Could it be happening?!

[kochman]

But don't read too much into it. Brazil has better players than the US in every single position, except goalkeeper.

Well, their performance doesn't indicate that...

I don't think Hulk is better than Dempsey or Altidore.

Gonzalez was amazing on defense, where the US excelled and Brazil was poor, at best.

An honest analysis may show the "every single position" statement to be false.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, Obama did a pretty good job of being a GOP president the vast majority of the time he has been president so your best bet is to just hope the Democrats field a center-right candidate like they always do.

Nice

 

[luiz]

Well, their performance doesn't indicate that...

I don't think Hulk is better than Dempsey or Altidore.

Gonzalez was amazing on defense, where the US excelled and Brazil was poor, at best.

An honest analysis may show the "every single position" statement to be false.

Judging the team by the performance in a single championship is quite flawed, but if you want to go there, Brazil made it to the semis, finishing in #4 overall, while the US was knocked out on the Round of 16, so performance does indicate just that.

Brazil's defense is the most expensive in the world, and at least on paper, one of the very best. The US has no player, in any position, worth nearly as much as Thiago Silva or David Luiz. You may question their real worth, I certainly do on David Luiz's case, but the market is what the market is. The fact that team essentially did not play that game, conceding 5 goals in just a few minutes, does not mean they are bad players. It means they were a bunch of ill-prepared cry-babies who suffered an emotional collapse.

As for Hulk... I don't like him, as I made clear in many threads. But he's not a bad player, he was just playing outside of his position because Scolari is a stubborn idiot. He's worth ~27 million Euros, probably more than Dempsey and Altidore combined, two decent players who play in a mediocre but tactically very solid team.

So to recap: with this very team Brazil won America's Cup, won the Confederations Cup, and despite an abysmal performance and a ridiculous and historical emotional collapse that will forever haunt us, finished at 4th in the WC. The US won... nothing, ever. So there.

 

[kochman]

Judging the team by the performance in a single championship is quite flawed, but if you want to go there, Brazil made it to the semis, finishing in #4 overall, while the US was knocked out on the Round of 16, so performance does indicate just that.

Brazil's defense is the most expensive in the world, and at least on paper, one of the very best. The US has no player, in any position, worth nearly as much as Thiago Silva or David Luiz. You may question their real worth, I certainly do on David Luiz's case, but the market is what the market is. The fact that team essentially did not play that game, conceding 5 goals in just a few minutes, does not mean they are bad players. It means they were a bunch of ill-prepared cry-babies who suffered an emotional collapse.

As for Hulk... I don't like him, as I made clear in many threads. But he's not a bad player, he was just playing outside of his position because Scolari is a stubborn idiot. He's worth ~27 million Euro, probably more than Dempsey and Altidore combined.

So to recap: with this very team Brazil won America's Cup, won the Confederations Cup, and despite an abysmal performance and a ridiculous and historical emotional collapse that will forever haunt us, finished at 4th in the WC. The US won... nothing, ever. So there.

This probably needs its own thread, but my point stands... a position by position analysis will likely show that your statement that Brazil has better players than the USA in every position other than goalie to be incorrect.

Also, assigning $ amounts to players is kind of a weird barometer.
Those $s bought Brazil giving up 10 goals in two games, at home. That's awful. All in the knockout round, no less. I honestly believe the Dutch pulled their punches in that game as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess that's your opinion. However, the letters being exchanged across the Atlantic during the Enlightenment, their repeated and ongoing exchanges with the brilliant minds of Europe during that time, point to a different conclusion.
What's your evidence?

The fact that after all their correspondence and exchanges of brilliant ideas they drafted a constitution that provides all the rules necessary to operate congress as the governmental equivalent of a horse auction. Apparently in their brilliance they recognized how reality was going to impact the ideal.

Meanwhile, I personally think it is burdensome that every time I respond by direct analysis of specifically what you said your response is to shout 'strawman strawman' or call me names. But I persevere.

You said 'let it devolve'. I painted a pretty ugly picture of how I think that would go. Rather than confront that picture and show some flaw in its construction, or acknowledge that perhaps 'let it devolve' wasn't really a great idea, you chant strawman at it and hope it just goes away.

The funniest part is this:

"Do you know what a strawman is? It's making an argument without supporting it, basically."

