╌>

What Frank Stallone said is despicable and I call on the Lomita Community Blood Bank to boycott him and no longer buy his plasma

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  johnrussell  •  8 years ago  •  83 comments

What Frank Stallone said is despicable and I call on the Lomita Community Blood Bank to boycott him and no longer buy his plasma


What Frank Stallone said is despicable and I call on the Lomita Community Blood Bank to boycott him and no longer buy his plasma





-------






It’s a very telling problem when Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham, Frank Stallone and the whole of the MAGA crowd have more hatred and animosity directed at David Hogg for seeking gun reform than a killer like Nikolas Cruz (who is getting piles of fan mail).

------------------

Frank Stallone, life long Hollywood wannabe, has locked his twitter account. 

DZplPQYW4AENxJX.jpg




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    8 years ago

My thoughts and prayers are with today as he struggles with the senseless tragedy of being .

If Ted Nugent and Laura Ingraham had a child it would be Tomi Lahren.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

Ted Nugent says the Florida students calling for gun control have "no soul" and are "mushy brained children."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    8 years ago

Frank Stallone is a 67 year old man who tried to create a Hollywood and music career on the coat tails of his famous older brother.  And now he talks about beating up a 17 year old boy. 

Can't America, MAGA style, do any better than this? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Quiet
3  Paula Bartholomew    8 years ago

I have met Frank on more than one occasion at a job site.  He was funny, entertaining, and genuinely nice.  It saddens me to learn this side of him. crying

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    8 years ago

He must have got carried away by wanting to make America great again. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    8 years ago

Yeah?  I wonder what his position is on allowing terrorists to buy guns in America, since the NRA is all for it.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
4.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    8 years ago

Sure they are....

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Cerenkov @4.1.1    8 years ago
Sure they are....

When was the last time you heard the NRA come out and say that we need restrictions on gun purchases to prevent mass shootings? 

*crickets*

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    8 years ago
Yeah?  I wonder what his position is on allowing terrorists to buy guns in America, since the NRA is all for it.

Send him an email and ask him.  That aside, he does have a point.  How did France's laws stopped the shooting?  It apparently didn't do a damn thing.  And we will have the same result here in the US.  Firearms are banned from school property everywhere (aside from weapons carried by law enforcement).  That obviously didn't matter to Nikolas Cruz.  And we already know enforcement of any new laws won't happen.  Hell, they barely enforce existing laws so what would make any new ones special?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.3    8 years ago
How did France's laws stopped the shooting?

48% of all civilian owned guns, world wide are owned by US citizens which comprises less than 5% of the total population of the planet. Also, 31% of all mass shootings, world wide, are here in the USA, again, with just 5% of the global population. Gun homicide rates in the USA are 25.2 times hire than the next country in the list, Finland. Australia had four mass shootings between 1987 and 1996 and the citizens were appalled. They changed the laws, and haven't had a mass shooting since. We had 4 mass shootings LAST MONTH and the right sees absolutely no problems with it all. That's insanity and stupidity. Hell, most are screaming that we need even MORE guns! We have heard for DECADES the constant, "more guns means less crime!!!!", guess what? It's not true, the more guns we have the more crime committed with guns we have. It really is shocking that the gun freaks are so fucking stupid that they cannot seem to figure out even that most basic of concepts. 

ar15.png IMG_20171005_131904.jpg IMG_20171005_131839.jpg

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
4.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    8 years ago

Why don’t you just ask your leader?

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.1.7  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    8 years ago

NRA owns most of congress.  They voted.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.4    8 years ago

You posted all that and STILL didn't answer the question you quoted.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    8 years ago
Don't be so damn ridiculous.

Being ridiculous is all they have.  This is a group of people more afraid of an inanimate object than the safety of others.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.9    8 years ago
You posted all that and STILL didn't answer the question you quoted.

Actually, I did. You claim, they had one shooting, (actually they have had more than one), compared to the USA? That's NOTHING. Is it legal to drive drunk? No. Do we still have drunk drivers? Yes. No law will stop all shootings, but they can be mitigated by limiting the TYPES of weapons people can buy. You do NOT need a AR to defend your home, hunt or anything else. If you cannot defend your family, home or self with a shotgun, hand gun or rifle, (or any combination of the three)...NO weapon is going to protect you. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.13  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.4    8 years ago

You remember the old song from Sesame Street? One of these things just doesn't belong. Try and figure out why the right to own weapons is far more important than the other issues you tried to equate with it.

