Should David Gregory be prosecuted?

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (61 posts)

0
JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
David Gregory, the host of Meet the Press, had an illegal AR magazine on his show. His staff called the DC police to ask if he could take it on the show, they said no, and he did it anyway. They declined to press charges, and are now being sued.

The plaintiffs state "The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice. If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded."

What do you think? Are some Americans just 'more equal' than others? Do you think your average gun-totin' Joe could have gotten away with having an illegal magazine?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/le … documents/
reply report
79
Mighty Momposted 10 years ago
Seriously?
Equal administration of justice! Ha ha. Doesn't exist.

Besides, he's press.
He was using the magazine for illustrative purposes, not to actually shoot anyone or anything, right?
A photo would not have had the same visual impact. This is TV, not ewspaper, after all.

Besides, doesn't freedom of the press trump any/all local laws?
I thought it was a blanket protector...
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much.
  
  I should do a segment where I show how easy it is to break into someone's house and steal their jewelry. I mean, freedom of the press, right?
  reply report
  81
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  People do it all the time...
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is perfectly legal, usually people add a disclaimer saying they are writing it for purely interest purposes or whatever.
  
  Evasion is a classic example, has lots on tips on how to live off petty crime.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No... I mean a video of myself breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff. Actually breaking the law, on video.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh ok well in that case making the video isn't a crime the crime is breaking and entering and theft. Nothing to do with freedom of the press.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Just like in the case of the media having an illegal magazine that's a crime. They claim it's ok though under freedom of the press.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago
There never has been equal justice under the law. As injustices go, this one doesn't bother me. I would consider it a waste of taxpayer money to prosecute.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's sad. All injustices bother me.
  
  If you say that one person is above the law but another isn't, that's not a free country.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Just the other day you were defending the right of sheriffs departments and local police to choose whether to enforce federal gun law, but if someone chooses not to do it to a liberal you are up in arms about it....
  
  Gees talk about hypocrisy.
  
  "Police often ignore many many crimes(like speeding, and perjury on gun-background checks). They are no worse than the rest of the country in that regard."
  JaxsonRaine
  
  That is pathetic
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, that's an issue of state rights vs federal rights. When I talk about state vs federal I'm talking about the way that I think it should be, based on the Constitution. Our federal government, backed by the Supreme Court, has mutilated that portion of the Constitution.
  
  Besides, that's true. It's no worse than the police who ignore other crimes.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I was referring to your quote, your quote says it's fine for police to choose not to pursue a crime but here you are making a thread about how it's really evil and unjust that they have done just that. Do you honestly not see the glaring double standard and the sickening hypocrisy?
  
  But the first issue mainly pertained to conservatives being convicted, this one pertains to a liberal so not convicting him is just so horrible.
  
  *facepalm*
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I addressed that, why ignore it?
  
  I said it's no worse, and that's true, it isn't any worse.
  
  But the underlying issue with that topic is the state vs federal rights, as well as the unconstitutionality of it.
  reply report
  79
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  David Gregory a liberal?
  I don't see him as liberal at all.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't you get the memo? Jaxson is never wrong and he is never hypocritical. I'm shocked you would think such a thing.
  
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I've admitted I was wrong before, but boy oh boy you sure love to speak poorly of me.
  
  Do you want to actually talk about it, or do you just want to be sarcastic?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I take it back, as it would be impossible for me to know if you've ever admitted you were wrong on the forums, since I don't read every post on the forums. However, I think you will argue the "legitimacy" of some statistics and data over others based on whether they support your argument rather than the actual level of legitimacy. I've seen that many times.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Think that if you want, I reject bad statistics no matter what conclusion they come to.
  
  Often people will mistake my using bad statistics that support my position to illustrate how invalid statistics mean nothing as my actually supporting those statistics, that's not the case.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You think you reject bad statistics.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You think I accept bad statistics.
  reply report
  79
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Might I suggest this classic. Required reading as part of my psych major way back when. Still relevant today.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic … 0393310728
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well actually I really would like you to admit to being a complete hypocrite by posting this thread claiming it was so unjust to not prosecute this man on this firearm offense after explicitly defending not prosecuting people for firearm offenses just a few weeks before.
  
