LoneHaranguer

Even better symbolically, but I'm not sure she's still that recognizable. The Village People's outfits and John's SNF suit are both pretty well known.

Op wasn't the same. Amy's language spelled out the words, calling out the vowels as they were and adding "op" to the consonants ("great" was "gop rop e a top" and "bag" was "bop a gop").

There were some news stories before the primaries eight years ago saying that the Supreme Court would have to sign off on her being seated if she won, and this was coming from prominent Democrats characterizing her as just having been First Lady. It comes down to whether you're looking at the letter of the law, or its spirit.

A central theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was that it was going to be a dual Presidency, and that's exactly how she acted in the White House, rather than as First Lady. It's a negative because not wanting to abide by the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment shows her disrespect for the law.

It's good to be shown once in a while that she's supposed to be the "hot girl" in this series, although I don't think anything can top her purple outfit in The Raiders Minimization. Not sure what it says about Sheldon that his subconscious chose that outfit over the more modest black leather you usually see in something for general audiences, especially since that would be more akin to what Catwoman wore before Halle Berry got the part. Amy's secret language was called "Op", and I'm glad they chose to go with something real instead (it's from a children's program on PBS). When Amy and Penny switched languages, I think it was the first solid LOL moment the show has given me all season.

Don't you mean quest to regain power? I think it's ironic that even as supporters are blaming the failure of HillaryCare on men not liking that she wasn't content with being a First Lady, that she's attempting to portray herself as just that to escape Trump's complaint of her not trying to do anything she's currently promising when she had the chance earlier.

Because he wanted to outdo the Riddler from the 60's Batman series? You might as well ask why any fictional villain would tell their plan to someone they're about to kill.

Actually, it means you were making >1 ton of money. Businesses can start collapsing for reasons that aren't its fault. After the bank pulls its credit line, desperate owners may stiff the IRS in April and use that money to try to keep going. That depends on the area. There can be an exception for certain prepared foods that you can buy in grocery stores, with pizza being one of them, as long as the store doesn't have anywhere to sit down and eat.

They couldn't get John Travolta? I think him dressed in a Saturday Night Fever outfit would have been the way to go for a disco ball.

Eight years ago it was said that Obama's insurance against assassination could be summed up in two words, "President Biden". You could make the same claim for Clinton with Kaine.

If the Polks can bribe the cops that well, why couldn't they outbid Matt on the house?

You're forgetting about the millions who did make a decision and had their choice taken away by the primaries.

The one that comes to mind immediately because of its persistence is the one concerning people coming into this country illegally from Mexico. All he did was object to the Democratic claim that we didn't have to be concerned because they're all just good people looking for work, pointing out that there were criminals coming in too. Somehow that turned into him being a racist who said "Mexicans are rapists". He said no such thing. He wasn't even commenting on Mexicans in general. But, that hasn't stopped Clinton herself from repeating the lie. I'm a little hazy about most of the older lies since they've been abandoned, some because they weren't about Trump. I vaguely recall one about Muslims because CNN ran a segment to "correct the record" with a clip showing that the claim about Trump had no basis in fact. Current lies include saying that Trump wants to punish women who have abortions. He only wants to punish women for having illegal abortions, and not all that much at that (see his MSNBC Town Hall for more). How he pushed the income into the future is irrelevant. He took advantage of a provision to provide fairness in taxation. Without provisions like that, you have an unfair system that rushes to grab a share of your successes, but isn't keen on sharing in your failures; witness how long it's taking for him to work off a big loss. Eventually, some of his successful investments will pay off, and the IRS will get its share, or he'll die and the estate taxes will take an even bigger chunk.

They lied too much about Trump early on; they have no credibility left.

It looks like they're taking a straightforward interpretation of a federal requirement to identify any groups that shouldn't take it, and those are the two groups. Combining them may create an opening for scrutiny by regulators that the company wants to avoid.

You're forgetting about the $40 million of income that Trump would have declared when the bank wrote off the debt (almost certainly in a later tax year than the $40 million investment loss), so everything adds up as it should, but it illustrates why he has no confidence in people being able to understand his tax returns were he to release them.

You've just described a provision intended to keep down the competition against big medical centers who'd rather have patients coming to them, not something intended to keep the procedures from being performed at all, but nobody gave any thought to rural areas. That's what happens when legislators are only thinking about their campaign supporters.

I agree that immune therapy would have been a risk, but they could have name-dropped it as something they couldn't use. I don't know about the therapy that's supposed to turn cancerous cells non-cancerous, which would have given them more time. I'm just trying to suggest that with all of the gee-whiz electronics they want to throw out at the viewer, they may have forgotten to look at what's going on in biotech.

Why is having some reasonable standards for a clinic performing an invasive medical procedure a bad thing? The numbers thrown out by the article are meaningless; if three doctors needed to merge their practices to provide the level of service demanded by a new law, that was counted as the net loss of two providers. Nor did it account for how many butchers were rightfully shut down. If there's any threat it's from escalating medical prices in general.

Apparently it's also easily damaged; the guys mentioned denting it up from carrying the box with the crib in it. It wouldn't have been bad if Sheldon highlighted the right aspects of why they were chosen. And still wound up with a jerk.

Given the premise of the show, I'm willing to accept the writers pushing the technology a bit. They don't want to risk looking out of date in a few years, which is the thought I had when they talked about cancer surgery. Why doesn't this place have the techniques for getting someone's immune system to target cancer cells, or, especially apropos to the way things were written, turn off their uncontrolled growth?

Abortion rights is the fear issue of the Democrats, like gun rights is for the Republicans. Neither is being seriously threatened, but the parties would like you to believe that so that you'll give their candidates your vote.

What they do is akin to pissing themselves and fainting out of fear, except that it involves glands that emit a bad odor. It works against predators that don't trust food that's already dead. Other animals that just stop, are hoping not to be noticed, which is actually counterproductive against a car whose driver may not be paying that much attention.

I'd expect the claim to be something like that he coached an Olympic fencing team to victory using a coat-hanger wire. In retrospect, ITA that he wouldn't have played football at all; phoned in a game-winning play to a Superbowl team maybe?

I've been seeing a Microsoft ad where a fellow talks about drawing things with Acrobat and says he wouldn't be able to do the same thing on a Mac. What is he talking about? AFAIK, Acrobat is available for Macs as well (although you can do better with the open-source software for unix-based systems). Is Acrobat crippled on Macs like Microsoft Office is?