Y2HH

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) London was the lowest going in and they got it. And I'm glad Chicago sucks so much that you don't want to see investment in your own city... f*** what anyone else thinks of your city. Well, Chicago sucks...so I'm glad that you're glad. And I absolutely agree, f*** what anyone else thinks! See that?! I agree with everything you said! I know, maybe if they raise our taxes even more (which the Olympics will undoubtedly do), than it'll get better here, nevermind the fact we already have one of the most out of control city taxes in the states! Let's raise them more!!!! MORE MORE MORE!!! Then we can get the Olympics here, further increase or deficit, because I mean, that's what we do now, right? Spend money we don't have? Then take on other projects we can't afford and go even further into debt?! Yeah, let's do that even more! Apparently the half of you talking s*** about Obama's stimulus bills have no qualms about going further into debt as long as it helps your own city! Because that's what you're saying -- each of you that wants this is totally ok with further deficit spending in this City, further borrowing, as long as it can temporarily help YOU and YOUR City. Sorry, but if you are against Obama's stimulus plans and total continuation of deficit spending....then you should be against the City of Chicago spending even MORE money it doesn't have to get the Olympics here. :P

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) The problem with the streets has nothing to do with the want or ability to fix them, but instead is based on science. Chicago has hot and cold weather. When the weather is warm, we have rain. When the weather is cold, we have snow. When it rains, small water molecules get into the cracks in asphalt. When it freezes those molecules expand, as the water expands it causes small cracks in the asphalt. When the water molecules melt small holes are left in the street. If you repeat this process over and over again, you begin to see bigger and bigger cracks, eventually resulting in large pot holes. If you could invent something to stop this process, you would be rich. The city has hundreds of other problems it could be using its workers on. Where did you get this information? Ive heard numerous interviews with IOC members who say proximity to recent Olympics does matter. Also this would be the first Olympics in the US since Utah and the first summer Olympics since Atlanta. It would be 14 years since Utah and 22 years since Atlanta. If you were to compare how often the US had Olympics since 1945, it is pretty clear that the US is getting either the 2016, 2018 or 2020 games. Since 1960, the US has never gone over 20 years without an Olympics. The fact is US corporate sponsors are put in a lot of money, and the Olympic committee is not going to forget that. I don't care if the US gets the Olympics, I just don't want them in Chicago. Since the IOC is one of the most corrupt organizations there is, maybe they're a perfect fit for Chicago! I wouldn't believe much of anything you hear them say, ever. But again, they're a perfect match for Chicago.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Read the official report here. I got the link from Wiki and it's a good read. IMO, Tokyo will get it. I hope Chicago doesn't get it, but I think Obama getting elected can sway that -- unfortunately. And I realize I'm in a minority here about not wanting the Olympics here, but whatever...I still hope we fail.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) Serious question, have you ever been to a place that actually is about to, or has just hosted the Olympics? Because having actually been through Atlanta in the spring of 1996 and seeing what they did to get that city ready for the games, then taking into account Chicagos national and international standing, you would realize that the things you are talking about just wouldn't happen if the Olympics were coming here. This isn't JUST a Chicago event. We are talking about local, county, state, and federal dollars here, as the entire nation's reputation goes on the line everytime an Olympics takes place. Just go back and look at the show the City put on in the in 1996 to host the Democratic convention, and times that times about 100. The very idea that we aren't going to pay to fix anything if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics would make an ostrich proud of how deep in the sand that type of thinking is. Chicago already has all of these problems, and they don't have any solution for them. At least shining a world spotlight on these situations would force changes. For God's sake even China had to change the way they did things for a while when the Olympics were there. The idea that Chicago could host, and be the only places in the world in the modern era that didn't see major changes is just insane. I never said things wouldn't change. Not quite sure where you got that, but I never said it. It'd just be more of the same crap we do now, only on a bigger scale, even more wasteful spending. Honestly, none of this bothers me...what I'm most concerned about is the crime rate -- Chicago's crime is simply out of control because our stupid mayor has crapped on the Police for so long none of them care anymore. Also, the media and digg-beral type fools running around this city have painted a picture that all police in Chicago are corrupt, etc. etc...and then a lot of you guys bought into it. I see it all the time, all over, about people thinking the Chicago police all suck. Blah whatever. Coming from a family of cops, I know what it's really like in this city, and until Daley does something drastic to fix whats wrong with the police, I don't want us adding something like the Olympics here. We can't handle the crime rate of our own population, let alone an Olympics worth of it. It'd be insane, and I wouldn't want to subject my family, friends, or any of you to that.