NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote. Or post. You know the drill.

Vote. Or post. You know the drill.
Beijing!!!!!!!

Beijing!!!!!!!
after that

London! Hurrah!

Dublin - Ireland is so peaceful a country (cept for N. Ireland), and so beautiful, why hold em somewhere else then?

Dublin
U
B
L
I
N

Just so everyone knows, Kabul is in Afghanistan, in case you've been living under a rock for the past 3 years.

Dublin - Ireland is so peaceful a country (cept for N. Ireland), and so beautiful, why hold em somewhere else then?

Northern Ireland isn't the same country as Ireland, so Ireland's as peaceful as you like.


Edit: And why isn't Baghdad on the agenda? Tsk!

Kabul, Kabul, definitely, that would rock so bad! :D

And why isn't Baghdad on the agenda? Tsk!
You know, I was going to put it on there, but I did Kabul instead.

You know, I was going to put it on there, but I did Kabul instead.
Go Kabul!!!
:)

Hey! Heres A Novel Idea. Lets Put The Summer Olympics In Antartica.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT :rolleyes:

seriously though i would vote for London, it's competition is Egypt and SA and Germany i think.

Hey! Heres A Novel Idea. Lets Put The Summer Olympics In Antartica.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT :rolleyes:
Oh, let's put in Nashville then. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGHTTTT :rolleyes:

Hey! Heres A Novel Idea. Lets Put The Summer Olympics In Antartica.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT :rolleyes:
Why not? it would ad extra challenges to some sports like beach volly ball, running and whould be a great benefit to the government of Antartica could be trouble if it melts this is 2012 were talkin about you never know

Hhhm- instead of having really random cities and places, why not actually have the ones that are on the IOC shortlist? Only 2 of them are there (London and NYC) as far as I could see. No mention of Paris, Moscow, or Madrid.

Also, why no African cities? Africa hasnt hosted the Olympics yet, and it would be a great way of increasing trade and boosting the economy in the chosen nation (hopefully not South Africa, but somewhere like Kenya or Uganda, or Egypt). North America had its turn in 1996, Australasia in 2000, Europe in 2004, and Asia in 2008. If not Africa, then it should be South America (imagine the parties on the streets of Rio!)

Why else would there be the 5 olympic rings on the official flag, if the 5 major continents (Australasia doesnt come under this category) do not periodically share the hosting of the Olympics?

Why not? it would ad extra challenges to some sports like beach volly ball, running and whould be a great benefit to the government of Antartica could be trouble if it melts this is 2012 were talkin about you never know


LOL THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTARCTICA. PRICELESS! There isnt a country called Antarctica, there is no group of people known as "Antarcticans"- there are camps of scientists and geologists, and that is it. LMAO! Wow, you really made my day, thanks for that.

Just imagine, a country built entirely upon floating glaciers. Hee hee hee

Great, Kabul. Let's have them in Najaf while we're at it. Hey, how about Sierra Leone?

No offence to Irelanders, great country, but quite frankly it rains too much. The damn flame would sputter and die.

On the sensible side, let's have em in Japan. Shared with South Korea why not, use the stadiums they used in the World Cup.

Hhhm- instead of having really random cities and places, why not actually have the ones that are on the IOC shortlist? Only 2 of them are there (London and NYC) as far as I could see. No mention of Paris, Moscow, or Madrid.

Also, why no African cities? Africa hasnt hosted the Olympics yet, and it would be a great way of increasing trade and boosting the economy in the chosen nation (hopefully not South Africa, but somewhere like Kenya or Uganda, or Egypt). North America had its turn in 1996, Australasia in 2000, Europe in 2004, and Asia in 2008. If not Africa, then it should be South America (imagine the parties on the streets of Rio!)

Why else would there be the 5 olympic rings on the official flag, if the 5 major continents (Australasia doesnt come under this category) do not periodically share the hosting of the Olympics?

The thing is, Greece had enough trouble getting the stadium ready. It would be worse with a basketcase economy like those in Africa. A nice idea, but not really possible.

Out of all those on the list, I think Singapore would be a good choice....not NYC for sure. the USA had 1984 and 1996- give other countries a turn please.

LOL THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTARCTICA. PRICELESS! There isnt a country called Antarctica, there is no group of people known as "Antarcticans"- there are camps of scientists and geologists, and that is it. LMAO! Wow, you really made my day, thanks for that.

Just imagine, a country built entirely upon floating glaciers. Hee hee hee
anytime.

No offence to Irelanders, great country, but quite frankly it rains too much. The damn flame would sputter and die.
Which is different from london which has a good chance how?
They could just carry an umberella :p

The thing is, Greece had enough trouble getting the stadium ready. It would be worse with a basketcase economy like those in Africa. A nice idea, but not really possible.

Out of all those on the list, I think Singapore would be a good choice....not NYC for sure. the USA had 1984 and 1996- give other countries a turn please.


Most of the problems caused in Greece were due to the work ethic- seriously, the builders drink "ouzo" (incredibly strong liquour, tastes like pine needles, burns like buggery [not that I have experienced buggery]), and go on strike frequently.

With enough notice, any nation could prepare for the Olympics. Singapore is no longer on the IOC shortlist- its only big enough for about 2 stadia anyway. Also, your generalization about African economies is not fair. I implied that they are weak and could do with fortification- your use of the term "basket-case" could be construed as arrogant and insulting.

anytime.

Which is different from london which has a good chance how?
They could just carry an umberella :p

It rains rarely in London during the summer- last month, Londoners would have loved some rain! But then, it flooded, and loads of fish died in the Thames.

I think that they shoudlnt be held in London, but In Britain as a whole. Manchester held a superb Commonwealth Games.

The rowing and sailing could be through Boscastle MWAH HA HA HA HA (no offense to any people who were victims of that tragedy or who know them)

Great, Kabul. Let's have them in Najaf while we're at it. Hey, how about Sierra Leone?

No offence to Irelanders, great country, but quite frankly it rains too much. The damn flame would sputter and die.

On the sensible side, let's have em in Japan. Shared with South Korea why not, use the stadiums they used in the World Cup.

ROFL- Najaf 2012, I can imagine it already. The 100m dash as mortar fire rains down upon you.

