Just curious to see what fellow Outsporters' opinions/thoughts are, so I'm posting two different polls.

In the first poll, please choose whom you BELIEVE will be awarded the 2016 games, regardless of whom you want to win.

In the second poll, please choose whom you WANT to be awarded the 2016 games, regardless of whether you believe that city will win.


I posted this in the P&R section mainly so people can bitch, if they want, about the politics of this whole process, especially considering that the United States' most corrupt city is one of the 4 finalists.

Gee, you'd think that in light of a poll conducted by Chicago 2016's Chairman that showed "overwhelming" American support for Chicago's bid, that there would be tons of Outsporters voting their desire to see Chicago get the games.

This poll was dramatically different from one the Chicago Tribune just did, which showed about HALF of Chicagoans didn't want the games. The Chicago 2016 chairman said his poll showed 81% of Americans favoring Chicago's bid and 72% of Chicagoans favoring it. I highly doubt those figures.

I'm sure my esteemed friend fantomas wants it so his buddy Mayor Daley and his cronies can get even richer off all the contracts that will come from this.

Just so long as Chicago finishes construction on their roads. I was there 2 weeks ago for a family wedding, and from I-94, to I-80, to I-294, to I-88, to I-255 they were ALL under construction, and I-255 was the worst. And AFTER all that, I was told I should have taken I-355 (or was it I-390) (I think that's the one) all the way. I am going from memory for the highway numbers, so there might be some errors there.

It took me 10 hours to drive from Toronto to Gary Indiana, and 4 hours from Gary to Aurora, (a suburb).

Not that ill be living in Chicago in 2016, but no for the Olympics in Chicago.

I have no issue with the Olympics coming to Chicago for 2016. People are acting like it will affect them personally because of Chicago's history of corruption. Who gives a shit. I would always root for the Olympics to come to the United States. It gives people here in the US an opportunity to go to an amazing event who otherwise wouldn't be able to go if they were half way around the world somewhere.

HOWEVER....I must say that if they are in Rio....oh it is on!!! I mean I'll be there in Chicago if they are here and it would be wonderful but dios mio can you imagine if they are in Rio De Janeiro???? OMG all that Brazilian hotness, plus the international hotness that will be there. If my boyfriend and I are still together then, I might have to break up with him for a couple weeks because I'd be having my own Olympic games.

Mdterp, you don't live in Chicago, so while I respect your opinion, I have to say that I strongly disagree with you. The corruption does matter and it will severely affect Chicagoans, Illinoisans, and the US *personally* for decades to come. Neither Illinois nor Chicago can afford to repair streets; fix the infrastructure; properly run public institutions; pay for services; or anything. Once you leave the very pretty downtown area and a few select parts of the city (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Hyde Park, Kenwood, the Gold Coast, the lakeside areas, etc.) the problems are evident. But the worst aspect of all is the VERY HIGH TAXES that Chicagoans have to pay. The taxes are outrageous, and where do they go? Where do the Cook County taxes go?

Let some other US city that has oodles of money host the Olympics. Why not let Atlanta host them again? Or Los Angeles? Chicago, Illinois, and the US cannot afford the billions that will be sucked out of taxpayers pockets to give Richie Daley a final bow as mayor. I hate to see our president get dissed publicly, but I am hoping the IOC is polite to him and Mrs. Obama when they're both told that Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and South America in general, will finally be getting their first Olympics.

Ok fantomas. I didn't realize there were all of those other issues going on. I have a couple relatives in Chicago that live in Hyde Park and a friend that lives in North Chicago. I haven't been outside of the downtown area while there so I have to take your word that, like many big cities, there are issues once you leave the major tourist areas and nicer living areas.

The taxes there are ridiculous. I'm glad when I go I show my license that I'm from another state and get my damn sales tax lowered. In addition, does Chicago have a gang czar? Or a juvenile czar? I'd be pissed paying all of those taxes and there are children dying on the street in the numbers that they are in Chicago. The 16 year old honor student that was just beaten to death absolutely broke my heart, and he's another in a long line of Chicago youth who have been murdered over foolishness. I mean I would have expected Obama and Michelle and Oprah to be cheerleading for the Olympics. Thats where they used to live. Forget all the senseless politics that the Rethuglicans have turned it into. But yeah...I'm trying to support my country and say sure...Chicago of course...but I think I'd feel a better sense of happiness if Rio got them. Rio just better curb that crime between now and then. I'm sure they would have stepped up security though, but lord knows when you are there for any other time, it behooves tourists to NOT look like tourists.

If I had any real belief that either businesses or the country could afford another Olympics, and if there were going to be real transparency about all the construction and a sense that all the new building would really benefit the people whose communities will be changed (destroyed) by it, I'd maybe yes. But just watching the ridiculous horse-trading, shifts in plans, secret deals, and so forth involving the mayor and alderpeople doesn't inspire any confidence. And just look at Illinois's last two governors. Plus the country is in very bad financial shape. We're not where we were in 1996, when we were economically on the upswing. Hell, if Obama were actively pulling the troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say maybe we can afford this. But it looks like it'll be Montreal/Athens 2.0. Not good.

Taxes are insane. Then there's all the graft and corruption. Then terrible decisions by the mayor like the whole parking meter mess. The state is broke. Turn the city, states and country around first, and then let's talk about Olympics here again.

Rio's really dicey in places (especially north of the downtown area), so I'm curious to see how the city and state governments there, as well as the Brazilian government, will be able to address the crime problem. Just a few years ago the drug dealers were playing games with the police, attacking university students, staging strikes in prisons, and really just acting out. Personally I think Brazil's first Olympic games should be staged in one of the other major cities with fewer problems and more space, like Belo Horizonte, Salvador, or Porto Alegre. Or Curitiba, which is one of the best run cities in the world.

Huh? Must you always be so ridiculously partisan? The Olympics decision is purely political. The IOC itself is almost as corrupt as Chicago/Crook County/Illinois in general. Republicans have nothing to do with this, save for their stupid complaining that the President of the U.S. is going over there to lobby for his hometown. Other than that, they have nothing to do with this.

As much as I love the city of Chicago, I detest its government. I detest the government of Crook County and the State of Illinois (except for Governor Quinn, whom I rather like). I am not in favor of Chicago being awarded the Olympics because of this city's and its county's innate corrupt nature. I almost consider it a "punishment," so to speak, for their being so corrupt. They just don't deserve it. Moreover, the voters/residents of the city and County don't deserve it, either, because they keep electing these morons.

BTW, I should mention that even though I oppose Chicago getting the Olympics, I see nothing wrong with Obama going to Copenhagen to make a push for the city. After all, he's the president of the U.S. and Chicago is his home. Regardless, he's damned if he goes, damned if he doesn't go. If he doesn't go and Chicago loses the bid, the GOP will blame him for the loss, saying that he couldn't even go and help his hometown. If he goes and Chicago wins, they'll accuse him of trying to take credit, as if he was the one who swung the vote.

Thats what I was talking about Crew Chief re: the Repubs turning it political. The whole criticism from some that he's even going over there. And you are right. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I just love how Obama takes heat for going to Copenhagen (for less than one day mind you) to push for the Chicago bid but nobody who is bitching about it had anything to say when Bush went to China for four days merely to watch the Olympics.

Given that South America has never hsoted an Olympics, I would be fine with Rio getting them. Anthing that allows us to watch some live events instead of everything being on tape delay or live at 3am on CMSN-WXYZ-BC.

Ok, if Chicago is awarded the Olympics, that's just fine with me. But I will wager on Rio, Obama and Momma just the same.

TRL

Well that was quick.

First one eliminated.

Rio 2016!

I voted for Chicago as most likely and the one I would like to see win. If it helps to bring a re-election of Obama or a more Obama-like regime to the USA in the next presidential election it would be worth it.

Brazil has a lot on its hands with the 2014 Soccer Championships. So it is good they do not have to worry about this as well.

Though I would not mind being able to watch some of the Games in Spanish from Spain through one of the Spanish-language networks, I wouldn't want to deal with the time difference. So since I will not likely be able to get to Spain then I am being totally selfish on this one.

Japan co-hosted the recent World Soccer Championship and I know I'll never get that far to see them. Besides China had the last Olympics and it seems the voters might take that in to consideration.

The vote looks like the first round went the way it did because Europe has almost half of the votes available (46 of the 96-97 eligible)- so Madrid to the second round was a no-brainer.

The Asia-Pacific group probably kept Tokyo available past Chicago.

the Caribbean/North America and South America votes are going to be split between Rio and Chicago.... with a lot of South America/Central America/Caribbean votes likely going the way of Rio, voters from Africa and Middle EASt would have had to make the difference.... not enough- the other blocks were too strong.

The U.S. has spread itself thin in the world- baseball and softball voted out at least until 2020 (why f**king synchronized swimming is a sport in the Olympics defies me LOL)- and with the Bush regime and our current wars and economy problems- it just was not enough.

It is a shame that the Midwest has limited opportunities to inspire hosting the Olympics- we host pretty damn well. It would have been nice to have an Olympics so close anf get some Geographical economical boosts here in Michigan- all the people for weeks before spending money on training facilities, hotels- the job opportunities, etc. would have all been nice... I wish Detroit was in better shape politically and economically- we lost a bid in the 60s to Mexico City that came down to the food bill- we have had 8 lost bids- who knows in the future!! lol

Anyways, I hope it goes to Rio-

Congratulations to Rio!!! Can't wait to go!!!!! Should be awesome!!!

Was this a smackdown of President & Michelle Obama? No (although it's probably a painful thing). Was this instead a body blow to Chicago especially & to America a little less? I believe so. The IOC is almost as corrupt & slimy as Chicago & its Democratic officials, but that probably didn't matter. I believe that part of the rationale of IOC voting members was their inherent anti-American bias, & this has nothing to do with our most recent president, GW. For all the arrogance the Europeans accuse America of having, Europeans need only to look in the mirror to see their own sense of elitist self-righteousness. Heck, Madrid, & not Rio, had the highest # of votes in the 1st round, something of a shock, I must admit. I was a pro-Rio guy from the beginning, & I'm pleased with the final vote. I confess that I find it amusing & hilarious to see our local media in a total state of shock & pandemonium over this. They're beside themselves & can't believe that Chicago lost, worse, that they got eliminated in the 1st round! Only 18 of the 97 IOC voters cast ballots for Chicago. That's embarrassing & pathetic. Finally, 1 election that Chicago Democrats didn't rig. Time for Mayor Daley to fly home with his imperial head hung low.

Geez- you make it sound like it was horrid- the top vote-getter received 28 votes- the Euro block had Madrid in first. Then all the Chicago votes went Rio's way pretty much. Rio and Chicago split votes. Madrid gained only 4 more votes for the end total through all 3 rounds...

2020 USA city possibilities lists Boston as one of the cities interested... hmmmm

I never made it sound horrid. The vote, however, was an absolute stunner for Chicago especially and to most everyone else (not necessarily the final winner, but the 1st round results). Vegas & London betting houses all had Chicago as the winner over Rio. For Chicago to receive so few votes right off the bat was totally unexpected. Even I, a Rio supporter, was shocked by Chicago's elimination so quickly.

Wasn't going to Madrid - not having summer games(and three consecutive games) in Europe.

The US had them last in '96, Asia in '08 and a Winter Games in Japan in '98.

South America, never had them. Rio was the most logical choice. Well deserved.

I hardly think the result was a stunner. It was pretty well known that the IOC like to move the Games around the continents and since South America has never been a host that favored Rio. Also since they hosted the recent Pan Am Games they already have at least half of the infrastructure required already in place.

Was the vote a snub to the Obamas? Doubt it, unless you also believe the vote was a snub to the new PM of Japan and to King Juan Carlos of Spain who also appeared before the IOC to support their countries bids.

Rio should be great. I can only imagine the opening ceremonies, if they are anything like Mardi Gras heads in America will be exploding for the greatest scandal since nipple gate at the Super Bowl.

Not a stunner no but it used to be taken for granted that US TV, as the major payer for rights, called the shots and that a strong American candidate would always win because of their backing - eg Atlanta beating Athens for the 96 games. That "rule" no longer applies it seems.

Correct, there is a great big world outside of the USA and America no longer calls all the shots.

I think there's also still a lot of ill will in the world from the Bush years, and it manifested itself in these votes.

I'm glad the games are going to South America, and glad that Mayor Daley ordering Obama to go to Copenhagen so his cronies could rake in the dough from taxpayer-funded "cost overruns" in construction projects realted to the Games backfired on him.

And the games in Rio is actually good for North American TV because it's on a similar time zone.

Start waxing, boys, the Olympics are going to Brazil!

That's a ridiculous statement, one borne of unnecessary partisanship. Did it ever occur to you that if there was any anti-American sentiment, it might be due to the still-fresh-in-the-IOC's minds scandal surrounding the Salt Lake games? Or, as a couple IOC members said Friday, the USOC's situation being such a mess?

Really, this paranoid blame Bush for everything is really old!

Um, it's not as ridiculous as it sounds, CC. Bush & Co. did a lot of damage when it comes to international relations, and there is a huge amount of worldwide resentment against America, even though Obama was elected. I too echo the sediments that Chicago and King Daley won't be able to stuff their pockets with all those "cost over-runs". A sad day for crooked politicians, and perhaps the kiss of death for the political career of King Daley. Now he can go back to counting quarters in the parking meters. No, wait, he can't do that either, since he sold that and just about everything else down the river.

CC does not seem to remember that actually PARTIES and PUBLIC OUTPOURING of DANCING IN THE STREETS occurred around the world when Obama won the election.... I doubt Bush was the only cause of Chicago going down, but anti-Americanism does occur- softball and baseball both going down in votes despite baseball's general universality and softball growing was a strong anti-American vote. The USOC has gotten greedy with money as well and caused some issues with voting members- although a good part (actually a majority I think) of the television money generated is from the USA.

This Chicagoan says it all:



Happy for Rio too!

I think you're projecting your own partisan delusions onto others. It's somewhat amusing since I make no bones about the fact that I'm a registered Republican. I also have eyes, ears and a brain and actually engage them. You need not look very far on the web to find hundreds of articles about the anti-American sentiment that spread throughout the world during the Bush presidency. It was resentment borne of Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocols, the willful prevarication about WMD in Iraq as a cover to invade that country, the public dismissal of the concerns of of our Western allies about policies in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and travel and visa restrictions that have made America a much less welcoming destination for people from many countries - indeed, an IOC member from Pakistan asked a very pointed question about that last issue during the Chicago Committee's Q&A session, and President Obama himself had to address it. Whether one agrees that these feelings among international citizenry are justified is a separate debate, but the existence of them cannot be denied, no matter the efforts of knuckle-dragging apologists who continue their accelerating descent down the evolutionary ladder.

As Kick alluded to above, any anti-Americanism that might have been involved was not due to Bush, but to the problems the IOC has been having with the USOC, which has really irritated the IOC. From the scandals of Salt Lake to the Olympic Channel issue to revenue sharing to the turnover in USOC leadership, all this has led to a very strained relationship between the IOC and the U.S. This has even been discussed by several of the voting members.

Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but his presidency had NOTHING to do with Chicago losing the bid. Sorry to disappoint the Obama haters, but his "ego" (are you listening, Mr. Drudge?) allegedly taking him to Copenhagen also had NOTHING to do with Chicago losing the bid. If one is going to say that the Bush presidency had anything to do with the IOC's vote, then one could legitimately argue that Obama's flying to Copenhagen was an arrogant attempt to tell the IOC what to do, and it's common knowledge that the IOC, for all its legitimate gripes against the USOC, is itself a corrupt, elitist, self-righteous body.

The situation with the USOC and South America never having hosted an Olympics were the main reasons Chicago lost the bid.

BTW, I'm well aware you label yourself a Republican, and I have no problem with that. Living in the state I do has turned me into more of a Libertarian/whatever, if that. Still, I am looking at this decision through nonpartisan or nonideological lenses. (Oh, and just as an aside, I'm GLAD this country never submitted to that absolutely horrible Kyoto accord. I hope we never do!)

Ok here's what I have a problem with. Some conservative bloggers and other right wingers are saying "hahahaha" and Fox News website was quick to put their headline "Obamas Fail" and "Barack's Pitch for Olympics Falls Flat". And its so interesting that this is not considered unpatriotic. Cuz lord knows after their efforts to try and portray him as unpatriotic failed, this is clearly pot, kettle, black!!!!! I mean Jesus Christ....HE'S BLACK PEOPLE....OR BROWN...OR HALF BLACK...or whatever....he's of color and thats the root of the issue for a lot of these people. Now I understand that this isn't everyone and that there are people who didn't want Chicago to get it because of issues with Daley and corruption in Chicago, and the fact that many Chicagoans didn't want it. But to be rejoicing that Obama failed to bring it as somehow it was all on him is ridiculous. So that is the partisanship I see. They don't want this man to succeed in anything that he does and will rejoice in anything they can see as a personal and/or political failure.

Forget about whether or not the Bush era had anything to do with it. I didn't say that and don't really even think that was so much of the issue. Rio deserved it. Its never been in South America before, and there were financing issues for Chicago going in. People in Chicago sent lobbyist type people to Copenhagen to persuade the IOC not to vote for Chicago. Its this rejoicing now that I guess can't be called unpatriotic because obviously the right wingers have the stamp on what it is to be a "real" American. Bullshit!! These people are disgusting.

His racial background is only part of why conservatives attack him so relentlessly. You may be too young to remember it, but the right-wing, in collusion with the "mainstream" corporate media, went after the last Democratic president for the entire length of his term. THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF HIS TERM. From 1992 to 2000, the right-wing did not let up on Bill Clinton or his wife. Right-wing craziness, which reached its apogee in 1998 with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the attempts to impeach him, included calling him a murderer and a rapist, launching the Contract with (on) America and vicious attacks on his cabinet members, the multimillion dollar investigations into Vince Foster's death, the Whitewater Scandal, and so on. But it wasn't just the right wing. The Washington Post and New York Times were active participants. The latter paper actually published the first major Whitewater story, and has never apologized for its role in trying to destroy Clinton. And his Vice President Al Gore. Right-wing attacks continued even after he'd left office with the smears about his staff's alleged destruction of the White House, allegations which were proved to be lies.

Back to the Olympics. Another issue that has not been discussed is the extreme difficulty many non-US citizens face in getting visas. It is not excessively difficult for people from Europe and Canada, but I can tell you that friends from Brazil have said it's a nightmare traveling to this country, and numerous students from Asia, Africa, and South America are choosing other places to study in the world because of the ongoing visa problems. The ridiculous thing about all of this is that it does not stop undocumented workers from coming; only the economic collapse has slowed that down. It also doesn't seem to stop terrorists, who can cross the border at will. It does keep out potential students, businesspeople, artists, scholars, and many others who have legitimate reasons to visit the US. I heard almost nothing from Obama or anyone else about this.

There were many reasons for the IOC to say no to Chicago as it did to New York City last time.

This ought to fuel the fire of the right wing...

I had recorded a couple local news coverages on Friday on my DVR. On Friday's WGN Midday News, former ABC Channel 7 political reporter Andy Shaw, who is a well-known, very liberal individual and is now the president of the Better Government Assn. (BGA), was being interviewed by anchor Steve Sanders about the IOC's decision. Andy made some lengthy comments that I found interesting. First, he stated that several IOC members thought Obama's visit was evidence of America's arrogance. As Shaw explained, "Heads of state and other leaders would normally come in and spend a few days shmoozing IOC members, but President Obama swoops in, spends a few hours in town, then leaves. To many, this was a sign of American arrogance. An American president can't spend time meeting with IOC members. Instead, he comes in for a very short period of time and tells the IOC members what to do, as if the United States is once again bullying the rest of the world."

Again, this is a liberal former reporter saying this. When asked about this by Sanders and his anchor-mate, Shaw stated that his contacts had told him there were several IOC members who felt this way. What intrigued me more, however, wasn't those comments--we can have this "It was Bush's fault/It was Obama's fault" argument all day; rather, it was Shaw's later comments about the construction bids that shocked me--and the WGN anchors. Shaw explained that his sources have confirmed with him that all the construction contracts and bids "were a done deal." There was no inclusion of the required 42% minority businesses--nothing. The construction projects had all been signed, sealed, and delivered, so to speak. As Shaw said, "The largest construction project in Chicago history, the 2016 Olympics, was seen as a gold mine for Chicago's typical cronies, who stood to profit enormously from all the work that would need to be completed. With the IOC's decision, all this disappeared."

There was much more in-depth discussion of this; I was trying to paraphrase what he was saying about the bids and stuff, but this much is true: his comments brought reactions and comments of disbelief from the news anchors.

In light of this, I am more pleased by the IOC's decision now than I was 2 days ago.


The mess that is the U.S. Olympic Committee.

If you ask me, I'm sure this played a major part in the IOC's decision.

Of course, the same unhinged right-wing negativity klatsch that now celebrates America's loss would have railed against Obama for NOT going to Copenhagen if he had decided to stay home and Rio had won. This will be good for the president in the long run because every tiny misstep and misdeed in the run-up to the Games would have been attached to him because he's from the same city, not that that makes any sense. Whether it's good for Chicago or the country is a matter of debate. Looks like we'll have to wait for 2024.

From what I read, Obama was not planning to go to Copenhagen, but people involved with the Chicago bid convinced him that they were so close to victory and that Obama's presence would push them over the top. Obama bought into it and decided to go at the last minute. But clearly the Chicago bid wasn't anywhere near close to winning.

The IOC is highly political, and are affected by business and politics beyond what might be considered the global political climate. There is all sorts of back-scratching and other reasons why a city might win (certainly Toronto was shafted a couple of times; losing to Atlanta and Beijing). Plus, who among us has actually read the bids from all 4 cities and examined the financial data, for example? Chicago just may have been a weak bid. I don't think anyone can say it was merely "anti-American" feeling that caused Chicago to lose out, although that may have been a component. Rio may have genuinely had the best bid. Or maybe the IOC wanted to spread the Olympics to an emerging economy and developing region of the world (South America). Consider the locations of the most recent Summer Olympics:

2012: London (Europe)
2008: Beijing (Asia)
2004: Athens (Europe)
2000: Sydney (Australia)
1996: Atlanta (U.S.)
1992: Barcelona (Europe)
1988: Seoul (Asia)
1984: Los Angeles (U.S)
1980: Moscow (Asia)
1976: Montreal (Canada)

Of 10 most recent Summer Olympics: 3 Europe, 3 Asia, 3 North America, 1 Australia.
Of 10 most recent Winter Olympics: 4 North America, 4 Europe, 2 Asia

South America seems like a pretty fair choice, given that the other choices were Madrid (which would mean back-to-back European Olympics), Tokyo (which hosted in 1964; and Asia had hosted in 2008), or Chicago (the U.S. had hosted Olympics in 2002, 1996, 1984, 1980).

Now as for these American Conservatives who seem to be rejoicing that America "lost." Rachel Maddow points out that a year ago president George Bush himself was touting the Chicago Olympics as America's Olympics. One wonders if these same Conservatives would be cheering if Bush went to Copenhagen and Chicago got bounced in the first round. Yay, we lost!

CC, I personally know Andy Shaw. He may be a liberal, but he is a professional. He is a fair reporter. He does not allow his personal opinion to cloud his news judgement, nor his work. It seems as though being fair, and truly unbiased, now automatically labels you as a liberal. This is a really disturbing trend started by some right-wingers in the interest of garnering some ratings. It is a very dangerous game that is severely dividing this nation.

As for the corruption, were you the least surprised that everything had already been set in stone, and the dollars were already starting to line the pockets? Did you honestly think minorities were going to get a fair shake? There was a group ready to file suit over the fact that only south side parks, located in predominiately African-American communites, were going to be used for the Olympics, cutting off those residents from convenient access to their parks for a number of years. The spokesman brought up an excellent point, in saying would this fly if Lincoln Park were used instead? Can you imagine the yuppie protests and petitions if a north side park were used?

As much as I like Obama, I too thought it was arrogant, and I could see where the IOC thought it was a bullying tactic. Oprah was pure overkill.

Quite the contrary. Just as those on the right are paranoid and overreactive (never more so than in this Olympic situation--Christ, can't the right just SHUT UP already?!?), liberals are rarely fair and unbiased. They're the worst when it comes to intolerance. Oh, they talk a good game when it comes to freedom of speech/expression, etc., but they're the first ones to shut down the opposition whenever it disagrees with their own opinions or views.

I've followed Andy Shaw's career for a long time, and whenever he came on channel 7, I muted him because I was sick of him injecting his left-wing ideology into his stories. His sarcastic questions and comments to those on the right grew old very fast. Of course, when he questioned those on the left, he did nothing but fawn all over such persons, handling them with kid gloves and heaping praises on them. I mentioned him being a liberal because if I didn't, some partisan hack on this board who wasn't familiar with him would most likely label him a right-winger due to his comments about Obama being perceived as an arrogant bully.

