Chicago 2016

[Shea]

So after hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, thousands of tons of carbon being dumped in the atmosphere and the most powerful man in the world NOT DOING HIS FLIPPING JOB....Obama failed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091002/ap_on_sp_ol/oly2016_bids

Too bad dude, now get back to the job you were actually hired to do.

[Nick_Ninja]

Bombs in Madrid

AIDS in Rio

Where can I buy tickets? :think:

[Devaclis]

$100 million is what they are estimating the entire campaign cost.

If they had a child killing competition in the Olympics, Chi town would be at the top of the list.

[Pandora-11]

Stunned! I really thought that the Obamas wouldn't go unless it was already a done deal. Wow....

[Devaclis]

Bombs in Madrid

AIDS in Rio

Where can I buy tickets? :think:

The Dakar > The Olympics :)

[Nick_Ninja]

The Dakar > The Olympics :)

Yeppers :up:

[Matty]

I guess they didn't want Gangmember beatings as a new event.

[Devaclis]

Rio just got it. Yay! Kidnappings, whores, and filth!

[puckstr]

Rio just got it. Yay! Kidnappings, whores, and filth!


Bring an EXTRA Ear if you go

[salsashark]

Rio just got it. Yay! Kidnappings, whores, and filth!

So... really, add some 2X4 beatings and you have Chicago?!

[Horsman]

We are all going to be dead in 2012... party like it is 1999 now... LOL

[dirkterrell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9Z8KEsNyo

Dirk

[Wintermute]

Shea, I'm sure you'll say now that you condemned Bush when he spent 4 days watching the Olympics in China. Uhh-huhh.

With a payoff of tens of billions, an investment of 100 million ain't shit.

Chicago lost weeks ago, because:
a. We get a lot of the Olympics.
b. South America has never had the Olympics.
c. It's harder to get into the US since 9/11. (Right or not, it was a factor from what I heard.)

Obama was asked to go as a last-ditch effort by the Chicago committee. They knew it was a long shot, and Obama knew it was too. That's why he didn't want to go, because when they inevitably didn't get it, the pile-on commenced. It's pretty disgusting how gleeful the right is (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020025) that the U.S. lost out on billions worth of jobs and commerce.

Pigboy Limbaugh:

LIMBAUGH: For those of you on the other side of the aisle listening in who are upset that I sound gleeful -- I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy. Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me.

"Tears of a Clown" Beck:

"Do not go anywhere. Don't -- do not look at the screen. Don't -- don't go to any other radio stations. Nothing. You don't want to hear this news -- I mean, please, please let me break this news to you. Oh, it's so sweet." [After a commercial break, Beck's producer stated that] "The first round of voting is up for the Olympic games, and the first city" [at which point Beck interrupted, saying] "Wait! Wait for it! Wait for it. Enjoy this -- savor this moment." [The producer continued] "And the first city to be eliminated is Chicago." [Beck later asked his producer if Chicago's elimination was proof that Obama had "failed."]

We've come from "USA! USA! USA!" to this horseshit.

And way to condemn a great American city of 8 million people because of one incident, guys. I guess Columbine should define Denver, huh?

[dirkterrell]

Shea, I'm sure you'll say now that you condemned Bush when he spent 4 days watching the Olympics in China. Uhh-huhh.

With a payoff of tens of billions, an investment of 100 million ain't shit.


Interesting reading:

http://www.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1097.pdf


As we see from Table 5 above, even the most generous measure of net benefit ofthe Olympics – Event Benefits minus Event Costs – is negative (-$101m), although by a lesser amount than was anticipated at the beginning of the project. This figure is “helped” by fully evaluating the extra surplus from the spectacle and the Halo.

However, there are a number of factors which push the actual net benefit of this much-celebrated project even further into the red. The first, of course, are the infrastructure costs discussed in section 1. While this paper did not rigorously assess these, a casual perusal of the Infrastructure Costs and the non-Olympic Infrastructure Benefits which might be expected reveals that the net contribution of Infrastructure to the Olympic “bottom line” will be negative by hundreds of millions of dollars. While these costs are obvious, the standard counter-argument is that they will be offset by the “economic impact” of the Games. However, section 4 of this paper revealed that “economic impact”, when correctly accounted for, is not nearly as large as is generally assumed. When combined with the substantial upside risks inherent in costs of public works projects48, the expected overall net benefit of hosting an Olympic Games is substantially negative.