Let me help you because I have a feeling you will get stumped...Gun ownership is a Constitutional right. The others? Not so much.

Education session over. You're welcome.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.14  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    8 years ago

Quit making fake shyt up.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.12    8 years ago
Actually, I did

Actually you didn't.  Because the laws didn't stop the shooting.  Same thing will happen here in the US as we've already seen on several occasions.  But you keep spinning it.

You do NOT need a AR to defend your home, hunt or anything else.

And that is your opinion.  I still have one and live in a gated community with much larger weapons than an AR-15 within it's perimeter.

 
 
 
Old Hermit
Sophomore Silent
4.1.16  Old Hermit  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.2    8 years ago

When was the last time you heard the NRA come out and say that we need restrictions on gun purchases

Maybe 1967?

.

Did the NRA Support a 1967 'Open Carry' Ban in California?
A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year.

http://hiphopandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-06-at-4.52.04-AM.png

screenshotwww.snopes.com20180402012011.jpg

The always-tendentious gun control debate came to the fore in U.S. politics once again in February 2018, after 17 people were killed in a Valentine’s Day mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Most of the victims were under age 18.

Many Americans, including young survivors of the attack, called for more stringent gun control laws to make it harder to obtain rapid-fire weapons such as the legally-purchased semiautomatic rifle used in the Florida shooting. For its part, the National Rifle Association (America’s most powerful and deep-pocketed gun rights lobbying group) fell back on the well-trodden argument that more guns, not fewer guns — in the hands of teachers and armed guards in schools, for example — was the best way to ameliorate the gun violence issue.

Over the past 50 years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has opposed most legislative efforts to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, regardless of the justification. But, as gun control advocates were quick to point out in the wake of the Florida shooting, a notable exception occurred in 1967:

Social media postings noted that in contrast to their current policy of backing laws that allow citizens to openly carry loaded firearms in public, in 1967 the NRA supported a statewide ban on open carry in California after armed members of the Black Panther Party started patrolling city streets to counter police brutality. A Facebook meme hammered the point home with an image of Black Panthers brandishing weapons in the California state capitol:

It’s true that the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association.

The bill was introduced in April 1967, six weeks after it had been reported that an armed group of Black Panthers acting as an escort for Malcolm X’s widow, Betty Shabazz, were involved in tense, nonviolent confrontations with airport security officers and police in San Francisco. As leftist writer Sol Stern later noted in Ramparts, “Local cops were dumbfounded to discover that there was no law which prohibited the Panthers from carrying loaded weapons so long as they were unconcealed, a legal fact which the Panthers had carefully researched.”

In a statement quoted by Associated Press, a Panther spokesman said, “The cops asked us what we were doing and we told them. ‘We’re exercising our constitutional rights and we’re not going to take any bull.'”

The Mulford Act was designed to impose a limits on those very constitutional rights in the state of California, establishing that “every person who carries a loaded firearm on his person while on a public street, or in a public place within any city or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in an inhabited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Recognizing that they were its primary targets, the Black Panthers protested the Mulford bill by sending an armed contingent to the state capitol on 2 May 1967. That was a day Ronald Reagan would never forget — nor, for that matter, remember accurately.

This is how he described the event and its aftermath in a personal letter written in 1979:

The Black Panthers had invaded the legislative chambers in the Capitol with loaded shotguns and held these gentlemen under the muzzles of those guns for a couple of hours. Immediately after they left, Don Mulford introduced a bill to make it unlawful to bring a loaded gun into the Capitol Building. That’s the bill I signed. It was hardly restrictive gun control.

It wasn’t true, however, that the Black Panthers had held legislators “under the muzzles of guns” for hours. They were disarmed by the capitol police soon after entering the building, and, according to most contemporaneous accounts (including that of the Associated Press) were escorted out of the chambers 30 minutes later:

About 40 Negroes — armed with loaded rifles, shotguns and pistols — walked into the state capitol at noon Tuesday. A half dozen went into the Assembly chamber while the House was in session.

