Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama is full of it
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 119 (528895)
10-07-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jacortina
10-07-2009 10:09 AM


The media is full of it, too...
Hi jacortina,
There's simply no question whatsoever that the whole idea and the whole impetus behind the thing was Little Richie Daley, wanting one BIG thing to outdo his old man.
Nevertheless, Obama should not have promoted the games in Chicago given the disastrous impact those games would have caused the city and it's residents to endure.
Here are some quotes from an article on: zmag.org
quote:
President Barack Obama is now en route to Copenhagen in an effort to sell Chicago as the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics. In the process, he may be selling Chicago down the river. Obama is joined arm-in-arm with his wife Michelle on one side and Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago political machine on the other.
(adding)
Michelle Obama should perhaps realize that if the Olympics had come to Chicago when she was a young girl on Chicago's working class south side, her home may have been torn down to make way for an Olympic facility. No word on how being out of house and home would have helped her disabled father.
(further)
This is why a staggering 84 percent of the city opposes bringing the Games to Chicago if it costs residents a solitary dime. Even if the games were to go off without a hitch - which would happen only if the setting was lovely Shangri-La - not even half the residents would support hosting the Games.
The Obamas, former Chicago residents, should be standing with their city. Instead, we have the sight of Barack, Michelle, and Oprah trying to outmuscle Pele and Brazil for a place at the Olympic trough. The question is why. Maybe Obama wants the Olympic fairy dust enjoyed by Ronald Reagan at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles or Bill Clinton at the 1996 games in Atlanta. Or perhaps he is returning favor to the developers and other sundry connected people in the Windy City who will make out like bandits once the smoke has cleared. But his intentions are clear: he wants the glitz, glamour, and prestige of the games and he wants it for the Daley machine. What the people of Chicago want doesn't seem to compute.
(finally)
There is an urgency to building resistance to these kinds of priorities. Right now, the right wing is shamelessly adopting populist rhetoric and the power of protest to sell an agenda of racism and fear wrapped in taxpayer protection. The big public voice against Obama's trip to Copenhagen has been the repellent RNC chief Michael Steele who believes, and this is hilarious, that "At a time of war and recession" Obama needs to stay home. It shouldn't be a scoundrel like Steele who represents a party of privatization and occupation who delivers that message. Now is the time to build a pole of attraction on the left for people furious at corporate greed amidst a recession. This needs to happen, and not just for the Windy City. It's about building a vibrant protest movement that believes in social justice not the rank divisiveness of the right. Obama likes to say that change comes from "outside Washington." It's time to take him at his word.
Whether it's for prestige (like Reagan and Clinton), whether it's to return a favor to connected people in Chicago who helped him, whether it's to support the Daley machine... the fact is that the city and it's residents would have suffered the most AND THAT should have been the biggest concern of both Obama and the party that opposes him.
But instead, the media (both left and right) focused on the corruption rather than on the people who will actually suffer the most. They lost focus on what would really hurt if the games came to Chicago and instead used it as an opportunity to endorse their agenda. They used it as an excuse to promote hate toward Obama and the Democratic party, but only to make way for their party of interest, and not because they were trully concerned.
Typical media misinformation coupled with propaganda for an equally corrupt party.
What about the impact those games would have had on the city and it's residents? Shouldn't Obama have been concerned with that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 10:09 AM jacortina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 12:38 PM onifre has replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 32 of 119 (528899)
10-07-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
10-07-2009 12:21 PM


Re: The media is full of it, too...
Hey, as someone who works in Chicago (live just outside), I know just what a trainwreck it could have been (not 'would have been'; but the potential downside was a lot bigger than the potential upside; neither you nor can ever KNOW how good or bad it would have been).
But it's the sheer stupidity of people on this thread acting as if Obama CHOSE Chicago to be the one bidding for the US site this year. This was determined and in the works LOOOOOOOONG before he had ANY say in the matter.
A US city WILL bid on every Olympics. And if it had been Denver (or Kansas City or Nashville or whatever) instead of Chicago, Obama would have been expected to promote the US hosting bid of THAT city.
Chicago was going to push for it, no matter what Obama did or didn't do to help (there is NO Republican Party to speak of in Chicago and not much more of one in Illinois as a whole). Had he done nothing, he would have been vilified for 'not supporting America'.
Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 12:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 1:29 PM jacortina has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 33 of 119 (528912)
10-07-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jacortina
10-07-2009 12:38 PM


