The 2016 Olympics

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:25 am

....Will go to Rio de Janeiro.

Damn. I was sure hoping for Chicago, but congratulations to the first South American city to be the host.

And can someone explain to me why in the hell the right-wing is celebrating the U.S.'s loss? Isn't the Olympics a major source of revenue and jobs?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:35 pm

I suppose it's actually very expensive, which draws illegal labour force for building, lets a city experience a life it never experiences the rest of the year, only to slumber back into depression after that, after the noisy people, drunken teens and the loud music stops.

In such dire economic times, I'm not particularly convinced that the mobilization of considerable amounts of cash for a very short lived event is the way to go. People would generally think that long termed investments would be better.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by 2046 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:09 pm

I've seen no celebrations. There is, however, quite a bit of mirth over the fact that Obama got involved, trying to be all that and a bag of chips, and yet the Chicago bid still got kicked to the curb in the first round.

In other words, it's just a little giggle that Obama the Magnificent went to the mat but didn't bring it home. Nothing more.

Frankly, I rather liked the idea of Chicago, even though all sorts of folk were protesting against it. Just going from the NPR story, there didn't seem to be a right-wing slant to the anti-Olympics crowd.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:31 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I suppose it's actually very expensive, which draws illegal labour force for building, lets a city experience a life it never experiences the rest of the year, only to slumber back into depression after that, after the noisy people, drunken teens and the loud music stops.

In such dire economic times, I'm not particularly convinced that the mobilization of considerable amounts of cash for a very short lived event is the way to go. People would generally think that long termed investments would be better.
Well, with all the construction unions in Chicago and the national scrutiny an Olympic Complex would draw, it would be much harder for illegals to work there than, say, some housing development in the 'burbs.

As for the investment thing, that's iffy, I grant. Athens' complex has apparently fallen into disrepair, been looted of all its electronics, etc. Shame too, it was designed by Santiago Calatrava. Even the Bird's Nest has had trouble. So yes, a new sports arena might not be the best investment, but with the world economy the way it is, that's probably true of whichever city gets the Olympics. Then there's the residential portion of the Olympic Village, which would likely become rentals upon the Olympics' closing (they wouldn't be too high-end, since they're for transients anyway) Chicago already has three major residential projects close to completion, all of which feature high-end condos (and only one of which, Aqua, has any rentals as far as I know.)
2046 wrote:I've seen no celebrations
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Matt Drudge and Americans for Prosperity aside...

It's amusing to see Obama Derangement Syndrome overpower even their AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE FOREVER fervor.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by 2046 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:06 pm

No anti-America celebration here:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... 198/31452/

Nor here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

Haven't seen any here either:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

I don't even know who "Americans for Prosperity" is/are.

So where is the celebration of America's supposed defeat that you're claiming? All I see is some giggling over Obama's "fail", but considering the messianic poo-slurping of many of his followers, I see no problem with giggling. It's extremely tame by comparison to what the left subjected Bush to on a daily basis even on far less important things. And, if you want to talk about hoping America fails, I'd look at DailyKos and similar lefty kook sites circa 2000-2008 (almost gleeful troop death reports, fake stories of US soldier atrocities, et cetera).

You're comparing that to the schadenfreude over Obama-the-Messiah's sales pitch causing a failing out in the first round?

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:43 pm

http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 3158474001

There's the link to the video. Enjoy. They don't even mention Obama. It could be that they sincerely care about the problems an Olympic Games would bring. It could be, but I doubt it. More likely they just don't consider Chicago part of Real America. Now, to quote the link you just provided, I don't know if that's true, but I'm choosing to believe it, Glenn.

But you're right, this latest example of pitiful political pandering is tame compared to polls of Obama's assassination, the birther movement, talks of secession and of a military coup against the legitimately elected government of the United States. Wouldn't such a coup amount to, you know, treason?

Now, you might very well caution me that I shouldn't use the very worst elements of the right-wing to demonize the group as a whole.........................................

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:31 am

You would think the Americans would end up celebrating the loss, considering the complete waste of money the games often turn out to be. Yeah there is a brief economic benefit but then you have to try and turn these facilities into a long term money maker.

