athinaios
-
Posts
3,996 -
Joined
-
Days Won
36
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Football
News
Posts posted by athinaios
-
-
Amazing. 4x4 while the team shows quality.
One thing that may be trouble is that at Larisa and today the team deflates in the second half. I understand that it may be necessary not to push this young team to maximum, because it's not like we have a deep bench. I think we have a cup game on Wed or Thu for the cup, and another one on Sat against PAS
-
If Melania was holding on to a fig leaf of denial, she can't hide any longer, if SD's description is accurate.
-
Nah, the 6 points for us and 2 for PAOK aren't coming back. But, does anyone know if PAO pays all the debts by year's end, can UEFA withdraw the penalty (one year ban)?
-
You're right, it's more enjoyable to watch this team now than in the past many years. I think the players are trying their hardest, and they know that if a bad result comes, it won't be the end of the world. I just hope Donis above all handles the youngsters well. If, as it seems, PAO will be relying on its youth talent, those who deserve to play should, and not some primadona who transfers into the club. And PAO should not start to have a sell out of young talent.
I don't know if they do it by design now, but it's good that the club didn't have to face the other 3 big teams this early. It's been a confidence booster to win 3 straight games to start the season.
-
Most probably, we won't be starting a new thread for each league game, so I'm doing one for the whole current season. I think it's worth discussing how this team has done 3 for 3, and if I may say so, convincingly.
Against Larissa today, PAO got its first 3 points by winning 3-1, with 2 beautiful goals by Johanson.
It's a very long season ahead and anything could happen, but if we already had 6 points (as we should have), it'd be a different championship this season. I still think the other big 3 teams are stronger but we could be the surprising Leicester of Greece.
-
1 hour ago, Bananas said:
The Republican Party didn’t nominate Trump as such. They tried everything in their power to get one of their other candidates instead. Cruz, Rubio and others. The RP most definitely did not want Trump to be the nominee. In truth Trump is neither a Democrat or a Republican. Trump is for team Trump. The tea party movement has definitely played a big role in the way everything transpired in both the nomination and the election. Crazy people.
You're right about all the above.
It shows you that when the parties opened up their nomination (selection) process to the average voters they lost control of the nominating process. This can be good, but in the case of Trump, bad. In a crowded field someone who manages to get a core support of 20-25% can get the nomination as the rest of the field splits the 75% of the vote. Also, in winner-takes-all system (first horse to cross the line), wins all the delegates from a state, you can see how Trump managed to get the nomination. It's very hard for any party to eventually not accept as their nominee the candidate who has at least the plurality of the delegates. Trump did. Though Trump actually appealed to a greater conservative/nativist/xtian nationalist audience, which is a huge part of the GOP.
Obama had the plurality of pledged (won) delegates, but even the super delegates couldn't vote to overturn this in favor of Clinton in 2008 in the end.
In NYS the more progressive Dem voters showed up, and defeated many conservative Dems. We saw ...socialists defeating incumbents who spent millions of dollars unsuccessfully. [To tout my own horn, the NYT quoted me last week, again] Yes, there's been an increasing polarization between the 2 major parties since the 1980s, and turnout of the party's supporters is the key to outcomes.
-
17 hours ago, AchillesHeel said:
So from what I understand you're saying that Trump won because people voted for other parties rather than giving up their personal beliefs to join forces against Trump. Do you believe that HRC was entitled to those votes because there was no other option in defeating Trump? You do see how this acts as a polarizing agent making people not want to vote for Hillary and lash out against that sense of arrogance and entitlement?
Well, I was pointing out that those, for example, who care a lot about the environment (Jill Stein/Green party), they had a choice--given the US "polarized" electoral system that either a Dem or Repub is elected)--to get the environmental policies of Trump and the Repubs or the policies of HRC and the Dems.
And, yes, in my opinion, no one should be elected in position of power that doesn't believe in science.
1 hour ago, Bananas said:I thought George W Bush would never be beat as the worst president America ever had. No offence to those who thought he was good.
Yeah, that the last 2 worst prez courtecy of the lunatics in the Repub party. And, the worst judges for the Supreme Court! (that also makes decisions about your life)
In 2000, if you were voting in FLA you had a choice, Gore-Bush-Nader. (Nader the Green party candidate). By voting for Nader, you elected Bush. So Bush screwed the environment, screwed science [we'd be years ahead had he not killed stem cell research], screwed FEMA (Emergency ..mismanagement during Katrina), screwed the economy (it was 10 years ago when the US market collapsed), gave tax breaks to the very rich and ballooned the deficit. Oh, and he got us into the Iraq war on lies.