Despite the fact that I very seldom use the term (or the style), yes I do know what it means. Since you do seem to want to use it a lot I suggest you find out what it is, since it isn't that. Not even basically.

 

[warpus]

Despite the fact that I very seldom use the term (or the style), yes I do know what it means. Since you do seem to want to use it a lot I suggest you find out what it is, since it isn't that. Not even basically.

Strawman.

Just kidding

 

[kochman]

The fact that after all their correspondence and exchanges of brilliant ideas they drafted a constitution that provides all the rules necessary to operate congress as the governmental equivalent of a horse auction. Apparently in their brilliance they recognized how reality was going to impact the ideal.

You're definitely going to have to elaborate on this. Doesn't make sense, especially in the context of what I said, if it is meant to be.

Meanwhile, I personally think it is burdensome that every time I respond by direct analysis of specifically what you said your response is to shout 'strawman strawman' or call me names. But I persevere.

No, I say strawman when you use strawmen.

You said 'let it devolve'. I painted a pretty ugly picture of how I think that would go. Rather than confront that picture and show some flaw in its construction, or acknowledge that perhaps 'let it devolve' wasn't really a great idea, you chant strawman at it and hope it just goes away.

You present how you think it would go down based on setting up what I am actually saying in an incorrect manner... leading into this part.

The funniest part is this:

"Do you know what a strawman is? It's making an argument without supporting it, basically."

Despite the fact that I very seldom use the term (or the style), yes I do know what it means. Since you do seem to want to use it a lot I suggest you find out what it is, since it isn't that. Not even basically.

Isn't mischaracterizing my ideas, by pretending you know them (when in fact I haven't stated them and in some cases haven't even formed them), exactly what you did?
Yes. That's a strawman, you had no basis for your classification of my arguments, yet built upon it anyway.

Getting really tiresome.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You present how you think it would go down based on setting up what I am actually saying in an incorrect manner.

You said "let the gridlock bring the US into a situation where the union shatters into workable pieces." I took it that you were presenting that as a favorable alternative. If that isn't how it was intended feel free to correct me for having taken it that way, but I don't see how I 'set it up in an incorrect manner'.

You followed with a utopic vision for those workable pieces:
"Pieces that don't rely on ripping off the tax payer. I prefer honesty and good intentions to a culture of greed and bribary."

You seem to have 'presented how you think it would go down' with absolutely no support at all, and not surprisingly your theory got demolished. My countering presentation of 'how it would go down', while certainly far more distasteful, is also constructed out of much more realistically probably assertions.

Nowhere in there is anything resembling a 'straw man' argument.

 

[luiz]

This probably needs its own thread, but my point stands... a position by position analysis will likely show that your statement that Brazil has better players than the USA in every position other than goalie to be incorrect.

Also, assigning $ amounts to players is kind of a weird barometer.
Those $s bought Brazil giving up 10 goals in two games, at home. That's awful. All in the knockout round, no less. I honestly believe the Dutch pulled their punches in that game as well.

Well I have no interest in debating this. Players are assigned a certain value, that's how it is, and while imperfect it's at least an indication of how good they are (of course other things are factored in, like marketing appeal. But that's not exactly the case of Hulk, Thiago Silva and co). David Luiz may have effed up big time, he really has a discipline problem, but he's still a more talented player than any defender the US has ever produced. Thiago Silva didn't play in that game, and is without shadow of doubt one of the best defenders in the world, nobody in the US comes even close (he is the most valued defender in the history of football, which must mean something). That game was an emotional collapse, something unheard of, and playing at home was actually a huge part of the problem. The game against the Netherlands was the same, the team was beaten before even stepping in the field, and keep in mind their first two goals were illegitimate. The German team isn't that good, as all their other games demonstrate, and the Brazilian team isn't that bad. If you want to judge the players go follow the Spanish League, the Premier League, Bundesliga, the other international tournaments, etc. Don't watch a couple games in the WC and think you have it all figured out.

But as I said, this has already been debated ad nauseam and I have not interest in doing it anymore. If you honestly think the US is as good as Brazil, wait for the next time both teams play in an official game, and I'll gladly bet 10 grand on Brazil. Even with Dunga as a coach. Hell, I'll even take a bet on a friendly match.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The fact that after all their correspondence and exchanges of brilliant ideas they drafted a constitution that provides all the rules necessary to operate congress as the governmental equivalent of a horse auction. Apparently in their brilliance they recognized how reality was going to impact the ideal.

