My applause is given. You’ve actually found a use for the poors!

Exactly.  Why are we worrying about keys?  Who drives their car more than once?  Do you re-wear your underwear?  Please tell me you don’t.

Stop feeding him, lest you ruin that.

Yep, people used to be imperfect.  They’re still imperfect.  They’ll always be imperfect.  That includes you.  The books depict a pretty amazing range of a family in a growing country, warts and all.  I have no problem with telling kids that something that they just read has a lot of good and bad.

I like Tesla a lot, and I still thought that was funny! (And not even slightly rabid)

Yeah, same here. For me the killer moment was when the 50,000BHP SuperShelbyDeathstick5000 KITT was being chased by a minvan full of baddies and they were actually keeping up!  I was sitting there thinking, “Whelp, the Shelby GT500 is nice, but I kinda want that minivan!” followed by, “sigh... this is not Knight…

Oy... those futuristic superdupercars did not age well...

Good heavens, man.  Leave. Leave now.  Go quickly and binge them all.

You might start by not having such a view of flyover country, or anyone else that you dismissively lump together. Why the hell would they *ever* listen to you when you’ve already dismissed the from relevance?

We needs more women in Congress. I’m happy to see this.

A favorite:

I don’t know why they would, either. It seems odd to me. Not “having satellite radio but not using it” odd, but odd...

Well, yes, if it were in earnest I would agree. ;-) I was going to say “I have satellite subscriptions because I can afford them,but I don’t have time to use them” but that seemed like tipping my hand too much.

Maybe you have time for that but my time so valuable that in the time that I take out my headphones (which cost more than your education, by the way) and switch to the radio (I have satellite subscriptions but I don’t have time to use them) I’ve already NOT earned more money than you make in a day.

No doubt, but upholding the uniform application of law doesn’t seem like an example of it.

It does when that’s the guy’s defense.

It wasn’t that they were mean. A problem was, rather, that the Commission failed to apply their reasoning consistently, violating the basic concept of uniform application of law. The also said that his religious assertions were “rhetorical” rather than genuine, and essentially lumped him in with a monolithic…

I don’t think the “artist” question has anything to do with it. The questions should be, “does this convey a message?” and “should a person be required to design, create and ‘release’ a message to which they have objections of conscience?” The answer is complex, imho, but in the end I would agree with the SCOTUS…

And the best thing is that you’re always surrounded by enemies, so you never run out of ink!

Does no one use a feather quill dipped in the blood of their enemies anymore?