Yes, elections have consequences about politics and values you care about.
-
I don't mind if we disagree on policy or ideology, but not seeing the obvious is disturbing and frustrating. We in New York (and not only) knew Trump and, unless you were connected to him, we found him a disgusting person. He was known as a grafter, a con man. But, get a major party label after your name and things change.
1 hour ago, AchillesHeel said:I don't know that I agree with this but very often it is an argument used to explain why you end having to choose between a Hillary and a Donald....and that one of the 2 has to be right (good, capable) and the other must be wrong (evil, unfit).
You don't have to have 2 extremes in order to make a choice. I have fun talking to libertarians and environmentalists nowadays who voted either for Johnson or Stein. In other words, in addition to the Clinton - Trump choice, there were huge differences in policies. So, for those who voted Johnson or Stein, congratulations on electing someone who is totally against your principles. If HRC had been elected, at least we'd have a reality-based approach to foreign policy, environment, science, health care, education, urban development, etc, etc
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Bananas said:
I fully get what you’re saying. The problem is, who becomes the arbiter of what can and can’t be said. And how do you enforce it. It is its own slippery slope. Say what you want, but when you raise your hand you’ve crossed a line. That’s my philosophy and it makes things a lot simpler....
I don't think the "slippery slope" principle is good in many real-life situations. We must recognize gradations. Same with almost everything else in life. In addition, we have to learn to recognize the false equivalency trap--that everything is of equal value or offense. For example, lying about a sexual affairs (or having a bad headache when you told others "I'm fine") is not the same as lying on a witness stand on a capital case.
Anyway, there have to be standards; it's matters a lot in civil society. For me it's: evidence and reason. Sadly, too many people aren't familiar with logical arguments, and what constitutes evidence. Obviously, we don't have to have courtroom standards in everything we do, but we always have to filter out noise and idiotic arguments if we are to have a decent dialogue going.
And, this is the point: how can we have a reasonable dialogue if everything goes?..... So, sure, let anyone say what they want--in the public square and on their own domains. But if you have a medium, a forum, a classroom, etc, you have to start enforcing certain standards!
-
8 hours ago, AchillesHeel said:
No one is obliged to listen to anyone....just change the viewing content or better yet turn it off....and of course privately run media can refuse to allow access to whomever they choose. All that being said forbidding any one to voice their opinion, however ludicrous it might be, is the first sign of fascism....regardless of the ideology behind the act. Community standards today equates to the family values diatribe presented during the Reagan years....an excuse to exercise censorship and stifle differing views. A slippery slide if there ever was one.
I get that you're in favor of free expression, and like a true progressive you want to allow for challenges to the "prevailing wisdom." That's good. I'm in favor of that too.
However.....a good argument has to be articulated on the grounds of reason and evidence. In the past, and in all authoritarian regimes, this standard was not adhered to, and that's why traditional societies were hard to change, because the status quo didn't want change.
I could even argue that the danger of authoritarianism increases if we dispose of such standards, because then every opinion is perceived of equal value. Like "the leader" would say, "trust me" not the fake...whatever. People don't know what to believe.
Let's say you're a teacher and you're having a discussion in a classroom, while trying to teach your students about rational/critical thinking, evaluating sources, analyzing issues. What standards would you adhere to?... How much time would you give to student Alex Jones?...
The common currency of understanding (and of debating) has to be reason and evidence; we have to preserve this standard.
The arguments we witnessed here a couple years ago were of the Alex Jones/Info Wars type..... And, that every crazy idea and every conspiracy merited exposure and discussion on this forum... And, that became a demand, much like AJ is now screaming about it when he's being kicked out of media places.
Everybody has a right to their opinion but not to their own facts.
-
I don't know if you guys remember a couple years ago when we had people here who were spewing the Info Wars (Alex Jones) garbage, like arsonists.... We had to make a decision to stop this nonsense that did not contribute to the discussion in a rational and civil manner.
Apparently ..our action is now also being taken by many news aggregates and distributors.
After Alex Jones’ Infowars got the boot from Apple’s Podcasts app Sunday evening when the company removed five of the six Infowars podcasts from the platform, Spotify followed suit and removed the Alex Jones Show from its podcast channel, too. From there the purge broadened: Facebook moved to “unpublish” four Infowars pages—not just individual posts, as it had previously done—saying that they had violated its community standards. Then the Google-owned YouTube banned the Alex Jones Channel, which counted 2.4 million followers at the time. [Source]
I'm an ardent defender of the free speech, but this doesn't mean anyone has a right to oblige others to listen to him or use others' media to spread stupidity, ignorance, and hate.
