Obama going to Denmark to try to land Olympic Games for Chicago

[Tweety]

President Obama will be traveling to Denmark in order to try to "convince" the IOC to award the 2016 Summer Games to the city of Chicago.

Anyone think that Chicago will get the games?

I'm inclined to think it's a done deal, and that the IOC has already decided on Chicago.

Thoughts, anyone?


Link to Washington Times article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/obama-will-make-olympic-bid-denmark/)



Text of article:

Originally published 08:48 a.m., September 28, 2009, updated 06:20 p.m., September 28, 2009

Romney: Obama's trip to Denmark will help Chicago bid

Republican Mitt Romney on Monday praised President Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen this week to make the case that Chicago should host the 2016 Summer Olympics, saying the president's personal appeal is likely to ensure the city lands the games.

Until this week, Mr. Obama had indicated he would not be able to make the trip because he was tied down in negotiations over his health care proposal.

"I think his presence makes it almost certain that Chicago will win the bid," said Mr. Romney, who oversaw the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002. "I think we could have easily lost the bid" had the president not gone to make the case for Chicago in person.

Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president last year, said he believes that while Mr. Obama may be risking some political capital on the international stage by making the appeal in person, the move is in the country's best interest.

Mr. Obama could have faced a far more significant political backlash had he declined to make the trip and Chicago then lost out to one of the three other cities -- Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro -- in the competition for the 2016 games, Mr. Romney said.

Members of the International Olympic Committee are scheduled to announce their decision Friday.

Mr. Romney said that a personal appeal from the president conveys an important message to the board members as they are preparing to cast their secret ballots.

"They recognize that if the president makes a personal appearance, there is an implicit assurance by the United States that these games will be successful," Mr. Romney said.

Officials who are overseeing Chicago's bid expressed relief and satisfaction Monday with the president's decision to break away from his efforts to win passage of health care legislation in order to make a personal pitch for the games.

"Who better to share with members of the International Olympic Committee the commitment and enthusiasm Chicago has for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement than the President and First Lady," said Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in a statement.

"There is no greater expression of the support our bid enjoys, from the highest levels of government and throughout our country, than to have President Obama join us in Copenhagen for the pinnacle moment in our bid," Chicago 2016 Chairman and CEO Patrick G. Ryan said.

First lady Michelle Obama was scheduled to be the main U.S. representative to the IOC. The president now will accompany Mrs. Obama, and the two will both participate in the American presentation on Friday before a final decision is announced. For him, it will be a short trip. He will depart Thursday evening and return to Washington on Friday afternoon.

In addition to the president, first lady and Mr. Daley, other senior governmental officials in the Chicago 2016 delegation include White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn.

While in Denmark, Mr. Obama will meet with Queen Margrethe II and her consort, Prince Henrik, as well as Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen. <END OF ARTICLE>

[catlover79]

How about getting us unemployed Americans JOBS in 2009, MR. PRESIDENT???? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Brian Damage]

I suppose this is his way of bringing jobs to America :rolleyes:

[Marvo301]

I think Rio de Janeiro will win the Olympic bid. Then Obama will really look bad for travelling all the way to Denmark to support a losing bid.

[Chocoholic]

Obama, let's fix the problems we have here at home please.

On second thought...

[Brieannas21]

If Chicago do get it, it would provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people. See nothing wrong with it, I'm sure that there are a lot of people who need jobs (temp or not) wouldn't mind the money to pay their bills. Businesses in Chicago wouldn't mind the extra business either.

[Brian Damage]

If Chicago do get it, it would provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people. See nothing wrong with it, I'm sure that there are a lot of people who need jobs (temp or not) wouldn't mind the money to pay their bills. Businesses in Chicago wouldn't mind the extra business either.


Yeah, I am sure that's why he is lobbying for the Olympics for Chi Town :rolleyes: How about he make good on his promise and restore the Gulf Coast. How about trying to fix the biggest dying city in America Detroit? How about Obama act like an actual President and fix Washington. Obama is a joke.

[Seth]

I've been wanting the 2016 games for Chicago for the longest time. If Mr. Obama is the one who greases the wheels and gets Chicago the games, then fine by me. The president can't really do anything regarding health care until Congress stops chasing it's tail since without them there's no bill to approve or veto, nor can he just wave a magic wand and halve unemployment - settling the host city for the '16 Olympics is a nice side mission for the week.

Every president in history has had secondary projects like this, from Reagan to Kennedy and beyond. If he wants to spend the week selling Chicago to the IOC, then fine by me. It's not as if there are other American cities up for grabs and the president is trying to push them towards Chicago. If the United States is to host the Olympics - always a giant source of tourist and corporate dollars - then it's Chicago or nothing. And technically, with the way Olympics are staged, it's not just Metro Chicago that benefits - the games would be staged in various sites across Illinois, Indiana, and wisconsin. Three states seeing immediate benefits. And I'd MUCH rather see them go to Chicago than to Rio or Madrid or Tokyo.

[Marvo301]

It's a good thing Chicago isn't bidding for the Special Olympics because we all know how Obama feels about them!

[Brieannas21]

I've been wanting the 2016 games for Chicago for the longest time. If Mr. Obama is the one who greases the wheels and gets Chicago the games, then fine by me. The president can't really do anything regarding health care until Congress stops chasing it's tail since without them there's no bill to approve or veto, nor can he just wave a magic wand and halve unemployment - settling the host city for the '16 Olympics is a nice side mission for the week.

Every president in history has had secondary projects like this, from Reagan to Kennedy and beyond. If he wants to spend the week selling Chicago to the IOC, then fine by me. It's not as if there are other American cities up for grabs and the president is trying to push them towards Chicago. If the United States is to host the Olympics - always a giant source of tourist and corporate dollars - then it's Chicago or nothing. And technically, with the way Olympics are staged, it's not just Metro Chicago that benefits - the games would be staged in various sites across Illinois, Indiana, and wisconsin. Three states seeing immediate benefits. And I'd MUCH rather see them go to Chicago than to Rio or Madrid or Tokyo.


THANK YOU :yeahthat

I do not see anything wrong with it. Some folks complain, just to complain.

[JT]

I've been wanting the 2016 games for Chicago for the longest time. If Mr. Obama is the one who greases the wheels and gets Chicago the games, then fine by me. The president can't really do anything regarding health care until Congress stops chasing it's tail since without them there's no bill to approve or veto, nor can he just wave a magic wand and halve unemployment - settling the host city for the '16 Olympics is a nice side mission for the week.

Every president in history has had secondary projects like this, from Reagan to Kennedy and beyond. If he wants to spend the week selling Chicago to the IOC, then fine by me. It's not as if there are other American cities up for grabs and the president is trying to push them towards Chicago. If the United States is to host the Olympics - always a giant source of tourist and corporate dollars - then it's Chicago or nothing. And technically, with the way Olympics are staged, it's not just Metro Chicago that benefits - the games would be staged in various sites across Illinois, Indiana, and wisconsin. Three states seeing immediate benefits. And I'd MUCH rather see them go to Chicago than to Rio or Madrid or Tokyo.
Pretty much.

[Schmoopie]

I think it's cool, really. They showed him on the White House lawn a few weeks ago, pretending to throw the javolin. You can tell he's still a Chicago-boy at heart. Who better to be the advocate for the Olympics than the President? I agree with Seth that all this stuff that people are accusing him of NOT doing isn't all his doing. Meaning, that he's not the only one who has a say about it. If anyone should be blamed, it should be congress as a whole. At least he's trying to make good on things that he promised. He still has 3 1/2 years to acheive his goals.

[Tweety]

I think Rio de Janeiro will win the Olympic bid. Then Obama will really look bad for travelling all the way to Denmark to support a losing bid.

Obama personally going over there is actually the reason I think the decision may already have been made in favor of Chicago. If the bid is still up for grabs, Obama risks looking pretty bad if he doesn't come back with the Olympic bid going to Chicago.

This could be one of those cases like Bill Clinton going to North Korea to "secure the release" of the two reporter/hostages. The deal had already been made for the release of the two women into Clinton's custody (frightening thought). There's no way Bill Clinton goes over there not knowing if he's going to bring the two women back. Their release had already been arranged, he was just given the chance to look good by bringing them back.

Same thing here. Obama may already know that Chicago has the games, but he's going over there in order to make it look as though it was entirely because of his efforts.

The bids for these games were submitted years ago... no one can tell me that the IOC is still undecided and will finally come to a decision this Friday. What are they waiting for (other than more bribes, I mean)?

[Tweety]

btw, has anyone out there ever actually looked at studies regarding the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games? I'm not talking about all of the rosy projections, I'm talking about actually post-games economic studies. If so, what have you found?

[Janice]

btw, has anyone out there ever actually looked at studies regarding the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games? I'm not talking about all of the rosy projections, I'm talking about actually post-games economic studies. If so, what have you found?
That's a good question. When Boston hosted the DNC Convention in 2004, we were told it was going to be a real economic boom. Instead, it was HORROR SHOW. Smack in the middle of Boston, which isn't that big of a city to begin with, traffic was a nightmare. As a result, many businesses closed downed for the week because of the conjestion and workers not being able to get to work. Restaurants lost so much money because people ate at events, hotels, etc. Boston lost millions of dollars, and I felt so bad for people who lost money, like waiters, bartenders, etc. Of course, every cop in the city had overtime. It was awful. Good luck Chicago if you get it. We had a disaster.

We lost over 36 million in lost productivity alone.

http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/DNCUpdateMay2004/may2004DNCBHIUpdate.pdf


Projections.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/04/13/convention_seen_yielding_a_net_loss/

[Dr. John Becker]

[QUOTE=Schmoopie]. You can tell he's still a Chicago-boy at heart.QUOTE]

That's for sure. Thug politics and all.

[Tweety]

That's a good question. When Boston hosted the DNC Convention in 2004, we were told it was going to be a real economic boom. Instead, it was HORROR SHOW. Smack in the middle of Boston, which isn't that big of a city to begin with, traffic was a nightmare. As a result, many businesses closed downed for the week because of the conjestion and workers not being able to get to work. Restaurants lost so much money because people ate at events, hotels, etc. Boston lost millions of dollars, and I felt so bad for people who lost money, like waiters, bartenders, etc. Of course, every cop in the city had overtime. It was awful. Good luck Chicago if you get it. We had a disaster.

We lost over 36 million in lost productivity alone.

http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/DNCUpdateMay2004/may2004DNCBHIUpdate.pdf


Projections.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/04/13/convention_seen_yielding_a_net_loss/


Exactly. Cities which have hosted the Olympics take a huge economic hit from the games, in terms of the actual local economy (not to mention the economies of towns within a radius of 150 miles +/- )

Here's an article Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What Can Beijing Expect from Its 2008 Games? which came out in late 2005, summarizing the economic impact of the Olympics from Atlanta (1996), Salt Lake City (2002) and Sydney (2000), and also talks about the Beijing 2008 Olympics, which were still about 3 years away.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4127/is_200510/ai_n15705690/

According to the website http://www.chicagoansforrio.com/ , it took Montreal 30 years (until 2006) to pay off the debt accumulated from hosting the 1976 Olympics.

In Athens (host of 2000 games), 21 of the 22 venues built specifically for the Olympics are unused today, and the place looks like a ghost town.

London (host of 2012 games) has an estimated budget overrun of $8.6 billion.


The hotel industry usually does well because of occupancy and the fact that their rates can be raised because of demand. But Atlanta was actually sued by a number of local businesses because the promised economic benefits never materialized.

Too many people look at something like this and say "wow, think of all the jobs it will create", not realizing that the Olympics are basically an economy unto themselves... local restaurants and retailers are going to take a huge hit when the Olympics come to town...and it's not like all these jobs will go to people who live in that area.

Of course, the same people who talk about how great the Olympics are for an economy also talk about how great a hurricane is for a local economy. "Wow, look at all the construction jobs that are created... wow, Home Depot and Lowe's are going to do great after that hurricane, look at all the houses that need to be rebuilt". Both create the same basic fallacy... failing to consider opportunity costs...well, there's a LOT of fallacious thinking in that line of reasoning, but that's a basic example.
History shows that areas which host the Olympics take a HUGE economic hit (both in terms of lost productivity and in debt accumulation that can take decades to pay off).

Either Obama is too stupid to understand that, or else he hopes that everyone in Chicago is too stupid to understand that. Heck, maybe it's both.

[Tweety]

[QUOTE=Schmoopie]. You can tell he's still a Chicago-boy at heart.QUOTE]

That's for sure. Thug politics and all.


Speaking of thugs, Michelle Malkin's column on townhall this morning talks about the few people that actually will benefit from Chicago's hosting of the games...


All the President's Olympic Cronies (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/09/30/all_the_presidents_olympic_cronies?page=full&comments=true)
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

When government officials play the Olympic lottery, taxpayers lose. That has been the disastrous experience of host cities around the world. (Forbes magazine even dubbed the post-Olympic financial burden the "Host City Curse.") So, why are President Obama and his White House entourage headed to Copenhagen, Denmark, this week to push a fiscally doomed Chicago 2016 bid? Political payback.

Bringing the games to the Windy City is Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's "vision." The entrenched Democratic powerbroker -- in office since 1989 -- would like to cap off his graft-haunted tenure with a glorious $4 billion bread-and-circuses production. The influential Daley machine backed Barack Obama for the presidential primary. Obama lavished praise on Daley's stewardship of the city. Longtime Daley cronies helped pave Obama's path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, they're returning the favor for their hometown boss.

