The olympic games are where you are supposed to put all politics aside, all worldly issues aside. The olympics are to compete with other fellow fellow athletes. The Russia Boycott, and the USAs boycott were both stupid, and went against what the games are supposed to be. Carter is a frickin' moron.
Not to mention his stupid joke about Montezuma's revenge in front of the Mexican consulate.
Margaret Thatcher was more of a man than Carter ever was.
Remember Falkland?
you're quite obviously the loser and a creep to boot. Congrats!
creep wrote:
Margaret Thatcher was more of a man than Carter ever was.
Remember Falkland?
Yes, Ms. Thatcher was one of those leaders who was very brave with the lives of other people and other families while she and her family lived in comfort and luxury.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
2 wrongs don't make a right
Have you ever read 1984? Your convoluted thinking is staight out of that book
The Soviet war in Afghanistan was supporting the Marxist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan at their own request against the Mujahideen Resistance
If you were right we should have fought the Russians but that would never happen because we only invade countries without a proper army
The reason we invaded in 2001 was actually supposed to be weapons of mass distruction. Did you jump in with Rwanda or other counties - don't give me that BS about caring
_____________________________
You are partially right.
We only invade countries that have large supplies of OIL.
creep wrote:
Wittle Jimmy did not have the courage to invade Iran. And held those responsible to trial.
A complete fool and coward.
Actually, he did have the courage to invade Iran, and the US did invade Iran. That was operation Eagle Claw.
Really Real wrote:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/olympic-258090-scott-opportunity.htmlYou didn't see Steve sitting out when the Soviets boycotted in return; presumably he wanted a games where everyone competed.
Presidents make tough choices Steve, grow up, and STOP CRYING AFTER 30 YEARS.
I have a friend I swim with that was supposed to swim in those Olympics, he's pretty pissed too. I had some delusions of grandeur that same time frame and had hey come to fruition I would have been pissed too. I was pissed anyway, I voted for him, my first presidential vote.
Anyone that read my various posts knows I'm left of center. So be it. I also know Steve, not particular to his political leanings but "wack job OC conservative" doesn't really seem to fit the Steve I know.
I know quite a few Olympians and near misses and I would hate to have denied any of them their shot or near shot. It's a big f**king deal and quite frankly someone that went through what it took to get there deserves to be pissed off that it didn't happen. Whether someone made the most of their other shots doesn't matter. A shot was taken from them, and like it or not that had to sting. While one would think it would be nice to forgive and forget let's face it, if it was you going to the Olympics and you qualified and then you got a photo-op with politicians in return you'd either be bitter or a mother f**king saint.
Wendell Gee wrote:
Prozac Nation wrote:Why was Carter such a bad president?
Because at a time when the nation needed confidence, pride and determination, he could inspire none of those things.
Do you actually believe that or is that the best you could come up with for a response?
altoroad wrote:
creep wrote:Wittle Jimmy did not have the courage to invade Iran. And held those responsible to trial.
A complete fool and coward.
Actually, he did have the courage to invade Iran, and the US did invade Iran. That was operation Eagle Claw.
Right, wittle jimmy didn't want to upset the Iranian regime so he downsized the invasion.
What a complete jackass!
Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly simplistic argument. Your petty bias blinds you to truth. Isolating SA via the athletic boycott absolutely accelerated the end of apartheid. SA could not showcase athletic might on the world's greatest stage. It was a very public way of shaming the government for this policy, it absolutely led to publicity of the practice and that led to divestment in SA business from around the world. Apartheid's end, no matter when it came, didn't come about in a vacuum. Several different policies were at work to erode apartheid's legitimacy, bit by bit and from many sides.
HRE wrote:
Apartheid lasted for thirty some years after South Africa was banned from the Olympics and the Soviets were in Afghanistan into at least the mid 80s. Eventually everything comes to an end but neither of these ends were brought about by boycotts.
I'm not at all sure what your first sentence means. If you mean that we needed to show disapproval of the invasion we could do that in many ways. One way that would actually have made life tougher for Soviet leaders would have been to stop the sale of US wheat to the Soviets. Their agricultural system was in the tank then and US agri-business was making a bundle selling wheat to them. A shortened food supply would probably not have driven the Soviets from Afghanistan but food riots would have created some real problems for them and could well have had some impact.
But boycotting wheat sales would have cut into the profits of big business so rather than do something potentially effective, Carter made a futile symbolic gesture that affected no one in the US but a tiny, yet very visible group of people, in the hopes of saving his job.
Someone else here commented that Steve Scott=me, me, me. That could very well be but in this case Jimmy Carter also=me,me,me.
I don't know where your personal political leanings really fall, and personally I couldn't give a shit what they are, but you leave no doubt at all that you're just an angry bitterman and a cunt. Your pal, and Scott, are pathetic if their lives still revolve around something they were never promised in the first place. It's really all about them at this point, not Carter. It was also about Carter up until about 20 years ago, possibly, but not after that. Turn the page, nobody else cares and holding onto it won't do you any good, either.
Keith Stone wrote:
Really Real wrote:http://www.ocregister.com/articles/olympic-258090-scott-opportunity.htmlYou didn't see Steve sitting out when the Soviets boycotted in return; presumably he wanted a games where everyone competed.