-
Fire is inevitable, including deadly occurrences in populated areas, but how societies organize themselves matters a lot. In corrupt systems, with a long history of bad laws, poor enforcement of good laws, and a culture of weak civic duty, bad things turn into disasters.
In the Attiki fire, everything that could go wrong did. From the person who decided to burn stuff on their property to the gov response to individual actions. Unfortunately, catastrophes like this one (fire or flood) happen too often and very little is done to prevent the next one.
This picture is an example of a bad practice.... from the enforcement of traffic code to the car owners who don't think (or care) about allowing a way for emergency vehicles, or an evacuation to pass.... Cars parked on both sides of a street..... and, then cars meet face to face with nowhere to go.
-
On 7/23/2018 at 9:18 PM, tantra129 said:
i remember way back when ... i said he's dangerous and you told me about checks and balances.
glad we agree now
Ha! I don't remember how I said it, but it's like saying there's a good justice system, honest police, etc.... Then crime happens! Same with having good health, etc.
Authoritarians can take control everywhere, including democracies, though it may be harder in the latter, because of checks and balances. Case in point the Muller investigation, free media, Congress, courts,etc. All of these have often defied Trump, and have curtailed his authoritarian tendencies. These C & B may even bring him down.
Trump is dangerous because he so unqualified, and because he's destroying the institutions that matter in a democracy.
On 7/21/2018 at 12:55 PM, js1000 said:Is treason not punishable by death in the US? Or are rich folk above the law? No wonder those Russians fixed the election over in the US, they must be having a right laugh, however I heard the British also had a hand in rigging the US election, an English company called Cambridge Analytica was also exposed, hope it doesn't ruin our special relationship.
The difference is Putin and the KGB are involved--there's no doubt about it. So, it's a direct attack against our institutions by a hostile foreign power. Private companies from other countries may be involved too, but it's not the same. I doubt very much that the British gov acted like the Russians.
At any rate, Russia must have something on Trump... How else can you explain his stance? Where are the Repubs and the cons who never miss a chance to declare their super-patriotism???!! Imagine if Obama or any Dem prez did what Trump has been doing......
As for treason?..... Well.....
-
On 5/28/2018 at 12:24 PM, AchillesHeel said:
Who the hell writes his speeches....they make him sound like a total clown....not that he needs any help in that department but you would think they would be concentrating on damage control.
He goes off script (he reads at 5th grade level anyway) most of the time. He can't be controlled. Remember when the "official view" was the travel ban didn't target 1 particular religion (which is unconstitutional)? But Trump kept talking about "banning Muslims" and the courts kept ruling against his executive orders?....
Anyway, he's a classic megalomaniac and a sociopath, who believes he's does no wrong since he's been so successful. Look he made it all the way to the US presidency on lies, scams, and self-promotion! As a con artist, he's one of the best. Yes, it's a skill, and it's often rewarded ..bigly....
I don't understand how any reasonable person would not see him for what he is. If I were a conservative, I'd say .... He's the worst of the worst; we/the US should never have such an incompetent, treasonous, dangerous, illiterate/ignorant, buffoon, who's destroying our institutions, etc. etc... But, he delivers the Supreme Court to us (conservatives), gives big tax breaks, and removes regulations (obstacles) from the marketplace.... And, that's why I oppose the liberals who want to do the opposite. I'd be honest with my assessment of his even if I liked what he does in those 3 areas.
But, such statements are rare especially in the conservative landscape. Xtian nationalists love him.
-
I've disagreed with other presidents on policy and ideological grounds. This is something different, because this guy is a man-child, semi-literate, and totally unqualified (therefore, dangerous) to be president.
Look how he publicly derides our intelligence agencies and experts on national security, but praises Putin! Because, heck, Putin made him an "incredible offer" to investigate the Russian attack on our political system! Treasonous?
He met with Putin for 2 hours no advisers present. Dan Coats, his National Security chief contradicted Trump about the Russian role. It must have been embarrassing when Coats was caught off guard about Putin visit. ... There's a consensus in the intelligence community, and in the higher levels of gov. that this president is incompetent.
Anyone who still thinks Trump is a "straight shooter" or is qualified is, in my opinion, a moron... (I don't mean "moron" as an insult but as a descriptive)
-
On 7/11/2018 at 9:50 PM, paokara777 said:
It makes you wonder how they produce so many good footballers with a smaller population and weaker league system than Greece
I know this topic has been beaten to death already many times but we really lack a youth academy and grass roots development system in our country.
Croatia, Uruguay, Portugal, the Scandinavian countries, etc, all produce very good teams with populations equal or lot less than Greece.
