Johnny Coli
-
Posts
3,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Johnny Coli
-
-
Actually, it was two. Cinci and Coli.
Partisans reaching across the aisle to throttle the stupid in a bipartisan manner.
-
I shouldn't, but I have to laugh at all the contortions the dems here are going through to excuse the incompetence of the first few weeks of the Obama administration. At this rate he will out-Carter Carter.
Forgotten in all of the glee from the Right is that early on in the primaries and in the general election it often looked like Obama and his team were flailing, only for all to find out shortly thereafter that they did indeed know what they were doing, had a specific plan, and ended out on top. Every time and for every issue that came up. Do not for one second think that the media, the chattering pundits, or the many fools in Congress are smarter than this man and his team. He is a smart, patient, and calculated man that not only often looks and acts like the only adult in the room, but also sees several moves into the future while others are stuck in the short-term 24 hour news cycles. So, as you make your toasts that Obama is a bust a mere two weeks into his first term, remember all of the times when you thought you were right or had things in the bag, only to be dissappointed as he came through with flying colors. You see incompetence because you want to see incompetence.
-
You contradict yourself - you looked at this one and replied. With some posters it is just their style, to each their own IMHO.
I was replying to Stuck. I still haven't clicked on the link in OP.
-
At what point will dev supply some text to give even the tiniest of hint of what his links are about?
That bugs me, too. There are multiple offenders that do that. Unless someone quotes the lede or gives even the slightest indication of what the link is I'm not bothering.
-
I would say this thread may have become the most laughable one I've ever seen here. The Stones have been touring for over 50 years, have multiple rock anthems, set the standard for arena rock, have sold several hundred million records, with 20ish studio albums, have played for 100's of millions if not billions of people, have influenced more performers than any of us have even listened to, and yet they're over rated. The cynicism here is one thing you can always count on. Gotta love it.
I can understand someone saying they don't care for their music but to call them over rated is an entirely incorrect assessment of the band's career.
Their music catalog since Tattoo You (1981, maybe?) has been horrid. They had a good/great 20-year run of relevancy, but really they've been coasting on fumes and their previous set of tunes for almost 30 years now. Compare the Stones to a guy like Elvis Costello who continues to reinvent himself and compose challenging music. There's no contest, IMO. As for selling out arenas...so does Brittney Spears. In fact, which of these two "nostalgia" acts would generate more buzz if they both started touring on the same day...The Rolling Stones or The Spice Girls (if they did a reunion).
-
I have a question for you 24 guys....I started watching last year and unlike most I enjoyed last season....my question is should I go back and watch the previous seasons?
Season 1 is the best, IMO. They actually stick to the time thing realistically, and not go to commercial coming back with Jack 30 miles away after the 90 second break.
-
Wrong.
There are a handful of Stones tunes I like, but overall they just might be the single most overrated band on the planet. In short, they suck. They did at their peak and certainly now in their geriatric years. They embarrass themselves, IMO.
Yes, I understand the following and the subjectivity.
MoTown > Stones
Agreed. The Stones are pretty overrated in my book. Outside of the Exile on Main Street or Goatshead Soup LPs, and maybe a handfull of their earlier tunes, they bore me. The greatest Rock and Roll band of all time was the Ramones.
Also agree that Motown > Stones
-
Obama, elected saying he will play by the rules, nominates cabinet members who didn't play by the rules
Banks, given money expected to play by the rules, blow money on high end parties and jets.
Obama not playing by rules wants to give billions to banks not playing by the rules.
I'd say there's a huge link there.
Point 1: Richardson, Daschle and Killefer won't be in the cabinet, so there really aren't two sets of rules. The Geithner tax mistake was a common one among Americans who work for international organizations, including foreign embassies.
Point 2: Yes, the banks getting their bailout money have been stupid. Those Bank's actions after they received the money have nothing to do with Obama, unless you are suggesting the US should take control of the banks, and you don't strike me as a Socialist.
Point 3: Obama is actually playing by the rules in his cabinet appointments (see point 1), and wants to give the money to the Banks with the stipulation that they play by the rules.
The only link to any of this is that Obama's the President and Maureen Dowd is a hack.
-
Really. Exactly how much time did people spend (on both sides of the aisle) giving McCain shiiitt after Troopergate?
Answer: a lot.
The glaring difference being that every one of Obama's nominees has admitted they made the errors, apologized for the errors, corrected the errors, and also willfully withdrew. In no way can anyone say that Palin has shown any remorse or regret, has never apologized for any of the countless real scandals (and outright lies) she has been the center of, and has in fact blamed everyone (including McCain's people) for getting panned.
-
Willy gets combine invite
Drew tossed a TD in the "Texas vs The Nation" game last Saturday. I know Kiper thinks well of him.
PTR
It'd be a great story if the Bills somehow got him. At least we know he can play in the elements.
-
Let's make it two years in a row where they mismatch the headliner with the audience
I don't think Michael Phelps would be much of a draw.
