Johnny Coli

I am all for keeping the government's hands off of people's retirement money, believe me. But, maybe you could clarify some aspects of your plan, though? Would people be voluntarily deducting money from their paychecks, or would there be a mandatory base-level deduction? Basically, forcing them to put into an account the very same amount they put into SS now, with the choice of adding more. It would be very similar to a mandatory 401k.

It's unrealistic to expect an 18 year old to save any money, regardless of educating them about finances (without even addressing the discrepancies between the capabilities of poorly performing inner city schools and suburban schools). If that 18 year old goes to college, he/she will most likely be in debt a substantial amount of money. If they go to graduate school, not only are they accruing more debt, but they are putting off earning potential for a few more years, and deferring their loans. We also live in a very live-now-pay-later society with credit card companies mass mailing out credit card applications with high interest rates. I don't fill them out, and you don't fill them out, but what about the divorced mother of two working a barely-above-minimum wage job? It's pretty tempting to maybe get that card and buy some decent clothing for your kid, or maybe stock the fridge. I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility, but not everyone is capable of making the right decisions.

That's not a good example. The percentage of people that go to vegas and lose everything is minor compared to what could happen if large segments of the population were gambling on their retirement. You are also leaving out the working poor, who don't exactly have a lot of money to put away and "gamble" with.

Why would this be a good thing, Ken? You would be setting up large segments of the population that would be taking a huge risk, where if it failed, would end up having to be taken care of by the government anyway. You are making a pretty big assumption that people are intelligent enough to manage their own money and retirement. (If this was covered earlier in the thread, I apologize)

House approves flag desecration amendment. MSNBC link On to the Senate....

Why go at all? It won't matter anyway in the grand scheme of things. I'm surprised they let that loophole get out. I'm shocked they get anybody to go at all.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic. Seems like a pretty sweet deal for me. Basically, according to the Catholic faith and becasue I was baptised a Catholic, I can pretty much do what I want (short of murder and grand larceny) while I'm alive, go to purgatory for a couple centuries, maybe do a stint in limbo, then get waved in behind the velvet rope into heaven. But a Jew or a Buddhist or whoever could be the most gracious, law-abiding, pious and devout person on the planet and they are hosed. Hardly seems fair, really.

Why? If I met some of the people on this board who I correspond with every day and they turned out to be one thing on the board and another in real life I'd be pretty bummed. Just because your "real" life is boring doesn't mean everyone else's is. I'm not dumping on you Brandon. I'm just trying to point out to you that if this BF_in_Indiana thing is just a character...well that's a pretty weird thing to do. You're either really a complete idiot, or very creative.

I do. Why lie to people? What's the point?

Are you kidding me? The Bledsoe crowd will be on him from game one. Jesus, can you imagine what will happen if the Bills lose to Houston, and Bledsoe and the Cowboys rack up 35 points on San Diego?

Repo man May be the greatest movie ever made, with perhaps the best soundtrack ever. Blue Velvet Lynch's best as far as I'm concerned. Drags you into a dark alley and never let's you crawl away. So real you can smell it. High Fidelity Great movie based on a fabulous book. I have a ton of vinyl records and used to work at a record store. I can relate. I used to file my vinyl by drummer's last names. Using a singer or a lead guitarist's name would have been too obvious. Yup, music snob. I know more than you. Hard Core Logo Best band movie of all time. Great soundtrack, good acting, eerie parallels to my own life. Gummo Wow. Pretty hard to describe. Stupifyingly devoid of purpose, morals or plot. Impossible to not come away affected in some way if you can get through it, whether that be disgust, revulsion or the satisfaction knowing that this may be someone's life, but it ain't yours. Trainspotting Probably too brutally honest of a film for some folks (heroin, crib death, AIDS), but one of the best films of the 90s. Another great soundtrack. Buckaroo Banzaii I had to see it twice the first time I saw it (in the same night) to figure out what the hell was going on. Unreal casting. Too many sight gags to absorb in a single viewing. Sid and Nancy Vivid portrait of doomed junkie lovers Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen. Gary Oldman's best role. Napolean Dynamite Instant classic. Kids Yet another film about doomed adolescents in NYC. A stunning absence of hope.

