View Full Version : Fox Does it again
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/daily-show-obliterates-fox-news-confederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/
The Daily Show flattens Andrew Napolitano
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Larry-Wilmore.png
Napolitano said during a Feb. 14 panel discussion that he held a “contrarian position” on Abraham Lincoln, and Stewart played a video clip of his claims.
Napolitano argued that the 16th president could have avoided the “murderous” Civil War if he’d allowed slavery to die a “natural death,” as it had elsewhere – which Wilmore bitterly disputed.
“The South was so committed to slavery that Lincoln didn’t die of natural causes,” he said. “If the free market was just about to end slavery then, then why is it still going on in some places 150 years later? Slave trade is the literal exact opposite of ‘free market.’”
Stewart pointed out that Napolitano’s viewpoint was shared by some libertarians and other Confederate apologists, and that an entire industry had sprung up around their particular school of thought.
Video halfway down...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/daily-show-obliterates-fox-news-confederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/
classhandicapper
02-25-2014, 01:31 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong with the view that slavery would have died in the US without a civil war. It's not a statement of approval of slavery. It's a point of view supported by the fact that slavery died a natural death in other places in the world without killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying cities, pitting family member against family member etc.... It IS a view shared by many anti war libertarians.
Obviously, the counter is that we don't know how long it would have taken to reach the goal and avoid all that death and destruction. In the mean time, blacks would have continued suffering. Perhaps it would have taken so long you can justify the war. But perhaps it would have ended quickly enough that we would have been better off than that horrible war.
IMHO to simply say it would have eventually died in the US is almost certainly correct.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the view that slavery would have died in the US without a civil war. It's not a statement of approval of slavery. It's a point of view supported by the fact that slavery died a natural death in other places in the world without killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying cities, pitting family member against family member etc.... It IS a view shared by many anti war libertarians.
Obviously, the counter is that we don't know how long it would have taken to reach the goal and avoid all that death and destruction. In the mean time, blacks would have continued suffering. Perhaps it would have taken so long you can justify the war. But perhaps it would have ended quickly enough that we would have been better off than that horrible war.
IMHO to simply say it would have eventually died in the US is almost certainly correct.I agree with this comment IMO, slavery in the US would NOT have ended without the Civil War because slavery wasn't just an economic system, it was a system of social control. Whites in the antebellum South lived in fear of slave rebellions, with the successful slave revolt in Haiti a recurring nightmare for Southern whites that was worsened by the discovery of the Vescy conspiracy in 1822 and later by Nat Turner's actual rebellion in 1831.
That Southern states very quickly established "black codes" that were essentially the old slave codes with references to "slaves" removed almost immediately after the Civil War speaks to the social control aspect of slavery. These new codes were one of the reasons that Congress implemented the much harsher "Congressional Reconstruction" in 1866. De jure segregation, peonage, poll taxes, literacy tests, lynchings, and other forms of terrorism against blacks that were intended to keep "blacks in their place" were only ended in the South in the 1960s with the intervention of the federal government again.
ArlJim78
02-25-2014, 01:48 PM
It was one mans viewpoint, I doubt that it's shared by many even on Fox.
And it's a valid point like Classhandicapper said, it doesn't mean he supports slavery just that the civil war exacted a horrible toll on the country. heaven forbid someone should dare question it or ever form an opinion which diverges from the masses because once they do it means RACIST!!!11!!!!.
He's probably correct that it would have died on it's own, but it might have taken a long, long time for slavery to die out it left on it's own for the marketplace to correct, which would make it a hard decision to accept morally.
it's always easy to jump on the groupthink bandwagon though, like climate change.
classhandicapper
02-25-2014, 01:56 PM
I agree with this comment
Of course they would have been afraid and resisted. They fought a war that was in "part" related to sustaining it.
But whites in South Africa were terrified of ending apartheid for the very same reasons. Eventually the immorality of it all prevailed. IMO it would have on slavery in the south also just like it it did elsewhere.
The only debate is how long it would have taken. And given that estimate, do you want to destroy cities, spend ungodly amounts of money, and kill hundreds of thousands of people to make it happen sooner?
Attitudes are very slow to change Slavery was integral to Southern life pre-Civil war and strong resistence to post civil war efforts produced violent reactions
"There were violent reactions against reconstruction The White Brotherhood, the Red Shirts, Knights of the White Camelia and especially the Ku Klux Klan organized efforts to intimidate blacks These groups held rallies aimed at driving Northerners out of the South. Klan members burned black homes, schools and churches as a reminder that blacks should not challenge white supremacy. Blacks who had achieved conspicuous success were at risk. Similarly, Klan members physically prevented blacks from voting. Blacks had a hard time defending themselves from Klansmen, because they ganged up on their intended victims, and state laws made it illegal for blacks to own guns. Whites who intimidated or killed blacks came to be called “Redeemers.”
Yes of course with modern technology, slavery to support cash crops like cotton would slowly fade in terms of economics, but the societal order is another story We view this through the lens of the 21st century social norms. I do agree that the worthiness of all the bloodshed is still in question. But there were good reasons to fight for justice then. Lincoln was not a fool in any way
Clocker
02-25-2014, 02:06 PM
Fox Does it again
I must have missed something. I read the article and didn't see that Fox News was involved in any way.
classhandicapper
02-25-2014, 02:11 PM
Attitudes are very slow to change Slavery was integral to Southern life pre-Civil war and strong resistence to post civil war efforts produced violent reactions
All you are saying is something that everyone would readily concede.
It would have taken a long time.
The debate is whether it would have been 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, and at what point does it make sense to kill over 600K soldiers, unknown number of civilians, destroy cities etc... to make it happen sooner. It's a moral dilemma that is not easily answered when you don't even know the answer to the first question.
Again, IMHO it is close to 100% certainly it would have ended without the war - which is all the guy is basically saying.
lamboguy
02-25-2014, 02:18 PM
i was watching The Kelly Files last night on Fox News, Megan Kelley is real good and asks great questions of her guests. the other show that i think is pretty good is Mike Huckabee, his show is great as well. as far as the others go especially their morning show, are all pretty weak and completely one sided. i used to watch the morning show and have switched to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. his show is pretty good for the ins and outs of politics and is pretty neutral even though Joe leans a bit to the right.
I must have missed something. I read the article and didn't see that Fox News was involved in any way.You seem to go out of your way to act out of it. The headline of the article I linked to at the very top of my opening post...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/daily-show-obliterates-fox-news-confederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/
‘Daily Show’ obliterates Fox News Confederate apologist: ‘I just un-f*cked your facts’
.
All you are saying is something that everyone would readily concede.
It would have taken a long time.
The debate is whether it would have been 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, and at what point does it make sense to kill over 600K soldiers, unknown number of civilians, destroy cities etc... to make it happen sooner. It's a moral dilemma that is not easily answered when you don't even know the answer to the first question.
Again, IMHO it is close to 100% certainly it would have ended without the war - which is all the guy is basically saying.Watch the video. Funny, informative and to the point
rastajenk
02-25-2014, 02:35 PM
The debate is whether it would have been 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, and at what point does it make sense to kill over 600K soldiers, unknown number of civilians, destroy cities etc... to make it happen sooner. It's a moral dilemma that is not easily answered when you don't even know the answer to the first question.
But the bolded part can only be asked in hindsight as well. Hardly anyone at the time thought it would develop as savagely as it did. Early on, almost every general on both sides had a personal plan to score a quick victory that would either quash the rebellion, or gain the international recognition that would give the new confederacy its legitimacy.
Lincoln did have a plan for gradually ending slavery that featured reparations for lost "property," that would take another 30 or 40 years. But once the fighting started, the opportunity for that was lost.
Clocker
02-25-2014, 02:41 PM
You seem to go out of your way to act out of it. The headline of the article I linked to at the very top of my opening post...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/daily-show-obliterates-fox-news-confederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/
‘Daily Show’ obliterates Fox News Confederate apologist: ‘I just un-f*cked your facts’
.
The headline you linked to is lurid and sensationalist, strongly implying that Napolitano was speaking on behalf of Fox News, or that Fox News endorsed his opinions. Your headline on this thread implies the same thing. Without evidence. Napolitano is an occasional guest on some Fox News shows. Are you saying that anyone that ever appeared on Fox is always speaking for the network?
I repeat. How was Fox News involved?
The headline you linked to is lurid and sensationalist, strongly implying that Napolitano was speaking on behalf of Fox News, or that Fox News endorsed his opinions. Your headline on this thread implies the same thing. Without evidence. Napolitano is an occasional guest on some Fox News shows. Are you saying that anyone that ever appeared on Fox is always speaking for the network?
I repeat. How was Fox News involved?You gotta be joking. He is on a Fox show that is being discussed on the Daily Show, and a Fox personality. He is a political and senior judicial analyst for Fox News. Does he represent every commentator there? Represent Murdoch himself? Who the hell cares. As stupid as your statement is, I will give you a chance to retract that very stupid statement. Go for it.
Btw from the Judges' own web site
http://www.judgenap.com/bio/
As Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst since 1998, Judge Napolitano broadcasts nationwide on the Fox News Channel throughout the day, Monday through Friday. He is nationally known for watching and reporting on the government as it takes liberty and property.
.
From his official biography as hosted by Fox News. http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/head/logo-foxnews-update.png
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/andrew-p-napolitano/bio/#s=m-q
Andrew P. Napolitano joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in January 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and Fox Business Network (FBN). :lol:
Clocker
02-25-2014, 03:39 PM
I feel like I am talking in an empty room. The subject line of this thread is "Fox Does it again". I ask a simple question. What did Fox News do?
Fox News analysts routinely express personal opinions that are independent of Fox News or its owners. Juan Williams appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and is a supporter of ObamaCare. Does that mean Fox supports ObamaCare? Kirsten Powers, a former Bill Clinton staffer, appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and supports ObamaCare and gun control. Does that mean Fox advocates more gun control?
The only thing I can see that Fox News did was follow its standard practices of allowing analysts to express political positions without regard to positions of management. So I repeat: what did Fox News do again?
I feel like I am talking in an empty room. The subject line of this thread is "Fox Does it again". I ask a simple question. What did Fox News do?
Fox News analysts routinely express personal opinions that are independent of Fox News or its owners. Juan Williams appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and is a supporter of ObamaCare. Does that mean Fox supports ObamaCare? Kirsten Powers, a former Bill Clinton staffer, appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and supports ObamaCare and gun control. Does that mean Fox advocates more gun control?
The only thing I can see that Fox News did was follow its standard practices of allowing analysts to express political positions without regard to positions of management. So I repeat: what did Fox News do again?No you are playing to an empty room. And still acting dumb.
Later.
Clocker
02-25-2014, 04:10 PM
No you are playing to an empty room. And still acting dumb.
Later.
Please tell me what Fox did, and then did again. Pretty please.
Inquiring minds want to know.:p
classhandicapper
02-25-2014, 04:37 PM
But the bolded part can only be asked in hindsight as well. Hardly anyone at the time thought it would develop as savagely as it did. Early on, almost every general on both sides had a personal plan to score a quick victory that would either quash the rebellion, or gain the international recognition that would give the new confederacy its legitimacy.
You point is well taken.
My own view on these things is very anti interference in foreign affairs and anti war unless a pretty steep threshold is reached. So my first instinct at that time probably would have been to not fight. That's why I don't think simply suggesting it could have worked out well without a war is such a controversial statement.
You point is well taken.
My own view on these things is very anti interference in foreign affairs and anti war unless a pretty steep threshold is reached. So my first instinct at that time probably would have been to not fight. That's why I don't think simply suggesting it could have worked out well without a war is such a controversial statement.During the civil right era and struggle, unlike what Phil the Duckman and Clarence Thomas have said, if you were a Black in most of the south, it was still oppressive 80 years after the Civil War ended. Slavery was no longer anyones' official policy, but being a second class citizen was an accepted philosophy and widely held.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/clarence_thomas_childhood_in_georgia_images_and_vi deo_of_the_south_show.html
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/140225_JURIS_BirminghamSegregation1957.jpg.CROP.or iginal-original.jpg
Robert Goren
02-26-2014, 09:04 AM
This is a two way street. The South could have prevented the Civil War too. All they had to do was do the right thing and free the slaves.
I believe even religious leaders found bonafide bible verses to prop[ up their racist beliefs. I don't think doing the right thing was forthcoming. Either did Lincoln.
davew
02-26-2014, 09:26 AM
I feel like I am talking in an empty room. The subject line of this thread is "Fox Does it again". I ask a simple question. What did Fox News do?
Fox News analysts routinely express personal opinions that are independent of Fox News or its owners. Juan Williams appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and is a supporter of ObamaCare. Does that mean Fox supports ObamaCare? Kirsten Powers, a former Bill Clinton staffer, appears on Fox as often as Napolitano, and supports ObamaCare and gun control. Does that mean Fox advocates more gun control?
The only thing I can see that Fox News did was follow its standard practices of allowing analysts to express political positions without regard to positions of management. So I repeat: what did Fox News do again?
Once again, they are showing people who question the greatest administration of all time. Why can't they just repeat the stuff presented to them by the whitehouse like all the other news organizations?
This is a two way street. The South could have prevented the Civil War too. All they had to do was do the right thing and free the slaves.
Easy to say today, in hindsight.
But being there at the time, the available knowledge base was not what it is today.
The North found it easy to say end slavery because they did not depend on it for their livelihoods. I bet it would have a different situation if they had.
The right thing to do is always easy someone else has to do it.
classhandicapper
02-26-2014, 01:25 PM
This is a two way street. The South could have prevented the Civil War too. All they had to do was do the right thing and free the slaves.
It's not a question of whose fault the war was. Everyone agrees slavery is intrinsically immoral. Therefore the south was wrong. The question is whether we needed a war over it. IMO that is legitimately debatable. And, even if you personally come to the conclusion of "YES", that does not mean that someone weighing the loss of over 600K soldiers, over 100k citizens, destroyed cities, and how slavery ended without war elsewhere, and concluding saying it was a net mistake, is immoral, crazy, or anything else.
It's kind of like the debate over dropping nukes on Japan. It ended the war quicker, but at what cost. That's a legitimate debate.
JustRalph
02-26-2014, 03:10 PM
This is a two way street. The South could have prevented the Civil War too. All they had to do was do the right thing and free the slaves.
the economic damage would have been very bad. It had a lot to do with why many were against changing the system.
You act as if every person in the south owned slaves and that they were a dime a dozen.
The average cost of a slave was $1700 (read that somewhere) which today would be about 42k. So, you can see why owning slaves was a rich persons game...........
classhandicapper
02-26-2014, 03:20 PM
the economic damage would have been very bad. It had a lot to do with why many were against changing the system.
You act as if every person in the south owned slaves and that they were a dime a dozen.
The average cost of a slave was $1700 (read that somewhere) which today would be about 42k. So, you can see why owning slaves was a rich persons game...........
It was 6% of the south that owned slaves.
From Lew Rockwell:
Jon Stewart is very, very afraid of of us, apparently. Several emailers have written to inform me that Stewart did a small hit/smear job on Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Daily Show last night. The 'hit' was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century, namely, peacefully. (See Jim Powell, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery; and Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860). No, no, said Stewart and pals, 750,000 dead Americans , more than double that number maimed for life, and the total destruction of the voluntary union of the founders was the only way to go. Southerners, six percent of whom owned slaves, 'were willing to die to preserve slavery' announced the renowned historian Jon Stewart. The Great Oz (er, I mean, The Great Abe) did what was necessary said the great historical sage and his cast of clowns,” says Thomas DiLorenzo.
JustRalph
02-26-2014, 03:26 PM
proving my point. The rich guys who owned slaves were dead set against it.
The 94% were persuaded by talk of government overreach and states rights versus Federalism. Both issues applied and were discussed at length for as long as 20 yrs prior to the war.
As bad as slavery was, the 94% had a valid point. to them it wasn't a slavery versus non slavery issue. Many truly believed it was none of the Feds business. It was an interloping government telling them what to do.
rings a bell actually............ :lol:
classhandicapper
02-26-2014, 04:14 PM
proving my point. The rich guys who owned slaves were dead set against it.
