On Topic

I'd like to see it be a rule that you can only host the Olympics once every 50 years. Add to that, that it can only be hosted by those who would benefit from the economic boost the most. IE, the top 10 economic powers are automatically excluded by default.

I really do think Rio was a good choice. It will give them a chance to introduce the world to their culture and people. It's nice when the underdog wins sometimes, gives others hope they can one day do the same.






The derailed/hijacked discussion:
That was my point exactly, in response to Sea Demon's original diatribe. .... just getting so tired of hearing that crap everywhere, about everything. (I still get that mental image of trailer trash thinking every time I hear someone rant on like that)
Exactly. Doesn't matter what he does or how he does it. One half of this country is ready to jump up and cry foul, call him a socialist, blame their lot in life on him, while completely ignoring the facts of where we are and how we got there. The main point is; regardless of how we got here we need to work together to get out of this mess. People bitching and crying, letting blind hatred and prejudice guide their thoughts is tearing our contry apart from the inside.

We need to get back to the same spirit of patriotism this country had in October 2001. If we don't we're going to end up being a third world economy. Then we'll have to start worrying about being invaded and conquered by all the enemies we made while pacifying our "it's all about me" society.

I agree with the first part, but the second part is WAY too subjective.

The Olympics should be about competition, not as a stimulus for other economies.

I think the nations of the world should just invest in one permanent location for the Olympics (one for each season of course) . As the "hosting" rotates from country to country, each host country would be responsible for the logistic support of the permanent location for that Olympad.

I see little logic in countries wasting money building Olympic facilities that may go to waste.

I don't agree. There are literally 1000s of facilities already available and in use, and that should be a prerequesite for hosting the games.

Moving the games around allows for many people who don't otherwise have the means for international travel to view the spectacle.

But it would make security easier. But you are right, there are still people who want to attend the Olympics in person

Of course he got a standing ovation from these people. These people are dedicated to ensuring an America with reduced economic output, more damaging and unnecessary environmental regulation on our industries, and less influence globally. And Obama is delivering just that. Both a weakened national economy, and loss of sovereignty. No they were sincere indeed. This international body is getting exactly what they want from him. But nevertheless, those fools aren't who I'm talking about. The Russians, Iranians, little man Chavez in Venezuela, Castro bros. in Cuba, The North Koreans, and China are the ones I'm concerned with. I don't see much but ridicule and power posturing coming from them. Definitely not respect. Oh yeah, and I guess you missed Sarkozy the other day accusing him of weakness. That didn't exactly scream respect to me.

Yes. This Olympics trip is an absolute waste for those of us who actually have a federal tax liability. The problem is, Obama's not focusing on the war in any meaningful way. And if he is...his general in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be seeing that commitment as reported.

Dude, support for Democrats is rapidly contracting. The Independents are pretty much lost at this point for Democrats. And you got nothing to show for your vote for these failures. No "single payer" Health care, No Gitmo closure, the war on terror continues (albeit with much less focus and vision), and a revived sense of limited government from the average citizen.

The "twisted" GOP vision for America which is limited government, personal responsibility, lower taxes, strong national security, political accountability, and business expansion and job growth through private ownership is gaining speed. Your nutty and ridiculous Democrat vision of government control of everything, sky high tax rates, forced "social justice"(whatever the hell that means) at the expense of individual freedom, weak-kneed national security, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and wacko environmentalism is what's rapidly in retreat. It's apparent that a vast number of Americans understand what a huge mistake it was to put Democrats in control of government like this.

My friend, it is not blind hatred. But a focused opposition on what I see as detrimental to every principle I've seen in practice that made this country safe, and prosperous. Many of us are just very much opposed to having government growth like this, taxpayers ripped off on trips of zero value (on two seperate jets with full entourages as well), and also do not wish to see government dependancy grow and citizen dignity and respectability fall. It's too bad liberals don't know the difference between opposition and hatred.

No, but he's certainly making everything worse. The deficit has quadrupled, and national liabilities are increasing. This man and Democrats in Congress are trying to bankrupt my children who are not even in the workforce, and do not get the chance to vote for themselves whether they want this Democrat debt pushed on them or not. Since Obama is in charge, the finger is in his face. And rightly so. And he has so far inspired no confidence....as the Independent vote will show you as they continue to shift away from Democrats.

