PDA

View Full Version : Obama falters on Olympic Bid


SamReeves
02-10-09, 16:04
Darn…you can't get everything that you want after all. :D The rock star, pardon, President Obama did not get Chicago selected for the Olympic games of 2016. I wonder how they will pay off the $48 million in expenses for promoting Chicago as an Olympic city? :whi: Read the story in the Wall Street Journal:

Chicago Eliminated in 2016 Olympics Bid; Rio, Madrid Remain (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125446379425258861.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es)

Phlip
02-10-09, 16:05
I wonder how they will pay off the $48 million in expenses for promoting Chicago as an Olympic city?
It had better not be taxes.

interstellardave
02-10-09, 16:11
And they brought in Oprah and everything, LOL! :cln:

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 16:14
It had better not be taxes.It's Obama - likelihood is it will be taxes.

SamReeves
02-10-09, 16:16
And they brought in Oprah and everything, LOL! :cln:

LOL!!! Oprah contrary to belief, does not control the world!!! :vlol: Such a shock…:p

It's Obama - likelihood is it will be taxes.

LOL, no he'll tell the federal reserve to print more money. :p

Mr.Burns
02-10-09, 16:17
Yea...in the end, he's not a star, he's a politician. Perhaps this was the IOA's way of telling him that.

Spong
02-10-09, 16:19
I wonder how they will pay off the $48 million in expenses for promoting Chicago as an Olympic city? :whi:

I don't really see what you have to "complain" about. You got off lightly if you ask me. We're hosting the damn thing in a few years time, I dread to think how much that'll cost. And for what? We'll put on a dismal Olympics, I have no doubt in that.

Phlip
02-10-09, 16:22
It's Obama - likelihood is it will be taxes.

That's totally unfair! :mad: It's not exactly need is it? :rolleyes:

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 16:25
LOL, no he'll tell the federal reserve to print more money. :pHaha, forgot about that! :vlol:

How long do you guys think it'll be before Obama replaces George Washington's picture with his own on the dollar bill? :pi:

I don't really see what you have to "complain" about. You got off lightly if you ask me. We're hosting the damn thing in a few years time, I dread to think how much that'll cost. And for what? We'll put on a dismal Olympics, I have no doubt in that.The problem is that a lot of people in this country have this kind of attitude. Of course we're not gonna put on a good performance if we think like that. Some people here are already writing off the Olympics three years before they've even be held. How silly. Does anybody have any respect for our country anymore?

SamReeves
02-10-09, 16:29
Haha, forgot about that! :vlol:

How long do you guys think it'll be before Obama replaces George Washington's picture with his own on the dollar bill? :pi:

It'll be more likely be the penny, since that's what we'll be left with at the end of the Obama administration. :p

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 16:29
$1 bills will become something only a richman will own after Obama's through with America. :tea:

voltz
02-10-09, 16:32
It'll be more likely be the penny, since that's what we'll be left with at the end of the Obama administration. :p

Not before someone from the last administration puts Bush on the dime. :p

Cochrane
02-10-09, 16:34
Haha, forgot about that! :vlol:

How long do you guys think it'll be before Obama replaces George Washington's picture with his own on the dollar bill? :pi:
About as long as it took Bush or Clinton.

The problem is that a lot of people in this country have this kind of attitude. Of course we're not gonna put on a good performance if we think like that. Some people here are already writing off the Olympics three years before they've even be held. How silly. Does anybody have any respect for our country anymore?
I have no idea what Olympics you will put on, but many things leading up to it (such as the logo. Oh my god, that logo) have already been less than stellar. Whether that's any indication is hard to tell, though, especially as I'm not going to watch any of it anyway, since I hate all sports. :D

$1 bills will become something only a richman will own after Obama's through with America. :tea:
Hyperinflation or extreme poverty? Do make up your mind about what sin you want Obama to commit. :D

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 16:37
I have no idea what Olympics you will put on, but many things leading up to it (such as the logo. Oh my god, that logo) have already been less than stellar. Whether that's any indication is hard to tell, though, especially as I'm not going to watch any of it anyway, since I hate all sports. :D


Hyperinflation or extreme poverty? Do make up your mind about what sin you want Obama to commit. :DI agree the logo sucked, but that certainly doesn't mean the games will. The only thing that's gonna stop us from putting on a good show is overly pessimistic people.

I don't want Obama to do any of those things, but he'll probably end up doing both. :p

scion05
02-10-09, 16:59
$1 bills will become something only a richman will own after Obama's through with America. :tea:

Either that or he could make America like Germany after the wall street crash... then they could sell loafs for $10,000,000 and it'd be like loose change. Awesome for paying off debts as the debts themselves never go up :D

:vlol:

snork
02-10-09, 18:00
Don't feed the troll.

Ward Dragon
02-10-09, 22:02
Rio got it :) I don't know too much about Rio, but I'm assuming it's a safer place than Chicago. I heard on the news recently about some honor student in Chicago getting beaten to death with a railroad tie by rival gangs fighting with each other :( There's such a high crime rate there that I don't think Chicago could handle safety and security for something like the Olympics.

Hyperinflation or extreme poverty? Do make up your mind about what sin you want Obama to commit. :D

Same result in the end, it's just a question of how he gets there :whi:

patriots88888
02-10-09, 22:18
Rio got it :) I don't know too much about Rio, but I'm assuming it's a safer place than Chicago. I heard on the news recently about some honor student in Chicago getting beaten to death with a railroad tie by rival gangs fighting with each other :( There's such a high crime rate there that I don't think Chicago could handle safety and security for something like the Olympics.

You're kidding, no? If Los Angeles was able to successfully handle security during the height of the Crips and Bloods gangwars of '84, I'm quite certain that Chicago could as well. ;)

Ward Dragon
02-10-09, 22:22
You're kidding, no? If Los Angeles was able to successfully handle security during the height of the Crips and Bloods gangwars of '84, I'm quite certain that Chicago could as well. ;)

Los Angeles wouldn't be a good choice either :whi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_Riots

patriots88888
02-10-09, 22:30
Los Angeles wouldn't be a good choice either :whi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_Riots

LA didn't host the Olympics in '92 dearie! :p You were saying Chicago wouldn't be a good choice to host them because of high crime rates and I just gave you a past example to debunk that thinking.

Either way it's a poor excuse to dismiss something that's still 6 -7 years down the road. Every city has crime and it's something which will always be present no matter where or when they decide to host the Games.

Ward Dragon
02-10-09, 22:35
LA didn't host the Olympics in '92 dearie! :p You were saying Chicago wouldn't be a good choice to host them because of high crime rates and I just gave you a past example to debunk that thinking.

Either way it's a poor excuse to dismiss something that's still 6 -7 years down the road. Every city has crime and it's something which will always be present no matter where or when they decide to host the Games.

I'm being facetious :p

Johnnay
02-10-09, 23:03
oh bleh:)

why at the last minute did he do this

arrrrrrrrrrrgh its Obama after all

anyways nice going with peoples taxes Obama.:mad:

Minty Mouth
02-10-09, 23:08
I just find the whole thing quite lol worthy to be honest.

I don't know how the city for the olympic games is usually decided, but I think Obama really expected to get his way here.

Lemmie
02-10-09, 23:23
Darn…you can't get everything that you want after all. :D The rock star, pardon, President Obama did not get Chicago selected for the Olympic games of 2016. I wonder how they will pay off the $48 million in expenses for promoting Chicago as an Olympic city? :whi: Read the story in the Wall Street Journal:

Chicago Eliminated in 2016 Olympics Bid; Rio, Madrid Remain (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125446379425258861.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es)

So what, are you happy that Chicago didn't get the Olympics? Or did you want Chicago to win the bid?

Honestly, I wouldn't have cared either way; though it's nice that a South American city is getting an opportunity to host the Olympics - though Madrid might have been nice as well. Tokyo has already had them once before, and the USA has hosted them several times - St Louis, Los Angeles (twice) and Atlanta - as well as four hostings of the Winter Olympics. Spain has also hosted them once before as well. So it seems fair that Brazil gets an opportunity.

patriots88888
02-10-09, 23:26
I just find the whole thing quite lol worthy to be honest.

I don't know how the city for the olympic games is usually decided, but I think Obama really expected to get his way here.

Not so sure about that. I think he was only doing what he thought should be expected of him. I imagine if he hadn't put any effort into it at all we'd have just as many, if not more, complaining that he isn't American and just some socialist beaurocrat who spits on the public as if they and their desires mean nothing to him. :rolleyes:

Lemmie
02-10-09, 23:27
Not so sure about that. I think he was only doing what he thought should be expected of him. I imagine if he hadn't put any effort into it at all we'd have just as many, if not more, complaining that he isn't American and just some socialist beaurocrat who spits on the public as if they and their desires mean nothing to him. :rolleyes:

I totally agree. It seems that Obama can't do anything right to some people.

