Lurker > yoshifan823

TheCodeisBosco posted...
Any news on that Chelsea Handler show? Because if that got renewed, God help us all. >_>

Nope, show sucked, died a deserved death, Liza Laspiro is now on a much better show, and Chelsea is back on her talk show.

And poor Donna from That 70's Show will continue looking for a role that suits her.

FartAstronaut69 posted...
yoshifan823 posted...
Whitney is a good show. I'm happy it got renewed.

NO IT'S NOT

NO YOU ARE NOT

You are inordinantly angry at a TV show. Cool down. When's the last time you actually watched an episode?

Well 30 Rock is ending, I'm convinced there's no way The Office goes past next year, and I honestly believe Parks has the potential to be even higher rated than The Office was, because it's way, way better than The Office ever was.

I hope they give Community a back nine, and then let it go. 4 years is the perfect length for it, let the cast go on to even bigger and better things.

Whitney is a good show. I'm happy it got renewed.

ITT We blame false problems for NBC on people who don't work for NBC any more.

Yay Prototype!

CherryCokes posted...
From: yoshifan823 | #026
My guesses: They'll keep the Wednesday block, Whitney gets a surprise reprieve in favor of Up All Night
Whitney is almost certainly dead in the water, from everything I've read

Really? All I keep reading is that they might keep it around as a companion for Guys with Kids. Which would be great, as Whitney really grew on me. I'd much rather see it get renewed than Up All Night.

kevwaffles posted...
From: yoshifan823 | #022
See, now if anyone complains about Fox's treatment of Firefly, you can just say "Five seasons of Fringe", and they'll shut up.

(they won't shut up though)
Fringe didn't have it's initial episode airing screwed with, AFAIK. Fox's bad treatment of Firefly started right off the bat. Same with Dollhouse, though it got dragged out instead of disjointed.

Dollhouse was a disappointing show that got a second season because of residual Firefly guilt. And Firefly was a tragedy, but Jesus, it's been 10 years, shut up. You got a movie.

This year, though, they've got the Olympics. They're starting the season early, right after the Olympics, and they're gonna advertise the hell out of a selection of shows, new and old, during those, so that they begin shortly after the Olympics end. I know Grimm and Go On (the new Matthew Perry sitcom) are getting that treatment, and I'm sure there will be others. I wouldn't be surprised to see them hold 30 Rock and The Office (if they give it a short order, which they should but won't) to the spring, to give the new sitcoms a chance to shine, and give Community and Parks enough time to see if they deserve a Spring. And depending on their success, they'll either advertise the hell out of some new shows in the spring (I get the feeling Community won't make it past 2013 regardless of whether it gets a back 9), or Parks and 30 Rock's finale.

My guesses: They'll keep the Wednesday block, Whitney gets a surprise reprieve in favor of Up All Night, and Whitney and Guys with Kids kick off Wednesday nights in August, and Thursday nights in August have Go On, Community, Parks, and something else new, potentially Animal Kingdom (or, disappointingly, The Office). In the spring, unless Whitney and Guys really, really hit it off, they put 30 Rock and The Office in that spot to get rid of them, and run some combination of Parks, Community, Go On (if they earn a back 9), New Normal/1600 Penn (which will almost certainly be paired together), Animal Kingdom (if it doesn't make it into the fall), or Save Me. They'll probably burn off whatever pilots they don't use in the spring, ala Perfect Couples, The Paul Reiser Show, Bent, and Best Friends Forever.

See, now if anyone complains about Fox's treatment of Firefly, you can just say "Five seasons of Fringe", and they'll shut up.

(they won't shut up though)

I hope Community gets a Back 9 next year, and then ends. That will be perfect in terms of story, and it's not like NBC would be cancelling a ratings juggernaut. It'd have enough for a good syndication run, and not too much that it gets stretched. I mean, I can see this show going off the rails pretty quick.

Parks and Recreation can go on forever, though, as far as I'm concerned.

Huff n puff 20 posted...
Petty Issues like Gay Marriage are hardly things our government needs to worry about. States can, but the Federal needs to worry about other things. Like getting our military home and working on the economy.
Bringing it up either way is a reason to note vote for the guy.

Either given way, Obama has lit a political powder keg.
To that:

As for me? I'm doing a Batman write in.

Replace Gay Marriage with American Civil Rights, see how that sentence sounds.

*gasp* A kids show with a creepy adult fanbase leads to kids finding creepy adult things based on said show?

Why I never.

I think the article is partially true, because it's based on an article from Deadline saying that the four Thursday sitcoms are gonna get abbreviated seasons, but I think only 30 Rock and The Office are gonna be announced as ending in 2013. Parks and Community are getting one more chance, and I think next year probably will be the last for Community (though I think it will end up getting a full season), and I think they'll keep Parks around a little longer.

But this is all speculation.

Fun fact: That article has no source, the writer no credibility, and a number of prominent TV writers have gotten on Twitter and said it's BS.

So I'd hold your breath until Monday.

Prototype 2.

(just kidding)

On the one hand, he assaulted a kid when he was in high school.

