LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksEasy, both Canada and the UK boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
Now, both Canada and the UK have sent their military halfway around the world to intervene in Afghanistan. If the shoe fits...
August 4th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Easy, both Canada and the UK boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
Now, both Canada and the UK have sent their military halfway around the world to intervene in Afghanistan. If the shoe fits...
You're right.
For Vancouver, there's easy Beijing-style jabbing over Canada's poor human rights record. Perhaps Obama could give a scathing condemnation re repression of Native people, just before the opening. He could voice support for the anti-Olympic activists we have gearing-up in this city. The right to protest... the world is watching... and all that. Sanction us if Vancouver police silence the protesters.
Well it's a good excuse for NAFTA partner to break agreements.
Everybody's always boycotting them, protesting them, or otherwise using them as an attention getter. What's the point in even having them if they're just going to be a political soapbox? Seems everyone wants to be the ones who disrupt the big event, rather than the ones who help get the event going.
How about for each time the Olympics gets politicized, we remove one loop from the logo, and erect a cenotaph infamizing the group(s) responsible. When it starts into negatives, spoilsporting would become real uncool.
Canada has already held an Olympics since Moscow, here in my home town, Calgary.
It was boycotted by Togo. Togo refused to attend because Canada would not respect that the term "Coconut milk' originated in that country just as 'Champagne' originated in France. Togo insisted all Coconut milk not originating from that country have labels changed to 'White stuff from big nut'.
Canada agreed to the terms but the official letter was misdirected to Tonga instead of Togo. By the time the letter was redirected to Togo six months later via a Banana boat....it was too late. Togo declared war on Canada. Of course, declaring war on Canada is the same as declaring war on all of Nato and the Alliance has been at war with Togo for the last 22 years. In the latest development of the conflict, Nato generals have opened up the National Geographic atlas and are rumoured to be close to figuring out exactly where Togo is.
The winter Olympics in Vancouver have finished without a boycott ever in sight. Please feel free to boycott London 2012 summer Olympics. IMHO the summer Olympics should be permanently based in Greece, and countries wanting to compete could pay a few quid up front to the Greeks. I fail to see why the winter sports nations ( Canadian, American, Nordic, Alpine, Russian Federation, Far Eastern ) entertain an Olympics at all.
Did you make this up on the spot? Please cite.Originally Posted by raptordigits
Why should Greece be the only country to reap the economic and social benefit of hosting the Olympics?
Jacques,
Please point me in the direction of any economic and social benefits to be had by hosting the Olympics. Do you have something against the Greeks ?
Here is a great report about the impact of the UK hosting in 2012:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...mpactStudy.pdf
My father was born in Athens, so that would be no.
Well yeah, because it's explicitly meant to sell the Games.
In short, the report is designed to promote benefits. It's a marketing device.The OGIS (Olympic Games Impact Study) was designed to generate some important benefits by:
-improving understanding of the potential benefits of hosting the Olympics in London in 2012
-providing (as far as possible) consistent data/information which can be used by the stakeholders to communicate the benefits of hosting the Olympics in London in 2012
-contributing to the development of a strategy/action plan for delivering the potential benefits of hosting the Olympics in London 2012; and
-demonstrating to the IOC London’s commitment to maximising the potentially beneficial impacts of hosting the Olympics in London 2012.
I'm posting from Vancouver.
The Olympic experience of this city has been extremely partisan. Basically the big wheeler-dealers of the province saw it as an enterprise, and used the political revolving door to make it happen. We got the same kind of biased reports as above. So the issue became politicized very quickly, because it was an exclusive club of politician/businessmen simultaneously promoting the Games, while unapologetically working to ensure they'd personally reap the profits. In this context nothing could be added to support or detract that was not inherently pointed at those promoters, their financial interests (i.e. owning the Olympic slopes and amenities), and their dual role in BC politics. So a disinterested assessment must come from outside the province... yet no truly objective observations surfaced, that I'm aware of. Well, Vancouver's something like a corrupt developing country that way... I hope it's better in London.
My point: I can't say the Winter Olympics were good or bad overall for Vancouver, but I can say objectivity is unlikely and unwanted.
Jacques,
I know that you do not believe that report, about the impact of the 2012 Olympics on the UK, as Pong says it is just a marketing tool, but written in gobbledygook. There are two years to go yet, and costs are spiralling ever skywards. My mother was born in Larissa, and she thinks that it is a great idea to have the summer Olympics permanently in Greece.
Dave - I believe you are making a common mistake made by people not well versed in business or economics. What you refer to above as cost is better described as investment. Yes, making such an investment lowers your present cash position for expenditure in much the same way that costs do, but the difference is that investments often come with huge returns and revenues if executed properly.
If you are questioning whether or not the likelihood that the country will achieve a high enough return on investment, or if the investment will ultimately be worth it, then that is fine, but please try to avoid conflating the concept of "cost" with the concept of "investment." The countries bringing the Olympics to their land are making investments which will absolutely see an ROI. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, I suggest you discuss the potential magnitude of the ROI and focus your efforts there. Treating it as a simple cost is just foolish.
Inow,
How foolish of me. I bow to your superior knowledge of, well all things really. Fancy relating cost to investment, I must need my head examined. The cost of security for the games alone should deter all but the foolhardy. I could go on but I wont, just yet. Try this link from November 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/no...2.olympics2012
It was not foolish, but it was ignorant. You appear not to be versed in the language of business and accounting. inow does appear to be versed in this language, at least to a basic level. Ignoring and disregarding his comments is foolish. So, you started out as ignorant - a condition which can easily be corrected - but chose instead to become foolish and remain ignorant. It does call into question why you would choose to participate in a forum at all..
Well Ophiolite,
That is a very nice put down, it could be hard to come back from. Is that what you would call intellectual bullying or are you just being smug ? BTW Ophio is Greek for snake.
That was neither a put down nor bullying, Ophiolite made a good point - your reaction to a valid point by inow was mockery instead of response. Your link proved that you did not give any thought to inow's point as that article was more examination of the costs of the London Olympics, but did not address the ROI.
OK JX,
You are the moderator.
Most posts in this thread will be overtly or covertly partisan. I doubt it Ophiolite's intention, but when he broadly endorses "comments" that do include "will absolutely see an ROI" it amounts to that. To clear himself of partisanship Ophiolite would have to go back and qualify inow's statement... perhaps by noting alternate investments may yield better returns. That's too much bother.
When polarization begins it is much easier to just pick a side.
I am a member first and mod second, and am therefore allowed just as much of an opinion as yourself; the moderation part only comes in when I see another member breaking the forum guidelines. I was a member long before I was a mod.OK JX,
You are the moderator.
Why are you avoiding answering these points?
JX,
It is quite simple really. I have know idea what ROI means, plesase elaborate.
Your next question please.
Applies more than ever.
You posted trite, smug dismissive remarks about inow's relevant and accurate post. That merited a put down. The purpose of the put down was not bully you. It was to shock you into recognition that you were being a prat. If it made you feel somewhat uncomfortable and thus inclined to give deeper thought to iNow's remarksit would have served its purpose. The fact that you have now, belatedly, asked what ROI is, is an encouraging sign.Well Ophiolite,
That is a very nice put down, it could be hard to come back from. Is that what you would call intellectual bullying or are you just being smug ? BTW Ophio is Greek for snake.
R.O.I. is return on investment. It allows one to distinguish the value of different investment opportunities. Which one is likely to produce the greatest return? The investment in the Olympics will generate several kinds of return. Some examples: it will produce an influx of visitors to London and other UK venues during the Olympics. It will highlight the UK and and London as a tourist venue, increasing future tourist visits. It will improve the infrastructure of the East End of London, encouraging further investment in that area and indirectly enhancing the efficiency of businesses already there. Etc.
Ophiolite,
I feel extremely shocked and uncomfortable, well done to you. Thank you for your explanation regarding ROI. I will have a think about it this afternoon.
The acronym was spelled out in my first post which mentioned it.
Which post was that ? I must have missed it.
Well if that was the issue you should have said so the first time in lieu of your dismissal of my comment due to my being a moderator.
You didn't miss it as you responded to it - which makes me think that the reason you are not debating the points brought up is because you're not actually reading anyone else's posts. Please actually participate in the discussion or don't post.
JX,
Are you a moderator right now or a contributor ?
My last post was tongue in cheek. I do feel that I am participating, I also feel that I am being singled out for special attention, but I could be wrong.
Quit playing dumb. Ophiolite gave you the benefit of the doubt and you've turned his gesture for passive-aggressive trolling.
JX please don your mod hat and pick a font colour.
Moderator.
This is pretty much going to be your first and only warning on trolling the Politics subforum. The only reason you keep being 'singled out' is because of - as Pong put it - your "passive-aggressive trolling" in that you have not been responding to points, you've merely been making a sarcastic remark to anyone disagreeing with you.
No one here is out to get you, but we don't like when a discussion is halted because someone is not participating in the discussion. We're not looking for everyone to agree or have the same opinions about any thread, but we do expect that everyone try to back up their opinions and points as much as possible and respond to counterpoints. The idea here is that we all teach and learn from each other and from the thread discussion rather than just try to convince everyone else to agree with a certain opinion.
From Guidelines
4(e) Before replying, please ask yourself the following question: "Does my reply offer any significant advice or help contribute to the conversation in any fashion?" If not, do not post it as it will be considered spam.
If you have any other questions, you can PM me. Otherwise, please try to be a bit more open to discussion in the future.
JX
Haha, blue is for talk and red is for action.
OK Dude.
| « At last a prison thats really tough on crime | Tea partiers, coffee partiers? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
