Stewart Goes After Napolitano Over Slavery

[TakeAStepBack]

Had the judge said returned to the confederacy, you would be right. but thats not what he said...

Oh, I see...you're going to try and take the tact that when Nappy said:

"the President used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the South during the Civil War!"

He didn't mean the Confederacy.

The battle of North and South in the context of the Civil War now means, what? The North, the South and the...er, other South. lol

Neat little game you got going there confeds. I've only been debating the Civil War for decades, and what feels like a million Civil War threads, and all the time I get this from Southern sympathizers: The North had slaves too!

By this (outside of the handful of the few in the true geographic north) -- they mean the border states. So border / loyal - UNION states are "the North" then,

but when Andrew Napster dude pretending he knows history says The South during the Civil War --

he doesn't mean the confederacy...Mwah? why would people think The South 1861-1865 means the Confederacy?


That is some rich Grade A bovine juice you dudes are pushing there

Napolitano wasn't discussing the confederacy, or the south. He was discussing Abe Lincoln. But it's a neat little game you Statist turds play with words when you lose an argument and then proceed for the inevitable credit destroying backpeddle.

 

[paperview]

Had the judge said returned to the confederacy, you would be right. but thats not what he said...

Oh, I see...you're going to try and take the tact that when Nappy said:

"the President used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the South during the Civil War!"

He didn't mean the Confederacy.

The battle of North and South in the context of the Civil War now means, what? The North, the South and the...er, other South. lol

Neat little game you got going there confeds. I've only been debating the Civil War for decades, and what feels like a million Civil War threads, and all the time I get this from Southern sympathizers: The North had slaves too!

By this (outside of the handful of the few in the true geographic north) -- they mean the border states. So border / loyal - UNION states are "the North" then,

but when Andrew Napster dude pretending he knows history says The South during the Civil War --

he doesn't mean the confederacy...Mwah? why would people think The South 1861-1865 means the Confederacy?


That is some rich Grade A bovine juice you dudes are pushing there

I reject that you infer onto him words he did not say, yes. And the US Marshalls did return slaves to southern states during the civil war.

He didn't say this:

" the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.” ???


Are you seriously trying to say he didn't say that?

Or are you trying to turn border / Union states into The South in the context of the Civil War?

Either way -- you lose.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, that's exactly what he said and he is right. Regardless of your inference to his words. Jeebus. Kentucky and Maryland are southern states. The only reason Maryland didn't secede is due to the marshal law imposed by - Abe Lincoln. Regardless of that fact, salves were returned to these two SOUTHERN states during the civil war. As one example.

 

[paperview]

The South

Regions and Divisions - 2007 Economic Census - U.S. Census Bureau

South Region
South Atlantic Division: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia
East South Central Division: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee
West South Central Division: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas



You're welcome.

No, you don't get to play that homey.

When discussing the Civil War there were two sides: The North and the South.

When referring to The South during the war, you are referring to the states that constituted the CSA. That is a fac, jack.

You just aren't man enough to admit you and your boy are wrong

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You dont get to define terms. You can infer upon others what they meant and then tell them they are wrong without asking for clarity, much like those moron professors did, but you do not get to set the bar on which people refer when debating, ya lil' wanna be dicktater.

 

[paperview]

You dont get to define terms. You can infer upon others what they meant and then tell them they are wrong without asking for clarity, much like those moron professors did, but you do not get to set the bar on which people refer when debating, ya lil' wanna be dicktater.

Yeah, we do get to define terms. It's called language and common understanding when discussing, in this intrance, something 99.5% of the people who know any history agree on:

When referring to The South during the Civil War, you are referring to the states that constituted the CSA.

You don't get to turn The Union during that battle, into the The South.

 

[paperview]

I find it hilarious you're still plucking from Patterico.

At least that's better than the neo-confederate white supremacist you were citing before.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Character assassination fallacy doesn't help you prove your point. Regardless of that, you do not get to define HOW someone references in debate. You may ask for clarity, but you may not INFER onto someone the meaning you wish they were conveying and then proceed to tell them they're wrong. This is how I know you are a pure statist. You think you have the authority to tell others what they mean.

 

[paperview]

Character assassination fallacy doesn't help you prove your point. Regardless of that, you do not get to define HOW someone references in debate. You may ask for clarity, but you may not INFER onto someone the meaning you wish they were conveying and then proceed to tell them they're wrong. This is how I know you are a pure statist. You think you have the authority to tell others what they mean.

When people make affirmative statements like this
\
"the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.”

Yes, we do get to judge -- based on empirical fact, based on common language, based on history, based on common sense -- what they are referencing in a debate.

We have nothing else to go by but their words.

Without qualification, yes. He said the South.

Had he said the border states or union states, then he would be able to claim he was right; yes, in some instances Federal Marshals were returning (a handful) to slaveowners in the Union, because they were Constitutional bound to that law in the Union.

To people who profess to be educated on the subject when talking about the Civil War, the “South” -- to any thinking person -- is the area controlled by the Confederacy, and you find yourself among the tiniest sliver of the population that would call The South -- in the epic North/South battle of our bloodiest war -- part of the what every one recognized as The North -- The UNION.

But, without a doubt, neoconfederates constitute the tiniest slivers of the population.