[hcr25]

Is Obama even a US citizen yet? :)

[Wintermute]

Dirk, I'm not going to argue the minutiae of some random guy's Master's Thesis. Experience has shown that most Olympics have been economic wins. (Montreal was notably not.)

This country needs jobs and the Olympics would have provided some.

[Pandora-11]

Dirk, I'm not going to argue the minutiae of some random guy's Master's Thesis. Experience has shown that most Olympics have been economic wins. (Montreal was notably not.)

This country needs jobs and the Olympics would have provided some.


OMG!!!!!! ARE YOU ARGUING WITH DIRK????:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::crazy ::nuke::bow::shock::shock:

[Squisha]

If the Chicago Olympic Committee wanted to get Rio out of the way, all they had to do was show a video of "City of God"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/

Based on a true story. And very disturbing.

[MetaLord 9]

It's pretty disgusting how gleeful the right is (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020025) that the U.S. lost out on billions worth of jobs and commerce.
...We've come from "USA! USA! USA!" to this horseshit.

And way to condemn a great American city of 8 million people because of one incident, guys. I guess Columbine should define Denver, huh?
It's equally disgusting as it was when the Democrats carried on in the same manner of opposition to anything President Bush did during his term in office. Both sides are guilty and no one gets off the hook for it.


While the Olympics would have brought several jobs to the country, if that was the main motivation then why wasn't Detroit an option? Part of the reason that Chicago implored President Obama to represent them afar is that he is their former senator. I'm wondering how much that fact alone was behind Chicago's push to host another Olympics. An infusion of jobs is much needed in this country, but increasing debt to buy a few temporary jobs is not going to be a long term solution.

[dirkterrell]

Dirk, I'm not going to argue the minutiae of some random guy's Master's Thesis.


Yeah, it's much easier just to pronounce the world to be the way you want it to be, no? If there's a flaw in the paper, point it out.



Experience has shown that most Olympics have been economic wins.


Show me the analysis.



This country needs jobs and the Olympics would have provided some.


Yeah, but it needs real jobs not parasitic jobs "created" with taxes.

Dirk

[Nick_Ninja]

The best thing that Colorado ever turned down ---- 1972 Winter games :down: you think I-70's bad now .................

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/millennium/1012stone.shtml

[Shea]

Shea, I'm sure you'll say now that you condemned Bush when he spent 4 days watching the Olympics in China. Uhh-huhh.


So your argument is that regardless of my position on the former administrations Olympic trip, I have no standing to question Obama? Is that it?



With a payoff of tens of billions, an investment of 100 million ain't shit.

Tens of billions? Show me where you get that figure?



Chicago lost weeks ago, because:
a. We get a lot of the Olympics.
b. South America has never had the Olympics.
c. It's harder to get into the US since 9/11. (Right or not, it was a factor from what I heard.)

So we spent how much money for him and his wife to fly there for no reason? Well I want that money paid back.



Obama was asked to go as a last-ditch effort by the Chicago committee. They knew it was a long shot, and Obama knew it was too. That's why he didn't want to go, because when they inevitably didn't get it, the pile-on commenced. It's pretty disgusting how gleeful the right is (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020025) that the U.S. lost out on billions worth of jobs and commerce.

So Obama was just an innocent bystander, who against his will, was forced to go there on a mission he just KNEW was going to fail. Wow...



And way to condemn a great American city of 8 million people because of one incident, guys. I guess Columbine should define Denver, huh?

I'm sorry where did I condemn a great American city Wintermute? Or are you just using yet another strawman argument?

[Horsman]

The best thing that Colorado ever turned down ---- 1972 Winter games :down: you think I-70's bad now .................

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/millennium/1012stone.shtml

Good Story - they would have had to make the I-70 this wide!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_770_Q-_EPr4/SFwvCvMmk_I/AAAAAAAAAQ8/8knp9JZbPgU/s400/2007_7_freeway.jpg

[Wintermute]

Yeah, it's much easier just to pronounce the world to be the way you want it to be, no? If there's a flaw in the paper, point it out.


I'm not going to grade some Australian's Master's Thesis forecasting that an Olympics that hasn't happened will lose money. I don't give a shit if he gets his degree. For all I know he's a gibbering idiot.



