User information for Steve

Real Name
Steve
Nickname
JediLuke
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
April 12, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
321 (Amateur)
User ID
20620
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older
47.
 
Re: No subject
Oct 25, 2004, 15:59
47.
Re: No subject Oct 25, 2004, 15:59
Oct 25, 2004, 15:59
 
It's because Americans worship celebrities and when one of their gods does something they have to gossip about it for a week.

Or maybe because it's funny to see an utterly bland and talentless manufactured pop "star" be exposed for the phony that she is? Maybe this will help remind people that there are actual musicians we should be paying attention to.

~Steve

41.
 
Re: what happened to ashlee?
Oct 25, 2004, 15:06
41.
Re: what happened to ashlee? Oct 25, 2004, 15:06
Oct 25, 2004, 15:06
 
Does anyone know anyone who was in the studio audience when this happened? It was pretty quiet, but I assume there would have been some kind of reaction. I'm also curious as to what transpired during the impromptu commercial break.

Courtesy of metafilter:

here's the word from a friend of mine who was at the show, and got it straight from the director, beth mccarthy, who she was a guest of:

ashlee can't sing. she tried all day friday, but was whining to her voice coach. they decided to leave her mike on so she could sing along to the track, but after the first line or two of the first song, turned her off cause she was awful.

so, as of the first song, all the mikes were off.

now, they had the wrong song queued up for the second song, obviously. it really was the drummer's fault. apparently he was supposed to signal something or start in with some beat, and the one he did was for the first song. because he fucked up, the guy doing the tape hurried up and put the first song on, because that was what the drummer had signalled. when this got all fucked up, they did two things:

1. turned on all the mikes so the band could take over and start the real song. which they didn't. have no idea why.
2. turned off the tape so the band could play the real song.

they were going to turn on ashlee's mike so she could sing the real song, but decided not to because the band was just playing the first song. the guys were smiling cause they were simply thinking "what a fucking clusterfuck".

beth mccarthy was also the director of the superbowl halftime show last year, so she's no stranger to ... malfunctions.

~Steve

39.
 
Re: No subject
Oct 25, 2004, 15:04
39.
Re: No subject Oct 25, 2004, 15:04
Oct 25, 2004, 15:04
 
Breaking news: Kerry supporters write report on the survey they conducted that shows Republicans are clueless.

I can't tell if your post is meant in sarcasm or not... is it?

~Steve

32.
 
Re: what happened to ashlee?
Oct 25, 2004, 14:05
32.
Re: what happened to ashlee? Oct 25, 2004, 14:05
Oct 25, 2004, 14:05
 
So what happened to Ashlee on SNL?

She was "performing," and the pre-recorded track for what was apparently the wrong song came on. Ashley danced confusedly for a few moments before the lead vocal track came in without her moving her lips. The band tried to salvage it and started playing the song while Ashley stumbled about and did a ridiculous jig before walking offstage. SNL cut to commercial and when it came back she implied that it was her band's fault. What a dumb bitch. The end.

EDIT: Mirror: http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 25, 14:11.
29.
 
Re: No subject
Oct 25, 2004, 13:57
29.
Re: No subject Oct 25, 2004, 13:57
Oct 25, 2004, 13:57
 
All the “words” explaining the numbers is HIGHLY questionable, as most people do not understand what the numbers are saying. The writers are quite clearly “against” Bush and "for" Kerry, and it really shows in the conclusions. Basically, if you do read the linkage read it for good numbers, but all the text and conclusions is propaganda (that’s such a great word!).

I agree that the wording tends to be harsh and might imply a bias, although I can't disagree much with the sentiment expressed, but I thought the data were noteworthy regardless, independent of any conclusion.

~Steve

26.
 
No subject
Oct 25, 2004, 13:32
26.
No subject Oct 25, 2004, 13:32
Oct 25, 2004, 13:32
 
Not trying to stir the pot here, but I thought I'd provide this to anyone who might still be interested. This is a report I referred to a few days ago, but couldn't provide a link for. It's a University of Maryland study called "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," and deals with the American public's perceptions of current political realities.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Washington Post story/summary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57582-2004Oct23.html

~Steve

136.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 21, 2004, 12:26
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 21, 2004, 12:26
Oct 21, 2004, 12:26
 
From the Lone Star Iconoclast, Bush's hometown newspaper which endorsed Kerry for President:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm

A selection from one of the letters:

Your logic is skewed, Sandy. Are you say these 1,000+ fine young people have died in Iraq for no reason? Have you forgotten the 3,000+ people the terrorists killed in the attacks on the United States? Did you not read or have you not heard that the 9-11 report did indeed tie Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda together.