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) Please use a different source. Wikipedia should never be used to make a point. I could just go to that page, type in that Chicago is the frontrunner, and then post it somewhere else. Ok, than do that, then come back to me.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) Well let's see, Beijing just had the Summer Games which will hurt Tokyo's chances. London has the 2012 games (and Russia has the 2014 Winter) which pretty much rules out Madrid. And Rio is already hosting the 2014 World Cup and had the lowest score in the first round of voting. It is highly probable that one of Rio or Chicago will get it. Add in Rio's iffy infrastructure and their own problems with crime/security, I see no reason why Chicago has no "actual chance" as you say. In fact, I think it's funny if people actually believe that. Rio is the front runner since it'd be the first South American country to host it, but I'd say Chicago is right behind it. None of this could be further from the truth since those locations have absolutely no bearing on the others by proximity or otherwise, they don't consider that kind of thing, they never have. Russia has nothing to do with Madrid when it comes to the Olympic decision, nothing at all. Same goes for Beijing and Tokyo. Of the four remaining, Chicago has the third lowest ranking by the international committee, as Tokyo and Madrid are both over 1.0 evaluation points higher. And Rio has the lowest chance of getting the Olympics, not the highest. Read more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) Chicago's infrastructure is literally falling apart in front of our eyes. The best chance they have at getting that fixed is by getting the olympics here. That will mean the surface streets will get fixed, the El will get fixed, the interstates will get fixed, etc. World wide attention and free publicity will be showered on Chicago and will portray it as one of the most incredible places in the world, and serve as a reminder to the entire planet what Chicago has to offer the world. It will also force a critical eye to all of the negatives that happen here, such as corruption, because it will be the national and world medias and not the subserviant Chicago media who will want answers. If you can't suck up 2-3 weeks worth of pain to recognize how much better off in the long run the City of Chicago would be for having the olympics, you are right, it isn't worth talking about. Too bad none of that will actually happen. They resurface the streets every year, and every year they need to be surfaced again. So X that idea out, because it's not going to be a one and done wonder. They will never fix the streets in this City, because they don't want too. Why? Because, if they do, they won't get the budget reset to do it again -- therefore they'll have to lay everyone off that works that specific unit of City construction, so they won't. Haven't you noticed they keep redoing the same damn roads every few years when they have modern construction materials and winter/salt resistant asphalt that they WILL NOT USE, because it wouldn't need to be replaced for more than a decade? The city is about 400M in deficit already, all of these fixes will make us even more deficit ridden -- who do you think that will ultimately be passed onto? Our murder/crime rate is insane, because we have a disarmed police force who are tired of caring, while working without a contract for over two years, and because the 1% of bad cops are what the idiot people and media dwell on, when the other 99% are afraid to do anything on the chance they'll get fired, lose their pensions and their livelihoods when they have families to care for. I can go on and on, but you guys already have all the answers for everything I'll say, so I'll just concede, you win, you're right...the Olympics won't increase the crime rate (it will), they won't create massive bottlenecks in traffic 24/7 (they will), and they won't cost the taxpayers any money (they will, will will, big time), either. Honestly, if you believe that, I have some beachfront land to sell you in Bridgeport. And no, I can't suck up the 2-3 weeks (more like months, due to massive construction, etc, etc), because I'd like people to view Chicago in a different light. I can care less what others think of Chicago. I'm sorry I wouldn't want to trade our already dangerous City for an even more dangerous one at the slight chance it could end up getting someone in my family robbed, murdered or otherwise because of the massive crime increase. No, it's simply not worth it to me. Daley and anyone that likes him, thinks like him or supports him and his rtard ideas sucks. DIAF.