But I don't see reason to criticize a reg'l newspaper for covering reg'l news when nat'l coverage is easily available. I also think invoking the Church implies it is a criticism of the Church, not DN's editors.
But I don't see reason to criticize a reg'l newspaper for covering reg'l news when nat'l coverage is easily available. I also think invoking the Church implies it is a criticism of the Church, not DN's editors.
2. DN has editorial independence from the Church.
3. What's the goal of your post?
2. DN has editorial independence from the Church.
3. What's the goal of your post?
scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcont...
scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcont...
-She shouldn’t have done this.
-It was a hilarious moment, and any suggestion they were wronged by being shown is silly.
-The consequences she’s suffered (if the report is accurate) far outweighs anything she did. Shamed? Death threats? Defined by it forever?
-She shouldn’t have done this.
-It was a hilarious moment, and any suggestion they were wronged by being shown is silly.
-The consequences she’s suffered (if the report is accurate) far outweighs anything she did. Shamed? Death threats? Defined by it forever?
2. I really hope Democrats don't run on this. Not b/c it doesn't deserve to happen, but b/c our politics is worse when "Lock them up" is a platform. Win. Do it. But don't make it your identity.
2. I really hope Democrats don't run on this. Not b/c it doesn't deserve to happen, but b/c our politics is worse when "Lock them up" is a platform. Win. Do it. But don't make it your identity.