Can't remember if I've responded to this yet. But she's out of the kill shelter and at a vet getting spayed. She has a lot of patches of missing hair, but it's not mange so that's good. She's staying with the vet for a few days for monitoring, but she should be coming home to us this weekend.
Now, imagine you’re back in the 50s as a kid and somebody lectures you there wasn’t systemic racism anymore because they remember growing up when slavery was legal.
The RV crew has decided to adopt this goofy weim tonight. She’ll be coming home with me to live with all my other weims, but we’re having trouble contacting the host. If anybody can do something she’s going to be the official surly horns rv dog
Um...so how do they launch the drone? Or set the "fuse?" They'd have to be assembled on the ground. Pretty sure it's just to keep the mine from flipping around in the air to make sure it lands on a particular spot. The smaller pole also looks like it has little fan blades in the tip which would also suggest they're for stability.
The letterhead stuff cracks me up. How much you wanna bet it was just some staffer that always cuts and pastes from a previous word document? That's how I put letter head on shit. I've occasionally grabbed an outdated one that had an old address or missing one of the cities we have offices in without noticing.
I don't even understand what implication he's making that it was done intentionally. How does Paxton's name missing change anything about the document? If anything, that just seems like a super lame troll attempt.
I'm still a good bit behind, but I don't agree at all. I think Buzbee is flailing around with theatrics while the witness is handling the questioning just fine. I mentioned gas-lighting earlier, and Buzbee is excellent at it. Don't let that fool you
No. Not so far, at least. Buzbee is very talented at making it sound like he caught the witness in a lie when they aren't. It's a master-class in gaslighting.
Spent the weekend with some R friends and they were universally anti-Paxton. Each of them said they have mostly always agreed with his politics (forcing me to struggle mightily not to derail the conversation), but said this was just too much and he should be removed. Plus, they were all Westlake grads and two of them had been friends with Nate Paul back in the day. Not sure if that changes the dynamic one way or the other, but I thought it was an interesting side note.
It doesn't mean we HAVE to do something either. This is a law that will be very hard to reverse regardless of if/when our politics change. How many politicians are going to run on a platform that will inevitably be labeled as "making it easier for kids to watch porn?"