Conservatives and Sports

Mottleydude said:
Actually, that's not true. If anything guy's like Greg Lemond with a 92/mg/kg VO2 Max and Lance Armstrong and his 6 mg/dl lactic acid threshold are genetic freaks. Even at the Elite profesional level an athlete with a VO2 max in the 90's is a one in a million athlete. In pro cycling only 3 athletes have ever tested a VO2 max over 88. LeMond, Hinault and Indurain. The greatest cyclest ever Eddy Merykx probably was in that range but never had his VO2 max tested. You'll probably only see a handfull of athletes like that in your life time.
Click to expand...
Sure but outward appearance these athletes look like fit, normal Joes. Not so with basketball and football freaks. *shrug*
 
Mottleydude said:
Dude, first, it's correctly called "The 7 Years War" and was a glogal war between the British and the French over their colonial interest and America was still 20 some years away from being a country.
Click to expand...
Inconsequential. Washington and other American patriots fought the French before they started fighting the Brits. *shrug*
 
There was a war with the French, but we were british then.

If we are looking at wars on this continent and calling them ours, go back to the recorded indian wars.
 
Back to the original topic, I don't care what sport is popular. I don't watch a sport because other people watch it. I watch what interests me.

And for my money nothing comes close to NCAA football.
 
As for idolizing the players, I don't do that. I do admire players who honed their ability to be the best at what they did.

The closest I would come to idolizing anyone in sports is my fondness for Paul 'Bear' Bryant. It is partly for his greatness as a coach. But more for the way he treated his players and the philosophy he gave them. I have never met anyone who played for him that didn't swear that their lives were much richer for having had him as a coach. It was not just the sport, but the way the lived was effected.
 
Southern Man said:
The biography of Ben Franklin. The American colonists had a huge problem with attacks from the French from the frontier, and their British King refused to provide adequate protection. *shrug*
Click to expand...

First of all, the French never openly attacked American colonialist or their interest. The Native Americans did at French instigation but that's a big so what. The British were vastly more guilty of instigating Native American atrocities against American colonist then the French ever did and they instigated those attacks against American colonist for a far longer period of time. From 1776 to 1814.

I'm sure Franklin did have a problem with French instigated Indian attacks. He also had a problem when Sir William Johnson did the same thing when he manipulated the Iroquis leage to attack pro French colonist and French Colonial interest in New York State. Franklin was particularly outraged at Johnson and pro British interest for their involvement in the Wyoming Valley massacre.

To reemphasize my point. The British were far more guility of instigating Native American attacks on colonist then the French who, in their dealings with Native Americans, were admirably more peacefull then Anglo relationships. French relations with Native Americans were primarily based on trade and were generaly peaceful. Anglo-British relations with Native Americans were based on conquest of land and were much more violent.

For further reading on the events of the 7 years war in North America I suggest reading Allan Eckerts "The Wilderness Empire". It's a great read.
 
Mottleydude said:
First of all, the French never openly attacked American colonialist or their interest. The Native Americans did at French instigation but that's a big so what. The British were vastly more guilty of instigating Native American atrocities against American colonist then the French ever did and they instigated those attacks against American colonist for a far longer period of time. From 1776 to 1814.

I'm sure Franklin did have a problem with French instigated Indian attacks. He also had a problem when Sir William Johnson did the same thing when he manipulated the Iroquis leage to attack pro French colonist and French Colonial interest in New York State. Franklin was particularly outraged at Johnson and pro British interest for their involvement in the Wyoming Valley massacre.

To reemphasize my point. The British were far more guility of instigating Native American attacks on colonist then the French who, in their dealings with Native Americans, were admirably more peacefull then Anglo relationships. French relations with Native Americans were primarily based on trade and were generaly peaceful. Anglo-British relations with Native Americans were based on conquest of land and were much more violent.

For further reading on the events of the 7 years war in North America I suggest reading Allan Eckerts "The Wilderness Empire". It's a great read.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat what you've read in history books. This merely confirms what I've stated. *shrug*
 
Mottleydude said:
I fail to see that as a relevent point.
Click to expand...
Its relevant because I find it incredibly uninteresting that a guy who's 7'-2" can put a ball through a hoop suspended 10' in the air, or a guy who's 350# can walk into the end zone with a handful of 200 pounders hanging on his neck. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Its relevant because I find it incredibly uninteresting that a guy who's 7'-2" can put a ball through a hoop suspended 10' in the air, or a guy who's 350# can walk into the end zone with a handful of 200 pounders hanging on his neck. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Rachael Ray called she said your soft
 
Just so you know Solitary/ Winterborn since nearly every time you attack me you do so with a caricature of my argument it has become quite tedious. So instead of explaining this to you over and over I'll just do it once here, and from now on I will simply respond with two words, as I just did. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Straw man. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at avoiding the subject.

But you claimed that the french were our first enemy. When people pointed out that the french were an enemy before we were a nation.

When you responded with "There were still Americans". In order for that to be true, you must include native americans or your answer was false.

So my response is not a straw man, it is a correction of the error of your post.
 
WinterBorn said:
Nice attempt at avoiding the subject.

But you claimed that the french were our first enemy. When people pointed out that the french were an enemy before we were a nation.

When you responded with "There were still Americans". In order for that to be true, you must include native americans or your answer was false.

So my response is not a straw man, it is a correction of the error of your post.
Click to expand...
Wow now including Indians new straw man tactic. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top