-
Has anyone had two pets, possibly brothers from the same litter that are very attached to each other, and one has to be put down? Not anything we're going to have to deal with for a long, long time (hopefully), but I don't think either one would last too long without the other. They're pretty inseperable and I've wondered what will happen when they get on in years.
-
And just like that, Daschle has pulled himself out of the nomination. The process is working. Transparency and accountability. Interesting concepts that we haven't seen in eight years.
-
You mean, if they're a big shot DC insider, they're confirmed no matter the allegation, while the small fish get tossed aside?
Yup, the process works.
I wouldn't call Bill Richardson a small fish. The Geithner nomination went through because his tax issue was a minor (and common) one, and he was considered by all to be very qualified for the job. Daschle has some significant hurdles in his way, and if this tax issue tanks his nomination then the process is working. This latest person was either asked to withdraw by the Obama team, or maybe she just threw herself on her own sword rather than go through with it. In any event, of the four, only one has been confirmed. So, rather than have this stuff come up post-confirmation and then have the administration get court orders to squash any and all inquiries (like the previous loons), the process has played out like it should. Quite frankly, I think it speaks well on the transparency of the entire process so far.
-
You would have a point if these candidates were shot down before they were nominated. When they withdraw after the announcement is made, that great vetting process you tout, kinda sucks.
Yet the process has been as transparent as this process could be, and it has been the nominees or the Obama administration that has brought these issues to light. Once they found out about Richardson, he was pulled. They examined the Geitner and Daschel mistakes and moved forward after full disclosure to put them through the rest of the process. This last person pulled herself out of the nomination (surely at the behest of the Obama team). So it seems like the process is working.
-
This is what happens when you actually vet your nominees, unlike the last administration who made ignoring/burying backgrounds an art form.
-
You will know. Hard to say when that is because you have to know your own pet, but really, there will be a point where you'll just know that it is time. One thing to ask yourself is whether you are putting in the effort for the pet, or for you. Another thing to keep in mind, and I feel this is a pretty important one, is whether the pet is alone for extended periods of time when it might die alone, maybe when you are at work. Having put a pet to sleep two years ago, if she had died while my wife and I were out rather than in our arms and comfortable, I don't think I would have been able to handle that. Really, having the ability to give a loved member of the family the gift of a peaceful, comfortable and dignified end is pretty special. Good luck to you.
-
Very informative! Thanks, JC.
I didn't see a reference though to my scenario question in the O.P. Would 'special' accomodations/negotiations to one employee officially mark the bar higher for future prospects, or is special consideration still acceptable without divulging specifics? I'd certainly want to know what the top package is, when coming aboard. -Even with the acknowledged compensation range.
These are anti-discrimination laws, so an employer is allowed to pay employess differently for the same job provided the reasoning isn't because they are a member of a class that is protected by the law, ie race, gender, age, disability, etc.
It is spelled out here, Equal Pay Act, with the relevent part being:
Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as "affirmative defenses" and it is the employer's burden to prove that they apply.So, in the scenario you describe, yes an employer may pay another person more money as agreed upon in the salary negotiation, and the burden of proof for why that person is compensated more falls on the employer.
-
'Da Prez' signed into law the equal pay for equal work bill last week. Overdue since the advent of Eve, how, exactly will this be provided? Would a prospective new female employee have the right to know exactly what I make, if applying for an equal position? Does/should she then invoke Freedom of Information laws to sate herself that she'll be making equal pay?
I've championed this cause whenever my professional positions availed, but I'm not sure to what degree this will impact privacy 'rules'. Case in point, my position came at a specified salary range. Through lengthy negotiations, I garnered a salary above the top limit and more vacation time coming in. Will new prospects have a right to know this?
I'm all about equal pay, but I fear this is gonna get interesting..
Thoughts?
The Civil Rights Act in 1964 already abolished sex-based descrimination in employment. It is already illegal to offer a woman (or someone with a disability, or to discriminate based on race or age) less money to take the same position. What the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does is extend the statute of limitations 180 days for every paycheck that that person received with the unequal compensation. Previously a person would have had to file suit within 180 days of agreeing unknowingly to the unequal compensation. A company could avoid a lawsuit if they could hide the wage discrepancy from the person for six months since they were hired. This Act basically treats each paycheck as a seperate abuse case, and adds six months to the statute of limitations. If you worked there for a year, received 26 paychecks, then found out years down the road that you weren't compensated fairly under the anti-discrimination in employment laws, the statute of limitations in your case would be 13 years after your last paycheck.
Here is the text of the final Bill.
-
But he's continuing to say the economy is getting worse and likening it to the Depression (which its nowhere near) which is forcing people to save money instead of spending it, further damaging the economy. I've been pondering what the benefit of this approach is, perhaps the President knows the upswing will occur just in time for the 2012 election and wants to make himself the hero when that time comes.
