birdog1960

well it is a good example of wilson's meddling which you seem to deny exists. i remember walking into titans stadium and watching johnson warming up with the first team in disbelief...and cursing wilson.

like no bills gm or coach has ever abruptly resigned? it certainly wouldn't be the first time but i suspect nix and gailey( and the uninterested candidates) knew what they were getting into. i doubt they'd do that. i don't doubt wilson would but neither you nor i will likely ever know. i think we all agree that wilson meddles to the detriment of the team and its fans. the only question is the extent.

don't know the book but as the Time article points out, pop culture played a big part in propagating civil war myths. those slaves in "gone with the wind" were so darn happy!

i voted for bachman cuz i'm a bleeding heart and didn't want her feelings to be hurt

best of luck. it would probably be wise to not refer to any of your professors as pointy headed liberals...

this feigned disbelief that wilson would demand his underlings to draft particular players is amusing. why is it that most everyone else who follows the nfl knows that wilson's meddling over the years has greatly harmed the bills but many of the folks who follow the team very closely here choose to disregard the overwhelming supporting evidence for this contention? remember when the search for a new gm and coach was on? ya think the remarkable lack of interest in both positions by top candidates had anything to do with wilson? i truly hope i'm wrong but unless a leopard changes his spots, it will be a qb at 3 and it will be wilson's call. lets just hope he finally gets one right.

No. there are plenty of fine educators in this country but there are some very bad ones also. this is true even in private schools although, in general, I believe the quality is higher despite lower salaries and benefits. you really seem to have a problem with formal education of any kind. did someone hit your knuckles too hard with a ruler or dislike and downgrade some of your ideas? and ocinn, there you go again. rather than supporting a highly controversial reform effort don't you think it would be easier to say, open a weight loss center or pain clinic, if the bottom line was the highest priority?

money

"if newton slides....ralph wilson is surely to weigh in". the only way he doesn't weigh in is if he oversleeps on draft day or is in some other manner indisposed. otherwise it will be a qb at #3. it has been decreed.

"in the decade before the war, per capita wealth grew twice as fast in the south as it did in the north and the prices of slaves and land both rose by some 70%". do you refute this? "...the modern version (of the lost cause) comes from a clique of liberterians who view the union as a ferocious example of authoritarian central govt crushing individual dissent. slave owners make odd liberterian heroes..."

can't believe no one has said it yet but the odds are pretty good we'll be 0-0.

correlation does not imply causation. people who carry lighters have higher rates of lung cancer...

sounds vaguely familiar... damn those biased historians with an axe to grind and that mainstream media liberal time magazine

i have a tough time sympathizing with the folks in the article. the way i see it, the private sector has all but eliminated employer funded, traditional retirement plans and the government (in some states) has continued or even sweetened their already generous plans. it's not about appreciation of service. it's about inherent fairness. the benefits (and salaries, be they higher or lower) should be comparable in both sectors. very few workers in the private sector can retire at age 50 despite years of hard work and service and given life expectancy this is reasonable. it's unreasonable for public sector employees to expect and be given a better deal. add to this the fiscal crisis that most states face and the frustrations regarding this issue are understandable.

your pockets must be incredibly deep. do you have any inkling as to what a liver transplant might cost you?

"well now we know that there's a better gift for that day (valentines) than chocolates" makes me think that at least part of the origination site of the editorial was from the most distant portion of his GI tract.

1.14% drop in the dow does not a crisis make, yet anyway. but for once, i agree with cantor. this is a warning shot. health care does not equal porn even if a prominent surgeon feels there are beneficial mood effects from semen for females (see my off the wall post). so raise taxes and cut spending starting with medicare, medicaid and social security. rationing is now mandatory, whatever they decide to call it.

oops...this guy WAS a legend at U of Michigan. inventor of the greenfield filter to stop migration of blood clots to the lungs. now will probably be remembered as a weirdo.

but unfortunately, likely a futile attempt to change opinions here. it just doesn't fit with some posters global "vision" and thus will be rejected out of hand. and there were southern abolitionists as well. very brave and very unpopular. your explanation of the ability to motivate those without direct interest in the war reminds me of a most recent American war and a Hermann Goering quote: "Naturally the common people don't want war...and it's always a simple matter to bring the people along...Voice or no voice the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country". Goering prefaced this statement with this question: " Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to return to his farm in one piece?" quite an appropriate question in the context of the civil war.

very appropriate since we're discussing history... societal attacks on intellectuals haven't worked out so well in the past but it seems very popular again in certain circles. maybe this era will be different? and appeal to authority is a recognized logical fallacy but not necessarily an inappropriate device when experts in a discussion are lacking. it's what is done every time an author cites another's work in a scholarly piece.

. i'm always amused when amateur experts are certain they know so much more than classically educated, published, respected, degreed experts in a field. at happens all the time in fields such as medicine, architecture, accounting, law and even trades like construction and plumbing, frequently with disastrous results. sometime the experts disagree or are just wrong but very frequently consensus opinions of experts whose life work is in a particular field, are correct. i believe this is the case on the question of slavery versus states rights as the cause of the civil war. fortunately, the overwhelming consensus opinion resulting from the scholarship of the most respected experts on the subject agrees with mine. if the thesis of my high school term paper on the subject, the results of a few google searches seeking a desired opinion or conversations with those holding similar views as mine was inconsistent with that consensus, i might take exception, however.

um, did you even read the wiki article on fort sumter that you posted? sure, an apt analogy with iraq, afganistan and vietnam . keep trying...iran might work.

cotton doesn't grow well in west virginia. hitler did invade russia many southerners still seek a noble cause to validate their losses and maybin just sucks as an nfl player, nothing more, nothing less.

what you fail to grasp is that like most modern wars, this war wasn't fought for the common man (even though it was fought by him- the rich could buy their way out in the north)). poor southerners didn't own slaves. they commanded lower wages because of the presence of slaves (in much the same manner as asian laborers hurt american blue collar workers today- history does repeat itself). this was a war to decide who would stay rich, get richer or lose their wealth. the southern planters lost. yes, there were post war abuses but again that has nothing to do with the reason for the war. btw, listen to tonights news hour on PBS (i'm watching it as i type- the president of harvard, an historian from univ of south carolina (listen closely to what he says) and a professor from howard univ all weigh in. it seems you didn't listen too well in class. they all agree that the vast majority of historians agree that the civil war was about slavery and not states rights. maybe you had an outlier teacher.

so your argument boils down to:average homes weren't much better than slave quarters there were poor people in the south the federal govt wanted to tax an industry (that's novel and a valid reason for revolution and treason) therefore, the war wasn't about slavery. brilliant. i wish i could cypher just like you.