Re: The media is full of it, too...
Chicago was going to push for it, no matter what Obama did or didn't do to help (there is NO Republican Party to speak of in Chicago and not much more of one in Illinois as a whole). Had he done nothing, he would have been vilified for 'not supporting America'.
That is a fair point to consider. As president, his support of a US bidding is almost a mandatory thing. And I agree that the decision for Chicago was done long before Obama's campaign for presidency.
It was the same when the games were in Los Angeles and Reagan was president. His connections to LA were no secert (having been an actor) so one could apply the same ignorance that others are appling to Obama and say that Reagans support of the LA games was to benefit his connections. Which is technically right, but not in the sense that people make it to seem.
However, when a city and it's residents stand to lose so much, perhaps the approach Obama should have taken (and I say this recognizing that my opinion is of little value in the matter) should have been to point out the negative effects the games would have had on the city, but endores the bidding as any other president would have.
Even though, IMO, the negative effects, especially during a struggling economy, should have outweighed the tradition of bidding for the Olympic games. Interestingly enough, I think such a stance would have made him look better than supporting the games. It would have shown people (even if it was illusionary) that his concerns are for the welfare of the people, and not for the interests of the powerful corporations that stood to gain the most from the games.
Fact is, the games really only benefit a small minority of powerful corporations (media, advertisers, corporate affiliates, etc.) financially. But since the presidents has always been members of the elite class of society (with connections to all these major interest groups), it makes sense to support their own ilk... regardless of the impact it has on the people.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 12:38 PM jacortina has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 34 of 119 (528913)
10-07-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Joe T
10-07-2009 9:43 AM


So the process began, at the latest, in May 2006 and the USOC made its selection in April of 2007. Seems pretty cut and dried that if there was White House influence in the city selection it would have to have been Bush White House influence.
Not exactly. While I will concede that the original selection had nothing to do with Obama abusing his current presidential status, he was still involved in choosing Chicago.
Quoted from your link:
quote:
Long-time Chicago resident and current President of the United States Barack Obama was a supporter of Chicago's bid since its inception and noted his support during his Presidential election victory speech in Grant Park.[27][28] President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama traveled to Denmark to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.[29] Michael Jordan was an unofficial spokesman for Chicago's bid.[30] Chicago media mogul Oprah Winfrey and Olympic champion Michael Phelps had been widely promoting the bid since the 2008 Summer Olympics.[31][32]
So I don't have a problem with a state leader vying to have his state host the olympics, once he became president, there was a slight conflict of interest, and he did go out of his way to try and get the olympics in Chicago. Maybe he should have sent a republican to seal the deal, thereby eliminating a conflict of interest. That's what I would have done.
There is also the issue of the games being paid for by all private industry, which is an open door to corruption, and kickbacks.
I stick by my initial statement, in saying if that was Bush, it would have been portrayed by the liberal media completely differently. Just like they did with the whole oil issue. Bush owns oil, so it must be his fault approach.
I won't hold this against Obama in the least bit. I have raised an eyebrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Joe T, posted 10-07-2009 9:43 AM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 1:41 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 10-07-2009 9:45 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 35 of 119 (528914)
10-07-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 1:31 PM


I stick by my initial statement, in saying if that was Bush, it would have been portrayed by the liberal media completely differently. Just like they did with the whole oil issue. Bush owns oil, so it must be his fault approach.
While I agree that the "liberal" media (*which is an oxymoron) would have spun things the other way had Bush done something similar, the current spin from the right-wing media is only to gain momentum for their party of interest - which is as corrupt as the current party.
In either case, the people get screwed due to political jockeying for control and power.
* All media in this country is owned by a major corporations, and the affiliations to the different parties (Dem - Rep) is used as a tool for propaganda and to push specific agendas.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 1:31 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(2)
Message 36 of 119 (528980)
10-07-2009 5:52 PM


On the lighter side....
taz writes:
You're nitpicking every move he makes and look for a reason to not like him.
I felt I should address this a little more closely. Thanks to SNL. I would love to nitpick everything he has done, but he has done..................................absolutely nothing. Let's run down the list.
Gitmo.....................nothing
Pull out of Iraq..........no
Improve Afghanistan.......it's worse
Health care reform........hell no
gays in the military......nope
Global warming............nope
Immigration reform........nada
Limits on executive powers-zero
Torture prosecution.......nope
However, if you buy a new car from Chevy, you will get a free Chicago 2016 t-shirt with it.
He has done Cash for clunkers which improved the economy in Japan, he killed a fly on TV, and brought together a white cop, and a black professor.
And oh, it took 4 months to pick a dog.
There was an $800 check for people on welfare (after all people who do nothing should get rewards) that probably lost $200 of value in the recession.
All I see is a lot of spending, and the cost of running my business has gone up thanks to him.
So now if you want to say I am nit picking go ahead. I am still waiting patiently for things to get better, after all it took 8 years to screw it all up right??
Yes we can.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 6:28 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 10-07-2009 6:39 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 10-07-2009 9:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 119 (528994)
10-07-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 5:52 PM


And oh, it took 4 months to pick a dog.
- That was funny!
I am still waiting patiently for things to get better, after all it took 8 years to screw it all up right??
I wouldn't wait for the government to do this; we need to make things right for ourselves. McCain would have shit the bed as well.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 5:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 38 of 119 (528995)
10-07-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 5:52 PM


Are we there yet? ...
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
...
Are we there yet?
Get it?
But seriously, people when they campaign always talk about EVERYTHING they would like to do. If he is a good president he will get done 25% of it which he is about on track to do.
Gitmo - can't be done overnight but its in progress
Iraq & Afghanistan - seriously are you paying attention? He made his commitments and has stuck to them. He never promised Afganistan would be fixed and certainly not by now. Nobody could make that promise.
Health Care - will happen
(Misc Domestic stuff) - its only been freaking 10 months! And oh yea, last time I checked the President cannot legislate.
Executive powers - I'll give you this one, very disappointing
Torture - I'll give you halfers on this one too, we haven't been a nation of laws since Nixon.
Anyone who expected Obama to sweep in, kick the tires, and drive us out of every problem immediatly was not paying attention to the campaign or history.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 5:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 119 (529018)
10-07-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 1:31 PM


riverrat writes:
So I don't have a problem with a state leader vying to have his state host the olympics, once he became president, there was a slight conflict of interest, and he did go out of his way to try and get the olympics in Chicago.
As was pointed out to you earlier, Mayor Daley pushed for Chicago's bid long before Obama was ever on the scene. The committee voted to input about $500 million into this thing before Obama was ever on the scene.
By the time Obama became president, Chicago was already THE American city bidding for the Olympics. I still don't understand why you keep insisting that Obama "chose" Chicago, implying Obama was flexing his presidential muscle on this one.
There is also the issue of the games being paid for by all private industry, which is an open door to corruption, and kickbacks.
Here is the part that tells me you're nitpicking and criticizing every little thing. If it's the tax money paying for the Olympics, it's a waste of tax dollars. If it's paid for by private industries, it's corruption.
Again, it appears to me you're just throwing things out randomly hoping to make a hit.
I admit that I'm rather disappointed Chicago didn't get the Olympics, and I'm speaking as someone that's about to move into the city so I've also been considering all the headaches that would come with such an event. But now that it won't be coming to Chicago, my life will be a lot easier in the years to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 1:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 10:53 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 119 (529019)
10-07-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 5:52 PM


riverrat writes:
I felt I should address this a little more closely. Thanks to SNL. I would love to nitpick everything he has done, but he has done..................................absolutely nothing.
Like it or not, riverrat, it takes time in a democracy to do anything. Absolute dictatorship regimes get things done a lot quicker. Perhaps you should move to one of those countries?
Gitmo.....................nothing
Pull out of Iraq..........no
Improve Afghanistan.......it's worse
Health care reform........hell no
gays in the military......nope
Global warming............nope
Immigration reform........nada
Limits on executive powers-zero
Torture prosecution.......nope
You should sit down and read the constitution some time. It's a wonderful document that limits presidential powers as well as any other branch of government.
Again, that's why we're loosely called a democracy. We debate, we vote, we debate some more, we vote some more, etc. A president can't just do anything on a whim. He's got to bring up the issue, push for it, let congress fight it out, push for it some more, let congress fight it out some more, and pick up the pieces that made it through.
Sit back and relax. He's not even a year into his presidency.
All I see is a lot of spending, and the cost of running my business has gone up thanks to him.
So now if you want to say I am nit picking go ahead. I am still waiting patiently for things to get better, after all it took 8 years to screw it all up right??
Again, a friend of mine said this earlier this year. It took 8 years for Bush to burn down Rome. You know what I saw from the conservative side in February? The same argument you're giving now. Then I saw it again in June. Really, just admit that you don't like the guy and get it over with. Don't beat around the bush.
Added by edit.
Of all the criticisms, I haven't seen a single "liberal" media quoting Obama when he said these issues won't be solved in just a few months. He said this over and over during the campaign. It's only people like you who probably slept through the campaign period and showed up to vote on the last day think he promised to get everything done in a couple months.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 5:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 11:00 AM Taz has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 41 of 119 (529125)
10-08-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
10-07-2009 9:45 PM


As usual you missed the mark on every single one of your replies to me, oh well, I will not give up hope on, for one day you might get it.
taz writes:
As was pointed out to you earlier, Mayor Daley pushed for Chicago's bid long before Obama was ever on the scene. The committee voted to input about $500 million into this thing before Obama was ever on the scene.
As I pointed in a link that was given to us by someone else, from wikipedia, Obama was involved from the start. But he was a state leader as I pointed out, and I do not have any problem with a state leader pushing to have the olympics in their state if they feel it is a good thing FOR THE PEOPLE of the state. IT seems it might have been, but there was controversy over it.
Then Obama became President, and that is when it could have been considered a conflict of interest. A touchy situation, and as a politician you would generally try to stay clear of those situations. However, I conceded and I am not going to complain about what he did. As I said, my eyebrow is raised.
I still don't understand why you keep insisting that Obama "chose" Chicago,
I am not.....READ boy READ.
Here is the part that tells me you're nitpicking and criticizing every little thing. If it's the tax money paying for the Olympics, it's a waste of tax dollars. If it's paid for by private industries, it's corruption.
Oh please. If oil companies would have backed having the olympics in Texas when Bush was president, you would have been all over it. Don't be a hypocrite. Try harder to be unbiased, and not blinded by your own personal views.
As far as the list goes. that was a joke, as I stated "lighter side"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 10-07-2009 9:45 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 11:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 42 of 119 (529128)
10-08-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
10-07-2009 9:53 PM


taz writes:
Again, a friend of mine said this earlier this year. It took 8 years for Bush to burn down Rome.
Obama can not fix it by himself no more than Bush created it by himself. Our current economic status is completely the American public's fault. It's the down side of freedom. A reason for socialist countries to say "see look, it doesn't work". All caused by greed.
Of all the criticisms, I haven't seen a single "liberal" media quoting Obama when he said these issues won't be solved in just a few months. He said this over and over during the campaign. It's only people like you who probably slept through the campaign period and showed up to vote on the last day think he promised to get everything done in a couple months.
The list was from Saturday Night Live. A very liberal comedy show. READ boy READ.
http://www.nbc.com/...live/video/clips/obama-address/1163263
Have a laugh, if that's possible with you.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 10-07-2009 9:53 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by onifre, posted 10-08-2009 1:32 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 60 by onifre, posted 10-08-2009 9:51 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 119 (529130)
10-08-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by riVeRraT
10-08-2009 10:53 AM


The oil companies backing an Olympic bid during Bush's Administration would not have bothered me. The oil companies backing an Olympic bid during Bush's Administration and then receiving kickbacks for it, would.
The fact is, arguing this point is moot as we don't know what would've happened. Obama may have been involved as a state legislature, but as you say, it would've been legitimate for him to do so. Obama did go to Copenhagen to argue for using Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics, but you can't prove his reason for arguing for it was not to improve America's image and inject much needed tourist dollars into the economy. We can speculate, certainly, but we cannot determine for a certainty because Chicago did not get the bid.
Just like Bush was so fond of saying, let Obama do his job and let history be the judge. You may disagree with his policies, but at least look to see if he is working to improve the country because while we will not always agree with what works, at least we can agree on working for the improvement of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 10:53 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 10-08-2009 1:49 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 44 of 119 (529165)
10-08-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
10-08-2009 11:00 AM


Our current economic status is completely the American public's fault.
Completely the American public's fault? Hmm, that's interesting.
How so? Can you be specific?
A reason for socialist countries to say "see look, it doesn't work".
Capitalism doesn't work.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 11:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 45 of 119 (529169)
10-08-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 11:08 AM


We can speculate, certainly, but we cannot determine for a certainty because Chicago did not get the bid.
The one downside to bidding for the Olympics, IMO, is that during such hard economic times, the money spent by Chicago bidding for the Olympics could have been used directly to help the city.
The bid cost Chicago 48.2 million. A bid the lost, mind you. That money could have been used directly to help the people of that city (public housing, schools, healthcare, etc.).
Instead, it was used to bid for games which would have huge financial gain for developers, etc., and done nothing for the people themselves.
source
quote:
No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said to me, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009."
So if in fact, the games were supposed to "help the people of Chicago," then why not just invest the almost 50 million directly into the system and avoid the HUGE possibility of not winning the bid?
IMO, the games were not to benefit "the people," they were to benefit the elite Chicago business folk.
48.2 million wasted on a bid, while the poor less fortunate in Chicago stay wanting. Obama had nothing to do with the original bid for the games, but he could have stepped up and gave his concerns for the money wasted.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 11:08 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2009 3:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 49 by dronestar, posted 10-08-2009 3:48 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024