Although I think that Japan would be a great place to hold the olympics, it wouldnt be fair because China have them in 2008. I want them in Europe because then the events are on at decent times for ME (In Sydney 14.5million British people woke up at 1am to watch the rowing then went to sleep again).

Most of the problems caused in Greece were due to the work ethic- seriously, the builders drink "ouzo" (incredibly strong liquour, tastes like pine needles, burns like buggery [not that I have experienced buggery]), and go on strike frequently.

With enough notice, any nation could prepare for the Olympics. Singapore is no longer on the IOC shortlist- its only big enough for about 2 stadia anyway. Also, your generalization about African economies is not fair. I implied that they are weak and could do with fortification- your use of the term "basket-case" could be construed as arrogant and insulting.

Yes, i've drank it before, its not the most pleasant liquor.

I don't mean for my use of the term basket-case as arrogant and insulting- I like to champion less developed nations as much as I can...but I strongly believe that most African nations don't have the financial ability to hold an olympic games. Egypt and South Africa perhaps, but even then...

Face it. A lot of African nations rely on substinence agriculture, and I don't think Kenya for example could feasibly build a high quality olympic stadium. Perhaps Commonwealth games would be a different story. (BTW Singapore could use and renovate their commonwealth games stadia)

you could feasibly hold it in any rainy country by building a Millenium Stadium type stadium. (open but with the ability to make it closed)

Great, Kabul. Let's have them in Najaf while we're at it. Hey, how about Sierra Leone?

No offence to Irelanders, great country, but quite frankly it rains too much. The damn flame would sputter and die.

On the sensible side, let's have em in Japan. Shared with South Korea why not, use the stadiums they used in the World Cup.
It was a J-O-K-E. But, who knows, by 2012, we may have a developing country there, with democracy and no terrorists. It may be logical. Who knows. And please don't curse the flame like that, it's one thing that holds this world from technichal armegedgeon (is that how you spell it?)

Dublin - Ireland is so peaceful a country (cept for N. Ireland), and so beautiful, why hold em somewhere else then?

Really?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but besides the whole protestant - catholic issues I have heard Ireland is rife with Racism against ethnic minorities. I have even had Irish people tell me this.

...quite frankly it rains too much. The damn flame would sputter and die.


Flame went through London. It was traditional Wimbledon Fortnight weather (ie veeeeeeeeeeeeeery wet). Flame travelled safely.

Dublin would be cool. Someone get on to the IOA!!!

The next olympic games take place in Bejing in 2008.
For 2012 are - after the preselection this year - only five cities in the race: New York, London, Paris, Madrid, Moscow (President Putin pushed for it - otherwise they would have been kicked out because of not being prepared enough). So I would exclude Moscow.
My country shurely supports Paris. They seem to be the favourite anyway.
I however would like to see Madrid winning the bit. It´s a great city. But that is not going to happen since Spain had the Olympics back in 1992 (Barcelona).

Really?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but besides the whole protestant - catholic issues I have heard Ireland is rife with Racism against ethnic minorities. I have even had Irish people tell me this.
Wouldnt say rife but it does happen. :(

LOL THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTARCTICA. PRICELESS! There isnt a country called Antarctica, there is no group of people known as "Antarcticans"- there are camps of scientists and geologists, and that is it. LMAO! Wow, you really made my day, thanks for that.

Just imagine, a country built entirely upon floating glaciers. Hee hee hee

LOLZ you make my day! Antarctica is an actual landmass; it is not built on floating glaciers like the Arctic.

I think that the 2012 Olympics should be held in London.....as I am a Londoner and can go and watch them!

Out of the candidate cities for 2012, I really am torn between Madrid, Paris and London....

Madrid has a really great quality public transport system, and I love Spain. But, Barcelona was only in 1992.
London is a really great city, but the public transport is not so great. Also, they had to give up hosting the IAAF world champs and construction projects like Wembley and the Millennium Dome took a long time.
Paris, again is a really great city, with good infrastructure. They did a great job of hosting the World Cup in 1998.

As for Moscow and New York; I think it would be a big challenge for Moscow to pull off. I think that in New York it would be even more commercialised than it is already.

But, I don't know. I would be happy if the games went to either of these three.

L O N D O N all the way

London is a really great city, but the public transport is not so great. Also, they had to give up hosting the IAAF world champs and construction projects like Wembley and the Millennium Dome took a long time.

The public transport in London is slowing getting better and, with luck in next year's G.E. and the next mayoral election, will be due to get a lot better in the next 4 years. The real reason construction projects like the Millennium Dome and Wembley (still in progress) have taken so long is down to financial support and government fiddling. I'd have confidence in us building a few stadiums and an olympic village in time.

Hold it in the world's busiest and most cosmopolitan city: New York. It embodies the true spirit of the Olympics.

it doesn't specify summer of winter Olympics so I chose Antarctica for the winter Olympics. The 2014 Winter Olympics in McMurdo Station.

1: It would always be daytime. The winter Olympics take place sometime around February. Have the games in late January and they'll have 24 hours of sunlight every day.

2: The temperature is in the 20's F and about -5 C, which is just fine for the winter Olympics.

3: The downhill events like skiing and bobsledding can be done on a volcano.

4: Every country gets to be the host country

it doesn't specify summer of winter Olympics so I chose Antarctica for the winter Olympics. The 2014 Winter Olympics in McMurdo Station.

1: It would always be daytime. The winter Olympics take place sometime around February. Have the games in late January and they'll have 24 hours of sunlight every day.

2: The temperature is in the 20's F and about -5 C, which is just fine for the winter Olympics.

3: The downhill events like skiing and bobsledding can be done on a volcano.

4: Every country gets to be the host country

Damn. That's actually difficult to argue with. One question: If everyone is the host nation, who comes out last in the Opening Ceremony?

"And there is rapturous applause as the delegation of Emperor Penguins enters the stadium!" :p :D

Hey, how about Omaha, Nebraska? :D

True, it doesn't specify summer/winter.
Has to be Östersund for 2014 winter olympic games!!!!!!

It was a J-O-K-E. But, who knows, by 2012, we may have a developing country there, with democracy and no terrorists. It may be logical. Who knows. And please don't curse the flame like that, it's one thing that holds this world from technichal armegedgeon (is that how you spell it?)

