para-para-parrotdies

One of the worst BBC lists in recent memory. A$AP Rocky, Azealia Banks or Frank Ocean would be worthy winners.

:awesome:

Saffire, I strongly encourage you to provide context for your quotes. I will address each of them: 1) If you watch the C-SPAN videos or read the transcript, Senator Graham is talking about American citizens captured as enemy combatants in the United States, whether or not that is permitted under the AUMF - once again referring to the COVERED PERSONS in Section 1031. Right after he makes those statements you quoted, Graham gives context by talking about the Padilla case: (You can read the transcripts for yourself here so you know I'm not making this up: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428) Senator Graham is correct that the law of the land states an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant even if captured in the United States (As you may or may not know, the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004) neglected to decide on this issue). 2) Let's see the rest of Senator Graham's quote: Once again, Senator Graham is talking about enemy combatants, or people specified under COVERED PERSONS section of the bill.

The reason I oppose the bill is not because I believe it will prevent Americans losing the right to a fair trial. In fact, 1032(b) makes very clear that won't be the case. No, I oppose the bill because ironically, it would actually jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda. This has been a point raised by counterterrorism officials from both the Republican + Democratic parties, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence, and the attorney general (among others not listed). Personal letter from the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/28/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/DNI%20letter%20to%20Feinstein%20re%20NDAA%20Detainee%20Provisions.pdf That's the real reason why the Obama administration is threatening to veto the bill: “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto" - White House Statement

There are several problems with this argument and I'll address them accordingly: 1) I'm not stretching the language of this bill - it's exactly as it is written. If you're familiar with legalese, then you can understand the logical progressions of the different premises and how they interrelate. 2) You're starting off with the assumption that Rand Paul is correct on this issue and therefore anyone who disagrees must be wrong. I can also take the time to post videos arguing the other side - does that necessarily mean I must be right? This is a classic logical fallacy. 3) In fact, my "weird interpretation" of the law is exactly what the Justice Department is arguing: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/justice_department_official_defense_bill_still_harms_counterterror_efforts.php?ref=fpnewsfeed Again, all you have to do is re-read the bill and understand how the different provisions of the bill work. 4) I still don't understand why you always resort to personal attacks when sometimes you might have overstated the facts. I haven't insulted you or called you names - instead, I just broke down the law for people not familiar with legalese. That way, people who want clarification about this bill can come to a better understanding. For the record, I am also against this bill but you're looking at the wrong section if you're looking for issues with the bill as written. The problems lie in Section 1031, not so much 1032.

Yes, and you're not interpreting the language of the bill correctly. The provision you cited refers back to paragraph (1) of Section 1032 which says: Section 1032, as written, would mandate military detention of any non-U.S. person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and has planned or carried out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners - the COVERED PERSONS defined in Section 1032(2). Worth noting here is that the President already has authority under the AUMF to authorize the military to take custody of individuals who are part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. The waiver clause simply means that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, could waive this mandate to not be required to detain the person, if they can show a waiver is in the interest of the United States (e.g. false flag agents). Moreover, this detention requirement is limited by the provisions in 1032(b), which states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Completely agree. So let's see what the contested sections of the bill actually says. Here's Section 1031: Section 1031 merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force. In fact, 1031(d) explicitly states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language in the bill that could reasonably be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act. Now let's look at Section 1032: Moreover, Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who are deemed a more serious threat to national security. As 1032(a)(2) explicitly states, any person detained under this section must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. The bill also goes on in 1032(b) to explicitly state that the bill DOES NOT extend to US Citizens or Lawful Resident aliens.

No, Caribou is supporting Radiohead in Italy and Germany. The info is on the Tour Dates page.

Another tour date added: 15th July - Optimus Alive Festival in Lisbon, Portugal

Great lists so far everyone! An interesting trend that I'm noticing is that the large majority of our favorite albums come from the 90s and 00s. So my question is do you just not like the albums from the earlier years? Or is it that you haven't really had the opportunity to explore them?

What would you choose if you could only pick one between Kid A and Hail to the Thief? Same question for Asleep in the Back + Leaders of the Free World.

Fair enough although it just happens to be an opinion held by many people in the UK... if i remember correctly, it's not even considered to be the worst: that would go to Kerrang! For the record, I'm not saying Q magazine is "bad" because it gave MX a high score. I also said NME was a terrible magazine when it gave Coldplay like a 5/10 or something. I'm just commenting on the quality of the publications.

Just ask residents of the UK what they think of Q

Q Magazine is worse than NME so....

I don't care if I'm the only one to defend Girls Aloud - they have some of the best pop songs of the 2000s.

