John Adams

Proof that you're cool though your cool factor is tempered by posting at 1017 on a Friday night.

Yeah, because there's nothing that makes me hornier than watching porn with a bunch of guys. ????

Just heard about this story, that David Cook's brother (not the one who was there last night) is battling a recurrence of brain cancer and came to one of his shows. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1585400/20080414/id_0.jhtml Surprised the Idol PR machine didn't push this more. Maybe the Cooks asked them not to--sounds like the brother is in pretty rough shape.

The DJ is right on. He's no Daughtry but he's in that vein at least. I mean, thank God a rocker won instead of a crooner.

Cook is a million times more talented. Can he be a star? I dunno but he's at least a musician--not just a sappy ballad singer. I can't imagine an album of Archuletta love songs. What a bore. After investing time in my first season of Idol, I feel good that the right person won. He was the best.

Or with their heads and vote for Obama. Good try. That is the sound of your fingers grasping at the cliff's edge.

Vids and dirty words at the link in the sig. *** It's Thunderdome. Two men* enter, one man leaves. Who run Bartertown? Hopefully David Cook. David Cook. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" by U2. He's confident and his vocals are great. He strolls into the crowd and works them up. Great song choice. Outstanding opening performance. His mom cries. "Dream Big" Emily Shackleton. Some kind of new new artist crap that he was forced to pick. He's on the Les Paul and rocking. Good chorus. Looks like a rockstar. Got that great scratchy voice. For a song I never heard, I liked it. Simon says he didn't: !@#$ you, you hairy chested King Kong body double. "The World I Know" by Collective Soul. He's on the acoustic for this one. I didn't feel it--original composition didn't do it for me even though I love the song. He just seems off. After it's done, he sheds a few tears, enjoying his run--a nice touch that will get him a few more votes. All that said, for once, Paula is right: Cook is ORIGINAL. Such a contrast to Archuletta who is mass-produced McDonalds cardboard Wal-Mart Stepford-living in his ticky tacky houses that all looks just the same. Cook is the artist tonight. David Archuletta. "Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me" Elton John. David sings the sh-- out of this song. Maybe my favorite of his songs this season. 3 seconds into the judging, however, he does his breathless bull sh-- "I'm so surprised anyone likes me" voice as the judges kiss his ass. "Who gives a !@#$" by Someone I'll never know. Some awful sh-- ballad made for man-on-man groping. What the !@#$ is David wearing? A jacket with giant anchor on the front and back? "Hello sailor!" (If you get that reference, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.) The song is unlistenable. Nasally eye-closing David is in full stereo. Randy uses the phone book line. I'd like to shove S through V down his throat but it's already filled with David's knob. "Imagine" by John Lennon. Same as the first time he sang it. Of course, he couldn't sing something new or original. Big !@#$ing whup. The judges were already drooling all over him and they continue to do so, doing everything they can to hand the title to the little prick instead of the guy who actually works at his craft. Other observations. Spectacularly gay Rocky and boxing intro gives a huge advantage to Archuletta's legions. Jim Lampley is a !@#$wit. Why would he do all that super-stupid boxing sh--? Tool. Judges went into the night deciding to give it to Archuletta. His first song was outstanding. Second was sh--. Third is something we've already heard. Cook showed he can rock, ballad, and compose his own stuff. He's the more talented guy but the 13 year old girl network is out in full force tonight and Archuletta will win. Tonight I ask myself, if I was single and didn't have to talk to her, would I bang Paula Abdul? Signs point to yes. I wonder if I'd get the "You were so wonderful tonight. You. Are. John. Adams."

I think this round is way better than the last 2.

Wow. So I can download movies to my TV. I wish I could do that now.

Right on there. On Fridays on Sirius, they replay shows from the past in their entirety. It's fun hearing the shows from 1985...interesting cross-sections of those years.

This would gaurantee a no-vote from me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080519...mNVKmVzVDoEtbAF Huckabee was the scariest guy in the primaries. I hope McCain looks elsewhere, even though he would draw in areas where McCain is weak.

Once we win the War on Drugs, we'll get to that.

I tried some quick and dirty google work and am not sure he can veto a CA Constitutional amendment. (Not sure is the key phrase here--I didn't look in depth.) All he says in those articles is that he'll oppose an amendment and that he's vetoed other related bills.

Ah. One last check in CA. Well, the mob put him in power too. It can't always win.