  That is pretty darned bad.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I already addressed this, it's not hypocritical for several reasons. We can disagree on those reasons, but the frameworks for the two issues are completely different.
  
  Ideally, David Gregory shouldn't be prosecuted, because the law is unconstitutional... but he shouldn't get special treatment for being a member of the press, where the average citizen would have been arrested for doing the same thing.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You get sad about the most innocuous things. I live in the real world where people are not prosecuted for many different reasons. I get sad when corporate raiders are not prosecuted for stealing from workers' retirement accounts, for example, but I won't shed a tear over the lack of prosecution of David Gregory's crime.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, what about prior felons perjuring themselves on background checks for gun purchases... should they be prosecuted?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It would be a judgment call based on many factors: evidence, resources available to prosecute, seriousness of crime in relation to others that need to be prosecuted, likelihood of conviction, etc.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But you want more background checks and more gun control laws don't you?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not necessarily more. I'd be okay with repealing some and enacting others. I have my own ideas about what would work and what wouldn't. Doesn't mean I want more. Also doesn't mean I know I'm right, just that I have an opinion.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
Also Josak, I don't believe that unconstitutional laws should be enforced. According to the very foundation of this country, they are invalid from the moment they are put into law.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The constitution says that the Supreme court gets to decide what is constitutional by interpreting it, the supreme court has ruled that plenty of gun legislation is constitutional and the things people are looking to introduce (like the semi auto ban) they have validated before so the laws are constitutional, because the Supreme court says so and the constitution says they get to decide and on and on it goes.
  
  So that is a non starter as an argument. The laws are constitutional according to the constitution itself and it may surprise you but random people don't actually get to interpret the laws for themselves and go from what they make of it.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If the Supreme Court ruled a law allowing Congress to establish a national religion 'constitutional', that wouldn't make it constitutional. It would still be patently unconstitutional, and some serious changes would be needed. That's not how things are meant to work, that's pure corruption.
  
  The 2nd Amendment is very clear, and uses the strongest language of the time. In context with the history and writings of the founders, it is even more clear. They viewed guns as the ultimate protection of rights.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is a subjective moral reply to a concrete legal issue. Not factual and thus not valid as anything other than a personal opinion.
  
  The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" the first amendment says similarly "or abridging the freedom of speech" do you think that child pornography should fall into that category? how about death threats? or the famous shouting fire in a crowded theater, free speech can be regulated and so can guns and if the founding fathers didn't want the supreme court to decide what that means they wouldn't have made it so it did.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your examples are not examples of freedom of speech. Children cannot give consent or enter contracts. Death threats are issues of state law, but similarly were never considered free speech at the time of the founding of the Constitution or in common law. You are free to shout fire in a crowded theater(that's actually old, invalid case law, for your information), however you aren't free to induce panic.
  
  If you knew more about our Constitution and the writings of the framers, you would know that they knew no system was perfect, and they expected that the government would start infringing on our rights again at some point and need to be corrected. Some of them didn't expect our country to last more than 50 years before it needed another revolution. No matter what the SCOTUS says, it can't change objective fact. If the Constitution says '1+1=2' and SCOTUS rules that '1+1=3', then SCOTUS is wrong.
  
  Ironically, you miss the fact that the 2nd is the final check and balance against such corruption.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So to "defend" the constitution (or rather your interpretation of it) you would violate the constitution (by not following it's procedures on interpretation) and you need these guns so you can become a terrorist when you decide that the Supreme Court is wrong... You do realize that imposing violence on a democratic society is tyranny right?
  
  So you want to become a tyrant/terrorist to defend the constitution by violating the constitution to impose your interpretation of the constitution which the constitution itself says it should be interpreted by the actual expert judges of the SCOTUS who specialize on the constitution and it's writers.....
  
  That is a fantastic argument, I love it.
  
  This whole conversation has been so much fun.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It depends. If the government becomes too corrupt, it is up to the people to establish a new government. That premise is not just implied in the very founding of our country, it is immortalized in our Declaration of Independence.
  
  The Founding Fathers were traitors, and would have been called terrorists by today's standards. It just depends on who is writing about it.
  
  The Supreme Court is not the ultimate law of the land, contrary to what you seem to think. The Constitution is. If the Supreme Court rules that no citizens can own arms, or publish their political thoughts online, that would very clearly be in violation of the Constitution, and thus invalid.
  
