Jump to content

Aquatic

Members
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aquatic

  1. No. Atlanta happened 12 years after Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City 6 years after that. Population size is irrelevant. That's not a law written anywhere. That's what I was thinking. You're also incredibly rude and not worth responding to. You're going on the Ignore list. Ding ding ding. That's what I said in my first post in the other forum. That's what Imsaid SF would give the IOC, and they'd like that.
  2. The only thing a solid, viable, supported bid from San Francisco for 2024 might have done is make Paris wait until 2028. They originally weren't going to go for 2024, and then, Anne Hidalgo... If Paris did that in the face of a 2024 SF bid, then SF would have a very, very high chance. But head to head with Paris. No. Rio > Tokyo > Paris > San Francisco has a nice ring to it though... The four cities passing the torch from one to the next in that order is kind of poetic.
  3. Not when Paris, and France, who have waited 100 years for a summer games are bidding. The U.S. has had PLENTY.
  4. From 1932 until 2002. a space of 70 years, the USA hosted 7 times (both Summer and Winter), and were awarded the games 8 times (those Denver idiots). Los Angeles Lake Placid Squaw Valley (Denver) Lake Placid Los Angeles Atlanta Salt Lake City
  5. I could see a return to South America if Buenos Aires had a sold bid. Not that they're bidding. My only point being that I don't think Rio would preclude a return to South America in 2028. The Summer games are back in Asia in Tokyo in the same amount of time after they were in Beijing.
  6. There's no way in hell the IOC would choose L.A. over Paris. If I'm wrong when the time comes, I'll eat my words and say that I was wrong, but, I don't belive I am. If South Africa bids, for 2028, they will beat L.A. If San Francisco had a sold bid, they would beat L.A. If Chicago came back, they'd beat L.A. Anyone can beat L.A. L.A. only wins when A) There's no other choice or B ) No other viable choice. Also, I'm not sure why the USOC has such desire to host anyway. To me, even the USOC seems desperate. The USA has had so many olympic games (summer and winter) in such a short timespan (in terms of Olympic years). Sit down and wait a hundred years like Paris has. So greedy.
  7. I didn't make up a hypothetical just to make it "not wrong". The USOC has expresssed the same sentiment themselves, regarding SF. Those two statements that you made and agreed with (quoted above) is all I've been saying all along.
  8. My point is not wrong. In fact, FYI summed it up better than I did.
  9. Yes, I'm sure. When the L.A. people didn't respond to what I said the way you wanted them too, you did it yourself. You even wanted me to post in this forum what I posted in another forum just to get the L.A. people riled up. Yes, I'm very sure.
  10. The year was 1977. What was NYC like in 1977? Go watch some old film of NYC in the 1970's. FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. Also, remember that 1977 was the Summer of Sam as well. And the blackout. And the looting. And the violence. And the Bronx had been burning for a while too. Would you have chosen NYC? It really wasn't even an option.
  11. My post about L.A. is a good analogy of how I view L.A. and it's relation to bidding for the Olympic Games. And that was directed at L.A. and their Olympic committe.'It wasn't directed at anyone personally here. You're a very angry person, at least in here. It must give you some pleasure. And the meme's are really immature. Are you an adult?
  12. You know what's really funny? Going back and reading other posts of yours...First you argue with the L.A. people in favor of Paris, and then when someone else argues that another U.S. city is better suited than L.A. you become virulently an LA. defender. You really just like arguing with people. And the more acidic in tone, the better. You really like it that way. It's kind of sick.
  13. First of all, I don't have a dog in this race, just an point of view. SF has not been "passed over" evry time. SF withdrew for 2016. And what is this immature "butthurtitis" bullshit? You're making an assumption that I care. That I'm hurt the USOC didn't choose SFO. I don't want SF to host unless it has a viable bid with citizen support. SF has either never been viable due to stadium issues, or, it's not had citizen support. If itmhad those things, SF would be the USOC's choice without question. Do you agree that the IOC would probably choose another city over Los Angeles, given a choice? Do you agree that the USOC would choose SF given it had a viable bid with support? Yes? Then what are we arguing about? Also, why are you so angry and nasty in tone in your posts? You like discussion forum drama and arguing. It's like it's personal with you. Chill.
  14. L.A. has never in history been anyone's first pick for an Olympic games. Not sure how you extrapolated that into anything else.
  15. I mean exactly that. If there was one. L.A. is and always will be "second choice city". For everybody. USOC, would rather field SF, over L.A. Even Boston was not who they really wanted. They wanted SF. IOC will always want somewhere else other than L.A. given other good choices. Nobody wants L.A. as a first pick. Never in history has L.A. ever been anyone's first pick. That's what I am saying. I think also you like Forum discussion drama and like to argue for the sake of arguing.
  16. I'm not sure what your question at the end has to do with anything? SF is the USOC's ideal choice and I'd bet my last dollar the IOC would leap at an SF bid if there was one. I personally don't care if the USA doesn't host a Summer Olympic games until 2096. However, I stand by my analogy. L.A. has always been the city of last resort for the IOC. The Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games really thinks the IOC loves L.A., just because they hosted in 1984 and the games didn't go bankrupt. Yes, the IOC was happy a games happened that year, but I really don't believe they are eternally grateful or see LA. as an ideal host city. They know L.A. is capable, that doesn't mean they love the place or want to return. As long as they have a choice, they won't.
  17. More like Europe's chances got bigger, while L.A.'s road just got a lot harder.
  18. Of course. Because L.A. is always willing to be sloppy seconds or the city of "we have nowhere else to go". Which is what L.A. always has been. Has L.A. ever been a first choice for the IOC? Never. L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.
×
×
  • Create New...