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) I have a question about shaping. How can I get more even, square pecs ? My pecs are pretty even, except for a gap at the bottom, near my sternum. I already use the a pec squeeze machine and dumbell flyes which are supposed to build the inner chest, right? There is nothing you can do, that is simply how your muscle structure formed itself onto the breastplate from birth onward. Everyone has a slightly different pec look/formation because of the attachment points of their pectoral muscles. You can make them bigger, but from the sound of what you described, you'll never fill that gap, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) Why? Because, the crime rate, massive traffic issues, total lack of funding (which WILL be tossed to the taxpayer no matter what they say), etc. will make Chicago even more unbearable than it already is. There are so many reasons to avoid this that the few reasons to get it are so far outweighed I won't bother going further into this. Not that it matters, there is no way we get the Olympics here, and anyone who thinks we have an actual chance -- LOL.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 08:21 AM) Too many people are too set in their ideologies to consider how the real world works. Anyone who thinks like that is an idiot, plain and simple, therefore they aren't even worth discussing it with.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) There is zero percent chance in hell I could sit and reach past my toes, thats such a dumb fitness test. It's actually really easy to do this. There are some simple stretching exercises you can do right before you take that test and pass it -- these exercises allow you to do it for a span of minutes before you can't do it again.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 04:09 AM) I'm glad we're discussing weight gain, because I'm definitely in that mind set now. I'm interested in being a police officer, and one of the requirements for applicants is to pass a POWER exam. It consists of the following tests: bench, sit and reach, mile and half run, sit ups. Within my age range, as a male, I have to bench 98% of my weight; sit and reach a point one inch past my toes; do 37 sit ups in a minute; and run a mile and half in 13:46. I can't pass the bench or run at this point. So, basically I have to run enough to heighten my endurance, yet simultaneously gain enough muscle to lift my weight. I'm 6'2, 185 and have enough problems gaining weight without cardio. Awesome. I figure I'll do what some of you suggested and buy a whey protein supplement to add to my meals. Yeah, and I was watching ALI last night and really would like to know Will Smith's routine to bulk up. Obviously it's beneficial to be a millionaire who has the time and luxury to have the perfect meals and workout routines available. Although it's almost hard to believe he was 220 pounds for that role. He looked 20-30 pounds heavier than that. I found one website where they talked about him training for six hours several days a week, including running three miles. I can only imagine the type of food he had to eat to pull that off. My brother is a police officer, so are many in my family, and in speaking of this test, you will have an easier time passing the running/bench/stretch than you will passing the sit-up test, even if you know for a fact you can do that many. I'll get back to this later. Now, if you want to increase your power for bench pressing, just do regular old push-ups. If you do them properly, your chest should get tired as well as your triceps/arms. Try to visualize your chest muscles working when you do push-ups, do them slowly and evenly, and you should have an easier time feeling it as a push-up is the same exercise as a bench press. Do that every few days, like three sets of 15 push-ups to start, then up it to 20, then 25, and do this over a span of weeks, I.E. don't do it everyday, you need to give your chest/arm muscles time to recover properly. Now, getting back to the police test, the hardest test to pass is the sit-up test, because there is no definitive measurement, allow me to explain. When you do bench press, you either did it or you didn't. When you run, you either beat the time or you didn't. When you bend over to touch an inch past, you either do or you don't. But, and this is the kicker, when you do the sit-up test, it's completely up to your test giver to say whether a specific sit-up counted or not. They failed my brother 2 times on this exam before he finally got passed by the third instructor, and let's not even get into why, I'll leave it up to your imagination. A few things happened to him: First time, he was doing the sit-ups and 15 seconds in, she says, "none of these are counting, you aren't going down far enough", so he stops and says, "well am I going down far enough now?!" To which she responds, "Yes, but you're time is almost out." You will deal with douche bags like this in the testing center, so be VERY nice, because the sit-up tester can do whatever the hell they want in deciding you pass or fail. Second time, different instructor, much more of the same. You see what I'm getting at? It's up to them to count a sit-up or not, and believe me, nepotism exists. If one of those b****es has a group of friends in that exam class, and they are only hiring so many police, your odds of failing just went up. That's reality. So my advice is be VERY nice, ask questions BEFORE they begin the time, because they won't pause it for you after it's started, and make sure you go ALL the way down and back up when doing that part of the test.