Sigh...

~Steve

119.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 20, 2004, 23:42
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 20, 2004, 23:42
Oct 20, 2004, 23:42
 
Because they don't exist.

Now warhawk, we both know you can use google. Ignoring the facts won't make them disappear, contrary to what you or the Bush administration may think.

~Steve

117.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 20, 2004, 23:33
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 20, 2004, 23:33
Oct 20, 2004, 23:33
 
I'd bet many, like me, think there's probably some indirect link/support

And where'd you get that idea? The evidence certainly doesn't indicate as much.

~Steve

115.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 20, 2004, 23:27
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 20, 2004, 23:27
Oct 20, 2004, 23:27
 
Show me a quote saying "Iraq/Saddam committed 9/11" from Bush or Cheney.

Believe it or not, I have other, non-political, non-message board essays to write, and I'm not about to go digging up quotes for you. I find it difficult to believe that you could honestly feign ignorance about the implied Saddam/9/11/Al Qaeda connection. It was pervasive in speeches in the leadup to the invasion and there have been many polls since then that have demonstrated how many people were confused about the issue. Sounds like you've either had your head in the sand or you're just trying to be petulant. But fine, pretend it didn't happen if that suits you better. That or discover it on your own. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to Todorov and Saussure...

EDIT: Actually, I'll be generous, here's a start for you:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=offa&q=iraq%2C+9%2F11&btnG=Search

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 23:32.
111.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 20, 2004, 22:29
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 20, 2004, 22:29
Oct 20, 2004, 22:29
 
Who said Saddam was behind 9/11? Where do you get this stuff?

You really aren't aware of this? It was intentional deception from the Bush administration, and it seems to have worked.

Amazingly, a recent CNN/USA Today poll showed 62% of Republicans still believe Iraq was behind 9/11. This is after a flood of contrary evidence and Duelfer's report.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/10/17/672730.html

~Steve

108.
 
Re: Valley of Megiddo
Oct 20, 2004, 21:31
Re: Valley of Megiddo Oct 20, 2004, 21:31
Oct 20, 2004, 21:31
 
Bush is carrying the battle to them

Yeah, taking it to Saddam, because he had WMDs and Al Qaeda connections and was behind 9/11... er, wait a sec...

that the majority of them happened to be Saudi nationals isn't really the point.

How is it not the point? It's hardly irrelevant that Al Qaeda was rooted in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 commission report stated that we must:

"Confront problems with Saudi Arabia in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform."

The 9/11 commission did not, however, recommend that we invade Iraq, which had no tangible connection to the WTC attack or to the enemy we were pursuing. Iran, on the other hand, has been known to support terrorist groups which have launched attacks on Americans.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 21:52.
34.
 
Re: Ahahahahahaha!
Oct 20, 2004, 12:29
34.
Re: Ahahahahahaha! Oct 20, 2004, 12:29
Oct 20, 2004, 12:29
 
Well, one thing is for sure, national polls are always meaningless. electoral-vote.com is a good site, but as the owner makes clear, just glancing at the map doesn't paint the whole picture. If you click on the states you can see all the polls for that state, and they usually vary, and some pollsters seem to have a clear bias. It's also worthwhile to note how many electoral votes each candidate has when you only count polls outside the margin of error, as the site owner pointed out previously. He also made interesting points today about how the undecided vote has historically gone to the challenger 2:1. Last election there was no incumbent, so in a sense this is a different ballgame.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 12:32.
20.
 
Re: Ahahahahahaha!
Oct 20, 2004, 11:19
20.
Re: Ahahahahahaha! Oct 20, 2004, 11:19
Oct 20, 2004, 11:19
 
The only votes that count are those by American citizens and Kerry has some work to do if he's going to win:

Not necessarily...

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Senator Kerry and Bon Jovi will be at my school today. Oughta be interesting. Maybe.

~Steve

9.
 
Re: Shatner
Oct 20, 2004, 08:18
9.
Re: Shatner Oct 20, 2004, 08:18
Oct 20, 2004, 08:18
 
Yeah, sounds like the Shatner CD is pretty good...

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/shatner_william/has-been.shtml

I've yet to hear it, though.

~Steve

23.
 
Re: No subject
Oct 19, 2004, 13:20
23.
Re: No subject Oct 19, 2004, 13:20
Oct 19, 2004, 13:20
 
I don't think HL1 had deathmatch right out of the original box either...

Yeah it did, and it was a lot of fun.

~Steve

121.
 
