Good to see Obama is on top of things

[lawgator1]

do u think he's pushin for it to be in Chicago due to his ties w/ his buddies

Maybe you missed the left dogging Bush every time he ventured near Texas. Maybe you should find Will Ferrel's Bush skits - namely the one about I'm on the job 24 / 7, that's 24 weeks a year, 7 hours a day.

The criticism is pathetic, but overlooking the cost of frivolous garbage is something you would do only when the left is doing its thing. You'd be on the bandwagon bemoaning costs if the roles were reversed.

What's up with the dichotomy in your first paragraph. First, you dump on Bush for traveling with big goings on around him, then justify it for Obama because his staff can handle it. Which is it, or does it just depend on who is in office for you?

no, because then you would have to shed light on the double standard you endorse. I'm sure you had no problem with Bush doing those things, eh?

But hes not, hes only over there for his home town to get the Olympics. What benefit will it bring other than gain for Chicago? None, they have already said that there would be no venues outside of Chicago. Just his way of paying back.

The snide insinuation in these comments is that Obama is doing this to help out his hometown.

So? Having the Olympics is financially rewarding for an entire community, one of the nation's largest. That he is from there, so? Why do you think so many other countries and cities bid on them? Because they lose giant gobs of money on them?

Chicago bid a long time ago, as did the others. So it ends up Obama wins and wants to go over there and help secure the games. I say, kudos. And would have said the same thing if Bush had gone over to Paris to try to talk them into holding the games in El Paso.

And, even if the people on the left (not me) criticized Bush for vacations, that would not justify this.

 

[IPorange]

You sounded exactly the same with Bush, LG. Just sayin'.

 

[Oldvol75]

On that point, I am, hack...cough....choke....gasp, on LGs side. Good grief, the man probably travels in the most technologically advanced cocoon on earth. He can do his job while traveling.

Griping about pissing away money to lobby for the Olympics is valid, the rest is almost funny.

I'm glad you think its funny, thats your right. I don't. Appearance and priorities, seem to be set aside. Yes, he has a technologically advanced aircraft, and can function from there. I would rather my President be here working on problems that face everyday Americans, thats what he was hired to do. If there is a matter of National Business,that effects all Americans, not just a select few, then by all means travel abroad. But this ain't one!

 

[BigPapaVol]

The snide insinuation in these comments is that Obama is doing this to help out his hometown.

He is, period.

So? Having the Olympics is financially rewarding for an entire community, one of the nation's largest. That he is from there, so? Why do you think so many other countries and cities bid on them? Because they lose giant gobs of money on them?

It is a money losing venture, but the host towns typically get to upgrade much of their civic space. It's an excuse in this case to upgrade much of the city's eyesore. Atlanta lost its ass on the 96 games.


And, even if the people on the left (not me) criticized Bush for vacations, that would not justify this. I'm not justifying it. Just once again pointing out your penchant for crying only on one side of the debate.

see bold

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm glad you think its funny, thats your right. I don't. Appearance and priorities, seem to be set aside. Yes, he has a technologically advanced aircraft, and can function from there. I would rather my President be here working on problems that face everyday Americans, thats what he was hired to do. If there is a matter of National Business,that effects all Americans, not just a select few, then by all means travel abroad. But this ain't one!

What else can be said? It has been made abundantly clear that he has the ability to work on any issues, domestic or abroad, that he would like from anywhere on earth. Pretending that he is backsliding here just makes no sense to me. The fact that he is wasting money makes sense.

 

[droski]

Having the Olympics is financially rewarding for an entire community, one of the nation's largest.

very few olympics of the past 20 years have been profitable. american taxpayers will be paying for chicago's benefit. just like obama likes it.

 

[kev20]

bottom line - no other president has ever done this, he wouldn't be doing this if his town wasn't in the running.

 

[utvolpj]

very few olympics of the past 20 years have been profitable. american taxpayers will be paying for chicago's benefit. just like obama likes it.

pretty sure I heard the city council has already agreed that the city will cover any $$ they are short. Congrats to the Chicago residents for footing the bill

 

[Vol Mania 21]

LG this one is for you

YouTube - Jack Webb Schools Barack Obama

 

[Oldvol75]

What else can be said? It has been made abundantly clear that he has the ability to work on any issues, domestic or abroad, that he would like from anywhere on earth. Pretending that he is backsliding here just makes no sense to me. The fact that he is wasting money makes sense.

Bits and pieces! Here try this (brickwall) there wasn't an icon, sorry!

 

[lawgator1]

I suppose that if people want to be arguing that he should not spend the money to go there and that, in any event, the nation as a whole would lose money even though Chicago and its civic arenas might get prettied up, are arguments I think everyone is making without knowing the numbers. There may be news stories that say that Atlanta "lost money," but we all know that statement is a bit complicated.

But this is where the intellectual dishonesty just annoys the piss out of me. First the argument was that he shouldn't go there because he has other things to work on. When sane people said, stfu, everyone knows he can handle anything from there just as well as if he was in the WH, the argument shifted to be, well, he's just helping Chicago.

When reasonable people said, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, the attack shifted yet again to, hey, the Olympics lose money.

When people say no they don't, the attack shifts, well, they cost the feds money, even if the locals make out.

And on and on.

My point, quite apart from the merits of this issue, is that the right has clearly gotten to the point that they will make any argument or charge, no matter how inconceived or specious, to attack the POTUS on what is really a fairly pedestrian thing, as presidents go.

Does the left do it to Republican presidents? Absolutely they do and they should be yelled at when they do it, too. Now I, personally, think that the right has elevated this kind of baseless attack to an art form. Might I think that because I generally support Obama? I suppose that is possible. But I think if you are objhective about it, between the birthers, the Secret Agent Muslim Man theorists, the He's a Commie gang, and others of that ilk, it sure seems that Obama is taking shots far nastier than his predecessors, be they Republican or Democrat.

 

[utvolpj]

When reaosnable people said, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, the attack chifted yet again to, hey, the Olympics lose money.

When people say no they don't, the attack shifts, well, they cost the feds money, even if the locals make out.

why would it shift when that's a valid point- the city will lose money that will be paid by the residents. Private businesses may come out ahead but the city loses as a whole. The Sunsphere proves to me this is all a ploy by Obama to get a big even to his city.

If it will help a city in such dire need why not pick Detroit instead? They could use all the cash you say it's going to make

 

[Vol Mania 21]

I suppose that if people want to be arguing that he should not spend the money to go there and that, in any event, the nation as a whole would lose money even though Chicago and its civic arenas might get prettied up, are arguments I think everyone is making without knowing the numbers. There may be news stories that say that Atlanta "lost money," but we all know that statement is a bit complicated.

But this is where the intellectual dishonesty just annoys the piss out of me. First the argument was that he shouldn't go there because he has other things to work on. When sane people said, stfu, everyone knows he can handle anything from there just as well as if he was in the WH, the argument shifted to be, well, he's just helping Chicago.

When reasonable people said, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, the attack shifted yet again to, hey, the Olympics lose money.

When people say no they don't, the attack shifts, well, they cost the feds money, even if the locals make out.

And on and on.

My point, quite apart from the merits of this issue, is that the right has clearly gotten to the point that they will make any argument or charge, no matter how inconceived or specious, to attack the POTUS on what is really a fairly pedestrian thing, as presidents go.

Does the left do it to Republican presidents? Absolutely they do and they should be yelled at when they do it, too. Now I, personally, think that the right has elevated this kind of baseless attack to an art form. Might I think that because I generally support Obama? I suppose that is possible. But I think if you are objhective about it, between the birthers, the Secret Agent Muslim Man theorists, the He's a Commie gang, and others of that ilk, it sure seems that Obama is taking shots far nastier than his predecessors, be they Republican or Democrat.

i believe we saw this during Bush's presidency. Least you don't hear the right saying they want Obama dead. You do remember the Kill Bush signs/shirts/etc. there were Bush Nazi/Hitler signs, etc. don't act like this just happens to a worse degree because Obama is black.

 

[Oldvol75]

I suppose that if people want to be arguing that he should not spend the money to go there and that, in any event, the nation as a whole would lose money even though Chicago and its civic arenas might get prettied up, are arguments I think everyone is making without knowing the numbers. There may be news stories that say that Atlanta "lost money," but we all know that statement is a bit complicated.

But this is where the intellectual dishonesty just annoys the piss out of me. First the argument was that he shouldn't go there because he has other things to work on. When sane people said, stfu, everyone knows he can handle anything from there just as well as if he was in the WH, the argument shifted to be, well, he's just helping Chicago.

When reasonable people said, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, the attack shifted yet again to, hey, the Olympics lose money.

When people say no they don't, the attack shifts, well, they cost the feds money, even if the locals make out.

And on and on.

My point, quite apart from the merits of this issue, is that the right has clearly gotten to the point that they will make any argument or charge, no matter how inconceived or specious, to attack the POTUS on what is really a fairly pedestrian thing, as presidents go.

Does the left do it to Republican presidents? Absolutely they do and they should be yelled at when they do it, too. Now I, personally, think that the right has elevated this kind of baseless attack to an art form. Might I think that because I generally support Obama? I suppose that is possible. But I think if you are objhective about it, between the birthers, the Secret Agent Muslim Man theorists, the He's a Commie gang, and others of that ilk, it sure seems that Obama is taking shots far nastier than his predecessors, be they Republican or Democrat.

So, what your telling us here is if we all just think and act like you, we will all be happy and get along!!:yes:

 

[KB5252]

I suppose that if people want to be arguing that he should not spend the money to go there and that, in any event, the nation as a whole would lose money even though Chicago and its civic arenas might get prettied up, are arguments I think everyone is making without knowing the numbers. There may be news stories that say that Atlanta "lost money," but we all know that statement is a bit complicated.

But this is where the intellectual dishonesty just annoys the piss out of me. First the argument was that he shouldn't go there because he has other things to work on. When sane people said, stfu, everyone knows he can handle anything from there just as well as if he was in the WH, the argument shifted to be, well, he's just helping Chicago.

When reasonable people said, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, the attack shifted yet again to, hey, the Olympics lose money.

When people say no they don't, the attack shifts, well, they cost the feds money, even if the locals make out.

And on and on.

My point, quite apart from the merits of this issue, is that the right has clearly gotten to the point that they will make any argument or charge, no matter how inconceived or specious, to attack the POTUS on what is really a fairly pedestrian thing, as presidents go.

Does the left do it to Republican presidents? Absolutely they do and they should be yelled at when they do it, too. Now I, personally, think that the right has elevated this kind of baseless attack to an art form. Might I think that because I generally support Obama? I suppose that is possible. But I think if you are objhective about it, between the birthers, the Secret Agent Muslim Man theorists, the He's a Commie gang, and others of that ilk, it sure seems that Obama is taking shots far nastier than his predecessors, be they Republican or Democrat.

Your post made sense until the very last paragraph when very predictably you came to the "democrats are guilty but the right is much worse" line. It is a staple of just about every single one of your political posts and has been old for quite some time now.

The rhetoric was every bit as vile when Bush was president as it is now, perhaps even worse. He was called a liar, racist, baby killer, nazi, fascist and murderer among other things. Very similar to what we hear now about Obama, the only difference is the party you align yourself with was responsible, so you ignored much of it or saw little problem with it.

 

[lawgator1]

i believe we saw this during Bush's presidency. Least you don't hear the right saying they want Obama dead. You do remember the Kill Bush signs/shirts/etc. there were Bush Nazi/Hitler signs, etc. don't act like this just happens to a worse degree because Obama is black.

