ago.
So, either
A.) Ct. Law has been significantly updated since the Reagan Era, or,
B.) That police officer was amazingly wrong. Possible....I suppose ....but ???... heck, I'd only be guessing.
That's not a "list," and it isn't a law in itself. It's the on-line index to Connecticut statutes on-line. The "list" is current, but each statute linked to is going to have its own, individual date of enactment, and then possible revision. Just for example, if you click the link to 53a-59 (the first statute addressing assault) you can see the legislative history following the text of the statute. Looks like it was originally enacted in 1960, then revised in 1980, 1992, 1994, 1995, and 1999.
So, not exactly new. Only 58 years old.
To reiterate: Never ask a cop about the law.
-
I was a cop. Most LE have no idea what the laws are other than the few simple ones they deal with on a daily basis. LE does not teach laws to their officers.
-
In 1999 I was dating a woman who had been a high school classmate. She was a cheerleader, and I was on the basketball team. In high school, she was dating (and later married) the captain of the football team. We didn't share any classes, and I'm not sure if we ever spoke in high school. We encountered each other at a reunion in 1997, discovered that we were both divorced and unattached, I asked her out, and we continued to see each other for a couple of years.
She had a nephew who was a police officer (later made captain) on the force of a nearby small city. In 1999 we were invited to a 4th of July BBQ at the home of her former brother-in-law -- the father of the cop. The cop nephew was there, and somewhere along the line I asked him about the legality of transporting a handgun to a shooting range if I didn't have a carry permit (which I didn't, in 1999). He said, "No problem."
WRONG! In fact ... in this state it would have been (and still is today) a felony. I got my carry permit in 2000, so it hasn't been an issue, but his well-intended advice could have gotten me in deep doo-doo
Never ask a cop about the law...
-
That's the way it was in 1987 when I got my CT permit.
You had to have a permit to take a handgun out of your house. The permit was also a CCW permit.
-
That's the way it was in 1987 when I got my CT permit.
You had to have a permit to take a handgun out of your house. The permit was also a CCW permit.
Was your Connecticut permit valid in mid-Atlantic, at a depth of 600 feet?
-
That's not a "list," and it isn't a law in itself. It's the on-line index to Connecticut statutes on-line. The "list" is current, but each statute linked to is going to have its own, individual date of enactment, and then possible revision. Just for example, if you click the link to 53a-59 (the first statute addressing assault) you can see the legislative history following the text of the statute. Looks like it was originally enacted in 1960, then revised in 1980, 1992, 1994, 1995, and 1999.
So, not exactly new. Only 58 years old.
To reiterate: Never ask a cop about the law.
OK, Got it the first time.
As for it not being a "list," ; coulda fooled me. Sure looked like one.
LIST: (n.) A number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other.
Oxford American Dictionary third edition, page 1019.
Sorta guessin' I might be right, since I didn't ask a cop. ;)
-
Was your Connecticut permit valid in mid-Atlantic, at a depth of 600 feet?
I was on "shore duty" when I was stationed at Groton. I was an instructor at Sub School teaching a 14 week course on an electronic surveillance/counter measures system that was on 637 class fast attack subs.
-
As for it not being a "list," ; coulda fooled me. Sure looked like one.
LIST: (n.) A number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other.
Oxford American Dictionary third edition, page 1019.
In that vein, I guess we have to conclude that "All indexes are lists, but not all lists are indexes." The point remains that the link I provided was not to a law, but to the on-line index to Connecticut laws under one chapter of their statutes.
-
In that vein, I guess we have to conclude that "All indexes are lists, but not all lists are indexes." The point remains that the link I provided was not to a law, but to the on-line index to Connecticut laws under one chapter of their statutes.
:lol: I'll take off my pedant hat now..... >:D
-
For some reason I started thinking of technological solutions to the "won't give up the mic" problem.
Given that we're talking about the white house, money shouldn't be any real issue. How hard would it be to have an audio system with 2 "field" mics for handing out to the crowd, and the moment your questions are done - they kill the audio from that mic. IE You'd better speak loud if you want to be heard by more than your neighbors. You hand the second mic to the next reporter in line and turn that one on. Get the original mic back from the first reporter more or less at your leisure.
-
That would work but wouldn't be as entertaining as putting a taser in the mic.
-
A friend at work, who is a NPC, was up in arms about how this uncivility is all Trumps fault and how he is embarrassed by Trumps behavior.