Show me the analysis.


Isn't the fact that cities spend hundreds of millions competing for the Olympics is proof in and of itself that they're a good investment? Since what you really want to do is play the "The libtard link you supply is biased, here's my rightard source" game, let me introduce you to Google (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMI_enUS311US312&aq=1&oq=olympic+profit&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=olympic+profitability).



Yeah, but it needs real jobs not parasitic jobs "created" with taxes.


Most of the Olympics are paid for by private funds. Chicago would have paid for overruns. (Which would certainly happen.)

As for your disdain for jobs created with taxes, you know what one of the biggest CCC projects in the country was back in the day? Red Rocks. So if you're really, truly against parasitic jobs created with taxes, you better never go to another show up there or be branded a hypocrite.

[Wintermute]

So your argument is that regardless of my position on the former administrations Olympic trip, I have no standing to question Obama? Is that it?


No, I'm just asking if you're an opportunistic hypocrite.



Tens of billions? Show me where you get that figure?


I'm not going to play link patty-cake with you. Google it yourself.



So we spent how much money for him and his wife to fly there for no reason? Well I want that money paid back.


You want the money back from Bush's trip too? Or are you just an opportunistic hypocrite?



So Obama was just an innocent bystander, who against his will, was forced to go there on a mission he just KNEW was going to fail. Wow...


I know it's foreign to you that anyone would ever do anything out of altruism.



I'm sorry where did I condemn a great American city Wintermute? Or are you just using yet another strawman argument?

Maybe I wasn't talking to you?

[MetaLord 9]

I'm not going to grade some Australian's Master's Thesis forecasting that an Olympics that hasn't happened will lose money. I don't give a shit if he gets his degree. For all I know he's a gibbering idiot.

But also, for all you know, he's 100% correct. You can only refute evidence if you take the time to disprove it. Being to lazy to digest the evidence does not validate your point.


As for your disdain for jobs created with taxes, you know what one of the biggest CCC projects in the country was back in the day? Red Rocks. So if you're really, truly against parasitic jobs created with taxes, you better never go to another show up there or be
branded a hypocrite.
I believe Dirks' point was that creating jobs just to create them isn't a long lasting or sustainable plan. Money can be better spent fostering an environment of growth which does yield jobs in the long run instead of large, somewhat temporary projects resulting in a derth of jobs that will disappear after the Olypmics almost as fast as the cropped up.

Dubbing everyone hypocrites does not validate your points either and just comes across as name calling.

[TFOGGuys]

How about that notorious Right Wing extremist organ, NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113351145) ?

Even they say that the host cities most often end up with HUGE debt....


Actually, tangible economic benefits are elusive. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics are often hailed for finishing with a $233 million surplus. But Barney says the calculation includes only direct costs of staging the games and not the indirect costs provided by city, state and federal governments. The same is true, he says, for the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary in Alberta, Canada, and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Organizers of both games claimed multimillion-dollar surpluses, but neither included massive federal spending when adding up costs.


Other cities have seen grand Olympic dreams dissipate into massive debt or disgrace. It took the city of Montreal 30 years to pay off the billion-dollar debt it incurred during the 1976 games. Olympic costs for Athens more than tripled to more than $15 billion. Nagano, Japan, spent so much for the 1998 Winter Games, and triggered so much suspicion with its spending, that Olympic organizers destroyed their financial records.

[Shea]

No, I'm just asking if you're an opportunistic hypocrite.

So you start out by name calling to prop up your assertions. Awesome...



I'm not going to play link patty-cake with you. Google it yourself.
It's your assertion that they will make "tens of BILLIONS" but are unwilling to substantiate it with any sort of facts because it's below you. Not very convincing.



You want the money back from Bush's trip too? Or are you just an opportunistic hypocrite?

Again with the name calling.



I know it's foreign to you that anyone would ever do anything out of altruism.

A growing theme of yours, to paint me as a cold heartless bastard. Speak to me in person sometime and see how fast your strawman argument falls apart.



Maybe I wasn't talking to you?

Perhaps, yet it was in a post directed entirely at me.

Sir you have taken every opportunity to portray this trip as the administration would like you to and call us all names. We have asked you to back up your assertions, with which you have only replied with name calling.

You hate Bush, I get it...yet defend Obama at nearly every turn (for nearly the same actions) and have the audacity to call me an opportunistic hypocrite.

