• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Quaker2001 last won the day on April 12

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1112 Excellent

About Quaker2001

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer Level 6
  • Birthday November 25

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

19394 profile views
  1. What happened to where you used to say how LA was going to create a new model? Or were you just parroting something someone else said? And you also are saying that Paris is more of the same and that they're not even trying to do anything about that. Isn't that, by definition, not a one off? But whatever, Right now, don't know why I'm bothering. So let's just end with a meme that seems appropriate at this point..
  2. I would say the main tool to deal with that would be to ban you from posting here, but as we've established, can't get rid of herpes. And you're trying to force us to believe that crap about how LA has an emotional connection with the Olympics and it's in their hearts, speaking of rambling. You can't avoid the nationalistic element of the Olympics, particularly in virtually any country other than the United States where it really does represent the whole country and not just a particular region or city. It's laughable and ridiculous that you want to make this about doing right for the IOC and ignoring what the problem is here because LA so desperately wants the Olympics. You think any of us give 2 shits about what the IOC wants or what they're about? But unlike you, we're objective enough to assess the situation rather than to view it from and LA bubble and think you know what's good for the IOC. Paris is a one off? Explain to us how Paris is a one off but LA isn't.
  3. Give it a rest with this "the Olympics run through the souls of Californians" as if anyone thinks that means anything. And yea, remind the 88% who support it that it's projected to cost $5 billion (key word there.. "projected") and ask them how deep in their hearts the Olympics are. The problem with the IOC is that they're making demands on prospective host cities that they shouldn't be asking to deliver on. So saying that Paris should adjust its plans for the sake of helping the IOC is exactly what the problem is now. That's not solving things; it's making things worse. It's doing the opposite of what the IOC should be aiming for which is allowing the host cities to do what's best for them. Again, isn't that what Agenda 2020 is supposed to be about? There shouldn't be a model or a formula or a template that Olympic host cities need to follow. Every city is different and that needs to be acknowledged. Play to the cities' respective strengths rather than trying to exploit weaknesses. Certainly there are things that can be learned from one another, but to tell Paris to change not the way to go.
  4. Paris is doing what's right for Paris. Just like LA is doing what's right for LA. They can boast how they're doing things differently and changing the formula, but do you really think LA cares about what happens to the Olympic movement after the Games are gone? Hell no. They certainly care about their own legacy and what it means for the city, but they're not trying to change the model for the benefit of the IOC. They'll say that because it sounds enticing. But don't be fooled in thinking either of these cities gives 2 shits about the best interests of the future of the IOC.
  5. This. A well-run LA bid will be great for LA and a breather for the IOC, but it doesn't solve their long term problems. They'll be a one-off, not necessarily a new model for other cities to follow. What the IOC needs is to restore confidence in the current model. The issue isn't so much the NOCs and the governments as it is the IOC. They chose Beijing and Sochi. They make demands on the host city/country that invite corruption. That's where they need to look in the mirror and realize that they are the problem. And a double award, as you noted, gives them a breather. They lock in 2 very capable host cities and don't have to think about a Summer host for several years. Let other cities make long term plans rather than to go after the next available Olympics. There's this negative perception about hosting an Olympics, but that's what happens when you have it in the wrong city. Paris is not a wrong city. Building infrastructure related to an Olympics, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It only becomes that way if it's poorly managed and executed. An Olympics with a well-thought out legacy plan is exactly what the Olympic movement needs right now. And that's exactly what Paris offers. Lock both them and LA in for 2024 and 2028, in whatever order. Then maybe once we get past Tokyo, which seems like it may bring in some negative press in terms of costs, then the IOC will be in a better place going forward from there.
  6. I hope you appreciate the irony that the bold is exactly how Trump supporters feel about him. Either way, if you have someone that's as young and dynamic as Obama (2 things that you wouldn't say about Hillary), it's not like you can say "let's save him for 8 years from now." Politics usually doesn't work that way. Okay, exactly.. NOW you see that. Can you honestly tell me that 9 years ago that you saw that self-serving move and thought it would lead to the destruction of the establishment? Particularly after Obama got elected for a 2nd term. It's a hindsight argument and one that you can't necessarily use to assume an alternate timeline in the vein of "what if Athens got 1996 instead of Atlanta." Maybe. This is still a man with 2 young children who maybe he didn't want to move out of Chicago even for a top position in Clinton's administration. Again, there are a lot of hypotheticals here which are tough to reconcile, the least of which is whether or not Trump would have emerged in response to a Clinton presidency (let alone if she would have won a 2nd term in the first place)