Only city in Canada that managed to do that was Calgary. Olympic Stadium in Montreal fell down out of neglect because it wasn't profitable.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by 2046 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:59 pm

Cocytus wrote:http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 3158474001

There's the link to the video. Enjoy.
Who the hell are those random people, and why are you identifying them as America-hating conservatives?

(Googles)

Oh, so Americans for Prosperity, a group opposed to excessive taxation and government spending, is supposed to be sad that the taxpayers aren't going to throw cash at an event with little to no tangible economic benefit for a country like ours who's hosted them so often before?

Don't get me wrong, here . . . I was fond of the idea of the Olympics in Chicago, 'cause I wouldn't have minded the trip. And frankly, I thought it might be good in reference to international politics.

But for you to take applause like that and declare it America-fail happiness is perverse and twisted.
But you're right, this latest example of pitiful political pandering is tame compared to polls of Obama's assassination,
Oooh, a Facebook poll! Whatever, the left can't pretend to grow a spine about that sort of thing now.
the birther movement,
That's Obama's own fault now. All they want is the document . . . why won't he have it shown? It would end the whole affair in a snap.

I'd say it was a valid question, a question for which they still await a definitive answer.

That said, I think Obama's lack of qualifications for the presidency go far beyond the question of birthplace, so I have no particular horse in that race.
talks of secession


Oh yeah, those Constitutionalist conservatives love their banana republic! Puh-leeze.

The worst I've heard so far is that Texas and some other states have started lots of talk about the 10th Amendment, but that's about it ... but even if Texas has almost declared independence, what of it? The federal government is substantially overstepping its bounds. You don't think that's worth a little internal saber-rattling?
and of a military coup against the legitimately elected government of the United States.
Eat me.

That's not eloquent or erudite, but it's a direct and precise way of conveying the disgust I have that anyone would even try to bring that up. It's not directed at you.

This feigned leftist outrage over the Newsmax blogger dude is utter horsecrap.

Either be outraged at both, or be outraged at neither, but don't insult everyone reading this thread by only being outraged at one and not the other.

I don't like the Newsmax thing any more than you do, and I'm glad Newsmax pulled it from the blog to "prevent misunderstanding" (unlike HuffPo that has left theirs up). But the HuffPo one is worse insofar as it is actually a plea for a coup and not simply a descriptive exploration.
Now, you might very well caution me that I shouldn't use the very worst elements of the right-wing to demonize the group as a whole.........................................
Worst elements? That's all you've got? Come on, the left showed far worse during the Bush years. Where were you then?

In any case, I don't think, generally speaking, that individual voices calling for this or that have any real merit or are worth a lot of attention. It's when there's a big pattern, or especially when a group of "mainstream" kooks really get going that it becomes worthy of "demonizing", to borrow your term, the whole "mainstream". And considering that all of the sudden the left is going ape over things they turned a blind eye to less than a year ago (e.g. "omg he wants America to fail at something! unpatriotic bastards! btw have we lost the war yet, i really want us to?"), there's really no chance in hell that you're going to convince me they have some moral high ground, over and above the basic philosophical divide.

But hey, what the hell, let's go nuts here . . . picture the most oppressive leftist regime possible, and then picture the most oppressive libertarian regime possible, and get back to me on the question of which you'd want to live in. Seriously, chief, we're talking the difference between Stalin's Siberia and Hitler's ghettoes versus Rand's "Galt's Gulch".

But hey, what do I know? I'm just an evil conservative.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:46 pm

But declaring liberalism a mental disease isn't perverse and twisted, nor is using 9/11 to justify whatever the previous administration did perverse and twisted. (Aww, did we bweak your widdle waw?) Ring a bell?
2046 wrote:That said, I think Obama's lack of qualifications for the presidency go far beyond the question of birthplace
I'm sorry, but you gave up any credibility with regards to qualifications when you tapped that idiot Palin for VP.
2046 wrote:The Federal Government is substantially overstepping its bounds.
With what? Universal healthcare, something the rest of the civilized world already has? Or does Bush getting called on his own overstepping by his own Supreme Court TWICE not count?
2046 wrote:
Don't you think that's worth a little internal saber-rattling?
So it's perfectly acceptable for right-wingers to rattle the saber, but not for lefties? Besides, that article is farcical. Why he wrote it to the JCS is beyond me, the JCS has no command authority over anything. All they do is make strategy, then the National Command Authority (Pres and SecDef) gives the orders. On the other hand, I could certainly believe rightwingers capable of a large scale armed insurrection. Nah, maybe that's a little much.
2046 wrote:Picture the worst regime possible
Ohoho you do NOT want me to do that. I'd sound like a left-wing Rush Limbaugh.
2046 wrote:I'm just a conservative


