From New York Times Digest.com, Oct 3rd

" Even with the support of President Obama, who flew in to address the voters, Chicago finished last, knocked out on the first vote with just 18 of a total of 94. Madrid received 28, Rio 26 and Tokyo 22. In each round, until one city gains a majority, the low vote getter is eliminated. After Chicago was out, nearly all of its votes went to Rio. In the third, after Tokyo was eliminated, Rio won handily. "

Losing shouldn’t be a big deal to him since he already said he’s NOT interested in VICTORY.

Oh....wait.....that was only for our troops...not for a sports event that would have further enriched his den of thieves at more taxpayer expense.

imagine, if you will......

Houston is vying for the Olympics and Bush went to Copenhagen to personally try and sway the vote. Imagine the outrage from the left about all the problems and here he is, off on a boondoggle.

But since it’s Obamalamadingdong, it’s ok..

...China, and sat in the stands for 4 days, eating peanuts and watching the games.

No one complained. He was showing the flag.

Same deal.

And all this time I thought the trees in Ohio leaned to the north because Cleveland sucks!:LOL:

Actually, it's not the same deal at all. Attending the games is something that past presidents have done regularly....no prior president has pitched personally for the games.

Your BO is a loser.

...you needn't be. Trust me, it means nothing.

Dwelling on the Olympic thing is myopic, at best.

My friends on the IOC said Rio had a lock, regardless.

Your friends on the IOC?

No one is dwelling on Obama's huge failure here - even I had thought that it was a lock for Chicago - it simply shows that Egobama talks but no one is listening, lately.

As for being happy for you, I lied.

I knew that.

French delegate was pissed about all of the Obama posse/security...couldn't walk across the hotel lobby.

Bush in the pool stands like an average guy, riding his bike on the race route, taking pics with our Olympians...class.

"Class" and Bush, oh the 1st Bush----I would say 'down to earth" or "approachable" for #2.

Down to earth and approachable is what made him a class act in my book. I choose my words carefully, thankyouverymuch.

The bottomline: Obama went to Copenhagen with the attitude that he is Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the world’s greatest rock star and “leader of the free world”. He believed that the little people could not deny him anything he wanted. However, he failed to take into consideration all his trips abroad and to the U.N. that found him apologizing for America’s past actions and trashing America in general. By doing that, he removed all respect the world ever had for this country. In other words, the world agreed with Obama that America was, and still is, an evil and hateful place. Chicago didn’t lose this Olympic bid, Obama did. He and his big mouth have spent the last year setting them up for this failure.

Yup...well said.

The IOC voting pattern:

1st: Madrid 28, Rio 26, Toyko 22, Chicago 18
2nd: Rio 46, Madrid 29, Tokyo 20
3rd: Rio 66, Madrid 32

.........many interpretations on the meaning of the 18 votes, last place, for Chicago, one of which would be Chicago was never in contention from the start. Somebody did not do their homework. Having active groups from Chicago against the bid might also have had some influence on the IOC voting members.

The web site " Chicagoans for Rio " has been disabled, but the WSJ article reported:

"..........had a point when they made a city-to-city comparison on their web site of signature events and scenes pitting " naked people dancing " versus " chubby people eating " and Ipanema versus 63rd street. "

The other web site mentioned by the WSJ is still active, No Games Chicago:

http://nogames.wordpress.com/

Reference: " Is Rio's Win Chicago's Gain "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...861429846.html

Oh man, we didn't have a snow ball's chance in hell with a comparison like that! :)

After Atlanta do you honestly think they'd consider Chicago??:rolleyes:

As for the wimmins, be carefull in Rio some of them are packin and I don't mean guns (well, not the metal ones anyway).

...or, not.

Exactly as posted on freerepublic October 03, 2009 01:41 PM by FlingWingFlyer

I am seeing a trend here? Seem's to me "snippets" were supposed to get credited to the original source...

:)

Just another example off total incompetence by the obummer cabal. Their vetting, policies, research, protocol and speech writing. aren't equal to junior high Government students.

First I have read Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, and I actually have my paperback copy on the shelf right next to me. It has been there for years. I suggest you read the chapter "Waging "war". It talk about troop levels and protracted campains. That said, I don't base my knowledge on a book.

I served a combat tour in Iraq with the 1st Cav in a combat MOS (military Occupational Skill). I have actually been on the ground in the Middle East. You abviously don't understand the thinking of the culture there. The people do not respect weakness. From the guys I know that have served in Afghanistan, they say this is even more true than in Iraq. You are never going to build a nation in Afghanistan even close to Iraq. We need to concentrate on killing the enemy, and we need to expect a troop presence there for a long time.

You need to listen to the General on the ground in charge of operations. He is the expert. As Sun Tzu refers to him "The Respected One". "If wise, a commander is able to recognize changing curcumstances and to act expediently"." If courageous, he gains victory by seizing opportunity without hesitation" . The general on the ground has "recognized" the "changing curcumstances" in Afghanistan, and he has asked Obama for more troops so he can "gain victory without hesitation".

Obama needs to listen to the guys in the military on the ground. They are the experts, and have the best knowledge of what they need. My.02