I think this needs to be hammered home some more though: if the Constitution was an expression of an ideal, rather then as you put it 'a horse auction' it's an absolutely vile document.

I mean, there's the obvious targets like slavery being included as an ideal. But also in the parts that still function. The U.S. constitution posits the exercise of war as an ideal. It posits seizing the property of individuals in wartime as again, ideal. Preferable to a situation in which property can avoid being seized. It posits the coercion of the populace to pay for this war as a virtue in and of itself, to be pursued as an ideal.

 

[kochman]

Nowhere in there is anything resembling a 'straw man' argument.

Other than the places were I pointed it out.
I don't really care to repeat myself. Go back and look. You assumed my views. My use of the word "shatter" may have been misinterpreted to mean a violent break, which is absolutely not what I want, nor do I think that will happen.

States are already beginning to show fault lines (as are regions within European countries). I don't think it is unreasonable that there may be an eventual and peaceful grouping or clustering of the United States into smaller units, so far as governance goes. our bureaucracy is simply getting out of hand.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think this needs to be hammered home some more though: if the Constitution was an expression of an ideal, rather then as you put it 'a horse auction' it's an absolutely vile document.

I mean, there's the obvious targets like slavery being included as an ideal. But also in the parts that still function. The U.S. constitution posits the exercise of war as an ideal. It posits seizing the property of individuals in wartime as again, ideal. Preferable to a situation in which property can avoid being seized. It posits the coercion of the populace to pay for this war as a virtue in and of itself, to be pursued as an ideal.

I was looking more specifically at the establishment of congress parts. If the founding fathers actually expected their descendents to run things through enlightened cooperation for the greater good I doubt they would have crafted rules for filibustering, as a good example.

As for the theoretically utopian nature of late eighteenth century idealism being embodied in the US constitution...I express no opinion.

 

[kochman]

I was looking more specifically at the establishment of congress parts. If the founding fathers actually expected their descendents to run things through enlightened cooperation for the greater good I doubt they would have crafted rules for filibustering, as a good example.

As for the theoretically utopian nature of late eighteenth century idealism being embodied in the US constitution...I express no opinion.

Filibuster is inherently bad?
That's akin to saying anything other than majority rule is bad... like how many states it takes to ratify an amendment, for example.

Anyway, filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it was an agreed upon rule in the Senate. I'm not sure when it started.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Other than the places were I pointed it out.
I don't really care to repeat myself. Go back and look. You assumed my views. My use of the word "shatter" may have been misinterpreted to mean a violent break, which is absolutely not what I want, nor do I think that will happen.

States are already beginning to show fault lines (as are regions within European countries). I don't think it is unreasonable that there may be an eventual and peaceful grouping or clustering of the United States into smaller units, so far as governance goes. our bureaucracy is simply getting out of hand.

You posit some utopian peaceful dissolution with no attempt whatsoever to support the premise that this totally unprecedented event could happen (the closest thing to an example ever is the dissolution of the USSR which has been remarkably peaceful but is still in progress and hasn't been anywhere near totally bloodless).

When I present what I still consider to be a far more realistic analysis of how such a dissolution is likely to go, based on every other dissolution in history you blow it off as a 'strawman argument', which if you bother to find out what a strawman argument actually is you will find that it decidedly is not.

Then you fall straight back to your original unsupportable premise that this will happen peacefully 'somehow'.

I never assigned a 'the break will lead to violence' view to you, I took it for myself. I have accepted that your view is some sort of pollyannic hope that it could 'just happen' peacefully. I have encouraged you to defend your view, and you have repeatedly declined, which I cannot blame you for doing since I would certainly not want to try to defend your view.

Had I 'assigned' you such a position, and then predictably demolished it, that might have been 'strawmanning' you...except you have repeatedly claimed the undefended position yourself, I didn't make it up for you expressly to provide a weak position I could storm over to make my position look better. I don't need to. Dissolution leading to border conflicts leading to violence is such a clear cut likely sequence that it practically defends itself.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Man, if the U.S. constitution was designed to represent the ideal, rather than the political reality, the founding fathers were even worse people than I thought.

