Ugh. You're right, but I was hoping this time might be the one exception.

Really? I thought Collins and Murkowski were two of them, and one of their big objections is that the new bill wouldn't let people on Medicaid get coverage at Planned Parenthood. Are they not in the three?

I kept with it for a few issues, but it just felt like the exact same conversations and the exact same character beats over and over again. Plus, while I'm sure there's an interesting story to be had in a Scooby-Doo adaptation where they all hate each other, it's not one I want to read. There was like no fun at all in…

I would very much recommend you not read much neurology, then, because the degree to which the brain literally rewrites both perception and memory on a daily basis would horrify you. :P

I mean, to be fair, some of the HB comics have been great. I've been loving Future Quest, and I thought Flintstones was great (though I know reception of it has been…mixed).

Hanna Barbera is DC, unfortunately :(

Not "doing work" exactly; some Orthodox authorities consider turning anything electric either on or off as prohibited during Shabbat for a variety of reasons. It's been debated since the turn of the 20th century, there are a lot of arguments both for and against it.

Oh yeah; it's specifically Wisconsin's districts that this case is about, and the Republicans here have been hugely up in arms about this case even going to SCOTUS, even before there was any announcement of cert.

As Alito pointed out in his concurrence, this law as written also banned them from websites like Amazon or WebMD too.

That question is why it's taken 15 years for a partisan gerrymandering case to come back to SCOTUS. The last time it came up, they basically said "if we can determine a good and reasonable formula for judging this, we'll give rulings, but we don't have one right now."

Right, but the point is that SCOTUS has ruled often on racial gerrymandering, but they've held for the last 15 years or so that they'll only rule on partisan gerrymandering if they can determine a proper method for judging whether or not it was actually performed. And this particular case was brought specifically as…

Oh haha sorry, badly written. I meant possibly Brad and Kyle were poorly treated in how things ended. I couldn't remember for certain the details around their parting ways with TGWTG. I'll rephrase that for clarity.

You're probably thinking of either Rob or Michaud. But Lupa literally said that Doug explicitly knew about the way her firing was handled and just refused to get involved. He wasn't tricked, it was knowing apathy; he just didn't want the people affected to hate him.

After hearing the horrible way JO, Lupa, and Phelous (and possibly Brad and Kyle too, I think?) were treated by Rob and Michaud with Doug literally just standing on the sidelines shrugging, I'm not sure I want to have Doug Walker publicly supporting anything.

That's good advice as a starting point, but if you've skilled enough writers, like any rule it's not really necessary. The writer's room at Breaking Bad would actually go out of their way to write themselves into corners specifically to force them to write themselves out of them: they had no idea what Walter wanted…

Yep: http://ifanboy.com/articles…

They're asking why she was invited to host the Sandy Hook fundraiser, not her show on NBC.

Ah, fair point. It's a bridge too far for me (though I still acknowledge his role in those respects), but I can see where you're coming from, at least.

I don't follow your first paragraph. There's a difference between no longer honoring a figure and ignoring the existence of that figure, and removing a statue is the former, not the latter.

I'd say to be a con artist, you'd have to not actually believe what you're saying; just getting something out of it alone isn't enough to qualify you as in that category. If you're a believer, you're not a con artist, regardless of what it is you're believing, and a founder of a religion isn't a con artist if they…