Yes, that's correct. You're not a centrist, you're a conservative, which is fine. Conservatives I can handle, I just can't stand people who claim to be something they're not. I'm no centrist either, nor do I claim to be. I'm a bonafide liberal, NRA membership or no.

You know, I'm having a ball with this, frankly. I thank God that in His wisdom he made the nature of all things cyclical, and I am going to enjoy this role-reversal history has brought upon us thoroughly, whether it lasts four years or eight. And come 2012 or 2016, whichever history has in store, you can feed the medicine right back.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by 2046 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:45 pm

Cocytus wrote:But declaring liberalism a mental disease isn't perverse and twisted,
I think any extremism taken to absurdity is a mental disorder. Not a disease like a neurological defect in construction, but a lack of order in regards to thoughts. That's left or right, mind you, it's just that these days the rabid left is more outspoken. The left's village idiots are not contained . . . the right at least generally keeps theirs quieter.

In case you haven't noticed, I view the far right and the far left with equal disdain, especially when they wrap themselves up in conspiracist whackaloonist thinking (e.g. 9/11 truthers).
2046 wrote:I'm just a conservative


Yes, that's correct. You're not a centrist, you're a conservative.
Thanks for taking my jab "But hey, what do I know? I'm just an evil conservative." and editing it for your own purposes. One would've thought you might've recognized that was not a declaration of my politics, but I guess you missed that. Oh well.
nor is using 9/11 to justify whatever the previous administration did perverse and twisted. (Aww, did we bweak your widdle waw?) Ring a bell?
Not "whatever", but that which was necessary and prudent. The terrorists and their philosophical allies wish nothing less than the destruction of the United States, western civilization, and freedom itself. Obama's appeasement strategy is foolish and futile.

That said, I do not think Bush was always right. For any security-minded president to be in favor of unsecured borders is absurd on its very face. However, it is far worse to have a president in favor of unsecured borders and with a peace-through-appeasement approach.
2046 wrote:That said, I think Obama's lack of qualifications for the presidency go far beyond the question of birthplace
I'm sorry, but you gave up any credibility with regards to qualifications when you tapped that idiot Palin for VP.
She had better executive qualifications than Obama, and was merely the VP. She certainly had better associates. Jones, Wright, Ayers, and the list goes on and on. That said, however, my statement about Obama was not in regards to resume, but performance.
2046 wrote:The Federal Government is substantially overstepping its bounds.
With what? Universal healthcare, something the rest of the civilized world already has?
Yep, that exactly. Not to mention excessive spending, regulation, other 10th Am. violations, et cetera.

I used to be open to the idea of basic universal healthcare (e.g. arm broken? We got that), but the more I've seen of (a) what Obama and his associates want and (b) the costs and (c) how well it works in those other civilized countries you think we should copy, I've long since realized that (a) basics aren't what they want, and (b) it is a rather alarming power the government must not be able to possess.
Or does Bush getting called on his own overstepping by his own Supreme Court TWICE not count?
Why are you still running against Bush?
2046 wrote:
Don't you think that's worth a little internal saber-rattling?
So it's perfectly acceptable for right-wingers to rattle the saber, but not for lefties?
I think you need to stop editing my words when replying, is what I think.
And come 2012 or 2016, whichever history has in store, you can feed the medicine right back.
And that's the problem . . . tit for tat will be the end of all of us.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:58 am

Seriously? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Joe Wilson, etc. Those people are quiet? I hardly think so.
2046 wrote:In case you haven't noticed, I view the far right and the far left with equal disdain, especially when they wrap themselves up in conspiracist whackaloonist thinking (e.g. 9/11 truthers).
If it's whackaloonist conspiracies were talking, Orly Taitz forged a fake Kenyan certificate. Twice. World Net Daily even authenticated the original, before they had to double back when someone pointed out they weren't supposed to agree with the left. Ooops. Now I can't find the article anywhere.