Most every day “Joes” are so far gone I don’t even know what to say to them.
They think the USA is magic and will just keep rolling right along as if civilization just happens.
Meanwhile vampires, zombies and Orcs are running the media, the permanent government and working feverishly to regain the power they lost in ‘16.
And the NPC is worried about how realspeak looks.
just about sums it up.
Trump has merely decelerated the decline of western civilization - its impossible to stop.
too many npc and mere idiots.
the european caliphate will succeed, possibly in our lifetime and God only knows what will happen here.
-
That would work but wouldn't be as entertaining as putting a taser in the mic.
I'd watch White House press conferences a lot more if they did that... Hell, I'd watch a lot more press conferences in general if they did that. :rofl:
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/d61cbf917a991075eef6dee828a78197/tumblr_pi5noosV4B1x68wbro1_1280.jpg)
-
Don't know why they can't use a hand signal to the sound technician to cut that mic, with a couple of spares for the microphone lady to hand to less boorish questioners.
She could keep them in a microphone belt like a cartridge belt with wide loops.
-
Don't know why they can't use a hand signal to the sound technician to cut that mic, with a couple of spares for the microphone lady to hand to less boorish questioners.
She could keep them in a microphone belt like a cartridge belt with wide loops.
More fun to have a remote control taser in it.
-
More fun to have a remote control taser in it.
I still like the remote teaser.
-
"Drop it like it's hot!"
https://youtu.be/RaCodgL9cvk
-
Maybe even rig it up like a bark collar; the longer and/or louder you keep talking, the more powerful the shock.
<BZZT>
"We apologize for the smell, and the smouldering patch of carpet, but he was warned."
-
Maybe even rig it up like a bark collar; the longer and/or louder you keep talking, the more powerful the shock.
<BZZT>
"We apologize for the smell, and the smouldering patch of carpet, but he was warned."
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. KD5NRH for the Nobel Prize in Peacemaking.
-
Trump could take a page from Obama's play book and just not have regular press conferences.
Or, call a press conference and nobody from the administration show up.
Have the aide/intern with the best deadpan voice read articles from The Onion and Babylon Bee.
-
Trump really doesn't show himself as someone who attacks indirectly. When he enters a fight, he comes in swinging. The indirect attacks seem to be done by other people when everyone is looking at Trump.
I am a bit surprised by this story and where it might head. It seems to me that many assume a Federal judge will order Trump to give Acosta his press pass back. I would hope Trump would tell the judge to screw off, but who knows.
-
Trump really doesn't show himself as someone who attacks indirectly. When he enters a fight, he comes in swinging. The indirect attacks seem to be done by other people when everyone is looking at Trump.
I am a bit surprised by this story and where it might head. It seems to me that many assume a Federal judge will order Trump to give Acosta his press pass back. I would hope Trump would tell the judge to screw off, but who knows.
One might hold out some faint hope that a judge would rule according to the law. That would mean that CNN would have to show that some law was broken in giving Acosta the boot. "Freedom of the press" shouldn't cut it, IMHO. Acosta can still express his [misguided] opinions, on the air and in print. As I've noted before, only a very limited number of journalists are granted White House press passes. Getting one isn't a "right," it's a privilege. Abuse the privilege, get the boot. It works for me. CNN has no leg to stand on -- they can send someone else.
-
Well, Acosta got his pass back.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/11/16/federal-judge-gives-jim-acosta-cnn-the-lawsuit-decision-theyve-been-waiting-for-but-this-is-not-over/
-
Well, Acosta got his pass back.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/11/16/federal-judge-gives-jim-acosta-cnn-the-lawsuit-decision-theyve-been-waiting-for-but-this-is-not-over/
That doesn't mean Trump or Sanders has to call on Acosta or give him a mic. Also it's just an injunction (which I disagree with, BTW)
-
Don't acknowledge Acosta's presence. That would be beautiful. [popcorn] :rofl:
-
Does the Judge even have the right to do such a thing? Under what authority?
-
He's going to be absolutely insufferable now. Trump won't call on him, but he'll scream and yell and throw tantrums until somebody pays attention to him. I can't wait to see the first presser this guy attends . . . .
-
The White House should simply promulgate strict rules: "The management reserves the right to limit quantities in the interest of fairness. One to a customer." Hand out printed notices to each journalist as they enter, and note that the rule will be strictly enforced.
