You’ll probably be lambasted as being an “injury-truther” but I agree. I've seen far too many, and this wasn't particularly bad. Unfortunate, yes, but not graphic in the sense of most we've seen with limbs protruding at peculiar angles.
You’ll probably be lambasted as being an “injury-truther” but I agree. I've seen far too many, and this wasn't particularly bad. Unfortunate, yes, but not graphic in the sense of most we've seen with limbs protruding at peculiar angles.
Thesaurus gone wild on a Gawker property, again.
Allred is both competent and a vulture, which is really just the nature of the beast.
They should have just started there.
For some reason I found that to be more offensive, but perhaps I read into it too much.
Summarily? That sure doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Should it surprise anyone that a Donald Trump supporter has a personal chef who ascribed to pseudo-science when making dietary choices?
I’m good with that. I just don’t feel it’s absurd to question the time it’s taken to circle these wagons. Maybe I’m wrong.
Integrity in reporting matters and seems like solid reasoning to wonder why this wasn’t expressed before and/or the validity of the entire investigation. I want to believe what is reported is true but certain circumstances can call it into question. Especially given how 2015 wasn’t exactly a banner year for solid…
That’s nice context but what makes it okay now? If it’s worrisome to acknowledge in general, why is 1 week too soon but 2 weeks adequate?
That doesn’t explain why Sly came off as “so damn incompetent.” You’re merely parroting the reason as to why the other source wasn’t shown.
Couldn't you say that about any outlet? FoxNewss conservative veneer. MSNBC centrist with a pseudo-liberal veneer. Gawker with a SJW veneer. Vice with a coke rimmed veneer. Etc.
Diana does some good work, but her season 1 criticisms came across as jealous/territorial and not as pointed as one would have liked.
Paula and by extension you are making terrible assumptions about his “saved” money by renting that could (but is rarely ever) invested elsewhere. It also ignores that focusing on the early stage of the mortgage skews the data toward renting when the full first 10/15 years ruins that theory.
Is that really indicative of much? People skew more conservative as they age, particularly once they assume some form of power they themselves need to control.