Presidents make tough choices Steve, grow up, and STOP CRYING AFTER 30 YEARS.
I have a friend I swim with that was supposed to swim in those Olympics, he's pretty pissed too. I had some delusions of grandeur that same time frame and had hey come to fruition I would have been pissed too. I was pissed anyway, I voted for him, my first presidential vote.
Anyone that read my various posts knows I'm left of center. So be it. I also know Steve, not particular to his political leanings but "wack job OC conservative" doesn't really seem to fit the Steve I know.
I know quite a few Olympians and near misses and I would hate to have denied any of them their shot or near shot. It's a big f**king deal and quite frankly someone that went through what it took to get there deserves to be pissed off that it didn't happen. Whether someone made the most of their other shots doesn't matter. A shot was taken from them, and like it or not that had to sting. While one would think it would be nice to forgive and forget let's face it, if it was you going to the Olympics and you qualified and then you got a photo-op with politicians in return you'd either be bitter or a mother f**king saint.
Just 4 years after Vietnam tore this country apart? Passing on another never ending war was the right thing to do. Leave those things to the macho Republicans (mostly draft dodgers by the way) in the Bush admin.
The criticism of Carter would be more believable if the same people were honest about the damage Bush did. To tear down Carter and praise Bush shows either partisan politics or pretty limited intellectual abilities.
there won't ever be a worse president than jimmy carter.... oh wait. :/
vote democrat! it's easier than working!
interestingly..... wrote:
i just remembered to check my friend bill clark's villanova track blog. paige'scomments are there.
http://villanovarunning.blogspot.com/2010/02/don-paige-on-1980-olympic-boycott.html
more from don paige
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20100721_They_didn_t_go__Paige_recalls_1980_Olympic_boycott.htmlScott has every right to be pissed as with any American athlete that qualified. It is not just because they did not go to the Olympics that year; it is the financial implications it caused them. Think about it, if you medal in the Olympics, you generally get a good amount of money in endorsements in return. Look at Michael Phelps, I think after his 8 medal run he got about $100+ million in endorsements.
Now think about how pissed Phelps would have been if President Bush pulled all the athletes out of the Olympics because of Russia invading Georgia (the country not the state). All that hard work and money goes down the drain. I'd probably hold a grudge too.
I doubt very seriously Scott would have medaled in 1980, nor do I think he suffered financially because of the boycott. His image did not suffer, and in fact may have been elevated because of the boycott. He's an athlete "denied" his chance instead of a runner with an 0-3 around his neck, which is what he would have been had he run in Moscow. Remember, the 80 games were the Coe / Ovett Olympics. Scott had a much better shot in L.A. with Coe four years older and Ovett terribly sick, and he just simply blew it. And what makes people think running in the Olympics is some sort of entitlement. It costs a lot of money to send a team, and if a country doesn't want to go, for whatever reason, then they don't go. Stop acting like it's a right denied, for Pete's sake.
WK wrote:
Scott has every right to be pissed as with any American athlete that qualified. It is not just because they did not go to the Olympics that year; it is the financial implications it caused them. Think about it, if you medal in the Olympics, you generally get a good amount of money in endorsements in return. Look at Michael Phelps, I think after his 8 medal run he got about $100+ million in endorsements.
Now think about how pissed Phelps would have been if President Bush pulled all the athletes out of the Olympics because of Russia invading Georgia (the country not the state). All that hard work and money goes down the drain. I'd probably hold a grudge too.
The unlogged in Uncle Pervy wrote:
Just 4 years after Vietnam tore this country apart? Passing on another never ending war was the right thing to do. Leave those things to the macho Republicans (mostly draft dodgers by the way) in the Bush admin.
The criticism of Carter would be more believable if the same people were honest about the damage Bush did. To tear down Carter and praise Bush shows either partisan politics or pretty limited intellectual abilities.
you're a buffoon
carter deserves all the crap he gets. you think any president would have sent over just a handful of soldiers in the middle of a desert to rescue all the american hostages?
what a fooking idiot. that mission was a failure from the start.
a complete failure. just like jimmy
WK wrote:
Scott has every right to be pissed as with any American athlete that qualified. It is not just because they did not go to the Olympics that year; it is the financial implications it caused them. Think about it, if you medal in the Olympics, you generally get a good amount of money in endorsements in return. Look at Michael Phelps, I think after his 8 medal run he got about $100+ million in endorsements.
Now think about how pissed Phelps would have been if President Bush pulled all the athletes out of the Olympics because of Russia invading Georgia (the country not the state). All that hard work and money goes down the drain. I'd probably hold a grudge too.
You're confused, little one. You're too young (or your memory is too poor) to remember how things were different 30 years ago. Steve Scott wouldn't have been able to make one red cent in endorsements had he medaled (and there's a good chance that he wouldn't have medaled at all) in 1980 unless he were to retire from competition immediately following the Olympics. What endorsement deals did Shorter ink as a result of his first or second medal? Idiot. You need to get a clue and grow up and so does Scott.
When I first looked at the thread I thought it said,
"Steve Scott Shaves himself-Wack Job OC Conservative."