But I'm curious as to what exactly constitutes "far right" for you. If it's none of the people above, I'm curious as to what it is.
2046 wrote:Not "whatever", but that which was necessary and prudent. The terrorists and their philosophical allies wish nothing less than the destruction of the United States, western civilization, and freedom itself. Obama's appeasement strategy is foolish and futile.
If after 6 years, 4,000 dead Americans and the failure to get Osama, not to mention the failure to produce something other than derelict WMDs from the Iran-Iraq War you still consider the Iraq War prudent, fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

But how exactly is the fresh offensive we launched in Afghanistan appeasement? Or are you mad because he won't just haul off and carpet-nuke Iran? Is an effort at diplomacy really so objectionable to you?
2046 wrote:Jones, Wright, Ayers, and the list goes on and on.
Joe Vogler was to give a speech to the UN on United States tyranny. The speech was to have been sponsored by Iran. Yes, THAT Iran.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031 ... 638.shtml/
Then there's that lunatic witch-doctor Thomas Muthee. I don't want someone with his tongue in their ear anywhere near the White House.
2046 wrote:Why are you still running against Bush?
Why did you not respond to the point?
2046 wrote:I think you need to stop editing my words when replying, is what I think.
Oh, gee, you're right. I switched "you don't think" for "don't you think." How insidious of me :)

As far as healthcare, I'm really not looking to get into an argument about that. I'm just awaiting the final decision. Obama said something a while ago that really gave me pause. "I will pass healthcare reform even if it makes me a one-term president." What was that line conservatives always use for Bush? "Doing the right thing, not the popular thing?"
2046 wrote:And that's the problem . . . tit for tat will be the end of all of us.
Probably, but I'm not backing down, and neither are you.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:10 pm

Cocytus wrote:....Will go to Rio de Janeiro.

Damn. I was sure hoping for Chicago, but congratulations to the first South American city to be the host.

And can someone explain to me why in the hell the right-wing is celebrating the U.S.'s loss? Isn't the Olympics a major source of revenue and jobs?
I think the bulk of us don't see not hosting the games at Chicago to be some great tragedy . Would we have liked to have done it? I think in most quarters yes but the same could be said for all the cities that were up for selection. As others have stated more eloquently, such as Mr. Oragahn, the monetary gain would have been limited at best and one could make the argument that it's better in our current mess not to waste credits on construction so I can see where budget minded people might be happy, that isn't happy that America lost but in their perspective gained the resources otherwise spent on what they might see as a waste.

Now we enjoy snickering at Obama's failure for (1) going there to argue his case, while other vastly more important matters demand his attention, which many of us feel is beneath the dignity of the office he holds and (2) for failing at it which only compounds the first issue and really makes the president look foolish. We all assumed that he wouldn't have went unless it was in the bag so to speak, just so what happened wouldn't happen, yet it seemed either Obama didn't foresee such a possibility, implying naivety, or he honestly believed his mere presence was enough to tilt everything to his advantage, implying hubris. The great thing about America is that we are allowed to make fun of our leaders for little cause, much less when they gift wrap it for you.

Also while I have little interest in entering 2046's and Cocytus triad I felt compelled to respond to this bit:
But how exactly is the fresh offensive we launched in Afghanistan appeasement? Or are you mad because he won't just haul off and carpet-nuke Iran? Is an effort at diplomacy really so objectionable to you?
A word of advice Cocytus. It is not conductive to an exchange of ideas to blatantly state that your opponent wants to render millions of people lifeless. 2046 has, to my knowledge, on this board never advocated anything beyond surgical strikes at nuclear facilities. That is hardly carpet bombing with nukes.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by 2046 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:19 pm

Cocytus wrote:Seriously? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Joe Wilson, etc. Those people are quiet? I hardly think so.
You have a remarkable tendency to take what I say and put it in a blender for your own purposes. I said the right generally keeps their village idiots quieter, in the context of extremist whackaloons. You then rattle off a list of people who you believe to be conservatives (save for Savage, who I do find alarming) and try to suggest I said they are quiet.

