Cricket Player Manager
Page 52 of 241 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462102152 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 3605
Like Tree112Likes

Thread: The American Politics thread

  1. #766
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    when you think about it, the one thing American needs more than anything else is more politicians who refuse to compromise
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  2. #767
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    33,939
    when you realise the post you made 3 hours ago and has been quoted is missing a word.....
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  3. #768
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Is it better to be like Romney, changing your positions several times before office; or Obama and change your positions several times after getting into office?
    Yes, because they have to live in the real world, not the world they wanted or imagined it to be before they got to office.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    forever 63*

  4. #769
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,860
    "Compromise" is a dirty word in the US. That's why they're willing to arse**** their economy over the budget.


  5. #770
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,583
    Arrogance and hubris, that's all it is - the notion that those who disagree with you have nothing constructive to add or worse are actively damaging to the nation by their very involvement/existence.

  6. #771
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,786
    The anti-intellectualism is the worst thing. They actually have to not know or deny knowing what they're talking about, because they can't appear to be smarter than the voters. Really, really ****ing depressing.
    "Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."

  7. #772
    State Captain Lostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    The anti-intellectualism is the worst thing. They actually have to not know or deny knowing what they're talking about, because they can't appear to be smarter than the voters. Really, really ****ing depressing.
    lol so true, Elitism=evil seems the cool thing recently.
    Everyone would like an elite doctor to diagnose, an elite teacher to educate, and an elite athlete to entertain. However, a politician that seems somewhat intelligent is unacceptable since they won't be good people to have a beer with.

    Joseph Heller couldn't have made this up.
    For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke

  8. #773
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Yes, because they have to live in the real world, not the world they wanted or imagined it to be before they got to office.
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Yes, I would rather have either of them to be honest.

    That's all well and good but the only thing that would accomplish is gridlock as we're already seeing. You have to have give and take if you want anything done.
    Then you're nuts - . More seriously; if the populous shares its views with you then it is no wonder America is going down the ****ter IMO. Neither Romney nor Obama changed their positions to get beyond an impasse. At times, there was no impasse - that is precisely why Obama has lost support even from the left. They've merely changed their positions to enrich themselves and/or get elected/re-elected. They don't actually believe what they say nor do they intend to do it. Politicians like the aforementioned are plentiful; you must be happy with the current political landscape.

    No, you fail to understand the things Paul is not willing to compromise on. It is not merely an opinion subject to his own whims. It is not a selfish and hollow position merely to create a visage of consistency. He considers practical and legal grounds. He considers all angles, and that is why he cannot relent on the principles he carries forth.

    Let's consider something like torture. It is both illegal and in terms of efficacy, for investigations, it is unreliable because people under torture are willing to say anything to get away from the duress. Why would you want someone to change his position against torture to appease the opposite party? Just because a large percentage of the populous might agree with something does not mean they hold a legitimate point of view. You should know this well.

    Paul is strict and unwavering on things like that. WRT to positions he holds, you wouldn't want him to change his opinion on them because they are much like the above. It's a shame that people, just to have a stick to beat him with, would even bring this up as if it is a legitimate gripe. He should be praised for willing to take on the world and not letting up to the interests around him just to get ahead. It reminds me of the quote from Beccaria John Adams gave whilst defending the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre:

    "If by supporting the rights of mankind, I shall save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny or of ignorance equally fatal; his blessings will be sufficient consolation for me for the contempt of all mankind."

    No offence, but I find your criticism nonsensical and a facile understanding of his points of view. Maybe you should cite an example. Paul's points shouldn't really have a gridlock for anyone who really understands where his points of view are coming from. It is not so much that Paul advocates solutions just because he agrees with them. Take abortion; he thinks a person with rights exists upon conception. However, he is willing for the states to decide what they do WRT to abortion. How can there be a disagreement on that, really? It is simply not the role of the Federal government to decide over would-be criminal matters. This means his position is no position really at all either way...just a legal difference - which is very fundamental.
    Last edited by Ikki; 17-02-2012 at 11:49 AM.
    ★★★★★

  9. #774
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    33,939
    “If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.







    It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who?



















    “Jeb Bush,”

  10. #775
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Then you're nuts - . More seriously; if the populous shares its views with you then it is no wonder America is going down the ****ter IMO. Neither Romney nor Obama changed their positions to get beyond an impasse. At times, there was no impasse - that is precisely why Obama has lost support even from the left. They've merely changed their positions to enrich themselves and/or get elected/re-elected. They don't actually believe what they say nor do they intend to do it. Politicians like the aforementioned are plentiful; you must be happy with the current political landscape.
    Political landscape? Yea, I am fine with it actually. I don't like the positions of the individual politicians but they reflect the positions of their constituents on most issues, which is as it should be. There are certain things I wish we had better control over, like lobbyists and things like Citizens United & campaign finance laws.

    No, you fail to understand the things Paul is not willing to compromise on. It is not merely an opinion subject to his own whims. It is not a selfish and hollow position merely to create a visage of consistency. He considers practical and legal grounds. He considers all angles, and that is why he cannot relent on the principles he carries forth.
    No duh. I never said he doesn't believe what he says. For example, I don't give two ****s about "states rights". We fought a civil war over that and the North won. So people need to deal with that. (On a side note, I've been to the south, they still call it the 'war of northern aggression.' )

    I don't think the federal government is bad - I'd prefer it over my state government even when the party I don't support is in power. I'd rather the 10th amendment left the rights 'to the people' only not to states and the people. But more importantly, assuming I get someone like Romney in power - if I'm in Congress, I might be able to cut a deal and (for example) increase funding to department X or department Y if I make a concession in another area. That's how things get done. You think Paul would ever make any compromises that might increase taxes or change the scope of the government?

