PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • La Conchita: ….and “the people” of Cuba, Geeee, I wonder what “people” they’re talking about?

  • Rayarena: Take a few days off DGI eavesdroppers! (Ernesto Londoño’s already securely in the bag!)–ROTFLMAO!

  • elemaza: I blame the Coast Guard and U.S Government ‘wet-foot/dry-foot policy.” No one who has managed to leave Cuba should...

  • asombra: But let “those people” get harmlessly rowdy over Fidel’s presumed demise, and see what the response is.

  • asombra: I’d call Bachelet a crypto-communist, but she’s openly socialist, which is close enough. The main reason she...

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

Taking the bad with the good

mrz100109dAPR20091001033445

It would have been nice if the IOC had chosen Chicago instead of Rio for the 2016 Olympics, but let's be real here, folks; it is not the end of the world.

This country has larger and much more important issues to deal with than winning the right to host Olympic games that won't take place for another 7 years. Nevertheless, our fearless leader decided to gamble and spend about 1-million of our dollars and for a few hours, slide to the back burner issues such as a floundering economy, rampant unemployment, a nuclear Iran, and a host of other vitally important issues affecting Americans right now.

If Obama's unprecedented attempt to convince the IOC would have been successful, he would have been lauded as a great statesmen. The president's gamble, however, failed miserably. If Obama was willing to accept the accolades had his gamble paid off, he has to be willing to accept the consequences of his failure. America has to accept those consequences, and so should the president.

If you take the good, you have to be man enough to take the bad, too.

15 comments to Taking the bad with the good

  • Yep, the same leftist wankers that have the f***ing gall to say "oh those mean conservatives, how dare they not be upset that our great leader could not get the olympics here in 2016", are the same pieces of s*it that rooted against the USA in Iraq .. who wanted us to lose the war. No President ever dropped everything to act as a pitch man for the Olympics. But these wanker who thinks he's more popular than Jesus and Bono together thinks his charm will get him everything. Think again.

    I couldn't give a rat's tuchas about him getting the Olympics. Rather, I want him to win the f**king war in Afghanistan like he said he was going to do; because if he won't, then he needs to apologize to every American for his pack of BS lies he gave us about Afghanistan when he pulls everyone out. He's doing the same crap Rummy did about not sending in troops when the generals say we must have it.

  • FreedomForCuba

    Mike you being a lawyer should know better by now that our current President is a pathological liar.

    Bullshit artists like our current President suffer from this disease that prevents them from holding themselves accountable for their lies and the price that others pay for their actions and will always find a way to blame someone else for their mistakes.

    Remember and don’t forget it is George W. Bush’s fault!

  • Gigi

    Glad Rio got it. Maybe now they can start cleaning up their murder rate.

    Better that Lula take on the expense than the US taxpayer pick up the tab for mayor Daley Mafia, Inc., in what surely would have been a bonanza of construction perks and corrupt crony deals for them. Plus just think how insufferable it would have been to hear BHO take credit for each game medal, hogging the spotlight and subjecting us to continued misery all the way to 2016. He will manage to take the credit for others' accomplishment without ever owning up to failure; it's the stuff of demagogues. He doesn't give a rip about the troops in Afghanistan; it's not about victory, remember?

  • FreedomForCuba

    “Mike you being a lawyer should know better by now”

    What I meant is that I’m sure that you as a lawyer have dealt enough in the court system throughout the years with the bullshit artists types.

  • firefly

    Comrade Obama has his priorities all screwed up.

  • FreedomForCuba

    firefly I disagree with you,

    Comrade Obama has his priorities straight (even thought it may not seem this way to you).

    His priority is to destroy America by surrendering it to its enemies.

    I know this is kind of hard to digest but the more I analyze the actions of our current President the more convinced I’ve become that he has a hidden agenda and I have a feeling that even those around him don’t realize it.

    Some situations become obvious after a while, this is one of those instances. Listen to your instincts on this one.

  • Rayarena

    Alberto,

    You think that Obama only spent 1 million of our tax dollars on his little trip to Copenhagen? Think again. I remember years ago, I used to work for a big institution in NYC and then president Clinton came to the city and one of his stop overs was my workplace where he was going to talk to the president of the institution and meet some VIPs for a mere hour. A month before he arrived, the FBI had set permanent camp at the grounds next to the building. This included parking these enormous trailers with satellite dishes next to the building. Black shades were placed over certain windows in the corridors of the building, secret service men were seen walking around the building and certain areas were made off-limits. Metal detectors were placed in the entrance and certain stairwells close to the room where Clinton was meeting. Bomb sniffing dogs were seen walking around the corridors. Because the room were I worked was directly over the room where Clinton was going to be, a secret service man was stationed in my room for the duration of the meeting. Outside in the street, all mailboxes were removed and cars were not allowed to park. Any car that had parked was tolled away. Around the building, it seemed as if 1/3 of NYC's massive police force was on duty along side dozens of secret service men some with machine guns drawn. The president's convoy included a mobile hospital right behind his limousine and a helicopter flying low over his car. There must have been about 50 cars and military jeeps ahead of him and about 50 behind him. Oh, and a background check was made on everyone in the institution. One man was told not to go to work on that day. I don't know why, but this was the talk of the workplace.

    In other words, a one hour trip to NYC must have costed the tax payer several tens of millions of dollars. I was absolutely shocked!

    With that in mind, can you imagine how much more a trip abroad will cost us?

  • pototo

    Reality:
    "But a poll taken by the Chicago Tribune and CNN affiliate WGN revealed in early September that 45 percent of the city residents didn't want the Olympic Games. And 84 percent of Chicagoans objected to the idea of public money being used to support the effort.
    "In reality, Chicagoans who were for the Games and those who were against them were committed to the same goal: Working hard for what they thought would be best for the city of Chicago in the coming decades," she said.

    "We're glad that the city won't now be burdened by the distraction of the Olympics at the expense of improving Chicago's schools, transportation, parks and the numerous other public policy initiatives on which the city needs to be focused."

    Those who believe the Olympics can bring lasting change to a city -- beyond the spike in economic activity during the event -- are often misguided, suggested economist Rob Baade of Lake Forest College in Lake Forest, Illinois.

    "There is no reason to expect that the Olympics, or any mega-event, is going to induce a sustainable boost in the economy," he said. "The cost overruns are pretty legendary. Costs are generally understated and the gains overstated."

  • theCardinal

    I'm not one that will criticize Obama for how much it cost to shill for Chicago or for leaving the country for 20 hours when there are pressing issues. Presidents always run up ridiculous charges on ridiculous trips or excursions and if the country cannot survive the Prez being out of the country for 20 hours then we are truly messed up.

    What I will criticize is the way that Obama demeaned the dignity of the office by begging a corrupt group of self-interested idiots to bring their carnival to his hometown. The Olympics are a croc and the IOC is nothing but a group authorized to shakedown nominees. Whatever the Olympics once meant was shattered by its being used by nations such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China. It was ruined by tilting the table for years by buying into the lie that communist athletes were "amateurs." The purity of the games have been tarnished by completely jettisoning the concept of the amateur athlete. Finally the Olympics were destroyed by its very own hubris - it holds itself up as something greater than a cheesy sports competition. Constantly referring to itself as the "Olympic Movement." It is just one huge scam that Americans, more than any others, buy into every two years (winter and summer).

  • cubabuzz

    "No President ever dropped everything to act as a pitch man for the Olympics."

    This inevitably had to change as soon as Putin and Blair and other world leaders started pimping for their own nation's Olympic bids a few years ago.

    Mark my words, EVERY U.S. President of EVERY political stripe from now on will go to the Olympics when the U.S. has a serious contending bid in play.

    It's fun to criticize now, but down the road Palin (or whomever is President next) will be doing the exact same thing Obama did this time.

    That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea. For the most part, I don't believe that hosting the Olympic games is worth it.

  • cubabuzz

    "I'm not one that will criticize Obama for how much it cost to shill for Chicago or for leaving the country for 20 hours when there are pressing issues."

    As I pointed out in another post, at least leaving the country allowed him to finally meet U.S. General McChrystal (top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan) face to face in Copenhagen, which was something many of us had been pushing for.

    Hey, I like to look for the silver lining. So sue me. No, I take that back, I think there are lawyers on this board. :)

  • theCardinal

    actually the coverage of that was annoying...banner headlines of the Prez flying to Denmark and then...oh by the way, the general in charged with the most important front in the war against terrorism got a chance to have a face to face with the prez.

  • Honey

    Cigar Mike,
    Pullleeeze don't compare Rumsfeld with Obama.
    Rumsfeld loves America and thought his strategy was good. It turned out it needed changing. But Rumsfeld didn't hunger for the destruction of this country as Obama does. Obama wants us to fail in Afghanistan. All Obama cares about is himself. I would trust Rumsfeld over Obama any day.
    And by the way, if my memory is correct, Bush insisted that if the generals asked for more troops, he would give them to them. The surge was not because the generals asked for more troops; it came about because Petraus was a better person for the task and when he was assigned to take over the war in Iraq, he wanted the surge.

    Cuba Buzz,
    How good of you to suggest that it could be Palin next. I sure hope so and in 2012.

  • Cubanita

    Hummm,not enough pants for him to do that, Alberto. That would have been like "pedirle peras al olmo" or me thinking I look like Marilyn Monroe...

  • Melek

    I was wondering about President Obama's sudden need to have a 25 minute face to face chat with the General in Copenhagen, since the General had said days before that he had only met with the president once about the Afghanistan's situation since June.

    Cubabuzz, it seems that the "silver-lining" maybe a bit tarnish ... LOL!!!

    Well ... here's a interesting article which sheds light on the possible reason behind the 25 minute meeting!

    Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/Barack-Obama-furious-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html#

    . . . now we know the rest of the story ;)

    I wish you well :) Melek

    He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support." "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn." ~ General McChrystal