A sad sorry case, who has shown ylou up twice on little wars your insecure ass chose to start. You have shown you knew nothing in depth about the 2000 election and now very little about the US revolutionary war. Your cute little attempt at being smart may impress whatever group of dullards you hang out with, but in this last post, you have provied no visible evidence ont he subject you brought up other than childish jibes. Maybe you need friends, or maybe you are just a child who acts out in any manner to get attention, I don't know. Somehow you claim 6,000 troops is ESSENTIAL to win a war in over 5+ years where there were over 500,000 participants. It's so mind boggling lame I can't believe I wasted this much time trying to debate it with your thick skull. You clearly either omit of have no clue that the French didn't even enter the war until they were sure the American colonies were winning. (the French governments opinion on the war kills your theory there.) So anyway begone, you started another litlle war, got schooled and now can't deal with it. It's tiresome, though funny that you don't even realize how unsophisticated your arguments on these threads are. Keith
i like froch but he needs to wind his neck in with this seen as he got a gift against dirrell and now he's throwing his toys out
More ad hominem attacks and speculation on your pathetic part about the messenger, and **** all about the points actually raised. Not too surprising. You can't refute the post, so you try a few jabs at the poster. But all you achieve is continued exposure of your woeful ignorance on American history and government. You don't have the necessary background and depth to understand the topic, so you conclude that it can't possibly have unfolded in a manner you can't get your tiny brain around. Sort of like saying there was no way Adamek could have beaten Arreola as the size and power difference is too great, ignoring the fact that it actually happened. Again, facts are not your friend here. The Simple truth of the matter is that the French intervention, both on land and sea, were decisive in the defeat of the British. This content is protected http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_world_france.html Now make that your last bottle and quit making a **** of yourself, lad. It's going to be embarrassing when you sober up and read the **** you've been posting.
So you got a guy from PBS talking about financial and military aid. that's great, I already reqouted some of your "sites" that you posted which say the exact opposite. Let's recap, real quick, real slow, so your google happy ass can understand. 1> My point is the US would have won the war without French military aid. 2. I never mentioned financial aid, their supply of gunpowder was very useful and ESSENTIAL. 3. The French provided 6000 troops. 4. 6000 is not MORE (your words) than 250,000. 5. The French(and Spanish who you like to omit) naval blockades helped speed up American victory, however were not essential. 6. The French did not join the war until, in their words "The colonists were winning" 7. By the end of the war the American colony army was actually disappointed in what the French provided as it wasn't as much help as they thought. (From one of your sites.). So from that you surmised the US would still be and English possession if not for French MILITARY troops. Are you really that dumb? And if you want ad hominem attacks go back and read some of your posts. I know you will never admit that you overreached here and got into an agrument that you were not truly prepared for, but take a cue from the last thread I closed on you, and let it lie. Now go google your response, because I know that you aren't smart enough to quit. :yep Keith
No, you didn't. You have not quoted anything from anywhere so far. (That you think you did is just more evidence of your tenuous grip on reality.) You haven't produced ANY evidence of anything whatsoever. Just your own confused muddling of what you believe. Your disdain for google and evidence is a result of your inability to find anything to butress your horse****. You don't have a ****in' point, you haven't produced a single piece that supports a single thing you've posted Nope. Never said that. Go back and read post #99. As you appear to challenged when it comes to finding things, I'll help you out: See above. You're the fool that can't understand what you read. As you've raised nothing new, there's no need to refute you again. My last post said it all. This content is protected http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_world_france.html :deal Nothing more needed. The point is not even controversial.
This is what I mean. You google **** and don't even understand what you are reading or presenting. THE WEBSITE YOU GOOGLED provided evidence for my points. You then post some guy from PBS whose life is to play up Ben Franklin, and you don't even get that right. Did you miss the word financial in there? Whoops, big miss, since I was never arguing that point. That's why I was careful to recap, because I knew you were stuck and would try to change the subject of the debate into a strawman. It was quite predicatable. Also I like the dishonesty of your post about indpendance. Your meaning was clear in what you posted, but not what you quoted. I guess better to hide the facts than face up to them. I never argued against Frances financial aid, just their military one. 6000 troops are not ESSENTIAL. (Your point) The French naval blockade not ESSENTIAL to victory. Move along......... Keith
More of the same. Again, you couldn't dig up a single piece of evidence to contradict the main point of our whole dispute, namely, that French intervention was essential and decisive in the conflict. And then you rattle on about not understanding. The sheer irony ! What part of This content is protected can't you get your tiny mind to grasp ?
I.m begining to like Froch and i think he fought his best fight vs. Kessler and gave Kessler a hell of a fight - and why, because Froch is a much better a boxer than people gives him credit for..............and he will beat Abraham. But he has to stop wining vs. Sauerland. If Froch has his way: Kessler fights in US, DK and US Abraham fights i D, US and UK Froch fights in his hometown, DK (les than 2 hours away from home traveled by privat jet and car) and hometown. Come on Froch.............................:|
Froch showed me more in defeat against Kessler than in any of his victories, so far. That said, if they can't agree on a venue, he should face AA in the US. Neutral territory, no excuses !
Vegas is the most neutral spot for a fight in the world. I've been saying this forever. Those who have disagreed were wrong. Those who still disagree continue to be wrong.
i think Kessler still would have von even if it was i the uk. and i still think the super six is open for anyone to win. i just cant wait to read all the bull**** thats is going to come out , when they have to find venues for the simi fights.
If Dirrell (who in many eyes dominated Froch) didn't get the decision in Nottingham; then Kessler (who in many eyes barely beat Froch, and in a few even lost to Froch) wouldn't have stood a chance in hell of getting a decision in Nottingham.
I agree, what is wrong with a neutral venue, neutral ref and neutral judges. I can understand froch's concerns but in all honesty he signed on to fight in the super6 fully aware that at some point he would have to fight on unfamiliar ground.
If he were to join will he then start at 0 would he not get Froch's points since it would be him he's replacing or Abraham's if it was him?