That is patently false. The Olympics are about spending way too much money on people who are really good at arbitrary physical tasks. The President's job matters to actual people's lives.
I'm agnostic about the Olympics. I think it's not a bad thing to celebrate physical accomplishment, especially in such a multinational way, but I know it rarely makes a lot of money for the host city.
You're laboring under the false assumption that when conservatives cheered Chicago's loss of the Olympics they were doing so out of some deep seeded concern for the taxpayers of Chicago and the costs associated with the Olympics. In reality, they were very clearly cheering the loss of the Olympics because they saw it as a loss for the President. I doubt there are too many cons out there who would shed a tear if Chicago went broke holding the Olympics, they just didn't want Obama to win something.
Not all that actual. There's less than a thousand of em.
I agree that the Olympics are fantastic in the sense that they're a multinational media event, and the world really needs to get used to being able to watch stuff together. If only we could drum up this sort of interest in, y'know, human rights or starvation.
As a resident of Vancouver, I've observed some pretty crass behaviour on the part of the city. We've got a real homelessness problem around here, and instead of taking steps to address it in any real way, we've been setting up temporary housing and relocations, drafting "safe streets" bylaws that would have people arrested for panhandling, that sort of thing. Money has been diverted from an already overburdened bus system to pay for the fancy new Skytrain line that goes to the airport. All the billboard spaces in the city have been bought up by the Olympic committee, and apparently there are some deep freedom-of-speech problems in their new advertising guidelines and how they're planning on enforcing them.
Not all that actual. There's less than a thousand of em.
So?
I agree that the Olympics are fantastic in the sense that they're a multinational media event, and the world really needs to get used to being able to watch stuff together. If only we could drum up this sort of interest in, y'know, human rights or starvation.
You realize that music festivals that send profits to charities get hundreds of thousands of participants, right? It's not a lack of interest from the public. It's a lack of organized action by government.
the fact of the matter is that the current system is broken, and i dont think its becous of regultion. the people in charge make obsean profits whilst people die. not only people without covrage, but people with covrage. bonuses have been awarded for denying coverage and people polcys are only checked when thay get ill (and are then denyed for achne). the systems broken, and i dont think helth care componeys have your best intrestes in mind.
So you're glad that health insurance $$ goes to propaganda campaigns rather than to, say, this (http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html)?
That says a lot about you.
But then, we already knew that you value corporations over people.
The Olympics were originally created to give warriors a non-violent area to compete in. A secondary effect was to foster good relations between the city states of the competitors.
Today the real goal is entertainment, with the arena aspect being the official reason. The secondary goal is political, but not necessarily good.
The money is a symptom of the entertainment goals, very little of which directly goes to the competitors. The merchandising & endorsements are outside of the Olympics.
That all being said the President actually has minimal direct effect on my life other than as a news item. And neither of your comments prove my comment false.
Page 1 of 4