NCAAbbs

Chicago was eliminated in the first round of final voting for the 2016 Olympics. Tokyo was eliminated in the second round. This leaves Madrid and Rio still alive.

wow. I guess the bho 'persona' wasn't enough.
now again, how much did this cost the taxpayers?

(10-02-2009 10:53 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]now again, how much did this cost the taxpayers?

A lot less than a winning bid! The Olympics are nice, but are financially devastating!

Does this set the stage for a renewed push for B'ham in 2020?

Obama fails again.

Personally, I am pulling for Rio. South America has NEVER hosted the Olympics. If Madrid get the bid, it will be 3 Olympics in a row for Europe. Ugh! London 2012, Sochi (Russia) 2014 and Madrid 2016. I wouldn't be surprised if Madrid gets it, as the man coordinating their bid was a former top guy at the IOC.

Rio de Janeiro has been selected to host the 2016 Olympics!

You knew they weren't going to give it to the U.S. back-to-back, with B'ham already having 2020 wrapped up.

Obama trying to get the Olympics in Chicago was like Mike Shula and UAT chasing after Tebow a few years ago. It wasn't ever going to happen, and anyone on the outside could have told you that. Rio proposed a budget 3.5x as much as Chicago, plus there was the "Olympics have never been hosted in SA" aspect.

And if he hadn't have gone and they lost it everyone would be pissed he didn't do enough. He was gone for less than a day. This isn't a big deal, there's bigger things in the world to get worked up about.

Does Chicago get automatically eliminated for 2020 since they were KOed for 2016? Could they reapply in 2012 for a shot for the 2020 games?

(10-02-2009 09:23 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]And if he hadn't have gone and they lost it everyone would be pissed he didn't do enough. He was gone for less than a day. This isn't a big deal, there's bigger things in the world to get worked up about.

No, because it was unprecedented for an American president to lobby for the games in this manner. Had Obama not gone he would have been follow established tradition and his lack of involvement would have been a non-issue.

it's Bush's fault

(10-03-2009 01:07 AM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-02-2009 09:23 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]And if he hadn't have gone and they lost it everyone would be pissed he didn't do enough. He was gone for less than a day. This isn't a big deal, there's bigger things in the world to get worked up about.

No, because it was unprecedented for an American president to lobby for the games in this manner. Had Obama not gone he would have been follow established tradition and his lack of involvement would have been a non-issue.

So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

It depends on what he knew about the dump, and when he knew it.

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

Personally, I didn't have a problem with bho lobbying for the Olympics.
Michelle 'my belle' and the 'O' touring on the taxpayer dime is another story.

Also, I'm not interested in the color, texture or frequency of bho's bowel movements,
as long as he doesn't 'dump' on our country, as he is prone to when overseas.
the obama 'apology tours' are unbecoming of ANY president.

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 01:07 AM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-02-2009 09:23 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]And if he hadn't have gone and they lost it everyone would be pissed he didn't do enough. He was gone for less than a day. This isn't a big deal, there's bigger things in the world to get worked up about.

No, because it was unprecedented for an American president to lobby for the games in this manner. Had Obama not gone he would have been follow established tradition and his lack of involvement would have been a non-issue.

So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

I have no problem with Obama lobbing for the games, but I am thankful that the US didn't get the games as the cost far out weights the benefits. I was pointing out that had he not gone, no one could have criticized him because he would have been following historic tradition.

(10-03-2009 10:25 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

Personally, I didn't have a problem with bho lobbying for the Olympics.
Michelle 'my belle' and the 'O' touring on the taxpayer dime is another story.

Also, I'm not interested in the color, texture or frequency of bho's bowel movements,
as long as he doesn't 'dump' on our country, as he is prone to when overseas.
the obama 'apology tours' are unbecoming of ANY president.

Bush went on plenty of junkets on 'the taxpayer dime'. And before you say anything, yes, there were plenty of people complaining but I wasn't one of them. The cost of presidential travel is just part of doing business in the world today. And I wouldn't say the President of the United States going on a trip to lobby for the United States to get the Olympics is a personal trip.

(10-03-2009 08:13 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 10:25 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

Personally, I didn't have a problem with bho lobbying for the Olympics.
Michelle 'my belle' and the 'O' touring on the taxpayer dime is another story.

Also, I'm not interested in the color, texture or frequency of bho's bowel movements,
as long as he doesn't 'dump' on our country, as he is prone to when overseas.
the obama 'apology tours' are unbecoming of ANY president.

Bush went on plenty of junkets on 'the taxpayer dime'. And before you say anything, yes, there were plenty of people complaining but I wasn't one of them. The cost of presidential travel is just part of doing business in the world today. And I wouldn't say the President of the United States going on a trip to lobby for the United States to get the Olympics is a personal trip.

What official US government business was he there to conduct?