Senior White House adviser and Obama consigliere Valerie Jarrett is a Daley loyalist who worked as his deputy chief of staff, deputy corporation counsel and planning commissioner. She hired the future first lady of the United States, then-Michelle Robinson, as a mayoral assistant. Jarrett went on to serve as president and CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate firm with a massive stake in federally funded Chicago public housing projects.

One of those public-private partnerships, the Grove Parc Plaza Apartments, was run into the ground under Jarrett's watch. Federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex a bottom-of-the-barrel 11 on a 100-point scale. "They are rapidly displacing poor people, and these companies are profiting from this displacement," Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community group that seeks to help tenants stay in the same neighborhoods, told the Boston Globe last year. "'The same exact people who ran these places into the ground,' the private companies paid to build and manage the city's affordable housing, 'now are profiting by redeveloping them.'"

Coincidentally enough, Grove Parc -- now targeted for demolition as a result of years of neglect by Obama's developer friends -- sits in the shadows of the proposed site of the city's 2016 Olympic Stadium. Jarrett served as vice chair of Chicago's 2016 Summer Olympics bid committee before moving to the White House, where she has helmed a new "White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport" with an undisclosed budget and staff.

It's not just taxpayers in cash-strapped Chicago who should be worried about this field of schemes. Crain's Chicago Business reports that Jarrett and Chicago 2016 committee member Lori Healey met this month with federal officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "to discuss financing options" for the estimated $1 billion Olympic Village.

The door is open, and the administration is "willing to meet and listen" to any federal subsidy proposals, Jarrett said. Hey, what happened to Obama's tough rules on interest-conflicted lobbying by his administration officials?

A majority of Chicagoans who live in pay-for-play-plagued Cook County oppose public funding for the Olympic party. The city has more than a half-billion-dollar deficit -- and just received word that its Olympic insurance policy will cover only about $1.1 billion of the $3.8 billion operating budget drawn up by Daley. Cost overruns, fraud and union-inflated contracts are inevitable. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended Obama's all-out campaign for Chicago's 2016 Olympics bid by claiming America will see a "tangible economic benefit."

But as is always the case with sports corporate welfare disguised as "economic development," an elite few will benefit far more than others.

Take senior White House adviser and Obama campaign guru David Axelrod. He's been a Daley loyalist since 1989, when he signed up as a political consultant for the mayor's first run. Axelrod's public relations firm, Chicago-based AKPD Message and Media, has pitched in work for the Chicago 2016 committee. It is unknown how much AKPD has received for its services -- or how much they'll make in future income if the bid is successful. AKPD currently owes Axelrod $2 million.

The head of the Chicago 2016 bid committee is Patrick Ryan, chairman of the Aon Corporation and a co-chair of Obama's deep-pocketed presidential inaugural committee. Also on both of those committees: Obama confidante Penny Pritzker, who, in addition, chairs the Olympic Village subcommittee and is president of Pritzker Realty Group -- a mega-developer in Illinois that could reap untold millions in project work if the Daley machine/White House campaign succeeds. Former Pritzker executive and Obama campaign treasurer Martin Nesbitt is also on the bid committee -- and serves as Daley's chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority.

Another bid committee member, Michael Scott Jr., is "trying to develop a for-profit real estate project that would sit within feet of the cycling venue if Chicago wins the 2016 Summer Games," according to the Chicago Tribune.

It takes a crony-filled White House to raise a Chicago Olympic village. Daley and Obama will get the glory. America will get stuck with the bill.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[benjamoon]

what a surprise that people who hate Obama would hate to see the US get the Olympics in a classic American city that's never had them before

it couldn't be peoples politics getting in the way, could it?

my God, you people would never have said things like this if it was Bush going to try to secure the Olympics for a Texas city

[Tweety]

what a surprise that people who hate Obama would hate to see the US get the Olympics in a classic American city that's never had them before

it couldn't be peoples politics getting in the way, could it?

my God, you people would never have said things like this if it was Bush going to try to secure the Olympics for a Texas city

It's not a matter of politics getting in the way...it's economics that get in the way.

The Olympics are an economic drag. That's the last thing Chicago needs right now. As it is, they close government services every now and then over and above their normal holiday schedule because the city is out of money (and it's an unpaid "vacation" day for city employees).

The people of Chicago are not going to be hired to staff the Olympic facilities. Businesses are going to lose money, as they always do at Olympic time.

And the city is going to accumulate a tremendous amount of debt that will not be paid off in anybody's lifetime. Montreal just got done paying off the debt from the '76 Olympics only within the last 2-3 years. Atlanta took a huge hit. They ALL do. Beijing included.

Bush is too smart to try to get the Olympics to take place in Texas.

The only people that will benefit from a Chicago Olympics are a handful of Obama's associates, e.g. Axlerod and Jarrett. The people of Chicago will be worse off after the Olympics than they were before.

Besides, I think Chicago could use a few jobs NOW, not some temporary sidewalk vendor jobs 7 years down the road.

[benjamoon]

It's not a matter of politics getting in the way...it's economics that get in the way.

The Olympics are an economic drag. That's the last thing Chicago needs right now. As it is, they close government services every now and then over and above their normal holiday schedule because the city is out of money (and it's an unpaid "vacation" day for city employees).

The people of Chicago are not going to be hired to staff the Olympic facilities. Businesses are going to lose money, as they always do at Olympic time.

And the city is going to accumulate a tremendous amount of debt that will not be paid off in anybody's lifetime. Montreal just got done paying off the debt from the '76 Olympics only within the last 2-3 years. Atlanta took a huge hit. They ALL do. Beijing included.

Bush is too smart to try to get the Olympics to take place in Texas.

The only people that will benefit from a Chicago Olympics are a handful of Obama's associates, e.g. Axlerod and Jarrett. The people of Chicago will be worse off after the Olympics than they were before.

Besides, I think Chicago could use a few jobs NOW, not some temporary sidewalk vendor jobs 7 years down the road.

I think that's a fair and legitimate assessment but I don't think everyone is thinking like that who's against it

Many people just want to see Obama fail in any realm he touches

[Brieannas21]

what a surprise that people who hate Obama would hate to see the US get the Olympics in a classic American city that's never had them before

it couldn't be peoples politics getting in the way, could it?

my God, you people would never have said things like this if it was Bush going to try to secure the Olympics for a Texas city

Last year Bush did meet with the Olympic committee to try to get Chicago the bid. And not a peep out of anyone, no one made a big deal out of it.

[Janice]

I think that's a fair and legitimate assessment but I don't think everyone is thinking like that who's against it

Many people just want to see Obama fail in any realm he touches
People are backing up their opinions. How about you, do you have an opinion or are you just here to judge?

[Janice]

Last year Bush did meet with the Olympic committee to try to get Chicago the bid. And not a peep out of anyone, no one made a big deal out of it.
Talking to the mayor of Chicago is a far cry from flying to Copenhegan. Two trips at that, one for him and one for his wife. I can only imagine the cost for that. Meanwhile, seniors don't get their annual cost of living increase in their SS checks, first time in 30 years. No increase next year either.

[Brieannas21]

Talking to the mayor of Chicago is a far cry from flying to Copenhegan. Two trips at that, one for him and one for his wife. I can only imagine the cost for that. Meanwhile, seniors don't get their annual cost of living increase in their SS checks, first time in 30 years. No increase next year either.


The Olympics will provide how many jobs? The Olympics would put how much in the citizens of Chicago's pockets and back accounts?

Bush flew to Crawford how many times???? For Bush and Laura’s leisure. Bush spent what percentage of his presidency on "vacation"? Bush went to Camp David how many times? Ummm Yeah

[Janice]

The Olympics will provide how many jobs? The Olympics would put how much in the citizens of Chicago's pockets and back accounts?

Bush flew to Crawford how many times???? For Bush and Laura’s leisure. Bush spent what percentage of his presidency on "vacation"? Bush went to Camp David how many times? Ummm Yeah
Bush worked plenty at Crawford. He had an office and a staff there. They do have phones in other places than the White House, surpise, surprise. You might want to research Obama's time off so far. He's doing okay himself. The Olympics in Chicago will be a disaster. Read this thread and you'll see why.

[Brieannas21]

Bush worked plenty at Crawford. He had an office and a staff there. They do have phones in other places than the White House, surpise, surprise. You might want to research Obama's time off so far. He's doing okay himself. The Olympics in Chicago will be a disaster. Read this thread and you'll see why.

The Olympics a bad thing? So when it was held in Atlanta, it was a bad thing? The revenue that people would receive from the thousands upon thousand of people that would visit that city is a bad thing? What it would do for that economy is a bad thing?

And I hardly believe that Bush did a lot of work while in Crawford, that is just laughable, riding horses, driving your truck around, fishing, Hunting, having friends over is hardly work. The man spent 480+ days in Crawford and another 450+ days at Camp David, so pardon me as I laugh :lol:

[Tweety]

The Olympics a bad thing? So when it was held in Atlanta, it was a bad thing? The revenue that people would receive from the thousands upon thousand of people that would visit that city is a bad thing? What it would do for that economy is a bad thing?

And I hardly believe that Bush did a lot of work while in Crawford, that is just laughable, riding horses, driving your truck around, fishing, Hunting, having friends over is hardly work. The man spent 480+ days in Crawford and another 450+ days at Camp David, so pardon me as I laugh :lol:



From the article I referenced in post #20, re: Economic Impact of Olympics ... this section describes some economic doings in Atlanta at the time...

Atlanta (Summer 1996)

For the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta an economic impact study was prepared for the state of Georgia. As one might expect, the study predicted significant economic benefits to the host city and state. The Games in Atlanta did have a definite impact on net exports in Georgia, but there is precious little evidence of extraordinary economic performance in Atlanta due to the Games, bringing into question who actually benefits from increased exports and how this affects the local economy.

In an ex post study, Baade and Matheson (2002) found a modest boost in employment that was short-lived. Even according to their most positive estimates, "the City of Atlanta and the State of Georgia spent $1.58 billion to create 24,742 full- or part-time jobs which averages out to $63,860 per job created (pp. 28-29). A recent study by the Upjohn Institute estimates that a new job adds about fifty cents in economic benefit to a local economy for every dollar of wages, so job creation alone certainly cannot justify the public expense for the Atlanta Games (Persky 2004, p. 1).
Table 1 summarizes the economic impact projections of the Atlanta study. The impact of the Atlanta Games was projected to be $5.1 billion. The source of the impact was nearly equally divided between direct spending by the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) for staging the games and spending by out-of-state visitors.

Direct impact was primarily through spending by ACOG, whose budget was comprised of private funds. While expenditures were adjusted downward to account for money that flowed directly out of Georgia, the study made no attempt to determine what percentage of the funding came from sources in Georgia. From a net inflow standpoint, this led to overestimation of economic impact. Ticket sales comprised 25% of ACOG revenues and are the largest single source of measurement error (see Table 2). Tickets purchased by Georgia residents should not be included in impact calculations based on net exports.

Fiscal impacts were not reported. This may be because state and local tax revenue projections of $200 million by ACOG did not cover the $353.9 million in government spending for the games ($92.2 million was federal expenditure).

Spending by out-of-state visitors before, during, and after the Olympics was estimated at $1.265 billion and only slightly adjusted downward for leakages to $1.146 billion. The estimates make no attempt to assess the impact the Olympics will have on other tourism; for the rest of the economy it is business as usual.

In reality, data and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest the Olympics had a significant crowding out effect on the rest of the tourism industry. Table 3 shows convention attendance in Atlanta, which had been increasing steadily over the previous ten years, fell ten percent from 1995 to 1996. hotel occupancy rates fell from 72.9% in 1995 to 68% in 1996 despite the Olympics. Macroeconomic indicators in Georgia and Fulton County show no discernible break in the pattern of per capita income growth or unemployment rates (State of Utah 2000). Due to the disruption caused by the Olympics, hotels and restaurants that would be expected to benefit from increased tourist traffic were actually hurt. "In other parts of town, many hotels and restaurants reported significantly lower than normal sales volume during the Games. Even shops and resorts in areas up to 150 miles away reported slower than normal business during the summer of 1996" (French and Disher 1997, p. 390).

Along with crowding out on the demand side, local businesses and workers must also deal with temporary entry on the supply side. Although the Atlanta economic impact report makes no mention of entry by either workers or firms, the Atlanta experience serves as an example of how entry can bring into question if area residents actually benefit from growth in the tourism sector. The Centennial Olympic Park in downtown Atlanta served as the focal point for entry of corporations who sponsored the Games. To some extent the Olympics in Atlanta were self-contained. Entry of corporations and workers from outside the Atlanta area made the Olympics an economy unto themselves. Much of the income would go to firms and workers who are not permanent residents of the local economy.

Many local businesses that did not have prime access to Olympic venues were caught in a vice between a reduction in regular business on the one hand and increased competition from entry of firms on the other. The lofty projections of the impact of the Games on the Atlanta economy gave local businesses unrealistic expectations about how they would be affected. The reality was so much below expectations that some vendors who leased vending space for the Olympics from the city sued Atlanta, claiming they were misled about business prospects. Entry drove out above normal profits and those who paid in anticipation of them were greatly disappointed (Lubbock Avalanche Journal 1997).

Atlanta's Olympic experience is consistent with Porter's argument concerning hotel capacity constraints discussed earlier. Hotel revenues during the Games nearly doubled while occupancy rates stayed about the same (State of Utah 2000, p. 17). In this way, sectors that have fixed costs high enough to discourage entry for a temporary event are able to capture short-term monopoly rents through higher prices. Just like real estate, hotels become a scarce resource that captures rents. Industries with lower entry costs, such as restaurants or merchandise sales, have monopoly profits competed away. Even when there is a net increase in visitors, impacts are focused on the lodging industry while other sectors have any impact from visitors countered by reductions in regular business.