As in many other cases, the internal culture maters a lot. The Greek league--run by Greeks 100%--has been a disaster. And, if it weren't for king Otto, Greece wouldn't have won the 2004 Euro
-
^^^^^
Somehow I don't think Greece would have displayed the same form as Croatia.... not even 10% of it.
I think Croatia deserved to be there. And, against England, they were stunned and lacked confidence in the first few 20 minutes, but then they hit England hard and had better chances over all. Greece would have stayed back, behind a bus, hoping to get lucky on a rare counter or through penalties.
The semifinal game was one of the better ones this WC. I'm looking forward Croatia playing France.
Sorry to say this about the Greek team--they play crappy football, the type you'd have to pay me to watch if I wasn't supporting the team.
-
1
-
-
I was supporting Spain, but they way they played, they should be out. Kudos to the Russians who died on the field defending. Lucky on the penalty, but... Spain looked that they wanted to walk into the net in order to score.
As for Den-Cro the luckier one went through. Croats didn't look all that good today though. But against Russia anything can happen. They've got a lucky draw/bracket.
Belgium got the weakest opponent and should advance. I hope Mexico beats Brazil, and Sweden beats the Swiss. I also want to see England v. Columbia, because this is the best chance and bracket for the English to advance all the way to the final. I'm not convinced they have it but let's see this game first.
-
This is amateur time, if not idiocy. It's interesting though that once Oly became vulnerable (and Marinakis isn't going to spend like before, plus the CL $ is gone), now they want to make the league more competitive.......... Anyway, yes, it has to be more competitive.
No matter what they do, the credibility of the sport is lost. Only the very fanatic fans still bother to attend games. TV viewership is way down because of the bad quality and the corruption of the league.
Even though I can see the VAR's usefulness, I'm more of a purist in terms of a long season with no playoffs. There are 2 "derbies" a season per 2 teams for the league title. If they want tournaments, do it for the cup.
I'd also make the cup more competitive, but having knock out games*, and make the lesser teams (the league standings at time of draw) have home advantage.
* in double games, usually the stronger team prevails; with one knockout game a lesser team would have more chances.
-
well, I also like the fair play rule as a tie breaker; maybe another one after this (instead of a lucky draw) would be who scored earlier in a game.
From the remaining teams, I'd like to see advance:
Uruguay, Spain, Den/Cro, Argentina, Mexico, Jap/Belg, England, Sweden.
-
I love it. I watched the last few minutes of G v. K (after Sweden went up 3-0). Interesting. Korea had its chances and even though their 2 goals were lucky, they deserved something out of this game.
Germany finished last in the group! They didn't deserve to advance. Sweden showed that it can be a big headache for any big (or bigger) team in this tourney.
-
I started watching the Germany - Korea game and it's been boring, but the Mexico - Sweden has been entertaining. Sweden plays much better but Mexico threatens too. I think Sweded have a very good team. They qualified by knocking out big teams, including Italy. I'd like if Sweden moved on. Berg had a couple very good chances to score.
After watching many games, I don't think there's a most favorite team......
I'm looking forward to Serbia-Brazil (rooting for Serbia), and Uraguay-Portugal (rooting for U), and Spain - Russia (Spain of course)
-
So far, I like, Croatia, Spain, Uruguay (after beating Russia), Germany and England. I don't like Brazil, Portugal, though it may be my bias since I don't like those teams in general. I'm watching France v. Denmark. Rooting for the latter.
What's your take so far?
-
I know it's not traditional, but the VAR has changed important calls and altered results. This is huge. I'm on the side that it's mostly helpful.
I still think the "human element" should be the decider. But, don't we want to have accurate calls as much as possible? The technology that shows whether the ball has crossed the goal line is very important and helpful, for example.
As for the managers calling for review, I'm OK with that too. Limit those calls to 2, let's say, like in US football, where there's VAR plus a team has 2 challenges.
The VAR--If applied carefully and fairly--can help fix some of the problems plaguing corrupt leagues like Greece's. It's shameful that a modern country, with a league of its own creation 100%, is totally f*ked up. Yes, it's shameful to call foreign refs when they can't find good domestic refs. Much like the infighting Greeks who look to foreign powers to guide them. (and then they complain of foreign domination/interference.....)
SL–R4: PAOK - AEK (23-Sep-18, 20:30 EEST)
in PAOK FC
Posted
PAOK has a very strong team this year. Good luck. (except of course when playing PAO). I think if PAOK wins the most points in the derbies, they'll win the title. It'll be good for the sport too.
Plus, this is your best chance.... In a year, Panatha will be tops!??