I need to run this country if for no other reason I can shut up the idiots on the Left and the Right and employ some simple common sense and umpire impartiality.

According to some wingnut ex-gay guy in Chicago the reason the city lost its bid for the Olympics is it is Gods punishment for Chicago's hosting the Gay Games in 2006. See it always ends up being the fault of the gays.

Good grief. I can't wait til we gays just have world domination. We get blamed for shit anyway so we might as well just start taking over everything and tell everyone to kiss our asses.

"Shoplifters of the world. Unite & take over!..."

And yet "God" awarded the Olympics to Rio, host of Carnivale? Um, okay religi-freaks.

LOL George! Somebody should post that on the numbnuts website, that is if he has one.

Hope this doesn't make it to Moscow. They'll want a recount about placing Moscow in Asia.lol Vladivostok...that's Asia. Doesn't change the point about South America never having hosted...and Europe/Asia/No. America have hosted often over the past 30 years. Without knowing anything more, I'd say that was a huge factor in awarding Rio the bid. Plus the time zone fits for No. America quite well....which after Australia, Europe, Beijing, and will be Europe again....didn't hurt Rio any.

Agree with the reminder about how Clinton was treated by the motor mouths on the rad right. So much of what Obama's hearing isn't race...it's politics. But Millerbeach, buddy, neutral is neutral, not left. Usually quite easy to spot the left journalists, because they so often argue their points in their pieces/reports. They're obviously not as dramatic as the Beck/Rush whoneedstruthjusttalkenoughtowearoutanyonewho'sthinking, but look at the questions they ask...the assumptions that underlie the questions....read news articles (not opinion pieces) in the Washington Post/NY Times and you can see it pretty quickly.

But it is part of it. Thats my point. Clinton DID lie, yet you didn't hear anyone shouting out "you lie" in a joint session of Congress. I don't give a damn if it wasn't an "official" session which prompted different protocol. That shit was just grimy and disrespectful.

Anywho...awesome point George about the anti gay guy saying Chicago was being banned and not realizing that Rio has a plethora of homosexual activity. I kind of thought the same thing when I read that. I was like ummm....guess he hasn't seen pictures from Copacabana and Ipanema on ANY given day.

Of course, you were the first to condemn Democrats who booed and hissed President Bush when he delivered his 2005 State of the Union address, an official address to a joint session of Congress. Oh, that's right. Your silence on that matter was deafening (as I'm sure it wasn't when Republicans childishly did the same toward Clinton). Yet here you are criticizing a Congressman for being such a cad during a presidential address. So if his outburst, a minor one comparatively speaking, is so unacceptable, why wasn't the en masse outburst against Bush equally or more "grimy and disrespectful"?

How's this: they both were unacceptable. The difference? The Left has a different set of standards, one that exemplifies their hypocrisy.

I actually don't recall that and didn't see it, and if that happened (and I have no reason to believe from your word that it didn't) then yes....they are just as grimy and disrespectful. There's a time and place for everything and thats not it. However, this goes far beyond Joe Wilson's example and trying to skirt around the issue and call it politics as usual is being blind. I read a good article that explained that people of different backgrounds are going to view this differently. People of color are going to be more prone to call certain things racist given the historical roots of the country, and persistent racism that exists in the country. I mean this was inevitable but I'm just tired of hearing "oh no thats not it" as if thats not part of whats happening, even if it is to a smaller degree than just a general disagreement with his politics. I'm not tryin to hear that.

Typical

LOL....you're a mess. Ok I will move it along. Besides I've gotten way off topic from the Olympics anyway, which I'm still thrilled are going to be in Rio. I actually don't think that security is going to be so much of an issue in what will be Olympic Park. I'm sure security will be very stepped up and the riff raff will be contained to a minimum. At the end of the day, its just about being smart and being aware of your surroundings. Don't be flashy and stay in at least a pair with someone. Of course once you leave that area and decide to venture in the outskirts for some nightlife activity, you may be kind of on your own, even though I'm expecting that security is going to be stepped up in those areas as well. The last thing that Rio wants, being the first South American country to host the Olympics, is anything bad happening on their watch. I'm excited. I wish I could start booking a package right now for it. I'm not even sure I'll go to London in 2012 for those summer games, but Rio....all my friends are already facebooking and myspacing and tweeting and texting about how we are so there!!!