Corrections Corner: Robin Roberts is with CBS, not NBC.

When watching it, she totally reminded me of an exasperated parent letting a child have their tantrum.  She knew it would be good TV to let it continue.

He may say the same about her one day.

Gayle’s face when he said he loves “all women”!  She almost let her journalist mask slip into her are you fucking kidding me nee-grow face.  She seemed on the verge of exasperation during the whole thing.  Like she was dealing with a child having a tantrum and she knew she had to let him speak because it would make…

She went about this the wrong way, but I think it’s important to acknowledge this history when giving tours of government buildings built by slaves. She (or the governor’s office) should have involved historians and education experts on the best way to have children experience something like this. Telling children to…

Some people have an aura about them that makes the pet names seem friendly and endearing while with others you know they’re being bitchy.  It’s a combination of tone, context and their general personality I guess.  But you immediately know it when you see it.

You make a good point with whether there’s a possibility of seeming threatening. And when you’re a customer talking to someone who’s at work, the bar for potentially threatening is low because the customer has the power to affect your job.

A waiter recently called me and my mom “girls”, and the looks we gave him put a stop to that pretty quickly.

The 80s really had me thinking adulthood was hanging around in satin pajamas listening to the quiet storm with your man/woman.  What a cruel joke reality was.

I thought she meant the slur for gay people, but you’re right she probably meant fuck.

She’s doing so much fast talking she can’t keep up with herself.

Almost as bad as the version of Scrubs without Left Eye’s verse.

Does anyone know why Matt Jackson is not included?

The image being in public domain doesn’t affect the person’s right not to have their likeness and name used for commercial purposes without their permission. That just means the person who created the image (who may not be the person depicted in the image) doesn’t have a copyright claim.

The Meghan portrait is this generation’s version of grandma’s Martin Luther King plates hanging in the dining room.

 I would not have recognized her!  Did she get the wig to disguise the additional work she got done?

If they have the balls to be provocative they should have the balls to stand by it.  They knew there would be a reaction, they got the one they wanted and NOW they want to retract it.  BS.

That’s valid.  I thought Avenatti gave CNN the tape while telling them what it is.  Even in that situation, I think it’s iffy for them to take possession and watch it.

I don’t think they are immune, and I don’t see how they (Avenatti or CNN) took possession of the tapes without committing a crime.  Unless they viewed it with the cops, and that would be horrible that the cops let the media view a child rape video.

That is not true