Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I would think the IOC would like tons of viable cities. If it were viable to host the Olympic Games on Mars they might want that over LA. But what can one do it a city is not viable? SF just isn't that right now, but anyone could imagine how incredible a Bay Area Olympics could be. In my opinion it's not a matter of if when speaking of SF, it's a matter of when. 

The never in history has LA been anyone's first pic is far from the truth though. If that were the case it would have never exploded to 18 million people from just a few hundred thousand in 100 years. It's very existence is in direct conflict with your stupid assessment because that's pretty much what it is. 

L.A. has never in history been anyone's first pick for an Olympic games. Not sure how you extrapolated that into anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

19 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Okay. But just in case it went over your head, which it did... I made the comment to poke fun at the stupid stuff you would say, like I may be other screen names aside from "truff"  And sure enough, you said the very stupid stuff I was poking fun at. 

Before today, I never said that you had other accounts. But yet you at one point, accused me & Quaker of being the same person. So obviously, I was initially poking fun at the idiotic stuff you would say. But it went "over your head", as usual.

39 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

I think also you like Forum discussion drama and like to argue for the sake of arguing.

OMFG, that's classic! :lol:

17 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

Not sure how you extrapolated that into anything else.

That's Truff's usual MO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

L.A. has never in history been anyone's first pick for an Olympic games. Not sure how you extrapolated that into anything else.

That could be said for a number of cities that had failed bids, but later eventually hosted.  LA would not have been the default city for 1984 had Tehran not dropped out---and, the USOC chose LA over NYC for 1984.  So, one can say that it was the USOC that chose LA as a 1st choice, and ended up being the deciding body for who would host 1984.

 

 

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

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.

I have to ask again.. are you unaware that the Bay Area has bid for each of the past 3 Olympics that the USOC has put up a candidate and got passed over every time?  It's really 4 times since the USOC went back to replace Boston for 2024.  If they wanted San Fran and didn't want Boston, then how come Boston was the original pick?  When Boston then fell apart, why did the USOC tell San Fran that they'd rather work with LA.  The way you keep ripping on LA begs me to ask the question.. are you butthurt?  Cause you kinda seem a little butthurt.  In your analogy where LA is the unattractive fat girl, what does that make the Bay Area?  The lesbian who's never been penetrated?  I supposed Boston then is the cute looking chick who actually has a penis and how did everyone not spot that!

The USOC chose LA.  Over San Francisco.  Get over it.  You can tell us all you want about how the IOC would never choose LA if they have another option, but that sounds like the butthurtitis talking.  Everything you say about LA being ugly and San Francisco being beautiful may be true, but that doesn't make the Bay Area actually better suited to host the Olympics.  If they had their $hit together, then maybe.  But they don't.  LA does.  And there's a pretty good chance the next U.S.-hosted Olympics will be there.  Chances are, it won't simply be because of a lack of options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I have to ask again.. are you unaware that the Bay Area has bid for each of the past 3 Olympics that the USOC has put up a candidate and got passed over every time?  It's really 4 times since the USOC went back to replace Boston for 2024.  If they wanted San Fran and didn't want Boston, then how come Boston was the original pick?  When Boston then fell apart, why did the USOC tell San Fran that they'd rather work with LA.  The way you keep ripping on LA begs me to ask the question.. are you butthurt?  Cause you kinda seem a little butthurt.  In your analogy where LA is the unattractive fat girl, what does that make the Bay Area?  The lesbian who's never been penetrated?  I supposed Boston then is the cute looking chick who actually has a penis and how did everyone not spot that!

