That’s a sweet sentiment. But unless Chuck Schumer grows enough of a spine to order such a walkout, and we can muster enough protestors (for several years on end) to effectively barricade Joe Manchin and Doug Jones in their respective homes to make sure it doesn’t fall apart, you’re really just playing “what if” at…

True.  I mean, I was 4 years old in 1980, so I couldn't have helped much...but you're not wrong.

Can we just turn the clock back to 1993 and do the past 25 years over again, instead?

Is this part of a concerted effort to bring us back to the Gilded Age?  Sure feels like it.

And this is a side effect of the real threat of the Republican majority in Congress and Trump in office - the impact on the federal judiciary.

It’s time to decide if we want to be the party of “nice” or the party of “good”.

Little did he know that he’s actually making a case against this policy, by pointing out that this very negative experience is being targeted at individuals at high risk of radicalization against the US government. Maybe not by jihadist Islamic sects, but certainly by gangs and drug cartels.

Tragic parallel, but eerily similar on both literal and meta levels.

There’s more truth to that than most people are willing to admit. It was unsettling when I realized the common denominator in virtually all my problems was me, but once I made peace with that...life made a little more sense.

Ugh. I don’t get these people. I mean, I wasn’t a big fan of TLJ for an assortment of reasons...but it’s insane to think for a minute that Disney would give them the use of the rights for this, even if they did somehow conjure up a couple hundred million dollars and some legitimate producers.

So, we’re now effectively treating families from Central America who came here to become migrant farm laborers or low-level hospitality workers in the hopes of giving their children better lives the same way we did Bush-era “enemy combatants”?

They called her names in a restaurant? Poor baby...it’s not like they imprisoned her children because she fled poverty, violence and hopelessness to try to build them a better life.

Abu Ghraib, but without even the pretense of “terrorism” or “enemy combatants”. Malice for malice’s sake, taken out against defenseless children. Not a huge stretch for the people running the show.

It becomes a lot more relevant when you consider that another country (say, Canada or Mexico) could very easily use the details to bring the USA up for human rights violations in front of the UN, and have the international community along as backup. Ostensibly, because it’s the right thing to do; but if they have to…

The fact that they’re uncomfortable with saying “children in cages” is the exact reason we have to keep using the term. Don’t bury the horror of what’s happening in sanitized Newspeak. Just admit it for what it is, and if it makes you uncomfortable...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

General rule of thumb: if someone has to quote the Bible to justify a governmental policy, that policy likely has little or no logical, rational basis for existing.

Great. Now we get to hear a bunch of crowing from conservatives about how they were right in claiming they were treated unfairly, as though the dumpster fire that is this administration is somehow otherwise perfectly ok.

In the book, the grenade made more sense. The interior of the nucleus was a huge cavern, and the protomolocule defenses were towering bio-mechanical golems that were much more aggressive than the crystal-tentacle-thingy the show used. SFX budget issues, I guess.

I’m all for open dialogue instead of armed conflict, but how did we get to the point where a sit down with the dictator of NK was more cordial and productive that the G7 meeting?