Or stuffing those diarrhetic gummy bears into your mouth as fast as you could swallow.

I definitely understand why some women and minorities wouldn't feel safe visiting some areas of the past, but I just really can't wrap my head around now wanting to visit any time and any place in the past, no more so than I could wrap my head around not wanting to visit any present day country which is to any extent…

Because of bizarre censorship laws, they're known as the Teenage Mutant Remake Turtles in the UK.

Oh, I thought they were talking about the Sex and the City flicks.

"President Trump was clearly just talking about the importance of oral hygiene," began White House spokesman Sean Spicer, before breaking down into what was described by journalists on the scene as "angry sobs".

Not all spaces were whites only, that's sort of my point. Things were awful for women and minorities throughout most of history, sure, but they still had positive moments, culture, cinemas and galleries, etc etc.

I don't see how a US passport would particularly help someone if two bigots were looking to F up their S, but I get the general point. I still, from a historical nerd perspective as much as a white man perspective, can't really understand it though.

Right, I mean I don't want to tell you how to feel, but that's kind of surprising. I know you might not be into jazz, poetry, early cinema, etc etc, but is there no part of American history that you'd want to visit, if it was as simple/relatively safe as visiting the Philippines, the South in the US, or some such…

THE AV CLUB
little to offer aside from mildly amusing or diverting incidents

The pen catch alone was better than 90% of pop culture.

I think it depends if you're talking about time-tourism or time-immigration. Sure, it sucked to live in the past for most people, but I don't think a week long visit to 1960s New York, or 1920s Paris, or 1800 wherever is necessarily that much different from visiting some countries around the world today. I wouldn't…

I don't know if it was so much a straw man argument, as the inverse of your "unless you think that me saying someone did something automatically makes it true" nonsense, but OK. I'm glad you agree that was a bullshit line of argument to take.

Sessions does kind of have the look of one of the old bastards Mad Men would trot out who just wouldn't get Draper/Peggy's vision, man.

I mean, the AV Club is based in Chicago, no?

My uncle is part of the Cabal, so I got to get a peek at the shortlist for the next target. It looks like they're torn between the Hamilton soundtrack and malt liquor.

Where's that from? I'm guessing an interview with Matthew McConaughey?

They've had to watch their budget since Univision purchased them, so they only activate O'Neal when they really need him. Opening the snark of the covenant isn't cheap, or without risk.

That's a fair point.

I don't know if I agree. To quote my main man, the no-longer-worst-polital-Donald, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully-hard for rehabilitation, but I'm not going to assume it out of thin air.

By the same token, do you hire a judge, a couple of lawyers, and get together a dozen peers who have no connection to you whenever you want to make a judgement call about someone, or a situation? Alternatively, do you just assume everyone is innocent of everything?