Why Was Chicago Shot-Down By The IOC? Committee Feared "Carrying" Gun-Nut-Attendees Might Cause Havoc!
Suppurating Tool
probably will not, release reasons why 2016 Olympic host competitors
were not selected, including those for Chicago's losing bid.
But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as other competing
cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and easy access
to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the Chicago turn-
down.
"We simply could not conscience the real possibility that, should
Chicago be named host city, crowds of attendees might be allowed to
openly carry deadly weapons," said an IOC member who insisted upon
anonymity.
"This was especially crucial in our decision-making because the U.S.
Supreme Court continues to grant more gun-freedoms to their citizens."
Score another negative U.S. international image among the many
attributed to the George W. Bush "administration" and its conservative-
stacked Supreme Court!
spicpussy
and NASCAR. And with our minimal amount of brain cells, we ain't
losin' no sleep over no 'lympics.
That's all we know on earth, and all we need to know.
God'sLittleAnus
even Jesus, if he ever did exist outside the Fabible, would be in
danger amidst crowds.
Starcade
I really think this was a no-confidence vote by the IOC and the member
nations that the United States will even be a meaningful first-world
country in seven years.
Hell, there are people who are saying the USA won't make it another
nine months.
The USA will never host another Games (at least Summer, but I'll go
the whole nine yards on it).
Mike
Wanting
And the failure can be laid at G.W. Bush's door!
Admit it, gun nuts. Bush lost the Olympics bid!
Your Dumbya appointed or embraced several conservative Supreme Court
assho -- members, who subsequently misread and/or misinterpreted the
Second Amendment, giving gun-nuts unconscionable privileges to
acquire, carry, and fire PISTOLS. Whose main use is to kill other
human beings.
Leaked information from the IOC decision makers -- from anonymous-but-
reliable sources -- indicate that America's fear-inspiring "gun
freedoms" were the main reason for the Chicago shoot-down. And the
fact that the Court is about to rule on granting more "carrying"
freedom to gun-nuts didn't help Chicago's chances.
So, indirectly, the Chimp's involvement with gun-jerks did the
International Olympic Committee a big favor.
And, by-the-way, we hear he's still not gettin' any from Laura ...
although he's reported to be staring hard at his daughter's firm and
sassy asses -- clothed.
So far.
Mao'sAnus
study ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?nid=roll_toonsvid
Daniel
I notice you don't provide a cite to your claimed statement. Why is
that?
Daniel
> AMERICA'S GUN-NUTISM KILLED CHICAGO'S OLYMPICS HOSTING BID!
>
> And the failure can be laid at G.W. Bush's door!
>
> Admit it, gun nuts. Bush lost the Olympics bid!
>
> Your Dumbya appointed or embraced several conservative Supreme Court
> assho -- members, who subsequently misread and/or misinterpreted the
> Second Amendment,
How is there a misunderstanding when they affirmed that the people
have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms?
Bert Hyman
news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
Suppurating Tool <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as other competing
> cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and easy access
> to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the Chicago turn-
> down.
They certainly prefer the government-run death squads that regularly
murder people all over Brazil.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Brazil-Police-In-Rio-De-Janeiro-Murder-Three-People-A-Day-According-To-UN-Report/Article/200809315100536
http://tinyurl.com/y9mzax4
"Police in Rio de Janeiro are responsible for murdering
three people every day, a controversial UN report says."
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
None4U
"Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd1791e2-9afd-46d1...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It doesnt matter. The US would be much better off abandoning everyone and
taking an isolationist policy against everyone who chooses to hate the US.
Clean up our internal enemies , get out finances in order, get our jobs
and security back in the border where it belongs , strengthen the dollar
and eliminate our our debt. Start exporting again, especially resources
and food, and boot everyone back where they came from , or make them leave.
Everyone else in the world is living in economic slavery , is jealous, and
wishes us to fail.
Mr. Albritton
"Suppurating Tool" <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Customarily, the International Olympic Committee does not, and
> probably will not, release reasons why 2016 Olympic host competitors
> were not selected, including those for Chicago's losing bid.
>
> But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as other competing
> cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and easy access
> to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the Chicago turn-
> down.
Bull shit.
That's why LOS ANGELES held not one, but TWO (1932 & 1984) Olympic meets.
Now refresh my memory.....
How safe was LA in 1984?
Wasn't that a place of infamously corrupt cops and the popularity of "west
coast" gang-bangers???
<sniff>
yea.... I smell political horse-shit. Nothing more.
In retrospect.... Why the blue fuck would anybody piss and whine about
Chicago's "gun problem?"
Aren't damn near close to all guns outlawed in Chicago anyways?
***Can anybody else smell the sarcasm here???***
None4U
"Mr. Albritton" <albri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ha5s86$2bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
i smell a troll with no cite.
Tom S.
(TIME Magazine)
Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
By Erik Heinrich
President Barack Obama has been doing his part to help Chicago win the 2016
Summer Olympics. He has taped messages of support for the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) and hosted a reception at the White House to help
raise his adopted hometown's profile. Now he's flying to Copenhagen to
personally help Chicago with its final push.