    Romney or Obama I can work with, Paul - if it's something I disagree with, there is no leeway and nothing to work with at all. There is no back and forth to arrive at some sort of a middle ground. Look at how many laws he's been the sole dissenter on (or one of a very small amount). Some laws I praise him on, the ones I agree with, and they all come from his philosophy, but that's not good governance. Instead of just saying 'no', you can work with the other side and maybe come up with a solution you hate a little less in return for your support. If you aren't willing to do that, I don't want you as my representative.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 18-02-2012 at 06:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  11. #776
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,965
    Hahaha, headlines today show pictures of an all male panel in the house talking about a woman's ability to get birth control.

    Best thing EVAR.



    17 point swing in single woman vote since November. It's even losing in the Catholic demographic!

  12. #777
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,812
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Political landscape? Yea, I am fine with it actually. I don't like the positions of the individual politicians but they reflect the positions of their constituents on most issues, which is as it should be. There are certain things I wish we had better control over, like lobbyists and things like Citizens United & campaign finance laws.


    No duh. I never said he doesn't believe what he says. For example, I don't give two ****s about "states rights". We fought a civil war over that and the North won. So people need to deal with that. (On a side note, I've been to the south, they still call it the 'war of northern aggression.' )

    I don't think the federal government is bad - I'd prefer it over my state government even when the party I don't support is in power. I'd rather the 10th amendment left the rights 'to the people' only not to states and the people. But more importantly, assuming I get someone like Romney in power - if I'm in Congress, I might be able to cut a deal and (for example) increase funding to department X or department Y if I make a concession in another area. That's how things get done. You think Paul would ever make any compromises that might increase taxes or change the scope of the government?

    Romney or Obama I can work with, Paul - if it's something I disagree with, there is no leeway and nothing to work with at all. There is no back and forth to arrive at some sort of a middle ground. Look at how many laws he's been the sole dissenter on (or one of a very small amount). Some laws I praise him on, the ones I agree with, and they all come from his philosophy, but that's not good governance. Instead of just saying 'no', you can work with the other side and maybe come up with a solution you hate a little less in return for your support. If you aren't willing to do that, I don't want you as my representative.
    Well, considering the foundations of your country; States' rights are something you should be concerned about. Not only from a legal standpoint but from an efficacy point of view as well. I won't get into that, because we've already argued this and you think central governments are more trustworthy/better and we simply disagree. And IIRC, you couldn't refute what I said about powers being governed through states as being a better mechanism to safeguard against abuse of power.

    So, the reality is that you're more at odds with Paul than Paul is at odds with the world. That's fine, but don't paint Paul out as someone who is strict for the sake of being strict without realising the underpinnings of his philosophy. The fact that you pick and choose what you believe from his viewpoint says more about you than it does him. For all his points are interrelated. But that's not new, especially for those that recognise themselves as left of centre - i.e. the modern day liberal. They are very contradictory in their views, especially when it comes to civil and economic liberties.

    Also, you really didn't give an example. You could be for a government program and still be a Paul fan. Because Paul gives you a route through the States. As aforesaid, he may disagree with abortion; but he'll let you vote how you want it to be in your state - whether pro-life or pro-choice. So the only real compromise is not to have it at State level, and I'm yet to hear an argument that can beat that logic. So unless you're a centralist, where is the impasse? And if that is what you are, then who really is the one that is unbending to compromise?
    Last edited by Ikki; 18-02-2012 at 10:07 PM.

  13. #778
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,812
    Re-reading your first para it also reminds me of a speech Friedman once gave. He said he always found it curious how people defend the government so staunchly, when it is readily viewable that their representatives are actually doing what the majority wouldn't want them to do in many cases. There is one mechanism, however, where every voice is always represented and it is not reliant on the goodwill of a human being to keep their promise: freedom.

    There once was a time where I wouldn't have been too far off where Manan stood. Now I read comments like that and I cringe. Too much trust with too much power; when history has already shown countless times that power corrupts...and still does.
    Last edited by Ikki; 18-02-2012 at 10:02 PM.

  14. #779
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,965
    I don't understand your point - I'm the biggest supporter of the rights of individuals, the reason 'states' even come into play are purely due to the structure of the country as it existed back then. Hell, the constitution wasn't even really 'supposed' to apply to the states individually (e.g they could restrict the first amendment if they so chose) - thankfully, we've moved past that.

    State legislatures can be corrupted just as much as national ones, and often they are much worse because there is almost no transparency and no one is held accountable (ask who their state representative is). It's not about trusting someone vs. not, it's about whether I want relevant policy decided at the state level or the national level and I choose the latter.

    And yes, I do have more of a problem with Paul's beliefs - but I've always said that. And yes I'm a centralist - I don't want my state to ****ing decide anything but the difference is if there is someone who believes in states rights, that's fine and good for him, but for most of them, they will give into practical considerations and maybe I can work with them to get some of what I want in return for my support (by 'me' I mean if I were a legislator looking to pass something).
    Last edited by silentstriker; 19-02-2012 at 12:41 AM.

  15. #780
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,569
    While I have ****all knowledge of American politics nor pretend to have any, I did the political compass thing a few days ago and I find that despite not being exactly congruent to him, It's still much much closer than to any politician I've ever seen before.




    Seems rather interesting and will read about him when(or more realistically, if ever) I don't have a massive stack of college work to accomplish.
    Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams



    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

    It's because Teja is a ****, FTR



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The British Politics Thread
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4290
    Last Post: 15-12-2014, 02:32 AM
  2. Media
    By SirBloody Idiot in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 07:10 AM
  3. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Samuel_Vimes in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 12:06 PM
  4. Finally ! A Last Word Thread
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •