Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Port Said had forced Bradley into the wider political spotlight for the first time. Immediately afterwards, recriminations had started to fly. The Muslim Brotherhood-led parliament threatened the military-appointed cabinet with a no-confidence vote. The military, in turn, deflected blame onto smaller fish, including the Egyptian Football Association. Prime Minister Kamal El Ganzouri sacked the EFA’s entire board the next day. When FIFA complained about government interference in the sport, the board ‘resigned.’ (FIFA couldn’t complain if it was the board’s own decision.)
Ultras Ahlawy had no doubt who was responsible. Since Ultras groups from different clubs first formed in 2007 – generally dominated by idealistic, well-educated teenagers and early twentysomethings inspired by predecessors in Serbia and Italy – they have repeatedly clashed with security forces.
From the start, the Ultras exploited the relative freedom of football stadiums and the safety of strength in numbers to issue a rare challenge to the Mubarak regime’s stranglehold on public expression. Their favorite acronym, emblazoned on banners and graffiti in stadiums and the sides of buildings, is A.C.A.B. (All Cops Are Bastards). More than anything, the Ultras view themselves as character-shaping organizations, promoting discipline and fraternity, alongside a – violent, at times – rejection of traditional authority. “Revolution is our principle,” Ahmed El Kelaya, a member of Ismailia’s Ultras Yellow Dragons tells Rolling Stone, recounting how they erected a banner of Ché Guevara at the stadium in 2008.
Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.
Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.
DelPen wrote:Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.
Legit question, has anything good ever come from UN treaties like these?
Gaucho wrote:Thanks for the link.
You forgot to mention Socrates and Corinthians.
GaryRissling wrote:Gaucho wrote:Thanks for the link.
You forgot to mention Socrates and Corinthians.
![]()
I'm a big fan of books like Simon Kuper's "football against the enemy" and " ajax, the dutch, and the war".
npv708 wrote:Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.
Here's the thing with the treaty. It's already US law... Absolutely no laws would be added or edited in the US and would mainly be to help disability rights in foreign countries, leveling the playing field in business. In other words, US has these regs, which cost money( well worth it, IMO) to protect the disabled(including vets) rights and other countries don't, which has cost benefits for manufacturing. Make everybody follow policies, us business is boosted minimally.
GaryRissling wrote:I'm with you. Boehner removing principled republicans from positions of power last week was a sign that big government will be the solution du jour.
ExPatriatePen wrote:I've changed my mind. I now want the current administration to take us over the fiscal cliff...
Let the tax increases and automatic spending cuts take effect.
At least that gets us one step closer to a balanced budget.
This increase taxes now for a promise of spending cuts later is just foolish.
Preview of things to come:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/05/investi ... ?hpt=hp_t3
ExPatriatePen wrote:GaryRissling wrote:I'm with you. Boehner removing principled republicans from positions of power last week was a sign that big government will be the solution du jour.
I'm not sure how those two are related...
Unbending loyalty to one's principals is OK in theory, but politics is and has always been about compromise.
The current course is unsustainable. We need to cut expenditures. We also need to increase the tax base (ideally through broadening and growth, but an increase none-the-less). If anyone on either side is unilaterally opposed to either of these steps, they need to be removed from the discussion.
There is no other choice.
tifosi77 wrote:Ultimately, the Republicans aren't substantively any more serious about cutting spending than are Democrats. They just want to spend on different things. So long as Republicans can successfully peddle the myth that the military can fight terrorism, so long as companies like Lockheed Martin are hiring 1,000 sub-contractors (many of whom are patently unqualified for their role) for the most expensive weapons system ever devised and making sure they are in something like 410 of the 438 Congressional districts and all 50 states..... there's just no incentive to cut defense spending. And defense accounts for 1/5 of the federal budget, so if you immediately take 20% of the budget off the table for discussion about cuts, then you can't possibly claim the high ground and chastise the other side for 'not being serious'.
And then look at entitlements..... how much money could be saved by allowing the federal government to negotiate market prices for drugs paid for by MediCare? Al Franken (of all people) authored a bill that would lift the ban on this, but last I heard it stalled in the Senate Finance Committee. Ho hum. That's just one example.
No one wants to be serious about addressing spending. Republicans think simply cutting spending is the key, without any real thought or care given to the end product of the spending. Democrats only want to cut defense, and don't care about the inherent structural problems with things like Social Security.
It's enough to make someone feel bad.
DeMint's decision to leave the Senate after only eight years shocked Washington. DeMint had been seen as a future Senate leader for his party and was already a leader to a growing number of conservatives in the House and Senate.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests