[johnjimbc]

I really don't think anyone here is going to want to hash back through the arguments against the Vancouver games, especially based on a rather vague request from a visitor.

What social upheaval has the Olympics caused? No, not some vague 1 + 1 = 3000 argument. What actual social "upheaval" has been caused by these Games?

What environmental "degradation" has occurred? A widened road? A single passage over a ridge (with special animal-life corridor tunnels built into the design I hasten to add). Does a new transit line not in some way compensate for the supposed "degradation"? This isn't the oil sands so you'll have to explain the term "degradation" and how exactly it applies to the Vancouver Olympics.

AS for finances and tax burden. Taxes fund many things. The decision to host these Games was made years ago. They are underway now. They have already provided economic activity for the province, and their legacy will yield benefits for years to come. Canada has just spent boatloads of money on "stimulus" projects across the country, which many regard as a positive undertaking. Yet somehow the economic stimulus provided by the Olympics is naturally assumed to be "wasteful." Were all those jobs to prepare and execute the Games not of any economic benefit? Is the new transit line a waste? Is improving the deadliest highway in the province wasteful? Are the new community centres provided by the new facilities built in Vancouver and surrounding communities not of ANY compensatory benefit? Is turning a desolate, unproductive stretch of brown-zone former industrial site along False Creek into a new, green, high-density productive neighborhood a "bad" use of funds - particularly given that the neighborhood units are being sold at market rate to recoup most if not all the funds expended on the project?

A bunch of thugs just ran around with masks breaking windows in our city this morning yelling things like "down with the state" so I'm frankly not in the mood to discuss the merits of their "compelling" arguments.

And if you want to, I think you'll need to provide much greater detail on what you find so compelling about their bold stance to be "against" an event in works for nearly a decade and occurring as we discuss the matter.

If someone else wants to have a go at it, have fun. But I'm done playing that game.

P.S. If you are going to regurgitate the entire sad discussion, can you PLEASE start a new thread so the rest of us can ignore it?