The IOC will make its decision on Oct. 2, after considering rival bids from
Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro (which is considered the front runner). But
in light of the heavy financial burden that is associated with staging the
Olympics, the question is: Would getting the Games really be a good thing for
Chicago?
For the Second City's business community, the answer is a resounding yes. "We
view the opportunity as one of those pivotal moments in our history," says
Lance Pressl, an executive at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. "Innovative
juices flow, our broad shoulders get flexed and collectively we transform this
great city into something even better." (See the long history of Olympic
politics.)
But that hasn't always been true. The economic benefits of the Olympics for
host cities are at best mixed, and the opening bravado often descends into
recrimination and regret. Of course, there are obvious benefits for an Olympic
host city � primarily the opportunity to showcase itself in front of a global
TV audience numbering in the billions. Indeed, many view the Olympics as the
ultimate infomercial to help attract business and foreign direct investment (FDI).
But that has to be balanced with the danger of runaway costs, which seem
almost guaranteed when it comes to the Olympics. Brad Humphreys, professor of
the Economics of Gaming at the University of Alberta, keeps count on Olympic
budgets. His tally is a tale of excess: Athens budgeted $1.6 billion for the
2004 Games but wound up spending $16 billion. Four years later, Beijing
budgeted the same amount, $1.6 billion, for the 2008 Summer Games yet spent an
enormous $40 billion. London originally planned to spend $8 billion for the
2012 Games; the current estimate is $19 billion and rising. "Once the Games
leave town, there often isn't much to celebrate," says Humphreys, noting that
host countries nearly always experience a drop in GDP growth in the year after
the Games. (See highs and lows from the 2008 Beijing Games.)
In terms of sheer financial disaster, however, it would be hard to match
Montreal's 1976 Games. It has taken the city more than 30 years to pay off its
extravaganza, the cost of which is still not entirely known, according to
Humphreys. The Olympic stadium was a particular disaster; originally budgeted
for C$156 million, it ended up costing the city C$2 billion, including
numerous fixes to the roof and years of interest payments. The Quebec
government had to introduce a special tobacco tax to help pay down its Olympic
investment.
Vancouver, which will host the Winter Olympics in 2010, has already had its
debt rating downgraded because its Olympic Village has turned into a money pit
that could end up costing taxpayers as much as $1 billion. As for the total
price tag for Vancouver's Games, estimates vary from $1.6 billion to $5.5
billion. (Read "In Hard Times, Olympic Plans Go On a Budget.")
One reason for the wide disparity is how the costs are allocated. In
Vancouver's case, there's a big debate about how to account for two major
projects being built for the Olympics: a light-rail link connecting the city
to the airport, and costly upgrades to the Sea to Sky highway, which winds
north along Pacific fjords. Should these projects be part of the Olympic
budget or (because they will presumably serve the city for years afterward)
part of the general municipal budget? Either way, the projects will take
decades to pay down.
If there is one Olympic city for Chicago to emulate, it would be Atlanta. The
city's $1.7 billion privately funded Summer Games in 1996 sparked a
construction boom in the city's downtown core and, according to the Metro
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, generated $5 billion in economic activity,
including $1.8 billion in hotel, residential and commercial construction.
What's more, the city found long-term uses for its Olympic venues,
transferring the Olympic stadium and village to the Atlanta Braves and Georgia
State University, respectively. "The Olympics gave Atlanta a tremendous boost
in commerce," says Sam Williams, president of the Metro Atlanta Chamber. "We
become a global city, not just the capital of the South." However, critics say
Atlanta got too caught up in the idea of making the Olympics self-funding. As
a result, it missed out on state and federal money that could have paid for
upgrades to neighborhoods and sewage systems.
Chicago estimates that the cost of hosting the 2016 Olympics will be $4.8
billion. If its bid finds favor with the IOC this week in Copenhagen, the city
might be well advised to get venues shovel-ready as quickly as possible, for
it has one advantage that Atlanta didn't: access to a portion of Washington's
$787 billion economic stimulus package, much of which is still being allocated.
If, on the other hand, Chicago doesn't make the cut, the city shouldn't feel
too bad. For municipalities, the Olympics deliver more broken dreams than gold
medals.
Bert Hyman
<tms...@cox.com> wrote:
> Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
I guess we'll never know, will we?
But, was losing the Olympics good or bad for Obama?
Tom S.
> In news:uLKdnSbdVu1BAVvX...@giganews.com "Tom S."
> <tms...@cox.com> wrote:
>
>> Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
>
> I guess we'll never know, will we?
>
> But, was losing the Olympics good or bad for Obama?
>
SaPeIsMa
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C98C89F63E...@216.250.184.7...
> In news:uLKdnSbdVu1BAVvX...@giganews.com "Tom S."
> <tms...@cox.com> wrote:
>
>> Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
>
> I guess we'll never know, will we?
>
> But, was losing the Olympics good or bad for Obama?
>
One more broken arrow for Obambi's quiver of failures.
