America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,920 comments
  • 1,803,604 views
What Fergie did to it is still in a class of its own.



I think Chris Rock summed it up best at the time...

chris_rock.jpg
 
At least Ferg stayed in the same key. CPAC chick (I believe her name is Sailor Sabol)'s pitch kept wavering up and down. As several commentators have aptly put it, she appeared to be singing in the key of Q. The Star-Mangled Banner.
 
Last edited:
It really sounds like she ran off to Narnia right after the first stanza and then decided to stop in a cabaret.
 
Touring Mars


I'm not saying I could do any better, but holy mother of God this is bloody awful :lol:
Click to expand...

In the last few days, while brushing up on music theory, I've been listening to examples of modal interchange and also the difference between equal temperament tuning and harmonic ratios. That combination temporarily knocked most recorded music out of tune (to my perception) and also made that rendition of the anthem genuinely tolerable, but still not good.
I think I need to move on to voice leading before I become damaged beyond repair.
 
About that, I'm tired of this notion that is mostly perpetuated by Biden/moderate Democrats that bipartisanship is good by its very nature. It can be easy to assume that it is good, since when we think of bipartisanship, we imagine representatives of both parties working together on a common good and putting ideological divisions aside. What usually actually happens, and Democrats tend to do this more than Republicans, is that the legislation, in order receive just enough votes from the opposing party, is so watered-down that it effectively changes nothing. Forget about progressives, I'd say almost the whole of the Democratic base does not want to unify with the side who is actively trying to weaken democracy and make lives for the average Joe worse. And it's not as if the Trump admin was even the slightest bit bipartisan. Now is the time, especially since they have the supermajority, where the Dems go all-in on their agenda to provide effective COVID relief and actually do things to materially help the working man, rather than focus on this veneer of "bipartisanship". That's just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
GranTurNismo
About that, I'm tired of this notion that is mostly perpetuated by Biden/moderate Democrats that bipartisanship is good by its very nature. It can be easy to assume that it is good, since when we think of bipartisanship, we imagine representatives of both parties working together on a common good and putting ideological divisions aside. What usually actually happens, and Democrats tend to do this more than Republicans, is that the legislation, in order receive just enough votes from the opposing party, is so watered-down that it effectively changes nothing. Forget about progressives, I'd say almost the whole of the Democratic base does not want to unify with the side who is actively trying to weaken democracy and make lives for the average Joe worse. And it's not as if the Trump admin was even the slightest bit bipartisan. Now is the time, especially since they have the supermajority, where the Dems go all-in on their agenda to provide effective COVID relief and actually do things to materially help the working man, rather than focus on this veneer of "bipartisanship". That's just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Democrats don't have a "supermajority" - not in the House & not in the Senate. They have a bare majority in both, & in the Senate, in particular, their majority position is extremely tenuous - they can't afford to drop one vote.
 
Biggles
Democrats don't have a "supermajority" - not in the House & not in the Senate. They have a bare majority in both, & in the Senate, in particular, their majority position is extremely tenuous - they can't afford to drop one vote.
Click to expand...
A "supermajority" means one party controlling the presidency, house, and senate, by 50% or more. The democrats do, albeit narrowly, have a supermajority right now.
 
GranTurNismo
A "supermajority" means one party controlling the presidency, house, and senate, by 50% or more. The democrats do, albeit narrowly, have a supermajority right now.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that there isn't a supermajority in each individual house; a qualified supermajority is 66% or more.
 
Liquid
I think the point is that there isn't a supermajority in each individual house; a qualified supermajority is 66% or more.
Click to expand...

Just based on the makeup on the US, it's very unlikely for the democrats to ever reach a supermajority in the senate. It's more do-able for republicans. Even now, as unpopular as republicans are, they're just as close to a supermajority as the democrats are. Democrats need to end the filibuster, which will essentially only ever be overcome by a republican senate.
 
GranTurNismo
A "supermajority" means one party controlling the presidency, house, and senate, by 50% or more. The democrats do, albeit narrowly, have a supermajority right now.
Click to expand...

I have never heard the expression supermajority used to describe that situation. There is (obviously) no such thing thing as a supermajority regarding the Presidency. A supermajority in the House or Senate generally refers to a 2/3 majority vote.
 
Last edited:
TB
The one from CPAC sucked but I'm really not a fan of the Fergie version, either. It comes across to me that she's trying to make it sexy or something.
Click to expand...
This is where I am.

I'm not really interested in what Fergie does, but I acknowledge that she can sing. What she did to it was deliberate and can't reasonably be attributed to a lack of ability or her having succumbed to nerves.
 
I just finished reading some alarmism about the birth rate in the US dropping below 2 (meaning a declining population), and concern that this would not leave enough young people to... uh... take care of the old people.

Immigration?

Somehow I'm guessing the same people that are worried about not having enough people oppose immigration (and socialism, deep irony). We can't be this stupid can we?
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I just finished reading some alarmism about the birth rate in the US dropping below 2 (meaning a declining population), and concern that this would not leave enough young people to... uh... take care of the old people.

Immigration?

Somehow I'm guessing the same people that are worried about not having enough people oppose immigration (and socialism, deep irony). We can't be this stupid can we?
Click to expand...

You'd think we could at least look at Japan and conclude that declining birth rates combined with isolationist immigration policies is not really a long term plan.
 
Danoff
I just finished reading some alarmism about the birth rate in the US dropping below 2 (meaning a declining population), and concern that this would not leave enough young people to... uh... take care of the old people.

Immigration?

Somehow I'm guessing the same people that are worried about not having enough people oppose immigration (and socialism, deep irony). We can't be this stupid can we?
Click to expand...
You underestimate our stupidity.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
618K
Strittan
Strittan
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
449 450 451
Replies
14K
Views
743K
TPGRacing75
T
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
792
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back