metzelaars_lives

Of course he does. What bothers me more than anything is how people mock other QB's like they're a complete farce but get overly defensive if you say that you think EJ Manuel probably won't develop into a franchise QB. Like Kelly Holcomb for instance. Do I think EJ Manuel could potentially develop into a better QB than Kelly Holcomb? Yes I do. But it's not a given. Their numbers are similarly pedestrian thus far. A team trusted Kelly Holcomb as their starting QB six years into his career. Will EJ Manuel even be in the league in six years? Really looking forward to seeing this thing play out. I hope that the EJ dreamers can give me a big fat 'I told you so' but I just don't see it happening. And that link doesn't tell me if that is what they called themselves or that is a name that the white settlers came up with for them. Much the same way the Lakota were mistakenly called "Sioux" by white settlers. Sioux is actually a Lakota word meaning "enemy." Hell, they're not even freaking Indians.

Somehow Van Miller has managed to become underrated in Buffalo sports lore. Why does Rick Jeanneret get SO much more attention as being a legendary broadcaster than Van Miller? This is something I have always wondered. I LOVE Rick Jeanneret and I will certainly miss him when he is gone too but I always thought he was more than a little hammy. Van Miller was the absolute best. John Murphy was so good as a color man back then too. That broadcast was perfect- it was the voice of my childhood. I am glad John Murphy is the head announcer now because of the link there but he will always be a color man in my opinion. Van Miller is my favorite sports announcer of all time, in any sport, and it's not even close.

Damn man, you are good at this. I obviously have a lot of work to do. How can I learn to debate people about the Civil War on football webstes like you? The issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and the War also being a matter of the federal government exerting its power over state governments are anything but mutually exclusive ideas in this case. Of course both those things are true. I said something about the issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and you said that I was "off the mark" as far as what the Civil War was about. It's all right here in this thread for your viewing pleasure. As far as that hypothetical, I was responding to your assertion that the War was a war of Northern aggression and that they were totally unjustified in attacking the South, which they didn't- another fact that you got wrong in this thread and have yet to address. Look, I'm willing to chalk this one up to miscommunication but I don't like your tone one bit.

I can't believe this thread exists. The patriots' head coaching situation isn't very good because there is always the chance that Belichick could suffer from early onset dementia. I'm not certain that Flynn & Jimmy G are any worse than Cassel & Boyuel. I would take Cassel out of the 4 to win one game but how can you declare Boyuel an average nfl qb already? He has been below average by any standard. At least Jimmy G has more of that unknown quality that you guys love so much. But I would agree that qb situation aside, the bills have a much stronger roster than the pats.

Schmidt's Gay was a nice little addition last year.

What if Kansas fired the first shots as the Confederacy did (you had inaccurately stated that they did not)? And what if Kansas was insistent on spreading slavery throughout other regions of the US and even parts of the Caribbean as well? Ya know you have been extremely confrontational and condescending in this thread yet your original argument was that the issue of slavery was not at the root of the Civil War. I was certain it was and after reading up more on it today, slavery was more directly responsible for the War than I even remembered. In fact, it was almost the sole reason for the War- certainly the biggest reason. If you want to argue that Lincoln should have said, "fine, secede from the Union, do whatever you want with your slaves, feel free to spread slavery to the western states as well and oh yeah, that attack on Fort Sumter- we'll just let that slide, retreat and be on our way. Good luck with your new country" and you want to call the Union the aggressors in the War then that's totally up to you. But if you are going to sit here and tell me that the South's desire to preserve and further spread the institution of slavery was not the primary factor in their formation of the Confederacy in the first place, you are simply wrong.

As if there is one team in the entire NFL that wouldn't have had a few blackouts if they endured the last decade and a half that Bills fans have. Perhaps if we cheer really loudly this season, us and those lame Chiefs fans can aspire to be as good as those wild and crazy Falcons fans.

Before Bledsoe, the Patriots were a distant 4th fiddle.

OK that too. That doesn't go against anything I said.

No I am more of an isolationist than most. However if a state smack dab in the middle of our country- let's say Kansas- decided to secede and bring back slavery, you are on record as saying we should say, "hey go at it Kansas, who are we to tell you what to do?" I think the only place we're off is that I am contending that it became inevitable by 1860/61 with Lincoln's election. I never said anything about the 1850's. And as you even alluded to, if peacefully ending slavery wasn't inevitable then war was- and that's what it ultimately took to end it.

