"Hank's wife."

Eight minutes?! You lucky average bastards. It usually takes me four to five hours.

Yeah, that was unexpected, considering the source. Although, I guess I could see Yorke being a fan of Disco Volante.

Perhaps the only animated show besides the Simpsons that figured out how to make the cliche annoying/wet-blanket wife generally likeable.

The gf is super-excited about that one. My understanding is that some sort of very limited theatrical release is in the works. Meaning, I assume, the Netflix stream will be projected onto a big screen. Google turns up nothing new, however.

I always thought Grey Worm vaguely resembled Obama. Both are eunuchs, although GW is obviously quite bad-ass.

A Lannister pays his debts. She should have known better.

And so a constitutional amendment is necessary why? (Rhetorical; not directed at you specifically. You sound reasonable, but I could be wrong.)

Yeah, that's what I thought he said. "Corporations do not have First Amendment protection because corporations should not have First Amendment protection," is what he's essentially saying. That assumes the truth of the assertion at issue. Textbook illogic.

I'm starting to suspect that the AV Club only cares about page views and not quality. Must investigate further….

Well, so long as we're making appeal-to-authority arguments, I'd just refer you to the Yale Law Journal piece I linked to below by one of the expertiest experts in the field of First Amendment law.

OK, better. I don't think you really gave much thought when you wrote the phrase "legal truism," so I'll let that go. But still … How is the CU ruling — corporate speech is protected by the First Amendment — a "false premise"? It's not a premise, it's a conclusion. Are you trying to say that, while corporations do…

Are you now just typing words that sound like something a lawyer would say? I don't know who "they" are. I don't know what the "false premise" is supposed to be. I don't know what you mean by "legal truism."

It's a suuuuuuper liberal interpretation of the First Amendment that even the dissent admitted was backed up by decades of precedent.

You clearly have not actually read the Citizens United decision. It is fundamentally and wholly a First Amendment issue.

Wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost….

Typical narrow-minded comment: If you can't properly challenge, de-legitimize. I won't be missing our civilized discussions.

I clarified my comment to allow you to clarify yours. I am way in my depth here, trust me.

I know all those words, but I have no idea what any of that means. Specifically, your use of the "marketplace of ideas" analogy does not appear germane. Are you saying social media is not considered "press" under the First Amendment?

Yeah, any time I log into Twitter to vent about the New York Times's latest right-wing hit piece on the new Ghostbusters film, I'm immediately banned.