Exactly how does that respond to my statement? If you really think about it, do you realize you were wrong or will you insist you aren't when you clearly are?

I do not think this is merely an attempt at deceptive argumentation on your part, though readers would be forgiven for assuming so. I think this is symptomatic of your backwards philosophy. The facts are believed to be malleable by people of your political persuasion . . . all can be spun to support the emotion-based choices that are made.

And yet you wonder why I would call it a mental disorder.
2046 wrote:In case you haven't noticed, I view the far right and the far left with equal disdain, especially when they wrap themselves up in conspiracist whackaloonist thinking (e.g. 9/11 truthers).
If it's whackaloonist conspiracies were talking, Orly Taitz forged a fake Kenyan certificate. Twice.
I don't even know who that is, nor have I ever heard of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, both of which strongly suggest he's not even close to mainstream.

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find suitable whackaloons to support any "the other side is whackaloony!" thesis. The problem with the current administration and Democrat party is that the whackaloons are running the show. Seriously, you had Van Jones, a 9/11 Truther and communist that believes white people and corporations join forces to intentionally poisoned black communities as a higher-up in the administration, and he's just for starters.

Seriously, your whackaloons are all over the place . . . internet, media, White House. Right-wing whackaloons are generally quieter. They're survivalist anti-government nuts in the backwoods, or among the much smaller right-wing whackaloon internet population. If left-wing whackaloons would confine themselves to San Francisco all would be a lot quieter, because the twain would never meet.
But how exactly is the fresh offensive we launched in Afghanistan appeasement?
What fresh offensive? The surge that Obama talked about but now is reviewing while the generals call for more troops and Obama refuses?

And how does referring to Obama's appeasement doctrine translate directly to Afghanistan for you, which is a location where by the left's own claiming we have a "war" going on already? How do you appease in war but for failing to fight to win? Obama doesn't even want the word victory used.

Is it not enough that he appeases Russia, Iran, North Korea, and everyone else except our staunch allies?
Or are you mad because he won't just haul off and carpet-nuke Iran? Is an effort at diplomacy really so objectionable to you?
(sigh) . . . blow me, if you're gonna be stupid like that.
2046 wrote:Jones, Wright, Ayers, and the list goes on and on.
Joe Vogler was to give a speech to the UN on United States tyranny. The speech was to have been sponsored by Iran. Yes, THAT Iran.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031 ... 638.shtml/
You are now being completely retarded.

I talk about Obama's communist and America-hating associates, and you bring up some America-hating freak from Alaska who has no association to anyone? He wasn't even a Republican!

Oh wait, you're trying to suggest that his association to the AIP and the reputed Todd Palin association mean they're in bed together? Are you out of your mind to try something so tenuous? Even the media claims about Todd Palin don't have him involved until 1995, two years after your freak died.

I don't see any point in continuing after this post if all you are capable of doing is failing to respond to what I actually say while throwing up smokescreen horsecrap.

Then there's that lunatic witch-doctor Thomas Muthee. I don't want someone with his tongue in their ear anywhere near the White House.
You atrocious lying dirtbag! A guest preacher comes to Wasilla Alaska while Palin's running for governor in '05 and all the sudden you're claiming the guy is Palin's closest spiritual advisor? Have you never been to a church with a guest preacher from another continent? Good grief, man, I'm not a Christian and I've seen that happen personally.

And this you try to compare to Jeremiah Wright? Are you really so desperate? Obama sat in Wright's hate church for 20 years, having carefully selected that church by his own statements, and having associated with Wright by his own choices, but oh that's totally the same as a guy who did a couple of guest sermons.

You are a dishonest fool.
Probably, but I'm not backing down, and neither are you.
I don't have to. I've won. You've been resorting to dishonest tactics and straw men for multiple posts, and I'll have no more of it.