They identified themselves as members of the “Black Panther Party” from Oakland, Berkeley and Richmond and said they were protesting “racist Oakland police” and demonstrating for the right to bear arms.

State capitol police herded the men out of the chamber and took many of their guns away. There were shouted protests and some struggling but no violence.

The police took the men and guns to the capitol police office, unloaded some of the guns and gave them back.

The Negroes left the capitol about half an hour after entering and just before Gov. Ronald Reagan came out on the lawn to meet some visiting school children.

Reagan called the demonstration “a ridiculous way to solve problems.”

Assemblyman Don Mulford, sponsoring a bill protested by the Negroes, called it “the worst invasion of the legislature in its history.”

.........................

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.17  Randy  replied to  Old Hermit @4.1.16    8 years ago
A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year.

Don't you know? The NRA means open carry for WHITE people only! If a bunch of angry Black folks show up exercising their rights to "Open Carry" then of course they are criminals looking to start a bloodbath!

The right to Open Carry depends on what race you are and how many of you there are. Two or three White guys in cowboy hats and boots at a Dunkin' Donuts? Fine! Fifty Mongols Club riders with sidearms and shotguns on Harleys riding down the highway? Throw all of the fuckers in jail! I mean armed Hispanics? Who the Hell do they think they are anyway? Even if they are all citizens they might start thinking they have the same rights to Open Carry as real Americans do soon and we can't have that!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
4.1.18  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.14    8 years ago

Quit making fake shyt up.

Are you talking to me or Donald?

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.19  Randy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.18    8 years ago

Does he know?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Quiet
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    8 years ago

No, pathetic and disgusting is the number of young people being wiped out by gun violence in their schools.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    8 years ago
No, pathetic and disgusting is the number of young people being wiped out by gun violence in their schools.

See  4.1.3 .  

Not really.  What's actually pathetic and disgusting is that WE (all of us) have allowed our culture to devolve to this point.  Most of us don't know our neighbors names and won't do anything if a problem is among us.  Law enforcement let us down during the Valentines Day shooting.  For the others, WE let us down.  It wasn't the gun. It was US for not being ore observant of our surroundings and allowing it to happen.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.1    8 years ago
It was US for not being ore observant of our surroundings and allowing it to happen.

So we should blame the victims? If it were a rape would you be whining about how her skirt was too short and she was asking for it? The majority of mass shootings have one thing in common that is different than single incidents of gun violence, the shooters prefer assault rifles to maximize their casualties on random victims. The AR-15 has been used in nearly every mass shooting in the last few years. Why an AR-15 when you can but hunting rifles with the same capabilities but don't look like weapons of war, they just look like hunting rifles? It's because mass shooters want to imagine themselves waging war on society which is why they gravitate to weapons that look like they're right out of a Rambo movie. We've banned toy gun manufacturers from making guns that look too realistic, especially ones that look like assault rifles, but we refuse to regulate real guns that attract mentally ill or extremist shooters. Why is that?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.1    8 years ago
It wasn't the gun.

I wonder how many students would have been shot if that moron didn't have easy access to a gun? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.2    8 years ago
If it were a rape would you be whining about how her skirt was too short and she was asking for it?

Yeah....no.  But I can see how your mentality would make the connection.  

The majority of mass shootings have one thing in common that is different than single incidents of gun violence, the shooters prefer assault rifles to maximize their casualties on random victims.

Two things all mass shootings have in common is the SHOOTER and a gun that, without the shooter, will just sit there.  You really need to get your priorities straight.  You don't go after the car after a drunk driver runs a family down do you?  No you go after the drunk.  This is the same thing.  You don't go after the gun (as afraid of it as you might be (and apparently it terrifies you)), you go after the the shooter.  Quit going for the easy target and go after the real problem.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.3    8 years ago
I wonder how many students would have been shot if that moron didn't have easy access to a gun?

You actually think THAT is the problem?  If Cruz really wanted to shoot up the school, he would have found a gun regardless.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.5    8 years ago
You actually think THAT is the problem?  If Cruz really wanted to shoot up the school, he would have found a gun regardless.

