Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

you know what hitting fan in Oregon?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by gm View Post
    And basketball.... and hockey... and soccer...

    That's why I laugh at the "uproar" here. Call me when the state of Oregon decides to drop $500 million on it.
    I see - so it's not fraud or corruption if the amounts of money are small.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cubehead View Post
      Okay, so what. I can understand if the Eugene bid was by a bunch of yokels who didn't know anything about track, but obviously that's not true. Gothenburg wanted to put in a bid and compete with Eugene. What does that even mean...bigger bribes? So the Swedes have to wait a couple of years. Big deal.
      Compared to awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar this Eugene 'scandal' is trivial.
      Or maybe they would argue that given the chance they would have offered a bid that included a bigger stadium, so more fans could see the action live and a city with more accommodation. Gothenburg 95 was a pretty good games. On balance, I personally would have voted for Oregon but it has some major downsides.

      Comment


      • #18
        Göteborg '95 may be my favorite WC ever, from top to bottom.

        Having said that, it was the first WC with significant chunks of empty stadium.

        As for waiting a couple of years being a "big deal," to the Swedes, well, yes it is, because 2021 is the 400th anniversary of the founding of the city and they wanted to combine the two things.

        Comment


        • #19
          Well that might be but still the IAAF could have awarded it to Eugene anyways. After all, as pointed out, the U.S. has never hosted it and Gothenburg has, and I suspect after Doha got it for 2019, Eugene and Nike were of a mind to just forget it. It wouldn't take a genius in IAAF land to see it might be now or never with a U.S. bid. So Eugene got it.

          There are plenty of downsides to having a World Championships at 15th and Agate. I thought it was crazy for Eugene to bid for them let alone get them. But since the plan appears to keep the East Grandstand I can live with it.
          Last edited by cubehead; 01-07-2016, 02:09 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by cubehead View Post
            Well that be but still the IAAF could have awarded it to Eugene anyways. After all, as pointed out, the U.S. has never hosted it and Gothenburg has, and I suspect after Doha got it for 2019, Eugene and Nike were of a mind to just forget it. It wouldn't take a genius in IAAF land to see it might be now or never with a U.S. bid. So Eugene got it.
            It's strange, where was the "so they get it two years later, no big deal" attitude when Eugene lost to Doha? Big outrage here, how dare they select an inferior venue like that over the best track town in the universe...
            As long as Eugene wins a questionable selection process it's ok, but when they lose it's a scandal?
            Last edited by norunner; 01-06-2016, 10:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by John G View Post
              A. I wonder (and by all means correct me if I'm wrong, Atticus) if questions of ethics and morality in American political life revolve more around what could be proved in a court of law than anyone's moral code.

              B. Atticus is looking at this from the point of view of the governor and maybe he is right. Maybe the governor thought "if some corporate mug is stupid enough to give me a shed load of money then I'll take it but it won't influence what I do for the good of the state".
              A. Very little that goes on in American politics can stand up to a strict ethical code. Most laws have all sorts of pork or political riders that are NOT what the law was intended to do. It's all about who scratches whose back.
              B. Pols take money from BOTH sides and then do what's best for their reelection chances.

              Comment


              • #22
                The candidates do not take the money, the campaign committee does; it is not for personal use.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
                  The candidates do not take the money, the campaign committee does; it is not for personal use.
                  This campaign money helps politicians keep their jobs which is why organizations like AIPAC and the NRA instill so much fear in Congress. Make no mistake, the #1 priority of the vast majority of politicians is to keep their jobs, not help their constituents. Of course they all want to do right by their constituents, but not at the cost of their jobs.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Exactly. Outfits like SEIU and AFSCME ensure that their bought legislators toe the line or risk losing access to the honeypot.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lonewolf View Post
                      The Governor may not have personally receive the $400k but I gotta think the warm fuzzy feeling (possibly) influenced his change of opinion about the Eugene proposal.
                      So, who got the money?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dave View Post
                        So, who got the money?
                        Presumably his campaign fund.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
                          The candidates do not take the money, the campaign committee does; it is not for personal use.
                          As a former politician I think I am qualified to comment that IMO taking money for your personal election campaign qualifies for personal use in my books - and IMO again, in the books of most citizens.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            maybe that's why you're a former politician! (insert 27 smilies here)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                              As a former politician I think I am qualified to comment that IMO taking money for your personal election campaign qualifies for personal use in my books - and IMO again, in the books of most citizens.
                              I agree. Money is fungible - the more money his campaign recieves from outside sources, the less he has to come up with personally.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
                                The candidates do not take the money, the campaign committee does; it is not for personal use.
                                Ha, ha, ha! Good one!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X