Mr. Albritton
>> That's why LOS ANGELES held not one, but TWO (1932 & 1984) Olympic
>> meets. Now refresh my memory.....
>> How safe was LA in 1984?
>> Wasn't that a place of infamously corrupt cops and the popularity of
>> "west coast" gang-bangers???
>>
>> <sniff>
>>
>> yea.... I smell political horse-shit. Nothing more.
>>
>> In retrospect.... Why the blue fuck would anybody piss and whine
>> about Chicago's "gun problem?"
>> Aren't damn near close to all guns outlawed in Chicago anyways?
>> ***Can anybody else smell the sarcasm here???***
>
> i smell a troll with no cite.
Wow. Namecalling and slander.
Typical of someone with no intellect of their own.
Mr. Albritton
>
> Wow. Namecalling and slander.
> Typical of someone with no intellect of their own.
P.S. Do your own research.
While you're at it, cite this:
/ \
|\_/|
|---|
| |
| |
_ |=-=| _
_ / \| |/ \
/ \| | | ||\
| | | | | \>
| | | | | \
| - - - - |) )
| /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
| |
Let's not forget this one either:
_____
|_ _|
n (O O) n
H _|\_/|_ H
nHnn/ \___/ \nnHn
<V VV / \ VV V>
\__\/| |\/__/
Ignorant.not.stupid
The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
Roy Blankenship
"Ignorant.and.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote in message
news:ha6hbo$p6s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>
> The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
The other countries around the world like the Obamas. Too bad your hero, GW,
made our country a pariah in the eyes of the world. Now all you can do is
make stupidass remarks that are not true and look like a loser.
I fixed your screen name.....
Ignorant.not.stupid
No president in modern history has seen so rapid a decline in
constituency confidence and international opinion, due to the lack of
correlation between promises and performance. Voters were so desperate
for change that slightly more than half of them were willing to roll the
dice on a political stranger. If that election were to be held today,
the result would be different.
I don't like John McCain (I've met him), and like George W Bush even
less, but of the three I trust Obama the least.
And I fixed your screen name as well....
Roy Blankenship
"Ignorant.not.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote in message
news:ha6lej$hdg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
We'll see. Your revisionist history is just more blablabla. No way McCain
would have beaten ANYONE. Donald Duck in a wheelchair would have beaten him
after they brought Daffy Duck down from the Ice State.
You met him....whoo. Famous by name-dropping.
Ignorant.not.stupid
Not a claim to fame.
Rather, my negative opinion of McCain is based on - among other things -
having known him as a Naval officer (a belligerent ass, in the opinion
of his peers).
Your support of Obama was surely based on hope, bordering on
desperation, but that your optimism persists is surprising. Ah, well.
Though I'm pessimistic I wish him (and you, me, all Americans, and the
world) a successful Obama presidency.
Natman
wrote:
>AMERICA'S GUN-NUTISM KILLED CHICAGO'S OLYMPICS HOSTING BID!
>
>And the failure can be laid at G.W. Bush's door!
>
>Admit it, gun nuts. Bush lost the Olympics bid!
>
>Your Dumbya appointed or embraced several conservative Supreme Court
>assho -- members, who subsequently misread and/or misinterpreted the
>Second Amendment, giving gun-nuts unconscionable privileges to
>acquire, carry, and fire PISTOLS. Whose main use is to kill other
>human beings.
>
>Leaked information from the IOC decision makers -- from anonymous-but-
>reliable sources -- indicate that America's fear-inspiring "gun
>freedoms" were the main reason for the Chicago shoot-down. And the
>fact that the Court is about to rule on granting more "carrying"
>freedom to gun-nuts didn't help Chicago's chances.
>
>So, indirectly, the Chimp's involvement with gun-jerks did the
>International Olympic Committee a big favor.
>
Saying it's Bush's fault was pretty funny, but to stretch it to it's
the Founding Father's fault for writing the Second Amendment is one of
the best examples of liberalthink "I reject reality and substitute
what I WANT to believe" I've ever seen. Which is pretty impressive
considering the quantity and quality of other contenders.
I don't suppose that the fact that the US has hosted the Olympics
eight times, the last in 2002, and nowhere in South America has ever
hosted one had *anything* to do with it.
Stormin Mormon
description of Oh Bomb Us, how he came to power, and what to
expect. That's coming true, nicely.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ignorant.not.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote in message
news:ha6qlv$cgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Roy Blankenship
If your last paragraph is sincere, how about not contributing to the
negative blather that is becoming pervasive? A small, rabid contingent is
shouting down any semblance of reason and causing a hugely negative
perception of life as we know it. It gets tiresome.
Ignorant.not.stupid
>> Your support of Obama was surely based on hope, bordering on
>> desperation, but that your optimism persists is surprising. Ah, well.
>> Though I'm pessimistic I wish him (and you, me, all Americans, and the
>> world) a successful Obama presidency.
>
> If your last paragraph is sincere, how about not contributing to the
> negative blather that is becoming pervasive? A small, rabid contingent is
> shouting down any semblance of reason and causing a hugely negative
> perception of life as we know it. It gets tiresome.