Okay, I'm pedantic, it's spelt Armaggedon, or Armageddon.

About the flame, okay, point taken, hope you get mine, ya know, figure of speech n all.

But still, whether Afghanistan becoming a safe, olympically-acceptible country is feasible or not, the problem is that old ideas die hard. Afghanistan has long been a dangerous country, and it takes a LONG time for a country to cast of a labeling like that. Take El Salvador for example. It's safe now. Okay, not as safe as othes, but safe enough. Except all the majority of travellers have heard of it in the past 20 years or something, is news of civil wars and violence.

"Most of our imports come from other countries." - George W. Bush

Vote. Or post. You know the drill.


Zachnia

The public transport in London is slowing getting better and, with luck in next year's G.E. and the next mayoral election, will be due to get a lot better in the next 4 years. The real reason construction projects like the Millennium Dome and Wembley (still in progress) have taken so long is down to financial support and government fiddling. I'd have confidence in us building a few stadiums and an olympic village in time.

There may not definately be a G.E. next year, and the next mayoral elections will be in 2009, so they will be a bit late to directly influence things.

All of the problems listed above have been caused by the Labour Party- after 7 years, the argument of the conservatives ruining things is irrelevant and frankly wrong. Labour has done little to nothing to make any changes to conservative policy (and it cant have been that bad- they were in power from 1979-1997, for gods sake!) Before there are any anti-Thatcher flames as well, a)show some respect she's nearly dead, b) show some respect she was the first and only female prime minister of the UK, c) show some respect because she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century, d) show some respect because she was the only prime minister since Baldwin (another Tory) to stand up to America for British Interests, e) show some respect shes one hell of a lady.

Vote conservative and all of your problems will be solved (unless you are sponging the benefits system in which case you should be shot).

For fear of being branded off-topic, my previous post suggests my wish for the Olympics to be held in London/GB as a whole in 2012. I guess that there arent very many Brits in this forum, because my comment about Boscastle want picked up upon...(there is the case that maybe you just didnt find it funny)

atlantis, the dark side of the moon or the nevada bombing and gunnery range

=^^=
.../\...

Berlin or Moscow.

I gots one! I gots one!

Well, i think it should either be
A) Boston Massachusetts. Its a large, mostly rich city with great security. Boston could be ready by 2012 no sweat!

B) Islamabad, Pakistan. On the news all you may hear are things about war being fought in Pakistan, but the Capital and the Surrounding area are B-E-A-utifull! The woody hills, the open fields, the magnificent gardens... And it would be good for the Winter games too, the Snowy mountains are only 3 hours away! Although, ISlamabad doesnt have an Olympic Stadium to my knowledge, so i guess we'd have to wait for 2016. The city is REALLY safe (theres like a thousand soldiers patrolling the area) and the Pakistani ARmy is WAY better trained, equiped, and it has like, 50x the amount of soldiers as Greece's.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN!

(London.)

Though I would prefer Leeds or Nottingham. Bradford would be good, how about Keightly?

Dublin ... the drinking Olympics!

a)show some respect she's nearly dead,

Yes, and you shouldn't speak ill of the dead. Wait, she's not dead yet...

b) show some respect she was the first and only female prime minister of the UK

With the biggest set of balls in parliament!

Vote conservative and all of your problems will be solved (unless you are sponging the benefits system in which case you should be shot).

The joys of democracy - follow the right wing or face execution! Let's ignore the fact she oversaw the dismantling of heavy industry, the annihilation of the NHS, and the creation of the ASBO society with it's thy-mind-thy-self mentality. Oh, and right-to-buy? 20 years on and now the average house price is 6 times the average wage.

Neither side are capable of running the UK because they spend too much time slagging each other off.

And I think Birmingham should get the olympics because 85% of the country don't live in the SE.

somewhere else...a new country...with nice weather...

I like the Rio idea, but Sao Paolo or Brasilia would be nice...BRAZIL 2012!!!!!!!!!! Oh wait, theres always Beverly Hills and the games could be shared with Bel Air....BEVERLY HILLS/BEL AIR 2012!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, I voted Buenos Aires, South America needs a turn. Or, they could always host the games in a Carribean/Central American Nation. Jamaica or the Bahamas would be nice, or maybe Costa Rica or El Salvador (YAY!).

Bogota, Baghdad, New York, and Los Angelos


I have very good reasons for each of them...

St. Petersburg
Warsaw
Rio de Janeiro
Cairo

Or, they could always host the games in a Carribean/Central American Nation. Jamaica or the Bahamas would be nice, or maybe Costa Rica or El Salvador (YAY!).
Nassau! It's perfect! Why didn't I think about that? They have barely any athletes in the Olympics (if any) this year, and it doesn't seem to be growing. That means the judges don't feel pressured when the stadium would go into a riot if someone other than that athlete won. Nassau's beautiful, Atlantis (the resort) is there for all the athletes, there could be great tourism. That would boost the econonmy, it would be great! Nassau's perfectorama! Sorry I didn't put it on the list! Bahamas for the Olympics! Whew!!!

NASSAU 2012!

How about Toronto, Ontario (Canada)? They've been trying for like 20 years lol! Plus it's right next door!

South American or Africa would be good too.

The Olympics does horrible damage to the host city. It's costly, messy, disruptive and dangerous.

Therefore I nominate Washington DC because it's already disrupted, dangerous, and reallllly messy.

The Olympics does horrible damage to the host city. It's costly, messy, disruptive and dangerous.

Therefore I nominate Washington DC because it's already disrupted, dangerous, and reallllly messy.

No it isnt, no it isnt, no it isnt. Have you even BEEN there? I lived there, so i know.

And are like, 90% of the people on this thread from the U.K.? Its obvious that if most of the people are British, they'll vote for London...

The Olympics does horrible damage to the host city. It's costly, messy, disruptive and dangerous.

Therefore I nominate Washington DC because it's already disrupted, dangerous, and reallllly messy.

Got a point though. I think most of the cities which have held the olympic games have ended up making a loss financially. Although I expect if Paris gets it, being the favourite and all, it'll probably make a gain cos they've already built all the stadiums and such at St.Denis. Go Paris!!!! Don't you just love the French!

And I think Birmingham should get the olympics because 85% of the country don't live in the SE.

London isn't in the SE if you go by which news they get. If it's going to be anywhere in this country, let's face it, it'll be in the capital city, as with most Olympics (unless they're hold in massive countries, like the US).

hmmmm Last time I checked Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver are not capital cities

Kabul--that way it will be run by Americans...

The Olympics does horrible damage to the host city. It's costly, messy, disruptive and dangerous.

Therefore I nominate Washington DC because it's already disrupted, dangerous, and reallllly messy.

O'course, for some cities, but not all, it does. I hope the Frenchies get it, so they go broke :D!

Kabul--that way it will be run by Americans...

Good point. Also, Kabul is relatively safe(most of the Al Qaeda members that can have left for Iraq). All we have to worry about are some 300 Taliban militamen :D and i think around 12,000 Soldiers can deal with it(seeing how thats prbably how many soldiers would be sent to guard the games.)

I think that Johannesburg, Rio, and Toronto are candidates I could see hosting the Olympics. South Africa is the only African nation that could host an Olympics, and Brazil is the nation in South America that would be the most able to host the Olympics, and Toronto obviously could afford it.

I think that Johannesburg, Rio, and Toronto are candidates I could see hosting the Olympics. South Africa is the only African nation that could host an Olympics, and Brazil is the nation in South America that would be the most able to host the Olympics, and Toronto obviously could afford it.

Dont forget CAiro. They could hold it.

Good point. Also, Kabul is relatively safe(most of the Al Qaeda members that can have left for Iraq). All we have to worry about are some 300 Taliban militamen :D and i think around 12,000 Soldiers can deal with it(seeing how thats prbably how many soldiers would be sent to guard the games.)


Prove anything of what you have just said. Kabul is safe, the rest of Afghanistan is not. Thats why the elections are always postponed (indefinately, perhaps?!) In Kandahar, the heartland of Taleban support, the Americans are in real trouble. They pretend to have control, but instead just sit back and let the regional politicians get blown up.

I would love to see any evidence whatsoever of the statement "most of the Al Qaeda members that can have left for Iraq". Dumbass! Why would they go to the place where there are tens of thousands of foreign soldiers? Why not stay protected in the mountains on the Pakistani border, where they will be protected by the Warlords, and by Pakistans nuclear weapons.

The Taleban is still a massive force in Afghanistan- you cannot remove a system and expect people to change immediately. Although it was harsh, repressive and very brutal, it was the way of life for people for over a decade, and they cant change overnight.

Kabul also has no resources to spend on the Olympics- it would be grossly unfair to the inhabitants if they spent billions on stadia rather than hosuing and resources for economic recovery

I think that Johannesburg, Rio, and Toronto are candidates I could see hosting the Olympics. South Africa is the only African nation that could host an Olympics, and Brazil is the nation in South America that would be the most able to host the Olympics, and Toronto obviously could afford it.


Why is South Africa the only nation? Egypt has a big economy, as does Libya, Morocco and Algeria. They could all easily afford to host the olympics. South Africa is the boring choice for an African host- its basically its own continent anyway (in that it is vastly different from the rest of Africa). South Africa is just a European nation with African problems (namely AIDS).

Also, what better way to reward Libya for renouncing WMD? Go London/Tripoli 2012!

Warsaw. Then again, I'm biased. ;)

O'course, for some cities, but not all, it does. I hope the Frenchies get it, so they go broke :D!

If the French had it, they would be ready the day after the announcement. Paris has massive facilities that could cope with the olympics easily- they would have to build a canoing centre and that would be it. As to where the Sailing would be held- I guess that they would just have to go to Le Havre or somewhere like that.

I expect that Paris may be rejected because it is an obvious choice. As much as I want London to host the Olympics in 2012, I have a feeling that Madrid may be the surprise winner. Saying that, they were in Barcelona in 1992, so it may be Moscow! There would be major anger if it were NYC though- so Moscow and London are the main two contenders.

Well, I'm sure that everyone wants it somewhere else, I'm just really interested that everyone chose London!

Prove anything of what you have just said. Kabul is safe, the rest of Afghanistan is not. Thats why the elections are always postponed (indefinately, perhaps?!) In Kandahar, the heartland of Taleban support, the Americans are in real trouble. They pretend to have control, but instead just sit back and let the regional politicians get blown up.

I would love to see any evidence whatsoever of the statement "most of the Al Qaeda members that can have left for Iraq". Dumbass! Why would they go to the place where there are tens of thousands of foreign soldiers? Why not stay protected in the mountains on the Pakistani border, where they will be protected by the Warlords, and by Pakistans nuclear weapons.

The Taleban is still a massive force in Afghanistan- you cannot remove a system and expect people to change immediately. Although it was harsh, repressive and very brutal, it was the way of life for people for over a decade, and they cant change overnight.

Kabul also has no resources to spend on the Olympics- it would be grossly unfair to the inhabitants if they spent billions on stadia rather than hosuing and resources for economic recovery


All i said is that it would be safe!

Jesus, man! The Taliban just SEEMS to have power. A lot of Afghanis suport the U.S., and the Taliban is very weak. Tell me, have you even bEEN to that ARea, the Pakistan, Afghanistan Area? BEcause i have, and the Taliban doesnt parade the streets and stuff. The Media portrays only the BAD stuff, and since all the majorly bad stuff has left Afghanistan, they only Cover Iraq. And listen, the Al Qaeda Members have goen to Iraq because they WANT to be Martyred! If you havent noticed, they think dying killing Americans and foreign Infidels sends them right up to paradise at the hand of allah.

And i didnt say they COULD hold the Olympics, i was just saying that if they could the games in Kabul would be safe. Its not like every muslim is out to kill americans...

Anywhere but New York.

tell you what, give us irish the drinking olympics, we'd win by a long shot with the dutch and germans close 2nd and 3rd

tell you what, give us irish the drinking olympics, we'd win by a long shot with the dutch and germans close 2nd and 3rd

You forgot to count the U.S. College Binge-drinkers and the fat lazy americans that sit around their houses all day drinking beer and eating donuts.

Im not sure thats somethign to be proud of :(.

2006 Winter Olympics: Lake Placid, NY

2008 Summer Olympics: London

All i said is that it would be safe!

Jesus, man! The Taliban just SEEMS to have power. A lot of Afghanis suport the U.S., and the Taliban is very weak. Tell me, have you even bEEN to that ARea, the Pakistan, Afghanistan Area? BEcause i have, and the Taliban doesnt parade the streets and stuff. The Media portrays only the BAD stuff, and since all the majorly bad stuff has left Afghanistan, they only Cover Iraq. And listen, the Al Qaeda Members have goen to Iraq because they WANT to be Martyred! If you havent noticed, they think dying killing Americans and foreign Infidels sends them right up to paradise at the hand of allah.

And i didnt say they COULD hold the Olympics, i was just saying that if they could the games in Kabul would be safe. Its not like every muslim is out to kill americans...

Again, there is no proof, just FOX-news fed rubbish. The fact remains that the US only controls Kabul, and the Taleban control pretty much everywhere else. Also, can someone tell me what "bump" means in the context of a forum? Telegram me please- thanks :) Also, if someone else suggests somewhere for the 2006 winter or 2008 summer olympics should be held, I will hunt them down and bitch slap them. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOOLS!

Why not Cape Town in 2016? Woulde be nice to see them in Africa and that city is capable to organise it.

Or just stop the rule that it is only one city that can organise them. Brussel-Amsterdam in 2016 would be nice to. Or Collogne-Strassbourg.

New Zealand....hahahahahah. Oh dear...its making me laugh just thinking about it...no one could get past the sheep :D . bahahaha...seriously...Dublin. The Irish are awesome....maybe London...but I've heard some strange rumours...such as it rains bloody cats and dogs :p ;) My country would be screwed...we don't do so well in rain...we like drought...and lots of it.

Beijing

Bring It back to Montreal!!!!!!

Bring it back to Montreal!!!!!!! ;)

2006 Winter Olympics: Lake Placid


Sorry, allready sold at the station of Sestrierre in Italy (Turin 2006).

London would be interesting...

Bude in Cornwall, England, would be more interesting and a good thing for the local economy

whould be a great benefit to the government of Antartica

What! You think Antarctica has a government. You must be either American, or very young

LOL THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTARCTICA. PRICELESS! There isnt a country called Antarctica, there is no group of people known as "Antarcticans"- there are camps of scientists and geologists, and that is it. LMAO! Wow, you really made my day, thanks for that.

Just imagine, a country built entirely upon floating glaciers. Hee hee hee

Floating glaciers? Yeah, nice one. Maybe before you mock so heartily you should educate yourself some more. Antarctica is a continent; it has a considerable land mass.

Glaciers don't float, that would be an iceberg.

Geologists are scientists, so to say scientist and geologist doesn't make sense. You could say geologists, biologist and meteorologist (or just scientists).

Hhhm- instead of having really random cities and places, why not actually have the ones that are on the IOC shortlist? Only 2 of them are there (London and NYC) as far as I could see. No mention of Paris, Moscow, or Madrid.

Also, why no African cities? Africa hasnt hosted the Olympics yet, and it would be a great way of increasing trade and boosting the economy in the chosen nation (hopefully not South Africa, but somewhere like Kenya or Uganda, or Egypt). North America had its turn in 1996, Australasia in 2000, Europe in 2004, and Asia in 2008. If not Africa, then it should be South America (imagine the parties on the streets of Rio!)

Why else would there be the 5 olympic rings on the official flag, if the 5 major continents (Australasia doesnt come under this category) do not periodically share the hosting of the Olympics?

I agree completely.

Why not Cape Town in 2016? Woulde be nice to see them in Africa and that city is capable to organise it.
I like Cape Town too. But first they have to show how they organize the football world cup in 2010. If they do it well they could be a realistic candidate for 2020 or 2024.

"Why else would there be the 5 olympic rings on the official flag, if the 5 major continents (Australasia doesnt come under this category) do not periodically share the hosting of the Olympics?"
The olympic rings are actually supposed to symbolize the nations of the world. It is supposed to be the case that the color of the rings (and the white background) is (or rather was) part of any flag of the countries in the world when the modern Olympics where established in 1896.
The interpretation that those should stand for the five continents is not the original interpretation of those rings.

What! You think Antarctica has a government. You must be either American, or very young

Your cruel man, very cruel. Americans dont believe Antarctica has a government. Although, we have more bases(i might be wrong though, the Former U.S.S.R had alot) than any other country there, PLUS we have a base just about right on top of the south pole. If anything, America knows more about Antarctica than any other country. Notice the "If anything" part. Although i think all nations share the knowledge....

Besides, the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. have the most claims. Not Britain or Canada or whatever america-hating country you live in...

Again, there is no proof, just FOX-news fed rubbish. The fact remains that the US only controls Kabul, and the Taleban control pretty much everywhere else. Also, can someone tell me what "bump" means in the context of a forum? Telegram me please- thanks :) Also, if someone else suggests somewhere for the 2006 winter or 2008 summer olympics should be held, I will hunt them down and bitch slap them. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOOLS!

Lies, all Lies, my friend. CNN, BBC, FOX, DW-TV(a german international news channel), NBC, and MSNBC all say that America controlls Afghanistan adn that the Taliban is on the break of non-existance. Show me proof (from a credible source) and ill accept what you say. Of course, Aghanistan has had nearly three times as many people sign up for voting than was expected, the country has made great steps on the road to democracy, and the Country isnt the poorest in the world anymore. Of course, Republican haters like you wont accept this. Remeber, the U.N. and N.A.T.O run Afghanistan now. Mess with them, not with us. We do the dying, you guys do the crying.


Oh, and spell Taliban right, will ya? Its not that hard to remember...

Lies, all Lies, my friend. CNN, BBC, FOX, DW-TV(a german international news channel), NBC, and MSNBC all say that America controlls Afghanistan adn that the Taliban is on the break of non-existance. Show me proof (from a credible source) and ill accept what you say. Of course, Aghanistan has had nearly three times as many people sign up for voting than was expected, the country has made great steps on the road to democracy, and the Country isnt the poorest in the world anymore. Of course, Republican haters like you wont accept this. Remeber, the U.N. and N.A.T.O run Afghanistan now. Mess with them, not with us. We do the dying, you guys do the crying.


