Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ElCid

  1. 4 hours ago, Leighcat said:

    This is very "problematic", I agree. Mainly because they're telling people that it's wrong, but not offering solutions, really discussing the true-life realities (which number any quantity of different versions) and addressing the real fear. That would be that we cannot be trusted with effective films.

    If anyone in the world thinks GWTW is enlisting proponents of slavery, think again. Any such-minded creep isn't relying on old movies for their weird notions. Even Mitchell's main characters voice their disapproval of the Old South, but --realistically in human fashion--pine in part for their youth. And if the white South had not been made to suffer a lot for losing the Civil War, it would have been a sorry victory. They SHOULD have been bitter. Attitudes from first-hand experiences even, however, are not always convenient and often shocking:


    There are, naturally, quite different narratives from people. But there is no doubt they should never have been in such situations in any case. GWTW is the story of comeuppance and Americans surviving their own illusions, or, as Rhett Butler says, " The Cause of living-in-the-past." A lesson not learned by many in this country.

    GWTW was long considered ( and may still be) The Great American Novel.

    • Like 1
  2. 4 hours ago, fxreyman said:

    I wrote this yesterday in the 18 problematic thread about the South...


    Actually the Confederacy was doomed from Day One of the war.  While there was a faint glimmer of hope up until Antietam, Sep. 17, 1862, it really never had a chance.  So long as the North retained the will to persist - and they did.  The Union probably could have put several hundred thousand more troops in the field at any time they wished.  And fully equipped, armed and fed them, while still feeding the civilians at home and keeping factories, railroads and shipping humming.  The Confederacy had none left.  Even freeing  the slaves and enlisting them would not have helped.

    More importantly, they had no factories, no large food production sources or most other things needed for war.

    While Antietam was a stalemate, Lincoln declared it a victory and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  It was definitely downhill from there.   As your citation notes the Confederacy was already losing the war in the West with Grant an d Sherman and others.  Vicksburg was  a major defeat, but actually the Union already controlled the entire Mississippi except for Vicksburg.

    The Confederacy was doomed before Gettysburg, but it was the last shot at doing something to turn the political tide in the North.  Personally I don't think that ever would have happened, as McClellan's dismal performance in the presidential race of 1864 showed.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    My wife is the director of a property management company and thus overseas the janitor services for around 50 or so office buildings (anything up to 5 stories).  

    The janitor are employees of the company;   They have tried to hire non Hispanics to perform the work but the vast majority of these folks have failed;  e.g. don't show up to work,  quit after a week or so,   do a really poor job etc...    So yea based on her experience the last 20 years,  the Hispanics are clearly the better workers.    

    If an employer is willing to sponsor an undocumented immigrant then that person should get a work visa and after a while a pathways to citizenship,  but only when the unemployment rate in the county is,  say,  < 5%.      These type of individuals would be part of the 6 million or so that should be allowed to get a work visa and remain in the USA. 




    Never thought much of using the unemployment rate in this scenario.  It is about people not wanting to do the job, not there not being people to do it.  Much larger problem in America (and probably elsewhere).

  4. My impression is that Nippy and most other "conservative" posters here have a serious inferiority complex when it comes to successful women, but especially women of color.  Factor in Democratic women of color and it gets even worse.

    I have a friend that has the same problem.  He totally despises Harris, but can never give a reason why.  Other than to say she is a socialist.  But then cannot explain how that is a factor in her case.

    • Thanks 2
  5. On 2/15/2021 at 8:17 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Hopefully that 11 million is just a starting point.    That is way too many undeserving illegal immigrants.    Grant visas and a pathway for around 6 million and tell the other 5 million they need to self-deport. 

    About a year ago I had some damage to my house when a tree blew over.  BIG tree.  Fortunately no structural damage, but lot of cosmetic type damage.  Portico, porch, columns, walkway, pad for steps, driveway, roof, gutters & covers and so forth.  Lot of different sub-contractors came to do repairs.  Generally speaking, if they were white, they were mediocre or worse or they had Hispanics to do the actual work.  Two jobs had to be completely re-done by Hispanics because the white guys did terrible work.  Hispanics did great jobs, showed up on time and worked hard to get jobs done.   Have had same experience with other home repairs over the years.

    Have no idea whether they were legal or illegal as I did not hire them.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

    There's an old saying that people should not discuss religion or politics with friends and/or family. It seems to me that social media has altered the meaning of the word "friends". Full disclosure, I'm a life long Democrat. However, I've always tried to respect the opinions of Republicans and Libertarians. Today that has become increasingly harder to do. Maybe I'm over generalizing, but it appears to me most the Republican politicians are no longer in step with the majority in our country. My evidence is they are lockstep against voting rights, affordable healthcare, sensible gun control, repairing our infrastructure, combating climate change and humane immigration reform.  It appears the only things they support are tax cuts for the wealthy, rolling back most (if not all) government regulations and eliminating a woman's right to choose.  It's pretty clear they plan to oppose everything the Biden Administration wants to do without even attempting to propose a reasonable alternative solution. I'm beginning to whole heartedly support doing away with the filibuster. If the Republicans do win back the House, the Senate and the Presidency it won't be easy or popular trying to undo all the things I listed above because just like Obamacare I think the majority will actually like the changes over time.

