Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[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?

[Non-Sequitur]

I suppose it doesn't bother you any that the secular Italian revolutionaries that Pius condemned were replete with communists, socialists, and other left wing radicals at the head of their ranks of the "Government before God" crowd.

It obviously didn't matter to Pius IX. Error number 63 says, "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them." It didn't specify politics, it didn't say "in certain circumstances." So if the Holy Father were to be asked when, in the Course of human events, it might be permissible for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them, then his answer would be "Never." And you're OK with that?

[GOPcapitalist]

It obviously didn't matter to Pius IX. Error number 63 says, "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them." It didn't specify politics, it didn't say "in certain circumstances." So if the Holy Father were to be asked when, in the Course of human events, it might be permissible for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them, then his answer would be "Never."

Your blindness is very amusing, non-seq. You need to reread error 63, paying particular attention to the qualifier that is bolded below:

It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them

It is an inherent principle of "when in the course of human events etc." that the prince has in some way forfeited his legitimacy, hence the act of resisting him.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is an inherent principle of "when in the course of human events etc." that the prince has in some way forfeited his legitimacy, hence the act of resisting him.

I doubt that His Holiness would agree with that load of bushwa.

[GOPcapitalist]

I doubt that His Holiness would agree with that load of bushwa.

I doubt that His Holiness would allow a snide catholic-bashing liberal like yourself to interpret his statements, which only moments ago you were slandering, on his behalf.

That said, the wording he chose indisputably indicates that the injunction applies only to rebellions against legitimate princes, which is in keeping with the Syllabus, itself a recognition of many illegitimate acts by various governments.

[mac_truck]

Well, fine, but you deserved that little bit of trolling, after:

1. You upbraided GOPcapitalist over something he said in another forum -- not kosher on the boards, amigo.

2. While upbraiding him, you assumed a position of authority with respect to his argument from Biblical analogy...

[Grrr] Here's what I actually said:

4658

"GOPcapitalist recently compared Jeb Bush to Pontius Pilate, the man who ordered Jesus Christ to be crucified. Hard to see how someone could morally accuse others of 'Bush bashing' after making those comments, wouldn't you agree?" -mac_truck 4/9/05

Jeez Louise Gordo, couldn't you at least try to make up a better cover story for your nasty troll attacks?

Oh yeah...and we all had a very large laugh regarding your number one.

[4CJ]

And who's beatification caused quite a stir.

Beatified by Pope John Paul II. May God bless him.

[capitan_refugio]

"I think LG has the right idea, twit filter activated.

No more posts from Lentulusgracchus and Gianni?!

Manna from heaven.

With regard to the poster formerly known as nolu chan, wasn't he the one who promoted and made dozens of posts about the so-called Joshua Speed Diaries? Wasn't he the one who used those fraudulent documents to "prove" that Lincoln was a homosexual?

Foisting a monumental fraud like the Speed Diaries on FR puts nolu in a class by himself.

"Couldn't name a single conservative thing that you did in 300 posts over the course of a week, now you can't come up with anything to support your smear."

Why play your games? What's the point? Your posts show you can't differentiate between a real Reagan conservative and Calhounian States' Righter.

[M. Espinola]

When dealing with today's 'neo-confederates' sooner or later their full, camouflaged agenda is unintentionally revealed. After-the-fact, this element immediately institutes the typical 'big lie' effort to conceal the bleeding obvious.

The banner of idolized allegiance by the current era's deceptive, rebellious secessionists, is not Old Glory, oh no, it's something lingering from their defeated Jim Crow past, where it, along with the ineffectual, scheming 'neo-confederate' itinerary... must remain.

Those in question are little more then a negligible collection of perpetual malcontents, coupled with being a disgraceful stain on America's real conservative movement.

Our nation is confronting a culture of death, instigated by hordes of fanatical Islamic terrorists overseas & domestic fifth columnists, as well as beastly assaults on the American public, via a rampaging judicial dictatorship, interlinked with the leftwing pro-abortion lobby, yet there are those few which would rather live in the failures of yesterday, instead of focusing on the very clear & present dangers surrounding all Americans....today.

[M. Espinola]

Bingo! The Neo-Confed P/Cer's need to read this truth again:

"Your posts show you can't differentiate between a real Reagan conservative and Calhounian States' Righter."

[lentulusgracchus]

Like I said, you reviewed his analogy and found it wanting, very obviously.

Then you overleaped to the current thread and accused GOPcapitalist of hypocrisy, or inconsistency, in referring to someone else as a "Bush basher".

It may not have dawned on you yet, that Jeb Bush's decision may have resembled that of Pontius Pilate in important respects and been worthy of comment in that regard, AND that someone else on the boards is a "Bush basher", whom GOPcapitalist correctly identified as such.

Your failure to apply logic, while it may have supplied you some amusement, doesn't help you analyze either my post or his.

And your statement is still incorrect, that Pilate ordered Jesus of Nazareth crucified.

Since you don't like Latin, I'll give it to you in Akkadian:

Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.

[lentulusgracchus]

Error number 63 says, "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them." It didn't specify politics, it didn't say "in certain circumstances."

