Because the South tore the country apart to preserve slavery. Lincoln thought the Civil War was penance for the whole country–because slavery had been permitted to exist after Independence was declared.
Because the northern states abolished it with no gun to their heads.
Nor do they makes excuses for it.
Well, it “lasted longer and only ended at gunpoint”. Northern States voluntarily gave up the institution, and while there was certainly slavery and slave trading in the North, even by the time of the constitution it was largely a Southern institution, and the 1807 vote to illegalize the slave trade largely broke down on regional lines.
And the century long post-war attempt to downplay the wrongs of slavery and marginalize its role in causing the Civil War was also largely a Southern phenomenon.
In that way, the South is much more like the Japanese. They can’t stand the notion that their “honor” is besmirched by some inconvenient fact of history like slavery or the Japanese war atrocities so they rewrite the history to be more consistent with their self image.
Not to mention both employ ancestor worship. 
Your browser has the old ones saved in the cache. Those two must’ve been first used earlier, and wound up deleted from the cache for being too old.
The rest of us only have two of the old ones: :dubious: and :smack:.
So Napolitano was on The Daily Show last night making the same arguments or taking them further. He said Lincoln tricked South Carolina into shooting first, that he was only interested in keeping the South to raise money through tariffs, that people were raped and killed on Lincoln’s command, that Lincoln resented the Southerners for challenging his authority, and on and on. I think the worst statement was that Lincoln’s goal was dominating whites in the South just because that was the most explicit piece of race-baiting. I’m wondering if I’m more disappointed in Stewart for giving Napolitano footage he can take back to his own show- because everybody watching The Daily Show knows this is a pile of garbage, but nobody who likes Napolitano is watching the show.
Someone has been snorting the neo-Confederate/Lost Causers coke stash.
Every time I see Napolitano, and hear him open his mouth, I sit in awe that anyone would listen to the man and not consider him a crackpot who eats his own underwear and showers in transmission fluid.
This inappropriate respect for Napolitano is very reminiscent of how he used to fawn over McCain until he (Stewart) eventually saw him for what he really is. It really took a very long time. Likely he’ll come to recognize Napolitano for what he really is. Maybe last night will be the trigger.
That happened only when McCain veered hard to the right to win the Republican primaries and stopped coming on the show. He’s also still really tight with Bill O’Reilly and I think he’s too enamored of him, too. But at least they have some funny banter and O’Reilly can let the mask slip a little. This slavery bullshit comes much closer to simple racism.
Yeah, had respect for McCain’s moderate voting record and ability to sit and talk with liberals and have a little fun, until he decided that such behavior was unbecoming of a potential President, and what was more important was selling out to the base and only talking to the base and embracing all the things about the base which make the base stubborn, uncooperative, hyper-partisan, and insane.
Then he chose Sarah Palin as an obvious ploy to garner youth attention and female voters, without examining her very closely, or getting to know her. That kind of irresponsible decision making is the same sort of behavior that landed us in a decade-long conflict in Iraq.
Here he is today beating the drum for destroying all relations with Russia and potentially starting another arms race or cold war over behavior that we engage in constantly, which we are outraged by because we’re gigantic hypocrites.
McCain sold out because, having tried it another way and lost once before, he realized it was what he needed to do to win. He was right…ish.
Seeing the whole interview; I’m quite happy that Jon Stewart was so earnest, clear, and quick in his refutations. Jon even highlighted the paradox of championing the Revolutionary War, while rejecting the Civil War (the far more moral war).
That show should be held up as a learning tool for how to deal with people spouting insulting, revisionist, neo-confederacy nonsense.
They did a great job debunking the bullshit, but I can’t shake the feeling that step one should be “don’t invite them on your TV show specifically for the purpose of spouting insulting, revisionist, neo-confederacy nonsense.”
I don’t know, Marley.
It reminds me of the interview Rachel Maddow did with the ex-gay nut.
Yeah, it gives a platform for lunatic to espouse his ridiculous viewpoints. But it also gives a platform for rebuttal, and oh… what a rebuttal.
I say bring the nutjobs on the air and let them state exactly what their positions are, and then calmly tell them and everyone else why they’re wrong.
That’s wonderful.
But does the message get received? People who watch MSNBC already think these anti-gay laws are bullshit, and people who think Lincoln was an evil dictator who hated the white man don’t watch The Daily Show.
Occasionally.
Listen, I spent a lot of time listening to the other side’s talking points. Years of listening to Sean and O’Reilly and others on the radio (pizza man’s got a lot of time on his hands in a car, with a radio, and a lack of interest in the music stations), and then I went out and bought the books written by political commentators from all different political viewpoints, and watched the TV programs.
I’m not alone. There are conservatives and Republicans who do seek out programming which is liberal in order to get what the other side is thinking. You read the comments on the websites detracting Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart or any liberal TV personality and you’ll find your evidence that people who strongly disagree with them watch, at the very least, the clip in question.
Maybe they’re doing it specifically so they can think they’re debunking the claims and arguments of the other side, but the programming is still being seen by a non-100 percent friendly audience.
There’s also a rather large middle group of moderates who actually swing our elections who see what both sides have to say. Reaching those people by showing the vast disparity of the quality of thought between two differing viewpoints helps shape our democracy.
If you are undecided and see first hand how completely clueless and indefensible “ex-gay” stuff is, or how asinine “pro-confederacy” advocates are, then it highlights how poor certain options are for the course of our nation and culture, and especially for those who may not come to the discussion with their mind already set in stone, who end up deciding things for the rest of us who seem to be stuck in a deadlock between the sane and the idiotic.
Preaching only to the choir is one thing, but if your host is respectful to the opposing side and manages to allow them to put their viewpoint out there to be criticized, and then successfully criticizes it with no strong rebuttal, that’s excellent for the great big public discussion that takes place every time we are faced with choices.
Losing when given the opportunity to advance your bullshit cause, to a respectful opponent who makes a strong counter-argument, and is clearly more knowledgeable and has criticisms which cannot be overlooked, is devastating to that particular cause, especially when you’re trying to make your case to a fair-minded person with no set agenda.
It’s unquestionably good for our society, in my mind.
:rolleyes: How cluelessly out-of-touch of them! It’s all meth now!