Minty Mouth
02-10-09, 23:31
I totally agree. It seems that Obama can't do anything right to some people.

I hope this wasn't directed at me, because I really couldn't care less about Obama or American politics.

Beans-Bot
02-10-09, 23:32
As much as I seem to fawn over Obama half the time, I admit this was rather stupid on his part. But again, I'm sure that the other eliminated candidates also spent gross ammounts of tax-payer money to no fruition, so I think it's a bit unfair to single Obama out. I just think the whole idea is ridiculous and stupid. :o

I hope this wasn't directed at me, because I really couldn't care less about Obama or American politics.

Oh yes. You reminded me. While we're on the subject of stupid a ridiculous things. *glares at certain mouthy people*

Lemmie
02-10-09, 23:39
I hope this wasn't directed at me, because I really couldn't care less about Obama or American politics.

No, not directed at you. I can't tell much about your familiarity with the subject from the comment you made. All you said that the whole situation was lol-worthy - that doesn't tell me much to agree or disagree with, apart from whether the situation is lol-worthy. Oh, or that Obama expected to get his way - but that's an entirely conceivable possibility. :p

It is directed at those who always disagree with Obama whatever he does, and then accuse people who support him of socialism/facism/any other kind of -ism that they can think of.

Kittypower
02-10-09, 23:40
Im happy its not in chicago, i think its a dump. Maybe somewhere cleaner, i dont get why they dont just have the olympics in copenhagen.

LaraLuvrrr
02-10-09, 23:55
Wah Wahhhh

lol

my sister lives in Chicago... she must be disappointed. But goes to show Obama cant get everything he wants

Draco
03-10-09, 03:36
His participation was probably the main reason Chicago didn't make the pick.

larafan25
03-10-09, 03:57
whats with all the Obama hate, did I miss something big?:O

amiro1989
03-10-09, 04:14
Huh... I guess congratulations Rio. :)

wantafanta
03-10-09, 04:27
His participation was probably the main reason Chicago didn't make the pick.

WRONG WRONG WRONG
The rest of the world LOVES Obama. Remember his trip to Europe just one year ago?
Now, I'm not going to kid myself for one minute and believe that anybody who could vote for George W. Bush would like Obama. It's pretty obvious here that Obama could find the cure for cancer and you guys would still hate him. I don't care.

The title of this thread is "Obama falters..." It has nothing to do with Obama. The world hates the US. And why do you suppose that is? What do you expect when we had a president whose party mocked and despised the UN for 8 years? Which president sent milions of refugees fleeing Iraq for Syria to live in poverty? Do you really think you can tell the rest of the world to kiss off for 8 years, and then they'll give you the Olympics? LOL!

Obama has been in office for 8 months. Not even Superman, Batman and Jesus combined could clean up the mess that Bush left this country - and the world - in. It is like a wild party of teenagers took over the house and trashed it and now the parents come home to find the carpet wrecked and the plumbing backed up and the car stolen.

LaraLuvrrr
03-10-09, 04:42
WRONG WRONG WRONG
The rest of the world LOVES Obama. Remember his trip to Europe just one year ago?
Now, I'm not going to kid myself for one minute and believe that anybody who could vote for George W. Bush would like Obama. It's pretty obvious here that Obama could find the cure for cancer and you guys would still hate him. I don't care.

The title of this thread is "Obama falters..." It has nothing to do with Obama. The world hates the US. And why do you suppose that is? What do you expect when we had a president whose party mocked and despised the UN for 8 years? Which president sent milions of refugees fleeing Iraq for Syria to live in poverty? Do you really think you can tell the rest of the world to kiss off for 8 years, and then they'll give you the Olympics? LOL!

Obama has been in office for 8 months. Not even Superman, Batman and Jesus combined could clean up the mess that Bush left this country - and the world - in. It is like a wild party of teenagers took over the house and trashed it and now the parents come home to find the carpet wrecked and the plumbing backed up and the car stolen.

Well... idk... I guess I somewhat bash on Obama cuz I'm impatient and annoyed with how politics doesn't go anywhere. I don't really care what he does anymore I just want something done! It seems like everything is just him vs. the congress or w/e

just to get back on topic I think Rio will be much funner than Chicago for the Olympics :D I can't wait to see the opening shows they do

Draco
03-10-09, 04:59
WRONG WRONG WRONG
The rest of the world LOVES Obama. Remember his trip to Europe just one year ago?
Now, I'm not going to kid myself for one minute and believe that anybody who could vote for George W. Bush would like Obama. It's pretty obvious here that Obama could find the cure for cancer and you guys would still hate him. I don't care.

I'm not going to bother crediting you with an overabundance of intellectual capacity, but even you should see favoritism as a potential problem. Can you imagine what people would say if Chicago had been picked?

The title of this thread is "Obama falters..." It has nothing to do with Obama. The world hates the US. And why do you suppose that is? What do you expect when we had a president whose party mocked and despised the UN for 8 years? Which president sent milions of refugees fleeing Iraq for Syria to live in poverty? Do you really think you can tell the rest of the world to kiss off for 8 years, and then they'll give you the Olympics? LOL!

I'm pretty sure where the Olympics does or does not take place is appropriately not entirely placed on the opinions of the the loudest of the public. I mean, do you honestly think China is more well liked worldwide than the US?

Obama has been in office for 8 months. Not even Superman, Batman and Jesus combined could clean up the mess that Bush left this country - and the world - in. It is like a wild party of teenagers took over the house and trashed it and now the parents come home to find the carpet wrecked and the plumbing backed up and the car stolen.

The best ways to fix the country are very simple by comparison to the historical methods.

Andariel
03-10-09, 06:51
Why are people in the Republican Party celebrating Chicago losing? Are you for your party or the American people who are struggling and in need of jobs? If Chicago won then they'd benefit by getting jobs. Well, I think this celebration is unpatriotic and despicable.

Johnnay
03-10-09, 08:37
His participation was probably the main reason Chicago didn't make the pick.
LMAO. that made me giggle

I hope this wasn't directed at me, because I really couldn't care less about Obama or American politics.

seconded

not many ppl care about American politics anyway

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 10:15
So what, are you happy that Chicago didn't get the Olympics? Or did you want Chicago to win the bid?

Honestly, I wouldn't have cared either way; though it's nice that a South American city is getting an opportunity to host the Olympics - though Madrid might have been nice as well. Tokyo has already had them once before, and the USA has hosted them several times - St Louis, Los Angeles (twice) and Atlanta - as well as four hostings of the Winter Olympics. Spain has also hosted them once before as well. So it seems fair that Brazil gets an opportunity.I don't really care how many times a country has hosted the games before. I'd rather a city be picked because it was the best than because "it would seem fair". If Brazil was picked because the IOC thought it was the best city to host it then it's all good. :)

I totally agree. It seems that Obama can't do anything right to some people.Same with Bush. Works both ways.

WRONG WRONG WRONG
The rest of the world LOVES Obama. Remember his trip to Europe just one year ago?
Now, I'm not going to kid myself for one minute and believe that anybody who could vote for George W. Bush would like Obama. It's pretty obvious here that Obama could find the cure for cancer and you guys would still hate him. I don't care.

The title of this thread is "Obama falters..." It has nothing to do with Obama. The world hates the US. And why do you suppose that is? What do you expect when we had a president whose party mocked and despised the UN for 8 years? Which president sent milions of refugees fleeing Iraq for Syria to live in poverty? Do you really think you can tell the rest of the world to kiss off for 8 years, and then they'll give you the Olympics? LOL!

Obama has been in office for 8 months. Not even Superman, Batman and Jesus combined could clean up the mess that Bush left this country - and the world - in. It is like a wild party of teenagers took over the house and trashed it and now the parents come home to find the carpet wrecked and the plumbing backed up and the car stolen.I lol'ed at all of this.

Why are people in the Republican Party celebrating Chicago losing? Are you for your party or the American people who are struggling and in need of jobs? If Chicago won then they'd benefit by getting jobs. Well, I think this celebration is unpatriotic and despicable.Who's celebrating?

Lemmie
03-10-09, 10:59
I don't really care how many times a country has hosted the games before. I'd rather a city be picked because it was the best than because "it would seem fair". If Brazil was picked because the IOC thought it was the best city to host it then it's all good. :)

Of course. And I think Rio probably did win because it presented a very good bid. It's just nice to see a change of scene, is all I'm saying.

Same with Bush. Works both ways.