Legacy effects listed in the Atlanta study emphasized three categories: facilities, media exposure for Atlanta and the state of Georgia, and community benefits. "The long term beneficial effects on decisions regarding investment, trade, corporate relocation, government spending, convention sites, the location of major sporting events, and vacation plans will likely be among the most enduring, yet statistically untraceable, legacies of the Games" (Humphreys and Hummer 1995, p. 6).

The study also claims, "world-class facilities will be among the most enduring legacies of hosting the 1996 Olympics" (Humphreys and Hummer 1995, p. 4). The facilities noted by the study include the Horse Park, Shooting Range Complex, and Rowing Center; none of which are likely to be heavily used after the Games. The primary facility, Olympic Stadium, became the new home stadium for Atlanta Braves baseball. Instead of providing a venue of high quality and instant historical significance for future track athletes, the stadium now serves as yet another chapter in the story of public subsidies for professional sports teams. Overall, Baade and Matheson (2002) found "only 31 percent of the ACOG expenditures were in areas that could reasonably be expected to provide a measurable economic legacy" (p. 30).

Atlanta's media exposure from the Olympics was not all positive. Traffic problems were oft-cited during the first week, but then overshadowed by the Centennial Park bombing. "As a result of the traffic congestion, administrative problems, security breaches and over-commercialization, Atlanta did not receive the kind of media attention it would ideally have liked" (Essex and Chalkey 1998, p. 194).


<END OF EXCERPT>

And if they think Atlanta has bombers, wait until Chicago gets the games. You've got Obama disciples killing honor roll students who just happened to be on their way home from school and run into a major gang fight. Ah, Chicago, Obama's kind of town.

[JT]

And if they think Atlanta has bombers, wait until Chicago gets the games. You've got Obama disciples killing honor roll students who just happened to be on their way home from school and run into a major gang fight. Ah, Chicago, Obama's kind of town.

Waaait a minute. You're trying to connect Obama to that tragedy? Are you serious, Tweety? Wow. I'm at a loss.

[Brieannas21]

Waaait a minute. You're trying to connect Obama to that tragedy? Are you serious, Tweety? Wow. I'm at a loss.


I'm at a loss also. VERY disrespectful, I wonder about people and the hatred they have. But it's coming from Tweety, no respect ever. Extremely sad SMH

[Tweety]

Waaait a minute. You're trying to connect Obama to that tragedy? Are you serious, Tweety? Wow. I'm at a loss.



Hey, Obama is the one who organized all these neighborhoods...he told us so himself.

And I seriously doubt that these pieces of sub-human debris are McCain/Palin fans.


Top 3 Sub-human Chicago killers of the week

[JT]

Hey, Obama is the one who organized all these neighborhoods...he told us so himself.

And I seriously doubt that these pieces of sub-human debris are McCain/Palin fans.


Top 3 Sub-human Chicago killers of the week
The family of Derrion Albert probably doesn't give a **** who these guys are "fans" of. Some people's lives do not revolve around politics!

Tweety, you're sick. Very, very sick.

[Tweety]

The family of Derrion Albert probably doesn't give a **** who these guys are "fans" of. Some people's lives do not revolve around politics!

Tweety, you're sick. Very, very sick.

You've seen one Chicago thug, you've seen them all.

Besides, I never said that Albert's family did care about who the killers are 'fans' of. All I said was that the killers were a bunch of Obama disciples...which they are.

[platinumblondelife]

You've seen one Chicago thug, you've seen them all.

Besides, I never said that Albert's family did care about who the killers are 'fans' of. All I said was that the killers were a bunch of Obama disciples...which they are.
Tweety, you can't be serious. A boy was beaten to death on the streets of Chicago. Who gives a **** who they were a "fan" of? I expect more from you than to try and take such a tragic story like a young boy getting beaten to death by thugs and make it some petty political attack. At this point, you and some on the Republican side seems to go beyond just disagreement on policies with Obama, its like a seething hatred for a man you don't even know, because he's a liberal. Really...think about that. Does that sound normal or at all rational? I think some people need to stay off the political blogs and political news shows for a while. I hate to say it but linking a tragedy like that to something that petty is not rational thought process. They're not "Obama disciples" because they lived in Chicago.

[ABlairican Pie]

You've seen one Chicago thug, you've seen them all.

Besides, I never said that Albert's family did care about who the killers are 'fans' of. All I said was that the killers were a bunch of Obama disciples...which they are.
Where do I find out more about that? I'm trying to Google these references, but not seeing anything.

[catlover79]

Talking to the mayor of Chicago is a far cry from flying to Copenhegan. Two trips at that, one for him and one for his wife. I can only imagine the cost for that. Meanwhile, seniors don't get their annual cost of living increase in their SS checks, first time in 30 years. No increase next year either.
AMEN!! Not to mention all the unemployed (including yours truly) who need jobs in this country. He is so out of touch it's not even funny. ohno: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Tweety]

Tweety, you can't be serious. A boy was beaten to death on the streets of Chicago. Who gives a **** who they were a "fan" of? I expect more from you than to try and take such a tragic story like a young boy getting beaten to death by thugs and make it some petty political attack. At this point, you and some on the Republican side seems to go beyond just disagreement on policies with Obama, its like a seething hatred for a man you don't even know, because he's a liberal. Really...think about that. Does that sound normal or at all rational? I think some people need to stay off the political blogs and political news shows for a while. I hate to say it but linking a tragedy like that to something that petty is not rational thought process. They're not "Obama disciples" because they lived in Chicago.


I hate to point this out, but the murder of that young man IS a political story... I saw part of an interview on CNN this morning with Scottie Pippen (former Chicago Bull and member of the greatest basketball team ever assembled, the 1992 USA Olympic Team), and the CNN interviewer's (female) big concern was: how will the murder of this young man affect Obama's chances for "bringing the Olympics to Chicago"?

CNN doesn't give a rat's rear end about the young man who was killed....all they cared about was whether his murder was going to screw up Obama's chances to bring the Olympics to that city (I keep telling them it's in the bag, but they don't want to listen).

Besides, if there's one thing we all learned over the last 8 years, it's that the President of the United States is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens while he's in office....doesn't matter if it's terrorist attacks or hurricanes, the President is responsible. And anyway, why is it OK for the left to brag about what a great community organizer Obama was, while at the same time, it's not OK to actually examine the results of his efforts?

CNN and the McMedia is politicizing the death of that young man in light of its possible effect on Obama bringing home the Olympics.... do you think the young man's family gives a s**t about whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics? But all the left can do is look through the prism of "will that murder harm Obama's efforts?"

CBS "News" : Will Derrion Albert's Beating Death Video Hurt Chicago's Olympic Dreams? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/crimesider/entry5353561.shtml)



Just about everyone in this photo should get the death penalty.

[Brieannas21]

Where do I find out more about that? I'm trying to Google these references, but not seeing anything.


The teenager (who was an honor roll student) had just gotten out of school, he was waiting for his bus when two gangs started to beat the boy with a 2x4, stomping, kicking and beating him to death for no reason at all.

Tweety is just a sick and twisted person, just disgusting.

[JT]

I hate to point this out, but the murder of that young man IS a political story... I saw part of an interview on CNN this morning with Scottie Pippen (former Chicago Bull and member of the greatest basketball team ever assembled, the 1992 USA Olympic Team), and the CNN interviewer's (female) big concern was: how will the murder of this young man affect Obama's chances for "bringing the Olympics to Chicago"?

CNN doesn't give a rat's rear end about the young man who was killed....all they cared about was whether his murder was going to screw up Obama's chances to bring the Olympics to that city (I keep telling them it's in the bag, but they don't want to listen).

Besides, if there's one thing we all learned over the last 8 years, it's that the President of the United States is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens while he's in office....doesn't matter if it's terrorist attacks or hurricanes, the President is responsible. And anyway, why is it OK for the left to brag about what a great community organizer Obama was, while at the same time, it's not OK to actually examine the results of his efforts?

CNN and the McMedia is politicizing the death of that young man in light of its possible effect on Obama bringing home the Olympics.... do you think the young man's family gives a s**t about whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics? But all the left can do is look through the prism of "will that murder harm Obama's efforts?"

CBS "News" : Will Derrion Albert's Beating Death Video Hurt Chicago's Olympic Dreams? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/crimesider/entry5353561.shtml)



Just about everyone in this photo should get the death penalty.

Why is it that when you make ridiculous, off-the-wall statements, your only defense is "the left..." "the left..." "the left..." Beyonce, is that you!? If that is your only defense, does that make you any better than the people you have such an issue with? It makes no sense.

What CNN did and what you did are different things. Was the CNN reporter wrong for changing the subject from the tragedy to the Olympics thing? Absolutely. I'm not going to deny that. But you, in your sick and twisted mind, are trying to somehow blame the President for this young man's death, and come on, Tweety, I know that you have some sense in there somewhere. You have to see how utterly messed up that is. Yes, it [i]is/i] borderline obsessive behavior that when you read something that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, it doesn't take you long to somehow connect Obama to it.

[Janice]

I hate to point this out, but the murder of that young man IS a political story... I saw part of an interview on CNN this morning with Scottie Pippen (former Chicago Bull and member of the greatest basketball team ever assembled, the 1992 USA Olympic Team), and the CNN interviewer's (female) big concern was: how will the murder of this young man affect Obama's chances for "bringing the Olympics to Chicago"?

CNN doesn't give a rat's rear end about the young man who was killed....all they cared about was whether his murder was going to screw up Obama's chances to bring the Olympics to that city (I keep telling them it's in the bag, but they don't want to listen).

Besides, if there's one thing we all learned over the last 8 years, it's that the President of the United States is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens while he's in office....doesn't matter if it's terrorist attacks or hurricanes, the President is responsible. And anyway, why is it OK for the left to brag about what a great community organizer Obama was, while at the same time, it's not OK to actually examine the results of his efforts?

CNN and the McMedia is politicizing the death of that young man in light of its possible effect on Obama bringing home the Olympics.... do you think the young man's family gives a s**t about whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics? But all the left can do is look through the prism of "will that murder harm Obama's efforts?"

CBS "News" : Will Derrion Albert's Beating Death Video Hurt Chicago's Olympic Dreams? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/crimesider/entry5353561.shtml)



Just about everyone in this photo should get the death penalty.
I guess everyone's ignoring your evidence of CNN and CBS discussing the impact that Derrion Albert's death will have in bringing the Olympics to Chicago. That's okay. You point it out and you've got the liberal mob here trying to make it sound as if you're happy the poor guy got killed. The McMedia IS discusing it. I suppose they're sick, twisted, disgusting too. Actually, they are, lol. This is a riot. OH MY GOD TWEETY, STOP IT!! :mad: YOU'RE DISGUSTING. I CAN'T TAKE IT. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT POOR KID DESERVED TO DIE?? MAKE IT STOP. Give it a rest, with their feigned outrage. They know what you meant.

[Janice]

Stop the name calling and personal attacks. It's against the rules.

[JT]

I guess everyone's ignoring your evidence of CNN and CBS discussing the impact that Derrion Albert's death will have in bringing the Olympics to Chicago. That's okay. You point it out and you've got the liberal mob here trying to make it sound as if you're happy the poor guy got killed. The McMedia IS discusing it. I suppose they're sick, twisted, disgusting too. Actually, they are, lol. This is a riot. OH MY GOD TWEETY, STOP IT!! :mad: YOU'RE DISGUSTING. I CAN'T TAKE IT. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT POOR KID DESERVED TO DIE?? MAKE IT STOP. Give it a rest, with their feigned outrage. They know what you meant.
OMG, where did you come from!?

First of all, nobody is holding Tweety accountable for anything that he didn't say or imply, which was that the criminals in this story are/were "Obama disciples" and not "McCain/Palin fans." No one is putting words in his mouth because what he said was bad enough on its own. I don't see where I, or anyone else in this thread, accused him of saying that the young man "deserved to die," nor do I see where I, or anyone else in this thread, made it sound as if Tweety is "happy the poor guy got killed." I would ask you to point out to me where you see that, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get an answer.

Who ignored his post about CNN and CBS? I was kinda in a class taking a test when he posted it, so sorry I couldn't respond to it immediately after the post was made.

"Feigned outrage." Ugh. Because nobody left-of-right has a heart.

[Janice]

OMG, where did you come from!?

First of all, nobody is holding Tweety accountable for anything that he didn't say or imply, which was that the criminals in this story are/were "Obama disciples" and not "McCain/Palin fans." No one is putting words in his mouth because what he said was bad enough on its own. I don't see where I, or anyone else in this thread, accused him of saying that the young man "deserved to die," nor do I see where I, or anyone else in this thread, made it sound as if Tweety is "happy the poor guy got killed." I would ask you to point out to me where you see that, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get an answer.

Who ignored his post about CNN and CBS? I was kinda in a class taking a test when he posted it, so sorry I couldn't respond to it immediately after the post was made.

"Feigned outrage." Ugh. Because nobody left-of-right has a heart.
Comment regarding my Moderator/Admin status removed. Against the rules.

And OMG where did I come from? I'm a member, that's where I came from.

[platinumblondelife]

I hate to point this out, but the murder of that young man IS a political story... I saw part of an interview on CNN this morning with Scottie Pippen (former Chicago Bull and member of the greatest basketball team ever assembled, the 1992 USA Olympic Team), and the CNN interviewer's (female) big concern was: how will the murder of this young man affect Obama's chances for "bringing the Olympics to Chicago"?