This is old hat. The buck now stops on Obama's desk. Stop trying to push Obama's failures on somebody else. What's he actually doing to solve any problems other than trying to balloon the national deficit to outrageous proportions? What's he actually doing in other problem areas like Iran and North Korea? How about Gitmo? Is there any clear policy coming from there? We don't know really. Why? Because we rarely see him anywhere except giving speeches, and doing worthless photo ops or TV spots. This administration is a failure so far.

Actually, watching Rio win was amusing to me. They can have it. And all the crap that goes with it. I knew eventually Obama's arrogance, and the arrogance of his inner circle would collapse and make him look foolish. Unfortunately, somebody in the White House hasn't told him he need not involve himself in everything. To be Presidential, a President needs to be above and clear from some things. This is one of those things.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Commiting to a plan that is out of date and irrelevant would be a bloody silly thing to do

The General drew up a plan that was dependent on one core factor, since that plan was drawn up that factor has evaporated.
The new assesment of the situation is due on wednesday at which time McCrystal will have to decide if his old plan can be adapted sufficiently now that its core has disappeared or if he needs to draw up a completely new plan.

How can there possibly be less focus and vision than under the last administration ? Unless of course Obama starts a completely new very silly war over a pile of lies which strips resources from the real conflict.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNIwc...layer_embedded

The Drudge Report's headline was "The Ego Has Landed."

Rational opposition to a Chicago Games based on real concerns doesn't explain the outpouring of joy that America lost its Olympic bid.

This isn't about whether Chicago was a good pick or a bad pick, it's about wanting Obama to fail at anything he does, even the goddamn Olympics.

Wow, I didn't know the IOC was the barometer for measuring respect/disrespect for a country. Do you have any proof that Obama thought his presence would "seal the deal"? Or is just that all the other countries' leaders were present?

So maybe Rio was chosen because it'd be a first for South America...nah, they obviously did it because they don't like Obama. :roll:

Is the weather nice on your planet?

Yeah, that entire day he was gone everything went to crap. And you're right, the President should never take a vacation or go anywhere, because that means taking the security apparatus with him and wasting taxpayer money.

Any proof?

So the entire G20 is so anti-American that anything that would normally be taken as a sign of respect is in fact only a show of approval for Obama's success in weakening America? Wow. I'm guessing you'll explain away any evidence of respect in a similar fasion.

Nothing shows focus and vision like opening up an entirely new war (for no good reason as it would turn out) before winning the first one. So after 8 years, the Taliban still hasn't been beaten and OBL is still a free man. And the fact that Obama hasn't been able to turn it around in 9 months obviously shows he's a failure.

Hogwash. The Taliban have been REPEATEDLY defeated. The problem is that we have failed to define "victory".

All of a sudden "war" isn't simply the military conflict to the point of the complete strategic and pointlessness of the enemy combatant, but also includes the upheaval involved in nation reformation and rebuilding. And, if we struggle throughout the latter, somehow that has been redefined to mean that we've failed the former.

I do agree that it is a tall order to have expected Obama to have effected complete change in Afghanistan, but if he didn't want that expectation, he shouldn't have campaigned on it. I'm not surprised that the situation has deteriorated under his watch. I AM surprised that he has been so hands-off.

Like with the Viet Mihn then. It doesn't matter how many you kill and how often you defeat them unless you have a viable plan on what to do after winning a battle.

What is sudden about that?

Like winning the battle but losing the war, getting a tactical victory but securing a strategic defeat.
No redefinition has been applied , the objective was to resolve the situation in Afghanistan so it couldn't be used as a haven for terrorists anymore, that means getting rid of the terrorists , getting rid of the "government" that allowed them, finding a replacement government that is not only willing but able to run the country as required, plus of course supporting that government for years until it is able to become sucurely established.

I think when you was learning about war you only got halfway through page 1 and skipped the rest of the instruction manual:rotfl2:

Now I'm confused. What year are the Taliban hosting The Olympics in Afghanistan?

Welcome to GT....I suppose :DL

Actually, I believe they're boycotting it until stoning becomes an Olympic event.

Dunno, but they are trying to get IED Building into the list of sports.

I haven't watched them in 20 years, just because they're not about "honor" or "may the best man win", despite what the politicians claim- because they always turn them around as a way of saying, "HAHA! MY COUNTRY PRODUCES BETTER ATHLETES THAN YOURS!":nope:

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

At least Sydney got to host the games before China! We just beat them by two votes for the right to hold it in 2000. Many here would welcome it back in a heart beat if offered.