Dude, Lincoln took office in 1861 and the Confederacy was formed that same year as an immediate, direct reaction to his election. They saw the writing on the wall that he was going to abolish slavery- which he did, just four years later, and he would've done it sooner if not for the War. The growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North had reached a majority and now that the Republicans had the White House and control of the new Congress, it was only a matter of time. After reading more about this last night, it's pretty clear that the issue of slavery was THE PRIMARY reason for the formation of the Confederacy and their subsequent secession. So yeah.

OK fair enough. So if part of what the Dakotas wanted to do in their new country was bring back slavery, are we OK with that as well?

I didn't say anything about why the US entered the War. Washington was fully aware of the Holocaust and would've had to get involved eventually but was goaded into action probably about a year ahead of when they wanted to because of Pearl Harbor. It's actually a bit shameful that the US didn't get involved in Europe sooner than they did. As far as the Civil War, so if this fall the Dakotas decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of the US because they objected to gay marriage, I can assume you would support the President if he were to say, "OK fine, North and South Dakota, you win, we now recognize you as an autonomous country and you may govern however you want, even though your states are within the boundaries of the US. Oh you're electing your own leaders and printing your own money now? That's cool, we totally recognize that too. Oh what's that, you want us to move our military bases and military personnel that we've had stationed in the Dakotas for decades? No problem, we'll be out of there in no time."

So the issue of slavery and the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery amidst, we'll call it rumors that slavery might be abolished, played absolutely zero role in the formation of the Confederacy?

So the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the face of its inevitable abolishment was not one of the Confederacy's primary points of contention with the Union? You'll have to forgive me- I haven't really read up on this stuff since graduating with a degree in American History. How did I do on World War II? Was I wrong about the Germans desire to conquer Europe being the primary catalyst in that war (at least the European theatre)? Maybe it had something to do with Norway or something.

If Jerry Garcia could do it, Pierre-Paul will be just fine.

Ha thanks for the laugh. I actually thought you were serious for a split second!

I don't even know what we're talking about at this point. What is it exactly that you are trying to get across in this thread? I have made my stance quite clear. I haven't even touched the Redskins thing because- never mind. I only commented on the Confederate flag and agreed with everyone else except for one strunzo, who is really gaining a reputation around here, that it could and should be construed as offensive. I don't know what else I can add beyond that.

Wow. Did you not read my initial post? What about it led you to believe that I could have possibly been stupid enough to write in a subsequent post that World War II was about German pride? It was clearly satirical, drawing a parallel between a hypothetical future in which German people celebrated the Nazi flag as "German pride" much the same way Southerners feel a sense of "Southern pride" in the Confederate flag- when the reasons behind the Confederates seceding (largely the preservation of slavery) and the Germans attempting to conquer Europe (eventual world domination and the eradication of non-Aryan races- again, far more egregious than the Confederates) are really nothing to be prideful about. And yes, I'm serious.

Are you serious thinking that I could have possibly been serious?

It was about the Germans and their attempt to spread their German pride throughout Europe. At least that's what the European theatre was about.

Honest question- how many Native Americans do you know personally that are NOT offended by the term? Sounds like you know quite a few. Just curious.

The ultimate irony here is that the Toby Keithers- the ones who profess to love America more than the rest of us- are the same people who still celebrate a flag that symbolizes, above all else, an ill-fated attempt to LEAVE AMERICA. Now I'm going to preface this by saying that I think Nazis were way worse than Confederates. However if in 100 years people are flying the swastika flag and people born 100 years after the conclusion of World War II are saying "It's just a German pride thing, that's all," they may think they're being sincere but that doesn't change what World War II was really about. And anyone who doesn't recognize that preserving slavery was at the crux of the Confederates' decision to secede needs to go back and take American History 101.

I was up early one morning last week and it was unseasonably chilly out. I closed my eyes for a second and realized that it's all happening in just two months: cool autumn nights and mornings, imperial pumpkin beers and most importantly, Bills-Colts. And only a month after that, Eichel/O'Reilly/Kane time. Is there any doubt that September and October are the two best months of the year?

Yes of course I think EJ Manuel has a better chance of being successful in this league than Tim Tebow. Obviously I was being sarcastic. But I do think it's OK to have opinions on a QB after 14 games, that was more my point.