  7. Still feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking here. I can't speak to the political climate back in 2008 to the point I remember what got Obama the win in the primary over Clinton. But again, tell me you thought this way BEFORE Trump got elected and not after to where it's "oh crap, what have we done, here's what *hindsight* tells us." If Clinton had won the primary, would Obama really have been her choice for VP? I doubt it. Again, hindsight tells us what kind of respect the man deserves after 8 years in the White House. You didn't know that at the time who he was or what he was about, so I don't buy that he would have been at the top of Clinton's administration. More likely he would have stayed in Illinois and then maybe made a run for 2016. But that's a hypothetical we'll never know the answer to.
  8. Depends on the government. Does anyone think Russia actually spent $51 billion on the Sochi Olympics, or is their government (who no one would dare oppose) skimming off the top and not being held accountable? Could make a similar argument with Beijing, expect they probably did build that much. Here's the problem with AA's argument, and this is nothing new since he keeps bringing up the same points over and over again.. LA 2024 doesn't buy them time. It kicks the can down the road and potentially leaves them in the same predicament for 2028. And if Tokyo's budget continues to increase, that's going to be a really bad look for prospective bidders in the same way that cities were scared off for 2022 based on the fallout from Sochi 2014. Plus, as has been brought up here before, good for LA that they do things differently and offer a less risky financial model than other cities. But that's not something other cities and countries and NOC's would be able to replicate. So what LA would do would be a 1-shot deal. And again, it's not without risk to taxpayers what LA is doing. They can say all they want how they're protecting the people, but there's no way they can guarantee that.
  9. Amazing how quickly a Canadian can find a video of Colin Cow-turd and Jason Whitlock online to explain soccer to me. That's just great. The problem is - and will continue to be for the foreseeable future - that the United States is home to the world's most prominent baseball league, basketball league, and hockey league. And not that anyone outside the US cares about American football, but there's a lot of money to be made there. Contrast that with soccer where we don't have that and never will, especially in comparison to countries in Europe and South America. Even if you're a kid who aspires to represent the United States in the World Cup, you're not going to make a lot of money if you do that here. Your best bet is to head elsewhere and how many kids grow up thinking that way?
  10. Wait.. what? I know hindsight is 20/20 and all, but are you seriously saying that at the time, liberals were stupid because they should have known this could happen and should have played their cards smarter? I don't buy that. Easier to see that now, but was that really the thinking at the time? Plus, Clinton was a known political entity back then. Obama was not. If he loses the primary, he probably fades somewhat back into obscurity. So who knows where he'd stand this time around. And to really throw a wrench into your logic here.. if the thinking is that Trump happened because of Obama, then if Obama never became president...
  11. 2 years earlier, they weren't even in the Premier League. And the year before their championship, as I understand it they spent most of the season in position to get relegated. That's how unlikely that all was, and it's amazing that this year they're in the middle of the table again. We see that happen here a lot in the United States, and I certainly don't know much about English football, but it seems hard to fathom a team going from 14th to 1st to 12th (or wherever they wind up finishing). And with respect to the United States (I'll direct this at you since unlike another poster, your analysis is NOT based on having a very obvious inferiority complex), how about the 2009 Confederations Cup? They could play Spain 50 more times and lose every single one of them. But they won that one, and that was with Spain in between championships at Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup. Not to mention the US had a 2-0 lead over Brazil in the final. I don't know what kind of odds the US will have at winning the 2026 World Cup, but I'm betting they'll be better than 5000-1. And unlike Leicester City's run, where they needed to be good over a stretch of 38 games, a World Cup is only 7 games. Maybe the USMNT will flame out in a home soil World Cup and that's far more likely than winning the whole thing. Not the most impossible outcome though.
  12. Leicester City. I understand a United States win at the World Cup would be something on that level, and I agree Arena probably doesn't actually believe he's winning the World Cup. But again, if there's a teenager out there who sees that, perhaps there's a little motivation to stick with soccer and aspire to play in a World Cup on US soil.
  13. [sarcasm]That makes sense. Because it's not like there were tensions in the region before Obama was president. Or people who have skipped a South Korean Olympics because of political strife.[\sarcasm]
  14. I said it in 2010 that there's something to be said about a nice long lead-up to a World Cup, especially in a country like the United States that could use it for a stronger grass roots effort to find players for that home soil World Cup. Yea, we're not winning anything in 2026, but if you're soccer playing teenager in the US right now, that's a great thing to set your sights on 9 years from now (assuming it happens)
  15. That's hilarious that Arena thinks he can accomplish something the U.S. has never done before. Maybe Canada can aspire to do the same thing and score a single goal in a World Cup, which they've never done before..