    You can add in that they are surreptitiously in favor of reducing government benefits such as military pay and healthcare, Social Security and Medicare, VA pensions and health care and so forth.  They won't admit it, but they are.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 19 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

    As for the voter ID question, HR1 says that it is sufficient to provide a sworn statement saying you are who you claim to be. Yet there is no proof to back that up. Like a government ID. 

    Another issue with HR1 - It mandates that 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to  pre-register to vote. Although they almost are never where they were at age 16-17 by the time they are eligible to vote at 18. Often in different cities or even different states. Plus it mandates that you be registered to vote when you apply for a driver's license unless you opt out. I faced this when I was renewing my license recently online. I was somewhat worried that Virginia had registered me to vote all over again, because it asked more questions about voter eligibility than it did driver eligibility! Also, since illegal aliens can get DLs in several states, what is to prevent them from inadvertently being registered to vote ? There are LOTS of problems with this bill! 


    I disagree with the first part of HR 1 cited above.  Trump swore over 30,000 times that he was telling the truth.  I could see a sworn statement if the person (on limited basis) was unable to provide the necessary documentation, such as passport, government issued photo ID, birth certificate, etc. in order to register to vote.  Government agencies (as far as I know) still permit records in the family Bible to begin process for securing documents.

    I am also opposed to pre-registration of anyone, but especially those not eligible to vote at the time of registration.

    As you noted, illegal aliens could be registered to vote simply  because they are required to obtain a driver's license.

  8. 13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Uh,   yet again,  you're missing something here:

    The majority GOP Senate didn't confirm Trump's nominations as quickly (as Biden were by the Dem majority Senate)  because Trump didn't vet his selections very well and put up some real stinkers that even McConnell couldn't get confirmed and thus Trump had to withdraw these stinkers and put in someone else.  


    Bears amplifying for Nippy's education.  McConnell and Trump had to withdraw them because they could not get enough Republicans to vote for them.

    • Thanks 1
  9. Sen. Tom Corbin, (R), of S.C. has proposed having everyone over 17 eligible to own guns in S.C. automatically become members of the state's unorganized militia.  It passed on a 2-1 subcommittee vote.  He last proposed this when Obama was president.  When pressed, he admitted governor has not had to call out unorganized militia "since Francis Marion and the Swamp Fox shooting at the British."  For those who may not know (apparently Corbin doesn't), Francis Marion and the Swamp Fox are the same person.  In addition, Marion was a member of the organized S.C. Militia during the French and Indian War.  Probably at the beginning of the Revolutionary War as well, but not sure.  The basis for the Confederate Army was the organized militias which each state already had in existence.

    The unorganized militia provision dates back to the S.C. Constitution of 1895 (still in effect).   The primary purpose of the Constitution of 1895 was to eliminate all the protections for blacks the Republicans had written into the state Constitution when they controlled the state after the Civil War.   As an aside, the age of consent for females (now amended) was 14.  The Constitution was written while "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman was governor.  Probably the most racist elected official in S.C history - and the creator of Clemson University.  I had to study it when I took course in state government in college in S.C.

    The S.C. National Guard is the organized militia in S.C., along with the State Militia.  The State Militia is not federally recognized, but is under the supervision of the state adjutant general - a political appointee.

    Corbin believes this will prevent the federal government from taking anybody's weapons under the 2nd Amendment.  Apparently he does not understand the difference between "well regulated" and "unorganized."  

    S.C. is one of only three states that do not have a domestic terrorism law, despite one being introduced several times.

    The South Carolina Unorganized Militia could be abbreviated SCUM.


    • Thanks 2
    • Haha 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

    The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move as well, so it's only natural that there was some kind

    of pr campaign for it. I believe Lincoln was walking a very fraught tightrope and had to resort to half measures

    to keep as many people in his corner as possible. He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding

    Border states by a declaration of total abolition.

    The question is how long would slavery have lasted. Likely beyond 1865 if the south had not seceded. Doubtless

    there are numerous guesses on the subject. I'm not expert, but I can see it going on until the 1870s or 1880s.

    The planter class does not seem to be a group that was interested in radical changes to their way of life.

    I referenced a book on what would have happened if the South had won on another thread.  Hypothesis was that it would be gone by 1880's or so.  Even before the war, it was becoming financially unsuccessful.  Far too many plantation owners were actually deep in debt before the war.   Partly because of the expense of maintaining slaves.  Much cheaper to hire blacks and whites and pay them a pittance and no worries about feeding them, health care or what to do when they got too old or infirm to work.

    The Emancipation Proclamation was totally a political move by Lincoln.  At that point there was much support in England and France to provide financial and possibly military support to the Confederacy.   However, the English were opposed to slavery and therefore English government could not support the Confederacy after the Proclamation.  France probably did not care, but they were not going to do it if England didn't.  