But while I disagreed with Bush pretty much throughout his presidency, I blame Cheney far more. And I for one have never called Bush a facist or an autocrat.

Minty Mouth
03-10-09, 11:19
Oh yes. You reminded me. While we're on the subject of stupid a ridiculous things. *glares at certain mouthy people*
*is confused*
No, not directed at you. I can't tell much about your familiarity with the subject from the comment you made. All you said that the whole situation was lol-worthy - that doesn't tell me much to agree or disagree with, apart from whether the situation is lol-worthy. Oh, or that Obama expected to get his way - but that's an entirely conceivable possibility. :p

It is directed at those who always disagree with Obama whatever he does, and then accuse people who support him of socialism/facism/any other kind of -ism that they can think of.

Okay :p Well, I did kind of find it lol-worthy :D All that money and Oprah, and then nothing.

Do countries usually request to get the Olympics in that way? (I really don't know, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything)

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 11:53
But while I disagreed with Bush pretty much throughout his presidency, I blame Cheney far more. And I for one have never called Bush a facist or an autocrat.I was just referring to people in general, not you.

Cochrane
03-10-09, 11:57
Same with Bush. Works both ways.
You're right, but that does not make it a valid argument to begin with.

I lol'ed at all of this.
Some parts of it are true. If you exclude the final paragraph (which I don't disagree with, but which is most obviously personal opinion), then I'd say all of it is true.

Who's celebrating?
Sam Reeves and you for example.

Of course, if you're not actually celebrating, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You both just seemed a lot as if you were.

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 12:00
Sam Reeves and you for example.

Of course, if you're not actually celebrating, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You both just seemed a lot as if you were.We weren't celebrating, quite the opposite in fact. We're moaning because all that money spent on promoting Chicago was a complete waste.

Cochrane
03-10-09, 12:15
We weren't celebrating, quite the opposite in fact. We're moaning because all that money spent on promoting Chicago was a complete waste.

Maybe you were, but things like
Darn…you can't get everything that you want after all. :D The rock star, pardon, President Obama did not get Chicago selected for the Olympic games of 2016.
do sound as if there was some glee over what is perceived as Obama's failure.

To illustrate the point, what would you think about the following fictional quote?:
Darn…you can't get everything that you want after all. :D The rock star, pardon, President Bush did not get Chicago selected for the Olympic games of 2008.

snork
03-10-09, 12:28
Do countries usually request to get the Olympics in that way? (I really don't know, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything)
More or less yes.
It differs if the city / it's state or some federal oraganisation pays the bill, but it is always ridiculously expensive, most of the money get's wasted for bribings and the like.

It is hard to come up with anything more corrupt than international sports organisations. :(

And for Chicago : that would have usually been a job for a former president, widely accepted in the world. Reagan is disfunct and Jimmy Carter - does he have any connection with Chicago ? Don't know why they did not go for Clinton, is he seen as disgraced in the US ?

Of course Bush would not have been a good choice, he also has no connection to Chicago I think, and he is too freshly out of office. Leave alone noone wants to see him around anyways, he might faint at the banquet or show randomly inappropriate behaviour anytime. :D

Muhammed Ali would have been the best choice ever as representative if he was still able to do that.

But yes, for all the cities and their states it has cost a lot of money, they all recruited as worldwide popular as possible sportsters, singers and politicians (usually retired / out of office ones) to present them everywhere.
Almost always when some city starts to think applying for Olympics etc. there is big discussion in the first place, because of the money and because an epic failure might damage the image of the city / region and lots of people fear the massive changes to the city it might bring.
Look at the massive people displacement and wrecking whole (historical) quarters in Beijing. Always the same. I bet we will be having the same in Rio.

patriots88888
03-10-09, 12:48
Maybe you were, but things like

do sound as if there was some glee over what is perceived as Obama's failure.

To illustrate the point, what would you think about the following fictional quote?: Originally Posted by Cochrane
Darn…you can't get everything that you want after all. The rock star, pardon, President Bush did not get Chicago selected for the Olympic games of 2008.

It's just the way it works with certain members on this forum. It's a microcosm of politics itself. They twist things around to fit their needs any way they see fit in order to make some grandiose statement as if it's some sort of divine revelation. For whatever reason, they feel the need to crusade against those who disagreed with the former President and his decision making by doing the exact same with the present one. You know, the two wrongs make a right kinda thinking.

There's an old saying that says if you're not a part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Really, they have no one to blame but themselves for the way things are. Much more convenient and easy to just jump aboard the bash wagon these days.

Minty Mouth
03-10-09, 13:20
More or less yes.
It differs if the city / it's state or some federal oraganisation pays the bill, but it is always ridiculously expensive, most of the money get's wasted for bribings and the like.

It is hard to come up with anything more corrupt than international sports organisations. :(

And for Chicago : that would have usually been a job for a former president, widely accepted in the world. Reagan is disfunct and Jimmy Carter - does he have any connection with Chicago ? Don't know why they did not go for Clinton, is he seen as disgraced in the US ?

Of course Bush would not have been a good choice, he also has no connection to Chicago I think, and he is too freshly out of office. Leave alone noone wants to see him around anyways, he might faint at the banquet or show randomly inappropriate behaviour anytime. :D

Muhammed Ali would have been the best choice ever as representative if he was still able to do that.

But yes, for all the cities and their states it has cost a lot of money, they all recruited as worldwide popular as possible sportsters, singers and politicians (usually retired / out of office ones) to present them everywhere.
Almost always when some city starts to think applying for Olympics etc. there is big discussion in the first place, because of the money and because an epic failure might damage the image of the city / region and lots of people fear the massive changes to the city it might bring.
Look at the massive people displacement and wrecking whole (historical) quarters in Beijing. Always the same. I bet we will be having the same in Rio.
Thanks

Really, are there any positives to having the Olympics in your city? It just seems like a big money sink.

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 13:26
Maybe you were, but things like

do sound as if there was some glee over what is perceived as Obama's failure.

To illustrate the point, what would you think about the following fictional quote?:I think it was more of a mockery of Obama than taking joy at Chicago losing out on hosting the games.

It's just the way it works with certain members on this forum. It's a microcosm of politics itself. They twist things around to fit their needs any way they see fit in order to make some grandiose statement as if it's some sort of divine revelation. For whatever reason, they feel the need to crusade against those who disagreed with the former President and his decision making by doing the exact same with the present one. You know, the two wrongs make a right kinda thinking.

There's an old saying that says if you're not a part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Really, they have no one to blame but themselves for the way things are. Much more convenient and easy to just jump aboard the bash wagon these days.Couldn't be further from the truth.

patriots88888
03-10-09, 13:35
Couldn't be further from the truth.

Facts are facts whether you agree, disagree, like them or not. And the reply wasn't directed at any specific member, so unless you have a guilty conscience or are now on a crusade to defend those I pointed out in my previous post, I see no need for your reply.

snork
03-10-09, 13:43
of course.

Money is coming back from tourism etc.
They usually always say it brought more money than it cost, I do not always believe it.

Money is not all lost, they have new sport facilities, hotels, roads, subways, olympic village, press centre, etc.
(lots of jobs in construction)

Most of it can be reused for international conferences or other giant sports events, some for housing or university.

And they have a lot of mentioning / free advertisement in the news etc. for "free".

For example Barcelona, lying on the coast of the mediterranean sea - the sea was blocked for the citizens. All Barcelona coastline /waterside was blocked by harbour, storage, toll/ customs, military and whatnot. ridiculous.
The restructuring of Barcelona was very controversial, and maybe it could have been done better, but now among other gains they have an accessible waterside. (vocabulary).

Always depends on what is regarded of as "positive". All in all I think it can be a pretty good thing to have the Olympics.

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 13:58
Facts are facts whether you agree, disagree, like them or not. And the reply wasn't directed at any specific member, so unless you have a guilty conscience or are now on a crusade to defend those I pointed out in my previous post, I see no need for your reply.Nope, I don't have a guilty conscience, although it certainly looked as if you were just referring to anybody who has a favorable view of the previous president but an unfavorable view on the current one.

patriots88888
03-10-09, 14:15
Nope, I don't have a guilty conscience, although it certainly looked as if you were just referring to anybody who has a favorable view of the previous president but an unfavorable view on the current one.

We could dance around this and go around and around in circles all day, but the obvious truth is that there's certainly those on this forum who get great pleasure from seeing the current President's shortcomings which is backwards thinking and anything but constructive. It only goes to show why this country is in the sorry state that it currently is in.

