http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/13/extra_extra_384.php All comments for Extra, Extra en-us 2009 Marcus Gilmer Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:15:00 -0600 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss marcusisabadass@gmail.com marcusisabadass@gmail.com 60 http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/13/extra_extra_384.php#comment-1562958 http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/13/extra_extra_384.php#comment-1562958 Comments Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:30 -0600 <p>Welcome to the scam, homo. Slight residents while paying for the two-week party. People outraged? You might think, but you are talking about Chicago, where the sheep get exactly what they deserve. </p> http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/13/extra_extra_384.php#comment-1562952 http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/13/extra_extra_384.php#comment-1562952 Comments Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:20:31 -0600 <p>Great. This is just what the city needs. They can't really afford to plow the streets, sustain the public transit system, honor their pension commitments or keep their (non-patronage) employees employed, but yet they can dip into their magic little pot o' money to bid for the Olympics? Total. Bullshit. How reassuring that they are "almost certain" that they won't be called upon to provide the $500 MILLION guarantee! Considering that they are already committing city resources towards the bid effort, I think people should be outraged. I realize the Olympics are cool and all, but how can it possibly be in Chicago's best interest, especially considering how broke other cities have gone hosting them? If I went out and maxed out all my credit cards and got myself into major financial trouble doing something I couldn't afford, whose fault is that exactly? And how is the situation with the Olympics any different? Oh right, because the city has a bunch of taxpayers to bail them out.</p>