Skip to main content

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With help from hometown heroes like the Obamas, Chicago is aggressively lobbying to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. But making the games profitable would not be an easy win.

Chicago is competing with Tokyo, Madrid, Spain and Rio de Janeiro in wooing the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen. A decision is expected Friday.

Chicago 2016, the organization leading the effort to host the games, expects a cost of $3.8 billion, including a "rainy day" fund of $450 million in case of unforeseen increases.

But there's good reason to be skeptical of that projection, said Robert Livingstone, producer of GamesBids.com and a leading expert in the Olympic selection process. Host cities routinely overrun their Olympic budgets, he said.

"It's going to be more expensive than we think it's going to be, because it typically is," Livingstone said. "I think every [host] city is going to lose money. It's not an efficient event."

The bidding process alone is costing Chicago about $100 million, even if it doesn't win, Livingstone noted.

An argument often made by host city advocates is that presenting the international spectacle is good for a local economy. But such "trickle-down effects," like benefits to local businesses, are "almost impossible to measure," Livingstone said.

"I think a lot of people look at the Olympics, and they try to justify it by how much money it adds to the economy," said Livingstone. "[But] if you're in this to make money and improve your economy, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

A Chicago 2016 spokesman, who asked not be named, stood by the $3.8 billion projection. "Our numbers are completely feasible thanks to the infrastructure already in place, the number of venues already built and the temporary nature of the majority of those we're planning to build," he wrote, in an e-mail.

Planes, trains and stadiums
Olympic budgets and preparation differ widely from city to city.

Athens, host of the 2004 summer games, budgeted $8.3 billion, including $5.8 billion to overhaul its infrastructure, with a new subway network, airport, roads, railway and tram system.

"It depends upon what you have to do to host the Olympics," said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northhampton, Mass., who has written on the subject of sports economics. "Some cities are more equipped at day one [in terms of arenas and other facilities.] "Some cities need to build infrastructure, others don't. Some cities need to build hotels, others don't. Some cities have security they need to build up, others don't."

It also depends on what the cities want to do. While Athens focused on badly-needed infrastructure to accommodate the Olympics, Beijing spent more heavily to turn the 2008 summer games into a lavish spectacle. Beijing spent an estimated $40 billion on infrastructure and on such eye-popping venues such as the Bird's Nest stadium, Zimbalist said.

The stadium isn't even used for sports events anymore; it's being converted into a shopping mall and hotel. Zimbalist said the building of such extravagances is the risk they turn into under-used "white elephants." But he added that Beijing got what it wanted: to present itself to the world as a major player.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This article dovetails nicely with THIS OP about unemployment and the continued need for government spending. What better way to do stimulus spending ... improve the infrastructure and do some urban/zoning which provides jobs now AND have an event that'll flood the area with cash [i.e., refill the coffers] in 6 years time.

So one would think that your conservative buddies would have been fully behind this ...$100 million in; might as well be in it to win it.

But I'm recognizing a pattern here ... PRESIDENT OBAMA and/or the democrats say "A" and the right/conservatives say nothing; but their paid lobbyist and rightwing media says, very loudly, "Not A."

And the smarter than the rest of us Black folks blame PRESIDENT OBAMA and/or the democrats. You guys should be a hoot to watch at a rape trial.
Still, one does have to wonder why it was so important for the President of The United States. leader of the free world, yada yada yada and First Lady to make a personal appearance begging the olympic committee for the olympics? Why not send an envoy, a representative of the president? A group of famous chicagoans instead of The President of The United States of America? Isn't that what lackeys are for?

For months, speakers on NPR were saying that Rio was likely to get it. Was it really necessary to expend political capital on this and give the olympic committee the great joy of saying "NO" to the united states and their Black President?

Does the president have any advisors who actually have his back?
I personally wouldn't see this as a big deal that he failed to get the Olympics. But others, especially his enemies, will. So I agree with Negrospiritual entirely. It was not a good look.