Re: Halloween on Sunday
Oct 19, 2004, 10:22
Re: Halloween on Sunday Oct 19, 2004, 10:22
Oct 19, 2004, 10:22
 
that's where i'll disagree 100%. if you have a religious belief, a true and real one, then that should be the most important thing in your life.

And you're wrong, as several people have just pointed out pretty clearly. That's one reason Bush is making a mockery of the presidency and is not fit to lead this country. The United States is not a theocracy, therefore by definition a President is responsible to his country before his religion, as Kerry seems to understand and Bush does not. Again I refer you to the NY Times article.

yes!, i just don't like absolutes like that. to say "*everyone* does or thinks this or that" is always a statement that falls flat.

It's not an absolute. That's like saying "Everybody has his own criteria for what makes a beautiful painting." Everyone believes what he wants to believe, whether that belief was inherited or not. The point is, 99.999% of the time, saying "I'm (insert religion)" doesn't mean "I follow every tenet and obey every commandment of (insert religion) and believe every letter of (insert holy book)." Fortunately, there are plenty of rational Christians who understand that the bible is a flawed document and who do not agree with every teaching of their religion.

Our nation is not affiliated with any religion, and attempts to twist around religious belief in order to wield greater political power, something done more and more often in the country today (and basically what warhawk was trying to do in this thread) are wrong.

but just because he says something that goes against your beliefs, or something that you find incredulous, doesn't mean he's trolling.

Give me a break. Just because he said something you agree with doesn't mean he isn't trolling. He derailed the thread with an unfounded and unnecessarily snarky personal comment about John Kerry. Hence, trolling.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 10:26.
106.
 
Re: Halloween on Sunday
Oct 19, 2004, 00:06
Re: Halloween on Sunday Oct 19, 2004, 00:06
Oct 19, 2004, 00:06
 
Kerry (and others) blatantly advocate against the teachings of the Catholic church.

So it would be better for him to try and make policy out of unconstitutional Catholic teachings? I don't think so. He's an American first and a Catholic second, and that's how it should be.

he obviously does not follow or believe in them (at least not all of them) - so therefore he isn't truly catholic, is he?

yep. that is no exaggeration. every last person on planet earth does it. all of them.

Are you being sarcastic? Because it's a basic and obvious truth. Everyone chooses what he wants to believe. There are many many Catholics who do not believe everything the church says, and many people of every religion who do not agree with or believe all of that religion's tenets or do not follow every letter of that religion's scripture. I'd wager that there are far more of these people than people who abide by every last principle of their professed religion. If he says he believes in the Catholic faith, he's Catholic, and it's not your place or mine to say otherwise.

and calling warhawk a troll is just so far away from any conceivable reality that you sound like a troll just by accusing him of it.

One doesn't have to be a troll (noun) to troll (verb). Nice try at twisting it around though.

However, even though we have these differences of opinions we still call ourselves Lutheran. I think it is the same with Kerry.

At least somebody gets it.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 00:08.
98.
 
Re: Halloween on Sunday
Oct 18, 2004, 22:41
98.
Re: Halloween on Sunday Oct 18, 2004, 22:41
Oct 18, 2004, 22:41
 
Well, then you really aren't a Catholic, are you?

If the man was raised Catholic and identifies himself as a Catholic, that's his prerogative. Everyone on this planet cherrypicks his beliefs. If he claimed to be pro-choice but actually instituted anti-choice policies, that would make him a hypocrite. You summarily labelling him with that kind of tone is needlessly inflammatory and smacks of trolling.

One does not have to be (and shouldn't be, if one wants to be a rational member of society, let alone a leader) an automaton parroting church edicts in order to identify oneself as a follower of a particular religion. And again, the most important fact is that he understands the gulf between his personal religious convictions and public policy.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 22:42.
93.
 
Re: Halloween on Sunday
Oct 18, 2004, 22:15
93.
Re: Halloween on Sunday Oct 18, 2004, 22:15
Oct 18, 2004, 22:15
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position
Here's an interesting article that's related to the subject. It gives a bit more insight into what I'm talking about. It's long but if you have the time, wade through it.

I was about to post that link before I saw that you did. It's an interesting article which I think addresses a major issue.

Kerry just says he's a Christian and doesn't follow the teachings of his church. He's a hypocrite, just like most "Catholic" democrats in politics today.

Oh good grief. Everyone is entitled to his own belief - Kerry may identify himself as a Catholic and agree with some Catholic teachings but disagree with others. That's his right, and most importantly, he does not seem to let his personal belief system cloud his political judgement, as he made clear in the third debate, and for which I respect him a great deal. This hardly makes him a hypocrite, and stating it the way you did just makes it look like you're trolling.

~Steve

321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older