Oh, and spell Taliban right, will ya? Its not that hard to remember...

I spell Taleban how the Afghan people spell it- ie correctly. You spell it using an Americanisation. Also- I am not a Republican Hater. I am very right wing, and a member of the Conservative Party in Britain. Also- when you say you do the dying, that is true. Unfortunately, American soldiers don't die very often, so that is why we do the crying.

Afghanistan hasnt been the poorest country in the world for decades. Soviet investment, and also the burgeoning heroin industry have made sure of that. I think that it is somewhere like Sierra Leone that is the poorest nation, and Bangladesh has the worst-performing economy.

Also- the BBC does not say that the US control Afghanistan- just the other day I saw a report that was from Kandahar, that showed the local TalEban going round and being cheered wherever they went, through the centre of the city.

Failure to find Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden have plagued the USA- they have failed in their first target in the war on terror. Also- ironic how the Americans love terrorists. Note how there is still support for the IRA in America, and that the USA has been funding the IRA for decades.

Americans are hypocrites in the extreme- and before people say "not everyone agrees with the policies of the government"- they obviously do. Otherwise, George W Bush would not be President- in the last election, he increased his share of the vote- obviously the majority of Americans do favour his policies, and I can continue to claim that until he is voted out of office.

"Why else would there be the 5 olympic rings on the official flag, if the 5 major continents (Australasia doesnt come under this category) do not periodically share the hosting of the Olympics?"
The olympic rings are actually supposed to symbolize the nations of the world. It is supposed to be the case that the color of the rings (and the white background) is (or rather was) part of any flag of the countries in the world when the modern Olympics where established in 1896.
The interpretation that those should stand for the five continents is not the original interpretation of those rings.



As a German I would have thought that you knew that the rings were first included in the 1936 games in Berlin (by Hitler). They WERE used to represent the major continents, yet people have tried to change this, and some would probably claim that Hitler didnt approve the symbol.

Anti-Nazism leads to many mistruths being told. Lift the shame of being German- we know that your grandparents probably helped round up innocent Jews and Poles, but it is time to leave the guilt behind.

Why not Cape Town in 2016? Woulde be nice to see them in Africa and that city is capable to organise it.

Or just stop the rule that it is only one city that can organise them. Brussel-Amsterdam in 2016 would be nice to. Or Collogne-Strassbourg.

Cape Town and Johannesburg have wayyyy to much crime at the moment to be considered by the IOC

I spell Taleban how the Afghan people spell it- ie correctly. You spell it using an Americanisation. Also- I am not a Republican Hater. I am very right wing, and a member of the Conservative Party in Britain. Also- when you say you do the dying, that is true. Unfortunately, American soldiers don't die very often, so that is why we do the crying.

Afghanistan hasnt been the poorest country in the world for decades. Soviet investment, and also the burgeoning heroin industry have made sure of that. I think that it is somewhere like Sierra Leone that is the poorest nation, and Bangladesh has the worst-performing economy.

Also- the BBC does not say that the US control Afghanistan- just the other day I saw a report that was from Kandahar, that showed the local TalEban going round and being cheered wherever they went, through the centre of the city.

Failure to find Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden have plagued the USA- they have failed in their first target in the war on terror. Also- ironic how the Americans love terrorists. Note how there is still support for the IRA in America, and that the USA has been funding the IRA for decades.

Americans are hypocrites in the extreme- and before people say "not everyone agrees with the policies of the government"- they obviously do. Otherwise, George W Bush would not be President- in the last election, he increased his share of the vote- obviously the majority of Americans do favour his policies, and I can continue to claim that until he is voted out of office.

This post is pretty much off topic:)

#1 Ive LIVED in the region, and ive met many Pushtuns(one of the indigenous groups that make up Afghanistan) and they say its spelt, well... uh... they cant write english so i guess we'll never know :D

#2 After the Taliban came into power, Afghanistan went flat out broke. the Taliban wasted their money defacing buddhists statues and training an army of terrorists. Before AFghanistan Bangladesh was the poorest country in the world. How do i know? Once again, i lived in that region, and have actually driven right up to the border.

#3 If you can find me CREDIBLE Evidence that the U.S. has been funding the IRA for decades, then we have. But if the U.S. had been funding a terrorist group thats been bombing your country, in Northern Ireland and such, why would the U.K. and the U.S. be EXTREMELY close allies? Hmmmmmmmm???

#4 No offense, but Great Britain hasnt been a good peace-deal maker. A. You split India into 2 countries, but alas you forgot that the Kashmir region would be a site of struggle if your country didnt split it up. Which it is, and thousands have died on the Battlefields of Kashmir. You also make the province of Bengal into part of Pakistan, but the Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis, and the Pushtuns have a different culture than the Bengalis. The two parts of pakistan, east and west(west is Bangladesh), become really mad at each other. War breaks out, around 25,000 people die. B. You and the French and a few other allies wrote the Treaty of Versailles. The U.S. delegate said to lighten up but your guys said noooo. Twenty years later, the Bloodiest War in history, World War II, begins. C. Ireland. Listen, if your going to give someone their country, why not the WHOLE country? Why keep a bit for yourself and therefore make alot of people angry? And then those Angry people bomb you, and shoot you, and knife you, and all other sorts of evil stuff.

I recognise the U.S. doesnt always make the best decisions(*cough*Vietnam*cough*), but if you wanna start insulting my country, i will do the same to you.

If anything, America knows more about Antarctica than any other country. Notice the "If anything" part. Although i think all nations share the knowledge....




what is there to know about it

its ice
its melting
its very similar to hawieiiiii underneath the ice

Bay City, Michigan.

Cape Town and Johannesburg have wayyyy to much crime at the moment to be considered by the IOC

Think you've got to look at the facts, they will organize the Football worldcup wich is after the Games the worlds largest sportive event.

Don't thonk that thos IOC bobo's wurry about the crime in Jo'burg when the event will be in Cape Town (safer then LA).

