Comments on: Last Gasp of the Sons of the Confederacy

By: makeitstop

makeitstop — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:14:34 +0000

Yes, they can. And they do, without any apparent problems with the cognitive dissonance it would cause a normal, logica human being.

By: MarkD

MarkD — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:07:55 +0000

I’m still trying to figure out how the GOP yelps about “state’s rights!!!” while simultaneously cheerleading for a guy who’s entire administration is based on the “Unitary Executive” theory.

Either they are actually for state’s rights, and what Bush is doing is unmitigated bullshit … or they’re for an all-powerful President and just use “state’s rights” as a way to mask their racism.

I mean, it’s gotta be one or the other — they can’t have it both ways, can they?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:16:37 +0000

Last Gasp of the Sons of the Confederacy

If only it was!

By: melior

melior — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:32:50 +0000

What Mr. Levin failed to note, but no doubt should have, is that any express GOP concern for ”states’ rights” should in no way be presumed to bear on the matter of the EPA overruling the CO2 standards of the state of California.

By: TheCritic

TheCritic — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:15:29 +0000

I love how he uses this:

the abolitionist movement of the prior century were born mostly from churches and certain northern states, not from Congress — which, after all, had passed fugitive slave laws essentially upholding slavery in the south. The federal government had a mixed record prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln, including the Supreme Court itself in the Dred Scott case.

But fails to mention the fact that throughout the early years of the United States pre-Civil War, the south had a bit more leverage in Congress due to a little thing called the Three-Fifths Compromise. These fugitive slave laws were passed by slave-owning Congressman. Shocking! But True!

My goodness, if this is true then maybe, just maybe, slave-state born presidents might be likely to make more pro-slave appointments to the Supreme Court.

By: SnarkiChildOfLoki

SnarkiChildOfLoki — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:57:01 +0000

Paging William Tecumseh Sherman. You’re needed in the southern department.
This time, finish the job.

By: quakerinabasement

quakerinabasement — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:47:00 +0000

Looky, way back at the Founding, the Fathers cut a deal–if you boys’ll sign up with us, we’ll let you keep your slaves. On second thought–about a 100 years later–a goodly part of the country decided that wasn’t such a good bargain after all, so the slave-holding states joined together and committed treason.

We had a big fight about it. You people lost. You might have heard by now.

By: ckls

ckls — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:38:38 +0000

Mr. Buckley was also a student of history and understood that the abolitionist movement of the prior century were born mostly from churches and certain northern states, not from Congress — which, after all, had passed fugitive slave laws essentially upholding slavery in the south.

Um . . . not quite. The Fugitive Slave Laws were not about upholding slavery in the South, but overturning the Laws and State Constitutions of Northern States — the Fugitive Slave Laws required every state to capture fugitive slaves and return them to the tender mercies of their slave masters.

Prior to the Fugitive Slave Laws, Abolitionism was a minority fringe movement in the North; the Fugitive Slave Laws radicalized the entire (non-slave holding) nation, which led to the Civil War — John Brown lit the fuse. During the 1850’s, there were at least four occasions when angry mobs stormed jails in Massachussetts, to free the fugitive slaves that had been captured.

The slave holders were for States Rights when they upheld slavery; they were for trampling States Rights when it upheld slavery.

Just like Bill Buckley, Mark Levin, and the modern conservative movement — all of their principles are a sham, nothing more than fig leafs to hide their supremacist agenda.

By: TheRealityBasedDave

TheRealityBasedDave — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:20:29 +0000

States Rights = state sponsored racism.
States Rights = Fuck the Union.

Why does he hate America?

Add in all the good ol’ boys that celebrate their souther heritage. They’re celebrating the time when they lost trying to break up the United States. Fuckers. Where’s Gen Sherman when you need him?

By: captphealy

captphealy — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:18:35 +0000

OK, I’ll give it a try:

You ever heard Randy Newman’s ”Rednecks”? We’re not all like that…