That's because they are skullfuckingly stupid.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Playing repeater isn't going to win you any credibility on this. I realize that Staists play repeater in order to try and drowned out any opposition to their religion of the omnipotent State and its host of flawless characters. but it wont work on this one. The professors should have asked for clarity on the matter should they have needed it, instead of doing the bullshit you are now and inferring upon A.N. what he meant.

 

[paperview]

Playing repeater isn't going to win you any credibility on this. I realize that Staists play repeater in order to try and drowned out any opposition to their religion of the omnipotent State and its host of flawless characters. but it wont work on this one. The professors should have asked for clarity on the matter should they have needed it, instead of doing the bullshit you are now and inferring upon A.N. what he meant.

Oh, it's the hisotry professors fault now they didn't ask for clarity when Nappy made that assertion.

Listen to yourself.

It's on them to figure out "the South" didn't real mean "the South - in the context of the North/South Civil War.

Give it up man. You can't win this one. Just suck it up and admit Nappy made an incorrect statement.

 

[paperview]

Nappy is a mess on CW facts, even from the gitgo.

Here's another one of his retarded zingers:

"Look, it's not even altogether clear if slavery was the reason for secession." -- Another takethecaker from Andy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Playing repeater isn't going to win you any credibility on this. I realize that Staists play repeater in order to try and drowned out any opposition to their religion of the omnipotent State and its host of flawless characters. but it wont work on this one. The professors should have asked for clarity on the matter should they have needed it, instead of doing the bullshit you are now and inferring upon A.N. what he meant.

Oh, it's the hisotry professors fault now they didn't ask for clarity when Nappy made that assertion.

Listen to yourself.

It's on them to figure out "the South" didn't real mean "the South - in the context of the North/South Civil War.

Give it up man. You can't win this one. Just suck it up and admit Nappy made an incorrect statement.

I would. But he didn't make an incorrect statement. The panel of morons, and turds like you have INFERRED upon him a wrong answer instead of asking for, or offering clarification to the statement. Which in terms of actual language, was a correct statement. Only once the Statists begin inferring and then demand that people reference in "their" way. does the answer become incorrect.

And with that I'm done playing moron repeater with you. You go ahead and infer what A.N. meant and the rest of us who aren't dullards will continue to point out his statement is factual if you do not pull a Statist and infer upon him meaning.

 

[paperview]

Stubborn to the end.

South means North.
Up is Down.
Right is Left.


Words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean at any time, and if someone calls you on it, it's up to the listener to ask -- Judge, does South really mean North?

Does Up really mean Down?

The cons have gone so far around this twist, your side doesn't even accept basic common facts of a Reality-Based world anymore.

Totally flipped the noodle on any common understanding of accepted facts, and has gone into some bizarre Alice in Wonderland world were words mean anything you want them to mean.

It's just insane.

 

[Truthseeker420]

So your claim here is that the US Marshall.gov website has lied? No one, including Napolitano, claimed that there weren't cases of northern state abolitionists taking slaves to canada in defiance of the slave act. He said that federal marshall's were charged with returning them to slave owners. And they upheld that law and did so, moron.

Hey birdbrain - Nappy said they were doing that throughout the war.

Think about that. He was trying to imply Lincoln's Union Marshalls were returning Slaves to the confederate enemy.

Think about it longer, harder.

Not enough to get through? Let's lookie at another page of the US Marshal Service.

U.S. Marshals Service, History, Timeline

Look at what the US Marshals were doing during actual war time:

1861-1864

During the Civil War, U.S. Marshals confiscated property used to support the Confederacy and helped root out Confederate spies.

Lincoln and His Deputy

The Undefeated Rebel

Were there a few in the border states initially that were returned? Sure. That changed with the laws I was nice enough to provide for you. Did you bother to look?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEC60_tVrAQ#t=182]Judge Napolitano Right, Daily Show Wrong, on Fugitive Slaves - YouTube[/ame]

 

[paperview]

Hey birdbrain - Nappy said they were doing that throughout the war.

Think about that. He was trying to imply Lincoln's Union Marshalls were returning Slaves to the confederate enemy.

Think about it longer, harder.

Not enough to get through? Let's lookie at another page of the US Marshal Service.

U.S. Marshals Service, History, Timeline

Look at what the US Marshals were doing during actual war time:

1861-1864

During the Civil War, U.S. Marshals confiscated property used to support the Confederacy and helped root out Confederate spies.

Lincoln and His Deputy

The Undefeated Rebel

Were there a few in the border states initially that were returned? Sure. That changed with the laws I was nice enough to provide for you. Did you bother to look?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEC60_tVrAQ#t=182]Judge Napolitano Right, Daily Show Wrong, on Fugitive Slaves - YouTube[/ame]

If I could place a face to that poster, that would be it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Still playing the repeater, heh? How's that working out for you?

 

[paperview]

Pretty good. As you've been made to look the idiot.


You think South is North. It's not a difficult concept for most people.

You've lost, just like the South in the Civil War did. You just don't recognize it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[paperview]

Roll your eyes all you want.

No one expects neo-confederates to accept established history.

They are, by virtue of their Lost Cause crusade, incapable of accepting reality.