It depends on what your defini— ah, never mind.

I got a peeing ticket!

McCain does disappoint me. Some of his off the cuff remarks are critical of Trump, but he does seem to shut up and support him eventually. He seems to swing back and forth between "I don't give a shit what I say!" to "Must. Protect. Party."

If I had been working on Trump's team I would've been fired by now for shouting, "For God's sake, please get the fuck off Twitter!! You're killing us!!!"

Pretty much. This was hyped up as some expected take down of Trump. As if Comey was sure to come out and say he thought Trump personally colluded with Russia. But the media and the Democrats are continuing to shoot themselves in the foot by over hyping things and then having them not deliver. They have been doing this…

That's of course the big distinction here. He said he didn't see evidence of that happening. So, if you're on his side you see that as almost an exoneration. On the other side, he also didn't say he definitively DID NOT do it. So it doesn't condemn him, but it doesn't really let him off the hook.

Definitely not an outright win for anyone, here. But I don't think folks after Trump were just hoping to have someone call him a liar. They wanted to hear someone like Comey say they thought Trump colluded with Russia. And he said he at least didn't have evidence of that.

Yes, that is the problem. Obviously you can argue, "Come on, you know what he meant when he said that!" But in legal terms, that may let you off the hook. Which would be why you don't literally order him to drop it. Still, impeachment does depend on what the other politicians vote, so I think there is some wiggle room.

Though that was for lying under oath. Still a lie, but there is a difference.

For another (non-video) run down of many WW appearances over the years — in addition to the ones here — check out my this article:
http://www.blastoffcomics.c…

It's just an example that unless you have a major motion picture seen by the general public, many articles seem to assume no one has paid attention to the character for years. As if the only significant WW appearances were the '70s show and the movie.

I think they pretty much are at this point.

I'm not really saying that those kinds of movies cause gun violence or anything. But they still certainly make guns look cool, fantasy or not.

With the timing of JL, some people are going to think the Batman/Flash dynamic is just ripping off the Tony Stark/Spider-Man relationship in Civil War and Homecoming.

That is kind of silly because I wouldn't exactly call the Marvel movies anti-women or anything, simply because they have yet to have a movie centered on a female character. Black Widow does get some cool moments. And Wonder Woman, after all, is MUCH more known to the general public than any Marvel superheroine.

So, if this movie does become the big hit is sounds like it may be, will there be some re-editing of the Justice League movie to focus on her even more? I assume they made it thinking she would be one of the stars already, but I could see them trying focus less on an essentially unproven Batman.

After having been beat over the head with all-Trump humor, all-day, on every talk show, and other live shows like SNL, I just couldn't sit through an entire show dedicated to it. Every show already starts with ten minutes of it.

I am no gun lover, but it was interesting to see when someone edited a gun control PSA starring many celebrities to insert a "cool gun scene" from one of their movies after each actor's segment. Maybe the person creating that was being a little too biased and simplistic, but a major part of the gun culture is that…

Maher is usually too obnoxious and smug for me, but he does now and then come out with some very accurate insights .

Is that the episode with Sela Ward's puberty-inducing cleavage?