Jimmy Neutron Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Well, if Chicago does get the Olympics - the natives will have plenting of competitors for the shooting events.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I say having Olympics every 2 yrs was an incredibly stupid idea which made them much more mundane, so it doesn't really matter where they are. PS sorry about the stupid schtick but gotta call it like I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I say having Olympics every 2 yrs was an incredibly stupid idea which made them much more mundane, so it doesn't really matter where they are. PS sorry about the stupid schtick but gotta call it like I see it. They don't have them every two years, they are quadrennial to avoid competing with the soccer World Cup. The Winter Olympics are held the same year as the World Cup but obviously six months removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Question: What was the economy like in 1984? Question: How did the 1984 Olympics affect Los Angeles? Question: Is Chicago more similar to Atlanta or Los Angeles? I really don't know the answers to these questions; well, maybe I have some thoughts on the third question, and some general thoughts on the first two, but wondering what the masses think. reverse bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 They don't have them every two years, they are quadrennial to avoid competing with the soccer World Cup. The Winter Olympics are held the same year as the World Cup but obviously six months removed. I think that is his point, right? Every two years we have some Olympics or another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I say having Olympics every 2 yrs was an incredibly stupid idea which made them much more mundane, so it doesn't really matter where they are. PS sorry about the stupid schtick but gotta call it like I see it. It's like a freaking holiday at my place. I loves me some Olympics. Hell, I think I like the winter ones best just because the events are so foreign to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think that is his point, right? Every two years we have some Olympics or another... Right but there's zero crossover. They are two separate events. The Winter Olympics are a minor blip on the sports radar with a bunch of people falling about on snow and ice (much like Minnesota pedestrians in January), the Summer Olympics are an enormous event second only to the World Cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I can't imagine why anyone other than a Chicagoan would want the Olympics. It will end up costing us all money through our taxes, and the only people that will benefit from it will be those in Chicago as they will get some publicly funded infrastructure upgrades. I understand you are a smart guy, and are passionate about your points of view. You really come across as a total dillwad when you make these blanket statements. The people that will benefit will be plenty. They are talking about building a temporary stadium and with the seats of that temporary stadium, they would make wheelchairs for 3rd world countries. That is an example of your short sightedness. The upgrades would be made and we would benefit from it. The debt the city would incur is far too much for me to back the plan. I lean against the idea, but would definitely go and take part if they do come to Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I understand you are a smart guy, and are passionate about your points of view. You really come across as a total dillwad when you make these blanket statements. The people that will benefit will be plenty. They are talking about building a temporary stadium and with the seats of that temporary stadium, they would make wheelchairs for 3rd world countries. That is an example of your short sightedness. The upgrades would be made and we would benefit from it. The debt the city would incur is far too much for me to back the plan. I lean against the idea, but would definitely go and take part if they do come to Chicago. Where is the government empowered to confiscate money from me under the threat of imprisonment to give it to a foreign interests? I'm all for helping others of my own accord, but not because the government tells me I have to. Also, aren't their more important things our government should be doing for our own people right now? ETA: And if the goal is to get wheelchairs to third world countries, couldn't we do it cheaper if we just had wheel chairs made, instead of having stadium seats made, then melting them down and making them into wheel chairs? I'd rather see permanent structures built that at least those that whose money was confiscated might one day have the chance to use. Edited October 1, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No one goes to the winter games, I mean who wants to see a bunch of European's dancing around the ice like a bunch of Kansas City fa ggots... as opposed to watching synchronized swimming or archery ? Yeah you're right..... noone went to lake placid in 1980 to watch the miracle on ice either. Of all the sports in either the summer or winter games you'd be hard pressed to find an event more exciting that the hockey competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Question: What was the economy like in 1984? Question: How did the 1984 Olympics affect Los Angeles? Question: Is Chicago more similar to Atlanta or Los Angeles? I really don't know the answers to these questions; well, maybe I have some thoughts on the third question, and some general thoughts on the first two, but wondering what the masses think. Alright, looks like no one wants to answer this, or perhaps they don't want to answer it