This post is pretty much off topic:)

#1 Ive LIVED in the region, and ive met many Pushtuns(one of the indigenous groups that make up Afghanistan) and they say its spelt, well... uh... they cant write english so i guess we'll never know :D

#2 After the Taliban came into power, Afghanistan went flat out broke. the Taliban wasted their money defacing buddhists statues and training an army of terrorists. Before AFghanistan Bangladesh was the poorest country in the world. How do i know? Once again, i lived in that region, and have actually driven right up to the border.

#3 If you can find me CREDIBLE Evidence that the U.S. has been funding the IRA for decades, then we have. But if the U.S. had been funding a terrorist group thats been bombing your country, in Northern Ireland and such, why would the U.K. and the U.S. be EXTREMELY close allies? Hmmmmmmmm???

#4 No offense, but Great Britain hasnt been a good peace-deal maker. A. You split India into 2 countries, but alas you forgot that the Kashmir region would be a site of struggle if your country didnt split it up. Which it is, and thousands have died on the Battlefields of Kashmir. You also make the province of Bengal into part of Pakistan, but the Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis, and the Pushtuns have a different culture than the Bengalis. The two parts of pakistan, east and west(west is Bangladesh), become really mad at each other. War breaks out, around 25,000 people die. B. You and the French and a few other allies wrote the Treaty of Versailles. The U.S. delegate said to lighten up but your guys said noooo. Twenty years later, the Bloodiest War in history, World War II, begins. C. Ireland. Listen, if your going to give someone their country, why not the WHOLE country? Why keep a bit for yourself and therefore make alot of people angry? And then those Angry people bomb you, and shoot you, and knife you, and all other sorts of evil stuff.

I recognise the U.S. doesnt always make the best decisions(*cough*Vietnam*cough*), but if you wanna start insulting my country, i will do the same to you.


Well you cannot insult my country. What people did in the past, with colonialism, is completely irrelevant to today. It used to be seen as acceptable, for European powers to go out there in their ships and conquer lands. However, now, it is not, and so we dont. Therefore it is wrong for you to argue about colonialism, because that belongs to a different age.

Also- lets not forget, Britain was the first nation to renege upon slavery, whereas the USA kept it going for a lot lot longer (and jees- it was still going on in the 1950s! Who can defend a country where black people have to use different buses, different fountains, and different schools?! That is just wrong- Americans sicken me for being so backwards in their views).

Also- Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different places. Ireland is a Catholic nation, with a huge Catholic majority. Northern Ireland is part of the Protestant (Anglican) United Kingdom, and has a huge Protestant majority. We keep Northern Ireland, because the people like being British. A few psychos with beards (isnt it ironic how all the evil people on earth have prominent facial hair) decide they want all of Ireland, and so they shove bombs in cars, or in high streets.

Without Britain, India would not have the cities of Delhi, Madras (Bombay) or Calcutta. These cities all started off as small settlements for the workers of the British East India Company, and grew into vast cities. The British Empire did exploit people and their resources, but, by the 19th Century, there was a vast attitude change. The Victorians wanted not to exploit people, but to make their lives better (through Anglicisation). The Empire ended up spending vast amounts of money on improving infrastructure in India, as well as the other nations, and improved life for many (dont forget we had already freed them, whilst Americans continued to force them to wash their dishes!)

You want evidence that the USA funded the IRA? Write to every succesful businessman in New York who is of Irish descent, or wander into an Irish Bar on the East Coast, and pretend to be a member of the IRA. You might want to take a briefcase, to collect all of the dollars thrown at you.

Also- the US and the UK are not close allies. They pretend to be. There is a huge sentiment of Anti-Americanism in this country, and it rises all the time. For example, General Galtieri and his armies invade the Fawkland Islands, which is British Territory. Thatcher assembles a large naval taskforce, and sends them steaming across the Atlantic. Then what happens?! America says it doesnt think we should do that. WHAT THE FUCK HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH YOU?! could it be because you know that if we win, which is a formality, there is a chance of the far-right wing Junta falling, and then some Communists might get in power?! American paranoia was willing to sacrifice their most valuable relationship. Despite what you might think, America cannot go it alone. Britain leant credibility to the "coalition" by joining in with Iraq- Aznar and Berlusconi had both said that they would not be willing to go in without other European support.

Your comments about WW1 are irrelevant. Germany had treated France as a battlefield for 4 years, and so you then expect the French people to pat them on the back and say "its alright, we know you didnt mean it"? If Wilson hadnt had such stupid, unrealistic ideas, then the compromise wouldnt have been established. Versailles needed to either cripple Germany, and punish them for their actions (the view shared by Clemenceau, and the French and British public [Lloyd-George won the general election of 1918 on the promise that he would "squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak"]). Or, it needed to be fair- basically, it had to either make sure Germany COULD never wage war or again, or WOULD NOT WANT TO wage war again.

Because of the opposing views, a compromise was established. Also- if the American people hadnt continued their policy of isolationism, then the accession of the USA to the LoN would have been ratified, and Fascist aggression in Manchuria in 1931, Abyssinia in 1935-6, and Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Poland, 138-9 would never have happened. America is directly responsible for WW2 in several ways, and then conveniently stayed out of it for 2 years until they were attacked by Japan.

ALSO- TALEBAN, NOT TALIBAN. TALEBAN NOT TALIBAN. TALEBAN NOT TALIBAN.

This is indeed now off topic. However, it is fun, and as long as you perpetuate your lies I shall respond with the truth.

London 2012, Cairo 2016, Rio de Janiero 2020, Tokyo 2024, Georgia 2028

Well you cannot insult my country. What people did in the past, with colonialism, is completely irrelevant to today. It used to be seen as acceptable, for European powers to go out there in their ships and conquer lands. However, now, it is not, and so we dont. Therefore it is wrong for you to argue about colonialism, because that belongs to a different age.

Also- lets not forget, Britain was the first nation to renege upon slavery, whereas the USA kept it going for a lot lot longer (and jees- it was still going on in the 1950s! Who can defend a country where black people have to use different buses, different fountains, and different schools?! That is just wrong- Americans sicken me for being so backwards in their views).

Also- Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different places. Ireland is a Catholic nation, with a huge Catholic majority. Northern Ireland is part of the Protestant (Anglican) United Kingdom, and has a huge Protestant majority. We keep Northern Ireland, because the people like being British. A few psychos with beards (isnt it ironic how all the evil people on earth have prominent facial hair) decide they want all of Ireland, and so they shove bombs in cars, or in high streets.

