Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Olympics in chicago

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 7:43:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should Olympics be there?

Why is the first lady lobbying for it to be there... and willing to drag her husband down with her?

Is she out of control?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 7:49:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2009 7:43:23 PM, comoncents wrote:
Should Olympics be there?

Why is the first lady lobbying for it to be there... and willing to drag her husband down with her?

Is she out of control?

There isn't anything wrong with the President or the First Lady wanting and promoting the Olympics to be in Chicago. The Olympics are a great honour for a country to hold; Chicago applied for the honour years before Obama was in, as well, for those that will undoubtadely say that Obama rigged it.

I mean, come on; the President, Prime Minister or Junta General of a country will promote the Olympics coming to their country no matter what city it is in. You don't see me attacking Prime Minister Harper for saying that he is glad the 2010 Olympics are in Vancouver.

Olympics = good thing.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 7:50:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com...

http://www.cnn.com...
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama's decision to head to Copenhagen, Denmark, later this week to make a push to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago is not without political controversy."

The Top 10 Reasons Why Chicago Should Not Host the Olympics
with 5 comments

The Top 10 Reasons Why Chicago Shouldn't Host the Olympics
1. President Obama should not reward Daley with his support for a Chicago Olympics because of the numerous crimes and civil rights violations that have occurred during Daley's 29 year tenure as mayor and states attorney. Given the amount of corruption that has happened under Daley, it is absurd that President Obama or First Lady Michelle are even considering making a presentation on behalf of a Daley sponsored Chicago Olympics.
2. Daley planned and followed through on an unlawful hiring and election rigging system before Daley was sworn in as mayor. Daley is scheming to use Olympic contracts and contractors to further his political might just like Daley did before becoming mayor of Chicago. One election rigging scheme, shame on Daley. A second election rigging scheme, shame on us.
3. Daley's unlawful hiring and election rigging scheme went on for 16 years until the FBI uncovered it. The building of a Chicago Olympic site and the assignment of the land and buildings after the Olympics will take at least 10 years The length of time involved to set up and close an Olympic village gives Daley a perfect opportunity to create another long-term scandal.
4. Given Chicago Olympic Committee Chairman Patrick Ryan's previous conflicts of interests, his $100,000.00 unethical campaign contribution to Daley, and Ryan's long time personal friendship with Daley, Ryan is the wrong man to chair the Chicago Olympic Committee.
5. Given Aon's previous $180 million "conflicts of interest" fine and $5.25 million fine for "inadequate corruption and bribery controls," Aon is the wrong company to spearhead a Chicago Olympics.
6. The Chicago Olympic Committee will disburse billions of dollars in contracts and concessions without proper transparency, bidding or assignment. The claim that the Chicago Olympic Committee is a free enterprise doesn't prevent corruption, it guarantees it.
7. For 16 years Daley used patronage workers who unlawfully received jobs, promotions, overtime pay, etc. to campaign for Daley backed candidates. If we cannot trust the Daley administration with it's personnel decisions when the federal court observes every employment decision, how can we trust Daley to manage 5,000 Chicago Olympic employees when no one is watching? Chicago doesn't need Daley's patronage office moving from Chicago's Intergovernmental Affairs office to the Chicago Olympic headquarters.
8. The Chicago Olympic committee has already been involved in controversies and improprieties, such as a Chicago Olympic Committee member's real estate investment across from an Olympic venue, Aon's $47 million in city contracts that was supposed to be unrelated to Aon's office space and human resource donations to the Chicago's Olympic bid, and the use of tax increment funds to pay for the Chicago Olympic village. Chicago Olympic improprieties will increase exponentially if the IOC selects Chicago as the 2016 host city.
9. A Chicago Olympics may cost Chicago and Illinois taxpayers billions of dollars because the IOC requires a financial guarantee. It will be a shame if President Obama persuades the IOC to select Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics and the federal taxpayers end up having to pick up the tab.
10. Showcasing Chicago to the world, the money, and jobs from a Chicago Olympics aren't worth the price of ten or more years of Chicago and Illinois political corruption and political oppression.

http://nochicagogames.wordpress.com...

and the people are protesting.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 7:53:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
^ Those are valid reasons for not having the Olympics in Chicago. Well, most are.

I don't agree with these ramblings on about how it will cost the taxpayers so much. Well, no sh*t. But it also creates jobs, it brings in a lot of revenue to a city that direly needs it, and it is a good investment for the city. You have to give a little in order to get a lot back.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 8:02:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2009 7:53:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
^ Those are valid reasons for not having the Olympics in Chicago. Well, most are.