CNN doesn't give a rat's rear end about the young man who was killed....all they cared about was whether his murder was going to screw up Obama's chances to bring the Olympics to that city (I keep telling them it's in the bag, but they don't want to listen).

Besides, if there's one thing we all learned over the last 8 years, it's that the President of the United States is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens while he's in office....doesn't matter if it's terrorist attacks or hurricanes, the President is responsible. And anyway, why is it OK for the left to brag about what a great community organizer Obama was, while at the same time, it's not OK to actually examine the results of his efforts?

CNN and the McMedia is politicizing the death of that young man in light of its possible effect on Obama bringing home the Olympics.... do you think the young man's family gives a s**t about whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics? But all the left can do is look through the prism of "will that murder harm Obama's efforts?"

CBS "News" : Will Derrion Albert's Beating Death Video Hurt Chicago's Olympic Dreams? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/crimesider/entry5353561.shtml)



Just about everyone in this photo should get the death penalty.
And that's petty too. The media should care more about whether or not this effect Obama. But making these 3 people example of people who are "Obama supporters" is RIDICULOUS. This is not a political story and I wish people wouldn't take something like this (which literally made me nauseous when watching it) and make it about petty, stupid political attacks or who may have voted for whom. I mean, was white supremacist who shot the Holocaust museum and shot the security guard a Palin fan? Does something that trivial even matter??

[Janice]

The Olympics a bad thing? So when it was held in Atlanta, it was a bad thing? The revenue that people would receive from the thousands upon thousand of people that would visit that city is a bad thing? What it would do for that economy is a bad thing?

And I hardly believe that Bush did a lot of work while in Crawford, that is just laughable, riding horses, driving your truck around, fishing, Hunting, having friends over is hardly work. The man spent 480+ days in Crawford and another 450+ days at Camp David, so pardon me as I laugh :lol:
Where did you get your stats, the Puffington Post? And yeah, I think the Olympics are a bad thing, especially the Special Olympics. Nah, that's Obama who jokes about them on one of his late night talk show visits. I mean financially a bad thing. Read up on the host cities of the Olympics. They all take a huge financial hit. Most of Chicago doesn't even want the Olympics held there.

http://www.chicagoansforrio.com/

Tweety, I think you'd find the above site interesting.

[ABlairican Pie]

Where did you get your stats, the Puffington Post? And yeah, I think the Olympics are a bad thing, especially the Special Olympics. Nah, that's Obama who jokes about them on one of his late night talk show visits. I mean financially a bad thing. Read up on the host cities of the Olympics. They all take a huge financial hit. Most of Chicago doesn't even want the Olympics held there.

http://www.chicagoansforrio.com/

Tweety, I think you'd find the above site interesting.
I think it would be a good idea to have the Olympics in Rio. I don't think we've ever had the Olympics held in South America.

I want to find more stories where the three kids who murdered the honor roll student were Obama disciples (See? Another Obama = Christ metaphor! :idea: :lol: ).

[JT]

I think it would be a good idea to have the Olympics in Rio. I don't think we've ever had the Olympics held in South America.

I want to find more stories where the three kids who murdered the honor roll student were Obama disciples (See? Another Obama = Christ metaphor! :idea: :lol: ).
You're not going to find any because that metaphor came from Tweety's head.

[Dr. John Becker]

Breaking: No Olympics for Chicago.

No link yet.

[James]

Breaking: No Olympics for Chicago.

Good! (Take that, Obama!)

No link yet.

Here's one from Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091002/ts_nm/us_olympics_30

Another from ChicagoBreakingNews.com (powered by the Tribune Company, I think): http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/barack-obama-arrives-in-copenhagen.html

I first heard the news on Neal Boortz's show that Chicago was out in the first round. (And there are two more rounds to go, and the Community Organizer in Chief's city couldn't make it out of the first! LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[James"Thunder"Early]

Well, many on the right were crossing their fingers Chicago would lose so Obama would look bad, so looks like they got what they wanted. I don't get the logic behind being glad that the country lost something that could be positive economically just because you don't like the President, that's pretty sad.

[Dr. John Becker]

Well, many on the right were crossing their fingers Chicago would lose so Obama would look bad, so looks like they got what they wanted. I don't get the logic behind being glad that the country lost something that could be positive economically just because you don't like the President, that's pretty sad.


By using your logic, why did so many on the left root for Bush and the US to lose in Iraq? They hated Bush and wanted him to look bad.

On another note, does this make the Olympic Committee a bunch of racists? :lol:

[Tweety]

Where do I find out more about that? I'm trying to Google these references, but not seeing anything.

I might have jumped to conclusions (although I doubt it). But I refer to ALL gang members as Obama disciples, especially gangs in Chicago. Gang members are thugs. Obama is a thug (even Michelle is a thug). Rahm Emanuel (O's Chief of Staff) is a Chicago thug. Mayor Daley is a Chicago Thug. Every Czar in Obama's administration who's from Chicago is a thug. Van Jones is a thug. The reason I know this is because no Democrat can survive for any length of time in Chicago politics WITHOUT being a thug. It's just not possible. And of course, Obama's mentors (Wright, Ayres etc etc etc) are all thugs as well.

[Tweety]

Well, many on the right were crossing their fingers Chicago would lose so Obama would look bad, so looks like they got what they wanted. I don't get the logic behind being glad that the country lost something that could be positive economically just because you don't like the President, that's pretty sad.


Are you kidding? Obama's decision to personally appeal to the INTERNATIONAL Olympic Committee may have saved Chicago from an economic fate worse than death. You'll have to read my earlier posts and links to find out why, I'm not going to restate everything.

I guess a couple of questions that come up are:

1) Why would Obama personally go overseas to make a personal pitch for this without knowing what he was going to come back with the Olympics in his pocket? I'm on record early in this thread as saying I thought it was in the bag for Chicago, because Obama isn't stupid enough (or so I've been told) to personally go overseas without knowing the deal was in the bag. As I noted earlier, it's like with Bill Clinton... there's no way in hell he goes to North Korea unless he knows that he's coming back with those two women, and that a deal has already been made.

Also, Obama didn't need a failed Olympic bid to look bad. But getting involved personally like this just shows how stupid he really is (well, he and his wife did get to fly to Copenhagen, so maybe it was a good deal for the two of them..plus, Michelle got to chill with Oprah).

And, as the good Dr. pointed out, you guys root against the U.S. when we're at WAR, just because you desparately want to pin a war loss on Bush. And just about every elected Democrat in the House and Senate wanted the U.S. to lose the war, including all of the Democrat leadership. Harry Reid came right out and declared that the war (in Iraq) was lost..he didn't say "we're losing", he said "the war IS LOST". Talk about wanting the country to fail!

2) The other question is, why did Obama fail at this? Wasn't the world supposed to love and respect the U.S. now? Where's all that stature I've been hearing about? What exactly has Obama "restored"?


At any rate, Chicago will be better off without the billions in debt it would have accumulated. So the headline should be "Obama saves Chicago".

Now can he please get back to wining the war in Afghanistan and return General McChrystal's calls?

[catlover79]

Good for Rio - this will be the first time South America has ever had the Olympics, so it should be interesting. :cool:

[bandito]

Breaking: No Olympics for Chicago.

No link yet.Seems like the Messiah can't get anything accomplished. Maybe he will start focusing on the economy and getting people back to work.

[James"Thunder"Early]

By using your logic, why did so many on the left root for Bush and the US to lose in Iraq? They hated Bush and wanted him to look bad.

On another note, does this make the Olympic Committee a bunch of racists? :lol:

There's a big difference between not wanting something negative to happen (like war) and rooting against a positive. The war was a terrible idea and many people new it would lead to big problems. I never mentioned race in my post, so I won't be getting into that argument.

[APPLEI]

Well, many on the right were crossing their fingers Chicago would lose so Obama would look bad, so looks like they got what they wanted. I don't get the logic behind being glad that the country lost something that could be positive economically just because you don't like the President, that's pretty sad.
Good news for people who hate The United States:o

[Marvo301]

Good news for people who hate The United States:o
Actually it's good news for the people of South America who have never before had the opportunity to host the Olympics. The U.S. on the other hand has hosted four previous Summer Games (St. Louis 1904, Los Angeles 1932, Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996) and three Winter Games (Lake Placid, N.Y. 1932, Lake Placid, N.Y. 1980, and Salt Lake City 2002). So South America was well overdue for their chance to host the world's largest sporting event.

[catlover79]

Seems like the Messiah can't get anything accomplished. Maybe he will start focusing on the economy and getting people back to work.
As someone who will be unemployed before this month is out, all I can say is AMEN!!! :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

[Tweety]

The Olympic Selection Committee must have been scratching their heads.

Obama spent much of his presidential campaign traveling abroad and totally trashing the United States of America.

He's now spent the first 8 months of his Presidency trashing the United States of America, not only while he's here, but when he's traveled to Europe and Asia.

Now, he wants the IOC to choose an American city to host the Olympics? The Committee must have been scratching their heads and thinking "Obama's been saying what a hell-hole the U.S. is, now he wants to hold the Olympics there? Well, screw that"


Here's a transcript of Barry's speech to the IOC:

THE PRESIDENT: President Rogge, ladies and gentlemen of the International Olympic Committee:

I come here today as a passionate supporter of the Olympic and Paralympic Games; as a strong believer in the movement they represent; and as a proud Chicagoan. But above all, I come as a faithful representative of the American people, and we look forward to welcoming the world to the shores of Lake Michigan and the heartland of our nation in 2016.

To host athletes and visitors from every corner of the globe is a high honor and a great responsibility. And America is ready and eager to assume that sacred trust. We're a nation that has always opened its arms to the citizens of the world -- including my own father from the African continent -- people who have sought something better; who have dreamed of something bigger.

I know you face a difficult choice among several great cities and nations with impressive bids of their own. So I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reason I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago -- the reason I fell in love with the city I still call home. And it's not just because it's where I met the woman you just heard from -- although after getting to know her this week, I know you'll all agree that she's a pretty big selling point for the city.

You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. I was born in Hawaii. I lived in Indonesia for a time. I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. And then I came to Chicago. And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion. I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.

Each one of those neighborhoods -- from Greektown to the Ukrainian Village; from Devon to Pilsen to Washington Park -- has its own unique character, its own unique history, its songs, its language. But each is also part of our city -- one city -- a city where I finally found a home.

Chicago is a place where we strive to celebrate what makes us different just as we celebrate what we have in common. It's a place where our unity is on colorful display at so many festivals and parades, and especially sporting events, where perfect strangers become fast friends just because they're wearing the same jersey. It's a city that works -- from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup we hosted in the nineties, we know how to put on big events. And scores of visitors and spectators will tell you that we do it well.

Chicago is a city where the practical and the inspirational exist in harmony; where visionaries who made no small plans rebuilt after a great fire and taught the world to reach new heights. It's a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town; where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream -- a dream that no matter who we are, where we come from; no matter what we look like or what hand life has dealt us; with hard work, and discipline, and dedication, we can make it if we try.

That's not just the American Dream. That is the Olympic spirit. It's the essence of the Olympic spirit. That's why we see so much of ourselves in these Games. That's why we want them in Chicago. That's why we want them in America.

We stand at a moment in history when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations -- a time of common challenges that require common effort. And I ran for President because I believed deeply that at this defining moment, the United States of America has a responsibility to help in that effort, to forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.

No one expects the Games to solve all our collective challenges. But what we do believe -- what each and every one of you believe and what all of the Chicago delegation believes -- is that in a world where we've all too often witnessed the darker aspects of our humanity, peaceful competition between nations represents what's best about our humanity. It brings us together, if only for a few weeks, face to face. It helps us understand one another just a little bit better. It reminds us that no matter how or where we differ, we all seek our own measure of happiness, and fulfillment, and pride in what we do. That's a very powerful starting point for progress.

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. Their interest sprung from the hope that in this ever-shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength, a cause for celebration; and that with sustained work and determination, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this Earth.

Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest. And while we do not know what the next few years will bring, there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.

At the beginning of this new century, the nation that has been shaped by people from around the world wants a chance to inspire it once more; to ignite the spirit of possibility at the heart of the Olympic and Paralympic movement in a new generation; to offer a stage worthy of the extraordinary talent and dynamism offered by nations joined together -- to host games that unite us in noble competition and shared celebration of our limitless potential as a people.

And so I urge you to choose Chicago. I urge you to choose America. And if you do, if we walk this path together, thenI promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud. Thank you so much. (Applause.)



It would be nice if he didn't make so much of the speech about him.







___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 2, 2009

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
TO THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

Bella Center
Copenhagen, Denmark

9:21 A.M. CEST

MRS. OBAMA: President Rogge, ladies and gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs of the International Olympic Committee: I am honored to be here.
Story continues below

I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, not far from where the Games would open and close. Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.

Sports were what brought our community together. They strengthen our ties to one another.
Growing up, when I played games with the kids in my neighborhood, we picked sides based not on who you were, but what you could bring to the game. Sports taught me self-confidence, teamwork, and how to compete as an equal.

Sports were a gift I shared with my dad -- especially the Olympic Games.

Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection. Like so many young people, I was inspired. I found myself dreaming that maybe, just maybe, if I worked hard enough, I, too, could achieve something great.

But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood.
But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

That's why I'm here today. I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America.

And I'm not asking just as the First Lady of the United States, who is eager to welcome the world to our shores. And not just as a Chicagoan, who is proud and excited to show the world what my city can do. Not just as a mother raising two beautiful young women to embrace athleticism and pursue their full potential.

I'm also asking as a daughter.

See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.

