Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-ioc-profits-commentary-20170711-story,amp.html

This article is filled with so many ironies, to say the least, that it's funny. She must get her cues from another so-called (L.A.) 'journalist'.

For starters, I just love the analogies of Denver 1976 & Rio 2016 for arguments against L.A. 2028. If L.A. is to be a "private" bid (as we've been led to believe all along by the L.A. bid committee & boosters), then Denver '76 doesn't apply here. And unless California is expecting some sort of downward spiral within the next decade like Brazil experienced (which again here, we've been sold that California is on the "up & up" in order to sell their '2024' bid), then Rio 2016 doesn't apply here, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least this is new, she's on the other extreme of discussion. And Abrahamtroll said Paris had the bigger opposition by the press (At close of a ficticious referendums), while in LA, everything was roses and sunshine LMFAO.

Or maybe she believes in the Simpsons chapter of Lisa as POTUS:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Roger87 said:

Well, at least this is new, she's on the other extreme of discussion. 

She's on the other extreme of the discussion but for "2028" that is (even Abrahamson goes on & on about how L.A. 2028 would be a "bad idea"), but apparently for 2024 she feels differently.

6 hours ago, Roger87 said:

And Abrahamtroll said Paris had the bigger opposition by the press (At close of a ficticious referendums), while in LA, everything was roses and sunshine LMFAO.

What's interesting in there, is that she says the 88% ("rock-solid support") also included a "32% 'somewhat' supportive" number (which is the first time I've seen that reported in regards to the 88% support figure) Which, in one of AA's long-winded pieces cites "somewhat supportive" figures against Paris 2024. 

She also uses the argument how ("rock-star" status mayor) Garcetti will be a "ghost" of L.A.'s political past come 2028. But considering how apparently so many are in complete awe with him & citing bigger aspirations for him, he could also be in the White House by 2028. What better outcome for an L.A. 2028 Games could you ask for then. 

But at the end what's really funny about all of this is that if L.A. was to host 2024, it'd be the "savior" of the Olympic Movement "once again" & set them "on the right path", & a "Paris 2028" Olympics would then be "feasible". But if L.A. was to host 2028 instead, all of that big "saving" talk goes out the window, & an L.A. 2028 Olympics all of the sudden becomes everything they say a Paris 2024 Olympics would be:rolleyes: At least Julie doesn't bag Paris 2024 like the loon AbraTrollson does with every tedious piece that he writes on the matter. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FYI said:

She's on the other extreme of the discussion but for "2028" that is (even Abrahamson goes on & on about how L.A. 2028 would be a "bad idea"), but apparently for 2024 she feels differently.

What's interesting in there, is that she says the 88% ("rock-solid support") also included a "32% 'somewhat' supportive" number (which is the first time I've seen that reported in regards to the 88% support figure) Which, in one of AA's long-winded pieces cites "somewhat supportive" figures against Paris 2024. 

Interesting because this isn't the first time we heard this explanation related of the differences of polling between LA and Paris support, including the differences of standards.

Quote

She also uses the argument how ("rock-star" status mayor) Garcetti will be a "ghost" of L.A.'s political past come 2028. But considering how apparently so many are in complete awe with him & citing bigger aspirations for him, he could also be in the White House by 2028. What better outcome for an L.A. 2028 Games could you ask for then. 

Like Abrahamson and how Anne Hidalgo will compete for the 2022 elections...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lutece said:

The article asks some fair questions. Choosing two "safe pairs of hands" in a row as hosts will provide answers. Either LA and Paris have already begun to tackle the problems (most obviously by being more realistic than Tokyo, Rio, London etc. in their cost estimates) or they will find effective ways to tackle those problems.

Or they will kill the Olympic Games as we have known them in our lifetimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor Garcetti says " the IOC is making the later date financially so attractive, we would be stupid not to take 2028." at a Buzzfeed event in Los Angeles.

I kind of figured a good incentive would be put on the table for 28. Costs will go up, and LA may be in a deep recession, or worse, recovering from some sort of natural disaster or civil unrest. It is LA after all, and once every 10-20 years, something happens on a large scale. He needs to get a guarantee from the IOC of additional money, or the double allocation of Paris/LA becomes very lob sided.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-olympics-taxpayers-20170721-story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, something I can agree with Garcetti about:

“Mayor Garcetti does not believe that waiting four more years would increase our risk profile,” spokesman Alex Comisar said. “Whether we host in 2024 or 2028, our low-risk plan remains the same — using existing infrastructure, and controlling costs.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

FLASH!  I am on a task force to change the 24-hour clock a day, to 28 hours long starting on July 28, 2028!   Opening ceremony will begin exactly @ 8:28 pm.  and end at the new hour of 28:08!!  ;)

And change all the freeways to incorporate a 28 in it.

405 will now be the 428

605 will now be the 628

10 will now be 28 Santa Monica Freeway

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

And change all the freeways to incorporate a 28 in it.

405 will now be the 428

605 will now be the 628

10 will now be 28 Santa Monica Freeway

 

Speeds will either be 28 mph on surface streets; and 228 mi on the freeways!!  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Speeds will either be 28 mph on surface streets; and 228 mi on the freeways!!  :lol:

Haha. Well, if Elon gets his way, it might not be that much of a stretch. ^_^

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20170726/rest-of-the-world-looking-at-hawthorne-as-elon-musk-prepares-to-dig-test-tunnel

Also, the Hyperloop system is coming along very quickly. An LA to SF, or LA to SD or LA to Las Vegas hyperloop would make for a first of its kind games.

People from SD, SF, and Vegas being in LA in 30min or less and vice versa. The potential there is incredible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2017 at 11:32 AM, Roger87 said:

That was previously discussed before the other attacks, but anyway, if we go for homeless (Currently one of the top biggest criticism of Garcetti's administration) and gang zones of violence, it's not like any big city in the first world doesn't have these issues, including LA. 

In fact there is a major problem in the USA with eastern cities shoving their homeless populations onto west coast cities like Los Angeles. (As well as San Francisco, Portland and Seattle.) Cities like New York offer free bus tickets to homeless persons to move west.

When people from Boston or New York visit the Pacific states of the US they often comment that cities like LA need to "do something about the homeless." (Shoot them? Put them into concentration camps? Or, worse yet, send them back east?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nacre said:

In fact there is a major problem in the USA with eastern cities shoving their homeless populations onto west coast cities like Los Angeles. (As well as San Francisco, Portland and Seattle.) Cities like New York offer free bus tickets to homeless persons to move west.

When people from Boston or New York visit the Pacific states of the US they often comment that cities like LA need to "do something about the homeless." (Shoot them? Put them into concentration camps? Or, worse yet, send them back east?)

THANK YOU!

When I hear east coasters bitch and moan about LA's homeless, it's like, where do you get the nerve?

LA voted to tax itself to house and rehabilitate those that the South and East shunned and sent packing to the west. No compassion, no understanding, and all criticism from the east coasters.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, so it's official---Paris and LA will join London as being the only cities to host a Summer Olympics thrice.

 

RJHTxvC.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

NBC-Comcast-Universal comes out big in this.  They got a home-based Summer Olympics in their 2014 deal of 6 Olympic Games for $7.75 billion 

Hehe this will be first time since long time US citizens will be able to see opening ceremony live ;p

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shadowriver said:

Hehe this will be first time since long time US citizens will be able to see opening ceremony live ;p

Well, no, Vancouver 2010 was seen mostly live across the US; and with live-streaming now, many devotees see the Ceremonies live.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, no, Vancouver 2010 was seen mostly live across the US; and with live-streaming now, many devotees see the Ceremonies live.  

After 18 years is "long time" (well if Calgary gets 2026 it might be earlier) and live streaming requires cable subscription anyway, where i in my small Poland i could watch Olympics live on terrestrial TV and have full access to 14 OBS international feeds on internet for free. Even Discovery deal have much lesser approach and it sell sublicences to local broadcasters an i still be able to watch live, even if it's gonna be EuroSport, probably because they can't pull this kind of BS (sorry i can't call it other way) in european countries. Sorry but this NBC deal is disaster for US viewer imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...