SamReeves
03-10-09, 15:41
Sorry to disagree Todd, but the guy's an ego driven maniac. You can't color it any other way. So yes I do like the ridicule when Obama doesn't get his way, because I hope it teaches him some humility. So far I just haven't seen him as a humble man at all.

patriots88888
03-10-09, 16:57
Myea, I know. Just don't really see the point in it all I guess. No doubt everyone's entitled to an opinion and to state it. That is something I'll defend forever, just not always sure what the intentions of said opinions are, that's all.

Ward Dragon
04-10-09, 01:58
MSN has a funny article about the argument of whether or not to host the Olympics in Chicago :p

http://slate.com/id/2231173/?GT1=38001

Minty Mouth
04-10-09, 01:59
of course.

Money is coming back from tourism etc.
They usually always say it brought more money than it cost, I do not always believe it.

Money is not all lost, they have new sport facilities, hotels, roads, subways, olympic village, press centre, etc.
(lots of jobs in construction)

Most of it can be reused for international conferences or other giant sports events, some for housing or university.

And they have a lot of mentioning / free advertisement in the news etc. for "free".

For example Barcelona, lying on the coast of the mediterranean sea - the sea was blocked for the citizens. All Barcelona coastline /waterside was blocked by harbour, storage, toll/ customs, military and whatnot. ridiculous.
The restructuring of Barcelona was very controversial, and maybe it could have been done better, but now among other gains they have an accessible waterside. (vocabulary).

Always depends on what is regarded of as "positive". All in all I think it can be a pretty good thing to have the Olympics.
Of course, I wasnt thinking straight. Thank you :)

takamotosan
04-10-09, 02:54
Mmm, so, we went from a dumb**** to... OH LOOK! Another dumb****. Great.

Immortalis08
04-10-09, 04:58
MSN has a funny article about the argument of whether or not to host the Olympics in Chicago :p

http://slate.com/id/2231173/?GT1=38001

Inescapable advertising!!! :vlol: That couldn't be more right! Ugh I hated riding public transportation here because you were forced to hear the Chicago Olympic ads on the CTA bus at least once! It looked like the city was trying too hard and all the passengers were irked as well.

Trinity34
05-10-09, 00:17
Oprah should have bought them all cars and then Chicago would have had the Olympics! :p

voltz
05-10-09, 00:23
Oprah should have bought them all cars and then Chicago would have had the Olympics! :p

That's too good of a deal for them.

Trinity34
05-10-09, 00:54
Well if cars are good enough for her audience then they should be good enough for the Olympic Committee.

SpaceChild
05-10-09, 02:14
WRONG WRONG WRONG
The rest of the world LOVES Obama... It's pretty obvious here that Obama could find the cure for cancer and you guys would still hate him. I don't care...

The title of this thread is "Obama falters..." It has nothing to do with Obama. The world hates the US. And why do you suppose that is?...


Whoa. "The world loves Obama," backed with "The world hates the US."

Umm, maybe I'm gonna be raining on your parade here, but this is like basic arithmetic, like: a + b = x ; solve for x...

If your definition of "the world" is limited to the tunnel-vision of leftwing ideology, then I suppose your pair of comical assumptions would seem true. The more likely answer is a simple qualification:

If your ideology is vestigial collectivism, then "the world loves Obama and hates the US."

Put another way, the vestigial leftists of the world love Obama (because he too is a goose-stepping collectivist,) and hate America because it is individualist to its core, despite Obama and his cult. The rest of the world have...grown up.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but the facts do not support your love/hate presumptions. So tell us: how many people of "the world" have you, personally, talked to about Obama and about America?

I had a discussion in 1998 with a shopkeeper in Paris about then-President Clinton's decision to do a military strike on Hussein's Iraq because Hussein had just blown off another WMD inspection deadline (shock of shocks: it wasn't just Bush who knew Hussein needed to be taken out.) The shopkeeper - in France, not a country widely known for supporting America - was enthusiastically in favor of the US and in favor of Clinton's military strike.

Just ten months ago I had a lengthy conversation with a shopkeeper in Bangkok about the then-recent American election, about Obama and about America in general. I was stunned to hear his take on the election [paraphrased]: "With Bush, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew he truly believed what he said; With Obama, he says only what he thinks people want to hear." On a couple different occasions while walking down random Bangkok streets, I actually had people come up and ask me, all excitedly, "Are you American?" and proceed to ask me about life in America, then about how I liked being in their country.

In short, if "the world hates America," then those haters are just damned scarce in my experience, or maybe they're just hiding? There are far more America-haters situated in...America itself, unfortunately - generally as a result of the leftwing Baby-Boomer creeps currently in charge of American education.

Bottom Line: Obama just got *****-slapped while trying to bring home bacon for his home town - while a deadly-serious conflict in Afghanistan, which is awaiting his decision, got dumped onto a back burner.

The man is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Not a good thing for what remains of the semi-free world, no matter how you look at it. We need someone with a functioning brain in the White House, and unfortunately haven't had one since 1988...

-> Janice Rogers Brown (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm) - George Reisman (http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=143)2012! <-

patriots88888
05-10-09, 03:09
Whoa. "The world loves Obama," backed with "The world hates the US."

Umm, maybe I'm gonna be raining on your parade here, but this is like basic arithmetic, like: a + b = x ; solve for x...

If your definition of "the world" is limited to the tunnel-vision of leftwing ideology, then I suppose your pair of comical assumptions would seem true. The more likely answer is a simple qualification:

If your ideology is vestigial collectivism, then "the world loves Obama and hates the US."

Put another way, the vestigial leftists of the world love Obama (because he too is a goose-stepping collectivist,) and hate America because it is individualist to its core, despite Obama and his cult. The rest of the world have...grown up.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but the facts do not support your love/hate presumptions. So tell us: how many people of "the world" have you, personally, talked to about Obama and about America?

I had a discussion in 1998 with a shopkeeper in Paris about then-President Clinton's decision to do a military strike on Hussein's Iraq because Hussein had just blown off another WMD inspection deadline (shock of shocks: it wasn't just Bush who knew Hussein needed to be taken out.) The shopkeeper - in France, not a country widely known for supporting America - was enthusiastically in favor of the US and in favor of Clinton's military strike.

Just ten months ago I had a lengthy conversation with a shopkeeper in Bangkok about the then-recent American election, about Obama and about America in general. I was stunned to hear his take on the election [paraphrased]: "With Bush, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew he truly believed what he said; With Obama, he says only what he thinks people want to hear." On a couple different occasions while walking down random Bangkok streets, I actually had people come up and ask me, all excitedly, "Are you American?" and proceed to ask me about life in America, then about how I liked being in their country.

In short, if "the world hates America," then those haters are just damned scarce in my experience, or maybe they're just hiding? There are far more America-haters situated in...America itself, unfortunately - generally as a result of the leftwing Baby-Boomer creeps currently in charge of American education.

Bottom Line: Obama just got *****-slapped while trying to bring home bacon for his home town - while a deadly-serious conflict in Afghanistan, which is awaiting his decision, got dumped onto a back burner.

The man is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Not a good thing for what remains of the semi-free world, no matter how you look at it. We need someone with a functioning brain in the White House, and unfortunately haven't had one since 1988...

-> Janice Rogers Brown (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm) - George Reisman (http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=143)2012! <-

A bit too dramatic and exaggerated for my liking...

Any more people on your list that you've personally talked to? because I wasn't aware that the world's population consists only of a shopkeeper in Paris, a shopkeeper in Bangkok, and a few others in that country walking casually down the street. Maybe you could go to Iran or N. Korea and ask some shopkeepers there what their personal views of America and its lifestyle is.

...and nice segway into your advertisement for your personal, political choices for the next major election. I'm sure they appreciate the free advertising. ;)

Solice
05-10-09, 04:41
I live in the Chicago area. I am soooo glad Chicago will not host. If you live in any large metro area, you know what the slightest bit of construction does to traffic. And the Olympic venues would be years in the making.

As far as Prez O is concerned, I don’t even think it was appropriate for him to go. He represents the entire country, not just Chicago anymore.

SpaceChild
06-10-09, 07:27
A bit too dramatic and exaggerated for my liking...

Any more people on your list that you've personally talked to? because I wasn't aware that the world's population consists only of a shopkeeper in Paris, a shopkeeper in Bangkok, and a few others in that country walking casually down the street. Maybe you could go to Iran or N. Korea and ask some shopkeepers there what their personal views of America and its lifestyle is.

...and nice segway into your advertisement for your personal, political choices for the next major election. I'm sure they appreciate the free advertising. ;)

*sigh*

This... ^... is what's known in logic as the Straw Man fallacy. 'Cause try as I might, I'm just not finding anywhere in anything that I've written here where I indicate that "the world's population consists only of a shopkeeper in Paris," etc. Nice diversion though.