Thanks, you just completely proved my point. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.2.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.4    8 years ago
You don't go after the car after a drunk driver runs a family down do you?

I would if the car was specially designed for maximum carnage. If it had sharp spikes on the front end and blades on the hubcaps along with touch triggered explosives in the bumpers, sure, I'd go after that to try and minimize damage. If that was just sitting on every car lot well within any Jo Shmoes budget and we had tens of thousands of them roaming our streets I definitely think I'd vote to ban them. Not all cars, just the ones that crazy people and extremists frequently choose murder lots of people with. I'm sure there are plenty of law abiding people who would buy one and only drive it around on their property and never bump anything with it, but do they really have to have that kind of thing just to feel complete? They have a yard full of cars, do they really need the murder-mobile? Is that really what the constitution is supposedly protecting?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    8 years ago

Well, more stupid gun laws and bans will not make a dent in how many adults and kids get killed, because the nutting anti-gun crowd is not taking this problem seriously. They just feel they must do "something" even if "something" is ineffective or won't work.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.9  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.4    8 years ago

And a shooter with no gun shoots no one. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.10  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.8    8 years ago

Ok, what's the solution? What will stop mass shootings? Do tell. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.2.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.7    8 years ago
I would if the car was specially designed for maximum carnage.

No you wouldn't.  Don't even try to feed that bullshit.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.9    8 years ago
And a shooter with no gun shoots no one.

And a determined shooter will find a gun regardless of bans or laws.  So go after the shooter instead of the tool.  I know that's the hard road to take but it needs to be taken.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.14  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.13    8 years ago
I know that's the hard road to take but it needs to be taken.

Yea, it is especially in a country where there is almost literally a gun for every man, woman and child in the country. That's what happens when you have right wing lunatics screaming, "2nd Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More guns means less crime!!!!!!!!!!" for the last 40 years. Idiots. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Quiet
4.3  pat wilson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    8 years ago

Jesse Hughes apologizes for “mean-spirited and personal attack” against student protestors of gun violence

ON MARCH 31, 2018, 4:44PM
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  pat wilson @4.3    8 years ago

Doesn't change the fact he made a very good point. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Quiet
4.3.2  pat wilson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3.1    8 years ago

Of course it does, he apologized.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
5  Hal A. Lujah    8 years ago

If Ted Nugent and Laura Ingraham had a child it would be Tomi Lahren.

laughing dude

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Quiet
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5    8 years ago

or Roseanne Barr

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    8 years ago

I think the cons forgot about her disrespecting the flag, spitting on the ground and grabbing her crotch..... Classy.. /s 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5    8 years ago

Soledad O’Brien  gave Fox News host  Tomi Lahren  a serious social media eye roll when the controversial commentator called herself a leader who has mastered the art of taking criticism.

Lahren tweeted: “If you want to be a leader of a movement, you have to open yourself up for criticism and challenge. Lord knows I take my fair share of attacks and I’m okay with that. It’s what we signed up for. Buck up.”

Soledad-Obrien-Tomi-Lahren-696x392.jpg

The CNN commentator clapped back: “Girl, Please. You are leading nothing.”

In other words, talk to the hand Tomi.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Silent
6  PJ    8 years ago

Who?  I'm familiar with David Hogg but I don't know who Frank Stallone is.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Participates
6.1  Raven Wing   replied to  PJ @6    8 years ago

He's the Brother of Sylvester Stallone.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Silent
6.1.1  PJ  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1    8 years ago

Ah.....a wannabe.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Quiet
6.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  PJ @6    8 years ago

He had a part in the movie Staying Alive (Sequel to Sat Night Fever).  He played in the band that the character of Jackie sang with.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Silent
7  magnoliaave    8 years ago

Too funny.  The blood bank!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8  Dismayed Patriot    8 years ago

I find it funny how so many conservatives get bitter and angry about millions of Americans using their freedom to choose not to buy products that are associated with people or organizations they feel do not reflect their values. It is about the most democratic and capitalist remedy possible but because it hurts their bottom line they get all butt hurt and gnash their teeth at the loss of revenue. If they want to complain they should do it with their wallets. In this polarized environment we'll get to see which companies fold first, the ones conservatives support or the ones progressives support.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9  JBB    8 years ago

For those who never knew, Frank Stallone is Sly Stallone's drug addled brain damaged loser brother...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10  bugsy    8 years ago

Standing ovation for Frank Stallone. More than likely, far more people agree with him than do not.

