Since it's in the constitution, getting rid of it would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by three-fourths of the states. That means the same states that get an outsized share of the electoral college vote also have the power to stonewall any attempts to remove their electoral advantage.

Don't forget apes and monkeys, either.

I feel like we should be having this conversation over breakfast in a diner, preferably after disposing of a body.

But fish meat is usually delicious, so why would an animal absorbing the taste of fish be bad?

That's how Groucho Marx's whole persona got created. He got heckled during a performance and responded by reeling off insults at the hecklers, and it turns out the crowd loved it.

But part of that alternate history is that the USSR has been spending far more on its nuclear arsenal in a desperate attempt to counter Doctor Manhattan. Since spending too much on their military and too little on the domestic front is a big part of WHY the Soviet Union collapsed, in the Watchmen universe it should,…

Although Watchmen does lose something in a post-Cold War era. Its plot is dependent on the idea that nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. is a virtual inevitability, which I can largely accept in stories from the Fifties or Sixties, but from something published in 1986, five years before the Soviet Union…

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace made a fantastic series entirely out of tongue-in-cheek characterizations. Though, being British, it was only six episodes long.

"Just a thought: Diana's athletic prowess IS part of her sex appeal. But
of course her sex appeal is not, and never should be, foregrounded, any
more than Chris Evans's sex appeal would be in a Marvel film."

No, there are also various shades of brown inbetween, plus the epicanthic fold thing. None of those apply to Gal Gadot, though.

Isn't that just another way of saying "did it turn a profit"?

"Objectivity" when it comes to entertainment has never made sense to me. Entertainment succeeds if it entertains you, and that's obviously going to vary from person to person. A critic's job isn't to tell you if some thing's good or bad; it's to tell you what they thought of it, with enough of an explanation for WHY…

I know I don't normally call you "dollface", but it kinda works with this voice, dollface.

Thank you kindly!

They were deliberately trying NOT to build it up. Everything in Season 9 is building to the idea that Barney and Robin really are a great couple, that the Ted/Robin relationship is over, and that Ted and the Mother will be perfect together. It's the culmination of everything that happened in the last nine years of the…

See, I don't think the ending is saying that Ted and Robin end up together. It's saying that they're going to TRY getting together again, but whether it works out in the long run is left up in the air. It's very much an "And the adventure continues!" sort of ending.

That the characters had religious beliefs was established from the first episode, but it wasn't until Season 2 that the show started portraying their religious beliefs as objectively true. In the first season, all instances of divine intervention are left ambiguous.

Actually, what happened is that the show's ratings stayed pretty much the same across its entire run. It's just that, thanks to the changing television landscape, viewership numbers that would make you a bubble show in 2005 (at least on the major networks) make you an astonishing hit in the 2010s.

I don't think it's supposed to be underwhelming. I think it's supposed to be every bit as romantic and impactful as the show built it up to be, but they also showed us that the character's lives don't stop just because they hit this grand, fairy tale moment.

Though they had multiple episodes set at Christmas, including one episode which showed two different Christmases in different years at the 4077th, both with the same cast, so . . .