  You act like the idea of corrupt government and revolution is alien to the founding of America, and would have been a revolting thought to the founders...
  
  1 - When it becomes necessary. Not if. It's inevitable, and the founders knew that. No government can forever be without tyranny.
  2 - It is our right to overthrow corrupt governments. More than that, it is our duty.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yup I have been a terrorist myself by some definitions but the important difference is always democracy, the founding fathers rebelled against a non representative state, people who impose violence on DEMOCRATIC governments (as I said before) are terrorists (barring election rigging or not being allowed to leave the country).
  
  The constitution is the highest law of the land, it says that the Supreme court get's to interpret it, the Supreme court justices are appointed by the elected representative of the people so they have both democratic and constitutional right to decide what the constitution means.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, it has nothing to do with a democracy or a monarchy or whatever type of government. Read it again.
  
  It has to do with a government that stops doing its job of protecting our rights. You argue against the founders with apparently no idea of their beliefs or what they actually set up, and why.
  
  If the Supreme Court decided that the press didn't have the right to print accusatory statements against the POTUS, that would be an invalid ruling, and an example of what the founders were talking about. You still don't understand, the Constitution is the ultimate law. What it speaks about, and what it represents, is ultimate, and that is that the rights of the people are truly the ultimate law of the land.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope that is simply legally false, you don't get to interpret the Constitution to your own liking, the constitution itself makes that quite clear and from a moral standpoint anyone who use violence against an elected governemnt is a tyrant, they are using force to attempt to impose their values and beliefs over that of the desires of the people.
  
  Some people just think they are so special and their ideas are so right that they are more equal than other people which is why they get to go shoot stuff when the people decide on something that disagrees with their (amateur) understanding of the constitution.
  
  So from a factual legal perspective and a subjective moral perspective you are wrong.
  
  Now I get to use your image so thanks for that
  reply report
  79
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  They viewed guns as the ultimate protection of rights.
  
  They viewed guns as necessary to protect our collective rights/freedom, specifically from government tyranny.
  It does not say guns are protected as the ultimate protection of individual
  rights in all cases against any and all threats, perceived or real.
  
  Interesting essay on the language changes to the 2nd Amendment from original
  intent to current incarnation.
  To draw a modern parallel: Looks like these talking points were heavily edited to
  remove offensive language!
  http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/origin … amendment/
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
I wish people would talk about the words of the founders more often. I wish they were taught more often.

Some of the wisest truths were evident in the founding of America.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah I like how one of them wanted land reform to redistribute by value or real property all land equally within America. A bit before his time was Thomas Paine.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
You're not responding to what I'm saying. You're just saying it's false.

Where in the founding documents or writings of the founders does it state that revolution against an elected government is immoral? It doesn't. Your view is antithetical to the core of America.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry did I say that the founding fathers said that at some point? You will have to point it out for me
  
  It may stun you but some of us have a comprehension of ethics and legitimacy of governance that extends a bit beyond the constitution.
  
  The people have the right to the government they wish, people who decide they are more right and others need to be made to live by their more right rules are terrorists and extremists.
  
  I am pretty sure none of the foundling fathers were keen on forcing your beliefs on a populace that rejected them.
  
  "People (experts who are indirectly elected by the people) understand the constitution differently to me I will shoot them until they change their mind and understand my interpretation is right"
  
  That is not a mature argument it's childish and tyrannical.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are trying to use the Constitution, and by extension the founders, to support your assertion that 'legitimate' rebellion cannot exist against a democracy... which just isn't correct. As far as the founding of America goes, there is no difference.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Given that the success of the American revolution was reliant on representation ( democracy being the primary means of representation) I think there really is a difference.
  
  But please justify to me how you believe it is right to use force to make the majority live one way when they want to live another.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You do know that the founding fathers didn't like democracy, right? They didn't want America to become a direct democracy.
  
  I believe it is justified to use force to establish a government that will protect the rights of all, if the current government is failing to do its duty. If people side with the current government, then they are siding with tyranny. So the idea of revolution isn't to force other people to do what you want, it is to keep them from forcing you to do what they want. It is protection of liberty for all.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  They established a constitutional republic where both the constitution and the Republic could be changed democratically so that is obvious nonsense.
  