The USOC chose LA.  Over San Francisco.  Get over it.  You can tell us all you want about how the IOC would never choose LA if they have another option, but that sounds like the butthurtitis talking.  Everything you say about LA being ugly and San Francisco being beautiful may be true, but that doesn't make the Bay Area actually better suited to host the Olympics.  If they had their $hit together, then maybe.  But they don't.  LA does.  And there's a pretty good chance the next U.S.-hosted Olympics will be there.  Chances are, it won't simply be because of a lack of options.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I have to ask again.. are you unaware that the Bay Area has bid for each of the past 3 Olympics that the USOC has put up a candidate and got passed over every time?  It's really 4 times since the USOC went back to replace Boston for 2024.  If they wanted San Fran and didn't want Boston, then how come Boston was the original pick?  When Boston then fell apart, why did the USOC tell San Fran that they'd rather work with LA.  The way you keep ripping on LA begs me to ask the question.. are you butthurt?  Cause you kinda seem a little butthurt.  In your analogy where LA is the unattractive fat girl, what does that make the Bay Area?  The lesbian who's never been penetrated?  I supposed Boston then is the cute looking chick who actually has a penis and how did everyone not spot that!

The USOC chose LA.  Over San Francisco.  Get over it.  You can tell us all you want about how the IOC would never choose LA if they have another option, but that sounds like the butthurtitis talking.  Everything you say about LA being ugly and San Francisco being beautiful may be true, but that doesn't make the Bay Area actually better suited to host the Olympics.  If they had their $hit together, then maybe.  But they don't.  LA does.  And there's a pretty good chance the next U.S.-hosted Olympics will be there.  Chances are, it won't simply be because of a lack of options.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

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.

57211706.jpg

You were the one whose very first post was to call LA unattractive and ugly and then liken them to the fat girl who you settle for as your sloppy seconds.  And I'm the one who this is personal for?  You sure sound like you want San Francisco to host (to use your words) " IF all the pieces can fall into place."  You keep making a case for this hypothetical "ideal" city, but it doesn't exist in reality.  So yea, what is there to argue about? 

Although I do not agree with your first point.  LA is not a last resort city that will only get selected if no other options exist for the IOC.  If you feel that way, more power to you.  I disagree with that premise.  Again, you're the one who came into an internet forum with an opinion.  If you take that disagreement personally, I don't really care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

57211706.jpg

You were the one whose very first post was to call LA unattractive and ugly and then liken them to the fat girl who you settle for as your sloppy seconds.  And I'm the one who this is personal for?  You sure sound like you want San Francisco to host (to use your words) " IF all the pieces can fall into place."  You keep making a case for this hypothetical "ideal" city, but it doesn't exist in reality.  So yea, what is there to argue about? 

Although I do not agree with your first point.  LA is not a last resort city that will only get selected if no other options exist for the IOC.  If you feel that way, more power to you.  I disagree with that premise.  Again, you're the one who came into an internet forum with an opinion.  If you take that disagreement personally, I don't really care.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

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.

Oh , you are definitely new to GamesBids.  Welcome to where everyone here is either supports and defends a city or else they must be completely against it.  I don't have a dog in this one either.  I'm from New York, so I could imagine if I was here back in 2005 that no one would give me the benefit of objectivity.  I'm not arguing with you because I'm trying to defend the honor of LA.  I'm arguing the point because I think it's wrong.  That's flattering that you looked back at my history here to try and get to know me.  Trust me, this is nothing compared to some of the pissing contests that have gone on here.  There are far more angry people on here than me.  Stick around here long enough and you'll get to meet them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ejaycat said:

That could be said for a number of cities that had failed bids, but later eventually hosted.  LA would not have been the default city for 1984 had Tehran not dropped out---and, the USOC chose LA over NYC for 1984.  So, one can say that it was the USOC that chose LA as a 1st choice, and ended up being the deciding body for who would host 1984.

 

 

 

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.

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

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?

Memes are extremely immature.  So are analogies with cheesy sexual innuendo.  Should I guess you're a teenager?

Again, good for you and your analogy.  I disagree.  That's not an attack on your or me trying to make this personal.  You posted an argument.  I posted a counter-argument.  And now this is a point of discussion that involves other posters who have their own opinions.  Are you still sure I'm the one who is trying to create forum drama here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Memes are extremely immature.  So are analogies with cheesy sexual innuendo.  Should I guess you're a teenager?