>
>
It's sincere.
I am troubled by our nation's geopolitical and economic circumstances,
and distressed by our Executive Branch's navigation. Sometimes the only
relief is a joke...
But was that comment of mine a "joke"? Associates and friends in the EU
(and one in Japan) have told me that they are rapidly tiring of a U.S.
president whose primary skill seems to be the convincing delivery of
promises. Eventually, Obama must deliver the goods, but he went to
Copenhagen with empty hands. Unfortunately, national and global patience
is waning, and the growing correlation between Obama and Carter may doom
this presidency.
O. J. Simpson Lives!
>It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
You have a Republican IQ. (No offense intended.)
O. J. Simpson Lives!
>No president in modern history has seen so rapid a decline in
>constituency confidence and international opinion, due to the lack of
>correlation between promises and performance.
That's because President Obama has not stopped the terrorism
or the treason committed by the Bush regime. Obama has done nothing
to put the Christanic terrorists in prison or execute them, that
makes Obama and his regime just as guilty of the war crimes and
treason the Bush terrorist regime committed.
Dad
"Suppurating Tool" <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com..
It had nothing to do with the gang beating other gang members to death
with a board?
Daniel
wrote:
> "Ignorant.and.stupid" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>
> news:ha6hbo$p6s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>
> > The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
>
> The other countries around the world like the Obamas.
Bullshit.
N. Korea is giving nobama the finger.
Iran is giving nobama the finger.
And now the IOC is giving nobama the finger.
nobama is the most inept President since you retards elected a peanut
farmer.
DockScience
> Customarily, the International Olympic Committee does not, and
> probably will not, release reasons why 2016 Olympic host competitors
> were not selected, including those for Chicago's losing bid.
>
> cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and easy access
> to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the Chicago turn-
> down.
>
> Chicago be named host city, crowds of attendees might be allowed to
> openly carry deadly weapons," said an IOC member who insisted upon
> anonymity
I would want to be anonymous too if this is what I believed.
What a moron.
What kind of crime-free paradise does he think Rio is????
martin
> I think that's part of it.
>
> I really think this was a no-confidence vote by the IOC and the member
> nations that the United States will even be a meaningful first-world
> country in seven years.
>
> Hell, there are people who are saying the USA won't make it another
> nine months.
>
> The USA will never host another Games (at least Summer, but I'll go
> the whole nine yards on it).
>
> Mike
I agree in most part. Rio is another third-world shithouse better than
Chicago
only in it's police ability to clear the streets off riff-raff. (Most
negroes)
People simply don't understand the forces which are vectoring toward
the USA.
Cash is King!
tt
SaPeIsMa
"O. J. Simpson Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
news:u-edneWRSMEgMlrX...@posted.sonicnet...
> "Ignorant.not.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote:
>>It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>>The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
>
> You have a Republican IQ. (No offense intended.)
>
So he's smarter than you..
OK
Big of you to admit it.
SaPeIsMa
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ha7gsk$eq4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>A few of the right wing radio talk shows did a pretty good
> description of Oh Bomb Us, how he came to power, and what to
> expect. That's coming true, nicely.
>
Actually, the correct name for him is either:
Obambi, since he keeps getting caught in the headlights
or
Obombastic, for the way he behaves when he's got an audience.
SaPeIsMa
Time to put back on your aluminum foil cap
Those hidden space rays are frying what little brain you have
Tom S.
ALLOW..." during the campaign.
Natman
So you get your kicks trying to insult gun owners AND Obama. Sort of
an equal oppourtunity idiot.
It's interesting how not getting picked to host the Olympics is sort
of a blank slate for people to project their hostility. The truth is
there are LOTS of cities that want to host the Olympics and only ONE
gets picked each time. It doesn't have to be the IOC giving anyone the
finger, although I can see how that image appeals to the lunatic
fringe.
Tell me, what did Tokyo and Madrid do to deserve this "insult"?
O. J. Simpson Lives!
>Roy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Ignorant.not.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote in message
>> news:ha6qlv$cgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> negative blather that is becoming pervasive? A small, rabid contingent is
>> shouting down any semblance of reason and causing a hugely negative
>> perception of life as we know it. It gets tiresome.
>It's sincere.
>I am troubled by our nation's geopolitical and economic circumstances,
>and distressed by our Executive Branch's navigation. Sometimes the only
>relief is a joke...
Where were you when the Bush terrorists were invaded innocent
countries, commiotting war crime atrocities, inflisting USA PATRIOT
Act against us, and raping the country to the tune of two twillion
dollars?
O. J. Simpson Lives!
Translation: As usual, the rightard can't point to anything I
wrote that's in the least bit mistraen.
O. J. Simpson Lives!
>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ha7gsk$eq4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>A few of the right wing radio talk shows did a pretty good
>> description of Oh Bomb Us, how he came to power, and what to
>> expect. That's coming true, nicely.
>Actually, the correct name for him is either:
> Obambi, since he keeps getting caught in the headlights
> Obombastic, for the way he behaves when he's got an audience.