And the angry mob still can. It just was checked in the latest round. A state constitutional amendment is the check-mate move in California. That's all that's left for the mob. Looks like the mob wants to make that amendment. No doubt (for reasons unfathomable to me), it will pass.

I guess the problem is still twofold in CA. On the one side, domestic partners want the legal protections afforded to hetero marrieds so the word "marriage" is actually important for legal precedent. I can see some lawyer arguing (before this decision) that because "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman" that some 200 years of case law precedent on a question related to marriage does not apply to domestic partnerships. It's a pretty ocmpelling argument too. The legislature had to intend some legal consequence in passing a law explicitly defining "marriage" as it did--thus there are some differences between the domestic partnership and married heteros. The other problem is that the anti-gay-marriage crowd pushes this issue to the fore too--for whatever reason that it excites them. And every time they do, the homosexuals feel (rightly) that their rights are threatened. So yes, though there are other issues of much more importance, it's one that keeps coming up until these state courts and legislatures all work through their various machinations. I expect in 20 years, this crap will be mostly behind us.

The their power was checked by the state Supreme Court--putting the ball back into the elctorate's hands. If it means that much to keep the word "marriage" as between a man and a woman, they will have to pass an amendment to the CA state constitution, the only purpose of which would be to exclude a group of people from calling their already legally recognized "domestic partnerships" a "marriage." Why in !@#$'s sake would anyone care to take the time and expense do do such a thing--it's certainly not driven by any spirit other than downright meanness.

Why do you consider your sister unnatural? Because she's homosexual? I'm sure there are plenty of unnatural traits in lots of people you accept--and some you may even laud. BFD if she likes women. How does the Marriage law" in any way affect you, except that your kids may someday have two aunts and you'll have an extra sister-in-law?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. My point was as I stated--I have only personal anecdotal evidence of several kids and families I know in my daughter's school. In one case of an older kid--again anecdotal only--the kid is as "normal" as someone like you would hope, ie, he likes girls and sports and video games etc. The only difference between him and the next "normal" (again your definition) teen boy is that he busts his parents' 4 balls instead of 2 when he's being a sh------- teenager. I love a good slippery slope argument as much as the next guy but you've gone to loopy land. This is the definition of marriage as between 2 consenting adults. Thus, the homosexual married couple gets the same rights and responsibilities under the law as a hetero couple. The extension to dogs and pigs is not something you really fear as a result of this. Why you care about it extending to same sex marriages is beyond me.

Understood. It's different. When I first saw two guys show up at my daughter's class with their two sons, I did a solid WTF myself. I'm just relating that it's grown on me. And for the homosexual parents I've met, they treat parenting as a privilege and responsibility--not just something to do because their parents did it. I'm not sure, but I'd bet those homosexual couples all had some long thoughtful talks before having kids--I could only hope hetoeros would do the same but the Britney Spears of the world convince me otherwise. You get something special from having opposite sex parents--a perspective that may be lost when you have 2 same sex parents. But egads, that's one small component of being a good parent and I'd pick a loving caring thoughtful single or homosexual pairing to raise a kid over your average man-woman pairing any day.

In addition, the word "marriage" is associated with a bevy of legal precedent that some zealot would argue don't apply to "domestic partnerships." And since there was a law passed defining "marriage" as between "a man and woman," there certainly would be a million challenges in the courts based on that. My own personal observation on the homosexuals with kids thing, and I can really only offer anecdotal evidence. My daughter goes to a Quaker school (common in Philadelphia), and there are several families with same sex parents. If anything, I've found them to be some of the most conservative and responsible parents. It's almost like they take parenting extra-seriously because they know they are facing an uphill battle against society. I absolutely have enjoyed meeting them, and their kids all seem well-adjusted. In one case, two gay guys have the straightest (in terms of liking girls and other "manly" behaviors--itching crotch, farting in public and laughing--you know...the caveman stuff) teenage son you could ever meet.

Haha--you know we're cool now. I'm sure we might find a similar tirade I wrote if we looked hard enough, but really, I concede that yours was better.

Someone hasn't read all the posts in the this thread, have they? (I'd link to the post but really, who cares?) Yes, the opinion boils down to striking down what it's called when two homosexuals join under the law. That people give a !@#$ about enough to spend all the money to have a proposition put to a statewide vote is unreal. Stop wasting my time goddamnit.

He's researching his response.

She can sue if she wants to make her lawyer rich and lose.