CosmicBills

Um ... ... I'm not a trained psychiatrist or nothin' but I have a hunch this was a wee bit of an overreaction.

I expect him to be what he is: an average NFL starter with wiggle room to be slightly above or below average when the dust settles. I'd bank on somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 - 3,200 yards, a sub %60 completion percentage, 22-27 TDs with 13 - 17 INTs.

Egg-xactly. I hope to be wrong of course, I don't want to lose a single game this season. But I don't have high hopes. And I'm normally a pretty optimistic guy!

Racism is not limited to the south. Boston, a city I lived in for years and this bastion of liberalism, is probably one of the most racist cities I've ever experienced. I am by no means a Civil War expert and do not mean to come off as one. It was an area of study for sure, but my concentration in undergrad was Slavery in the Americas -- pre-colonial through the Civil War. The Confederacy had advantages the North did not (fighting on its own turf being one ... as well as simultaneously a disadvantage). But the North did enjoy a vastly more sophisticated and uniform rail network (the South had plenty of railroads, just different gauge tracks which made transport difficult) and industry. I'm not sure where you're getting the falling numbers of Yankee troops (and please correct me or point me in the direction if I'm wrong), but the most the Confederates could ever muster (roughly) was around 1 million to 1.5. The Union had numbers well into the 2 million. The population was far denser in the North thanks to urbanization and I'm fairly certain that part of the South's problem was its inability to match the sheer volume of troops the Union army could produce. Heck, Grant's MO was to just send wave after wave of troops (especially in Vicksburg before settling into a siege mentality). Time was not on the Confederacy's side. Their best hope was to win the war early -- not because they had lesser generals or were some how inferior intellectually. But because they just didn't have the numbers.

I can already tell you what will be on it: NOTHING. No games in '11.

Well if you say so ...

Yet, if a man has a dog as a pet who he cares for, no matter how mean and grumpy that man is, deep down he has a good heart and will reveal himself to be a worthy hero.

Sure, I'm not arguing that at all. I never claimed that the majority of Union troops fought for slavery. I'm not drunk enough to argue that. But of the over 2 million Union soldiers there were plenty of soldiers who fought exactly for that reason. As you stated before, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves as it only applied to states currently in secession. That was the brilliance (and the weakness) of the statement. It appeased the abolitionist (which Lincoln needed to do), while also keeping the boarder states in tow as well as, if not more importantly, keeping France and England from siding with the Confederacy since both nations were strongly anti-slavery at the time. There were certainly large numbers of Union troops who could care less about slavery (they were drafting immigrants fresh off the boat from Ireland, amongst other places, into the army the moment they stepped onto US Soil). There were certainly large numbers of troops (mainly officers and the over 200,000 African American troops enlisted in the Union army) who believed they were fighting a moral war against slavery. And there were plenty who didn't bother to get involved in the political minutia of the war itself. What do you mean? No serious scholar has ever suggested that the Confederate forces were weaker in terms of tactics, weaponry or education. The Union had many advantages that the Confederacy did not have; including sheer numbers and industrial might to create the weapons of war that the agrarian south lacked. But Johnny Reb was not an unsophisticated soldier. In fact, they dominated the early portions of the war. But, as was said above, they were fighting a losing effort from the top. Their way of life, their society was not as equipped for a prolonged war of attrition as the Union forces. That's not to say the Confederacy was weaker or less sophisticated -- they were just smaller in numbers and lacked the industrial capacity to keep pace.

Sure. But the interesting part of the article is the notion that since there are no safe picks, and since no other position can turn a team's fortunes around faster than a QB, it's better to gamble on a QB early even if there's a sure fire talent at OL, DL, DE, LB. Even if that QB is a gamble. I still don't see the Bills taking Gabbert or Newton next week though. But it's interesting.

Food for thought with regards to Newton or Gabbert.

That Paul Walker is the world's greatest living comedian.

Happy belated, my man!

Don't hold your breath

It is an excellent summary and shows that the players have a momentary edge -- but it's one the owners expected and planned for even before the union decertified. Then again, it's the NYT, a very pro-labor paper. Still, the facts aren't in dispute: the Nelson ruling probably won't affect much. It's the ruling in the Court of Appeals in St. Louis that will probably decide how quickly a deal is struck.

He doesn't care about facts. He cares about being "right" at all costs. Which is hilarious because he can't engage in any sort of honest intellectual debate (about anything) because he lacks the abilities to understand the finer points of logic and language. Good stuff.