Have fun at this years bloated summer rock tour sponsored by Mountain Dew.

*sigh*

Classic. Super size me.

Actually FFS (answering your post yet not directing my rant at you), I’m lashing out at people who view bloated arena “classic” rock as the zenith of musical talent, only because they sell more records and/or that’s the only thing they own or can hear on the radio. My distinct problem is with the people who haven’t listened to even 10 seconds of something, yet are knowledgeable enough about music in their own mind (because they own every Zepplin’ record and got drunk at Lolapalooza) to say that something sucks. They can pretend that those bands from the 60s and 70s were “great” bands because they put out two records in three years. But, I don’t count four 10 minute long songs with long guitar solos very prolific, and I sure don’t think releasing a double “live” record is either. As for bands now-a-days, there are thousands of great bands out there touring their asses off in vans, releasing stuff on hundreds of independent labels that have the balls to release stuff that the people on this board think “sucks” because it doesn’t sound like everything else that has been rammed down their throats by corporate rock giants and format radio. But you know what, I’m glad, because that means they won’t get ruined and/or assimilated by all the people who they are railing against. I'm almost 40 years old. As for the old vs. new, I have "old" stuff. Only my old stuff consists of bands like the Dead Kennedys, the Stooges, the Ramones and Black Flag. Someone go ahead and tell me that Jimmy Page was better than East Bay Ray. Tell me that "Who's Next" is more influential to music than Black Flag's "Damaged" is.

Wikpedia says you are a Calvinist Protestant. Presbyterian

"Cult" is such a harsh term...we prefer "captive audience."

So you joined a cult.

Maybe we should have a telethon to raise money for Catholic masturbators?

Yup, I give in. You guys are right. Why listen to anything new when it's all crap, right? Why buy a new record when I can just drive around in my Astrovan cranking good' ole Led Zep? Maybe the Pink Floyd reunion will inspire them to make another record and tour? That would be awesome. Hey, man, is that the new Aerosmith single? Crank it up.

I don’t think these prisoners in Gitmo are being treated unfairly. My problem is that there is a Gitmo at all, when we could have just as easily held them overseas in less high-profile “accommodations”. Why establish and build a prison, tell everyone we are doing it, tell everyone that the GC doesn’t apply, tell everyone that American-style due process doesn’t apply, give it a nice easy name (Gitmo? Isn’t that a Pixar character?) then give tours to the media. What the hell did they expect would happen? Why wouldn’t they expect the rest of the world to point fingers and make stuff up? It’s blinding arrogance. To fully answer your question, it’s not that we don’t treat prisoners better, we most surely do. Gitmo and the “screw you” attitude of this administration gives the appearance that we don’t. They lost the PR war quite a while back. But I’m sure many will reply “Who cares” anyway, and they would probably be right in the short term.

This thread is really bugging the crap out of me because it just highlights what is wrong with music today. The Spin list isn't based on commercial radio heavy rotation. The Spin list isn't based on how many copies got sold out of WalMart. The point of the list was to list albums that came out in the last 20 years that had a distinctive impact on music at the time, and had an impact on the music and artists that followed. So you haven't heard of Big Black? Well you sure have heard the impact that Steve Albini had on mixing drums for countless records that followed. You don't like rap? Well when Public Enemy's "...Nation..." and NWAs "Straight..." came out in 1988, the intense imagery and brutal honesty (imagined or otherwise) was shocking to hear coming out of a pair of speakers. You can not deny how these records changed music, or served as benchmarks for entire genres. You can't like (or hate) what you've never heard.

Apology accepted.

Come on. You've never heard of Public Enemy, Pearl Jam, or Sonic Youth?

You do know it's 2005, right? The Spin list is spot-on, if you ask me. Their criteria was albums that defined a new sound or an album that was totally relevant to the time it came out. I don't like Prince, but you can't deny his impact on popular music. Think about the first time you heard Public Enemy, or NWA, or PJ Harvey. I would disagree with putting "OK Computer" as #1 (you could argue that the first Dinosaur Jr. record was the first great indie rock release), but I don't begrudge it's inclusion on this list.