Again, good for you and your analogy.  I disagree.  That's not an attack on your or me trying to make this personal.  You posted an argument.  I posted a counter-argument.  And now this is a point of discussion that involves other posters who have their own opinions.  Are you still sure I'm the one who is trying to create forum drama here?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Oh , you are definitely new to GamesBids.  Welcome to where everyone here is either supports and defends a city or else they must be completely against it.  I don't have a dog in this one either.  I'm from New York, so I could imagine if I was here back in 2005 that no one would give me the benefit of objectivity.  I'm not arguing with you because I'm trying to defend the honor of LA.  I'm arguing the point because I think it's wrong.  That's flattering that you looked back at my history here to try and get to know me.  Trust me, this is nothing compared to some of the pissing contests that have gone on here.  There are far more angry people on here than me.  Stick around here long enough and you'll get to meet them.

My point is not wrong. In fact, FYI summed it up better than I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

My point is not wrong. In fact, FYI summed it up better than I did.

1 minute ago, Aquatic said:

So why are we arguing again?

Not sure.  Your point is still based on an "if."  I'm aware you specifically noted that in your first post, but you're right, how am I supposed to argue a point based on a hypothetical that you're creating to make it not wrong. 

That said, I don't think the IOC isn't so sour on Los Angeles as you believe.  It's probably not the most desirable pick right now, but that's because they were there in somewhat recent memory.  That discussion has been going on here for years now, whether or not LA could present a 2024 bid that would interest the IOC.  That's a tough sell for an event that only happens once every 4 years in 1 city/country.  But whatever.  You think the IOC looks unfavorably upon LA.  I don't care, I just think that's a bad assessment.  Let's agree to disagree.

51 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

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.

Yea, maybe I did goad you a little bit to post in the LA thread after you started elsewhere.  Funny thing, so did another poster, who I won't call out, said he'd like to see that as well.  Then you came here on your volition with another post to rip on LA (maybe that's an objective opinion, but no one gets the benefit of the doubt on that one here) that at least 2 people responded to before I did, including one specifically encouraging other posters to engage with you.  If you're not a fan of forum drama and getting people riled up, don't post an opinion that borders on trolling on a site that feeds off of pissing contests like that.  Like I said, welcome to GamesBids!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Not sure.  Your point is still based on an "if."  I'm aware you specifically noted that in your first post, but you're right, how am I supposed to argue a point based on a hypothetical that you're creating to make it not wrong. 

That said, I don't think the IOC isn't so sour on Los Angeles as you believe.  It's probably not the most desirable pick right now, but that's because they were there in somewhat recent memory.  That discussion has been going on here for years now, whether or not LA could present a 2024 bid that would interest the IOC.  That's a tough sell for an event that only happens once every 4 years in 1 city/country.  But whatever.  You think the IOC looks unfavorably upon LA.  I don't care, I just think that's a bad assessment.  Let's agree to disagree.

Yea, maybe I did goad you a little bit to post in the LA thread after you started elsewhere.  Funny thing, so did another poster, who I won't call out, said he'd like to see that as well.  Then you came here on your volition with another post to rip on LA (maybe that's an objective opinion, but no one gets the benefit of the doubt on that one here) that at least 2 people responded to before I did, including one specifically encouraging other posters to engage with you.  If you're not a fan of forum drama and getting people riled up, don't post an opinion that borders on trolling on a site that feeds off of pissing contests like that.  Like I said, welcome to GamesBids!

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RuFF said:

**same person**

Right, fu@k off. Again, someone ought to sock you in your pussy @ss face!" I can say the same damn thing when you claim to "agree" with your other (trollish) L.A. cheerleading aliases on here. 

12 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I just wrote what you said off as stupidity. Unlike Quaker I know you're a complete waste of time. There's no point in engaging. Your comment has no more attention that the last 100 planes that flew overhead. 

I always write off what you say as pure stupidity. And unlike Quaker (which you also thought was me), I know you're a complete waste of time. There's also no point in engaging with you. You have your "L.A. is all sunshine & rainbow" bottle glasses on since day one, & that's all you see, no matter how cross-eyed all your repetitive twaddle actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

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.

The USOC also picked Boston over LA and San Fran when pretty much everyone else out there knew that was going to be a train wreck.  So that's the organization we're talking about here.  Right now, LA has the goods.  San Fran does not.  And for better or worse, LA is likely to land themselves an Olympics before the Bay Area gets their collective act together which means it's probably going to be a long long time before they might get a chance to act on that sentiment.  And even if the rhetoric on San Fran rings true, the other half of this about LA is not.  I don't fall for the line that they're G-d's gift to the IOC and they're longing to return there, but IMO the flip side of that is not true where the IOC is thinking "oh no, not these guys again.. isn't anyone else interested in the Olympics so we don't have to pick them?!?!" 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RuFF said:

**same person**

 

9 minutes ago, FYI said:

Right, fu@k off. Again, someone ought to sock you in your pussy @ss face!" I can say the same damn thing when you claim to "agree" with your other (trollish) L.A. cheerleading aliases on here. 

I always write off what you say as pure stupidity. And unlike Quaker (which you also thought was me), I know you're a complete waste of time. There's also no point in engaging with you. You have your "L.A. is all sunshine & rainbow" bottle glasses on since day one, & that's all you see, no matter how cross-eyed all your repetitive twaddle actually is.

And for the record, & UNLIKE Aquatic, I've actually acknowledged all of L.A.'s strengths & have conceded that L.A. is very likely going to be our next U.S. Olympic host city. The only ONE major thing that we disagree on, is WHEN that would actually be (you say 2024, but I believe 2028 is more likely the time).

The one major factor that doesn't favor L.A. in this cycle (& I'm not the only one on these forums that have this opinion, as evident even in this thread), is the TIMING. 2028 seems much more favorable at this point in time, for a North American (U.S. [L.A.]) Olympics.

But bcuz of that ONE element where we don't agree on, you simply choose to demonize me with all of your diatribe. Which quite frankly, you (& your fellow L.A. "groupies") can just shove up your C@NT(S) for all I care. You're absolutely ridiculous at this point, & truly a real waste of bandwidth on these boards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SF Bay area is just not prepared to host an Olympics anytime soon.

LA has been Olympics ready for decades now.

Paris is still the favorite and many of the polls so far show it as the likely winner, but since LA's bid is shaping up to be a real serious contender, it is going to go down to the wire. My guess is that LA, California, and the US will do their best to pull a London 2012 on the IOC at the last possible minute.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were actual "IOC insiders" that claimed 2016 was "close as hell" between Rio & Chicago, too. But we all know how that one turned out. The only sources, though, that I see that say "it's gonna go down to the wire" are from the L.A. enthusiasts & newswires. So I'll take that with a grain of salt for now. 

I also don't see L.A. pulling a "London". That's apples & oranges, to say the least. London was another mega European capital (that hadn't hosted since right after WWII) that just happened to snag the Games from another mega European capital, Paris. L.A. is not in the same ball game, relatively speaking, especially when factoring in they just last hosted in 1984. In Olympic years, that was like a few years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jesse Saenz said:

SF Bay area is just not prepared to host an Olympics anytime soon.

LA has been Olympics ready for decades now.

Paris is still the favorite and many of the polls so far show it as the likely winner, but since LA's bid is shaping up to be a real serious contender, it is going to go down to the wire. My guess is that LA, California, and the US will do their best to pull a London 2012 on the IOC at the last possible minute.

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

South Africa has already pleaged that they're not bidding until at least the 2032 Games. They want to get through their 2022 commonwealth games first & then take it from there. So they're outta the way. And if Europe likely wins 2024, then they're outta the way. South America would also be outta the way. And with Asia hosting the next three Olympic Games, then they'll be outta the way, too, for 2028. 

So at this point, 2028 does seem like the most favorable for North America. The U.S. hosting the Games more than any other country doesn't help right now, especially when you factor in 1996. But those wouldn't be factors that would work against a U.S. 2028 bid, when considering all of the above. The only possible strong threat there could come from Canada.

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...