You see, in my dad's early thirties, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. And as he got sicker, it became harder for him to walk, let alone play his favorite sports. But my dad was determined that sports continue to be a vital lifeline -- not just to the rest of the world, but to me and my brother.

And even as we watched my dad struggle to hold himself up on crutches, he never stopped playing with us. And he refused to let us take our abilities for granted. He believed that his little girl should be taught no less than his son. So he taught me how to throw a ball and a mean right hook better than any boy in my neighborhood. But more importantly, my dad taught us the fundamental rules of the game, rules that continue to guide our lives today: to engage with honor, with dignity, and fair play.

My dad was my hero.

And when I think of what these Games can mean to people all over the world, I think about people like my dad. People who face seemingly insurmountable challenges, but never let go. They work a little harder, but they never give up.

Now, my dad didn't live to see the day that the Paralympic Games would become the force that they are today. But if he had lived to see this day -- if he could have seen the Paralympic Games share a global stage with the Olympic Games, if he could have witnessed athletes who compete and excel and prove that nothing is more powerful than the human spirit, I know it would have restored in him the same sense of unbridled possibility that he instilled in me.

Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us. It's about inspiring this generation, and building a lasting legacy for the next. It's about our responsibility as Americans not just to put on great Games, but to use these Games as a vehicle to bring us together; to usher in a new era of international engagement; and to give us hope; and to change lives all over the world.

And I've brought somebody with me today who knows a little something about change. My husband, the President of the United States -- Barack Obama. (Applause.)

__________________________________________


Tough to say who's more self-absorbed...they both are, but Michelle wins this round, I think. But clearly, their speeches were more about themselves than America.

But help me out here...was Michelle proud of her country when she allegedly watched those Olympic games with her dad? If she's talking Olga, Nadia and Carl Lewis, we're looking at 1972, 1976 and the 1980s. Was she actually proud of her country back then?? Of course, Olga and Nadia were Russian and Romanian, respectively, so I can see her rooting for them. But Carl Lewis?? He's American, right?

But man, oh man...these two love to talk about themselves, don't they?

[catlover79]

Actually it's good news for the people of South America who have never before had the opportunity to host the Olympics. The U.S. on the other hand has hosted four previous Summer Games (St. Louis 1904, Los Angeles 1932, Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996) and three Winter Games (Lake Placid, N.Y. 1932, Lake Placid, N.Y. 1980, and Salt Lake City 2002). So South America was well overdue for their chance to host the world's largest sporting event.
Hey Marv, has Canada ever hosted the Olympics?

[Marvo301]

Hey Marv, has Canada ever hosted the Olympics?
Yes. We hosted the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal and the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary. Next year (2010) we will be hosting the Winter Games in Vancouver.

[Tweety]

Canada as Olympic Host:

Montreal - 1976 Summer games (debt paid off c. 2006)
Calgary - 1988 Winter games

Also, Vancouver will host the winter games in 2010.

Seven cities have hosted Olympic Games more than once; Athens in 1896 and 2004, Paris in 1900 and 1924, London in 1908 and 1948, St. Moritz in 1928 and 1948, Lake Placid in 1932 and 1980, Los Angeles in 1932 and 1984, and Innsbruck in 1964 and 1976. London will become the first city to host three games as of the 2012 Summer Olympics.

The United States has hosted a total of eight games: more than any other country. France has hosted five and Germany, Italy, and Japan have each hosted three games. Canada and the United Kingdom will host their third games in 2010 and 2012 respectively.


List of ALL Olympic host cities (summer and winter Olympics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_Games_host_cities)

[Brieannas21]

Where did you get your stats, the Puffington Post? And yeah, I think the Olympics are a bad thing, especially the Special Olympics. Nah, that's Obama who jokes about them on one of his late night talk show visits. I mean financially a bad thing. Read up on the host cities of the Olympics. They all take a huge financial hit. Most of Chicago doesn't even want the Olympics held there.

http://www.chicagoansforrio.com/

Tweety, I think you'd find the above site interesting.


No, look it up and you shall find it.

[catlover79]

Ah, thank you to both Marv and Tweety. I guess you can tell how much I follow the Olympics. :eek: :lol:

[Janice]

No, look it up and you shall find it.
What I'm sure I'll find are some bs stats. What you and others didn't see was what I saw on that devil station, FOX. Segments were shown how much Bush worked, how he had offices set up, complete with a full staff. Showed how he held meetings, even had people from other countries over for extended stays. Your Puffington Post stats don't show the true story. Show a picture of Bush on a horse or cutting brush and claim that's all he did.

[Tweety]

Ah, thank you to both Marv and Tweety. I guess you can tell how much I follow the Olympics. :eek: :lol:

Hey, it's never too late to start! :wave:

[Tweety]

...

http://www.chicagoansforrio.com/

Tweety, I think you'd find the above site interesting.


Yes, that was a good site...it looks like they took the information page down now that the Obamas and Oprah blew their Olympic bid. Now all they have on the site is a thank-you message to everyone who visited and commented at the site.

But I did see the site before they removed the informational content.

[Tweety]

An example of how our objective media covered the Copenhagen meetings prior to the announcement.

CNN: Michelle Obama steals the show in Copenhagen (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/michelle.obama.olympics/)

By Ed Henry
CNN Senior White House Correspondent

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (CNN) -- After flying through the night for seven hours aboard Air Force One, nobody would blame President Obama for being at least slightly groggy when he arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark, for a quick four hours to make the final pitch for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.

Michelle Obama's speech in Copenhagen focused on her roots in Chicago and her father's battle with MS.

Maybe that explains why the president seemed to snag the silver medal while first lady Michelle Obama, who's been in Copenhagen a couple of days, clearly took the gold with an emotional speech focused on her family's roots in the South Side of Chicago, Illinois, and her late father's battle with multiple sclerosis.

"Sports were a gift I shared with my dad, especially the Olympic Games," Obama said in her portion of the U.S. delegation's final presentation to the International Olympic Committee. "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection.

"But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood," she said. "But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world."

The mention of the Paralympic Games was significant because a good bit of Obama's speech tugged at the heartstrings by focusing on how her father was diagnosed with MS in his early 30s, leaving him nearly unable to walk. She spoke in a halting voice about how he kept getting sicker but still taught her how to play sports while propping himself up on crutches.


"My dad was my hero. And when I think of what these games could mean to people all over the world, I think of people like my dad, who face seemingly insurmountable challenges, but they never give up."Video Watch as the president and Mrs. Obama speak in Copenhagen »

IOC members will be voting Friday; results will be announced after 12:30 p.m. ET.

"I think Chicago could not have made a better presentation. Now it's up to the IOC," President Obama said. "Only thing I'm upset about is I followed Michelle, which is never good."

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley also did some lobbying.

"We want to share our city with the world," Daley told IOC members. "You have my commitment that Chicago will work every day for the next seven years to be an Olympic city that you and the world will be proud of."

The president gave the final word, saying that after moving around the world as a child, he finally settled in Chicago.

"I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods," Obama said.

"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election," he told IOC members. "Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.

"There is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home and with Michelle and our two girls welcome the world back to our neighborhood. At the beginning of this new century, the nation that has been shaped by people from around the world wants a chance to inspire it once more."

___________________________________________


So there you have it. Fair and balanced. Michelle took the gold, Barry took the silver.

Then the results of the actual vote were announced. Oh, and Barry may have been slightly groggy during the whole thing.

[Brieannas21]

What I'm sure I'll find are some bs stats. What you and others didn't see was what I saw on that devil station, FOX. Segments were shown how much Bush worked, how he had offices set up, complete with a full staff. Showed how he held meetings, even had people from other countries over for extended stays. Your Puffington Post stats don't show the true story. Show a picture of Bush on a horse or cutting brush and claim that's all he did.

First of all I did not get it from Huffington Post as I said in my other Post, so keep that lie up if you want. Secondly I doubt that he was working, Since just about everytime he came back to TX he was on the local news. Hardly looked like work. So believe what you will from FauxNews.

[Tweety]

Jesse Jackson weighed in on this...


RUSH: The Reverend Jackson is dismayed. He was on the Fox Business Network. "What's your reaction to this, Reverend Jackson?"

JACKSON: I would like to know what happened, 'cause there's always underlying politics in these decisions, but I'm shocked and saddened, and I really anticipated we would win. We sent our A-time, president, first lady, made such a great presentation; the mayor, the governor, Oprah Winfrey, our Olympic -- Olympians.

RUSH: They "sent the A-team." See, this is their problem. The A-team is 0-for-3! The president and first lady did not make a great presentation. It was all about them, Reverend Jackson, and aside from the media in this country and some cult-like followers in this country the people don't care about them. They don't have this personal cult-like investment in the Obamas. People aren't going to award an Olympic city just because a couple of Obamas show up and ask for it based on sad, gut-wrenching personal stories....

RUSH: Let me assist here. Reverend Jackson, what happened was that a bunch of white Europeans voted against Obama, plain and simple. That's what happened, Jesse. How soon before we see the new Obama bumper sticker: "No, we can't"? And think about this, folks. It is quite possible that Chicago may have gotten the Olympics if Obama hadn't politicized the process; if he hadn't gone over there in the first place; if he hadn't sent his wife over there in the first place; if they hadn't politicized it and had the media come over there and tell the world, "Oh, what rock stars, oh, these people have come and taken over. They are just the most popular people here." You know, human beings are human beings, they have jealousies. This is the IOC's show, it wasn't The Obama Show. They came over there, they tried to hijack the whole thing and the IOC bitch slapped them. :lol:

[catlover79]

Hey, it's never too late to start! :wave:
:spit: :rofl: :brent BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

[catlover79]

Jesse Jackson weighed in on this...


RUSH: The Reverend Jackson is dismayed. He was on the Fox Business Network. "What's your reaction to this, Reverend Jackson?"

JACKSON: I would like to know what happened, 'cause there's always underlying politics in these decisions, but I'm shocked and saddened, and I really anticipated we would win. We sent our A-time, president, first lady, made such a great presentation; the mayor, the governor, Oprah Winfrey, our Olympic -- Olympians.

RUSH: They "sent the A-team." See, this is their problem. The A-team is 0-for-3! The president and first lady did not make a great presentation. It was all about them, Reverend Jackson, and aside from the media in this country and some cult-like followers in this country the people don't care about them. They don't have this personal cult-like investment in the Obamas. People aren't going to award an Olympic city just because a couple of Obamas show up and ask for it based on sad, gut-wrenching personal stories....

RUSH: Let me assist here. Reverend Jackson, what happened was that a bunch of white Europeans voted against Obama, plain and simple. That's what happened, Jesse. How soon before we see the new Obama bumper sticker: "No, we can't"? And think about this, folks. It is quite possible that Chicago may have gotten the Olympics if Obama hadn't politicized the process; if he hadn't gone over there in the first place; if he hadn't sent his wife over there in the first place; if they hadn't politicized it and had the media come over there and tell the world, "Oh, what rock stars, oh, these people have come and taken over. They are just the most popular people here." You know, human beings are human beings, they have jealousies. This is the IOC's show, it wasn't The Obama Show. They came over there, they tried to hijack the whole thing and the IOC bitch slapped them. :lol:
Lord, will someone PLEASE shut that guy up? I don't know who is in bigger need of a muzzle: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Kanye West. Oy. ohno: :eek: :mad:

[JT]

I might have jumped to conclusions (although I doubt it). But I refer to ALL gang members as Obama disciples, especially gangs in Chicago. Gang members are thugs. Obama is a thug (even Michelle is a thug). Rahm Emanuel (O's Chief of Staff) is a Chicago thug. Mayor Daley is a Chicago Thug. Every Czar in Obama's administration who's from Chicago is a thug. Van Jones is a thug. The reason I know this is because no Democrat can survive for any length of time in Chicago politics WITHOUT being a thug. It's just not possible. And of course, Obama's mentors (Wright, Ayres etc etc etc) are all thugs as well.
The question is why did you bring the murder up in the first place?

[ABlairican Pie]

I might have jumped to conclusions (although I doubt it). But I refer to ALL gang members as Obama disciples, especially gangs in Chicago. Gang members are thugs. Obama is a thug (even Michelle is a thug). Rahm Emanuel (O's Chief of Staff) is a Chicago thug. Mayor Daley is a Chicago Thug. Every Czar in Obama's administration who's from Chicago is a thug. Van Jones is a thug. The reason I know this is because no Democrat can survive for any length of time in Chicago politics WITHOUT being a thug. It's just not possible. And of course, Obama's mentors (Wright, Ayres etc etc etc) are all thugs as well.
Not to mention Al Capone.

[catlover79]

Not to mention Al Capone.
Ah, Al Capone - the bane of Geraldo Rivera's existence (or at least his vault is). :rofl:

[Tweety]

The question is why did you bring the murder up in the first place?

Because it became part of this (Olympic bid) story. The "connection" between the two events did not originate with me. The press reaction was "oh no, this isn't going to hurt Obama, is it??"

[ABlairican Pie]

Ah, Al Capone - the bane of Geraldo Rivera's existence (or at least his vault is). :rofl:
Oh yeah, the Coke bottle!! :lol: That was so anti-climactic!! Oh well, at least we got a good history lesson about the man (Capone, that is, although Geraldo fits well!!)!

[platinumblondelife]

I want to find more stories where the three kids who murdered the honor roll student were Obama disciples (See? Another Obama = Christ metaphor! :idea: :lol: ).
There is no story. It's just a pathetic way to use a tragedy and find a way to blame Obama. Sad, but I seriously think many people would sooner hope the jobless rate reached 40% than for the economy to boom, if that meant a good opportunity to spite Obama for it.