To recap: Wantafanta (who's since disappeared,) made the stunning pronouncements that "The rest of the world LOVES Obama" and "The world hates the US"; I offered two quick rebuttal examples from two countries on opposite sides of the planet. Two more than Wantafanta's - and your - zeros, at any rate. So go find a dictionary, and have a look at the entry for: "example."

To play along with your logical fallacy, can we assume from your post that the only valid refutation of WF's pronouncements would be to take a direct poll of 100% of the world's population?

As another logical point, the burden of proof always lies with he who asserts a positive proposition - or two of them, in wantafanta's case - and there is no logical obligation for his opposition to attempt to "prove" a negative. Which means neither I nor anybody else here even needs to bother rebutting his breathless claims. But I did anyway.

And...'last time I checked, Judges and economists weren't what you'd call "advertising" entities, so your Poisoning the Well ad hominem falls a little flat too.

So now that we've straightened out your evasive maneuvers, can you present a single valid argument for your point that isn't some form of logical fallacy? Or maybe just...identify some sort of point to begin with? 'Cause it's not real clear from this end.


[Psssst - "Segway" is a nifty two-wheeled gyroscopic go-kart. "Segue."]
;)

Ward Dragon
06-10-09, 22:19
Just ten months ago I had a lengthy conversation with a shopkeeper in Bangkok about the then-recent American election, about Obama and about America in general. I was stunned to hear his take on the election [paraphrased]: "With Bush, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew he truly believed what he said; With Obama, he says only what he thinks people want to hear."

Smart shopkeeper. I hated a lot of Bush's policies, but at least I knew he believed he was trying to do what was best for the country. Obama's totally out for himself and I don't think he believes a word that he says. He changes his message depending upon who his audience is, and I don't see him giving up his $400,000 a year presidential paycheck to help the poor, much less giving up his insanely good medical coverage in favor of his "public option." I'll sign on to his healthcare plan when I get the same coverage he gets.

Cochrane
06-10-09, 22:43
Whoa. "The world loves Obama," backed with "The world hates the US."

Umm, maybe I'm gonna be raining on your parade here, but this is like basic arithmetic, like: a + b = x ; solve for x...

If your definition of "the world" is limited to the tunnel-vision of leftwing ideology, then I suppose your pair of comical assumptions would seem true. The more likely answer is a simple qualification:

If your ideology is vestigial collectivism, then "the world loves Obama and hates the US."

Put another way, the vestigial leftists of the world love Obama (because he too is a goose-stepping collectivist,) and hate America because it is individualist to its core, despite Obama and his cult. The rest of the world have...grown up.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but the facts do not support your love/hate presumptions. So tell us: how many people of "the world" have you, personally, talked to about Obama and about America?

I had a discussion in 1998 with a shopkeeper in Paris about then-President Clinton's decision to do a military strike on Hussein's Iraq because Hussein had just blown off another WMD inspection deadline (shock of shocks: it wasn't just Bush who knew Hussein needed to be taken out.) The shopkeeper - in France, not a country widely known for supporting America - was enthusiastically in favor of the US and in favor of Clinton's military strike.

Just ten months ago I had a lengthy conversation with a shopkeeper in Bangkok about the then-recent American election, about Obama and about America in general. I was stunned to hear his take on the election [paraphrased]: "With Bush, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew he truly believed what he said; With Obama, he says only what he thinks people want to hear." On a couple different occasions while walking down random Bangkok streets, I actually had people come up and ask me, all excitedly, "Are you American?" and proceed to ask me about life in America, then about how I liked being in their country.

In short, if "the world hates America," then those haters are just damned scarce in my experience, or maybe they're just hiding? There are far more America-haters situated in...America itself, unfortunately - generally as a result of the leftwing Baby-Boomer creeps currently in charge of American education.

Bottom Line: Obama just got *****-slapped while trying to bring home bacon for his home town - while a deadly-serious conflict in Afghanistan, which is awaiting his decision, got dumped onto a back burner.

The man is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Not a good thing for what remains of the semi-free world, no matter how you look at it. We need someone with a functioning brain in the White House, and unfortunately haven't had one since 1988...

-> Janice Rogers Brown (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm) - George Reisman (http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=143)2012! <-

You're over-simplifying the matter a little here, it seems. As a foreigner (from the point of view of an US citizen), I may be closer to being an expert here (:D), so let me sum up my experiences shortly:

The US is an immensely important country for most of the world, with huge economic and cultural impacts. Generally speaking, most people I know like the US in general and its ideas of freedom for everyone. The "American Way" has become an important part of people's culture all around the world.

The more specific it gets, though, the more interesting it becomes. Lately, the US have also become synonymous in some circles with lack of education, obesity, gun obsession and the like — although nobody applies to all americans.

Politically speaking, most people in Europe oppose the war in Iraq, and hence George Bush and his politics. Human rights violations have not helped the image of the US government any either, and it's important to mention that the general mistrust the US shows foreigners (for example when entering the country even just as a tourist) is not making it any more popular. Obama, with his views on Iraq, but also on things like health care, fits much more closely with european main-stream views (which tend to be more liberal than american ones) than Bush.

Oh, and on a more personal note:
Put another way, the vestigial leftists of the world love Obama (because he too is a goose-stepping collectivist,) and hate America because it is individualist to its core, despite Obama and his cult. The rest of the world have...grown up.
Come on. I know you don't like Obama or caring for other people, but your distinction here lacks nuance and reality. Most of the world (in particular outside the US) is clearly to the left of where you stand, and whether you like that or not, denying it to this degree will only make your statement about growing up seem ironic.

patriots88888
06-10-09, 23:15
*sigh*

This... ^... is what's known in logic as the Straw Man fallacy. 'Cause try as I might, I'm just not finding anywhere in anything that I've written here where I indicate that "the world's population consists only of a shopkeeper in Paris," etc. Nice diversion though.

To recap: Wantafanta (who's since disappeared,) made the stunning pronouncements that "The rest of the world LOVES Obama" and "The world hates the US"; I offered two quick rebuttal examples from two countries on opposite sides of the planet. Two more than Wantafanta's - and your - zeros, at any rate. So go find a dictionary, and have a look at the entry for: "example."

To play along with your logical fallacy, can we assume from your post that the only valid refutation of WF's pronouncements would be to take a direct poll of 100% of the world's population?

As another logical point, the burden of proof always lies with he who asserts a positive proposition - or two of them, in wantafanta's case - and there is no logical obligation for his opposition to attempt to "prove" a negative. Which means neither I nor anybody else here even needs to bother rebutting his breathless claims. But I did anyway.

And...'last time I checked, Judges and economists weren't what you'd call "advertising" entities, so your Poisoning the Well ad hominem falls a little flat too.

So now that we've straightened out your evasive maneuvers, can you present a single valid argument for your point that isn't some form of logical fallacy? Or maybe just...identify some sort of point to begin with? 'Cause it's not real clear from this end.


[Psssst - "Segway" is a nifty two-wheeled gyroscopic go-kart. "Segue."]
;)

Much more of the same from you. More dramatics and semantics. I wouldn't expect anything less for that matter.

When considering the context of 'the worlds population', I would expect much more than just a few 'examples' as you put it to show a counter argument to WF's claims, but that's not all. Did it ever occur to you that, as shopkeepers, these people you had these legnthy? conversations with, might just be 'selling' their BS to you to gain favor for their own advantage? Maybe they were being truthful and I'm just a little skeptical but at any rate, believe what you want. That's usually the way it works. People will always believe what they want to hear!

To add further, I actually agree with you that exaggerated pronouncements such as WF made are much too extreme to be taken literally, but your counter points were nothing more than that as well; extreme and exaggerated. ;)

It's fairly common knowledge that the US has indeed fallen out of favor from many outside its borders. All you have to do is hit the TV clicker or read your local newspaper to see substantial evidence of that. I'm assuming that's what WF was actually meaning in his post and his use of the word 'HATE' was more than presumptuous and hastily considered.

As for your last point, two words: Since when? :vlol: It is after all, when you get right down to it, the 'meat and potatoes' of your lengthy, long winded post. Someone of your obvious intelligence should know better. ;)

LaraLuvrrr
06-10-09, 23:21
I'll poke any ninny that dares to come through :pi:

SamReeves
07-10-09, 01:09
Smart shopkeeper. I hated a lot of Bush's policies, but at least I knew he believed he was trying to do what was best for the country. Obama's totally out for himself and I don't think he believes a word that he says. He changes his message depending upon who his audience is, and I don't see him giving up his $400,000 a year presidential paycheck to help the poor, much less giving up his insanely good medical coverage in favor of his "public option." I'll sign on to his healthcare plan when I get the same coverage he gets.

