| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
What's wrong about this photo? Or if you're a true-born Southerner, what's right?
While scanning through some of the up and coming movies in 2005, I ran across this intriguing title; "CSA: Confederate States of America (2005)". It's an "alternate universe" take on what would the country be like had the South won the civil war.
Stars with bars:
Suffice to say anything from Hollywood on this topic is sure to to bring about all sorts of controversial ideas and discussions. I was surprised that they are approaching such subject matter, and I'm more than a little interested.
Some things are better left dead in the past:
For myself, I was more than pleased with the homage paid to General "Stonewall" Jackson in Turner's "Gods and Generals". Like him, I should have like to believe that the South would have been compelled to end slavery out of Christian dignity rather than continue to enslave their brothers of the freedom that belong equally to all men. Obviously it didn't happen that way.
Would I fight for a South that believed in Slavery today? I have to ask first, would I know any better back then? I don't know. I honestly don't know. My pride for my South and my heritage would have most likely doomed me as it did so many others. I won't skirt the issue, in all likelyhood, slavery may have been an afterthought. Had they been the staple of what I considered property, I possibly would have already been past the point of moral struggle on the point and preparing to kill Northern invaders.
Compelling story or KKK wet dream?:
So what do I feel about this? The photo above nearly brings me to tears, as I highly respect Abraham Lincoln. I don't care if they kick me out of the South. Imagine if GW was in prayer over what to do about a seperatist leftist California. That's how I imagine Lincoln. A great man. I wonder sometimes what my family would have been like today. How many more of us would there be? Would we have held onto the property and prosperity that sustained them before the war? Would I have double the amount of family in the area? How many would I have had to cook for last week for Christmas? Would I have needed to make more "Pate De Fois Gras"?
Well, dunno about that either. Depending on what the previous for this movie are like, I may or may not see it. If they portray it as the United Confederacy of the KKK I won't be attending.
This generation of our clan speaks some 5 languages in addition to English, those being of recent immigrants to this nation. All of them are good Americans. I believe the south would have succombed to the same forces that affected the North. Immigration, war, economics and other huma forces that have changed the map of the world since history began.
Whatever. At least in this alternate universe, it's safe for me to believe that we would have grown to be the benevolent and humane South that I know it is in my heart. I can believe that slavery would have died shortly before or after that lost victory. I can believe that Southern gentlemen would have served the world as the model for behavior. In my alternate universe, it's ok that Spock has a beard. It's my alternate universe after all, it can be what I want.
At any rate, I lived up North for many years. Wonderful people and difficult people. I will always sing their praises as a land full of beautiful Italian girls, maple syrup and Birch beer. My uncle ribbed us once before we left on how we were going up North to live "with all the Yankees". Afterwards I always refered to him as royalty. He is, really. He's "King of the Rednecks". I suppose I'm his court jester.
So what do you think of this movie?
I have mistakenly allowed your & couple of others to continue issuing these banning accusations. I do not have the capabilities to ban anyone, although at this point it would be much better to ban and deport.
It is also important to remember that the Progressive movement was supported by many rich industrialists, who were against competition.
LOL!
The fact is that Ronald Reagan has always been our most consistently underrated president--as he was found to be by the Federalist Society's and The Wall Street Journal's recent survey of presidential rankings. Ronald Reagan was simultaneously a man of ideas and a man of action. Like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, he had a moral vision of how to improve the United States and the world, and like both of them he worked resolutely to make that moral vision a reality. (emphasis added) We have had many presidents who were doers, and some who were thinkers as well. But, we have had very few presidents who through their vision and deeds did as much to make the world a better place as did Ronald Reagan. It is for this reason that Mr. Reagan deserves recognition as a "Great" president.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/under.html?id=65000721
Thank you Mr. President. You are greatly missed, now in a far better place, at peace.
A great man and a great President.
Right up there with Washington and Lincoln.
Until they tell it to get lost, and go get themselves another.
Or are you going to tell me that governments must have tenure, and that any desire by the People for a change can be righteously suppressed with 2,000,000 bayonets?
