Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

"1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S."

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. JeffreyB 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? JeffreyB 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Category 3 is sports-specific in the U.S., so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--Andy Schlafly 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. JeffreyB 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, Christianity, which liberals never want to credit).--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? JeffreyB 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to Olympics 2012 that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--Andy Schlafly 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. JeffreyB 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)