Johnny Coli

Your avatar reminds me of a band from the mid 80s called the Mentors (really bad punk rock in the vein of GG Allin, real scumbags). I was working in a record store in Poughkeepsie back in 1986 (in a mall, dumb black vest and a skinny tie was our uniform) and we get their new record in called "Up the dose". On the cover were these three shirtless fat guys in black executioner hoods standing around a cage with a 300+ pound "hottie" in trashy pink lingerie. The manager refused to sell it, so me and this other guy quit in protest (this was around the time of the whole PMRC/music censorship thing). I still have that record. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Mark.

Classic. I'm not usually one to bash someone else's "art" but that sucks on several levels. A) you want to charge us a buck to download it, B) the short clip of it doesn't make me want to download it because it blows. Maybe you and JP Era can get together and he can do the artwork for your CD.

The only way to get anything done in Boston is to promise to build a park in their district or name a square after someone if you need their vote. That's why our new bridge is the Leonard P Zakim Bunker Hill Charlestown Bridge. I'm totally serious. I call it the "Z". Most just call it a waste of money, though, because it's already falling apart. Oh, a lot of that money came from federal cash, too. Thanks for helping us dig an expensive hole, and thanks for the crummy bridge.

You're either with us or against us, commie!

Either of you lads want to point to a single post in this thread by a "commie liberal" who is advocating we burn the flag, or are "gung ho" about burning the flag? I see a ton of posts by liberals, libertarians and conservatives suggesting we uphold freedom of speech, but I don't see a single post suggesting it is an acceptable or encouraged behavior.

Filthy hippie footwear.

Joe Six Pack got censored in a thread about free speech. That would qualify as irony, I believe.

You must fight to live....on the Planet of the Apes.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, and yes, I do see what you mean. I feel it (flag burning) falls under free speech. We let white supremacists march/rally, etc. And we let them march without fear of violence, and in most cases have to actually protect them while they march. Freedom means that sometimes you have to throw up in your mouth and look the other way.

Back to the flag-burning topic. Do you root for the team, or do you root for the laundry? I burned my Bledsoe jersey after one game last year. Does that mean I'm not a true Bills fan? Absolutely not. It just means I love the team so much that I was willing to use that simple act to show how much emotion I have vested in the team. People who burn the flag may not be making the same type of statement, but I believe it still applys, somewhat. However, if a Pats fan is burning a Bills jersey, I'm more than likely to drop the gloves and come over the boards.

True. I was making an attempt to crack open the black box that is Beausox' mind. Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views. In this post, he used the flag-burning issue to drop the name of Hume, then mention something about marriage, which has nothing to do with the topic. It's pretty interesting.

I believe he (beausox) is waxing poetic about David Hume, the conservative 18th century philosopher. Hume In particular, he may be refering to Hume's philosophy regarding "Utilitarianism". From the same link: Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason why utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. Humans are hard-wired to approve of things that help society – public utility. Hume used this insight to explain how we evaluate a wide array of phenomena, ranging from social institutions and government policies to character traits and talents.

All my groomsmen are going to be in Chuck Taylor All Star High Tops instead of standard tux shoes. The classic black high top with the white soles and toe. That's what I got them. And a Ramones beer coozy.

How the !@#$ does MJ getting aquitted have anything to do with liberals or politics? Jesus, Bill, get a new freaking routine, man. The prosecution fugged up the case. Politics had nothing to do with this case.

I understand what VABills is saying. If these people can’t afford to pay for housing themselves, and the government is subsidizing their rent, then they shouldn’t be able to use the extra cash on an addiction. However, being a liberal, my plan would be to 1. Eliminate ALL smoking in the projects by setting an unrealistic goal very far into the future (ie 2015) 2. Enact extremely expensive anti-smoking programs that will ultimately fail, yet look good on paper for when I run for the Senate 3. Subsidize their habits with government cigarettes until the programs above can get them to quit 4. Spend large amounts of money trying to get the tobacco companies to foot the bill

What about goverment surplus cigarettes...really sub-par, crappy butts?

You can't smoke until you are 18. You can't drink until you are 21. Therefore, there is no reason for a minor to be in a bar. But, if you serve food, then you have no legal reason to exclude them. So, if you want to have an establishment that caters to smokers, you can. Unless you serve food, then you can't.

Food complicates the matter, because there is no age limit at which you can legally eat. The legal limit for smoking and drinking would exclude people under a certain age. If the establishment serves food, then it wouldn't be able to exclude minors because it wouldn't have any legal reason to descriminate against them. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and this idea will most likely get bombed by those here who are, but I see it as an acceptable solution.

I'm saying that if people want to smoke, and the pub owner is willing to let them smoke, than they can smoke. If they don't want to be in a pub that allows smoking, they don't have to go in. Whose rights are being violated?

I've got your back brother. The way I see it, if it is a stand-alone, privately owned establishment that does NOT serve food, I have zero problem. If people want to go to a pub that caters to the non-smoking crowd, or vice versa, so be it. You are not impinging on a persons right to clean air if people go specifically to an establishment where they know the air will be fithly.

Get really wasted and show up at her place at 3:00AM. Don't knock on the door, or ring the bell. Just yell stuff at her from the street until someone calls the cops (I F-ing hate you...stuff along those lines). As they're loading you into the back of the cruiser, scream "I LOVE YOU, <insert name>." Works every time.

I'm a pretty far-to-the-left of center liberal. That guy is not a liberal. That's just the rantings of an idiot.

Fantasy props for the Bills D (rated 3, 5 and 1). Travis made the Top 5 back-ups .

They also do a good job in covering up rust.

My dad used to tell us it was the "rumble seat." A social worker explained what it really was much later.