2016 Olympics - Obama Bombed Out

[Jimbeaux]

968 said:

Jimbeaux said:

No; actually I was very supportive and open-minded about Obama when he was elected, go check. After he begin implimenting policies that were opposite of what he said he would do, I objected. The "Obama Bombed" headline was to indicate that he threw his hat it, not that it was his fault. As for Atlanta, them screwing anything up should be expected.

Clearly your recollection is different to mine, at best you were willing to support him simply because he was elected GOP, no more. Why not entitle your thread, Chicago bombed, since it was their presentation that was deemed a failure, not the fact that the US president gave a speech?

He was elected GOP? What does that mean? You do realize that the GOP is an acronym for the Republican Party? Here, the fact that Chicago was in the running for 2016 made few headlines until he decided to stick his nose in.

[prand]

Good God man, how on earth does Obama's speech have relevance to Chicago not being chosen, when clearly Brazil is on a bit of an up and was the obvious contender?

I've heard quite a few things via American press and of the Americans I know, and trips to the US recently, and I am utterly amazed by the out and out hostility to Obama, considering he's only been in office 9 months. Is he really that bad? Or is it really because he is black and white America simply cannot handle it?

[Muntu]

prand said:

Good God man, how on earth does Obama's speech have relevance to Chicago not being chosen, when clearly Brazil is on a bit of an up and was the obvious contender?

I've heard quite a few things via American press and of the Americans I know, and trips to the US recently, and I am utterly amazed by the out and out hostility to Obama, considering he's only been in office 9 months. Is he really that bad? Or is it really because he is black and white America simply cannot handle it?

Why, was he only voted in by "black America?"

[prand]

Thats not exactly what I meant, but then again, I haven't heard a black American man say anything like Obama is a trotskyite, an Marxist, a Muslim (read terrorist) who took his presidential vow over the Kran, that he shouldn't qualify for presidency due to him not being "natural born", that he resembles the Anti Christ in the bible, and so on...

[Jimbeaux]

prand said:

Good God man, how on earth does Obama's speech have relevance to Chicago not being chosen, when clearly Brazil is on a bit of an up and was the obvious contender?

I've heard quite a few things via American press and of the Americans I know, and trips to the US recently, and I am utterly amazed by the out and out hostility to Obama, considering he's only been in office 9 months. Is he really that bad? Or is it really because he is black and white America simply cannot handle it?

"White America" is who elected him, so no to your last question. The hostility toward him is no more than that aimed at Bush for his shortcomings. The public elected the man on his promises of moderate policies, not the liberal ones he is pushing. Let me be the first to say, it is more the leaders of both houses of Congress (Pelosi & Reid) that are promoting leftist agendas that are making Obama look bad. A President is but 1/3 of the triad of government and cannot always hold off Congress. However, as the holder of the veto (unless 2/3 vote to overturn) he is held ultimately accountable as all Presidents before him have been.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 5th October 18:39

[Jimbeaux]

prand said:

Thats not exactly what I meant, but then again, I haven't heard a black American man say anything like Obama is a trotskyite, an Marxist, a Muslim (read terrorist) who took his presidential vow over the Kran, that he shouldn't qualify for presidency due to him not being "natural born", that he resembles the Anti Christ in the bible, and so on...

I will submit to you that "Black America" voted for Obama more because he was black than for his policies. That, is by definition racist. For some odd reason, we don't hear it that way, we only hear how whites who oppose his policies are "just racist".

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 5th October 18:45

[GavinPearson]

Let's look at a few places where the Olympics has been held in the past 30 years:

1980 Lake Placid (W)
1984 Los Angeles (S)
1988 Calgary (W)(Canada)
1996 Atlanta (S)
2002 Salt Lake (W)

It's not unreasonable for the IOC to think that North America has held the Olympics enough of late and it's time to give A.N.Other country a chance.

There are an awful lot of very interesting cities in the world that could host an Olympics and while the USA does seem to be a very safe bet when it comes to making sure that they have facilities and infrastructure in place I don't think it's any surprise that Chicago lost out. The IOC just wanted to go somewhere different for their 2016 holiday. They heard the scenery was very interesting, or you could get a nice cup of coffee or something else. I don't think it made any difference who did the presentation for Chicago - reading it as a measure of the Obamas is doing so in ignorance of the numerous other factors, the Pope could have done it and they'd still have lost.

[Jimbeaux]

GavinPearson said:

Let's look at a few places where the Olympics has been held in the past 30 years:

1980 Lake Placid (W)
1984 Los Angeles (S)
1988 Calgary (W)(Canada)
1996 Atlanta (S)
2002 Salt Lake (W)

It's not unreasonable for the IOC to think that North America has held the Olympics enough of late and it's time to give A.N.Other country a chance.

There are an awful lot of very interesting cities in the world that could host an Olympics and while the USA does seem to be a very safe bet when it comes to making sure that they have facilities and infrastructure in place I don't think it's any surprise that Chicago lost out. The IOC just wanted to go somewhere different for their 2016 holiday. They heard the scenery was very interesting, or you could get a nice cup of coffee or something else. I don't think it made any difference who did the presentation for Chicago - reading it as a measure of the Obamas is doing so in ignorance of the numerous other factors, the Pope could have done it and they'd still have lost.