This was one of those cases where Obama should have known to employ the rule lawyers use in preparing for cross-examination: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Trying and failing would expend political capital for nothing, and make him look ineffectual. It wasn't worth it, and never should have been attempted.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I personally wouldn't see this as a big deal that he failed to get the Olympics. But others, especially his enemies, will. So I agree with Negrospiritual entirely. It was not a good look.

This was one of those cases where Obama should have known to employ the rule lawyers use in preparing for cross-examination: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Trying and failing would expend political capital for nothing, and make him look ineffectual. It wasn't worth it, and never should have been attempted.


I don't think I agree with you, Vox.

The President was not vying for the Olympics simply for himself (on a personal level) or his home state of Chicago. The country being able to host such a world event always has a certain level of prestige to it. He was representing on behalf of the United States ... which would most definitely make it his job to offer a presentation to the Olympic board.

Many other leaders do the same thing in an effort to win global recognition AND bring a certain amount of financial influx into the host state and the country as a whole.

It's just made to seem personal against Obama because it IS Obama ... and everything about him is (attempted to be) made personal ... if at all possible. In reality, he didn't lose any more 'political capital' than any of the other losing countries. There could only be one pick ... and wasn't Japan or Spain ... or the United States. Or a host of several other countries who wanted the same thing.

Every 4 years every country that thinks they can afford it throws their hat in the ring hoping to get picked for the global spotlight to shine down on them. (And for the money they hope to make from it!) The U.S. (and Chicago, especially) could have really used the economic boost that would have likely come from hosting the Olympics. Remember, China tried to use the event to revamp/redeem their image globally. Every country has their reasons.

So, the reality is that the country, not the President, lost the bid to host the event. And I also agree with the President's notion that we need to stop thinking in terms of trying to put on airs based on what his enemies might think ... and just realize, deal with, and build upon what the realities of these situations are. People are gonna think what they want to think. It doesn't make them right ... and really, just actually gets in the way of REAL progress.

Let the haters hate. They're going to do it anyway. sck And there are much bigger fish to fry than them! Which is really what we need to be concentrating on most.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I personally wouldn't see this as a big deal that he failed to get the Olympics. But others, especially his enemies, will. So I agree with Negrospiritual entirely. It was not a good look.

This was one of those cases where Obama should have known to employ the rule lawyers use in preparing for cross-examination: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Trying and failing would expend political capital for nothing, and make him look ineffectual. It wasn't worth it, and never should have been attempted.


I don't think I agree with you, Vox.

The President was not vying for the Olympics simply for himself (on a personal level) or his home state of Chicago. The country being able to host such a world event always has a certain level of prestige to it. He was representing on behalf of the United States ... which would most definitely make it his job to offer a presentation to the Olympic board.

Many other leaders do the same thing in an effort to win global recognition AND bring a certain amount of financial influx into the host state and the country as a whole.

It's just made to seem personal against Obama because it IS Obama ... and everything about him is (attempted to be) made personal ... if at all possible. In reality, he didn't lose any more 'political capital' than any of the other losing countries. There could only be one pick ... and wasn't Japan or Spain ... or the United States. Or a host of several other countries who wanted the same thing.

Every 4 years every country that thinks they can afford it throws their hat in the ring hoping to get picked for the global spotlight to shine down on them. (And for the money they hope to make from it!) The U.S. (and Chicago, especially) could have really used the economic boost that would have likely come from hosting the Olympics. Remember, China tried to use the event to revamp/redeem their image globally. Every country has their reasons.

So, the reality is that the country, not the President, lost the bid to host the event. And I also agree with the President's notion that we need to stop thinking in terms of trying to put on airs based on what his enemies might think ... and just realize, deal with, and build upon what the realities of these situations are. People are gonna think what they want to think. It doesn't make them right ... and really, just actually gets in the way of REAL progress.

Let the haters hate. They're going to do it anyway. sck And there are much bigger fish to fry than them! Which is really what we need to be concentrating on most.