Careful, podner, you're arguing against Lincoln's position when you diverge from Pius IX here.

Interesting......a revered pope takes a position identical to Lincoln's, and you fly from that position as if your hair were on fire.

[lentulusgracchus]

Nice rah-rah speech. A few disjointed phrases here and there might even have been true, but the overall effort isn't.

But your argument always seems to boil down to "we won", which as has been pointed out to you, is the logically illegitimate appeal to motive in lieu of support called "appeal to force".

I also notice that you like to warn of unacceptable consequences: that, too, is a fallacious appeal in lieu of argument.

You also appeal to popularity a lot and indulge in ad hominem. In short, you do damned little arguing, and a whole lot of appealing to motives, and overall behave just like a demagogue.

And it's all right here in this one post. It's a clinic in "what not to do" on the boards when you're trying to persuade people of the correctness of your position.

[M. Espinola]

In terms of "unacceptable consequences" even you should admit the era of Jim Crow was beyond "unacceptable".

The same is applicable to a similar mindset in today's America.

"You also appeal to popularity a lot and indulge in ad hominem. In short, you do damned little arguing, and a whole lot of appealing to motives, and overall behave just like a demagogue."

Arguing is not required when the facts of an agenda repeatedly present themselves through crystal clear statements, splendidly unmasking real motives.

"demagogue"(?) Interesting. Your undivided attention is required relating to a number of your own postings, prior to any attempt in transfering the term to others.

[lentulusgracchus]

In terms of "unacceptable consequences" even you should admit the era of Jim Crow was beyond "unacceptable".

Okay, now you're raising the bar. Before, slavery was "unacceptable", now it's "Jim Crow". What's next -- the Era of the Unspeakable Evil of Spanking Children? The Heartbreak of Psoriasis?

The answer any thinking person will give you about all the eras of history before the present is the same: It was what it was. If you go around writing off entire eras of history, on the basis of some social problem that engages your rejectionist impulse, you'll have no history left worth engaging.

If I lived in the Jim Crow era, I expect I'd find it much like any other, with its own problems (like rampant poliomyelitis). I would hope I'd rise above its problems and conduct myself in a civilized manner, so that my life, however examined, would be seen by reasonable people as better than the throwaway status to which you consign an entire era.

[lentulusgracchus]

Arguing is not required when the facts of an agenda repeatedly present themselves through crystal clear statements, splendidly unmasking real motives.

Your claim of crystalline perception of other people's unmasked motives amounts to a claim of clairvoyance. I call bull on your "clairvoyance". You are just sliming people in a very garden-variety way.

No matter how many times you put lipstick on the pig, it still won't pass the test.

"demagogue"(?) Interesting. Your undivided attention is required relating to a number of your own postings, prior to any attempt in transfering the term to others.

Because you said so? This is called changing the subject, or deflection. My posts are irrelevant to the fact I called attention to, which remains valid and true. Your posts are demagogic and defamatory.

But don't worry, I promise I won't notice any more. I've wasted enough time and energy on you. You're on bozo filter.

<sneck>

[Gianni]

Not in Washington, DC. That's for sure.

Boy you aren't kidding. On the plus side, ABC news spent at least 10 minutes last night telling me what's on the president's IPOD, letting me know that most Americans have no stomach for dealing with the real issues that face our country.

I think a lot of us on the 'Southern' side of these debates aren't just looking back; we see a future where we just can't avoid a dictated social, economic, and cultural norm that we cannot tolerate. It's coming soon, if it's not already here. I got a global (workplace) memo yesterday about how having a 'gayer' (among other things) workforce will make us a stronger company. It was interesting, because the text of the memo focused on diversity of thought, background, and opinion - all seemingly worthy contributions to complex problem solving; the policy was based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. I took it as advice that next time I'm bucking for a promotion, I can promote my cause with assless chaps, lipstick, and a yarmukle.

[Gianni]

Seriously, we all ought to engage strictly in debate, and leave the insults to the dark side posters - they are quite good at it, obviously not being up to the task of reasoned debate. For months now certain posters on their side throw rant after rant, or racist comment, or charge of treason etc.

I have twit-filtered the two intolerable ones. We'll see how long that lasts.

If I drank, I'd invite them in to pass one around.

When I was in LA a few months back, I suggested it to our friend kerryfugio. He responded in a way that made it obvious that he takes this both personally and way too seriously. I think he hides actual hate for those who (oh... I don't know) would like to see something actually be a law prior to its enforcement.

[Gianni]

Interesting discussion.

Link

[Non-Sequitur]

On the plus side, ABC news spent at least 10 minutes last night telling me what's on the president's IPOD, letting me know that most Americans have no stomach for dealing with the real issues that face our country.

The fact that the President listens to The Knack should be good for a few points in the next polls. But I'm sure that throughout the country, legions of journalists are busy trying to find out if Bush downloads from file sharing websites.

[Non-Sequitur]

Interesting......a revered pope takes a position identical to Lincoln's, and you fly from that position as if your hair were on fire.

On the contrary, as Tommy DiLusional likes to misquote, Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better..." Pius would be spinning in his grave over that one.