[dirkterrell]

I'm not going to grade some Australian's Master's Thesis forecasting that an Olympics that hasn't happened will lose money. I don't give a shit if he gets his degree. For all I know he's a gibbering idiot.


Lame attempt at the inverse of "argument from authority." Fail. If he's wrong, tell us why.



Isn't the fact that cities spend hundreds of millions competing for the Olympics is proof in and of itself that they're a good investment?


Surely you jest.



Since what you really want to do is play the "The libtard link you supply is biased, here's my rightard source" game, let me introduce you to Google (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMI_enUS311US312&aq=1&oq=olympic+profit&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=olympic+profitability).


You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. That's all. I don't play libtard/rightard games. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Olympic games might be profitable but I'm not going to just take your (or anyone's) word for it. I want to see the evidence and decide for myself.



Most of the Olympics are paid for by private funds. Chicago would have paid for overruns. (Which would certainly happen.)


Show me the analysis.

Dirk

[Wintermute]

Sorry for calling names Shea. As usual, I got too worked up.

But here's the thing. All our debates in here devolve into parodies of the Scottish Lord scene from "Braveheart". We wave around our pieces of paper(links), shouting "I have here documents that prove that Olympics are a huge waste of time!!" or "I have here documents that prove that Universal Healthcare is a socialistic hell-hole!!" It's so futile and circular. You can find a link to prove or disprove about any goddamn thing.

Sometimes try using common sense and Occam's Razor. For instance, if the Olympics aren't a net good, cities would quit competing for them. But they do compete, spending millions, and for benefits that don't necessarily show up on a cost-benefit analysis.

Try applying the same logical framework to universal healthcare. If it's so bad, why does it poll so well in countries that have it? Is everybody else in the world dumb and we're smart? Or the other way around? And if we're smart, why isn't any of the rest of the world moving to our healthcare system? Because they're dumb?

But we don't discuss the broader themes like "Can we call ourselves an ethical society if we sit with our thumbs up our asses while 44,000 of our fellow die in pain and suffering every year?" Instead we have "Well, as to your link that had us at 37th in the world in longevity, here's a link that takes out traffic and gun deaths and has us at 19th, so there!"

It seems like we've turned into a country that would rather argue then get things done, just like the Scottish Lords. I'll let Bill Maher explain it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-if-america-cant_b_299383.html) from last week's show:


Folks, we don't need more efficient cars. We need something to replace cars. That's what's wrong with these piddly, too-little-too-late half-measures that pass for "reform" these days. They're not reform, they're just putting off actually solving anything to a later day, when we might by some miracle have, a) leaders with balls, and b) a general populace who can think again. Barack Obama has said, "If we were starting from scratch, then a single-payer system would probably make sense." So let's start from scratch.

Even if they pass the shitty Max Baucus health care bill, it doesn't kick in for 4 years, during which time 175,000 people will die because they're not covered, and about three million will go bankrupt from hospital bills. We have a pretty good idea of the Republican plan for the next three years: Don't let Obama do anything. What kills me is that that's the Democrats' plan, too.

We weren't always like this. Inert. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law and 11 months later seniors were receiving benefits. During World War II, virtually overnight FDR had auto companies making tanks and planes only. In one eight year period, America went from JFK's ridiculous dream of landing a man on the moon, to actually landing a man on the moon.

This generation has had eight years to build something at Ground Zero. An office building, a museum, an outlet mall, I don't care anymore. I'm tempted to say that, symbolically, all America can do lately is keep digging a hole, but Ground Zero doesn't represent a hole. It is a hole. America: Home of the Freedom Pit. Ironically, it's spitting distance from Wall Street, where they knock down buildings a different way - through foreclosure.

That's the ultimate sign of our lethargy: millions thrown out of their homes, tossed out of work, lost their life savings, retirements postponed - and they just take it. 30% interest on credit cards? It's a good thing the Supreme Court legalized sodomy a few years ago.

[MileHighColt]

Damn, I went to a motorcycle club site and a political melee broke out. I think everyone needs to take a shot of their favorite drink, take a deep breath and think about riding canyons.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9Z8KEsNyo

Dirk
Dood, that's friggin' hilarious!:)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

My question is: If you have a screen name that ends in "Mute", why can't you just STFU?:)