No. It’s okay to slam her because the word choice of “sexual integrity” drips with judgment of people who don’t make the same choice she did. If she had said “my commitment to abstinence" instead of "my commitment to sexual integrity" and had left out the mess about waking up next to strangers I'd have 0 problem with…

She can fuck right off with that “commitment to sexual integrity” garbage. Say what you mean, which is commitment to abstinence until marriage. To me, sexual integrity is consent culture. And, um, as a non-virgin - I ALSO am free from worrying about waking up next to a stranger and std's and pregnancy. Because I don't…

It's an amazing paradox in the right wing Clinton hate-on. They SIMULTANEOUSLY believe that she is the nefarious mastermind behind several murders and assorted other crimes, AND that she's completely stupid and incompetent. ONE PERSON CANNOT BE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.

Yeah, and that's not even mentioning the fact that Maddow is and has been critical of Clinton. She was critical in her assessment of Clinton's performance last night. She's liberal, obviously, but when she gets the chance to question powerful people she is not one to lob soft balls or let piss poor answers fly,

There was a whole lot more that was said about her that was not based on her looks but didn't make it into the supercut that circulated last week. I mean, even Ross's simple line: "this is hard - how do you roast someone from hell?" was brilliant. There is a wealth of material and they did not ignore it.

Sure, but they're still right and you're still wrong. 'Assertive' may carry a passive connotation to you but how you defined the word isn't how it's defined - nor do I know many people who would characterize assertiveness as passive.

Oh man I didn't notice that. It's genius. I really need to pay more attention to the 'filed to' because it is frequently gold.

Well, if by 'ethically produced' here they mean 'sustainably' which in part they do... then making sure people by YOUR product over and above products made with non-sustainable materials is definitely part of it. If your ethical, sustainable product is cost prohibitive then the sustainable part is meaningless because…

She was actively stumping for Trump this year. She never stopped her lifelong work of being a miserable hag insisting on pulling society backwards.

Funnily enough, that was at the Donald Trump roast

Oh even Maher has disavowed her now? I hadn't heard about that

Sooo... Lena Dunham’s entire schtick is making herself intentionally unattractive by conventional standards and then constantly talking about how people don’t find her attractive because she isn’t by conventional standards... right? That’s literally all she does - basically dare people to find her unattractive and…

Well, as far as that piece of it goes, the character having no lines - that was Gabrielle Union's request. She wanted the character to be voiceless because that's how she felt after she was raped and that's how she thinks many survivors feel. I disagree with the choice, but at least it wasn't the original choice of…

LePage by a mile.

Your right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be paid for your speech.

Her loss isn’t frivolous. Her suing a party that was in no way responsible for that loss... yes, that’s frivolous. She was given bad advice by greedy lawyers taking advantage of her pain. The fact of her pain, the tragedy of her loss... that doesn’t strengthen the legal argument the suit tried to make.

Yeah, but that was not the fault of Cinemark and there’s no reason Cinemark should be obligated to cover those costs. It’s tragic, it’s awful, it’s an indictment of this country’s atrocious healthcare system... but it in no way makes it right or reasonable that Cinemark should pay.

So, that would be Cinemark's insurance company doing that most likely - not Cinemark itself. And it's the lawyer's sending the bill. Remains to be seen if they'll actually make a concerted effort to get payment.

That's nuts. There's no reason a business should be responsible for the medical/funeral costs related to something that they did not directly cause to happen.

Behaving contrary to ones values is one thing, but if one also explicitly governs according to ones stated values that’s what gives it the sharp edge of hypocrisy in my view. If an atheist were governing according to a secular world view and were caught acting contrary to his monogamous vows that’s... bad but it…