One question, no rebuttal. Journalist asks one question -- President (or Sanders) answers one question. At the conclusion of the ONE question, the microphone is taken away from the journalist. No follow-up on the answer. At the conclusion of the ONE answer, the microphone goes to the next journalist. Anyone who refuses to play by the rules is removed for the duration of that presser.
Make it a lottery -- each journo draws a number out of a fish bowl as they enter -- that determines the order in which they get the microphone. Just like the deli counter at the supermarket.
-
How about the journalist never even takes charge of the microphone. The intern just holds it out to them and takes it away when done.
I thought I heard today that Sanders was looking at new rules for the press conferences. The other journalist may regret this ever happening.
-
Acosta will never get called on or allowed to ask another question for as long as Trump is President.
-
Apparently the White House is working on rules, and they have said that anyone who can't/won't follow the rules will be removed.
They must be following this thread.
-
Apparently the White House is working on rules, and they have said that anyone who can't/won't follow the rules will be removed.
They must be following this thread.
I heard that too. It'll be interesting to see if Acosta becomes less popular with his fellow reporters when the WH institutes the old "lowest common denominator" method, limiting stuff for ALL reporters all because he always has to behave like a diva.
-
Does the Judge even have the right to do such a thing? Under what authority?
I'll wait for one of the legal schmeagles to address this, but I thought it was usually kinda-sorta "erring on the side of caution" to grant temporaries until all the facts can be heard formally. And basically, within cosmic limits, judges can do what they want, but they don't like to be overturned on appeal.
...
They must be following this thread.
I have no doubt that a lot of what goes on not only here but on other generally-conservative sites is seen by "officialdom" simply because of "officialdom's" search hits on prominent names.
Or maybe even hits on "230RN" and "Hawkmoon" as well as a few others here. :rofl:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2ahawaii.com%2Favs%2Favatar_23_1515081468.png&hash=80049140b235ab5bfb382e7a99bd50b773a07636)
Terry, 230RN
-
I heard that too. It'll be interesting to see if Acosta becomes less popular with his fellow reporters when the WH institutes the old "lowest common denominator" method, limiting stuff for ALL reporters all because he always has to behave like a diva.
You spelled dipshit wrong.
-
Acosta will never get called on or allowed to ask another question for as long as Trump is President.
"Hey intern. Hand Jim the mic just after we all walk out."
-
White House is apparently saying that once the judge's TRO expires Acosta will have to surrender his press credentials again.
:rofl:
-
According to Twitchy, Acosta will now have to follow some rules.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/11/19/think-jim-acosta-will-be-able-to-play-by-these-new-official-wh-press-conference-rules/
Please be advised of the following rules governing future press conferences:
(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permtted; and where a follow-up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) "Yielding the floor" includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
(4) Failure to abide by any rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist's hard pass.
Works for me.
-
Speaking of press passes and Acosta, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-alex-jones-press-credentials-and-sit-him-next-jim-acosta
:rofl:
-
I think the White House made a brilliant move. They're letting Acosta hang himself.
They didn't try to fight it out in court. Rather, they formally codified the rules and issued a neutrally-worded statement spelling out what had generally been the "understood" rules all along. I'm betting they will rigidly enforce them, at least for a while. Acosta will play nice for a week, maybe two. Then, when he thinks they've gone on to other things, he'll revert to his usual jackassery. That's when they have him dead to rights and CNN can't pull another "find a judge who agrees with us" stunt.
Brad
-
Speaking of press passes and Acosta, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-alex-jones-press-credentials-and-sit-him-next-jim-acosta
:rofl:
Nah; there have to be a couple of gaming newsletters that can provide obese, disturbingly hairy "reporters" with poor hygiene he can be wedged between.
-
"obese, disturbingly hairy "reporters" with poor hygiene he can be wedged between."
I thought Helen Thomas died...
-
"obese, disturbingly hairy "reporters" with poor hygiene he can be wedged between."
I thought Helen Thomas died...
But with some shovel work she can be there too!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But with some shovel work she can be there too!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope. Where do you think they're getting the spare parts for the Hillary Gollum.
-
Nope. Where do you think they're getting the spare parts for the Hillary Gollum.
Those parts are still moist?
-
Kind of like cottage cheese.
-
You guys are gonna make me slide my dinner. [barf]
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0pimq9mLbk
-
Kind of like cottage cheese.
Or a waffle?
-
ON a waffle
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NRwFsOLQxaA/hqdefault.jpg)