LOL, Michelle and BO make a lot more than $400K when you count the dough under the table from the unions, George Sorros, etc. When you have enough screw you money, you can be as smug as you want. Obama has no humility, and nor does he have to worry about answering for his brand of socialism. Obama has never gone into business himself, which I think should be a Presidential requirement. He thinks his rock star status is going to stay with him all through his political life. I think he will be sadly mistaken by the end of his first term.

miss.haggard
07-10-09, 01:29
The rock star, pardon, President Obama...

:vlol: :tmb:

SpaceChild
07-10-09, 02:54
Much more of the same from you. More dramatics and semantics. I wouldn't expect anything less for that matter.

When considering the context of 'the worlds population', I would expect much more than just a few 'examples' as you put it to show a counter argument to WF's claims, but that's not all. Did it ever occur to you that, as shopkeepers, these people you had these legnthy? conversations with, might just be 'selling' their BS to you to gain favor for their own advantage? Maybe they were being truthful and I'm just a little skeptical but at any rate, believe what you want. That's usually the way it works. People will always believe what they want to hear!

To add further, I actually agree with you that exaggerated pronouncements such as WF made are much too extreme to be taken literally, but your counter points were nothing more than that as well; extreme and exaggerated. ;)

It's fairly common knowledge that the US has indeed fallen out of favor from many outside its borders. All you have to do is hit the TV clicker or read your local newspaper to see substantial evidence of that. I'm assuming that's what WF was actually meaning in his post and his use of the word 'HATE' was more than presumptuous and hastily considered.

As for your last point, two words: Since when? :vlol: It is after all, when you get right down to it, the 'meat and potatoes' of your lengthy, long winded post. Someone of your obvious intelligence should know better. ;)

More ad hominem variants ("selling...for their own advantage" and "extreme,") with the addition of the Circular Argument ("It's fairly common knowledge.") So... we're still waiting.

'Short enough?


Cochrane: "Most of the world...is clearly to the left of where you stand" is another proposition that begs proof, and...

I love that "caring for other people" line. That's...rich (pun if you want one.) More on that in a bit.

My distinction "lacks nuance and reality"? Huh? Projection. The use of the terms "left" and "right" to denote ideological distinctions is full-on logical slop, frankly. Highly-popular and widespread slop, but...slop nonetheless. Kinda like vestigial collectivism. The terms are convenient as quick designators, surely, but they're neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive as rigorous definitions.

Like: Which of your "directions" would you attach to someone who a.) wants drugs legalized but b.) also wants business to be scapegoated and attacked à la Medieval "heretics" or the Russian "bourgeois" or Weimar-German Jews? Or what do you call someone who a.) wants taxes cut but also b.) supports the McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan Campaign Censorship Act of 2002, the "Fairness Doctrine" and the continued existence of the FCC?

The only distinctions that are universally applicable and logically valid are those I used in precisely the line to which you objected - then straight-facedly flopped into the "left/right" haze as the alternative. And I "lack nuance and reality." Ah-yuh. Again, projection.

In political terms, I'm in full agreement with retired York University prof. of economics and intellecual history, John Ridpath, in a 1989 Harvard debate [paraphrased]: There are only two types of politico-economic system that have ever existed or can ever exist: Those that uphold and defend the rights of the individual, and those that don't. The number and variety of those that don't are legion; there is only one that does - laissez faire capitalism.

Actually, this brings up a point that short-circuits Wantafanta's whole context of what "most people love" and "most people hate." Namely, a little tidbit most of our Moms unleashed at one point or another during our tender years: "If Johnny went and jumped in the lake, would you do it too?"

More specifically, the number of adherents to a given ideology, policy or person is not a confirmation of validity in any case.

Recall the overwhelming majority opinion on, errmm, planetary shape prior to 1492; the fact that Mein Kampf was a bestseller in 1920s Germany (clearly that makes it a great and true thesis?); the hordes of Malthusians who've been re-adjusting their predictions of resource-depletion and human extinction every few decades for the better part of two centuries; the hordes of otherwise-normal people who had convinced themselves a New Ice Age was imminent in the early 1970s, and who have now convinced themselves that the New Venusian Greenhouse Effect is imminent and that Immediate Action Must Be Taken :D; etc. ad absurdum.

Ah yes, government "caring for other people." A.k.a. altruism-at-gunpoint: the exact same ethical credo that got Hitler elected, his Stalags built and umpty-million individuals butchered. Or as the infamous "25 Points" put it: "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." Ditto Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro/Guevara, Ceauşescu, Milošević, Kim, etc. We know exactly where the collectivist road leads.

One hundred years, dozens upon dozens of shattered economies, and a mountain of human corpses estimated (by an uncommonly-honest group of European collectivists (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/),) at one hundred million - and "most people" still think that collectivist ideology is A PrettyNeatoIdea?

You can call that many, many things, but "mature" is not one of them. Irony? I don't think so.

.

interstellardave
07-10-09, 03:53
Kudos, Spacechild... Ayn Rand would be most proud! ;)

wantafanta
07-10-09, 04:03
Whoa. "The world loves Obama," backed with "The world hates the US."

Umm, maybe I'm gonna be raining on your parade here, but this is like basic arithmetic, like: a + b = x ; solve for x...

Condescension duly noted.


Sorry to rain on the parade, but the facts do not support your love/hate presumptions. So tell us: how many people of "the world" have you, personally, talked to about Obama and about America?


Again with the rain? Look, the reason we have news services like UPI and AP and the BBC is to bring the world into our living rooms via TV. That's what I saw. The world loved Obama one year ago. Now you can go buy all the plane tickets you want and fly to Portugal and Sumatra and Copenhagan and interview all the shopkeepers you want. I'll trust the teeming throngs I saw on the news cheering Obama in Europe to support my statement. I stand by my statement. The world loves Obama. I never said every last man woman and child. Any reasonable person knows what I was saying.



I had a discussion in 1998 with a shopkeeper in Paris about then-President Clinton's decision to do a military strike on Hussein's Iraq because Hussein had just blown off another WMD inspection deadline (shock of shocks: it wasn't just Bush who knew Hussein needed to be taken out.)

You are linking 1998 to Bush's sneak attack on Baghdad in 2003. The WMD picture had greatly changed in those 5 years. And the inspections bore that out.
Unfortunately, Shrub wouldn't let the inspections continue until AFTER he invaded Iraq. Talk about blowing off weapons inspections!!!!!! Pure hypocrisy.


"With Bush, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew he truly believed what he said"


BWAHAHAHA! Is that so? You knew he believed what he said? It's OK to be completely wrong as long as you believe that you are right? That's kookoo. That really lowers the bar for being president. It's not what you think you know, but that you believe that what you think you know to be correct.


In short, if "the world hates America," then those haters are just damned scarce in my experience, or maybe they're just hiding?

If your experience amounts to "interviews" with 3 shopkeepers, then that's completely plausible.


while a deadly-serious conflict in Afghanistan, which is awaiting his decision, got dumped onto a back burner.

The one who put Afghanistan on the back burner was George W. Bush who shortchanged our troops there to fight his grudge match against Sadam in Iraq.


We need someone with a functioning brain in the White House, and unfortunately haven't had one since 1988...

I guess you speak of Reagan, who people haved suggested was suffering from Alzheimer's in his final year in office. I will be doing a thread soon on Ronald Reagan, focusing on the 100 or so in his term who were indicted - many for trading arms to Iran for hostages to be released. Look for it.


*sigh*
To recap: Wantafanta (who's since disappeared,)
No, Wantafanta has to work for a living, and Wantafanta has many items on him plate - doing laundry etc. etc.

patriots88888
07-10-09, 04:42
More ad hominem variants ("selling...for their own advantage" and "extreme,") with the addition of the Circular Argument ("It's fairly common knowledge.") So... we're still waiting.

'Short enough?
.

Here's the point, and what should have been as obvious as your (not so hidden) agenda to you. If you're not using this forum to promote your political hopefuls, what is the point and what do you hope to gain by placing these links (Janice Rogers Brown - George Reisman ) in your post then? And yes, I deactivated them in my post.

No need to answer. It's more than obvious you're using this forum for your own conservative rallying cry.

While the T&C may allow this, I must say that I find it in poor taste to use a gaming forum to promote any political belief(s). Discussion of politics in a general sense I don't have a problem with. However, using the forum to sell political aspirations, I do. Save that for the political forums... please!

Side note to admin and moderators: I would really appreciate a discussion with one of you in regards to this matter please. Thank you.