Sure, flying across the world to lobby for the Olympics for his home city isn't a personal trip. I mean its not like he took his wife and Oprah along with him. Oh wait...

My thoughts on the selection of Rio for the 2016 Olympic Games are that it has more to do with it being the FIRST South American city to get them AND it is not in a "lightning rod" nation for Terrorists at the present time (and how many IOC officials remember Munich in 1972 too well?). Chicago, Madrid (remember the train bombings) and Tokyo may have been considered higher risk sites for 2016. It may have had nothing to do with that, but no one in the IOC would admit it if it was. So the IOC effectively "kills two birds with one stone" by choosing Rio for the games.

(10-03-2009 08:13 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 10:25 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2009 09:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]So what, every other head of state for a candidate city showed up and there's not any controversy in Spain or Japan. Can Obama not take a dump without someone on the right finding something wrong with it and making a federal case out of it?

Personally, I didn't have a problem with bho lobbying for the Olympics.
Michelle 'my belle' and the 'O' touring on the taxpayer dime is another story.

Also, I'm not interested in the color, texture or frequency of bho's bowel movements,
as long as he doesn't 'dump' on our country, as he is prone to when overseas.
the obama 'apology tours' are unbecoming of ANY president.

Bush went on plenty of junkets on 'the taxpayer dime'. And before you say anything, yes, there were plenty of people complaining but I wasn't one of them. The cost of presidential travel is just part of doing business in the world today. And I wouldn't say the President of the United States going on a trip to lobby for the United States to get the Olympics is a personal trip.

what part of this didn't you understand?

(10-03-2009 10:25 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I didn't have a problem with bho lobbying for the Olympics.

the 'O' to which I was referring is oprah

I love how CNN described the audible "gasps" when Chicago wasn't named. Awe..... so sad...

The world is a big place. It's not all about Chicago and its sons (Obama) and daughters (Oprah).

So sad that they had to find out this way...

If Democrats were saying it served us right that America didn't get the Olympics they'd be drug out into the streets as anti-American communist collaborators that should be tried for treason. The hypocrisy in our political discourse is sad.

remind me again, which side said we deserved/orchestrated 9/11?

(10-04-2009 04:56 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]If Democrats were saying it served us right that America didn't get the Olympics they'd be drug out into the streets as anti-American communist collaborators that should be tried for treason. The hypocrisy in our political discourse is sad.

That's not what I said...

The entitlement exuding from the Chicago crowd was palpable.

I'll repeat: The world is a big place. You should get out more. I've been to 15 or so countries so far, myself--it really gives you a bigger perspective.

I love my country, and I think we do have the best political system by far, notwithstanding the recent success of icky democrats. But I don't necessarily know that Chicago should be automatically awarded the Olympic games just because Obama descended from "heaven" to Denmark deigning to grace the Danes and their international IOC visitors with his presence.

(10-04-2009 05:34 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]remind me again, which side said we deserved/orchestrated 9/11?

Um, I don't think you'll find any mainstream Democrats that said anything like that. Also, I think you'll find the Art Bell crowd who actually believes that kind of stuff skews to the right.

(10-04-2009 06:01 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-04-2009 04:56 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]If Democrats were saying it served us right that America didn't get the Olympics they'd be drug out into the streets as anti-American communist collaborators that should be tried for treason. The hypocrisy in our political discourse is sad.

That's not what I said...

The entitlement exuding from the Chicago crowd was palpable.

I'll repeat: The world is a big place. You should get out more. I've been to 15 or so countries so far, myself--it really gives you a bigger perspective.

I love my country, and I think we do have the best political system by far, notwithstanding the recent success of icky democrats. But I don't necessarily know that Chicago should be automatically awarded the Olympic games just because Obama descended from "heaven" to Denmark deigning to grace the Danes and their international IOC visitors with his presence.

See, you're the one making it out to be some big deal and that Obama was coming in as Jesus Christ himself to sweep away the games. Every other country had their head of state there. Since London won the 2012 games and Tony Blair was there to lobby for them, the head of state for the winning country has been involved. Putin was there to get the winter games for Russia.

I'm not disappointed one way or the other. Obama is just a man. He happens to be the one I voted for to be president. He's not perfect, he's not the second coming. There are lots of things he does that I disagree with. I think the kind of hyperbole that is thrown around regarding him does everyone a disservice. If everyone would try to have a reasoned, civil debate we would have a much more pleasurable existence in this world. Instead, everyone has to have their way or the highway, and anyone who disagrees is either a nazi or a communist (or sometimes both). You and I will never agree 100% on anything. There is no one in this country that will agree 100% with anyone. I agree with the NRA on some issues and the ACLU on others. If everyone would get off their high horses and try to actually do something constructive, we'd be in a much better place at the end of the day.

(10-04-2009 06:23 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-04-2009 05:34 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]remind me again, which side said we deserved/orchestrated 9/11?