[catlover79]

Oh yeah, the Coke bottle!! :lol: That was so anti-climactic!! Oh well, at least we got a good history lesson about the man (Capone, that is, although Geraldo fits well!!)!
What year did that "special" air? I don't remember watching it, but my mom does. She said she just fell off the couch laughing. :rofl: :brent

[Janice]

First of all I did not get it from Huffington Post as I said in my other Post, so keep that lie up if you want. Secondly I doubt that he was working, Since just about everytime he came back to TX he was on the local news. Hardly looked like work. So believe what you will from FauxNews.
You got me. Fox, oops, Faux News created this fake office and hired fake workers. They hired actors in suits having meetings. Chris Wallace was in on it too as he covered one of these segments. They also forged documents, just to make it look good. Figured if they acted like CBS and Dan Rather, then it would be more believeable.

[Janice]

There is no story. It's just a pathetic way to use a tragedy and find a way to blame Obama. Sad, but I seriously think many people would sooner hope the jobless rate reached 40% than for the economy to boom, if that meant a good opportunity to spite Obama for it.
You're being too generous. I think many people want the jobless rate to reach at least 75%. They want to lose their homes and cars, have to go to food banks, collect empty cans, and live in cardboard boxes by the railroad tracks. Just to say I told you so.

[Brieannas21]

You got me. Fox, oops, Faux News created this fake office and hired fake workers. They hired actors in suits having meetings. Chris Wallace was in on it too as he covered one of these segments. They also forged documents, just to make it look good. Figured if they acted like CBS and Dan Rather, then it would be more believeable.


Now you get it, Good Job

[Janice]

Now you get it, Good Job
:jig:

[platinumblondelife]

You're being too generous. I think many people want the jobless rate to reach at least 75%. They want to lose their homes and cars, have to go to food banks, collect empty cans, and live in cardboard boxes by the railroad tracks. Just to say I told you so.
Yup...people who line their pockets by telling everyone that Obama = a ~scary~ Black panther, Muslim communist whose main goal is the destruction of the U.S that sets him apart from all Presidents past...would probably be rejoicing.

[ABlairican Pie]

There is no story. It's just a pathetic way to use a tragedy and find a way to blame Obama. Sad, but I seriously think many people would sooner hope the jobless rate reached 40% than for the economy to boom, if that meant a good opportunity to spite Obama for it.
Hmmm. I see your point. I guess I'd want to find blame where blame is due, and if it isn't there, I wouldn't want to come across as having overkill about my criticism of our current administration. (Someone on another thread accused me of doing that.) We may have our grievances about Obama, but I don't necessarily want to sound like I'm just trying to find criticisms at every turn.

I'm not sure if I'm finding the Obama connection there, either, other than that
the perpatrators and Obama are both black and from Chicago.

[ABlairican Pie]

What year did that "special" air? I don't remember watching it, but my mom does. She said she just fell off the couch laughing. :rofl: :brent
It was in 1986, as I recall. Interesting story about the life and times of Al Capone, but boy, only finding a Coke bottle was such a let-down, like, was that ALL?? :confused: ohno: Gee, thanks, Geraldo, this is one hour that I will not get back. :rolleyes: Had my curiosity going, and then didn't deliver.

[Dr. John Becker]

There's a big difference between not wanting something negative to happen (like war) and rooting against a positive. The war was a terrible idea and many people new it would lead to big problems. I never mentioned race in my post, so I won't be getting into that argument.

Thing is, most Democrats were for the war in the beginning until times got tough. Then they started rooting for the failure of the troops to make Bush look bad.

Harry Reid even said that the "Surge has failed, and the war is lost"

[platinumblondelife]

Hmmm. I see your point. I guess I'd want to find blame where blame is due, and if it isn't there, I wouldn't want to come across as having overkill about my criticism of our current administration. (Someone on another thread accused me of doing that.) We may have our grievances about Obama, but I don't necessarily want to sound like I'm just trying to find criticisms at every turn.

I'm not sure if I'm finding the Obama connection there, either, other than that
the perpatrators and Obama are both black and from Chicago.
I wasn't necessarily talking about you, but I do feel like there are some people here and in general who are rooting for any reason to hate or attack Obama, and it doesn't matter what it is. I disagree with some of the things that Obama has done, but I can also think clearly enough to know that Obama isn't the second coming of Hitler or a secret black nationalist whose goal it is to take our money to give to the ~lazy~ blacks or the beginning of the destruction of America. He's a liberal Democrat who has the agenda of any liberal Democrat. Is ACORN a big story? Yes. Is it a bigger deal to the U.S. than hundreds if not thousands of other corrupt companies and organizations? NO.

Of course the only connection between Obama and the people who killed that boy is that they're both black. For some on the right, that's really all that's needed when it comes to Obama.

There are a lot of ignorant people and I won't lie and say I don't think there are certain people who play to them. It is funny but also sad when you hear people going to townhall meetings screaming "keep the government hands out of my medicare/social security."

[JT]

Of course the only connection between Obama and the people who killed that boy is that they're both black. For some on the right, that's really all that's needed when it comes to Obama.

OMG! WE IS NOT RACIST!!!! ASDOFHSDUFHDS STOP CALLING ME RACISSSSSSTTTTT. DON'T BRING RACE INTO THIS I'M COLORBLIIIIIIIIND. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT COLOR AN ORANGE IS!!!!!

There are a lot of ignorant people and I won't lie and say I don't think there are certain people who play to them. It is funny but also sad when you hear people going to townhall meetings screaming "keep the government hands out of my medicare/social security."

Or my favorite, "Next thing you know, we're gonna have government-run schools!"

[Tweety]

Yup...people who line their pockets by telling everyone that Obama = a ~scary~ Black panther, Muslim communist whose main goal is the destruction of the U.S that sets him apart from all Presidents past...would probably be rejoicing.

When has Obama, or ANY Democrat, not attacked private sector profits during the past 15 years? When GM was making record profits, the company was savagely attacked by elected officials on the Democrat side constantly.

Elected Democrats in Washington HATE profits. No two ways about it. Look at Wal-Mart. Look at "biiiigggg oil". They don't even talk about the people who are employed by the oil industry and all the jobs it creates...all the Democrats do is attack their profits. And that's all happened recently enough that you don't even have to do a google seach... you know that's exactly what's happened. And Democrats have always attacked Wal Mart simply because the company is not unionized (plus, it's profitable).

Obama started running for President in early 2007... find me any example of his praising a profitable private-sector company. He can't do it... that's not who he is. Well, I take that back, he might do it during a campaign, but as President, forget it.

What give Obama the right to take over the automobile industry? What gave him the right to fire the CEO of General Motors?

In fact, heck with that... name ONE thing Barack Obama has done since January 20, 2009 that makes ANY private sector employer say "ok, I'm ready to start hiring people again". The more profitable a company is, the bigger target the Democrats place on its back. And Obama wants to be the one to decide how much pay is "enough" for executives.

As Rahm Emanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste". Obama LOVES the country being in an economic shambles. THAT'S the America he and Michelle love. He thinks that economic hard times are the BEST possible opportunities to implement his ideas. He talked the whole campaign about spreading the wealth around... would you mind telling me who the hell HE is to decide how much is "enough" for anybody? We know how little he gives of his OWN money to charities....it's only OTHER people's wealth that needs to be spread around, never his own.

Barack Hussein Obama (yay, now we can legally say his middle name again) is indeed the first elected President who HATES the United States of America (as it's existed for the past 200+ years). He can't stomach the idea of this country winning a war. He attacks any profitable private-sector company. He trashes this country every time he goes overseas.

If he was just a useless Illinois Senator, I wouldn't think twice about him. But he's the President of the United States, and all he does is trash this country.

He said if we passed his porkulus package, the unemployment rate would not go above 8%. Well, how's THAT working out? And he's supposed to be the smart one.

He says that his health care plan will pay for itself by "eliminating fraud and waste". Well, tell you what, why doesn't he spend the next year or two eliminating all that fraud and waste, and THEN maybe we can consider allowing him to take over the entire health care system.

You know as well as I do that Obama is NOT who he claims to be, or who he claimed to be during his two year run for the Presidency.

As far as whether he's a Muslim, hey, there are enough other reasons to oppose his ideas... but when George Stephanopoulos has to correct him when he mis-identifies his own faith, that's not a good sign. But hell yeah, I would oppose any Muslim who ran for President... not that Obama is a Muslim... but so what? How many people out there wouldn't vote for Christian who ran for President? Your beliefs are part of who you are. But again, there are PLENTY of reasons to oppose what Obama wants to do other than whatever faith he belongs to this week (and no, the color of his skin is not one of them).

And if someone says that one can only be against Obama if they're a racist... well, you wanna talk about irrationality?

I can easily explain why I am opposed to basically everything Obama has on his agenda. I've probably done just that, a few lines at a time, on these very boards over the past year or so.

btw, Obama hasn't said a damn thing himself about Darrion Albert's murder. Where is he? What, he doesn't think it's worth commenting on? He's gotta jump in when his idiot buddy Prof Gates was arrested, but when gangs from his old stomping grounds violently murder an innocent honor student, all of a sudden the cat's got his toungue?

He made a big deal about Gates' arrest, but when U.S. Soldier Henry Long was killed by a Muslim in Little Rock in June, Obama said nothing about the Muslim killer. Obama made a much bigger deal about the killing of the abortionist, Dr. Tiller, than he did about the death of a soldier who was serving under his command. The guy is a disgrace.

When Obama made his statement about the murder of Dr. Tiller, that was made with as much passion as anything he's said since he set foot in the White House. So he CAN get riled up about certain things.

Obama's presidency has been nothing short of (in Dick Morris' words) a catastrophe. I don't need 4 years to figure out whether or not he's up to the job. He is not.

[Tweety]

... Is ACORN a big story? Yes. Is it a bigger deal to the U.S. than hundreds if not thousands of other corrupt companies and organizations? NO...
There are a lot of ignorant people and I won't lie and say I don't think there are certain people who play to them. It is funny but also sad when you hear people going to townhall meetings screaming "keep the government hands out of my medicare/social security."

The thing about ACORN is: 1) It's taxpayer money we're talking about, which is a big difference between it and a private sector company (which still has to perform in order to survive) and (2) We're just now scratching the surface of what that organization does. So it's a HUGE story. And it's just beginning.

You're downplaying it because it's Glenn Beck who is exposing it. But it is a big story.

And yes, Obama IS ACORN. His work with ACORN is what he bragged about during the campaign. Since he's never actually run anything, it's the reason his side said he was qualified to be President.

After Obama won the election (but before he took office) ACORN was one of the groups he spoke to, telling them that they're going to have a seat at "his table" to plan his agenda. So yeah, he IS ACORN. And ACORN was tabbed to receive billions (with a "b") from the "stimulus" package (even though our brilliant President claimed that he didn't realize they were getting all this money).

[Tweety]

Back to the Olympics:


Rahm Emanuel: "You know, we'll make sure they get some good seats once Chicago does host the games.''

(link (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/10/rahm_emanuel_olympic_critics_g.html))

"They" refers to people who were critical of Obama for personally going to Copenhagen without already having the deal in place.

Ooops. I guess the U.S. is back to being the same arrogant country we always were :)

[Janice]

Yup...people who line their pockets by telling everyone that Obama = a ~scary~ Black panther, Muslim communist whose main goal is the destruction of the U.S that sets him apart from all Presidents past...would probably be rejoicing.
Everything comes down to race with you, always has. And I believe you expressed your own suspicious thoughts about Obama's agenda for the U.S., which turned you against him for a while. It appears you've got Obama-mania again.

[Brieannas21]

OMG! WE IS NOT RACIST!!!! ASDOFHSDUFHDS STOP CALLING ME RACISSSSSSTTTTT. DON'T BRING RACE INTO THIS I'M COLORBLIIIIIIIIND. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT COLOR AN ORANGE IS!!!!!



Or my favorite, "Next thing you know, we're gonna have government-run schools!"

:lol:

Too Damn Funny, Love It

[platinumblondelife]

Everything comes down to race with you, always has. And I believe you expressed your own suspicious thoughts about Obama's agenda for the U.S., which turned you against him for a while. It appears you've got Obama-mania again.
Don't get angry with me because I call what I see going on. You live in a much different part of the country than I do, where the most conservative area would be considered liberal-extremist here. Because I don't believe the crap that comes from the far, far right I have Obama-mania? That's the thing most people who think like you can't understand...I don't have to be like Obama's policies to not believe his Presidency will solely lead to the destruction of America. And it's because I don't have Fox News commentators in my ear everyday telling me how to think about something, or that its ~suddenly~ socialism when socialist policies have been being instituted long before Obama came into office. Obama is spending too much, but do you know who spent too much before him? George W. Bush, yet there are people who will defend him while hypocritically criticizing Obama and saying his spending will lead to the destruction of America, when it was Bush who essentially nationalized the major banks. As if social security is not by nature the definition of a socialist program.

[platinumblondelife]

The thing about ACORN is: 1) It's taxpayer money we're talking about, which is a big difference between it and a private sector company (which still has to perform in order to survive) and (2) We're just now scratching the surface of what that organization does. So it's a HUGE story. And it's just beginning.

You're downplaying it because it's Glenn Beck who is exposing it. But it is a big story.

And yes, Obama IS ACORN. His work with ACORN is what he bragged about during the campaign. Since he's never actually run anything, it's the reason his side said he was qualified to be President.

