Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The right wing thinks it was stupid of Obama to waste what little credibility he had for a half-assed off-the-cuff lobbying effort that didn't pay off that was soundly rebuffed by Chicago being dumped in the FIRST round.

IOW, like the pending Death Panels, it's more of the same unprepared stupidity from Obama & co.

This means only one thing though, Obama is worse than Hitler. Afterall, Hitler was able to get the Olympics to go to Germany, but Obama hasn't been able to get the Olympics to come to America yet.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The right wing in America somehow thinks this is a victory?

Very odd.

The American right wing is very odd, and appears to be getting odder by the day. President goes at the last second to try and get Chicago bid over the line, but Olympics instead given to Rio. Right wing spends some time celebrating their country not winning the Olympics, and some of them try to turn it into the world rejecting Obama. There's nothing else for it other than 'odd'.





I agree that the Olympics cost a fortune, and probably don't generate sufficient return in tourist revenue. But it does raise the profile of the city and can improve tourism down the line, so if you've got some really wonderful places in your city that the world doesn't know about, the Olympics can be great. The classic example is Sydney using the Olympics to make everyone notice the Darling Harbour is a nice place. And if spending is focussed on public transportation and other infrastructure, that is a lasting benefit, as is the main stadium, which can be used to host a lot of sport from then on. But the cost building arenas for kayaking and the like is basically a waste of money.

And there's also national status. China is the classic example, as the thinking about China almost changed overnight, going from future world power to world power right here and now. Forget GDP measures or troop counts, what changed people's thinking was 300 synchronised drummers.

I can see why they didn't choose Chicago though, it's too nice of a place to burden with the Olympic games, and the athletes didn't feel like getting shot while walking down the street.

Better than a Black September in Munich...

Yeah, but do you want to give Chicago the chance to beat that?

halonachos wrote:I can see why they didn't choose Chicago though, it's too nice of a place to burden with the Olympic games, and the athletes didn't feel like getting shot while walking down the street.

So instead, that bastion of safety and civilization known as Rio De Janeiro was chosen?

I mean I get the joke about crime in Chicago, but it loses a lot given what actually happened.

What's good about Chicago?

I know it's kind of America's Birmingham/Manchester/Osaka. My impression of Chicago is that it's a bit like a New York on a lakeside.

USA! USA!!

Kilkrazy wrote:My impression of Chicago is that it's a bit like a New York on a lakeside.

That's a pretty sound description, though there's nothing in Chicago on the same scale as Manhattan. It has most of same creature comforts as New York, but the lifestyle is generally not as demanding with respect to time. Its also nowhere near as costly, and most places do actually close at some point.

halonachos wrote:I can see why they didn't choose Chicago though, it's too nice of a place to burden with the Olympic games, and the athletes didn't feel like getting shot while walking down the street.

Like Dogma said, I don't think anyone on the Olympic committee thought Chicago was too dangerous, so they better give the Olympics to Rio instead.

I think it's more to do with the US having hosted the Olympics a whole lotta times, and the South America having never hosted the games. There were also comments made about US customs, and how uncomfortable they can make travelling in the US when you look a bit foreign.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Screw the parade of athletes, I just want a parade of scantily clad Brazilian women.

Seconded. I could watch a couple hours of Brazilian dancers gyrating in their little costumes, no problem.

Indeed sir, indeed.

Chicago and New York are both great cities, but have different feels and different paces. My $0.02: New York is bigger and more exciting, while Chicago is friendlier and more comfortable.

And yeah, it's fairly clueless to make a comment about crime in Chicago when the bid was awarded to Rio. Like I said, the OC seems to like sites that have a good chance to be clusterf***ed. And Rio qualifies.

DarthDiggler wrote:Speaking as a spurned Chicagoan (suburbs) I can say if the 5000 murders in Rio last year don't scare me away, it's the idea that they don't let you flush toilet paper in the city either.

This is true in a number of areas around the world, including otherwise modern nations. Plumbing and sewage systems aren't all created equal.

I dont even think Sydney made money..

Rio seems like the most interesting to watch..

Yay! Suck it, Chicago.

Houston got burned a few years ago. Glad we can spread the hate around.

Yea but would you have had the Oympics in Houston in summer? The dainty show pony athletes would die by the hundreds from the heat and humidity. Now that I think about it...

halonachos wrote:This means only one thing though, Obama is worse than Hitler. Afterall, Hitler was able to get the Olympics to go to Germany, but Obama hasn't been able to get the Olympics to come to America yet.

This post made me laugh...thank you.

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Screw the parade of athletes, I just want a parade of scantily clad Brazilian women.

Seconded. I could watch a couple hours of Brazilian dancers gyrating in their little costumes, no problem.

Indeed sir, indeed.

THIS THREAD NEEDS MOAR... SAMBA!

Shaman wrote:I dont even think Sydney made money..

Rio seems like the most interesting to watch..

If you set out to show that the Sydney Olympics lost money you can do it, but the figures would be very dubious. Much of the expenditure expanded transport infrastructure, and that has had on-going benefits and can’t be completely tied to Sydney. It is also very hard to account for the total amount spent throughout Sydney, NSW and Australia during and immediately after the games.

So if you take every dollar spent on the games regardless of where it was spent, and only consider income directly attributable to the games (ticket sales) then yes, Sydney lost a pile of money. But if you consider the money spent by tourists throughout Australia during and immediately after the games, then it looks pretty good for the games. If you then account for Sydney becoming an internationally recognised city, the picture is clearly in favour of the games.

But Sydney is a case of the games done right, it was a quality tourist location that didn’t have the profile it deserved, and much of the money spent was on developing capacity in the long term. There’s plenty of risk and plenty of opportunity to do it wrong, as Greece demonstrated.