Like all the other Olympic sites, after the Brazilian games, we'll all feel we know Rio and Brazil a little better. The locales make pretty good sideshows
|
|
|
|
|
Like all the other Olympic sites, after the Brazilian games, we'll all feel we know Rio and Brazil a little better. The locales make pretty good sideshows
You're the only one screeching about conspiracies! That Obama allies would reap huge financial rewards is well publicized; and FYI, the Olympics have been a gigantic money pit for virtually every host city since LA. And being dismissive of this "lump of coal" we have for a president does not imply anything about my "leaning" toward any media. If we agree on anything, it would be that it is nearly impossible to find accurate thought and original opinion. Your post is Exhibit A.Originally Posted by buck_dawg_gold
Conspiracy - A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.... Your words from a prior quote... "Obama's only interest in the Olympics was to provide another venue for his ongoing "Apologies to the World" tour and to provide a huge financial reward to his slumlord and ACORN cronies in Chicago." Are you not presenting a conspiracy theory...? FYI Atalnta has no debt from the 1996 games.... I guess Chicago does not charge any kind of federal tax on goods purchased by people who would have attended the olympic games...So I see why it would not have helped the entire US...
Good... let some other country pay for it!
Just think... Montreal just finished paying for their Olympics and it was held in 1976!
Athens turned into a financial disaster for Greece. Just think, in a whole, we spent over $50 million just to come in fourth place! Yeah, that's wise use of our money!
Chicago's proposal sucked. Chicago sucks too. Why anyone would think Chicago could have even of competed with the other cities is beyond comprehension. The American OC really screwed that one up. Not sure which other cities competed in the US, but if Chicago was the best we had to offer, there are some serious problems with American sports.
Every city to host the games since LA have been in debt, bdg. There would have not been any financial prosperity for anyone, other than those who sold the land and built the facilities. The US would not have been helped in any way.
I liked one proposal I read - for the summer and winter games, just have one place! Lillihammer for winter and somewhere in Greece for summer.
It's not a conspiracy - "Lump of Coal" acted all on his own. He recently stated that the Olympics would provide an opportunity to show the world how the U.S. is "becoming" more inclusive and he knew it was necessary to reward the Chicago political machine that vaulted him into the Senate.Conspiracy - A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.... Your words from a prior quote... "Obama's only interest in the Olympics was to provide another venue for his ongoing "Apologies to the World" tour and to provide a huge financial reward to his slumlord and ACORN cronies in Chicago." Are you not presenting a conspiracy theory...? FYI Atalnta has no debt from the 1996 games.... I guess Chicago does not charge any kind of federal tax on goods purchased by people who would have attended the olympic games...So I see why it would not have helped the entire US...
You need to come to grips with the fact that this menace is a total sell-out to the dirtiest of politics.
when did Chicago implement a Federal tax for goods sold?I guess Chicago does not charge any kind of federal tax on goods purchased by people who would have attended the olympic games...So I see why it would not have helped the entire US...
Originally Posted by champion110
I am less angry this morning and ready to get back up on the horse. That girl was a freak last night.
Originally Posted by champion110
In fact, I finally had to tell her to stop over the last weekend, because I was worn out and needed a break.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ic_sized_mess#
The common rejoinder to spiraling costs is that the Olympics make money for host cities. But the record is somewhat spottier than boosters admit. Athens and Beijing lost billions. Montreal, which hosted the games in 1976, took 30 years to pay off its loans. Los Angeles and Seoul made a tidy profit. Atlanta and Sydney broke even. It also depends on how you count: Is building a stadium factored into the cost? How about improving the subway? Expanding the housing stock? All this can leave a city with new and gleaming infrastructure -- or a bunch of costly new houses no one wants to buy and stadiums no one wants to use.
Originally Posted by champion110
I am less angry this morning and ready to get back up on the horse. That girl was a freak last night.
Originally Posted by champion110
In fact, I finally had to tell her to stop over the last weekend, because I was worn out and needed a break.
Myths About Landing the Olympics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
1. The Olympics will pay for themselves. Nope, they never do.
2. Winning the Games means a gold rush of jobs for the host city. The truth is that the local economy doesn't get much of a boost while those shiny new athletic venues are being built. Many of the jobs created are filled by specialists who come in from outside -- to construct a BMX bicycle track, it helps to have built one before -- and they take their pay home with them.
3. The Olympics will boost local tourism. For most foreign visitors, attending the Olympics is a proposition that costs thousands of dollars. Demand is just not that great.
4. Playing host to the Olympics changes the landscape of a city forever. Maybe, but it's not a legacy worth much.
5. The Olympics inspire greater participation in sports. It is true that many Olympic athletes were inspired by watching the Games, but most of these people had athletic talent to begin with. For everyone else, the effect is more likely to go in the opposite direction -- the Olympics can reduce participation in sports. Public subsidies that might have gone into boosting local facilities are diverted to the Games. In the U.K., national lottery funds traditionally devoted to local investment in sports facilities have been committed to funding the Olympics over the next 10 years.
Originally Posted by champion110
I am less angry this morning and ready to get back up on the horse. That girl was a freak last night.
Originally Posted by champion110
In fact, I finally had to tell her to stop over the last weekend, because I was worn out and needed a break.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli..._olympics.html
Still: The biggest winners of any modern Games are the businessmen who build the stadiums and the villages, and tell us the same thing we hear when another professional sports team wants a new stadium.
It is good for the International Olympic Committee. It is real good for television ratings. But, as Rupert Murdoch said recently, when asked if his News Corp. would bid on televising the next two Olympics, "In spite of all the propaganda and everything - I don't want to call anybody a liar - but no one's ever made money off them."
No American city ever has or ever will. Still, we're supposed to cheer on cities bidding for the Olympics as if they're Phelps trying to touch the wall first in Beijing.
Originally Posted by champion110
I am less angry this morning and ready to get back up on the horse. That girl was a freak last night.
Originally Posted by champion110
In fact, I finally had to tell her to stop over the last weekend, because I was worn out and needed a break.
Please explain.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Been working this complex tax project at work and got my laws crossed...
Why host the olympics when we're still going to be at war during that time? Priorities? Commit to the war or gtfo. I hate how we've been acting like normal for the last 8 years while we've been at war.
And the last time the olympics came - one of our citizens bombed it. And now we have a bunch of crazed jihadists trying to bomb us in our own country. Why would any sane person choose the US as an olympic host right now?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
