They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic.


Every few months the alarmists claim we're at a "crisis point" where it will be "too late to turn back". I'm waiting for the next one since last June.

Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

Those that disagree are being suppressed and marginalized. Shouldn't that alone illustrate that people declaring "The debate is over" before there is any real debate have something to hide or gain?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

Which goes back to my point: who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature....and the "correct" dispersion, uses and price of oil? The free market does a better job of regulating waste and correcting mismanagement than any government.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

What are the worst cases the alarmists bring up? More storms? We can't do anything to stop or change the natural disasters we have now. What's that you say? A rise of one degree in the global temperature in the next 100 years? In 100 years people will be sprinkling Kool-Aid-sized packets of nanobots in the ocean and creating their own temporary islands.

Conversely, in 100 years, if there's no global warming and the threat was empty, we'll still be stuck with hundreds of thousands of environmental laws and regulations as insane as the U.S. Tax Code.

It may be paranoid to mistrust government power, but it is seldom a mistake.












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.


They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?
People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.
This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.



They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.

Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?

The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.


>> ^Xaielao:

They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

BTW, didn't pass unanimously according to Wiki, "The bill passed with 93 'yea' votes to 7 'nay'. Wiki also says the text was revised and faces another join house vote tomorrow. Pretty scary this one, even if 7 of them said nay, that is still 93% of our Senate that is basically crazy...thems not good odds.


Confirmed: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218


One last update: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/13/ndaa-update

They aren't hopeful of a veto. C4L can be a little reactionary and overly critical, but in this case, better safe than sorry. Start contacting Senators pronto, you would be amazed how much it helps.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

"Parrot" is right. I can't tell if it's his nasally voice or his tendency to deliver his BS in over-dramatic near-whisper, but he comes off as an extremely condescending and phony tool. His stance that Democrats promised things to the American people and didn't deliver was predicted near the beginning of Obama's term to be the main Republican talking point in 2012 as the Repugs joined in unanimity and became the "party of no". Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats either ignored their mandate and capitulated on everything, or showed their true colors as the sellout blueblood corporatists they really are.

Either way, this guy is nothing but a Republican prag.

Good video...but am I think he screwed up with his example at 5:35 saying "you won when 78% of the people voted AGAINST you". Isn't that assuming that everyone else in all the other states not counted would have to have all unanimously voted for the other candidate?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Obama needs to take a leaf out of FDRs book.
"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."

I totally agree. He should go the full FDR:

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Obama needs to take a leaf out of FDRs book.
"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."


I totally agree. He should go the full FDR:

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

Related: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/victory-recording-public

"the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has issued a resounding and unanimous opinion in support of the First Amendment right to record the actions of police in public."

Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
Isn't that reaffirming my point in different wording?

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you with that point, surely you can't object if I claim you believe that Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin? I don't think my second point is much altered by your rephrasing:

2(v2):You claim Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin.

As to point 1, perhaps you want me to reword it as well?

1(v2): You dismiss all claims regarding Syria's current events from the mainstream media and citizen journalists?

You, once again, seem to have reiterated your support of this position with this: Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. One of the most consistently reported facts from all mainstream media and citizen journalists is Assad's forces killing unarmed peaceful civilians.

Which brings us to number 3,

3(v2): You accept Assad's version of current events within Syria.
You again have reiterated your support of this:
-I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. This is Assad's story, but EVERYONE outside his regime that anyone has ever spoken to from any media outlet but Assad's own has refuted it.

-There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? This is also Assad's story, not verified by anyone outside his regime. The story from refugees and defectors is unanimous as reported by ALL other media, that those 120 soldiers were shot by Assad's secret police for refusing orders to fire upon unarmed protesters.

-The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. Once again, this explanation isn't being posed by anyone outside Assad's regime. ALL media outlets talking to refugees and defectors are well agreed that the shooters were working on Assad's orders and that foreign agents have NO role in the uprising.

Please, if I've misrepresented what you've said clear things up. I've quoted you extensively and in good context and it is overwhelmingly clear that the story you favor is the one put forward by Assad's regime, in the face of the fact that all other media outlets, Al Jazeera included, and all refugees and defectors unanimously claim otherwise.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.

yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....
and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)
you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.
what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best
but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?
it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people


As an avid musician myself, your post reeks of pretentiousness and unwarranted self-importance, regardless of the sporadic legitimacy of your comments.

And I'm a guy who has to actively struggle against being pretentious and exhibiting unwarranted self-importance. Tone it down, bro.

oh goodie! it's a pissing contest. i wonder who has the biggest dick????

secretly, i've always suspected that it was duckman. whip em out boys, let bea settle this.


>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.

yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....
and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)
you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.
what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best
but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?
it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people

"My musician friends can beat up your musician friends!!! Derp derp!"
Look, I also used to sing "Faithfully", "Lights", "Separate Ways" along with "I want to Know What Love Is" (Foreigner), some Skid Row, Motley Crue, Nirvana, Def Leppard, Van Hagar, Van Halen, etc, etc. and many other songs from many other bands in my bands. I sang 6 nights a week 5 hours a night in one of the highest paid bands on the bar circuit at the time. I was told on a nightly basis that I covered the songs we played live better than the most of the original artists in a lot of cases. But yeah, whatever you say, I'm tone deaf. LOL I have been singing in bands since I was 17 and I'm 47 now. I'm pretty sure that alone qualifies me to have an opinion on her singing skills. So please don't try to lecture me on my ears, or singing ability.
My question is; Where exactly did I say she didn't suck? What part of me saying, "What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing" and "I really wanted her to choke" didn't you understand? Yes, I heard no sour notes. At least not any that made me cringe. Do I really have to explain my comment to that extent for you to comprehend what I was saying?
Sorry your brother couldn't make the grade. Life is tough, huh? And I'm glad he "fucking OWNED it" in a karaoke bar. (seriously? LOL) Sounds like you have a bunch of sour grapes to me. Period.