Great list! Definitely noticing people's appreciation for In Rainbows :P Absolutely love that you have Vespertine and Ys on the list. Interesting though that you didn't pick the expected Sufjan Stevens album, Illinois. And you must really love the new Bon Iver album if it's already on the all-time list! :)

I don't think this was mentioned yet: Girls Aloud. Say what you will but they had some of the best pop songs of the 2000s. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1DyG3e05oQ]Girls Aloud - Biology - YouTube[/ame] Both Cheryl + Nadine had two mediocre solo efforts (that's putting it lightly) but Nicola's debut album is very promising. So much that it made my Top Albums of 2011 list. [ame=http://soundcloud.com/invisiblemen/08-say-it-out-loud-1]Nicola Roberts - Say It Out Loud by invisiblemen on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/ame] Speaking of desert islands.... submit your top 10 desert albums here: http://coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5094432#post5094432 :P

Just curious - is this list ranked? If so, I really like your top 5 as well as the inclusion of Illmatic :dazzled: Still can't believe I couldn't find room in my list for Untrue or Madvillainy...

Haha I know if I was stranded on an island forever, the last thing I would be thinking is "hmm what 10 albums do I want?" ;) Great shout-out for the La's album. It was one of my favorite records growing up in the early 90s and I forgot I have it lying around somewhere... Complete shame that the La's only released one album.

Just a quick comment: I think the 1990s music scene is criminally underrated by so many people. Perhaps I'm being defensive as I grew up during this time but I can't believe the number of times I hear people say, "music was so much better in the 60s/70s" or "I wish I grew up during the 60s/70s." First of all, I don't think you actually want to live in the 60s/70s, a time defined by political and social turmoil. Not to mention that technology we take for granted wasn't commercially available to all families (on that note, anyone old enough to remember the AOL CD-Roms during the 90s? :P) But enough about that, let's actually discuss the music! While I was making my top 10 list, I couldn't believe how many classic albums were from the 90s. Just look at the year 1997 - in that year alone, we had: Björk - Homogenic Blur - Blur Built to Spill - Perfect From Now On Daft Punk - Homework Elliot Smith - Either/Or Godspeed You! Black Emperor - F♯ A♯ ∞ Modest Mouse - The Lonesome Crowded West Portishead - Portishead Radiohead - OK Computer Spiritualized - Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space The Verve - Urban Hymns Wu-Tang Clan - Wu-Tang Forever Yo La Tengo - I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One The incredible (and scary) thing is I didn't even list solid efforts from Aphex Twin, Autechre, Bob Dylan, The Flaming Lips, Mogwai, Pavement, Primal Scream, Stereolab, Super Furry Animals, Ween among others.... All those quality albums in just a single year. Not to mention the rest of the 90s had classic albums like the obligatory choices: My Bloody Valentine's Loveless, Nirvana's Nevermind (For the record, I think this is the 2nd most overrated album of all-time, only behind Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, DJ Shadow's Endtroducing....., Boards of Canada's Music Has the Right to Children, Jeff Buckley's Grace, R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People, U2's Achtung Baby, Massive Attack's Mezzanine, Pulp's Different Class, Beck's Odelay among other classic albums that I haven't listed yet. So lesson of the day: Appreciate the 1990s! :dance:

Exactly - if Mr. Hopkins pulls his entire discography from Spotify, then people are more likely to resort to illegal downloading his songs. Then he doesn't get paid at all. For some bizarre reason, the music industry refuses to acknowledge that technology has changed things and that music is now accessible to all with an internet connection. Plus, the 90,000 plays that Mr. Hopkins points to paints an incomplete picture. How many people already owned his albums and just decided to stream on Spotify because it was easier. Nor does it account for repeat plays - many of my friends who use Spotify just listen to a couple of songs over and over. 90,000 plays doesn't mean 90,000 independent users and Mr. Hopkins would be extremely naive to think that. Finally, citing the number of plays doesn't account for exposure - how many people just decided to stream his music on Spotify that went on to become fans and actually buy more of his stuff? Spotify does a decent job of separating people who listen to music between the casual listeners and hardcore fans. Loyal fans are more likely to buy records to support the artists while casual listeners are more likely to download songs for free. With music on Spotify, the latter group might listen to a recommended song on before deciding to purchase it. But if Mr. Hopkins' songs were pulled off Spotify, then these casual listeners have no other option but to illegally download the songs. It would prevent potential fans from getting exposure to Mr. Hopkins' songs. Right now, the only thing Mr. Hopkins really has going for him is that he worked on Coldplay's albums - he's not widely regarded in the electronic music scene because his music often sounds like a poor man's Boards of Canada. Spotify provides a venue for people who heard about his production on Coldplay's albums and want to check out his music. Don't get me wrong - I do think Mr. Hopkins should get higher compensation for his works. But calling out Spotify (on Twitter of all places) is not the right call.