A few hundred loons carrying such signs over the course of a couple of years is a far cry from Glenn Beck openly weeping every night to millions of braindead that Obama is soon to be in touch with the Mothership.

So, what your telling us here is if we all just think and act like you, we will all be happy and get along!!:yes:

No, but it sure would help.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

A few hundred loons carrying such signs over the course of a couple of years is a far cry from Glenn Beck openly weeping every night to millions of braindead that Obama is soon to be in touch with the Mothership.




No, but it sure would help.

i'm goin to lulz on you talking about Glenn Beck when MSNBC was doing the same thing during Bush's presidency. Guess you forgot about that

 

[kev20]

my guess is that when GB was on cnn, he probably loved him.

 

[MG1968]

who cares who gets the 2016 Olympics? The world will end on Dec. 21, 2012.

 

[lawgator1]

my guess is that when GB was on cnn, he probably loved him.

The only reason he even entered my consciousness in the first place at CNN and on the radio was that I was astounded by how stupid he was. Now I watch him from time to time, and only for brief moments, only to wonder whether the doc is toying with his meds.

 

[kev20]

The only reason he even entered my consciousness in the first place at CNN and on the radio was that I was astounded by how stupid he was. Now I watch him from time to time, and only for brief moments, only to wonder whether the doc is toying with his meds.

hahaha, but Keith Olbermann is stable, huh? GB was a rodeo clown in the past, right? maybe he was stomped too many times on the head.

 

[MG1968]

no, according to LG, Olberman always brings facts to the table and presents them in an unbiased manner.

 

[droski]

I suppose that if people want to be arguing that he should not spend the money to go there and that, in any event, the nation as a whole would lose money even though Chicago and its civic arenas might get prettied up, are arguments I think everyone is making without knowing the numbers. There may be news stories that say that Atlanta "lost money," but we all know that statement is a bit complicated.

I spent my first 5 years after college as an analyst for an economic research firm and have done at least a dozen economic impact studies for various public agencies including a study on the economic impact of the olympics coming to san francisco. the only way we got it to make money was to use things like "multiplier effects" on the money spent by tourists in the city and the money spent by the govt. not the actual amount of money spent btw, but the theoretical impact of that money going into the economy and being spent by workers, supliers, etc. these studies are complete and utter bs. according to my research at the time the only city to make money on the olympics was Los Angeles in 1984. Atlanta lost A LOT of money even using the multiplier effect.

 

[lawgator1]

no, according to LG, Olberman always brings facts to the table and presents them in an unbiased manner.

Never said he was unbiased. He does, however, seem to base his arguments less on linking together a conspiracy of "oligarhy" based on capital letters for words he wrote on a blackboard than, oh, someone else.

I spent my first 5 years after college as an analyst for an economic research firm and have done at least a dozen economic impact studies for various public agencies including a study on the economic impact of the olympics coming to san francisco. the only way we got it to make money was to use things like "multiplier effects" on the money spent by tourists in the city and the money spent by the govt. not the actual amount of money spent btw, but the theoretical impact of that money going into the economy and being spent by workers, supliers, etc. these studies are complete and utter bs. according to my research at the time the only city to make money on the olympics was Los Angeles in 1984. Atlanta lost A LOT of money even using the multiplier effect.

I think the multiplier effect thing is probably based on a lot of junk science, I would agree. But every four years the committee gets, what, a half dozen applications from the biggest cities around the world.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think the multiplier effect thing is probably based on a lot of junk science, I would agree. But every four years the committee gets, what, a half dozen applications from the biggest cities around the world.

sure they do. Every mayor wants to preside over a city spending billions in upgrades and with a carrot to lure companies, especially those who otherwise have few carrots.

I lived in Seoul, South Korea and the areas impacted by the Olympics are modernized, first world places. The rest of the place was still generally third world and overcrowded.