On the other hand, he assaulted a kid when he was in high school.

red sox 777 posted...
Also, the reason it has lasted 2000 years is because it is both true and effective. By contrast your liberals' Communist wonderland the Soviet Union only lasted 74 years.

OK, if you're allowed to call liberals Communist, am I allowed to call conservatives Fascist? Because it's an equally implausible and silly jump in logic.

Also, if people actually read the bible, and got the message, I'd be happy to follow the basic morality of it for my life. As in, I'd be happy to treat others as I wish to be treated, to help the poor, sick, hungry and homeless, and to love my enemies as my neighbors. Those are all pretty awesome things to live by.

The only good (in terms of morality) part of the bible is the Gospels. The Old Testament is a bunch of old stories of varying accuracy that apply to living in a time vastly, vastly different from the one we live in now, and Paul was a big ol' jerk, and Revelation is The Old Testament without any judgment calls, morality-wise.

red sox 777 posted...
Why not? Iowa was razor thin in 2000 and 2004, and Obama only got 54% in 2008.

Partially blind faith in my state, but Iowa's been trending blue for a while now. Romney is not exactly palatable for the republicans in the state, we're a state where a vast majority of the high-population areas are incredibly liberal, and the low-population areas are filled with farmers and other land workers who aren't thrilled with Mitt Romney's business background. Plus, we've had gay marriage for long enough that people are starting to realize that it's not actually hurting anything. This won't change enough opinions to make a difference.

Plus "only 54%" means winning by a minimum of 8 points, which isn't exactly a small margin.

Iowa's not gonna go Romney.

What people don't seem to get is that convincing people to vote in elections is about 35% swinging independents, and 65% getting the people who will only vote Dem/Rep to actually show up. The amount of people who are actually up in the air about whether to choose Obama or Romney won't care about this, because anyone who really cares about gay marriage as an issue, enough to make it a voting point, has already picked a side. The only possible way this would hurt Obama is if there are people out there who this convinces to vote in '12 that didn't vote in '08, and that number significantly outnumbers the people who this convinces to vote for Obama in '12 that didn't vote in '08.

It's simple algebra.

Iowa voted for Gore in '00, too. Iowa's voted Dem in every election since '88 except 2004, and that was because John Kerry instilled as much energy in the democratic party as a wet mop.

Anyone for whom gay marriage is enough of a factor on their vote that this would change their mind voted for McCain in '08 anyways.

Also, there's a difference between calling yourself liberal or conservative, and calling yourself "a liberal" or "a conservative".

On the other hand, while there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there's a fair contingent of people who believe that the SC would rule 5-4 against gay marriage bans, on the basis that, while Kennedy is a traditionally conservative judge, he tends to swing a bit more libertarian, and there's a good chance he'd rule with the liberal judges.

Also, what gay person is going to, because of this law, settle down and have a few kids for economic benefits? That line of argument wouldn't stand a chance against an actual lawyer.

red sox 777 posted...
The Supreme Court has never recognized homosexuality as one of the classes that get strict (or intermediate) scrutiny for equal protection, and until/unless it does, North Carolina can win a court case just by saying that the purpose of its marriage law is to encourage procreation of children by conferring economic benefits on couples, thus encouraging the procreation of children.

Wouldn't there have to be some evidence that they were actively trying to make sure all couples were able to have kids? I mean, you can't say you're encouraging the procreation of children when there are plenty of people who are unable to have children naturally.

SmartMuffin posted...
From: Mr Lasastryke | #130
You can believe certain issues should be for the government to decide and others for the state. Nothing nonsensical or hypocritical about that, unless you think you can only be 100% or 0% in favor of state's rights.
He's saying that state should be allowed to allow gay marriage, but not allowed to disallow it.

Well if you're only allowed to make ONE decision, it's not really a decision at all, now is it? It's just a soviet election at that point.

Actually, that sums it up perfectly. It would be exactly like saying "states should be allowed to let women vote, but not allowed to not let women vote", or "states should be allowed to ban slavery, but not allowed to allow slavery". (obviously these things would not happen now, but when they were issues)

If you want to disallow gay marriage in your church, or not allow gay marriage in your life, do it on your own time, but if you want your government, state or otherwise, to back you up in not allowing people rights that you're essentially hoarding for yourself, you can **** right off.

I was speaking specifically about creating laws like this one, not in general.

I'm not against State's Rights, I'm against using State's Rights as an excuse to disallow gay marriage. I'm against State's Rights doing things I don't want anyone, state, federal, or local, doing. I'm totally cool with State's Rights allowing gay marriage, medical marijuana, whatever, but State's Rights doing something like this is terrible and needs to be stopped.

SmartMuffin posted...
I'm saying *now*, the only people I see using the State's Rights arguments are arguing against social progress. And now can stretch back to the Civil Rights Act.

Well you're still wrong.

Blue states used it to argue for LEGALIZING gay marriage. Oregon uses it for assisted suicide. California uses it for medical marijuana. All of those things would be illegal if left entirely up to current federal law.