Without Britain, India would not have the cities of Delhi, Madras (Bombay) or Calcutta. These cities all started off as small settlements for the workers of the British East India Company, and grew into vast cities. The British Empire did exploit people and their resources, but, by the 19th Century, there was a vast attitude change. The Victorians wanted not to exploit people, but to make their lives better (through Anglicisation). The Empire ended up spending vast amounts of money on improving infrastructure in India, as well as the other nations, and improved life for many (dont forget we had already freed them, whilst Americans continued to force them to wash their dishes!)

You want evidence that the USA funded the IRA? Write to every succesful businessman in New York who is of Irish descent, or wander into an Irish Bar on the East Coast, and pretend to be a member of the IRA. You might want to take a briefcase, to collect all of the dollars thrown at you.

Also- the US and the UK are not close allies. They pretend to be. There is a huge sentiment of Anti-Americanism in this country, and it rises all the time. For example, General Galtieri and his armies invade the Fawkland Islands, which is British Territory. Thatcher assembles a large naval taskforce, and sends them steaming across the Atlantic. Then what happens?! America says it doesnt think we should do that. WHAT THE FUCK HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH YOU?! could it be because you know that if we win, which is a formality, there is a chance of the far-right wing Junta falling, and then some Communists might get in power?! American paranoia was willing to sacrifice their most valuable relationship. Despite what you might think, America cannot go it alone. Britain leant credibility to the "coalition" by joining in with Iraq- Aznar and Berlusconi had both said that they would not be willing to go in without other European support.

Your comments about WW1 are irrelevant. Germany had treated France as a battlefield for 4 years, and so you then expect the French people to pat them on the back and say "its alright, we know you didnt mean it"? If Wilson hadnt had such stupid, unrealistic ideas, then the compromise wouldnt have been established. Versailles needed to either cripple Germany, and punish them for their actions (the view shared by Clemenceau, and the French and British public [Lloyd-George won the general election of 1918 on the promise that he would "squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak"]). Or, it needed to be fair- basically, it had to either make sure Germany COULD never wage war or again, or WOULD NOT WANT TO wage war again.

Because of the opposing views, a compromise was established. Also- if the American people hadnt continued their policy of isolationism, then the accession of the USA to the LoN would have been ratified, and Fascist aggression in Manchuria in 1931, Abyssinia in 1935-6, and Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Poland, 138-9 would never have happened. America is directly responsible for WW2 in several ways, and then conveniently stayed out of it for 2 years until they were attacked by Japan.

ALSO- TALEBAN, NOT TALIBAN. TALEBAN NOT TALIBAN. TALEBAN NOT TALIBAN.


TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN(boy this sure is fun :D!)

India was already a thriving Empire when you arrived. First you guys started off trading, then the frenchies come and trade too. Then you build up your army there. The frenchies do too. Then the French and the British go to war. Surprise surprise, the British won. That makes you guys think that you can just convert one of the greatest empires in asia(the Moguls), and make them into a sort of slave-state. Cheap labor, nice people, nice tea. Perfect combination. Then WWI breaks out. You guys say "Why dont we take some Bengali Cavalry to the war?" .then World WAr two breaks out. The indians defend against the Japanese, supported by a small amount of british soldiers. Then, fearing that you guys would have ANOTHER war on your hands, you decided to free the Indian Sub-continent. Unfortunatly, you guys dont make a smart plan to devide up the country, like making the Borders all wrong, leaving huge chunks of land, and giving one country land that neither of the cultures in the country want(*cough*Bangladesh to Pakistan. *cough* Kashmir to India*cough*). The two nations (india and Pakistan) Go to war THREE TIMES. Over a million or two people die in all three wars combined, mostly civilians. Now the two countries are nearly ont he brink of war... AGAIN! And this time both sides have Nuclear Arsenals on the top ten list (Pakistan is like 9 and India is around 6 or 7).

Now about Versailles. You know two wrongs dont make a right. They make a REALLY wrong. Forcing the Germans to become small, weak, and powerless would have worked in the 1700 hundreds. But back then Europe was still using Napoleanic tactics. So they figure that humiliating the country and destroying its Economy will work just FINE! It doesnt. A Radical racist, Hitler, who wouldnt have come to power if you guys had just been a bit easier on the Treaty, comes to power. 6 million jews are killed in death camps, 20 million Germans, 20 million Russians, and about 5-10 milion MORE people from all the other countries, die. I dont think the people who wrote the treaty were looking ahead in time, besides to the big feast they would get because they officially ended the war and really turned Germany into a skeleton of its former glory.

And how you said i cant insult your country because all this stuff happend in the past, Then you cant insult mine. Its that simple. Of course, you insulted my past, so i had to retalliate. I am an excellent debater, and since my teacher has taught me to "Question Everything". I shall. And you should too.

(That way this argument can be more interesting :))

Oh, and about the slavery remark you made.

The United states went to WAR over that VERY ISSUE. If you dont happen to know what im talking about, let me inform you. Tens of thousands of men, charging across open fields into the artillery of the enemy posistions. Hundreds fall, yet they still charge on. eventually they reach the enemy lines, and fierce fighting ensues. Bayonet charges, cavalry charges, artillery fire, rifle volleys. The fighting goes on for hours and hours, until one side is forced to retreat.

That is baisically what your average battle in the American Civil war would be. It started over some small petty dispute, but it was soon relised it was a war for the freedom of slaves. The North had abolished slavery in their states, and it was illegal to ship new slaves to the U.S. by 1810. Of course, the south still employed slaves, so there was a war. Spaning 5 years, over 600,000 people died, which was QUITE alot for a war during that period. Millions of soldiers were called up into the grand armies that fought in the south, and occasionally the north. After the war was over, there were 600,000 dead, millions wounded, and nearly the entire south was in ruins. Then the slaves were free. Of course, in the south there was still deep prejudice. In the North there was, but to a MUCH smaller degree. In the south, the KKK ravaged the Black population. Once JFK and Martin Luther King came, however, within 5 years segregation was abolished. And that was only in the south. In the North, Slavery had never been big. So if your gonna say that the U.S. kept slaves till 1950, i think you should look over the facts.