And you're still wrong.
"The Preamble was written by Hamilton et al. before the Constitutional Convention substantially changed their offering from an amalgamated nation-state to the federal system we have today, and the People further modified the social compact by adding the Bill of Rights as sine qua non for the ratification of the Constitution."
Wrong about that, too. There were no conditions or requirements concerning ratification of the original document. With that said, a Bill of Rights was a prudent and reasonable compromise.
"The People of the United States are NOT amalgamated. Rather "People" is a plural form, as well as singular, because of its collective nature. The Framers invariably wrote "people" as a plural, to mean an individual people of a State, or all the People of all the States."
Standard confedero-doublespeak. For some things, there does, and did, exist a unitary "people."
You said the tax burden was shifted and you said Social Security was the means that it was shifted - the claim that is always put forward by the left to accuse Reagan of taxing the poor. If not the poor, then exactly who do you believe he shifted the tax burden to?
But, once again, were the taxes higher on the middle class after 8 years of Reagan or not?
And once again they were not.
Where did I say the tarrif was 'small potatoes', it just pales in comparsion to a personal income tax.
You certainly dismissed it as much. You also dismissed Abe's income tax by neglecting to even acknowledge it.
As for giving away the public land-why not?
Because it is not the government's job to ration the public lands out to persons it selects on its own whim. The fairest rationing mechanism is the free market, and that means selling the land at market value.
You're already off on the wrong foot. We were a sovereign people before George was ever forced into the treaty - by out own Declaration.
"... they were already under the Articles of Confederation -- which, by the way, stipulated to the ultimate sovereignty of the States."
And already contained limits to that sovereignty. A fundamental conflict, don't you think?
"Which sovereignty they resumed in toto, resuming the powers they'd delegated to Congress and the Union (which existed only in the Congress), when they seceded from the Perpetual Union of the Articles, to ratify the Constitution, receding them to the new Union."
In other words, the United States seceded from the United States to form the United States! Only the dullest and thickest of the revisionist neo-confederate true believers can swallow that faulty construct. Simple things for simple minds. Go peddle second-rate bunkum elsewhere.
A couple of real nice photos of Ronald Reagan.
Says you. I guess you think Alan Greenspan is just a monetary riot happening......okay, not a good choice, but under Reagan, Paul Volcker and Milton Friedman were giving remedial lessons to the Paul Samuelson and John Maynard Keynes fans who had ruined the currency in the 70's.
Lincoln's income tax lasted ten years, over 6 of those years being beyond his lifetime. It was repealed when Abe wasn't there to defend it and people started asking questions about its constitutionality - not because of any "temporary" provision.
So, what is the tax bracket today?
The highest one is 35 point something percent IIRC.
Is that from Lincoln or the fact that the income tax is now constitutional due to the Progressive movement of the early 20th century?
Ultimately Lincoln. He got the ball rolling and demonstrated the "need" for a progressive income tax when people after he died realized that his was unconstitutional.
Fehrenbacher only finished the last two chapters, based on Potter's existing notes and outline. Your characterization of the late Prof. Fehrenbacher is typical neo-reb knee-jerk pabulum.
Virtually everything you post is an anti-American rant.
Not.
There were no conditions or requirements concerning ratification of the original document.
Not what the dissenting States told Hamilton and his playmates.
What they told them was, we get amendments and a Bill of Rights or this is going down in flames. They meant it, too. We discussed the "necessary and proper" and other offending clauses above.
With that said, a Bill of Rights was a prudent and reasonable compromise.
Without which not. The Federalists caved, and they gave the store away on amalgamation and surrender of sovereignty: the Ninth and Tenth Amendment sealed that deal for all time.
'Til your boy Abe broke it with a war.
Standard confedero-doublespeak.
Not hardly, bub.
For some things, there does, and did, exist a unitary "people."
In your mind. In constitutional law, it doesn't exist.
Gee, and all this time I thought you were a dishonest coward who enjoyed making snide comments. Now that I know what your real motivation is - who cares!
An odd self-addressed post with profound Freudian implications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.