Your argument would have standing if the US has not hosted the olympics in over a half century, or ever. However, the fact is that the US recently had olympics. The US probably has hosted more olympics in the last century than any other country. Thus, it does not mean the same thing for the US as it does for nations that have Never hosted the games or who have only done so in the distant past. I say give other nations a chance for the development. Even in our poor economy, this nations fortunes are much better than others. This will cost Obama politically in that the office and the might of the influence of the US Presidency was put out their to be rebuffed.....and it was. A lot of white folks will not be happy with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

This will cost Obama politically in that the office and the might of the influence of the US Presidency was put out their to be rebuffed.....and it was...


I am not "hating" on the president regarding this, but i totally agree with this statement. One of the best assets of a sitting president is influence. Somebody should have advised him better.
Exerpts: "Chicago Loses, Nerds Win".

"The bid's most visible opponents have spent years howling that the Olympics will breed graft and political corruption and bleed an already cash-strapped city dry. Chicago 2016's supporters, by contrast, have argued that the Olympics will improve the city's standing, create jobs, and boost local morale".

"The debate here wasn't best understood as an honest disagreement over what's best for Chicago. Rather, the rhetoric was indicative of a more fundamental clash: the eternal battle of jocks vs. nerds".

"For two years, wonks like Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader and Tom Tresser of No Games Chicago have denounced Chicago's Olympics gambit as poorly conceived and wasteful. These stalwarts of the city's nerd opposition have couched their arguments in numbers, rules, and historical precedent, hoping to persuade the Games' supporters through tireless skepticism".

"Joravsky, Tresser, and their ilk have noted that the city of Chicago hasn't completed a significant construction project on time or on budget in recent memory. On that account, the predicted $3.3 billion cost of the Games can't be taken seriously".

"It doesn't help that the city's finances are a mess. Chicago's budget deficit has soared from $200 million six months ago to an estimated $500 million next year, and the city has been laying people off and forcing municipal employees to take unpaid furloughs".

The Second City's recent parking meter boondoggle, in which it sold its meter stock to a private firm for $974 million less than its estimated value, shows it is incapable of executing a project on the scale of the Olympics, the nerds say".

"The anti-Olympians also point out that the Olympics won't bring nearly as much money to the region as Chicago 2016's supporters allege. Research from an independent consulting firm estimates the Olympics would bring $4.4 billion in economic benefits to the area, much less than the $22 billion figure Mayor Daley has been promoting".

"Daley and the bid committee also promised Chicago taxpayers would not be on the hook for covering cost overruns. Yet during a trip to pitch the Chicago bid to the IOC in Switzerland this last June, he agreed to sign a contract guaranteeing the city will cover any losses incurred by the Olympics".

http://slate.com/id/2231173/?GT1=38001
------------------------------------------------
Numbers don't lie.

I agree. A waste of time, tax payer money and the Prez and the First Lady should have studied the details. The Olympic Committee certainly knew of Chicago's dismal government and financial woes and if they both had been briefed or be realistic about the findings, then maybe they would have not even made the trip.

Also, it did not help that (1) the IOC is comprised mainly of international foreign members (2) the world feels that the U.S. is the main reason this worldwide economic recession exists and (3) the young man in Chicago who was beaten to death during that gang fight, that garnered both national and international attention, probably added to the decision to vote no in the first round.

Rio also has a severe crime rate but no untimely crime headlines. At least not last week.

Prez Obama and the First Lady was extremely overconfident and felt that their mere presence was enough to seal the deal.

During the Presential campaign, Michelle Obama was/is nicknamed "the closer" and in this case, they both felt that all that was needed to win was them.

The First Lady sets them up and the Prez knocks them down.

Some precieve that as both cocky & arrogrant and maybe the IOC may have felt a slight tinge in that direction towards Chicago and the U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I personally wouldn't see this as a big deal that he failed to get the Olympics. But others, especially his enemies, will. So I agree with Negrospiritual entirely. It was not a good look.

This was one of those cases where Obama should have known to employ the rule lawyers use in preparing for cross-examination: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Trying and failing would expend political capital for nothing, and make him look ineffectual. It wasn't worth it, and never should have been attempted.


I don't think I agree with you, Vox.

The President was not vying for the Olympics simply for himself (on a personal level) or his home state of Chicago. The country being able to host such a world event always has a certain level of prestige to it. He was representing on behalf of the United States ... which would most definitely make it his job to offer a presentation to the Olympic board.

Many other leaders do the same thing in an effort to win global recognition AND bring a certain amount of financial influx into the host state and the country as a whole.

It's just made to seem personal against Obama because it IS Obama ... and everything about him is (attempted to be) made personal ... if at all possible. In reality, he didn't lose any more 'political capital' than any of the other losing countries. There could only be one pick ... and wasn't Japan or Spain ... or the United States. Or a host of several other countries who wanted the same thing.

Every 4 years every country that thinks they can afford it throws their hat in the ring hoping to get picked for the global spotlight to shine down on them. (And for the money they hope to make from it!) The U.S. (and Chicago, especially) could have really used the economic boost that would have likely come from hosting the Olympics. Remember, China tried to use the event to revamp/redeem their image globally. Every country has their reasons.

So, the reality is that the country, not the President, lost the bid to host the event. And I also agree with the President's notion that we need to stop thinking in terms of trying to put on airs based on what his enemies might think ... and just realize, deal with, and build upon what the realities of these situations are. People are gonna think what they want to think. It doesn't make them right ... and really, just actually gets in the way of REAL progress.

Let the haters hate. They're going to do it anyway. sck And there are much bigger fish to fry than them! Which is really what we need to be concentrating on most.


Your argument would have standing if the US has not hosted the olympics in over a half century, or ever. However, the fact is that the US recently had olympics. The US probably has hosted more olympics in the last century than any other country. Thus, it does not mean the same thing for the US as it does for nations that have Never hosted the games or who have only done so in the distant past. I say give other nations a chance for the development. Even in our poor economy, this nations fortunes are much better than others. This will cost Obama politically in that the office and the might of the influence of the US Presidency was put out their to be rebuffed.....and it was. A lot of white folks will not be happy with that.


My argument stands very well, thank you! But, your point is a good one and I totally agree! The Olympics are an international event ... and many other countries should have the honor of hosting it.

I have no problem with the IOC's decision. I think Rio was an excellent choice. But seeing as how you are the one who is always concerned with the hurt feelings of white folks ... I can see how this decision might negatively affect you. sck
Valarie Garrett: President Obama was told a trip to Olympics meeting may clinch Chicago win.

Up until a few days before flying to Copenhagen, Obama was not sold on the idea. He was concerned he would be gone when the healthcare debate hit the House or Senate floor.

Reporting from Washington - In the run-up to the Olympics vote, the White House was getting a clear message from the architects of Chicago's bid: Balloting would be tight, and a personal visit to Copenhagen from President Obama just might lock in a victory.

Leaders of the Windy City's campaign to secure the 2016 Summer Games had done some nose-counting and were convinced that the International Olympic Committee might well anoint Chicago as host, according to White House officials interviewed Saturday.

"The intelligence that we had from the U.S. Olympic Committee and Chicago bid team was that it was very close and therefore well worth our efforts," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House advisor. "The message was that . . . a personal appeal from the president would make a huge difference."

In the end, Obama's whirlwind appearance before the IOC proved a disappointment. Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro, finishing last among the four finalists. Since the defeat, the White House has defended the trip as a worthy investment of the president's time.

But Obama and his advisors were not sold on the idea until just a few days before Air Force One took off for Copenhagen.

Earlier, the president had agreed to engage in some quiet lobbying. Working from the White House, he placed calls to half a dozen influential people, including IOC President Jacques Rogge. It quickly became clear that other heads of state were doing the same thing -- especially the president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

"It was apparent when he made those calls that Lula had been there earlier," senior White House aide David Axelrod said.

Phone calls were the easy part. A knottier question was whether the president should travel to Denmark for Chicago's presentation Friday.

Within the White House, Jarrett relayed the argument that a presidential visit might make the difference. A close friend of the president from Chicago, she had been a strong proponent of the drive to deliver the Games.

In the spring, Jarrett told an IOC panel that the White House was prepared to lend enormous logistical support to the Games.

But the healthcare bill now grinding its way through Congress was a complication. Healthcare reform is among the president's top domestic priorities, and White House advisors wanted to avoid two scenarios: They didn't want Obama to be in Copenhagen while lawmakers debated the bill on the House or Senate floor. Nor did they want the president to commit to going to Denmark and then have to pull out.

So Obama hedged his bets.

Several weeks ago, he was in the Oval Office on the phone with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. The mayor wanted him to make the trip. The president told him that he genuinely wanted to go, but was worried about his workload.

"He said, 'I don't want to make a commitment that I can't keep,' " according to Axelrod, who was in the room. " 'So I'm not going to make any final decisions and will keep this open.' "

A few days later, Axelrod said, the president told his staff to send an advance team to Copenhagen just in case. "It was always in his mind that he wanted to go and would go," Axelrod said. "But he needed to leave himself a little bit of room in case healthcare was on the floor."

Throughout, the Chicago team was pushing for the president to make the trip. Daley and Patrick Ryan, chairman of Chicago 2016, were among those who told the White House that the nose count showed a presidential visit might close the sale, Jarrett said.

"It's a secret ballot. You can't necessarily be certain that the people who tell you they'll vote for you ultimately will," Jarrett said. "So I'm sure they did the very best they could do to get the intelligence they had."

The president made his decision last weekend. He conferred with aides monitoring healthcare legislation, who concluded that the bill would not be up for a floor vote in the 24-hour period the president was overseas. So Obama privately told his staff that he would go to Copenhagen, Jarrett said.

Jarrett flew back home with Obama on Air Force One. She said he was unfazed by the loss.

"We have plenty on our plate to do," she said. "He called the president of Brazil from Air Force One to offer congratulations, and by the time we landed in Washington, he was talking about healthcare."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...oct04,0,836075.story
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


I wonder how many other heads of state refused to go?

19

This would seem to be relevant information for playing armchair psychologist, I would think.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


I wonder how many other heads of state refused to go?

19

This would seem to be relevant information for playing armchair psychologist, I would think.



I am better at being an playing armchair psychologist than you are at being an armchair black person posting on an African American forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


I wonder how many other heads of state refused to go?

19

This would seem to be relevant information for playing armchair psychologist, I would think.



I am better at being an playing armchair psychologist than you are at being an armchair black person posting on an African American forum.


ek ... I dunno about that ... 19

It'd have to be a 'draw' if there was any contest at all! Big Grin
quote:
But Obama and his advisors were not sold on the idea until just a few days before Air Force One took off for Copenhagen.


Hmmmm ... so, according to this article that Cholly has posted ....

It wasn't a case of the President being "Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) .... to a fault" and deciding that "He is Obama" that made him decide to go and make a personal appearance at the IOC meeting. 19

It was somebody else's idea, and he had to be talked into it. He was advised with 'bad intelligence' on some over-zealous Chicagoans' part to go and put in an appearance. hoping it would boost the chances of winning. Roll Eyes

I wonder how many other mistaken perceptions and erroneous accusations he's going to have to deal with before this whole thing is all over?? Confused
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


I wonder how many other heads of state refused to go?

19

This would seem to be relevant information for playing armchair psychologist, I would think.



I am better at being an playing armchair psychologist than you are at being an armchair black person posting on an African American forum.


I haven't played an armchair black person since that one time when somebody asked me whether I was a white man or a black woman, and I replied that I was a black woman named ricardo.

But that was quite some time ago, and I'm surprised that you still remember it.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
In this particular thread, Noah made statements about the president's personal appearance before the olympic committee and the implications of The US president being rejected.

Why is he being personally attacked by Ricardomath and EbonyRose?

Did i just defend Noah? ek


Did you really see my comment as a personal attack?

I was just wondering how many of the other heads of state of olympic contenders attended and how many boycotted the meeting.

Without this information, I don't know whether a deep psychological explanation would be needed for Obama attending, or whether instead such a deep psychological explanation would be required for his boycotting the meeting.