Draco
07-10-09, 05:10
What does it even matter if the rest of the world likes Obama? It's bad enough we have to deal with people in the US who don't know what the US needs, nevermind people that have no clue what goes on here.

Cochrane
07-10-09, 08:27
Cochrane: "Most of the world...is clearly to the left of where you stand" is another proposition that begs proof, and...
As you wish. I picked one more or less random sample: The OECD Health Data statistics. In the frequently requested data for 2009 (http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html), we can see that all other countries sampled except Mexico have higher public expenditure on health in percent of total expenditure on health in 2007 (2008 data is not fully available yet). This is not an absolute proof, but it does certainly support my point of view.

I love that "caring for other people" line. That's...rich (pun if you want one.) More on that in a bit.

My distinction "lacks nuance and reality"? Huh? Projection.
I really have no idea what precisely you mean by that. Do you wish to assert that I subconsciously think my point of view is invalid and project that unto you? This seems far-fetched. As for the lack of reality, I just pointed that out. More to the point, you seem to think that all systems other than laissez-faire capitalism are the same as communism in whatever metric you decide to apply. If you consider that most countries do not apply laissez-faire capitalism, but are decidedly not Stalinist, that does seem lack nuance.

The use of the terms "left" and "right" to denote ideological distinctions is full-on logical slop, frankly. Highly-popular and widespread slop, but...slop nonetheless. Kinda like vestigial collectivism. The terms are convenient as quick designators, surely, but they're neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive as rigorous definitions.

Like: Which of your "directions" would you attach to someone who a.) wants drugs legalized but b.) also wants business to be scapegoated and attacked à la Medieval "heretics" or the Russian "bourgeois" or Weimar-German Jews? Or what do you call someone who a.) wants taxes cut but also b.) supports the McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan Campaign Censorship Act of 2002, the "Fairness Doctrine" and the continued existence of the FCC?

The only distinctions that are universally applicable and logically valid are those I used in precisely the line to which you objected - then straight-facedly flopped into the "left/right" haze as the alternative. And I "lack nuance and reality." Ah-yuh. Again, projection.
You are certainly correct when you say that the terms "left" and "right" are far from ideal at describing anything. It does get interesting, though, when you say "vestigial collectivism" would be in the same league. Left and right are, after all, internationally accepted terms, used by all members of the spectrum, and the general idea of each is well understood. On the other hand, I have no evidence that "vestigial collectivism" isn't something you made up (if you didn't, I apologize). It certainly can be better described as an insult than a neutral label.

In political terms, I'm in full agreement with retired York University prof. of economics and intellecual history, John Ridpath, in a 1989 Harvard debate [paraphrased]: There are only two types of politico-economic system that have ever existed or can ever exist: Those that uphold and defend the rights of the individual, and those that don't. The number and variety of those that don't are legion; there is only one that does - laissez faire capitalism.

Actually, this brings up a point that short-circuits Wantafanta's whole context of what "most people love" and "most people hate." Namely, a little tidbit most of our Moms unleashed at one point or another during our tender years: "If Johnny went and jumped in the lake, would you do it too?"

More specifically, the number of adherents to a given ideology, policy or person is not a confirmation of validity in any case.
I decided to ignore the rest of your post as it's completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing here. You don't like any sort of collectivism, and you think everybody who does not share your point of view is stupid. We got that already, several threads ago in fact. My points were that a) most of the world does not think like that, and b) describing everyone to the left of you as communist is absolutely incorrect. After reading your post, I still stand by both of them.

SpaceChild
07-10-09, 10:03
As you wish. I picked one more or less random sample: The OECD Health Data statistics. In the frequently requested data for 2009 (http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html), we can see that all other countries sampled except Mexico have higher public expenditure on health in percent of total expenditure on health in 2007 (2008 data is not fully available yet). This is not an absolute proof, but it does certainly support my point of view.

I think the problem you've got here - and it's been a thread running through all of your attempted rebuttals - is that you're locked into surface concretes rather than broader underlying philosophy, therefore you're missing my entire context.

Coerced funding and regimentation of medicine, though certainly collectivist policy, does not a collectivist nation make. America itself is no longer a capitalist economy but rather a mixed economy - with the mixture heavily skewed to collectivism. It, like most of the rest of the world, is saddled with a crushing burden of collectivistic institutions within government, yet America's bedrock philosophy remains rooted in individualism - the larger urban areas, the hardcore-collectivist enclaves known as colleges, universities, and the offices of old-line media notwithstanding. In short, citing the existence of collectivist policies and state institutions within a given nation as evidence for that nation's underlying societal balance in ideology is a little silly.

If I wanted to draw that kind of wading-pool correlation, then America's slavish retention of monopoly status for the US Postal Service - while socialist Britain, bureaucratic Japan and even theocratic-collectivist Iran have each privatized their state postal entities, successfully - works just as well.

The ideological ebb, flow (and all too often drift,) among nations is in constant flux, certainly. Yet following the decisive trouncing of shopworn Marxism by even semi-capitalism at the close of the last century, and more recently the realignment of long-term collectivism-junkies such as France, Germany, and even Sweden in the direction of loosening the shackles on economic and political liberty, argues far more persuasively that what we're seeing is a.) a long-term paradigm shift from collectivism to freedom within the Western World, accompanied by b.) a panicky all-or-nothing attempt at resuscitating Marx' corpse, in the manner of a death-throe or last-minute viral relapse, among the likes of Obama/Pelosi/Reid and Chavez, Chavez-wannabe Zelaya, and various & sundry Hollywood actors and screenwriters.


I really have no idea what precisely you mean by that. Do you wish to assert that I subconsciously think my point of view is invalid and project that unto you? This seems far-fetched. As for the lack of reality, I just pointed that out. More to the point, you seem to think that all systems other than laissez-faire capitalism are the same as communism in whatever metric you decide to apply. If you consider that most countries do not apply laissez-faire capitalism, but are decidedly not Stalinist, that does seem lack nuance.[sic]

Several Straw Men flapping in the breeze here, but first, by "projection" I mean: the lack of "nuance" and blithe sidestepping of reality lies within your ideological definitions, not mine, even as you accuse me of them.

A little fire for Scarecrow #1: To correct what you stuffed into my mouth, I seem to think that all ideologies other than individualist/capitalist ones are collectivist ones. That is a simple matter of logic; logic is the mathematics of: reality. Communism is but one collectivist variant (see again my paraphrase of Ridpath); socialism, fascism, racism, tribalism and the like are others. Pick yer poison.

Yes, every politico-economic system on Earth is currently a mixture of food (individualism/capitalism) and poison (collectivism) in political policy. That does not invalidate the respective identities of those underlying ideological forms, nor their respective ethical statuses, nor their existential consequences. For the purposes of a chat room posting, delineation to that level of "nuance" hadn't seemed necessary. Mea culpa, etc.


You are certainly correct when you say that the terms "left" and "right" are far from ideal at describing anything. It does get interesting, though, when you say "vestigial collectivism" would be in the same league. Left and right are, after all, internationally accepted terms, used by all members of the spectrum, and the general idea of each is well understood. On the other hand, I have no evidence that "vestigial collectivism" isn't something you made up (if you didn't, I apologize). It certainly can be better described as an insult than a neutral label.

By "vestigial collectivism" I mean that literally - devotion to a dead (nay, stillborn,) ideology that the rest of the semi-civilized world, most tellingly the throngs forced for generations to suffer under its glorious banners, have already dumped onto the Trash Heap of History ca. 1989 with pointed and righteous contempt. I suppose I should have made the distinction more clear. I meant that vestigial collectivism itself, not as terminology, is logical slop in the same way that "left" and "right" are in a definitional sense. Tp wit: the entire edifice of collectivist philosophy is built on the stolen concept fallacy, inescapably.

I decided to ignore the rest of your post as it's completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing here.

Then:

You don't like any sort of collectivism, and you think everybody who does not share your point of view is stupid. We got that already, several threads ago in fact. My points were that a) most of the world does not think like that, and b) describing everyone to the left of you as communist is absolutely incorrect. After reading your post, I still stand by both of them.

Uhh, wait a minute... didn't you just... Never mind. Again we've got a whole bunch of stuff misquoted intentionally here, for Scarecrows #2, #3 and #4. 'Getting crowded in that there cornfield, doncha think?

Straw Man 2: " don't like any sort of collectivism" is something you made up. Add the qualifier "...in government," and you've got an accurate quote;

Straw Man 3: "You think everybody who does not share your point of view is stupid" is...something you made up. Whatever people may think of my point of view, I think people who espouse collectivist philosophical views are at best mistaken. Error is no measure of intellect. On the other hand - as in: a clear distinction: I also think that people [I]in government - people whose areas of training and expertise are ostensibly political science, economics, law and, most importantly, history - who then choose to attempt dragging humanity back into the slavery and monstrous injustice of collectivism, are not just mistaken, they're evil.