  I am sure Muslim terrorists feel the same way, "for their own good we have to force people to accept our views because their current ones are wrong and evil".
  
  Not only is it insultingly paternalistic and arrogant it is completely incompatible with a large number of basic human rights like representative government.
  
  You want to take away people's right to represent themselves.
  
  SO if say tomorrow 90% of the population suddenly supported a government you considered tyrannical you would force them to live under your rules anyway? and when they inevitably rebelled on this system you forced on them you would use force to crush that too? Man you would make a great dictator, hell maybe we should make you King... Freedom by subservience to your beliefs YAY!
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Appeal to ridicule.
  
  The fact is, there is a line in the sand. That line is different for different people, but the government can only go so far before it needs to be overthrown. Reducing that to 'I'll shoot you if you disagree with me' is childish.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope that is your argument is most people disagree with you sufficiently it's time to pull out the guns. Because screw their right to live as they wish it's up to you to show them how they have to live. By force.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sufficiently, yes. At some point, a line is crossed, as outlined in our founding documents. When the government becomes tyrannical, and you can't change it through the existing processes, then that is the time to consider revolution. My thoughts on this are less severe than those of the founding fathers.
  
  You're still doing the appeal to ridicule though...
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously you can change it by the usual means because it's a democracy which means it can change if people want it to change.
  
  You are basically an extremist who wants to impose his beliefs on others by force, sorry not basically, exactly that. That is called tyranny, so you want to use violence to get rid of this perceived tyranny (that you believe exists and most people apparently do not) by being a tyrant.
  
  The founding fathers absolutely loved tyrants.
  
  It's not an appeal to ridicule it's an accurate assessment of a ridiculous extremist belief.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's the problem with democracy. Just because 51% of the people want to vote away rights doesn't make it right.
  
  I don't want to impose any belief on anyone, I just want the government to do its Constitutional duty, which is to protect our basic rights. If someone wants to be a tyrant and enforce their own restrictions on my rights, then yes I will take issue with them.
  
  You have the false impression that the majority is automatically right. And you have the false impression that the founding fathers would have agreed with you. It's so absurd it's almost laughable, that's in direct contrast to what they actually believed, said, and set up.
  
  It is appeal to ridicule because you misrepresent my position in a ridiculous, extreme manner.
  
  Can we just agree to disagree on this?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah man they guys who set up a country where leaders are chosen and everything can be changed by vote definitely disliked democracy even the constitution can be changed democratically.
  
  No your belief is simply ridiculous and extreme when you put in plain language it becomes apparent as such.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're just showing your ignorance. They disliked democracy. They said as much. They didn't set up a direct democracy.
  
  If the majority votes for tyranny, tyranny is still wrong.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  As I said you can opine that tyranny is wrong all you like(however you choose to define the term) but A) you don't get to define the term for everyone else B) you don't get to become a tyrant yourself to impose your ideals on the country C) Your personal definition is just that, personal, and really most people don't care what it is so shoving it down their throats by force is simple violence on innocents.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
Josak, seriously, if you want to talk about the US Constitution, read about it first.

It was never set up as a democracy. It was never set up as being able to be changed democratically. There was never a provision for a popular vote for amendments.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not popular vote and I never said there was but there is a referendum process that revolves on democratically elected legislatures so it's a democratic method of changing the constitution.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Our entire system is different than what was originally set up... you keep trying to attribute how things are now to how they were. They are vastly different.
  
  Besides, the point still stands. Just because the majority votes for tyranny doesn't make tyranny right.
  
  I'm done, I can't listen to this anymore. It's literally painful to read the errors you are posting about the founding of my country.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope that method of changing the constitution was set up at the original constitutional convention and they agreed there needed to be a way of doing this again in the future.
  
  Tyranny and right are your personal subjective definitions you have zero right to force them on anyone else, period.
  
  Good excuse man
  
  But just to reiterate for any sane person that might stumble on this mess, forcing your views on a populace that disagrees with them using violence is always wrong it's tyrannical and sets up dictatorial or non representative government. No if buts or maybes.
  reply report
51
Lie Detectorposted 10 years ago
Shouldn't be prosecuted because its a stupid law!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Should David Gregory be prosecuted?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Should David Gregory be prosecuted?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies