over Darfur? I didn't see the debate, but was told that. Did I hear correctly?
over Darfur? I didn't see the debate, but was told that. Did I hear correctly?
Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:
over Darfur? I didn't see the debate, but was told that. Did I hear correctly?
Bill Richardson is a fat assed mexican. Why pay attention to him?!
I disagree with this. I'd consider not voting for him just because of it if it is truely one of the ideas of his platform.
Luckily the guy, even if he won (which won't happen anyway), wouldn't have any say. The Olympics will go on during Bush's term, not the next person's.
A stupid statement from an otherwise highly qualified and intelligent candidate.
Mtn Dew wrote:
Luckily the guy, even if he won (which won't happen anyway), wouldn't have any say. The Olympics will go on during Bush's term, not the next person's.
A stupid statement from an otherwise highly qualified and intelligent candidate.
True, odds are slim to none it'll happen. I'm totally baffled why anyone would think the whole "olympic boycott" scenario would work. It didn't work in the past, so I'm pretty disappointed Richardson would bring it up again. He still is one of my favorite candidates, but he did rack up one in the bonehead department there.
Not so stupid. I personally hope there is no boycott, but China is a huge problem with the situation in Darfur and some background pressure regarding the Olympics could have some effect even if it is not carried out. Something that helps jump start the dialogue might get some results.
it's no dumber than saying publically that we need regime change in iran and then turning around and trying to negotiate with them over nukes and iraq.
The Olympics are not the place for this shite, it never worked in the past and it won't work now. Even though something needs to be done about Darfur, it's just not right to steal an Olympics from all the athletes. That's why it shouldn't be done no matter what.
Porcine Bill Richardson's a real athlete, isn't he?
Like he'd really understand what it would mean for a top tier athlete to make sacrifices for four years and then get nothing.
Frankly, if the world were going to vote on the basis of geopolitics as to who should be able to go to the Olympics and who shouldn't, there would be an overwhelming vote to exclude the U.S.
I actually agree with you, but we would not even be discussing Darfur if he had not mentioned the possibility. Thankfully, I do not think a boycott will happen, but the discussion may get China to move from a locked room. I actually think an actual boycott could backfire and cause more harm, but the lurking threat/discussion can be used those that are actually in power to show China the pressure they have from those in this country who are looking to gain power. I applaud Richardson for voicing an unpopular position as I think most of these guys and the gal say whatever the dang polls tell them to say. Amazing leadership skills when you have to consult the polls to determine your position on the issues.