Friday, 2 October 2009

The decision not to award the 2016 olympics to Chicago

This is the wrong decision and clearly motivated by a snobbish anti-americanism. Chicago has the facilities and the location to be perfect for such an event. President Obama & his wife mounted an excellent campaign. Rio on the other hand is ill suited.


Miles said...

If it were the Bush-era, then yes, I would accuse anti-Americanism. But then, as a unofficial half-American, it's a total bitch that America lose out on the millions of revenue and new jobs that it would've opened up. Or maybe it's a call from the rest of the world to say 'America, sort out the whole healthcare thing and you might have a shot next time.'

But, hey, good for Brazil, it's about time that South America got the chance to host 'em! It'd be cool either way.

Anyway, the last thing Chicago needs is MORE buildings.

Miles said...

Hang on... accusations from snobbery... from Sparacus?

Holy Crap, isn't that one of the four signs that Galactus will come and attack the Earth?

Youth of Australia said...

Doesn't matter where they put it, it won't beat Sydney 2000.

AngelClare said...

I don't believe it was snobbish. Rio De Janerio was not in the running for the 2012, and is only fair to allow the event to happen in their country for 2016.

America has had it quite a few times over the last 50 years. There is too much favouritism regarding America.

sparacus said...

My pointr is that Chicago is\ better placed to stage the Olympics. The USA is a wealthy nation and could easily affort to construct state of the art stadiums.