Straw Man 3: I haven't described any opposing poster here as "communist" :rolleyes:, not even once. Check it. Which means that too is...something you made up.

Cochrane
07-10-09, 11:19
I think the problem you've got here - and it's been a thread running through all of your attempted rebuttals - is that you're locked into surface concretes rather than broader underlying philosophy, therefore you're missing my entire context.

Coerced funding and regimentation of medicine, though certainly collectivist policy, does not a collectivist nation make. America itself is no longer a capitalist economy but rather a mixed economy - with the mixture heavily skewed to collectivism. It, like most of the rest of the world, is saddled with a crushing burden of collectivistic institutions within government, yet America's bedrock philosophy remains rooted in individualism - the larger urban areas, the hardcore-collectivist enclaves known as colleges, universities, and the offices of old-line media notwithstanding. In short, citing the existence of collectivist policies and state institutions within a given nation as evidence for that nation's underlying societal balance in ideology is a little silly.

If I wanted to draw that kind of wading-pool correlation, then America's slavish retention of monopoly status for the US Postal Service - while socialist Britain, bureaucratic Japan and even theocratic-collectivist Iran have each privatized their state postal entities, successfully - works just as well.

The ideological ebb, flow (and all too often drift,) among nations is in constant flux, certainly. Yet following the decisive trouncing of shopworn Marxism by even semi-capitalism at the close of the last century, and more recently the realignment of long-term collectivism-junkies such as France, Germany, and even Sweden in the direction of loosening the shackles on economic and political liberty, argues far more persuasively that what we're seeing is a.) a long-term paradigm shift from collectivism to freedom within the Western World, accompanied by b.) a panicky all-or-nothing attempt at resuscitating Marx' corpse, in the manner of a death-throe or last-minute viral relapse, among the likes of Obama/Pelosi/Reid and Chavez, Chavez-wannabe Zelaya, and various & sundry Hollywood actors and screenwriters.
Typing a lot of words does not make a convincing argument, nor do complicated expressions mean that what you say is relevant to the topic. I'm sorry I have to be so harsh, but the fact of the matter is that there is no obvious relation between what you wrote and what I wrote. Most of the OECD nations have higher degrees of collectivism than the US (in the specific instance of health care at least), and you already oppose that (as evidenced by you putting Obama in the same league as Chavez), so saying that the majority of people tend to like government-run collectivism more than you still seems fair to me.

It's nice that you have a long point of view on the underlying concepts, but in the context of the original question we started discussing ("Does the rest of the world like the US or not, and is it more 'left' than the US or not?"), it has surprisingly little relevance. Or at least you did not show me this relevance yet.

Several Straw Men flapping in the breeze here, but first, by "projection" I mean: the lack of "nuance" and blithe sidestepping of reality lies within your ideological definitions, not mine, even as you accuse me of them.

A little fire for Scarecrow #1: To correct what you stuffed into my mouth, I seem to think that all ideologies other than individualist/capitalist ones are collectivist ones. That is a simple matter of logic; logic is the mathematics of: reality. Communism is but one collectivist variant (see again my paraphrase of Ridpath); socialism, fascism, racism, tribalism and the like are others. Pick yer poison.

Yes, every politico-economic system on Earth is currently a mixture of food (individualism/capitalism) and poison (collectivism) in political policy. That does not invalidate the respective identities of those underlying ideological forms, nor their respective ethical statuses, nor their existential consequences. For the purposes of a chat room posting, delineation to that level of "nuance" hadn't seemed necessary. Mea culpa, etc.

By "vestigial collectivism" I mean that literally - devotion to a dead (nay, stillborn,) ideology that the rest of the semi-civilized world, most tellingly the throngs forced for generations to suffer under its glorious banners, have already dumped onto the Trash Heap of History ca. 1989 with pointed and righteous contempt. I suppose I should have made the distinction more clear. I meant that vestigial collectivism itself, not as terminology, is logical slop in the same way that "left" and "right" are in a definitional sense. Tp wit: the entire edifice of collectivist philosophy is built on the stolen concept fallacy, inescapably.
And that's exactly what I mean when I say that you are incorrect, or at least that I did get an incorrect impression of what you mean by "vestigial collectivism". Collectivism of some degree (including government-run collectivism) isn't vestigial, it is rather popular around the world. That the most extreme form of it failed and was a horribly bad idea is obvious, and there is more than enough debate about the degrees such collectivism should have, but the world in general has not adopted a laissez-faire capitalist attitude.

The stolen concept fallacy that you base your argument on is something that deserves more talk, but I think that already happened in another thread with Mona Sax, and I don't think there is any value to be gained by repeating this.

Uhh, wait a minute... didn't you just... Never mind. Again we've got a whole bunch of stuff misquoted intentionally here, for Scarecrows #2, #3 and #4. 'Getting crowded in that there cornfield, doncha think?
I do not misquote intentionally. Being a non-native speaker, I do misunderstand, and I will readily admit that I sometimes exaggerate your opinions (I'm sorry, it's an old habit that I'm trying to loose), but if I completely misstate your opinion, then I am sorry and willing to correct that mistake.

Straw Man 2: " don't like any sort of collectivism" is something you made up. Add the qualifier "...in government," and you've got an accurate quote;
I have half a mind to answer snidely here, as I don't see the distinction. What other kinds of collectivism do you see and support, then?

Straw Man 3: "You think everybody who does not share your point of view is stupid" is...something you made up. Whatever people may think of my point of view, I think people who espouse collectivist philosophical views are at best mistaken. Error is no measure of intellect. On the other hand - as in: a clear distinction: I also think that people [I]in government - people whose areas of training and expertise are ostensibly political science, economics, law and, most importantly, history - who then choose to attempt dragging humanity back into the slavery and monstrous injustice of collectivism, are not just mistaken, they're evil.
Alright, I did get the wrong impression there. I really thought you thought people who supported any collectivism in government were stupid. I still disagree that they are mistaken or evil, but I do admit that there is a qualitative difference here.

Straw Man 3: I haven't described any opposing poster here as "communist" :rolleyes:, not even once. Check it. Which means that too is...something you made up. Yet you described the views of some as "vestigial collectivism", compared philosophies of people here and people who some of us support to those of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, and keep linking to a book listing the failures and crimes of communism. It may not have been your intention, but I am sure that you can see how I came to this conclusion if you read your posts again.

Ward Dragon
07-10-09, 20:49
This debate is extremely interesting to read, but everyone needs to keep in mind that it must not turn personal. Instead of attacking flaws in the opposing argument, try to be more neutral asking what was meant, and if your point got misinterpreted then explain it more instead of accusing the other of having bad intentions :) (Note: that's at everyone and is not connected to my quote below.)

I don't see the distinction. What other kinds of collectivism do you see and support, then?

My guess is that he supports private charities in which people willingly help each other, but he doesn't support when the government forces people to help each other. So the "in government" part actually is important because it implies use of force to make people behave collectively which is bad, but it's fine for people to choose to help each other if they want to. At least, that's pretty much my view on it so it's how I interpreted what he said.

robm_2007
07-10-09, 20:54
im an American, but yeah for Brazil! whats the deal with not having it in South America before? its about damn time!

2020 Summer Olympics in Antarctica, FTW

Cochrane
07-10-09, 21:45
This debate is extremely interesting to read, but everyone needs to keep in mind that it must not turn personal. Instead of attacking flaws in the opposing argument, try to be more neutral asking what was meant, and if your point got misinterpreted then explain it more instead of accusing the other of having bad intentions :) (Note: that's at everyone and is not connected to my quote below.)
Sorry, I'll try to keep that in mind! I already do, but I admit that I sometimes fail.

My guess is that he supports private charities in which people willingly help each other, but he doesn't support when the government forces people to help each other. So the "in government" part actually is important because it implies use of force to make people behave collectively which is bad, but it's fine for people to choose to help each other if they want to. At least, that's pretty much my view on it so it's how I interpreted what he said.
Ah, that's an interesting point. To be honest, I didn't really think about this at all when I said "any collectivism", in large part because it is very much smaller scale than the government-run collectivism he talks about. It certainly does make sense that way!

tombofwinston
07-10-09, 21:47
im an Merican, but yeah for Brazil! whats the deal with not having it in South America before? its about damn time!

2020 Summer Olympics in Antarctica, FTW

Don't forget you're Fur Coats ;) .

robm_2007
08-10-09, 15:41
^And lets have the 2014 Winter Olympics in Dubai!