After Obama won the election (but before he took office) ACORN was one of the groups he spoke to, telling them that they're going to have a seat at "his table" to plan his agenda. So yeah, he IS ACORN. And ACORN was tabbed to receive billions (with a "b") from the "stimulus" package (even though our brilliant President claimed that he didn't realize they were getting all this money).
I understand that ACORN is a big story, and I applaud the people who did that for finding out about ACORN. ACORN deserves to get all funds taken away and should not get tax payer money. But like I said, there are hundreds of other companies that could investigated for corruption that our tax dollars fund and they are companies and organizations that actually have a daily impact on people's lives.

[Janice]

Don't get angry with me because I call what I see going on. You live in a much different part of the country than I do, where the most conservative area would be considered liberal-extremist here. Because I don't believe the crap that comes from the far, far right I have Obama-mania? That's the thing most people who think like you can't understand...I don't have to be like Obama's policies to not believe his Presidency will solely lead to the destruction of America. And it's because I don't have Fox News commentators in my ear everyday telling me how to think about something, or that its ~suddenly~ socialism when socialist policies have been being instituted long before Obama came into office. Obama is spending too much, but do you know who spent too much before him? George W. Bush, yet there are people who will defend him while hypocritically criticizing Obama and saying his spending will lead to the destruction of America, when it was Bush who essentially nationalized the major banks. As if social security is not by nature the definition of a socialist program.
I'm not angry, and my post didn't express anger. I was never a big fan of Bush, so don't hang that on me. Most of our former Presidents instituted or funded Socialist programs. Obama, on the other hand, wants to completely change the infrastructure of the U.S. If you want clarification on that, read your own posts and watch those youtubes you posted when you finally saw the light on Obama. You explained it well. Enough with the FOX bs. They DO offer both viewpoints. People hate FOX because they report on stories that others don't, like the ACORN or Van Jones' stories. The other networks may pick up on them when they absolutely have to, such as when the Feds stepped in with ACORN. It took other networks at least a week to report on ACORN. I don't want to listen to networks that don't tell me news that makes the Left look bad. FOX also reports on stories that make the Right look bad. They really do tell both sides of the story, and that's why they're the #1 cable network. People want to hear all the news, not just the cherry picked ones that the liberal media want to report on.

[platinumblondelife]

When has Obama, or ANY Democrat, not attacked private sector profits during the past 15 years? When GM was making record profits, the company was savagely attacked by elected officials on the Democrat side constantly.

Elected Democrats in Washington HATE profits. No two ways about it. Look at Wal-Mart. Look at "biiiigggg oil". They don't even talk about the people who are employed by the oil industry and all the jobs it creates...all the Democrats do is attack their profits. And that's all happened recently enough that you don't even have to do a google seach... you know that's exactly what's happened. And Democrats have always attacked Wal Mart simply because the company is not unionized (plus, it's profitable).

Obama started running for President in early 2007... find me any example of his praising a profitable private-sector company. He can't do it... that's not who he is. Well, I take that back, he might do it during a campaign, but as President, forget it.

What give Obama the right to take over the automobile industry? What gave him the right to fire the CEO of General Motors?

In fact, heck with that... name ONE thing Barack Obama has done since January 20, 2009 that makes ANY private sector employer say "ok, I'm ready to start hiring people again". The more profitable a company is, the bigger target the Democrats place on its back. And Obama wants to be the one to decide how much pay is "enough" for executives.

As Rahm Emanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste". Obama LOVES the country being in an economic shambles. THAT'S the America he and Michelle love. He thinks that economic hard times are the BEST possible opportunities to implement his ideas. He talked the whole campaign about spreading the wealth around... would you mind telling me who the hell HE is to decide how much is "enough" for anybody? We know how little he gives of his OWN money to charities....it's only OTHER people's wealth that needs to be spread around, never his own.

Barack Hussein Obama (yay, now we can legally say his middle name again) is indeed the first elected President who HATES the United States of America (as it's existed for the past 200+ years). He can't stomach the idea of this country winning a war. He attacks any profitable private-sector company. He trashes this country every time he goes overseas.

If he was just a useless Illinois Senator, I wouldn't think twice about him. But he's the President of the United States, and all he does is trash this country.

He said if we passed his porkulus package, the unemployment rate would not go above 8%. Well, how's THAT working out? And he's supposed to be the smart one.

He says that his health care plan will pay for itself by "eliminating fraud and waste". Well, tell you what, why doesn't he spend the next year or two eliminating all that fraud and waste, and THEN maybe we can consider allowing him to take over the entire health care system.

You know as well as I do that Obama is NOT who he claims to be, or who he claimed to be during his two year run for the Presidency.

As far as whether he's a Muslim, hey, there are enough other reasons to oppose his ideas... but when George Stephanopoulos has to correct him when he mis-identifies his own faith, that's not a good sign. But hell yeah, I would oppose any Muslim who ran for President... not that Obama is a Muslim... but so what? How many people out there wouldn't vote for Christian who ran for President? Your beliefs are part of who you are. But again, there are PLENTY of reasons to oppose what Obama wants to do other than whatever faith he belongs to this week (and no, the color of his skin is not one of them).

And if someone says that one can only be against Obama if they're a racist... well, you wanna talk about irrationality?

I can easily explain why I am opposed to basically everything Obama has on his agenda. I've probably done just that, a few lines at a time, on these very boards over the past year or so.

btw, Obama hasn't said a damn thing himself about Darrion Albert's murder. Where is he? What, he doesn't think it's worth commenting on? He's gotta jump in when his idiot buddy Prof Gates was arrested, but when gangs from his old stomping grounds violently murder an innocent honor student, all of a sudden the cat's got his toungue?

He made a big deal about Gates' arrest, but when U.S. Soldier Henry Long was killed by a Muslim in Little Rock in June, Obama said nothing about the Muslim killer. Obama made a much bigger deal about the killing of the abortionist, Dr. Tiller, than he did about the death of a soldier who was serving under his command. The guy is a disgrace.

When Obama made his statement about the murder of Dr. Tiller, that was made with as much passion as anything he's said since he set foot in the White House. So he CAN get riled up about certain things.

Obama's presidency has been nothing short of (in Dick Morris' words) a catastrophe. I don't need 4 years to figure out whether or not he's up to the job. He is not.
You know that I do not agree with the nationalization of the car industry, the banking industry and all the other industries that have been nationalized. But it wasn't Obama who nationalized the banking industry. The level of corruption and waste in government is sickening...but its not really new. Maybe its on a new level, it seems the level of evil in government keeps getting upped. But its not like corruption and waste is NEW.

My main problem is that some people are so anti-Obama that they seem to have a vendetta against him personally. When you're saying he's an enemy of America, what is a person supposed to do? Are we to hope someone kills him to save America? I know you're not advocating that but really, what does someone who is not too high in the I.Q. do when they hear rhetoric like that? That's what many hear it as. There are a lot of people in the part of the country I live in who are not very educated. I'm not putting it down, its just a fact. They're very gullible and already basically hate Obama, simply because he's "different" and the fact that all the language that comes from certain people that he wants to destroy the country and turn us into a dictatorship...I just find it somewhat dangerous.

[platinumblondelife]

I'm not angry, and my post didn't express anger. I was never a big fan of Bush, so don't hang that on me. Most of our former Presidents instituted or funded Socialist programs. Obama, on the other hand, wants to completely change the infrastructure of the U.S. If you want clarification on that, read your own posts and watch those youtubes you posted when you finally saw the light on Obama. You explained it well. Enough with the FOX bs. They DO offer both viewpoints. People hate FOX because they report on stories that others don't, like the ACORN or Van Jones' stories. The other networks may pick up on them when they absolutely have to, such as when the Feds stepped in with ACORN. It took other networks at least a week to report on ACORN. I don't want to listen to networks that don't tell me news that makes the Left look bad. FOX also reports on stories that make the Right look bad. They really do tell both sides of the story, and that's why they're the #1 cable network. People want to hear all the news, not just the cherry picked ones that the liberal media want to report on.
Fox may be number one, but if anything serious happens no one watches Fox. Most people don't spend their time watching news shows. Because Fox gets about 2 or 3 million for their shows doesn't mean there aren't tens of millions more who don't watch the news regularly but think Fox is detestable. You can't seriously think Fox is a fair network and that their programs are just as bad against Republicans as Democrats. But it's not FOX so much as it is Glenn Beck. I don't mind Bill Oreilly or Sean Hannity, they are somewhat fair as far as guests. But Glenn Beck takes it to such an extreme level that (unless you're deep into your Obama dislike) no person watching who isn't thinking that Obama is turning America into Cuba and aiming for dictatorship can stomach most of it. How can you say Obama wants to change the infrastructure of the U.S. any more than FDR or LBJ or JFK? FDR's policies were struck down by the Supreme Court for being too interventionist; he wanted to go much further than he was able.

[Tweety]

platinumblondelife]You know that I do not agree with the nationalization of the car industry, the banking industry and all the other industries that have been nationalized. But it wasn't Obama who nationalized the banking industry. The level of corruption and waste in government is sickening...but its not really new. Maybe its on a new level, it seems the level of evil in government keeps getting upped. But its not like corruption and waste is NEW....[/QUOTE]

I was critical of Bush 43 when it came to some domestic stuff, especially spending and bailouts. And definitely, corruption and waste has always existed, and it's getting worse all the time.






...My main problem is that some people are so anti-Obama that they seem to have a vendetta against him personally. When you're saying he's an enemy of America, what is a person supposed to do? Are we to hope someone kills him to save America? I know you're not advocating that but really, what does someone who is not too high in the I.Q. do when they hear rhetoric like that? That's what many hear it as. There are a lot of people in the part of the country I live in who are not very educated. I'm not putting it down, its just a fact. They're very gullible and already basically hate Obama, simply because he's "different" and the fact that all the language that comes from certain people that he wants to destroy the country and turn us into a dictatorship...I just find it somewhat dangerous.

My problem with Obama is first and foremost his policies and what he wants to do to "govern".

And I most definitely do not want him to be assassinated, I don't even want any ATTEMPTS at assassination (unlike 95% of the left during the past 8 years).

But I'm kind of tired of ANY disagreement with his policies and philosophy being automatically characterized as "hatred". It's literally impossible to disagree with the guy without being accused of being racists or a hater. It's ridiculous.

In terms of "stopping" him, yes, absolutely his agenda must be stopped imo. But the way we're stopping it is the way it should be done...the American people are rising up against what he's trying to do. He mistook the people's dislike of Bush and took that to mean that we all wanted to become France all of a sudden. That wasn't the case. And on that note, when has a White House ever insulted private citizens the way this White House has done? It's just amazing. e.g. Joe the Plumber... within 3 days of him confronting and exposing Obama for what Obama wanted to do ("spread the wealth around") the Democrats and the ENTIRE MSM swarmed all over him, telling us more about his background than they've told us about all 40-something of Obama's "Czars" combined.

I don't know how much you remember about the Oklahoma City bombing which took place in 1995, but Bill Clinton, the sitting President of the United States, blamed Rush Limbaugh for the bombing. I mean, come on!

But again, I would ask someone to point out one thing Obama has done since he took office that would cause any private sector employer (particularly a small business owner) to say "OK, I'm ready to start hiring again"). Anyone who runs a successful business in this country IMMEDIATELY becomes a target of the Democrat party. They're making more money than they need, they need to send more of the money they earn to Washington.

Obama wants to put caps on what executives make.... who the hell is HE to decide how much is enough for someone else's salary? What BUSINESS is it of Obama's how much someone makes?

The last thing anyone should want is someone in Washington DC deciding how much is "enough".

Also, did you ever wonder why this great health care "reform" plan of the Democrats doesn't go into effect until 2013? I thought the country will collapse if we don't get it passed NOW (the Democrats' words, not mine). It's precisely so that when it bombs (and it surely will), Obama doesn't have to face the voters, because he'll already have (theoretically) won his second term. If it's so crucial that we have to pass it now, go ahead and pass it (the Dems have the votes) and implement it. They want some GOP members of Congress to go along with it so that when it bombs (and it surely will) so they can share the blame. If the plan is that great, the Dems could pass it, implement it, and based on their great results, they could wipe out the GOP for the next 50 years. Or don't they want to do that.

Obama is dangerous, because like every other Democrat in D.C, he doesn't take national security seriously at all...he blames Israel for everything that's wrong with the Middle East...refuses to call Islamic extremists what they are... and he's a flat-out appeaser of our enemies. Bush was ridiculed by the left (including Obama) when he included North Korea and Iran in his "axis of evil" comments.... well, looks to me like he hit it right on the head... but Obama thinks he can talk both countries into cooperating with us. Having a President that is that naive is dangerous to this country.

Just some thoughts. Hope you're having a great weekend and hope you have a great Sunday tomorrow.

[Fleet]

You can't seriously think Fox is a fair network and that their programs are just as bad against Republicans as Democrats.
Actually, data is out there which shows just that to be true...
Compare the Fox data with MSNBC.

[Janice]

Fox may be number one, but if anything serious happens no one watches Fox. Most people don't spend their time watching news shows. Because Fox gets about 2 or 3 million for their shows doesn't mean there aren't tens of millions more who don't watch the news regularly but think Fox is detestable. You can't seriously think Fox is a fair network and that their programs are just as bad against Republicans as Democrats. But it's not FOX so much as it is Glenn Beck. I don't mind Bill Oreilly or Sean Hannity, they are somewhat fair as far as guests. But Glenn Beck takes it to such an extreme level that (unless you're deep into your Obama dislike) no person watching who isn't thinking that Obama is turning America into Cuba and aiming for dictatorship can stomach most of it. How can you say Obama wants to change the infrastructure of the U.S. any more than FDR or LBJ or JFK? FDR's policies were struck down by the Supreme Court for being too interventionist; he wanted to go much further than he was able.
Like I said, all those posts you made a few months ago, just read those over. That ends here. I'm not going on one of your never ending loops. Been there, done that.