Maybe he's just being straight up with the American people? Economists are saying the worst is still coming, and people are saving rather than spending. Frankly, I believe the American people are not unhappy with this approach of actually telling them the truth, however discouraging. Obama isn't pulling any punches or trying to sell them a load of nonsense. Where you see a president you didn't vote for and don't like, many others see a refreshing change from the previous administration that ignored reality and tried selling the public a load of bull sh--. The recent polls show the American people are behind Obama by a wide margin. More to the point, when he does say its going to get worse in the near future, he is always quick to then say "Here's what we're going to try and do" to pull the economy out of the spiral. You may have enjoyed being lied to for eight years, but most of the rest of us enjoy being told the truth and what the plan is to solve the crisis.
-
Yet another Palin post
Can I ask a favor of the BDS Palinophiles, in the future please title all Palin posts with the prefix YAPP (yet another palin post) so the rest of us don't waste our time reading it
Says the guy who never posts anything of substance. Do you high-five yourself when you make "a zinger," or do you fist-bump your life-size Boba Fett cutout?
-
Lot's of big talk about people living under bridges. Fine. How does $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $500 help them? Or $150 million for the Smithsonian? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? $87 million for expanded family planning? Or my favorite, $198 million to the Filipino Veterans of WWII?
If you want to say this bill is a handout to get the poor through hard times, ok. Just don't be disingenuous and call it an economic stimulus, not when the actual 'stimulus' spending only comes to about $90 billion and only 20% of that is expected to be spent by 2010.
I call it a non-stimulative orgy of spending on every pet project they can think of.
I didn't say it was a handout at all. You people like to throw the "handout" word around because you find the idea of helping the very people that this package would put back to work, namely the middle class and the poor, distasteful. I said it was a way to create jobs for the people who need it, with a good portion of those jobs going into rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure. That's not a handout.
I'm also not surprised you and yours wouldn't want to expand the Pell Grant which would help out the people getting an advanced education. $500 may not seem like much to you Ivory Tower/Gated Community folks, but that's a ton of cash for a college student. There were semesters where my books totaled slightly more than that. The Smithsonian and NEA money absolutely creates jobs in construction and the Arts. In my opinion, $87 million for Family Planning isn't nearly enough for programs that directly impact large swaths of other social programs. What the hell do you have against WWII veterans?
Of course you don't call it "stimulus." It doesn't stimulate your bottom line. Tough sh--. This isn't about you. It's about fixing the economy and getting people back to work while the economy recovers.
-
Yes, but how does that help the long-term economic competatitiveness of the US? Are we going to export nurses, insulation, and nannys? Who will pay their salaries in 10 years? Not the government - it will be hard pressed to tread water maintaining the debt.
You cannot grow the economy by paying everybody to paint each others houses. This is not a stimulation bill, it is a handout.
It creates jobs in the short term for people who are out of work. The economy will recover and then these jobs won't be the only thing out there for people. Really, is it so hard for some of you heartless bastards to understand that having people employed and not living in boxes under bridges while the economy recovers is a good thing? If it takes three to five years for many of the blue-collar jobs to recover, then what do you expect all of these people to live on for those three to five years? But, people like you who scream and stamp their feet that this money goes into short-term programs for the people who need it the most won't be happy unless the first package out of congress includes your tax breaks. Too !@#$ing bad for you. The long-term cpompetitiveness of the US depends on getting the people who don't have jobs now working. I think you can live without your tax breaks.
-
There is no definition, as far as actual numbers go, as to what is a mandate and what isn't. As long as you don't believe that Reagan had a mandate at all in 1980, that's cool. You wouldn't think Obama had one now.
There are a lot of people, however, that believe Reagan did enter the Presidency in January, 1981, with a mandate. I would have guessed that you were one of them. And now I see that no, you don't think Reagan had a mandate.
That was prior to November 5th, 2008, when they moved the mandate goalposts.
In any event, First Read has some numbers that show the past election, and the political tracking of the country as a whole, suggest a mandate.
The state of the GOP: Given last night's House Republican vote, as well as tomorrow's RNC chair contest and even the recent GOP fealty to Rush Limbaugh, it's worth pointing out that the Republican Party is about as unpopular now as the president who just left office. In addition to December's NBC/WSJ poll, which showed that only 27% of the country viewed the GOP favorably (versus 49% who said that about the Dem Party), a new Gallup analysis of the 350,000 interviews it conducted in 2008 finds the Democratic Party leading in every state in the nation except in Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. (That’s right, even in some states McCain carried like Texas and Georgia, voters identify more with the Dem Party than the GOP.) Gallup summed up it up this way: “The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction… As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way the Republicans (in particular, President George W. Bush) governed the country.”That's what a mandate looks like.
RIP Lux Interior
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Bummer. Another icon down. Lux Interior, lead singer of the Cramps, died yesterday of a heart condition.
Punk singer Interior dies at 62
This link has some of the Target Video footage of the show they did at the Napa State Mental Hospital (in 1978).
The LPs Gravest Hits, Songs the Lord Taught Us, and Psychadelic Jungle are essential records, IMO. Primal, trashy, lo-fi rockabilly played with a subterranean attitude. It doesn't get more real than the Cramps, man.
RIP Lux