You racist Christian loons hate it that an actually elected President
with an IQ greater that any rightard's is in the White House due to
the nation soundly rejecting Republinazism.
You racist piles of shit lost, America won. Get over it.
O. J. Simpson Lives!
LOL. Drunks always think they drive better than sober people.
O. J. Simpson Lives!
>On Oct 3, 12:42=A0am, "Roy Blankenship" <pointbla...@earthlink.net>
>> The other countries around the world like the Obamas.
>Bullshit.
>N. Korea is giving nobama the finger.
>Iran is giving nobama the finger.
Funny how you Republidiots side with the world's Communists
and theocracy crazies while the *rest* of the world approve of
President Obama, huh?
Why do you insane Christians, Islamics, and Commies hate America?
SaPeIsMa
Why do stupid lefties make even more stupid generalizations and then derive
idiotic conclusions from them ?
SaPeIsMa
And stupid lefties always imagine they are smarter than other people
Not much different from a drunk, are you ?
SaPeIsMa
Lot's of words, but no content
Typical lefty rant
You would make Pravda proud
SaPeIsMa
"mistraen"
Yup
You wrote a lot of "mistraen"
Take your medication, like a good little boy
SaPeIsMa
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ha7gsk$eq4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>A few of the right wing radio talk shows did a pretty good
>>> description of Oh Bomb Us, how he came to power, and what to
>>> expect. That's coming true, nicely.
>>Actually, the correct name for him is either:
>> Obambi, since he keeps getting caught in the headlights
>> Obombastic, for the way he behaves when he's got an audience.
>
> You racist Christian loons hate it that an actually elected President
> with an IQ greater that any rightard's is in the White House due to
> the nation soundly rejecting Republinazism.
>
1) The only racists around are are the idiots who pull the race card every
chance they get, whether it's applicable or not.
2) Go look at the difference in popular vote between Obambi and McCain
Not even close to "soundly"
> You racist piles of shit lost, America won. Get over it.
>
Ya-yah
Whatever
Hayduke Lives!
>"O. J. Simpson Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
>news:44ydnZBXc9fTJFXX...@posted.sonicnet...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>>>"O. J. Simpson Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
>>>news:u-edneWRSMEgMlrX...@posted.sonicnet...
>>>> "Ignorant.not.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote:
>>>>>It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>>>>>The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the committee...
>>>> You have a Republican IQ. (No offense intended.)
>>> So he's smarter than you..
>> LOL. Drunks always think they drive better than sober people.
> And stupid lefties always imagine they are smarter than other people
You don't notice that your intellectual and moral superiors are
because you're a fucking rightard with a Republican IQ.
You lose again, rightard.
---
"Avoid North Carolina if you don't want to be raped." -- GOPT
http://tinyurl.com/yagkcbq
Hayduke Lives!
>"O. J. Simpson Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
>news:LKydnRtp37koJlXX...@posted.sonicnet...
>> Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Oct 3, 12:42=A0am, "Roy Blankenship" <pointbla...@earthlink.net>
>>>> The other countries around the world like the Obamas.
>>>Bullshit.
>>>N. Korea is giving nobama the finger.
>>>Iran is giving nobama the finger.
>> Funny how you Republidiots side with the world's Communists
>> and theocracy crazies while the *rest* of the world approve of
>> President Obama, huh?
>> Why do you insane Christians, Islamics, and Commies hate America?
>Why do stupid lefties make even more stupid generalizations and then derive
>idiotic conclusions from them ?
Woops! The rightarded Christanic loon couldn't point to anything
I said that was in error once again. You lose, just as you rightarded
traitors lost the election. Get over it already.
Tom S.
Because they ARE idiots? If they were NOT idiots, they would be better in
touch with reality and wouldn't be lefties.
(In case someone didn't know, irrational ism/subjectivism has been the
cornerstone of the left, acadadamially and operationally, for over 60 years.)
Tom S.
And so your fifth-grade retort proves...what? Your latent ignorance.
Keep a copy of this for 2010 when Congress does a 80-90 seat shift.
Tom S.
SaPeIsMa
"Hayduke Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
news:y86dnXbK1rkaalXX...@posted.sonicnet...
As I said, just because you believe yourself superior, does not
automatically make it so.
But, it's your fantasy..
SaPeIsMa
"Hayduke Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message
news:fs-dneLZf9a2ZFXX...@posted.sonicnet...
What ?
I was supposed to dig around your shit for the possibility that there was a
nugget of truth in there ?
Dream on, shithead
SaPeIsMa
"Hayduke Lives!" <beave...@foxnews.com> wrote in message news:fs-Path:
Xl.tags.giganews.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.sonicnet!news.posted.sonicnet.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:36:11 -0500
From: beave...@foxnews.com (Hayduke Lives!)