I'm more talking about the people who are fervently adamant about it. Maybe it's just because I don't get in arguments about any of those things, but I don't ever hear people in favor of any of those things using it.

foolm0ron posted...
From: yoshifan823 | #108
You say this as if Newt Gingrich wasn't just a potential candidate for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.
You have a different definition of "potential" than I

Well, insomuch as anyone who wasn't Mitt Romney was "potential".

There are plenty of things done back then that were helpful, that have been coopted by horrible people.

I'm saying *now*, the only people I see using the State's Rights arguments are arguing against social progress. And now can stretch back to the Civil Rights Act.

red sox 777 posted...
Oh man, just imagine a national ban on extramarital sex. With the penalty being revocation of voting rights. We could get rid of the Democratic Party's power in one fell swoop!

You say this as if Newt Gingrich wasn't just a potential candidate for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

Also, State's Rights is a dumb argument that dumb people use to argue against both gay marriage and the Civil Rights Amendment. 10th Amendment is cool, but not when it's used to deny people rights.

EmDubyaSee posted...
From: yoshifan823 | #140
In my magical dream world where everything good happens, both Amazing Spider-Man and TDKR beat The Avengers, and Spider-Man goes on to be the highest grossing movie of all time.

I mean, Spider-Man makes money, and so does Emma Stone. Combine the two, and we have a winner, right?


Literally NO CHANCE anymore. It had at least a punchers chance when it was "only" 200 million. But TDKR is not bringing in 210 Million. Or 40 million more than god damn Harry Potter.

I love how you pick out Batman, as if there's a chance that Spider-Man makes it.

In my magical dream world where everything good happens, both Amazing Spider-Man and TDKR beat The Avengers, and Spider-Man goes on to be the highest grossing movie of all time.

I mean, Spider-Man makes money, and so does Emma Stone. Combine the two, and we have a winner, right?

Hey Ladies - Beastie Boys

This sucks hardcore. Paul's Boutique is one of my favorite all-time albums.

I got about halfway through the video before I had to turn it off.

Not because I didn't like the review, but because The Escapist website seems to have turned into a horrible, buggy, piece of crap since the last time I used it, and it decided to have an ad overlay in order to watch the video, and then wouldn't let me click out of the video when the exact same video started to play underneath the overlay. Jesus, get a better web designer.

Schmidt > Cece > Nick > Winston > Most secondary characters > Jess

I'm not kidding. Watch it. Tell your friends, family, anyone you know who may have a Nielson box, make them watch it. It's amazing and awesome and needs to be saved.

How the hell did I forget garlic? I never think of it as a vegetable. Garlic is goddamn delicious, roast it and then mix it with butter and spices, spread it on some fresh bread, you have the best garlic bread you'll ever eat. It's also fantastic plain and roasted, and the smell, oh god the smell of garlic. If it was kosher, I'd make a cologne out of garlic.

I can forgive people who can't deal with raw onions, but cooked onion is fantastic, so nice and sweet, without any of the kick that raw has.

Tzatziki sauce. Anyone dismisses the Cucumber, you feed them a good Gyro, shut them right up.

Moral of the story is: **** school.

I dropped out (didn't flunk, just left), and now I'm getting a one year diploma in culinary arts and vowing to never go back to school again.

Onions - God's wonder veg, if you make a stir-fry or a burger without onions, you're doing it wrong. Also fantastic batter-fried
Potatoes - Another multi-tasker. Fried, mashed, baked, you can do so much good with a bag of potatoes.
Corn - Have you ever had fresh corn on the cob with just a bunch of butter and some salt and pepper? Holy ****, that's good. Also a required part of cornbread, which is the best bread.
Cucumbers - Required part of tzatziki sauce, that's all that needs to be said.
Tomatoes - More versatility, and it makes a killer sauce. I don't actually like straight tomatoes, but in most dishes with the right spice compliments, you've got good stuff.
Spinach - Canned is terrible, fresh is part of all of the best salads, and if you treat it right, it's a great side to a good steak.
Carrots - They jump up to the top when you're talking about eating raw, maybe second to spinach. It's kinda hard to hide, though.
Broccoli - Pretty much the same as spinach, but it has great sauce-holding capabilities, because of all of the tiny florets.
Peas - Again, way better fresh. I can't stand canned peas, but fresh is pretty good.
Lettuce - Spinach's whiny, more popular little brother. Only good as a filler, really.
Celery - Only good in Cajun food, but that's good enough to not be last. I always hated ants on a log, though.
Beans - Can suck it. The taste is alright, but I can't stand the texture. Too soft and grainy.

Also, lack of sweet potato, cauliflower (makes the best purees), bell peppers and green beans makes me a sad panda.

Game is seriously awesome, and I got my favorite Nintendo Hard game, the OG Kid Icarus, for free with it.

11,003. That is including stand-up, but not podcasts, of which I have another almost 700.

special_sauce posted...
This is like the highest scoring college basketball game I can remember watching

Someone didn't watch Oregon-Iowa in the NIT. Game ended like, 109-99 or something crazy like that. Regulation, no less.