Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wow, paul - you really have been "triggered fa daze", haven't you & projecting ten-fold once again. :rolleyes:

I never claimed that my comments are anything more than anybody else's, so unlike your L.A. cohort with the know-it-all, condescending rhetoric you enjoy to "swallow" at every turn (which newsflash - he doesn't have anymore "special talent & insight" than any of the rest of us, either). You two are the ones that get hot under the collar, when heaven forbid, someone else challenges your "L.A." (which is really what this is all about in your book) perspective or whatever else your L.A. fantasy constructs. 

But for some reason, though you two are on the opposite side of the L.A. Olympic host spectrum, you have no problem with that, even though you don't agree with him about the Olympics coming to your "backyard". Go figure. And if I'm an every other long-time GB blowhard, that only makes you & your buddy a short-term GB's "blowhard". :P

And really, talk about the things that only a dumb teen girl would giggle at; 

paul     574

paul

circle jerk activated.......just don't swallow guys and consider a bleach rinse.....it's only prudent.

 

Not to mention all of the other dumb, stupid teen girl things you've said & picture posted over the last few months here. As usual paul, your utmost HYPOCRISY never ceases to amaze. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Banc of California Stadium is nearly finished.  Is it me, or did this go up really fast??    The Coliseum renovation is moving right along... All images by S

Nearly everyone in every Olympic city says "traffic will be terrible!" and then they're proven wrong.   Having lived through the Olympics in my backyard (Vancouver in 2010), those 2 weeks we

I'm just glad they haven't wasted this opportunity to award both cities. 

43 minutes ago, paul said:

but then you get incensed with anyone who contradicts your perspective and fantasy constructs. 

And BTW, I had initially posted an article talking about that stuff. So it really wasn't "my perspective or constructing fantasy". So if you want to take issues with that, why don't you take it up with the L.A.Times instead of getting 'triggered fa daze' like a 'dumb teen girl' & raggin' on me about it for no reason whatsoever, other than, as usual, to be a real hypocritical  j*rk about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

......you are so resentful sounding, but such a little fanboy...........you often repeat and re-posting passing lines i dropped on Paris months ago or longer.........i didn't realize my words cut so deep that you would be moved to repeat them over and over.....i guess you are attempting to re-direct their original meaning hoping I would feel what you must have when you first saw them. Like the "fa-daze" thingy.....you've repeated that like 4..maybe 5 times since........you are hooked on me EWWW. Also, you always try to connect me to Ruff for the simple reason that we both have posted positive things about LA, and I think because I pointed out a couple time how ridiculous your early attacks on him were.........and I think he has some well though out points....I mean how can you deny he is one of the more articulate and well informed posters here.?? His HUGE crime in your eyes seems to be that he was 100% for an LA24 games over Paris and had some legitimate thoughts and opinions why he felt that way. Them's FIGHTING word in your mind!!!....like everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, paul -  you really have a huge chip on your shoulder over something so trivial, don't you. And obviously, you're the one that's hung up on me, rather than the other way around (which I'm sure someone so insecure wouldn't be my type anyway :P) , bcuz you consistently want to make this personal instead of focusing on what the thread itself is about. The one that sounds resentful here is you, not me. WTF do I have to be resentful for besides absolutely nothing. Especially when the IOC has already placed it's verdict on how things will go for 2024 & 2028, which is how the majority, non-biased observers saw it throughout this whole process.

And if you think that Puff is "more articulate & well informed", then good for you. But if you go through the countless pages in this very thread since they joined here, you're in the minority of people here that actually think that way of them. NO one, BTW, has ever denied that they have knowledge about L.A. & their bid, but it was always at the expense of it's rival Paris, where that's when their 'articulation & well informed' rhetoric ceased. Especially when they were the ones on the "attack" from the beginning & NOT the other way around. And that's one of the reasons why I connect to you to Puff. Not bcuz you both have positives views about L.A., but bcuz everything that you falsely accuse me of doing is precisely what your L.A. friend has been doing all along to others who have challenged their POV. But you continually choose to conveniently ignore that aspect of them particularly bcuz of the "simple" bond that you two have over L.A. You always choose to look the other way simply bcuz of that L.A. rapport that you two share. I mean, they show up for the first time in over a month here, & the first thing you do is come to their defense. So how can there not be a connection made between you two.

Everything else is really just YOUR projection, as usual. This was NEVER "personal" for me (cuz I'm not from/nor live or ever lived in Paris. I'm not even French) as it was/& still is for you two (since you live there, & apparently the other one is from there). So that's where it became "FIGHTING" words for you two, where my (& anyone else in this thread who challenged their thoughts, bcuz I'm not the only one here that you've ragged on in such a manner about this) "crime" was to merely counter-challenge all the L.A. hyperbole. I had nothing to win or lose here, but apparently you do. It severly irks you to see any slight of criticism that you think is being slung L.A.'s way. 

What I still don't understand is that if you so passionately just hate the Olympics (as much as you always say that you do), then what in the world are you doing on an Olympic-related website (which this question has been posed to you by others before)? Is it bcuz you see it as your duty to "defend" L.A. no matter what? We get it, you don't like the Olympics, but don't take it out on me (& others) when exactly what you say that you dislike about the Olympics is exactly what's getting under your skin by the Olympics coming to your "backyard". But if you want to continue this pettyness over pretty much nothing now really, cuz again the IOC has already spoken, then be my absolute guest, but I'm done with your accusitory nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....and the parrot says (see above).....you should just have a Signature with a permanent comment that says, "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" (maybe in flaming letter) ?!!!

...then you could just hit respond and save yourself all that typing time.

I wish you could have our Olympics in your town so you didn't feel so left out. 

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paul said:

And your name calling and nicknames you make up just all sound ... well ... like something only a dumb teen girl would giggle at.

 

8 minutes ago, paul said:

p.s. I'm good at graphics.........I can make you the flaming signature if you want.....pm me and let me know.

5 minutes ago, paul said:

....and the parrot says (see above).....

And this is precisely where your total hypocrisy comes into play, giggling dumb teen girl.

7 minutes ago, paul said:

you should just have a Signature with a permanent comment that says, "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" (maybe in flaming letter) ?!!!

...then you could just hit respond and save yourself all that typing time.

So says the parrot expert. You're like those corrupt Euro-holes that you constantly complain about. Never can own up to anything bcuz their (L.A. in your case) blinders are on too tight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Pile this on with the fact California is facing a huge budget crisis and economic slowdown that will likely worsen in the years to come and you've got a perfect storm for unrelated, but completely related fuckups.

 

California isn’t facing a budget crisis. The revenue shortfall came back this summer at $1.6B, but that’s not a budget crisis.   CA’s budget is $183B in a $2.5T state economy, so it's not significant. CA needs to adjust for it the following year or if a slowdown is being predicted. The unemployment rate in 2017 is still record low 4.7%.and is coming close to surpassing Great Britain for the 5th slot in the world’s largest economies.   Conservative news is always predicting CA’s demise, but in reality CA is no where close to being in economic crisis.  From now to within the next couple of years, there’s predicted to be a slowdown across the US. 11 years is a long time, so there could be a recession by 2028 since these things are cyclical. Or it could happen in 2024 and recover by 2028 for all we know. 

 

8 hours ago, paul said:

As for crime in decline now ........

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues-LA times 1/1/17

Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population.

It'll go and up and down from year to year, but over the long term trend, LA is still experiencing the lowest crime rates in it’s recorded history. Lowest recorded was 2013/14 when it equalled or undercut LA’s crime rate back in 1949. 

Screen-Shot-2017-01-03-at-5.48.03-PM.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look who's back?!?   You sure got out of Charlotteville really fast, Truff.

Anyway,  back to the topic -- uhmmm, bringing the Games back to Paris will create several thousand jobs, even though those might average out to be 1.5 years each -- still that's employment for probably many young French people.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RuFF said:

Now contrast that to Paris and France and just like that FYI's flatulence of the mouth deflates. A completely fabricated argument presented about California when indeed that argument is taking place in Paris and France, today. Check out their unemployment numbers and economic growth and you'll be left wondering why taxpayers would want to set a dime of taxpayer bucks on the Olympics when the local economy has been stagnant for years. 

But this goes back to the framework of the bids. The private LA bid asks stakeholders to put skin in the game and sets a clear objective, to make a surplus. Paris just doesn't have that framework and with government involved we already know that the prestige of Paris and France are the clear objective, and we will see that in costs. For this reason, regardless of how minuscule or outrageous that cost ends up being, the guts of the Parisian bid are more like Rio than they are like LA. The inertia in the Parisian bid is subject to change as are the stakeholders and their priorities. In LA those stakeholders are likely to remain the same, and so is the priority. 

I made the economic argument. Not FYI. Get your facts straight. 

But I will say, you bring up a good and valid point about how LA is more likely to turn a profit than Paris given LA's more capitalistic approach. But it's pointless to argue who will have a better games, both of them will host a much more affordable games than we've seen in the past and that's something to celebrate. I think both will go a long way in improving the IOC's image and providing other potential host cities a viable formula that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I was missing something interesting that there were a bunch of new replies here.  Should have known better than the real reason was because it has returned.  Too bad, was kinda hoping it was gone for good.  Not worth trying to rationalize with it though, especially since there's no longer a Paris versus LA comeptition going on.  Yet it still is trying to make a case against Paris, as if that makes a difference at this point.  1 point though that needs to be fact-checked..

On 8/13/2017 at 0:11 PM, RuFF said:

Contrast that to Paris, and it's no question that Paris is closer to Rio than it is to Los Angeles on the simple fact that the possibility of a profit isn't even discussed. If things can go wrong in LA, according to your own logic, they can also go wrong in Paris. And in Paris we can say with a certainty that a 2 billion project is Olympic Dependent

No, you can't say that, because it's not true.  The plans for what will become the village were going ahead anyway, which is why they said only 2024 would work for an Olympic bid.  That said, don't see why that needs to be brought up.  The Olympics are happening in Paris.  So whether or not the village would have been built is moot at this point.  But whatever.  This is why it's no longer worth replying to it.  I digress to less ignorant posts (which precludes replying to paul as well)..

On 8/13/2017 at 0:25 AM, FYI said:

I couldn't immediately find the one I was initially referring to (I'll keep looking, though), but I did found these two (& one from just a few days ago) that pretty much say the same thing:  

https://www.thenation.com/article/want-understand-1992-la-riots-start-1984-la-olympics/

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/the-1984-olympics-were-bad-for-poor-black-people-in-los-1797612842/amp

I've hit on this before because until I had read a couple of articles like this, I wouldn't have thought to draw parallels between the `84 Olympics and the civil unrest in LA in the early 90s.  Don't know how much the 2 are connected, but it does bring up a point that anti-Olympics folks may not be wrong about.  Even with all the private funding and the investments from wealthy corporations and individuals, who stands to benefit from a successful Olympics?  No one would dispute the positive legacies that the `84 games left LA and Southern California that still continue to be felt these days.  But at a time in this country where there's a divide between the haves and the have nots, the argument can be made that something like the Olympics will increase that divide.  No one here would dispute the non-Olympic dependent infrastructure projects going on in LA that are in place to benefit the population (although to be fair, now there is an Olympics on the calendar, so that element of any long-term project could become a consideration), but then what are the citizens of Los Angeles getting out of the $5 billion being spent?  Is that the best use of their time and money?  A lot of good would come out of an Olympics, but for whom?  Still a fair question to ask if there will be people who don't benefit from the Olympics and the answer is probably a resounding yes.

So yea, maybe I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here.  Assessing the situation, 2028 and Los Angeles are about as good a bet to host an Olympics in this country as we're likely to get in the foreseeable future, so it not then, than when.  In the interests of being fair and balanced, it's not unfair to bring both the potential positives and the negatives to the table.  And yea, we can - and likely will - do the same thing with Paris.  But fortunately, there's another thread devoted to that.  There's no longer a competition where 1 has to be chosen over the other, so comparing 1 to the other almost seems like a self-defeating prophecy at this point.  Time will tell what history says about their respective Olympics.

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

Sad part is you can tell the difference of what I'm talking about while others aren't nearly as capable of figuring it out. Saying it's more close to Rio in framework does not mean they can't be successful and more economically viable games, because the obvious is that Paris is far more prepared with supporting infrastructure and experience. Absolutely the games in Paris will be a success. Still, there is a clear difference and the result will likely show clearly different as well. Unfortunately the level of intellect to discuss this isn't present in this forum. 

RuFF, there's plenty of really smart people on these forums that have been studying the games for years. I've had many an enjoyable talks with them and they've taught me a lot. If you want to have intellectual discussions with them, be more civil in your discourse and I'm positive others will respond in same. A lot of the members here have valid insight to the games and they want, just as you do, for their insights and opinions to be heard and recognized. 

With regards to Paris, I understand your point about Paris, given its government funding, to potentially become a show of vanity. However, I would point to both Sydney 2000 and London 2012 as examples where games with government funding did not turn in to Beijing like vanity games. Cost overruns in both of those games was a result of underestimating costs and major infrastructure projects; in both cases the governments tried to reign in spending. I expect the same to happen in Paris. France is not in a good economic position and the French people would not respond well to their government spending billions and billions on the games. Additionally, as others have pointed out, many of the projects that will be completed for the games were already in the works. Many infrastructure improvements have been planned since the last days of the Sarkozy administration. While Paris' organizing structure runs the risk of potentially unnecessary cost-overruns (vanity), I don't think in this current economic climate it will happen. Paris also has a much better sporting infrastructure than London did in 2012. It was one of the reasons most people thought Paris would beat London during the 2012 race in '05. Since then Paris' infrastructure has only improved.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 11:20 AM, RuFF said:

Now contrast that to Paris and France and just like that FYI's flatulence of the mouth deflates. 

 

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

Then we have FYI's that chime in on my every single post or Quakers who somehow know everything, 

Right, that's why when you were absent from here for over a month (which wasn't long enough, really), the first thing you do is "chime" in about my post with your usual insults & your other petty tactics.

I'm glad to see though (well not really) that I've made such an impact in your (meager) life that you have to immediately acknowledge & respond to me upon your return. :)

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

I don't disagree with anything on this post. However, the last 2 years have been spent denying this conversation and anything touching on it becoming that somehow meant that LA is better than Paris, or that Paris is being downed. Both myself and Paul have openly talked about the negatives of the Olympics and how they relate to militarization of police, displacement and disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor, etc. I've even gone as far as to praise Paris for its own infrastructure advancements. 

That's NOT true whatsover. The past two years you've been too busy trying to paint the grand L.A. "utopian" picture & nothing else, & belittled & insulted anyone else who dared disagreed with your warped L.A. world. And you certainly never had anything good to say about Paris. Quite the opposite with your misinformation & outright lies (i.e. their OV). You're just back-peddling now as a convenience.

But on the contrary, myself (& others) acknowledged all of L.A.'s positive attributes, but that wasn't enough for you (or paul, for that matter) for the simple fact the we didn't come to agreement that 2024 wasn't going to be L.A.'s year (& as it turns out, that's the way it panned out in the end anyway). 

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

You can't have an intellectual conversation if preference for a bid blinds what is really happening in each city.

That certainly describes you to a (blind )-T with the L.A. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

I made the economic argument. Not FYI. Get your facts straight. 

Thank you again, Bernham. It's quite obvious that said individual's comprehension skills absolute suck, or they're suffering from dementia.

5 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

RuFF, there's plenty of really smart people on these forums that have been studying the games for years. I've had many an enjoyable talks with them and they've taught me a lot. If you want to have intellectual discussions with them, be more civil in your discourse and I'm positive others will respond in same. A lot of the members here have valid insight to the games and they want, just as you do, for their insights and opinions to be heard and recognized. 

Exactly - & this totally flies in the face of paul's silly & baseless accusatory posts. 

5 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

With regards to Paris, I understand your point about Paris, given its government funding, to potentially become a show of vanity. However, I would point to both Sydney 2000 and London 2012 as examples where games with government funding did not turn in to Beijing like vanity games. Cost overruns in both of those games was a result of underestimating costs and major infrastructure projects; in both cases the governments tried to reign in spending. I expect the same to happen in Paris. France is not in a good economic position and the French people would not respond well to their government spending billions and billions on the games. Additionally, as others have pointed out, many of the projects that will be completed for the games were already in the works. Many infrastructure improvements have been planned since the last days of the Sarkozy administration. While Paris' organizing structure runs the risk of potentially unnecessary cost-overruns (vanity), I don't think in this current economic climate it will happen. Paris also has a much better sporting infrastructure than London did in 2012. It was one of the reasons most people thought Paris would beat London during the 2012 race in '05. Since then Paris' infrastructure has only improved.

And to add to that, that no bid outside the U.S. will ever be a privately-financed endeavor TBW, but that doesn't mean that it can't or won't work. And it's not like any tax dollars won't be used for L.A. 2028 anyway. Security for the Games being one of those categories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Thought I was missing something interesting that there were a bunch of new replies here.  Should have known better than the real reason was because it has returned.  Too bad, was kinda hoping it was gone for good.  Not worth trying to rationalize with it though, especially since there's no longer a Paris versus LA comeptition going on.  Yet it still is trying to make a case against Paris, as if that makes a difference at this point.  1 point though that needs to be fact-checked..

No, you can't say that, because it's not true.  The plans for what will become the village were going ahead anyway, which is why they said only 2024 would work for an Olympic bid.  That said, don't see why that needs to be brought up.  The Olympics are happening in Paris.  So whether or not the village would have been built is moot at this point.  But whatever.  This is why it's no longer worth replying to it.  

Yeah, it's all really moot now, isn't it. Unless, like I mentioned the other day, that their "mission" now is just to make this about who will have "the biggest & better or best"  Olympics next decade. :rolleyes:

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

  I digress to less ignorant posts (which precludes replying to paul as well).

Ain't that the truth.

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

And to add to that, that no bid outside the U.S. will ever be a privately-financed endeavor TBW, but that doesn't mean that it can't or won't work. And it's not like any tax dollars won't be used for L.A. 2028 anyway. Security for the Games being one of those categories.

I'm glad you mentioned that - it's something that's bugged me whenever the old "LA;'s plan should be the template for future games" argument gets brought up. Nice idea, and, sure, some aspects (if they work) will be picked up. But so many things just aren't replicable.

Take the OV. It works for LA because of the US campus culture. That culture doesn't exist elsewhere - ity's a US-specific thing (I dunno, maybe Canada as well, but I'd need to be educated on that). Elsewhere, in Europe, Oz, Asia etc, the old model will still always rule. I get that LA's plan was a great point of differentiation it could sell, but it was always disingenuous to try to paint any other approach as flawed - especially when it's a model that has been used in just about all non-US games, and is rarely a sore point or sticking point.

Beyond that, you hit the nail on the head. Private enterprise, profit-driven, high Capitalism is not as worshipped as much outside the US as America enshrines it. Most other places are comfortable with some level of Government involvement. Advanced democracies don't like to see Government waste or spendthrifting, but they aren't adverse to public spending on worthy projects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I'm glad you mentioned that - it's something that's bugged me whenever the old "LA;'s plan should be the template for future games" argument gets brought up. Nice idea, and, sure, some aspects (if they work) will be picked up. But so many things just aren't replicable.

Take the OV. It works for LA because of the US campus culture. That culture doesn't exist elsewhere - ity's a US-specific thing (I dunno, maybe Canada as well, but I'd need to be educated on that). Elsewhere, in Europe, Oz, Asia etc, the old model will still always rule. I get that LA's plan was a great point of differentiation it could sell, but it was always disingenuous to try to paint any other approach as flawed - especially when it's a model that has been used in just about all non-US games, and is rarely a sore point or sticking point.

Beyond that, you hit the nail on the head. Private enterprise, profit-driven, high Capitalism is not as worshipped as much outside the US as America enshrines it. Most other places are comfortable with some level of Government involvement. Advanced democracies don't like to see Government waste or spendthrifting, but they aren't adverse to public spending on worthy projects.

Thank you. Preach Rols. Preach.

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...