Newsgroups:
rec.sport.olympics,alt.guns,alt.rec.guns,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.republicans
Subject: Re: Gun nut rightards, Islamics, Commies hate America
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:41:17 GMT
Organization: Arches National Canyonlands
Reply-To: beave...@foxnews.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Message-ID: <fs-dneLZf9a2ZFXX...@posted.sonicnet>
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-HPBsiY0h9cY7PWj3u/pU4IoQILmJBHXAeO7nMpH7+l8Oawach3NO53y3mVA1SWUeewV8zle1oIhN6ir!Ati/a6/2Ocq4ffgz9zhdUy/0UUXXOMXO/JB0ZCuDUBb2fFUhsVLvR0FpqcOi3ERMPQWIdsSXIq42!axLLyxeyb2QuuviX78U=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca-...@sonic.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2693
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.politics.republicans:1878247
alt.impeach.bush:1957402 alt.rec.guns:71698 alt.guns:119482
rec.sport.olympics:77195
========================================\
Path:
Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.sonicnet!news.posted.sonicnet.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:07:09 -0500
From: beave...@foxnews.com (O. J. Simpson Lives!)
Newsgroups:
alt.guns,alt.rec.guns,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.republicans
Subject: Re: SUPINE COURT To Review U.S. Constitution's Misinterpreted,
Misrepresented 2nd Amendment! SECOND
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:12:15 GMT
Summary: \nX-No-Archive: no
Organization: My Prison Cell
Reply-To: beave...@foxnews.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Message-ID: <7eSdnYpKxP-AJ1XX...@posted.sonicnet>
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-NvHXdcWNbGgRfthf6aCVPDNX2MG9Eldh+t8fRgRRslvbJ+ma1PzTEhzm26OWrvRPeMQJSciujKf9DcU!VGA8Uf/fY+ruq0mqRIE5Kpdie03bdUprsNJ2F2C9FA6/2n3xWV8keXbZeUnUHgVSJrmfJjQRF5Gw!shzHnDuhWPRVFhXtkKM=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca-...@sonic.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2619
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.politics.republicans:1878056
alt.politics.bush:5592559 alt.impeach.bush:1957316 alt.rec.guns:71686
alt.guns:119445
Tom S.
He feels it's okay to make vague claims or statements and then rely on us to,
first, figure out WTF he's talking about, then to provide rebuttal.
In that, he's way behind Roger Bacon and the rules of evidence from the 14th
century.
From all appearances, he's just junior high school punk who keeps repeating
the same mantra and replies as if we're impressed by his adolescent manner.
Bert Hyman
<SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Hayduke Lives!"
Well, yeah. He used to be content to call himself "Fredric L. Rice".
I have no idea what his fascination with OJ Simpson might be. Maybe he
has a thing about knives.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
SaPeIsMa
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C9AAE55A55...@216.250.184.7...
> In news:6P-dnY3-qNFzh1TX...@posted.cpinternet "SaPeIsMa"
> <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Hayduke Lives!"
>
> Well, yeah. He used to be content to call himself "Fredric L. Rice".
>
> I have no idea what his fascination with OJ Simpson might be. Maybe he
> has a thing about knives.
>
I need a better tool to filter these nym-changers out before I even open
their messages.
Lamont Cranston
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In
>> news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
>> Suppurating Tool <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as
>>> other competing
>>> cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and
>>> easy access
>>> to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the
>>> Chicago
>>> turn- down.
>>
>> They certainly prefer the government-run death squads
>> that regularly
>> murder people all over Brazil.
>>
>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Brazil-Police-In-Rio-De-Janeiro-Murder-Three-People-A-Day-According-To-UN-Report/Article/200809315100536
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9mzax4
>>
>> "Police in Rio de Janeiro are responsible for murdering
>> three people every day, a controversial UN report says."
>>
>>
>
> (TIME Magazine)
> Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
> By Erik Heinrich
>
> President Barack Obama has been doing his part to help
> Chicago win
> the 2016 Summer Olympics. He has taped messages of support
> for the
> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and hosted a
> reception at the White House to
> help raise his adopted hometown's profile. Now he's flying
> to Copenhagen to
> personally help Chicago with its final push.
>
> The IOC will make its decision on Oct. 2, after
> considering rival
> bids from Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro (which is
> considered the
> front runner). But in light of the heavy financial burden
> that is associated with
> staging the Olympics, the question is: Would getting the
> Games really
> be a good thing for Chicago?
>
> For the Second City's business community, the answer is a
> resounding
> yes. "We view the opportunity as one of those pivotal
> moments in our
> history," says Lance Pressl, an executive at the
> Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
> "Innovative juices flow, our broad shoulders get flexed
> and
> collectively we transform this great city into something
> even
> better." (See the long history of Olympic politics.)
>
> But that hasn't always been true. The economic benefits of
> the
> Olympics for host cities are at best mixed, and the
> opening bravado often descends
> into recrimination and regret. Of course, there are
> obvious benefits
> for an Olympic host city � primarily the opportunity to
> showcase
> itself in front of a global TV audience numbering in the
> billions. Indeed, many view the Olympics
> as the ultimate infomercial to help attract business and
> foreign
> direct investment (FDI).