Now you're just being nothing more than a troll and a time vampire, and I have no intention of feeding you. Good day.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:28 pm

sonofccn wrote:Now we enjoy snickering at Obama's failure for (1) going there to argue his case, while other vastly more important matters demand his attention, which many of us feel is beneath the dignity of the office he holds and (2) for failing at it which only compounds the first issue and really makes the president look foolish. We all assumed that he wouldn't have went unless it was in the bag so to speak, just so what happened wouldn't happen, yet it seemed either Obama didn't foresee such a possibility, implying naivety, or he honestly believed his mere presence was enough to tilt everything to his advantage, implying hubris. The great thing about America is that we are allowed to make fun of our leaders for little cause, much less when they gift wrap it for you.
Or that he simply gave it his best shot, and he still lost. Going up against the fact that South America has never hosted the Olympics was hard, he had to know that. So he went himself to try and offset that, and he lost. I don't think making the sell in person is beneath the dignity of the President. Yes, he was taking time off from tending to domestic matters, but so has every President. Nobody can be on the ball 24/7.
sonofccn wrote:A word of advice Cocytus. It is not conductive to an exchange of ideas to blatantly state that your opponent wants to render millions of people lifeless. 2046 has, to my knowledge, on this board never advocated anything beyond surgical strikes at nuclear facilities. That is hardly carpet bombing with nukes.
Or to suggest that liberalism is a mental disorder which, amusingly, is the title of a Michael Savage book. They say dumb shit, I say dumb shit. It's hypocritical I grant, but hypocrisy is par for the course in politics.

But you bring up a point I'd like to address: if you advocate making what is clearly an act of war which could have serious consequences for the region, you're going to have to give us some proof. Not self-serving arguments about how "they could be doing this and that while we're debating." Not "people's lives are on the line, we can't be bothered with satisfying you." No. This time around, we get the proof first. Once we have definitive proof that they are developing nuclear weapons (since such development would be prima facie evidence of intent to distribute them) then by all means, make your strike. Suspicion alone is not proof. How you get it is up to you. Want to send spies? Go for it. Bribe the Russians? Have fun. Bribe the Chinese? Whatever works. I'd go for any of the above, as long as it isn't another Middle East quagmire.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:36 am

Cocytus wrote:Or that he simply gave it his best shot, and he still lost. Going up against the fact that South America has never hosted the Olympics was hard, he had to know that. So he went himself to try and offset that, and he lost.
A few things. (1) I'm slightly curious how he "knew" Rio, the only South American city up for selection IIRC, was in the lead. All I heard state side was that Chicago was a shoe in. (2) how does this alter that he's been made a fool of on the international scene before our friends and enemies? (3) how does this alter he risked losing face to the world, something I thought was important, on what was at best a gamble and therefore shows bad on his decision making ability?
I don't think making the sell in person is beneath the dignity of the President.
To each his own opinion.
Yes, he was taking time off from tending to domestic matters, but so has every President. Nobody can be on the ball 24/7.
Not just domestic. He's been punting off the decision on Afganistan for how long? To be blunt the world is circiling the drain and he believes it is in the nation's best interest to host the games over the other pressing matters.
Or to suggest that liberalism is a mental disorder which, amusingly, is the title of a Michael Savage book. They say dumb shit, I say dumb shit. It's hypocritical I grant, but hypocrisy is par for the course in politics.
Since you are not talking to Michael Savage, as far as I know, and considering that 2046 stated that he indeed found Savage a bit alarming hardly qualifies you to spout an inane line like that.
But you bring up a point I'd like to address: if you advocate making what is clearly an act of war which could have serious consequences for the region, you're going to have to give us some proof. Not self-serving arguments about how "they could be doing this and that while we're debating." Not "people's lives are on the line, we can't be bothered with satisfying you." No. This time around, we get the proof first. Once we have definitive proof that they are developing nuclear weapons (since such development would be prima facie evidence of intent to distribute them) then by all means, make your strike. Suspicion alone is not proof. How you get it is up to you. Want to send spies? Go for it. Bribe the Russians? Have fun. Bribe the Chinese? Whatever works. I'd go for any of the above, as long as it isn't another Middle East quagmire
I of course support any methods to obtain intel but am afraid we will never have concrete evidence, until it's too late of course. That is my opinion of course.

Post Reply