The 94% were persuaded by talk of government overreach and states rights versus Federalism. Both issues applied and were discussed at length for as long as 20 yrs prior to the war.
As bad as slavery was, the 94% had a valid point. to them it wasn't a slavery versus non slavery issue. Many truly believed it was none of the Feds business. It was an interloping government telling them what to do.
rings a bell actually............ :lol:
I think you misunderstood the quote.
It means that since it was only 6%, it would have been very possible for the south to behave like the north and all those other countries and eventually reject slavery without all that destruction and bloodshed.
On the other point, I totally agree. A lot of it was about states rights.
If was just about state rights and I was alive at the time, I would have fought on the side of the south on that issue.
In my case, it's not because I always agree with values and goals of certain southern states. I don't. It's because I don't always agree with the values and goals of the federal government. I would like to be able to vote with my feet and leave without handing in my citizenship and learning a new language. I'd rather just pack my bags and move to a state that shares my values. These days, I consider the federal government, federal reserve, and much of the mainstream media an enemy of freedom, sound money, and economic prosperity. I have no options but to try to cope or try to find a country that isn't sinking into the same social and economic cesspool as the US that would welcome me. That's a tough choice and job since most of the west is on the same train to hell.
Show Me the Wire
02-26-2014, 06:30 PM
The interesting fact is slavery was dying out in the South, until the invention of the cotton gin. The cotton gin increased the demand for slaves to keep up the increased output.
Also, Lincoln only freed the slaves in the rebel States by his Emancipation Proclamation. The famous proclamation did not apply to slaves in States, which allowed slavery, that sided with the Union.
JustRalph
02-26-2014, 06:52 PM
I think you misunderstood the quote.
It means that since it was only 6%, it would have been very possible for the south to behave like the north and all those other countries and eventually reject slavery without all that destruction and bloodshed.
I'm not so sure. That 6% were the most influential people in the region. They controlled the economy. The investment in slavery was huge. These men were the movers and shakers. Not so sure they didn't hold a grip on the economy that made rejecting slavery a non starter
I agree with all your other points
classhandicapper
02-26-2014, 07:47 PM
I'm not so sure. That 6% were the most influential people in the region. They controlled the economy. The investment in slavery was huge. These men were the movers and shakers. Not so sure they didn't hold a grip on the economy that made rejecting slavery a non starter
I agree with all your other points
No doubt the 6% were the richest and most powerful. That's problematical to my view. But given the evidence elsewhere, I have long thought the civil war was highly suspect. So I don't see that view as inherently immoral or racist etc... because I'm not (at least not racist ;) .
horses4courses
11-14-2014, 08:20 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2aSUz0CEAAuG3c.jpg:large
Clocker
11-14-2014, 08:42 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2aSUz0CEAAuG3c.jpg:large
That's a pretty low number. I'd say unsuitable for an IQ under 100.
horses4courses
11-14-2014, 08:46 PM
That's a pretty low number. I'd say unsuitable for an IQ under 100.
Speaking of which:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H7lQrIcAEHb4o.jpg:large
JustRalph
11-14-2014, 10:04 PM
The reaction to the election continues
This thread resurrection is the democrat version of dumpster diving. :lol: :lol: :lol:
fast4522
11-15-2014, 07:56 AM
Easy to say today, in hindsight.
But being there at the time, the available knowledge base was not what it is today.
The North found it easy to say end slavery because they did not depend on it for their livelihoods. I bet it would have a different situation if they had.
The right thing to do is always easy someone else has to do it.
Someone was always the last man out, cheep labor has always been the game.
Today we call them temps.
badcompany
11-15-2014, 10:15 AM
Someone was always the last man out, cheep labor has always been the game.
Today we call them temps.
Things are changing. Because of automation and robotics, cheap energy is becoming the game.
With regard to the thread title, the only posters, here, who seem to watch Fox are Libs who do so to get upset, righteously indignant and to feel superior.
http://portside.org/2014-07-24/book-review-counter-revolution-1776
So the idea the slavery would have ended on its own in the 1860s in the US is
far-fetched indeed. With respect to the terrible death and destruction of the civil war....... 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.