I have the sinking feeling that by "his affiliations" you don't mean journalist.

Instead of insinuating, why don't you just call him a Jew so you can discount his opinions without wasting any precious time.

Hey Lucky, I think this girl does some really watchable videos, explains things pretty well.

Video for the history of house Stark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIIzuqIRB2g&list=PLHZDkFt4F9fOL_cJCd_ySWaugLkjI2VHK

She also does videos for House Targaryen, Baratheon, and Lannister. Just scan the related videos on the right once Youtube is up.

I just can't believe Haley Joel Osment with that beard.

Oh Hi, I express my anger through flying footwear!

I don't know which culture the trend of throwing your shoes crawled out from under, but it is laughable. The people who do it are laughable, and anyone who thinks it should be taken seriously needs to be laughed at.

The day that throwing your shoe at someone becomes a thought provoking meaningful act is the day I'm no longer listening to anyone.

He was stopping the spectacle, I hope.

It hasn't been confirmed Prince Oberyn is dead!

He could still pull through!

Just a flesh wound, he's had worse.

Yogi's right.

Either Trancecoach is a purposeless troll, or some kind of an idiot.

Assuming for a second that he actually believes himself, ChaosEngine provided my favorite response.

Finally, something i can fall asleep to.

I laughed out loud at the "duh" message.

This was great

The title is direct from the old comic.

http://www.w3rkshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/XMen-Days-of-Future-Past-comic-cover.jpg

It was one of those really great issues because all of the X-men could, and were, getting murdered. Since it was an alternate future and blah blah, they could kill off characters like they never do.

Also hoping they make it pretty long. Time travel, huge cast, it could probably use the time.

Homie

Since this topic appears to have gone off the reservation, let me reign you back in for a moment.

I encourage you to re-watch the video we're commenting on.

This whole discussion, including the commentary by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, is all a response to Judge Napolitano's comments, on what is supposed to be an actual news network and, I imagine, supposed to be taken seriously?

Napolitano says: "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set out on the most murderous war in American history."

That's what he said. In this very video, which is what we're all commenting on.

I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here.

You're attacking the comedians for making jokes about this and accusing them for doing what Napolitano just did!

He's the one claiming that Lincoln attacked the south to free the slaves!

So, again I ask, what are you even talking about?

This video, the daily show response, all of this argument, was supposed to be about Napolitano being totally wrong. I originally commented here because you were parroting his claims that Lincoln had a lot of options, but chose "murderous war" instead of buying every slave or whatever other imagined option you think he had.

So either you understand why the Civil War started, and we agree, as you sometimes seem to indicate, or you're in agreement with Napolitano and his view that Lincoln started the Civil War as one of his apparently many options for ending slavery.

So which is it?

Do you understand why you make no sense?

And Just to be perfectly clear, secession predated the Lincoln administration! To ask, why didn't he do this or that is to ignore the situation he faced before he was even sworn in.

"On December 20, 1860, shortly after Abraham Lincoln's victory in the presidential election of 1860, South Carolina adopted an ordinance declaring its secession from the United States of America."

War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery. Get it?

This is what happens when you get your history from political pundits like Thomas Wood Jr.

Try reading a real historical text on the period.

I recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.

Hey look, I guess I'm a free university!

Trancecoach is arguing with himself and doesn't seem to realize it.

In one breath, he rightly states that the Civil War wasn't about ending slavery, but perserving the union. Then in the next breath asks why Lincoln didn't avoid the war by purchasing all the slaves.

Hey Trance, do you even realize how contradictory you are?

Okay, I'll try to explain again.

Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant.

That is not why the Civil War was fought.

The south rebelled, for a variety of reasons, mostly because they thought they could get away with it, and Lincoln was left with a choice..

Let them go, or raise an army and preserve the union.

Buying the slaves wasn't an option.

Do you understand now?