Fortunately, some smart heads have invented the Amendments, which is the reason we don't think of black people as 3/5th people or something.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Still, it's hardly ideal.

If we weren't going to acknowledge the reality of people having less than pure motives, we wouldn't need a legislature to make laws in the first place.

They could have stuck "Love thy neighbor as thyself" down and called it a day.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Unfortunately, almost never things are as simple as one "Love thy neighbour as thyself", as history has showed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Filibuster is inherently bad?
That's akin to saying anything other than majority rule is bad... like how many states it takes to ratify an amendment, for example.

Anyway, filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it was an agreed upon rule in the Senate. I'm not sure when it started.

Oops.

Replace with some other structure that is defined in the constitution that I am also not calling 'bad'...just pointing out that the structure would be superfluous if the drafters of the constitution expected their descendants to operate on principles like 'senators vote for the common good rather than for what is best for their constituency'. The structure is there to manage the inevitability that most representatives will not have direct interest in a particular issue so their vote will have to be negotiated for with some form of quid pro quo. In reality that is the only way it can work.

 

[Gucumatz]

Your argument that progress is only possible via bribery is not only specious, but reprehensible. If that's the state of the union, let the gridlock bring the US into a situation where the union shatters into workable pieces. Pieces that don't rely on ripping off the tax payer.
I prefer honesty and good intentions to a culture of greed and bribary.

Your excuse of such malevolent behavior, by trying to slip it into scraping by as being slightly related to the general will, is a poor statement on a country that used to be an inspiration to the world.

Of course, our fall from grace has been long, we've had far to fall... but such nonsensical defenses of wasteful spending as it is ok to bribe our politicians, so long as we do it officially... I can't. It's a cynical surrender to greed, which I, for one, will not accept. People espousing such necessary evil and threatening "anarchy", that's nothing more than fearmongering.

Its not bribery, its not corruption, its a simple fact people care about whats most relevant to them. Why should a senator from Alabama care about migrating Moose populations in Alaska that decline from the local hunting economy? This kind of political trading has been done for over the last two centuries in the US alone. Look at Rome, the entire Roman Senate basically worked on the principle of trading the equivalent of pork today. Are you saying that Rome wasn't an inspiration to the world? Or that the method Lincoln used to pass the 13th amendment along with patronage "was not inspiring" either? Because guess, what that "cynical" evil pork was responsible for all of that.

People are motivated by general self interest and a lesser extent to help others in need. Political trading combines both of that, incentivizing politicians to actually invest in their constituents and to help out other sections of the country that don't actually vote for them. Its not evil, its a good that's been responsible for pretty much every successful government in history.

 

[Gucumatz]

Well I have no interest in debating this. Players are assigned a certain value, that's how it is, and while imperfect it's at least an indication of how good they are (of course other things are factored in, like marketing appeal. But that's not exactly the case of Hulk, Thiago Silva and co). David Luiz may have effed up big time, he really has a discipline problem, but he's still a more talented player than any defender the US has ever produced. Thiago Silva didn't play in that game, and is without shadow of doubt one of the best defenders in the world, nobody in the US comes even close (he is the most valued defender in the history of football, which must mean something). That game was an emotional collapse, something unheard of, and playing at home was actually a huge part of the problem. The game against the Netherlands was the same, the team was beaten before even stepping in the field, and keep in mind their first two goals were illegitimate. The German team isn't that good, as all their other games demonstrate, and the Brazilian team isn't that bad. If you want to judge the players go follow the Spanish League, the Premier League, Bundesliga, the other international tournaments, etc. Don't watch a couple games in the WC and think you have it all figured out.

But as I said, this has already been debated ad nauseam and I have not interest in doing it anymore. If you honestly think the US is as good as Brazil, wait for the next time both teams play in an official game, and I'll gladly bet 10 grand on Brazil. Even with Dunga as a coach. Hell, I'll even take a bet on a friendly match.

Yea there is 0 question that talent wise Brazil is miles above the US. The main problem this world cup was lack of organization. At the very least Dunga should provide some of that. And since you all don't really have that many great strikers (not even using the right Fred for one ) a defensive outlook might work for the Copa America or World Cup