> But that has to be balanced with the danger of runaway
> costs, which
> seem almost guaranteed when it comes to the Olympics. Brad
> Humphreys,
> professor of the Economics of Gaming at the University of
> Alberta, keeps count on
> Olympic budgets. His tally is a tale of excess: Athens
> budgeted $1.6
> billion for the 2004 Games but wound up spending $16
> billion. Four
> years later, Beijing budgeted the same amount, $1.6
> billion, for the 2008 Summer Games yet
> spent an enormous $40 billion. London originally planned
> to spend $8
> billion for the 2012 Games; the current estimate is $19
> billion and
> rising. "Once the Games leave town, there often isn't much
> to celebrate," says Humphreys,
> noting that host countries nearly always experience a drop
> in GDP
> growth in the year after the Games. (See highs and lows
> from the 2008
> Beijing Games.)
> In terms of sheer financial disaster, however, it would be
> hard to
> match Montreal's 1976 Games. It has taken the city more
> than 30 years
> to pay off its extravaganza, the cost of which is still
> not entirely
> known, according to Humphreys. The Olympic stadium was a
> particular
> disaster; originally budgeted for C$156 million, it ended
> up costing the city C$2 billion, including
> numerous fixes to the roof and years of interest payments.
> The Quebec
> government had to introduce a special tobacco tax to help
> pay down
> its Olympic investment.
>
> Vancouver, which will host the Winter Olympics in 2010,
> has already
> had its debt rating downgraded because its Olympic Village
> has turned into a
> money pit that could end up costing taxpayers as much as
> $1 billion.
> As for the total price tag for Vancouver's Games,
> estimates vary from $1.6 billion to
> $5.5 billion. (Read "In Hard Times, Olympic Plans Go On a
> Budget.")
>
> One reason for the wide disparity is how the costs are
> allocated. In
> Vancouver's case, there's a big debate about how to
> account for two
> major projects being built for the Olympics: a light-rail
> link
> connecting the city to the airport, and costly upgrades to
> the Sea to Sky highway, which
> winds north along Pacific fjords. Should these projects be
> part of the
> Olympic budget or (because they will presumably serve the
> city for years
> afterward) part of the general municipal budget? Either
> way, the projects will
> take decades to pay down.
>
> If there is one Olympic city for Chicago to emulate, it
> would be
> Atlanta. The city's $1.7 billion privately funded Summer
> Games in
> 1996 sparked a construction boom in the city's downtown
> core and, according to the
> Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, generated $5 billion in
> economic
> activity, including $1.8 billion in hotel, residential and
> commercial
> construction. What's more, the city found long-term uses
> for its Olympic venues,
> transferring the Olympic stadium and village to the
> Atlanta Braves
> and Georgia State University, respectively. "The Olympics
> gave
> Atlanta a tremendous boost in commerce," says Sam
> Williams, president of the Metro Atlanta
> Chamber. "We become a global city, not just the capital of
> the
> South." However, critics say Atlanta got too caught up in
> the idea of
> making the Olympics self-funding. As a result, it missed
> out on state and federal money that could have
> paid for upgrades to neighborhoods and sewage systems.
>
> Chicago estimates that the cost of hosting the 2016
> Olympics will be
> $4.8 billion. If its bid finds favor with the IOC this
> week in
> Copenhagen, the city might be well advised to get venues
> shovel-ready
> as quickly as possible, for it has one advantage that
> Atlanta didn't: access to a portion of
> Washington's $787 billion economic stimulus package, much
> of which is
> still being allocated.
> If, on the other hand, Chicago doesn't make the cut, the
> city
> shouldn't feel too bad. For municipalities, the Olympics
> deliver more broken dreams
> than gold medals.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0114812.html
"The [1984] L.A. Olympics were the first privately financed
Games ever and made an unheard of profit of $215 million.
Time magazine was so impressed it named organizing president
Peter Ueberroth its Man of the Year."
Lamont Cranston
> Blank wrote:
>> "Ignorant.and.stupid" <no...@no.no> wrote in message
>> news:ha6hbo$p6s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> It's easy to understand why Chicago lost the deal.
>>>
>>> The Obamas promised to return to Copenhagen to thank the
>>> committee...
>>
>> bad your
>> hero, GW, made our country a pariah in the eyes of the
>> world. Now
>> all you can do is make stupidass remarks that are not
>> true and look
>> like a loser.
>> I fixed your screen name.....
>>
>>
>
> No president in modern history has seen so rapid a decline
> in
> constituency confidence and international opinion, due to
> the lack of
> correlation between promises and performance.
Simply a lie.
Daniel
<Lamont.Crans...@EvilWatcher.com> wrote:
> Ignorant.not.stupid wrote:
> > Blank wrote:
Then it should be easy for you to refute, no?
Ignorant.not.stupid
Obama began his term with a very high approval rating. Since then, however:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Obama does not have the lowest first-year approval rating in modern
history (Carter?), but Gallup's definition of the relationship between
his starting point and current numbers substantiate my argument.
Truman had the lowest approval numbers since the 1930s (1952, with the
Korean War), but in his first year of elected office he was surfing the
euphoric wave of peace.
For comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
On the other hand, the highest ratings went to JFK, though his term was
cut short before his approval numbers had a chance to begin falling.
Every presidential candidate promises whatever is necessary to win, and
all of them will eventually disappoint the constituency.
(1) Obama's "promise-to-performance" ratio is low, and
(2) in year one of his first term the "disappointment factor" is rising
more rapidly than that of any other modern president.
That is a deadly combination, but I nonetheless wish Mr. Obama a
successful presidency, possible only because the Legislative Branch is
powerfully Democratic and the Judicial Branch is increasingly liberal.
By the way, the only presidents to have surpassed the ratings of
post-war Truman were Bush... and Bush.
INS
Daniel
I was talking to the libtard piece of shit that claimed you were lying.
Tom S.
> Daniel wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 11:49 am, "Lamont Cranston"
>
> Korean War), but in his first year of elected office he was surfing the
> euphoric wave of peace.
>
> For comparison:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
Dubious.
>
> On the other hand, the highest ratings went to JFK, though his term was cut
> short before his approval numbers had a chance to begin falling.
Really? JFK was in Dallas to shore up his support for the 1964 election. It
was doubtful that he was going to win re-election.
>
> Every presidential candidate promises whatever is necessary to win, and all
> of them will eventually disappoint the constituency. (1) Obama's
> "promise-to-performance" ratio is low, and (2) in year one of his first
> term the "disappointment factor" is rising more rapidly than that of any
> other modern president.
>
> That is a deadly combination, but I nonetheless wish Mr. Obama a successful
> presidency, possible only because the Legislative Branch is powerfully
> Democratic and the Judicial Branch is increasingly liberal.
>
> By the way, the only presidents to have surpassed the ratings of post-war
> Truman were Bush... and Bush.
>
> INS
Where 'Bamer is sliding fastest is the measure of where he stands after only
eight months, not where he satds after ONE YEAR.
Lamont Cranston
> Ignorant.not.stupid wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 11:49 am, "Lamont Cranston"
>>
>> Truman had the lowest approval numbers since the 1930s
>> (1952, with
>> the Korean War), but in his first year of elected office
>> he was
>> surfing the euphoric wave of peace.
>>
>> For comparison:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
>
> Dubious.
>>
>> On the other hand, the highest ratings went to JFK,
>> though his term
>> was cut short before his approval numbers had a chance
>> to begin
>> falling.
>
> Really? JFK was in Dallas to shore up his support for the
> 1964
> election. It was doubtful that he was going to win
> re-election.
His re-election was a forgone conclusion. He had a 56%
approval rating at the time of his death. He was in Dallas
to raise money and patch up disputes within the Democratic
Party in Texas.
Jim
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@EvilWatcher.com> wrote in message
news:hafkeu$ctj$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> Really? JFK was in Dallas to shore up his support for the 1964
>> election. It was doubtful that he was going to win re-election.
>
> His re-election was a forgone conclusion. He had a 56% approval rating at
> the time of his death. He was in Dallas to raise money and patch up
> disputes within the Democratic Party in Texas.
>
Umm, no. A lot of Southerners despised him. Being Catholic was a big part of
it.
Just so happens I remember it.
Tom S.
> Tom S. wrote:
>> Ignorant.not.stupid wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>> On Oct 5, 11:49 am, "Lamont Cranston"
>>>
>>> Truman had the lowest approval numbers since the 1930s (1952, with the
>>> Korean War), but in his first year of elected office he was surfing the
>>> euphoric wave of peace.
>>>
>>> For comparison:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
>>>
>>
>> Dubious.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the highest ratings went to JFK, though his term was
>>> cut short before his approval numbers had a chance to begin falling.
>>
>> Really? JFK was in Dallas to shore up his support for the 1964 election.
>> It was doubtful that he was going to win re-election.
>
> His re-election was a forgone conclusion. He had a 56% approval rating at
> the time of his death.
Really? Do you have a citation for that, as I've hear quite differently.
In just his first term he'd led us to the brink in Berlin and Cuba, presided
over a stagnant economy, though his earlier tax rate cuts were beginning to
kick in.
Lamont Cranston
Uh, yes.
>
> Just so happens I remember it.
I also remember it.
barney
"Suppurating Tool" <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Customarily, the International Olympic Committee does not, and
> probably will not, release reasons why 2016 Olympic host competitors
> were not selected, including those for Chicago's losing bid.
>
> But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as other competing
> cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and easy access
> to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the Chicago turn-
> down.
>
> "We simply could not conscience the real possibility that, should
> Chicago be named host city, crowds of attendees might be allowed to
> openly carry deadly weapons," said an IOC member who insisted upon
> anonymity.
>
> "This was especially crucial in our decision-making because the U.S.
> Supreme Court continues to grant more gun-freedoms to their citizens."
>
> Score another negative U.S. international image among the many
> attributed to the George W. Bush "administration" and its conservative-
> stacked Supreme Court!
>
> http://www.olympic.org/