... I'm not trying to be difficult at all so forgive me. I just don't know what you classify as the Disney version. Specifically. Admittedly what I was taught in school was different than most I'm sure, but I was never taught that slavery was the one and only reason for the war. Like everything, it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. But that doesn't mean it didn't play any role. In fact it played a huge role and was the most visible and identifiable issue for both sides to rally around. Put it another way, if slavery never existed in the colonies, there most likely would have still been a conflict at some point -- but probably not close to the scale and carnage that actually occurred. The issue of state's rights is still an issue that's fought over in politics today. It's the nature of the republic. However slavery was more than just an issue of state's rights. It was a question of morality. It was an incredibly charged political and social issue. One where moralists in the north (and south) refused to sit by and watch this stain on the fabric of the nation continue to go unchecked. Once someone takes a moral position in a political debate, it's a slippery slope. However, slavery as an institution was never going to continue forever in the United States. The founding fathers knew as much when they sat down to debate the constitution. Slavery existed in New York as late as 1827, but look back to the revolution. Slavery was such a hot button topic that the framers of the constitution refused to address it. There was no way the southern colonies were going to sign the constitution if slavery was prohibited -- despite the best efforts of the (at the time) grass roots abolitionist movement, the issue of slavery was left up to future generations to decide. It wasn't until 1808 that the importation of slaves was banned by the federal government. There wasn't a single founding father that didn't address the issue of slavery in their personal documents and journals during the lead up ... it was a very divisive issue even back then when slavery still existed in some, if not most, of the northern states as well. The flames only grew as the years passed and the abolitionist movement became stronger. At its heart, the issue of slavery was deemed to be a state's right issue by the confederacy. But for the abolitionists it never was an issue of state's rights, it was a moral issue. There simply was no way for both cultures to co-exist on the same continent, let alone in the same union, with such a huge moral issue in play. The southern intellectuals did their best to justify slavery (some of their justifications were brilliant in fact) by using the Bible (the abolitionists own weapon) against the north. Others took a more fundamental economic approach to attempt to stem the tide. When that failed, the wealthy upper class of the south (who were the only ones who actually owned slaves) used the issue of state's rights to rile up the lower classes in the south and turn the issue from a moral one into a fundamental fight for their personal freedoms. The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. Too expensive for the common man to afford. The intellectuals in the south knew they couldn't sell the war on slavery alone (because the majority didn't own slaves), they had to twist it into something bigger: state's rights. Which, make no mistake, certainly were a factor. But the existence of slavery, above all else, in the southern colonies led to the civil war, which in many ways was just an extension of the revolutionary war as it finally settled the one issue the founding fathers couldn't tackle in the late 1700s.

What's the Disney version?

Hundreds of thousands of union soldiers went to war for that reason. The primary source material from the day bear that out. Read the journals, the letters home, the newspapers of the day. They believed in what they were fighting for even if they didn't understand the full nuances of the conflict. We have the benefit of 150 years of distance.

Slavery still exists in the western world. It exists in the United States. Human Trafficking is a very lucrative and growth industry. It's not the same type of slavery, it's mainly prostitution and sexual in nature, but it still exists. As for not reading good (ha!), you can't over blow the connection. Slavery was at the forefront of the war. It was the rallying call, it was the political issue of the day on both sides of the war. It wasn't the only reason for the war -- not by a long shot -- but it was the most visible.

? Slavery did NOT disappear from the rest of the civilized world without a war. In fact, slavery still exists TODAY -- in some very civilized portions of the world as well. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Every race and creed that was ever existed has been enslaved at some point. But make no mistake about it. Slavery in the Americas was a vastly different beast than anything that came before it. It was a most cruel, demeaning and brutal institution. One unlike the world has ever seen. The slaves used were not won on the battle field. They weren't indentured servants. They were taken from their homes and transported thousands of miles and treated not as human beings, but as chattel. Slavery in the Americas was so brutal and extreme it wiped out nearly an entire race of indigenous people (the Caribs) before switching to use African slaves. Also there were plenty of white northern soldiers who enlisted to fight a moral fight. More than you are giving credit to. The abolitionist movement was a sophisticated, highly financed grass roots movement that built up a legion of followers over DECADES. The southern counter points to the abolitionist movement was equally as powerful and compelling (and something that isn't discussed much at all in schools other than universities); creating a two very divisive groups that were ready to tee off on one another by the mid 1800s. As much as you want to, you cannot separate slavery from the civil war. It was not a war fought just for slavery, but slavery was the primary battle ground and rallying call to arms for both sides of the coin. It was THE polarizing issue of the day and representative of the larger issues of state's rights.

1000% correct and well stated. Though I would argue they weren't empty words. Those words were part of a bigger political reality. The genius of the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't free anyone at all. But it gave Lincoln the support he needed from the very powerful abolitionist movement as well as allowed him to toe the line with the border states ...

That is one of the most ignorant, insensitive, and ridiculous posts I have ever read on this board. And that's saying something. I'm flabbergasted to be honest. Forget your points on the reason for the war, it's the rest of your statements that are alarming. Are you really justifying slavery by saying it was the only way to grow cotton and thus the only way for the South to survive? Then, in the same breath claiming that because the slaves got room and board it was a fair deal? Seriously?! You're implying that slaves lived a better life (or at least as good of a life) as the northern factory worker or the poor southern farmer? Do you even understand how absolutely bat-**** crazy that sounds?

I saw it last night ... and I'm with you on most of it. I mean, the hole you point to was so glaring and so obvious to me from the beginning that I assumed it was going to be used to twist the story. Like, "there's no way they're telling Jake the truth". I kept guessing the train explosion either wasn't real or that wasn't really what they were after. The science, from the character's perspective -- not in reality since hey, it's a movie -- was so silly. They want to stop an attack by using the memory of a victim. Huh? Unless that victim was the bomber (another twist I thought they were going to go with) how can they glean anything from his mind that he didn't actually see? Or, more to the point, since you'd assume these gov't scientists would expect this to become some sort of multi-verse thing, how could they trust any of the results he came back with since, they'd either be inventions in his own mind OR things that occur in the alternate world? It was a HUGE hole. And they cover it up by saying, "it was a miracle". But that's lazy and offensive storytelling. The thing was, this was a HOT script 4 years ago. It topped the Black List and everyone was raving about it. I figured they changed it but I went and read it last night after seeing it ... nope. Ugh.

+1

It doesn't matter who won this round or who didn't (let's just call it what it was: a draw). The judge made the right decision NOT to interfere. Force the parties back to the table. If they still screw around and drag their feet THEN step in and force a solution. End of the day what matters is that they're going to resume negotiations which means we're possibly one step closer to a solution that will bring Football back.