Hey: relax yourself. You have a right to your opinion. I disagree with it, but you do you. You raised valid points. And no one is piling on you, you’ve had maybe three people disagree with you and one person put up the video for reference.

Thanks for posting this! I would have myself, but my phone kinja skills are lacking.

She still throws a mean right cross:

I see his use of that word in Blazing Saddles in much the same way he uses Nazis in Springtime: it’s an indicator of someone buffoonish and deserving to be mocked (if I remember correctly, the only people to use that word were the things and the idiot townsfolk). The problem with Blazing Saddles was that the joke was…

Her videos are the best! She’s doing an awesome series on Michael Bay films right now (her disdain is delicious).

Which is fair enough. For him, that was a line he could not cross, and having those lines in comedy are wise, if just for the quality of the humor. Jon Stewart pointed out that having certain boundaries makes for better improv (the rules focusing a joke writers attention, so to speak). Even with jokes about the…

Exactly. That sums it up perfectly. I know a lot of white people (more specifically non-minority people) get angry they don’t get to play by the same rules, but so what? They made the rules that dictate how society functions. They can stand not getting to use racial slurs.

No, Mel Brooks makes fun of the Nazis, but he’s never made a Holocaust joke. He actually very publicly criticized doing that when he discussed Life is Beautiful. He doesn’t find much about the Holocaust funny. It also misunderstands why he mocks the Nazis (to rob them of their power; he thanked Hitler for making him…

Lindsay Ellis (the former Nostalgia Chick now rocking an awesome solo channel) just did a fantastic video on YouTube covering this concept. It came out well before Maher slipped up, but it still applies.

This is the textbook example of a Fourth Amendment rights violation.

Posted this on Gizmodo, reposting it here, because I think this question needs to be asked far and wide:

...identity them?

It’s just occurred to me that Macron has a very, distinctly Gallic profile. That is a true Frenchman’s nose, right there.

Ha ha! Oh...I’m sad now.

Do you think, if we’re really lucky, she’ll quit? Like, all the stress will finally get to her, and she’ll just say fuck it and leave?

No, it’s your turn now. You wanted to do this, so fucking finish it. Why don’t you call me a fascist? Or keep using the same fucking accusation over and over again without adding to it? ‘You did this, you did do this, you did, you did, you did!’ You’re a fucking child, you’re a goddamned troll, and congratulations, I…

I have no doubt of that, and it’s something that shouldn’t be ignored in the historiography of him. That being said, that’s the opinion held of him by his contemporaries on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. And if you’re trying to persuade people in choosing the side of the argument that history will deem correct, it…

One can only hope. The primary thing that is needed to push the investigation forward is an independent commission. It is possible for the investigation to be kicked off down the line so much that, by the time any leeway is made on it, it’s far too late to do anything.

Who are you? What is your deal? You are completely baffling to me. I presented something pointing out and criticizing the current Republican leadership, but you have no ability to get past the manner in which I criticize them? Are you really so dense and close-minded as to see that I was not being an apologist for…

Consider yourself lucky: we have to contend with Cruz and Cornyn in Texas.