This kid is being led by the nose by liberal handlers and his mind is being more brainwashed than it may have ever been.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1  JBB  replied to  bugsy @10    8 years ago

The pro kid killer side of the argument had do stoop pretty low to get Frank Stalone as spokesperson...

I don't guess they could get Brad Pitt to come out in favor of guns over the lives of a bunch of children...

I guess demonizing kid who survived Parkland's massacre required someone of gravitas and stature /s...

Let's see. On your side are Frank Stalone, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham. On our side? Decent humanity.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Kavika   replied to  JBB @10.1    8 years ago

Frank Stallone...4th rate ''star''

Ted Nugent...Draft dodger and all around asshole

Laura Ingraham...Learning that there can and will be concequences to what you say.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.2  bugsy  replied to  JBB @10.1    8 years ago

Not sure what you mean by "your side". My side is the Constitution and what it stands for. Seems "your side" is a whiny , bratty left wing lemming liberal who has far more unknowns about him than what we do know  about him now running the democratic party. Bet that makes you feel "manly".

Liberalism needs to go the way of an attractive liberal woman....extinct...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Kavika @10.1.1    8 years ago

Who cares "who" these people are. All of America, well, except for the fringe left, know that this kid will be nothing but a distant memory in a few weeks time. Of course, liberals are going to be desperate to keep him in the spotlight because, well, they have no one else.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Kavika @10.1.1    8 years ago
Laura Ingraham...Learning that there can and will be concequences to what you say.

Ingraham repeated what Hogg posted. According to Hogg, that means war. Poor little Hogg.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
10.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.4    8 years ago

Hogg's a whiny little libby piggy. Oink! Oink!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.4    8 years ago

Ahhhh, poor little Laura....Hope she enjoys her vacaction. LOL

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.5    8 years ago

You make a great pig sound Gregg, keep up the great work. We have a hog calling contest next month you could be a contender...LOL

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.8  Kavika   replied to  bugsy @10.1.3    8 years ago

Gee you don't care who these people are...It's great that you think a draft dodger is some type of ''American''...LOL

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.1.9  Jasper2529  replied to  Kavika @10.1.6    8 years ago
Ahhhh, poor little Laura....Hope she enjoys her vacaction. LOL

I'm sure she will. For all you and I know, she had scheduled her vacation long before Hogg threw another one of his hissy fits.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.9    8 years ago

Maybe she did or didn't...Still hope that she enjoys it...She has time to contemplate the loss of sponsors.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @10.1.6    8 years ago

A  lip balm and tic tac tour to save the remaining advertisers.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Kavika @10.1.8    8 years ago
It's great that you think a draft dodger is some type of ''American''..

He was born in this country, was he not? That makes him an American. Are you saying Bill Clinton is not an American? After all, he avoided the draft just as much if not more than Trump did.

Muhammed Ali, Bruce Springsteen, John Wayne, Bernie Sanders...all draft dodgers...not American?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Expert
10.1.13  Kavika   replied to  bugsy @10.1.12    8 years ago
He was born in this country, was he not? That makes him an American. Are you saying Bill Clinton is not an American? After all, he avoided the draft just as much if not more than Trump did.

Yes as far as I know he was born in the U.S. I also think that he's a POS. But if you think he's ok, that's entirely up to you

Cheers

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
11  Split Personality    8 years ago

laura-ingraham-calls-out-parkland-shooting-survivor-david-hogg-says-he-whines-about-college-rejections /

The article includes LI's tweet which she linked to the Daily Wire article.

The Daily Wire article does not include any suggestion that Hogg was whining - in fact it looks almost identical to the original TMZ article about Hogg's college applications which include

4 rejections by UC schools, and acceptances by UC San Marcos, Cal Poly and Florida Atlantic University.

Laura Ingraham owns the whining tweet and the conditional and self serving attempt to apologize.

" On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David... immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy. As always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion. WATCH: https:// youtu.be/K0v7yxczipo  

 
 

Who is online