because it will make their whining look unfounded. Either way... Answer: According to many "experts", the economy was in a huge turnaround phase. That is, it was beginning to come out of a deep recession. Sound familiar? Wieg, can you help me out here? I didn't do but 5-10 minutes worth of research, so maybe I'm only scratching the surface. Answer: I was in LA in 1984, and actually went to some events. As I recall, it brought jobs into the area (duh) and led to the construction of several facilities still used to this day, and also allowed for the rehab of the Coliseum. Now, here's where the naysayers will come in and say that it's a different time with different circumstances and different concerns. I won't disagree with that at all. But just because Atlanta was a general failure doesn't mean Chicago will be. Answer: I would contend Chicago is more akin to Los Angeles than Atlanta. The infrastructure there could handle the Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It's not a schtik, but if bothers you so, don't read me. There is an ignore feature, surely you can figure out how to use it. You know what - you're right. Consider it done. You're an annoying MF for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Answer: According to many "experts", the economy was in a huge turnaround phase. That is, it was beginning to come out of a deep recession. Sound familiar? Wieg, can you help me out here? I didn't do but 5-10 minutes worth of research, so maybe I'm only scratching the surface. I wouldn't push this comparison too hard. (In fact, I personally wouldn't push it at all.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I wonder how many people don't want Chicago to get the Olympics mostly because it will make Obama look bad if they don't win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I wonder how many people don't want Chicago to get the Olympics mostly because it will make Obama look bad if they don't win. I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. I agree - to me it looks like he's trying to pay back his crooked buddies there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. I agree - to me it looks like he's trying to pay back his crooked buddies there. That has actually crept in to my mind too. It seems Chicago politics is looked upon as decidedly crooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I wouldn't push this comparison too hard. (In fact, I personally wouldn't push it at all.) Alright that's what I needed to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. I agree - to me it looks like he's trying to pay back his crooked buddies there. That has actually crept in to my mind too. It seems Chicago politics is looked upon as decidedly crooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 While Chicago politics ARE pretty damn crooked in general, people that are not crooks dont fare all that well on a local level. Hence Obama is on a NATIONAL level. Is that like saying GWB is a terrorist because he is friends with teh Saudi royal family who in turn is related to Osama Bin laden? Neither comparison is fair or accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. I'm glad to see the talk radio spin is all set up and ready to roll. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, that's the ticket. Can't lose that way and God forbid Obama should actually be able to get credit for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm glad to see the talk radio spin is all set up and ready to roll. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, that's the ticket. Can't lose that way and God forbid Obama should actually be able to get credit for anything. as I said in my first post, I just don't see the upside for him personally. I do kind of hope chicago gets it. that said, it seems like a bad political move for obama to be pushing so hard. there seems to be little upside. he comes off looking to the world like he strong-armed the whole thing if chicago gets it, and it looks like a big ol' fail on his part if rio gets it. what part do you disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 as I said in my first post, I just don't see the upside for him personally. what part do you disagree with? If Chicago gets it, he doesn't look like he strongarmed anyone. You think the other bidders aren't trundling out their big guns too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) If Chicago gets it, he doesn't look like he strongarmed anyone. You think the other bidders aren't trundling out their big guns too? I'm not saying that - you play every card in your hand. I just think it looks like payola. And if it goes like many olympics then he just ended up transferring taxpayer dollars into the hands of his cronies (because the city will end up with public debt while private entities will make money from it). ETA - that's not unique to the obamessiah, but to all politicians. Edited October 1, 2009 by westvirginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm not saying that - you play every card in your hand. I just think it looks like payola. And if it goes like many olympics then he just ended up transferring taxpayer dollars into the hands of his cronies (because the city will end up with public debt while private entities will make money from it). Chicago has been bidding for the Olympics for at least four years - it's a very lengthy process and it is notorious for corruption within the IOC too. No doubt all the cities have been passing brown envelopes filled with cash under the table. Obama being a Chicagoan president is a happy coincidence for Chicago - he wasn't when the real maneuvering was taking place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.