What's so extreme about Glenn Beck? He backs up every single claim he makes. If you watched his show, you'd know that. He's rooting out corruption, and he's had a lot of success such as exposing Van Jones, ACORN, the National Endowment for The Arts promoting Obama's agenda (big no-no), he organized the March on the Capital on 9/12, on and on. He's been having shows with just Moms on lately, and how they're organizing groups to be heard. Normal hardworking people are on his show all the time, in his audience. You're making him sound like a radical lunatic. He's a sincere family man who's fighting for America. He tosses in some theater with the crazy voices, he gets emotional or whatever; but extreme, no way. I couldn't watch anyone extreme.

[platinumblondelife]

Like I said, all those posts you made a few months ago, just read those over. That ends here. I'm not going on one of your never ending loops. Been there, done that.

What's so extreme about Glenn Beck? He backs up every single claim he makes. If you watched his show, you'd know that. He's rooting out corruption, and he's had a lot of success such as exposing Van Jones, ACORN, the National Endowment for The Arts promoting Obama's agenda (big no-no), he organized the March on the Capital on 9/12, on and on. He's been having shows with just Moms on lately, and how they're organizing groups to be heard. Normal hardworking people are on his show all the time, in his audience. You're making him sound like a radical lunatic. He's a sincere family man who's fighting for America. He tosses in some theater with the crazy voices, he gets emotional or whatever; but extreme, no way. I couldn't watch anyone extreme.
You act as if I don't know what I've posted in the past. I'm sorry you don't want to go on a "loop" but facts are facts. FDR's policies were struck down by the Supreme Court. I know Obama is trying to take us down a socialist path, but no more so than FDR, JFK or many other presidents of the past 20th century. Not yet at least. FDR was probably much more radical than Obama in terms of socialism. Glenn Beck says things that hype people's emotions, especially people who aren't that very educated about history and have a desire for any reason to hate (I mean literally hate) Obama. Obama's czars may be radical but if you go through any of Bush's czars and any czar that has served previously and dig up information from decades ago in their life, you will obviously come up with dirt.

[Janice]

You act as if I don't know what I've posted in the past. I'm sorry you don't want to go on a "loop" but facts are facts. FDR's policies were struck down by the Supreme Court. I know Obama is trying to take us down a socialist path, but no more so than FDR, JFK or many other presidents of the past 20th century. Not yet at least. FDR was probably much more radical than Obama in terms of socialism. Glenn Beck says things that hype people's emotions, especially people who aren't that very educated about history and have a desire for any reason to hate (I mean literally hate) Obama. Obama's czars may be radical but if you go through any of Bush's czars and any czar that has served previously and dig up information from decades ago in their life, you will obviously come up with dirt.
There are many college educated people who watch Glenn Beck and can differentiate between hype and facts. My husband and I are two of those people. Everytime Beck has people in his audience, they're small business owners for the most part, just normal people. For someone who doesn't watch his show, you sure seem to know a lot about it. Beck isn't saying anything that you or I haven't posted on this board. I highly doubt that any of Bush's czar's were radical communists. Obama has surrounded with him the people who helped him get where he is today, and that was an interesting youtube as well, thank you.

[platinumblondelife]

There are many college educated people who watch Glenn Beck and can differentiate between hype and facts. My husband and I are two of those people. Everytime Beck has people in his audience, they're small business owners for the most part, just normal people. For someone who doesn't watch his show, you sure seem to know a lot about it. Beck isn't saying anything that you or I haven't posted on this board. I highly doubt that any of Bush's czar's were radical communists. Obama has surrounded with him the people who helped him get where he is today, and that was an interesting youtube as well, thank you.
I didn't say no one in Glenn Beck's audience is college educated. I've seen his show and he sometimes has thoughtful people from universities like Columbia on to explain the deficit spending. Again, you live in a very educated part of the country. My experience with people who watch the show is different from yours because I see very different types of people. You could run for something with all your conservative views here and would be doomed simply because you don't think gay people are a deadly threat against society. In fact suggesting gay people should be segregated may just win you an election. I don't watch his show anymore because I grew sick of his stunts and IN MY OPINION over the top rhetoric. I used to like his show.

[Dr. John Becker]

I didn't say no one in Glenn Beck's audience is college educated. I've seen his show and he sometimes has thoughtful people from universities like Columbia on to explain the deficit spending. Again, you live in a very educated part of the country. My experience with people who watch the show is different from yours because I see very different types of people. You could run for something with all your conservative views here and would be doomed simply because you don't think gay people are a deadly threat against society. In fact suggesting gay people should be segregated may just win you an election. I don't watch his show anymore because I grew sick of his stunts and IN MY OPINION over the top rhetoric. I used to like his show.


This is kind of going off topic, but I think you would enjoy Sean Hannity's radio show, Plat. His views are much like Janice's. He agree's with Janice about gay people in fact.

Sean says that it's none of his business what goes on in people's bedrooms. He is very conservative, but will let liberal callers have their say.

[Tweety]

Well my, oh my.... it didn't take long.

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) blamed the Barack/Michelle/Oprah Dream Team's failure to bring the Olympics home to Chicago on.... (drum roll please).... George W. Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2353821/posts

"Senator Rowland Burris of Illinois, the Senator who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, blames George Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics in 2016. Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush. Wow! When will the Democrats in Congress ever get off this “Blame Bush” syndrome. Burris even went on to say that this is just another way Bush is now hurting Chicago. Yes blame Bush, don’t mind all the crime and corruption that has come out of Illinois over the last year. This “Blame Bush” strategy is getting pretty old."
<END OF EXCERPT>

Anyway, that's the latest....it's Bush's fault.



Illinois' most idiotic Senator since...oh, I don't know...Barack Obama maybe..

[Stuck In The '70's]

Well my, oh my.... it didn't take long.

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) blamed the Barack/Michelle/Oprah Dream Team's failure to bring the Olympics home to Chicago on.... (drum roll please).... George W. Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2353821/posts

"Senator Rowland Burris of Illinois, the Senator who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, blames George Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics in 2016. Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush. Wow! When will the Democrats in Congress ever get off this “Blame Bush” syndrome. Burris even went on to say that this is just another way Bush is now hurting Chicago. Yes blame Bush, don’t mind all the crime and corruption that has come out of Illinois over the last year. This “Blame Bush” strategy is getting pretty old."
<END OF EXCERPT>

Anyway, that's the latest....it's Bush's fault.



Illinois' most idiotic Senator since...oh, I don't know...Barack Obama maybe..
Why am I not surprised? 20 years from now it will still be Bush's fault.

[Janice]

Well my, oh my.... it didn't take long.

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) blamed the Barack/Michelle/Oprah Dream Team's failure to bring the Olympics home to Chicago on.... (drum roll please).... George W. Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2353821/posts

"Senator Rowland Burris of Illinois, the Senator who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, blames George Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics in 2016. Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush. Wow! When will the Democrats in Congress ever get off this “Blame Bush” syndrome. Burris even went on to say that this is just another way Bush is now hurting Chicago. Yes blame Bush, don’t mind all the crime and corruption that has come out of Illinois over the last year. This “Blame Bush” strategy is getting pretty old."
<END OF EXCERPT>

Anyway, that's the latest....it's Bush's fault.



Illinois' most idiotic Senator since...oh, I don't know...Barack Obama maybe..
A black man critcizing a white man. He must be a racist. We need another Beer Summit in the Rose Garden, lol. Seriously, this guy is an idiot. I've been hearing a lot of talking heads say that Obama's reached his expiration point in blaming Bush. Certainly, a lot of it was justified, but with all he's been doing, he owns this economy now; and the war, depending on what Obama does or doesn't do. Yes, I'll say it. Obama inherited a lot, but there comes a point that the President owns these issues. He ran for President because he was going to change and fix problems. Pointing fingers and looking behind is not going to help. His hand-picked General told him he needs more troops to win. Obama is afraid to alienate his base because he promised to pull out of the war. If he pulls out, it will be a bloodbath, especially for the Afghan women, who are out in society now, in classrooms, working, some even in politics, and becoming a voice. The hell that awaits these poor people is unthinkable.

[Tweety]

A black man critcizing a white man. He must be a racist. We need another Beer Summit in the Rose Garden, lol. Seriously, this guy is an idiot. I've been hearing a lot of talking heads say that Obama's reached his expiration point in blaming Bush. Certainly, a lot of it was justified, but with all he's been doing, he owns this economy now; and the war, depending on what Obama does or doesn't do. Yes, I'll say it. Obama inherited a lot, but there comes a point that the President owns these issues. He ran for President because he was going to change and fix problems. Pointing fingers and looking behind is not going to help. His hand-picked General told him he needs more troops to win. Obama is afraid to alienate his base because he promised to pull out of the war. If he pulls out, it will be a bloodbath, especially for the Afghan women, who are out in society now, in classrooms, working, some even in politics, and becoming a voice. The hell that awaits these poor people is unthinkable.

Yeah, there's no question that, for a little while, he could get away with blaming everything on Bush... he did inherit a tough situation. But, he's also the one who told us all that he could fix everything. He told us unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if we pass his porkulus bill. Well, they passed it, but how's it working out (if you don't ask Joe Biden, that is)?

And for the last five years, we've had every Democrat in Washington, including John Kerry in 2004 and then-Senator Obama beginning in 2005 saying that "Afghanistan is the war we have to win, Bush took his eye off the ball, blah blah blah.. " Well, his own hand-picked General is now going public in describing what he needs, and Obama says he'll think about it. He's had nine months to think about it.

And of course, Bush was totally ridiculed by the left, including John Kerry and Barack Obama, for the mere suggestion that Iran and North Korea were part of the 3-pronged "axis of evil". Looks to me like Bush hit it right on the head. Obama now has to deal with 2 of the 3 axis countries, and he's done nothing but appease so far...with no signs of ever doing anything else.

btw, just before he left for Copenhagen, Obama posed with a pre-printed newspaper edition of his Olympics-to-Chicago victory story...here's a photo:

[platinumblondelife]

This is kind of going off topic, but I think you would enjoy Sean Hannity's radio show, Plat. His views are much like Janice's. He agree's with Janice about gay people in fact.

Sean says that it's none of his business what goes on in people's bedrooms. He is very conservative, but will let liberal callers have their say.
You're actually right...I do like his show. I like that he has people who disagree with him sometimes also. I never have an opportunity to really listen anymore because I don't have a car. When my parents get my new car I will probably listen to him on the way from class/work again. Tuesday, Hannity will have Michael Moore on his show. I think they will have a passionate but ADULT conversation. I can't see Glenn Beck doing the same, which is why I don't like him anymore. Sorry if you like him. I personally think he comes off as very unintelligent. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure you may not feel that way.

[MrCleveland]

Hey...let's blame Bush on everything!!!

It's Bush's fault because you're bald!
It's Bush's fault because you're old!
It's Bush's fault because you can't talk!
It's Bush's fault because America has lost its way!

Yes, It's all Bush's fault...NOT!

In 1996, there was a Terrorist attack at the Atlanta Olympics, and between 1932 and 1984, America never hosted the Olympics and L.A. was the one to host it for those years.

Chicago could try again for 2020, so can New York. And if Bush got involved with this, he'd try to get Dallas to host the Olympics.

[bandito]

You're actually right...I do like his show. I like that he has people who disagree with him sometimes also. I never have an opportunity to really listen anymore because I don't have a car. When my parents get my new car I will probably listen to him on the way from class/work again. Tuesday, Hannity will have Michael Moore on his show. I think they will have a passionate but ADULT conversation. I can't see Glenn Beck doing the same, which is why I don't like him anymore. Sorry if you like him. I personally think he comes off as very unintelligent. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure you may not feel that way.I'm suprised you like Hannity. I like Hannity, but he gets on a subject and beats it to death, where Beck talks about diff things all the time. I think Glen Beck is very intelligent and has the most common sense of all of them... But that's just my opinion.

[Janice]

I'm suprised you like Hannity. I like Hannity, but he gets on a subject and beats it to death, where Beck talks about diff things all the time. I think Glen Beck is very intelligent and has the most common sense of all of them... But that's just my opinion.
I agree 100%. I can often recite what Hannity is saying, verbatim. I love the guy, but he can be a broken record. Glenn Beck is extremely intelligent. Even if a person doesn't agree with him, they can, or should, see that. If they don't, I think they could be blinded by their dislike for him. I can list many famous liberals that I don't agree with, yet I know they're very intelligent.

[catlover79]

I agree 100%. I can often recite what Hannity is saying, verbatim. I love the guy, but he can be a broken record. Glenn Beck is extremely intelligent. Even if a person doesn't agree with him, they can, or should, see that. If they don't, I think they could be blinded by their dislike for him. I can list many famous liberals that I don't agree with, yet I know they're very intelligent.
I agree with you both. Have either of you ever read Glenn Beck's Fusion magazine? It's great!!

[Janice]

I agree with you both. Have either of you ever read Glenn Beck's Fusion magazine? It's great!!
I've never read it, but I'd love to. Right now, he's got two books on the New York Time's Bestseller List. Not bad for a dumbo, lol.

[catlover79]

I've never read it, but I'd love to. Right now, he's got two books on the New York Time's Bestseller List. Not bad for a dumbo, lol.
:D My favorite part of his Fusion magazine is the predictive obituary. :lol: Some past predictive obituaries have included the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Green Party, Billy Joel's marriage, freedom of speech, etc.