Without such a baseline, how can I possibly tell which behavior would be normal for a head of state and which would be an abberation in need of explanation?
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
[QUOTE]

It was somebody else's idea, and he had to be talked into it. He was advised with 'bad intelligence' on some over-zealous Chicagoans' part to go and put in an appearance. hoping it would boost the chances of winning.


Regardless, the results were the same and it's a reflection of his JUDGEMENT and ability to use power EFFECTIVELY.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
In this particular thread, Noah made statements about the president's personal appearance before the olympic committee and the implications of The US president being rejected.

Why is he being personally attacked by Ricardomath and EbonyRose?

Did i just defend Noah? ek


Did you really see my comment as a personal attack?

I was just wondering how many of the other heads of state of olympic contenders attended and how many boycotted the meeting.

Without this information, I don't know whether a deep psychological explanation would be needed for Obama attending, or whether instead such a deep psychological explanation would be required for his boycotting the meeting.

Without such a baseline, how can I possibly tell which behavior would be normal for a head of state and which would be an abberation in need of explanation?



That whole paragraph was slimey and disingenuous, not unlike a warm smallpox blanket. When someone's statements are reduced to "armchair psychology" are they supposed to feel complimented?
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
In this particular thread, Noah made statements about the president's personal appearance before the olympic committee and the implications of The US president being rejected.

Why is he being personally attacked by Ricardomath and EbonyRose?

Did i just defend Noah? ek


Did you really see my comment as a personal attack?

I was just wondering how many of the other heads of state of olympic contenders attended and how many boycotted the meeting.

Without this information, I don't know whether a deep psychological explanation would be needed for Obama attending, or whether instead such a deep psychological explanation would be required for his boycotting the meeting.

Without such a baseline, how can I possibly tell which behavior would be normal for a head of state and which would be an abberation in need of explanation?


As a general rule, most heads of states do not personally lobby for the Olympic games. President Obama did not set a precedent or anything, because others have, or will send a very high-level delegation to plead the case when they think it's really important for their country to try to win it (as in the case with China for 2008, where it is believed there was possible payment involved).

Also, I don't think anyone actually "boycotts" the voting proces, either, just because they don't personally go. Nobody knows for sure who's gonna win. It's a rotating vote among the members of the IOC. The Board votes ... the low-number country gets tossed out ... they vote again, the next country with the lowest votes gets the boot ... and on and on until two countries are left and the one with the most votes wins!

So while it is a 'big deal' for a host country, it's not a life-or-death/national security-type 'big deal' ... and no real psychological evaluation of a president's state of mind is necessary to determine whether one should attend or not.

Obama had the time and the opportunity to go .. so he went. Had either one not been the case, somebody else would have gone. And the U.S. would probably have lost either way!

(The U.S. petitioned and lost the bid to hold the 2012 games in New York in the last vote. Bush did not personally attend the voting! Smile)
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

When someone's statements are reduced to "armchair psychology" are they supposed to feel complimented?


I'm not sure what other term to use in describing the comments that I quoted and replied to:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


Which sentence here is not addressing Obama's internal mental state?
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

When someone's statements are reduced to "armchair psychology" are they supposed to feel complimented?


I'm not sure what other term to use in describing the comments that I quoted and replied to:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I have always believed that Obama is confident to a fault. Obama took on this mission because he believed that "HE" could and would deliver because "He is Obama".

Overconfidence(arrogance/big headed) is as bad as too little confidence (insecurity).


Which sentence here is not addressing Obama's internal mental state?


you got caught being slimey and now you gotta hold on to the bs to save face, huh?

FYI, neither Arrogance nor Confidence are psychiatric disorders listed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental illness. Neither medicaid, medicare, nor private health insurance companies reimburse providers for the treatment of "arrogance" and "confidence". Individuals cannot be hospitalized for displaying "arrogance" and "confidence". There are no pharmaceuticals marketed for the purpose of treating symptoms of arrogance and confidence.

What's obvious is that "arrogance" and "confidence" do not meet any accepted criteria for psychiatric disorders/psychological issues and THUS you've overreached in attempting to use such a standard to place Noah's comments within the realm of psychology, armchair or otherwise.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×