I'm Proud to be an Okie from Lahoma....

[MajGenl.Meade]

You got it.

[Lord Jim]

"the North" is not symmetrically guilty.

That gets no one off the hook. Just a racist excuse.

Rube...

Have you been paying any attention...

Any attention at all...

To the discussions we've been having on this topic?

If you had, you would know, that the last thing...

The very last thing...

That Meade could be properly accused of would be making excuses for Southerners...

If nothing else, Meade has made quite clear that he considers those who stood for The Cause to be traitors...

(We really beat that horse beyond glue; into a fine mist...)

In the interest of long term, well meaning and respectful good fellowship, it would probably be best if we did not revisit that topic...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks, LJ. But rubato might legitimately argue that a person could on the one hand condemn rebellion against the legal US government as "treason" while that same person could also be a racist. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Anyhoo, I've got a bonsai tree and rube's got his bigger tree

[Lord Jim]

Thanks, LJ. But rubato might legitimately argue that a person could on the one hand condemn rebellion against the legal US government as "treason" while that same person could also be a racist. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

You know Gen'l, you and I agree on so many things, do you really want to replay this?

Just askin'...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah, maybe my meaning is not clear.

What I'm saying is that any person, including me, could (a) believe it was treason and (b) also be a racist. That's all.

This isn't to argue anything about the War of the Rebellion or treason vs. not treason. And it's not starting an argument that rebels were racists. Leave both aside, please

Think of it this way - your average Federal soldier in 1861 was more than likely (a) to think the rebels were traitors AND (b) did not want "darkies" anywhere near his own house.

i.e. your point that because I think rebels are... er, rebels... then I cannot be a racist is, in fact, not a sound argument. The one does not rule out the other.

That's all. I thank you for the defense but actually it doesn't work.

Like the Cleveland Browns

[Lord Jim]

Like the Cleveland Browns

Speaking of real football...

The Skins are playing The Patriots this coming Sunday...

The Redskins are 3-4 but remarkably are right in the hunt in the NFC East, in second place....(It's a very weak division this year..)

You do realize that if the Redskins beat the High And Mighty New England Patriots, somebody around here is never going to hear the end of it....

[Guinevere]

Care to remind folks of the score the last time the Washington Natives came to Gillette? In case they want to make any wagers, of course . . . .

ETA: Don't ask me, I don't bet on games where I care about the outcome.

The line: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2585 ... s-nfl-pick

Two touchdowns are a ton when it comes to betting the NFL, and even the New England Patriots have troubles with numbers like that, going just 3-8 against the spread their last 11 times out in that spot. New England contends with a big number again when it entertains Washington Sunday afternoon in Foxborough.

Point spread: The Patriots opened as 13-point favorites; the total was 52 early in the week, according to sportsbooks monitored by Odds Shark. (Line updates and matchup report)

NFL pick, via Odds Shark computer: 33.9-12.8 Patriots


Why the Redskins can cover the spread

Washington snapped a two-game losing streak two weeks ago with a rousing 31-30 come-from-behind victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, then enjoyed last week off.

The Redskins looked like a lost cause early against the Bucs, falling down 24-0 midway through the second quarter on a Tampa fumble return for a score.

But from there, quarterback Kirk Cousins ran for one score, then threw three touchdown passes, the last with 24 seconds to go, to give the Redskins the unlikely win. On the day, Cousins hit on 33 of 40 throws for 317 yards with zero picks, saving his spot as the starter, at least for another week.

Washington may have its share of problems, but at 3-4, it's just a half-game out of first place in the NFC East.

Why the Patriots can cover the spread

The Patriots strengthened their claim as the best team in football last Thursday, mauling the Miami Dolphins 36-7, easily covering as eight-point favorites. New England took a 7-0 lead five minutes into the game and never let the Dolphins back in, thoroughly dominating. On the night, the Patriots outgained Miami 437-270, held the Fish to just 15 yards rushing and won time of possession by over five minutes.

New England is now 4-3 ATS this season, which is great considering it's been favored by at least a touchdown six of seven times out. Also, the last time the Patriots were favored by two touchdowns, they beat the Jacksonville Jaguars 51-17 six weeks ago.

Smart pick

New England should win this game easily; it leads the league in scoring at 36 points per game, while Washington has been outgained its last three games by an average of over 170 yards. But as mentioned above, two touchdowns is a whole lot in the NFL; the Patriots have won by that much “only” three times this season, while the Redskins have yet to lose by that much. Take the dog and the points.

[Guinevere]

Pats lost the coin toss, but covered the spread. 27-10 and it wasn't even that close.