London has beat out Paris, Madrid, New York, and Moscow to host the 2012 Olympics. Since a lot of us are either from or are studying in one of the winning/losing countries... Your thoughts?

I'm just glad it wasn't New York, not that NYC isn't great but it would have been in the boonies.  Plus I don't really care for Hilary Clinton so I try to go against her every move.

Paris didn't win the bid = another setback for Chirac = Yay!
That guy just annoys the hell out of me, he's been around too long I think

Hear Hear!
Quote (Perkyass @ July 06, 2005,14:40)
I'm just glad it wasn't New York, not that NYC isn't great but it would have been in the boonies.  Plus I don't really care for Hilary Clinton so I try to go against her every move.

Well, I'm glad NYC didn't win in a way, but what do you you mean "in the boonies?"

Nowhere in Manhattan is in the boonies! Although NYC's fate was already screwed when the state's financing fell through a month earlier. So maybe you thought the backup plan was East Rutherford (Giants Stadium)? Anyway, NYC was screwed to begin with thank to our state's horrible government. And for the record, it has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton! She's the best thing to happen to New York since the Erie Canal. It's the lame-ass senators ala "why should we spend x million to build a stadium that only might host the olympics?"

Anyway, I just spent nearly three hours writing about how New York State is a mess, using Syracuse as an example. I would be honored if you check it out!

http://newkai.com/mt/archives/2005/07/no_nyc_2012_wha.html

Personally I think London was the best choice. NYC has enough stuff going on, it doesn't need MORE attention, hells the traffic from manhatten to JFK is already bad enough... you saw how it was during the Republican convention... security nightmare... it would be a month of that for NYC... that would not be fun.

Just a comment about Hillary Clinton, if she runs for president it will be a nightmare for the DNC.

Now back to the Olympics: The French and the Russians bids were ok, but I think they lacked the vision that London had. Plus I got the impression that more Londoners wanted the games the any other city. But ultimately I think it came down to basic cost-benifit, London could do the most, with the least disruption to the city and has the most postive "out look" of the aftermath of the games. For example athens is still in major debt because of the games...
London was the best choice.
Quote (Thorsten @ July 07, 2005,02:39)
London could do the most, with the least disruption to the city and has the most postive "out look" of the aftermath of the games. For example athens is still in major debt because of the games...
London was the best choice.

Well, NYC and London both scored a "10" for traffic capabilities. Nevertheless, traffic and security would be hell in either city. As for costs, every olympics since Montreal '76 (which was a financial disaster) has been a financial success, including Athens!

NYC was screwed because of lack of support by politicians. Granted, a lot were for it, but not enough. Once the Westside Stadium deal fell through, I knew NYC was out. NYC also had the repeat thing going against it, as the U.S. has had olympics in '80 (Lake Placid, NY!!!;), '84, '96, and '02. London/England had nearly everyone in their government supporting it, thus you're probably right in saying London wanted it the most.

I love how the papers here are headlining "Non!," making fun of French EU referendum decision and the IOC's.

It's interesting that London won, because they were third place in the first round:

Bid evaluations
The deadline to submit a bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games was July 15, 2003. All nine cities that submitted bids before that date also met the January 15, 2004 deadline for the 50-page questionnaire. The committee gave a weighted average score to each city based on scores in eleven categories, such as finance, security, accommodation, past experience and transport. On May 18 2004, the International Olympic Committee gave evalutions of the potential hosts:
Paris, France – scored 8.5
Madrid, Spain – scored 8.3
London, UK – scored 7.6
New York City, United States – scored 7.5
Moscow, Russia – scored 6.5
Leipzig, Germany – scored 6.0
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – scored 5.1
Istanbul, Turkey – scored 4.8
Havana, Cuba – scored 3.6
The five highest-rated candidates were allowed to progress onto the next stage and were granted the right to use the Olympic flame and Olympic rings imagery in their campaign literature.
As for the 2016 Olympics:

Busan, South Korea (Busan's Mayor announced on October 2, 2002)
Delhi, India (IOA announced December 27, 2003)
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (According to March 1, 2004 Report)
Hamburg, Germany (According to February 17, 2004 Mayor's Announcement)
Japan (Sapporo or Fukuoka) (JOC announces May 19, 2005)
Kenya (GamesBids.com Reports January 12, 2005)
Naples, Milan or Rome, Italy (GamesBids.com Reports Feb. 18, 2005)
Madrid, Spain (According to Spanish Authorities, reported in BBC News)[1]
Minneapolis-St. Paul, USA (According to August 7, 2003 Report)
Moscow, Russia (Announced intention to bid again after failure of its 2012 bid [2]
New York City, United States
Portugal (GamesBids.com Reports January 7, 2004)
Rotterdam, Netherlands (Under investigation)
St. Petersburg, Russia (According to Vice Governor, December 29, 2003)
San Diego USA
Tijuana Mexico (Binational bid study underway according to January 24, 2005 report.)
Santiago, Chile (Announced Chile's NOC President on October 15, 2002)
Tel Aviv, Israel (conducting feasibility study, admits challenges.)
Thailand (According to September 15, 2004 Report)
However, with the election of London to host the XXXth Olympiad in 2012 it is considered extremely unlikely that the 2016 Games will be awarded to a European city. This would rule out several of the above potential bids. It is widely expected that in 2016 the Games will return to the USA, due to an unwritten convention that every 20 years the IOC reciprocate for the vast payments by the NBC media group for Olympic coverage - funds that largely bankroll the IOC. If this is true, there is a good chance that New York City, who lost the 2012 bid, could finally host an Olympics (if they choose to bid on them, so far at least officially they have not). New York is the largest city in the Western world to have never hosted the Games, a status considered by some Olympic historians to be quite odd given it's image as a "world city" (however, historically New York has not made major efforts to host an Olympics until recently). The lack of European competition could also give Toronto, Canada an edge in trying to win the Games if it chooses to bid on them. The city was a close 2nd to Beijing in the final round of bids for the 2008 Games and in the last 2 decades has achieved an "international" population diversity that almost rivals that of New York. While it would technically not placate the "unwritten convention" vis-a-vis NBC mentioned above, it could be still be a very strong candidate in the mind of the IOC for 2016. It did not bid for the 2012 Games because it was considered too close in time to the 2010 Winter Games that will be held in the nation's province of British Columbia.
Quote (newkai @ July 07, 2005,03:54)
Nevertheless, traffic and security would be hell in either city.

I am shocked. Just this morning I was think about how easy it would be to attack the subway networks in NYC and London. Now it has happened in London.

It is really sad to what lengths people will go to spread their fucked up message that they base on some dumb-ass interpretation of an otherwise peaceful religious document.
Ok, let me defend myself here for a sec.  Had the Olympics been held in NYC there is no way Manhattan would have had the space to host the Olympics, without moving a lot of the events and housing to more rural "boonie" NY areas, which is why Manhattan voted against having the Olympics there in the first place.  Phew and as far as Hilary Clinton is concerned I personally just do not like/trust that woman.  I'm glad you think she's doing a great job for your state, but I pray to God she doesn't run for Presidential Office.  I would really like to see a Democratic President take Mr. Bush's place, but not her.  I sincerely hope they find a stronger and generally more respected candidate than Ms Clinton, otherwise I'm afraid that the DNC will lose again.
Well, personally I fin Hilary Clinton pretty strong, and to be the best candidate out of the potential list so far. First of all, she's already been sudo-president during the great times of the 1990s, and essentially ran the White House many times. She's not as mainstream as Kerry, which will be good for the democrats as they need to stop being republican-lite. That was one of Kerry's major flaws, he never went on the offensive and took a drastic different stance than Bush. We'll have to see if she even runs though.

It looks like John McCain might run for the republicans again, which would be a blessing, as he's a true RINO.

Hell yeah I like John McCain.  How did this board become so political?
All our threads end up switching to sex or politics!
Yeah no kidding!  I hate politics though we should just talk about sex.
Quote (Perkyass @ July 09, 2005,12:58)
I hate politics though we should just talk about sex.

Would love to, but there's none left in Vienna. :down:
Quote (Perkyass @ July 07, 2005,03:52)
Phew and as far as Hilary Clinton is concerned ..... I pray to God she doesn't run for Presidential Office.

Amen to that... the Democrats need to find a strong chrismatic figure who can beat the conservative in 2008. Who that is... well hard to find.. but the Republicans will also need to search hard.
Quote (Thorsten @ July 11, 2005,22:00)
the Democrats need to find a strong chrismatic figure

Have you all been living in a server closet in Sweden!? Hilary Clinton is about as charismatic as it gets. The Democrats have to stop being Republican-lite. And picking a very non-Republican woman is just about as good as you can do... Apart from picking Howard Dean!

Electing Hilary Clinton is like re-electing Bill Clinton. And I don't see anything wrong with that!
Quote (newkai @ July 11, 2005,23:07)
The Democrats have to stop being Republican-lite. And picking a very non-Republican woman is just about as good as you can do......Electing Hilary Clinton is like re-electing Bill Clinton. And I don't see anything wrong with that!

What do you mean by "Republican-lite"?

Oh Hilary Clinton charismatic for sure, she did convince NY state to give her a senate seat. But can she convince the country? And I said we need a "STRONG charismatic" figure. in 2008, the war in Iraq will be 5 years old. If America is still involved (which I am assuming they will be), the election will be all about; "bringing our boys home."

Will she come across strong enough, for America to come her side? The Democratic Party is already been portrayed as "weak". Having a woman as candidate, will only further this "untrue" stereotype. I am not saying that women are weak, I am just saying that politics portrays them as such, While they gain a lot of support on issues such as healthcare and education, they generally lose support on issues such as economy and military.

I base my arguments, largely on my experiences with the DNC in Missouri (whose demographic distribution is somewhat similar to that of the entire country), where Nancy Farmer ran for senate.
Quote (Thorsten @ July 13, 2005,21:57)
in 2008, the war in Iraq will be 5 years old. If America is still involved (which I am assuming they will be), the election will be all about; "bringing our boys home."

So your saying that will decide the election? Then it won't depend on the candidate, but on the feelings of the American people towards the war. If  there is still strong support for it (it's declining), then the Republicans will win.

And unfortunately I don't get your "women are week" theory. The only idiots who believe that are going to vote Republican anyway.
Next Page...