I don't agree with these ramblings on about how it will cost the taxpayers so much. Well, no sh*t. But it also creates jobs, it brings in a lot of revenue to a city that direly needs it, and it is a good investment for the city. You have to give a little in order to get a lot back.

If it were this year, i would have to say noooo.
but that far down the road, chicago maybe better off... and then it would be a plus.

I think they will get it, when obama goes over and shines his charm... ummm ummm ummm, 'When black Elvis Gets Jiggy with his teleprompter'. -Bill Maher
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:26:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

I think this is more of a case of Chicago = fail than Obama = fail. They're in a very bad spot there, apparently. Plus, I don't think the IOC likes putting two Olympic events on the same continent in such short order. That is why Madrid lost, apparently.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:29:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:26:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

I think this is more of a case of Chicago = fail than Obama = fail. They're in a very bad spot there, apparently. Plus, I don't think the IOC likes putting two Olympic events on the same continent in such short order. That is why Madrid lost, apparently.

Haha, yea, I know. I just wanted to get your reaction.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:31:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:29:24 PM, Nags wrote:
Haha, yea, I know. I just wanted to get your reaction.

You should have said that it was Stephen Colbert = fail, and I would have really gotten riled up.

(He endorsed Chicago.)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:44:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm excited for Rio; it's about time South America got some Olympic love. Besides, Chicago has always seemed like a less than exciting site for the game. The grandeur of the games paired with the beauty of Brazil sounds like a great combination.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:59:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

http://hosted.ap.org...

kinda nice to know that this guy is human and not the devil

(by devil i mean having the ability to pursued everyone to do anything, gives me hope fr the GOP in 2012)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 2:21:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Privatize the olympics. Shrinks it down to the sports that people actually want to watch, and probably has them fix a permanent location so you don't waste billions erecting new stadiums every couple years.

I highly doubt the "boon to the local economy" exceeds the costs to the local economy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 5:36:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
aww, I was almost looking forward to a set of empty stadiums to go with the empty factories in a nearby state.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 7:57:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 2:21:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Privatize the olympics. Shrinks it down to the sports that people actually want to watch, and probably has them fix a permanent location so you don't waste billions erecting new stadiums every couple years.

A permanent location would completely kill the point of the Olympics.

Of course, cities could stop building new stadiums, and just reuse the ones that are already there. Houston, Texas would be great...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:26:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

I think this is more of a case of Chicago = fail than Obama = fail. They're in a very bad spot there, apparently. Plus, I don't think the IOC likes putting two Olympic events on the same continent in such short order. That is why Madrid lost, apparently.

Actually, Obama originally wasn't going to fly out for his $900,000 sales pitch, but then he decided that Chicago would probably not succeed, but if he went, then his popularity would gather votes, so that he would be famous for single-handedly winning the Olympics for Chicago. So, yes, it is an Obamafail.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:31:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 7:59:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:26:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

I think this is more of a case of Chicago = fail than Obama = fail. They're in a very bad spot there, apparently. Plus, I don't think the IOC likes putting two Olympic events on the same continent in such short order. That is why Madrid lost, apparently.

Actually, Obama originally wasn't going to fly out for his $900,000 sales pitch, but then he decided that Chicago would probably not succeed, but if he went, then his popularity would gather votes, so that he would be famous for single-handedly winning the Olympics for Chicago. So, yes, it is an Obamafail.

I wonder who paid for his $900,000 sales pitch.... uhmmmmm
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 7:57:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/2/2009 2:21:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Privatize the olympics. Shrinks it down to the sports that people actually want to watch, and probably has them fix a permanent location so you don't waste billions erecting new stadiums every couple years.

A permanent location would completely kill the point of the Olympics.
To watch people compete at sports?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:41:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To each who takes joy in the failure of the United States for political gain over a president you don't like:

The nation and the world would truly be better off without you.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:45:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:41:08 PM, PervRat wrote:
To each who takes joy in the failure of the United States for political gain over a president you don't like:

The nation and the world would truly be better off without you.

The USA would be much better off without you!
1) Unemployment benefits.
2) Welfare benefits.
3) Other poor people benefits.
4) You don't do anything productive.
5) You cause pollution.
6) You take up space.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 9:05:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:45:28 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:41:08 PM, PervRat wrote:
To each who takes joy in the failure of the United States for political gain over a president you don't like:

The nation and the world would truly be better off without you.

The USA would be much better off without you!
1) Unemployment benefits.
I receive none.
2) Welfare benefits.
I receive none.
3) Other poor people benefits.
There are none.
4) You don't do anything productive.
Aside from the uncompensated production I have already given my employers.
5) You cause pollution.
Not as much as you.
6) You take up space.
As do you, and you are a burden to your poor parents.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 9:08:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 9:05:51 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:45:28 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:41:08 PM, PervRat wrote:
To each who takes joy in the failure of the United States for political gain over a president you don't like:

The nation and the world would truly be better off without you.