I agree, it was time for somewhere fresh. Chicago, as nice as it is, would have lost no matter what. I just think Obama putting his nose in was a bit tacky.

[GavinPearson]

Jimbeaux said:

I agree, it was time for somewhere fresh. Chicago, as nice as it is, would have lost no matter what. I just think Obama putting his nose in was a bit tacky.

I think President Obama's presentation was appropriate - every other bid had their leader do the presentation. Mrs Obama probably should not have presented. An Olympic or Paralympic medallist from Chicago might have been a better choice.

[Muntu]

GavinPearson said:

Jimbeaux said:

I agree, it was time for somewhere fresh. Chicago, as nice as it is, would have lost no matter what. I just think Obama putting his nose in was a bit tacky.

I think President Obama's presentation was appropriate - every other bid had their leader do the presentation. Mrs Obama probably should not have presented. An Olympic or Paralympic medallist from Chicago might have been a better choice.

BarryO's intervention was ill-judged, narcissistic and naive. Somebodey, surely, amongst his advisors might have had some inkling that Chicago might not do so well, for all the reasons laid out in this thread. Perhaps Barryo thought that his "Hope and Change" speech and his personal charisma would be enough to swing the votes in his favour.

Barry the Bellend (TM) needs to get with the times and realise that "just words" are sometimes not enough, one needs to take into account the realities on the ground, rather than think the world revolves around him.

I suspect that Americans are starting to realise that Barry was promoted "above his pay grade" and that they have landed themselves 4 years of a leftist community organiser with debatably two year's senate experience and not much else apart from a teleprompter.

Perhaps this is why we are seeing some objections to the crud he comes out with rather than the knee jerk "racism" theory that is so beloved of the left.

[unrepentant]

GavinPearson said:

Jimbeaux said:

I agree, it was time for somewhere fresh. Chicago, as nice as it is, would have lost no matter what. I just think Obama putting his nose in was a bit tacky.

I think President Obama's presentation was appropriate - every other bid had their leader do the presentation. Mrs Obama probably should not have presented. An Olympic or Paralympic medallist from Chicago might have been a better choice.

I agree, the Presidents support was totally appropriate. It would have looked very strange and he would have been heavily criticised had he not made a presentation given that Chicago is his town and it has become the norm for the political leaders to make a pitch. I agree with you about the first lady's speech, one Obama was probably enough, but either way the speeches made no difference to the outcome.

Chicago is my favourite city and I think it would have made a great venue given its lakeside setting but Rio is a truly exciting choice and hopefully they will stage a great Olympics.

[968]

Jimbeaux said:

968 said:

Jimbeaux said:

No; actually I was very supportive and open-minded about Obama when he was elected, go check. After he begin implimenting policies that were opposite of what he said he would do, I objected. The "Obama Bombed" headline was to indicate that he threw his hat it, not that it was his fault. As for Atlanta, them screwing anything up should be expected.

Clearly your recollection is different to mine, at best you were willing to support him simply because he was elected GOP, no more. Why not entitle your thread, Chicago bombed, since it was their presentation that was deemed a failure, not the fact that the US president gave a speech?

He was elected GOP? What does that mean? You do realize that the GOP is an acronym for the Republican Party? Here, the fact that Chicago was in the running for 2016 made few headlines until he decided to stick his nose in.

Sorry for the typo, was thinking of something else meant to type President.

The fact that Chicago's bid made few headlines perhaps gives you one reason (out of many) why they were not chosen as a viable bidding city. Do you think the IOC would want to give the games to a bidder that hasn't bothered to publicise their own bid? Obama's presentation was entirely appropriate and necessary. If he hadn't presented, I'm sure the naysayers would be moaning here about him failing to step up to the plate.

[road ragette]

Could be, perhaps, that Obama took the piss somewhat.

Remember the 'oops' on Jay Leno's show about his bowling being a bit "Special Olympics or something" - never good to mock the afflicted...silly man.

[tinman0]

It's about time the Olympics were returned to Greece once and for all.

The US were never going to get the Olympics because they've had it so many times in recent years. Obi just set himself up for a fall.

[grumbledoak]

tinman0 said:

It's about time the Olympics were returned to Greece once and for all.

I bang that drum almost every time it comes around.

Countries could bid for it, and pay for refurbishment and hosting, giving it their own character. And we would not have to build so many expensive limited use facilities every so many years.

Won't happen; it would all cost less, and the IOC likes it's cut of the enormous pie every four years.

[Jimbeaux]

grumbledoak said:

tinman0 said:

It's about time the Olympics were returned to Greece once and for all.

I bang that drum almost every time it comes around.

Countries could bid for it, and pay for refurbishment and hosting, giving it their own character. And we would not have to build so many expensive limited use facilities every so many years.

Won't happen; it would all cost less, and the IOC likes it's cut of the enormous pie every four years.

I agree; it seems that the IOC is about on par with the Sopranos business-wise.