Who didn't see this coming?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) Renault and Clio aren't exactly the same size as GM. Not even close.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) lol, me either, but I just forwarded it to everybody at work. Wasting company resources! YOU ARE THE CAUSE OF THIS RECESSION.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) http://www.global-report.com/perth/?l=en&a=347624 Owned.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) What Kap is saying, which I know for a fact is true, is that some companies WERE running profitable and normal businesses, and we all but forced to take money. Now, as long as they can return it and be exempt, then I am OK with some of this sort of thing, because it leaves the effect with companies that did indeed screw up. But that exemption needs to be present. Well I hope these companies don't have to keep playing by these rules when they repay the loans. But again, I go back to my previous post -- none of this "we don't need the money" crap is adding up. If you don't need it, f***ing repay it. Why aren't they doing that?! It's not adding up is all I'm saying, on both ends somethings f***ed up here...and it's beyond being "forced". The entire thing lacks logic.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Why are you totally missing the point? Is it on purpose? What am I not telling you? If I put a gun to your head, are you going to trust that I emptied the chamber? If the government forces a bank to take money that they DO NOT NEED or HAVE NOT ASKED for... and then the government comes in with all this crap about what they can or cannot do, it's a farce. The government forced some of these companies to take money that did not need it and now they are sitting there saying "you have to play by my rules, even though you didn't really need the money". That is VERY wrong. The other point in your post, I get that, to some extent, but these people are pretty much hell bent on destroying capitalism. I know, I know, it's "Kaperbole ™ " for me to say this, but then again, I'm really starting to wonder because no matter how bad it's ever gotten in any private enterprise institution before, the government hasn't forced its way into board rooms like this before. Obama just crossed THE line. But, it's "ok" to make the "point" about how the government runs things? No, thanks. We already know they suck, but yet, the love keeps on coming about how they are "doing such a great job". Wow. If they don't need the money they can pay it back at anytime they feel like it. So, why aren't they? Maybe it's because they do need it, even if they're claiming they don't. See, 2+2 isn't equaling 4 here. You can repay these loans whenever you want...so like I said, repay them if you don't need the money and then you don't have to play by their rules. Something isn't adding up here for these companies that "don't need it"...I can repeat this a million times, because something of a paradox is happening here. And I agree, I don't like the government running things, but really, to sit here and say 'they don't need it', is totally insane.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) Its that easy? Where do I sign up!? That's the point. It's not supposed to be easy. So when you do it, successfully, don't throw it away because you like taking stupid risks, etc. Like I said, I sympathize with those who were forced into this, but you know what, f*** them, too...they knew what they were doing and they lost in the end, and they cost a lot of people a lot of money while getting (and staying) very rich. They exposed themselves and their entire industry and the people won't soon forget.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) What I'm saying is some of these companies did NOT ask to be bailed and were forced to take money. While I sympathize, if they had never done some of the things they did, such as leveraging themselves 30 to 1, taking huge gambles on margin (money they didn't have), they wouldn't be in this situation. This is a lesson to future companies/businesses or otherwise. While I'm not happy with it, either, I love these draconian rules being put in place because it's sure as hell going to send the message to all future companies to not EVER repeat these mistakes or they may end up taking orders from people like Barney Frank and his ilk.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) There's a lot of people who were forced to take money. And I am so f***ing tired of "greed" being thrown around. Most of us benefited from all of this for a while. It doesn't make it right, but it's the truth. They took it because of a lot of factors, but the fact is, they put us here, then asked to be bailed. Oopsie. The lesson is simple, don't make these mistakes EVER again.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) How you people can support Obama's administration with this kind of s*** is beyond me. It's not that I support them, it's that I don't support these companies who request government/public help to survive and then whine about having to follow new rules. If you don't want to deal with these rules, run a successful profitable business and you'll never have too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Its easy to say that the execs don't deserve their paychecks, but now Barney Frank might be saying you don't get yours either... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...y-42158597.html Then let it be a lesson to all companies that wish to survive without declaring bankruptcy, and having no product or service that generates profit that requests help from the government/taxpayer. If you don't want to live by these types of rules, then don't piss away success on greed, or otherwise. If you never ask them for "bailout money', then you never have to worry about this type of government control.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisi...SL330182?rpc=60 Awesome.

I used to listen to either/or, depending on the specific discussions going on, I really didn't care what station it was on. But more and more, it became commercial break after commercial break on both stations, and I got sick of listening to 25 minutes of commercials and 15 minutes of actual talk in comparison. So now I listen to music, or sat radio.