The USA would be much better off without you!
1) Unemployment benefits.
I receive none.
Sure.
2) Welfare benefits.
I receive none.
Sure.
3) Other poor people benefits.
Oh really? I'm not going to start to list all the social welfare programs.
4) You don't do anything productive.
Aside from the uncompensated production I have already given my employers.
Shoveling sh!t out of a shed? You're coool.
5) You cause pollution.
Not as much as you.
So? Plus, how would you know?
6) You take up space.
As do you, and you are a burden to your poor parents.
How so?
-Also, I intend on being a productive member of society - unlike some other perv...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 10:15:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 9:08:55 PM, Nags wrote:
3) Other poor people benefits.
Oh really? I'm not going to start to list all the social welfare programs.
How about public schools?
4) You don't do anything productive.
Aside from the uncompensated production I have already given my employers.
Shoveling sh!t out of a shed? You're coool.
How about saving a factory's a$$ by getting them to pass a quality control audit by their biggest customer, something they didn't think they could do?
Putting a system in place to track and reduce quality control problems in that same company that were costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars per month (more than 100 times my wages!)
Being "on call" when it is supposed to my days off
Other things that were in great excess in value of what I was paid.
5) You cause pollution.
Not as much as you.
So? Plus, how would you know?
You're conservative, I'm an environmentalist, and given I have no money, I likely don't go through consumables at anywhere near the rate you do.
6) You take up space.
As do you, and you are a burden to your poor parents.
How so?
They have to pay for everything for you, and your community pays property taxes to pay for your school, even the households that have no children of their own.
Stop mooching off welfare!
-Also, I intend on being a productive member of society - unlike some other perv...
What's this intend? I had a job when I was 16.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 10:59:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 10:15:48 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 9:08:55 PM, Nags wrote:
3) Other poor people benefits.
Oh really? I'm not going to start to list all the social welfare programs.
How about public schools?
Yes - that's one example. Well done. For reference - I go to a private school.
4) You don't do anything productive.
Aside from the uncompensated production I have already given my employers.
Shoveling sh!t out of a shed? You're coool.
How about saving a factory's a$$ by getting them to pass a quality control audit by their biggest customer, something they didn't think they could do?
Putting a system in place to track and reduce quality control problems in that same company that were costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars per month (more than 100 times my wages!)
I'm really definitely sure you did that. Because that's why companies are hiring you right now, right? Oh wait - they aren't. You're shoveling sh!t out of a shed. You are lieing. Get over yourself.
Being "on call" when it is supposed to my days off
Other things that were in great excess in value of what I was paid.
Same with everyone else who works, you're not special.
5) You cause pollution.
Not as much as you.
So? Plus, how would you know?
You're conservative, I'm an environmentalist, and given I have no money, I likely don't go through consumables at anywhere near the rate you do.
I'm not conservative - I'm libertarian. Even if you do pollute less than me, it doesn't change the fact you still pollute, while contributing nothing productive to the US. Thus, you are expendable.
6) You take up space.
As do you, and you are a burden to your poor parents.
How so?
They have to pay for everything for you, and your community pays property taxes to pay for your school, even the households that have no children of their own.
Stop mooching off welfare!
I'm 16, parents are supposed to subsidize their children. I'm not mooching. I don't go to public school. My parents also pay taxes.
-Also, I intend on being a productive member of society - unlike some other perv...
What's this intend? I had a job when I was 16.
I wasn't talking about currently - I'm talking about later in life, I won't be shoveling sh!t.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 8:17:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:31:41 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/2/2009 7:59:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:26:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:22:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Rio de Janeiro wins.
= Obama fail.

I think this is more of a case of Chicago = fail than Obama = fail. They're in a very bad spot there, apparently. Plus, I don't think the IOC likes putting two Olympic events on the same continent in such short order. That is why Madrid lost, apparently.

Actually, Obama originally wasn't going to fly out for his $900,000 sales pitch, but then he decided that Chicago would probably not succeed, but if he went, then his popularity would gather votes, so that he would be famous for single-handedly winning the Olympics for Chicago. So, yes, it is an Obamafail.

I wonder who paid for his $900,000 sales pitch.... uhmmmmm

YOU paid for his sales pitch. And YOU paid for his sales pitch. And YOU paid for his sales pitch...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 8:21:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

YOU paid for his sales pitch. And YOU paid for his sales pitch. And YOU paid for his sales pitch...

i know, it sucks.