What are your 10 favorite albums of all-time, the records you never tire of listening to and/or have had a huge impact in your life? Note: you don't necessarily have to take the "desert island" scenario too seriously. For example, as much as I love OK Computer, I wouldn't necessarily want it if I was stranded on a deserted island....forever.... Basic rules: EPs, Live albums, Soundtracks are eligible. Compilation/Greatest Hits albums are not eligible. Also, you are not limited to one album per artist - feel free to fill up your list with all Coldplay material if you want :P The Lists so far: para-para-parrotdies TracieMorgan Italian Plastic evil cat howyousawtheworld The Final Track coldplayhebe12 Baw8cc kat_iveson TecHniCoLoR_MX rainplay R_Burns Gautama Cheese Nip 2 Houdini Jack Bauer WarningSign42 Afshin_Noel G James. Kenji Here's my list: Top 10 listed in alphabetical order: The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (1966) The Beach Boys - The Smile Sessions (2011) Björk - Homogenic (1997) Cocteau Twins - Treasure (1984) David Bowie - Low (1977) My Bloody Valentine - Loveless (1991) Radiohead - OK Computer (1997) Sigur Rós - Ágætis byrjun (1999) Slowdive - Souvlaki (1993) The Zombies - Odessey and Oracle (1968) 10 Honorable Mentions listed in alphabetical order: Aphex Twin - Selected Ambient Works 85-92 (1992) The Avalanches - Since I Left You (2000) Björk - Vespertine (2001) Boards of Canada - Music Has the Right to Children (1998) Burial - Untrue (2007) DJ Shadow - Endtroducing..... (1996) Flying Lotus - Cosmogramma (2010) Massive Attack - Mezzanine (1998) Portishead - Third (2008) Radiohead - Kid A (2000) .....you want to see some more of my favorite albums? Ok, here's 10 more!

Here are a couple of suggestions: 1) Start by just listening to their well-known songs. I'm talking the likes of High and Dry, Fake Plastic Trees, No Surprises, Street Spirit, Paranoid Android, Karma Police, There There, Creep, etc. Chances are if you don't like their "hits" then you won't like fan favorites like Dollars and Cents, Bloom, Idioteque, The Gloaming, Climbing Up the Walls, The National Anthem, Where I End and You Begin, etc. 2) If you prefer starting with an album, then try The Bends, OK Computer or In Rainbows first. Definitely ease into albums like Kid A, Amnesiac and The King of Limbs. 3) Sometimes it helps to see a band perform live to gain an appreciation for the songs and Radiohead is no exception. Some good starter videos for beginners might be clips from In Rainbows - From the Basement or their Glastonbury 2003 performance.

Sure I'll do it now - you're wrong. Again.

No. There are four issues that the Supreme Court will review: 1) Constitutionality of Individual Insurance Mandate. Whether the individual insurance mandate in the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act is constitutional, or whether it exceeds the authority given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs in all of the cases challenging the law have argued that the law’s requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance by 2014 exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration's primary argument is based on the idea that an individual’s decision not to buy health insurance affects interstate commerce because that person will inevitably wind up needing medical care, for which he will be unable to pay; the costs will be absorbed by health care providers, who will then pass at least some of them on to the insurance companies, who in turn pass them on to the people who do buy insurance. 2) Severability of the Individual Insurance Mandate. Whether the individual insurance mandate is severable from the remainder of the law, so that the remainder of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act could stand on its own and remain in effect if the individual insurance mandate were to be struck down as unconstitutional. 3) Does the Court Have Jurisdiction to Decide the Matter Before 2014? Whether federal courts (including the Supreme Court) have power to hear and decide the challenges to the individual insurance mandate at this time, or whether the federal Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a) (which prohibits court challenges to taxes before they go into effect) bars the courts from hearing and deciding these challenges to the insurance mandate until it goes into effect in 2014. Obviously, this dispute centers at least in part around whether the penalty that people who don’t buy insurance will have to pay is a tax. 4) Constitutionality of Medicaid Expansion. Whether the expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income individuals, which was mandated under the Affordable Care Act as a condition to states’ eligibility to receive federal Medicaid dollars which were increased under the law, exceeded Congress’ powers under the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution Supporters of states' rights argue that Congress is overstepping its authority when it uses the threat of taking away all federal funding for Medicaid as a stick to get the states to do something that it otherwise couldn’t do, such as expand eligibility for Medicaid in all of the states.