"You think that my original post was an attempt at having an intellectual dialog?"

Why would they have to force you to the ground? Farts are gas. They travel through the air. I'm assuming that they would make sure they have a good one built up, knock on the door, spin around real quick, fart into the doorway, and then you would have finally been confronted with an argument that is the intellectual…

No, farting on you is the only valid response. The only thing I can think of that would be operating on the same level that you apparently are. I didn't say anybody had to break in, I'm assuming they would knock.

No, the Downton Abbey guy wanted to leave, so they had no choice but to kill him off, and probably weren't happy about it. In this case, I was saying it was an intentional decision, and therefore they were able to write it in properly.

I actually want him to last three years, so that his meltdown will be an albatross during the next presidential election. Also, in this ideal scenario, Democrats ahave lready retaken the Senate.

Guys, I'm really busy, can somebody just go over to this guy's house and fart on him? It's the only valid response.

If we start having panic attacks over every white person who claims to be 1/16 Cherokee, we'll be here all day, because that's ALL OF THEM.

The weird thing about this is that IF you believe that she exploited a fake NA status for preferential treatment - which there's no evidence for, really, but we're just being hypothetical here - the insult most went with was Fauxcahontas, to highlight her alleged faking. Calling her Pocahontas seems like you're making…

For its time, though, you must admit it was remarkably progressive. I absolutely agree that it's embarrasing by the standards of today, but back then, people needed a rather blunter and simpler message. It's like Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. It's underwritten, subtle as an anvil to the head, terrified of giving…

Me, a couple of months ago:

It's the Downton Abbey situation, where they spend so much time building the couple that only death could separate them without massive character assassination. Except there they were trapped into killing him because he wanted to leave the show, and here they did it as an intentional choice because they're good…

I knew Jane and Michael weren't forever. It is, as you say, a telenovela. I'm actually glad that he died, because I don't think I could stand it if they had thrown in some contrived complication to get them divorced. I was on Team Michael from the beginning, and I'm glad I got to stay on that team to the end.

Oh, I didn't misunderstand, I could already tell you think of celebrities as lesser citizens, unless they occasionally pretend they want to run for office, I guess. Me, I hold everyone to the same standard. Anyone can talk about their politics any time they feel like because they're Americans, and people who act like…

It can be.

He didn't back it up until this election. Saying "Ohhhh, maybe I'll run" every three or four years is not "declaring a serious interest", and dropping out a few weeks into a primary is not a serious run.

Being politically vocal is what you're decrying, so I'm not sure why you led with that. And yeah, he publicly mulled a run not just in 1988, but three other times as well, and twice for NY governor. It's free publicity. And, no, he didn't run in 2000. He entered the reform party primary and quit as soon as it looked…

CNN literally hired a Trump employee who was not legally permitted to criticize him. So yes, they didn't have an anti-Trump agenda.

Trump absolutely did not declare a serious interest before he actually ran. In 2012, he made some implications, but didn't seem to be particularly serious about it, and that's it. He made a new serious implications before that. As for the rest of your post, but seems that you are just coming out against empathy. …

So shouldn't you be saying that you'll give them seven years and then see what happens?

A celebrity who couldn't keep his trap shut about politics just got elected president, so…