Um, I don't think you'll find any mainstream Democrats that said anything like that. Also, I think you'll find the Art Bell crowd who actually believes that kind of stuff skews to the right.

really? maybe you're correct, but I thought bho was a democrat. or maybe he's just not 'mainstream'.
does the name Van Jones ring a bell? you remember, he was one of bho's political appointees.
and how could anyone ever forget bho's pastor of 20+ years, Jeremiah Wright.
I don't know about you, but I couldn't have sat in that congregation after hearing his imfamous
'America's chickens are coming home to roost' sermon, unless I agreed.
Bill Ayers, another bho cronie
I guess we really shouldn't believe any utterance of bho. afterall, he did tell us "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.
Michael Moore, on the 'A' list at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, sat in Jimmy Carters' box
how about the website democrats.com's assertion Rove may be planning a terror attack on a Super Bowl?
http://www.democrats.com/rove-super-bowl
how many dems/left leaning websites have blamed US foreign policy for 9/11?

dude, don't get me started

next thing I know, you'll be posting dems never impugn our military or our intelligence community, either.

I've got to side with MUT on this one. I don't see the big deal of the president lobbying for a US city to host the olympics. Yes, they're typically money losers for the host city, but there are tradeoffs that aren't all about money.

Second, I'm a little disappointed that some people's disdain for the president is such that they're actually glad a US city didn't get to host an olympics.

(10-04-2009 08:20 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]I've got to side with MUT on this one. I don't see the big deal of the president lobbying for a US city to host the olympics. Yes, they're typically money losers for the host city, but there are tradeoffs that aren't all about money.

Second, I'm a little disappointed that some people's disdain for the president is such that they're actually glad a US city didn't get to host an olympics.

With the deficits that our federal and most state and local governments are running, we don't need to be spending more tax dollars on something that isn't necessary.

(10-04-2009 08:20 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]I've got to side with MUT on this one. I don't see the big deal of the president lobbying for a US city to host the olympics. Yes, they're typically money losers for the host city, but there are tradeoffs that aren't all about money.

Second, I'm a little disappointed that some people's disdain for the president is such that they're actually glad a US city didn't get to host an olympics.

I see the Olympics host competition more as a city vs city thing than country vs country, especially when we have already hosted a number of both summer and winter games.

I don't think heads of state belong there lobbying, bho or otherwise.

Not bad for Chicago, not bad for USA, but GOOD FOR RIO!

oh and bad for the cult of bho!

Shouldn't Obama have supported Rio's bid to beging with? I mean, since South America has never hosted before, doesn't the IOC need to spread the wealth around, out of fairness?

(10-05-2009 07:59 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]oh and bad for the cult of bho!

You mean like this:

Full-Court Press by White House Fails to Sway Committee
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12545288...atsNewsTop

By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON
The selection of Rio de Janeiro over Chicago for the 2016 Olympics was an embarrassment for President Barack Obama, whose appearance before the International Olympic Committee was the first by a U.S. president.

Mr. Obama revved up the White House machinery to aid Chicago's Olympic bid, sending First Lady Michelle Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett to Denmark leading a delegation that included nearly a half-dozen top administration officials.The White House announced only last week that he would join as well. The widespread perception was that he wouldn't have decided to go unless Chicago was virtually assured of a win...

ANALYSIS-Obama's Olympian gamble collapses
Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:15pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsN...0920091002

* Overnight dash to Copenhagen fails

* Setback to Chicago, Obama's hometown

* Obama was flying home to Washington when he got the news

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, Oct 2 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's politically risky Olympics gamble failed to bring home the gold on Friday, with the Olympics committee's refusal to grant the 2016 Summer Games to his hometown Chicago.

The president, whose even-tempered personality has earned him the nickname "No Drama Obama," broke from that mold to make an overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen to personally lobby for Chicago.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, had taken their star power to the Danish capital to make Chicago's case, ignoring the carping from Republican opponents who charged it was a bad time to go with foreign policy challenges in Iran and Afghanistan and the U.S. Congress bogged down in a domestic healthcare debate.

"I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America," Michelle Obama told committee members.

Her husband said, "If you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.".

Obama’s Olympic failure will only add to doubts about his presidency
Tim Reid in Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...859031.ece

There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.

Chicago’s dismal showing yesterday, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft.

It was only the Olympic Games, the White House will argue — not a high-stakes diplomatic gamble with North Korea. It is always worthwhile when Mr Obama sells America to the rest of the world, David Axelrod, his chief political adviser, said today. But that argument will fall on deaf ears in the US. Americans want their presidents to be winners.

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance...

I didn't want Chicago to get the Olympics and was happy when they didn't because I think it increases our chances at the 2018 World Cup. I would much rather host that event.

...that, and the opening ceremonies from Rio, in the summer, are certain to produce several good posts for BBOTD.