  11. 1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

    That's because budget bills - which for some odd reason the tax bill was - can be passed through reconciliation. It is why the Covid package that just went through could pass on reconciliation. There was no change to the filibuster that made this happen.  If I remember correctly, the Senate can pass one bill per budget year by simple majority. They have one more bill they could pass by reconciliation right now. 

    BTW, if you think that the voting rights act is such a good idea - which says I believe that you cannot ask for ID when voting, would you bank at an institution where anybody could claim to be you and withdraw all of your funds? Did you know that - at least here in the USA - you need government issued ID to get a Covid vaccine? Just saying I am "me" is not enough. I have an appointment for my first shot tomorrow and that is what it says on the directions.  Did you know that as of October 1 of this year just a regular government ID will not be enough to get into US federal installations or board an airplane? You will need a "Real ID" which says that the government is super duper sure it is you, to board a plane or get into certain federal installations. 

    But somehow, to vote in an election, which is a most important action, it's fine to show up and say "Sure I'm Abe Fischbind! Trust me!". 

    The ID issue began as a photo ID requirement.  Some states allowed school issued photo ID's.  Most have not limited the types of ID's to a very few ones.  

    Before photo ID you used your government issued voter registration card to vote.  No one was ever allowed to just walk in and say "Sure I'm Abe Fischbind! Trust me!" and then vote.   When I registered I had to show a government issued ID (driver's license with photo) and proof of where I lived to determine which ward I would vote in.

    Neither the voting rights act nor anyone I know of has said people should be able to vote just because they say they can.  What it does is restrict the methods the GOPers have used for decades to suppress the votes of blacks, Hispanics, college students and others who might vote Democratic.  GOPers have even limited voting opportunities in areas with whites who may vote Democratic.

    The voting rights act is an attempt to restore Democracy in America.  This is the 21st Century and there should be many more opportunities to vote than the very few offered by GOPers.  

    41 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

    RE, The GOP put through their Senate confirmations and their TAX bill without the filibuster but are whining about what democrats may do.

    I meant to say "Supreme Court confirmations".

    As for the voting rights, all I know is that Americans have made it harder for minorities to vote for some time - by whatever means.  You don't hear about this in Canada or European countries.  Difficulty to vote  has never been an issue.

    Before the GOPers put through their nominations without a filibuster or 60 vote requirement, the Democrats did it first under Harry Reid.  Reid did permit requiring 60 votes for Supreme Court, but he in effect set the precedent and McConnell just expanded it.

    • Thanks 1
  12. 1 minute ago, Cigarjoe cellph said:

    DC and Puerto Rico would be nice.

    I thought about PR also, but am concerned about their financial crisis and other situations there.  Of course, US will eventually have to figure out some way to help them out I guess.

  13. It is likely, even probable that the Republicans will gain control of the Senate in 2023 and possibly the House.

    So, the Dems better just face it and pass as much legislation as possible before then.  I have abandoned all hope that there are any Republicans left in Washington who are independent of control by Trumpists or the Radical Extreme Right Wing of the party.  There is NO hope for bipartisanship.

    The Dem leaders need to take Manchin and Sinema into a closed room and apply as much pressure as necessary to get them on board.

    Incidentally, the filibuster was NOT created by the Founding Fathers nor is it a part of the Constitution.  It was developed by senators as one of their rules.  As Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have shown, it can be altered with 51 votes.

    While I fear what the GOPers will do with control of both houses and the presidency in the future, we have to deal in the present.  PUSH through the Biden/Democratic agenda.  While it is likely the Republican US Supreme Court will rule some of it illegal, they will be going against what the majority of people in US want.  They may influence them.

    Admitting DC, voting rights and gun control should be top priorities.  Do it NOW.

    • Like 3
  14. 17 hours ago, Arturo said:

    Yes!! Let’s make Mitch McConnell toothless as well as chinless!!  He cares not at all about Senate proprieties and institutions, only his own priorities.  

    The Dems need to play hardball, like the Republicans always have, and crack the United GOP front, and pass their own bills sent by the House that the Grim Reaper has stopped from making it to the Senate floor.  These tend to enjoy overwhelming support among Americans, and include the proposal to keep the GOP voter supression to a minimum.  

    Fight the anti-democratic tendencies of the Republicans at every turn, because given another chance, the GOP WILL dismantle our democracy.  Many still cannot admit publicly that Joe Biden won the election and is the legitimate president of the USA.


    • Like 1
  15. 10 hours ago, Dargo said:

    In the 1996 David Cronenberg film Crash, a weird movie about people who receive sexual pleasure from being injured in or by watching automobile accidents (yeah, weird huh), one scene in it consists of a recreation of James Dean's death while he was driving his newly purchased Porsche 550 Spyder, and which was recreated in this film by use of the 550 replica shown below...


    (...side note here...after owning a 550 replica for the past 15 years, I've decided to sell it...replacement in my garage will be another small great handling open roadster...either a 2000-2009 Honda S2000 or a 2017-2020 Fiat 124 Spider Abarth...I'll miss the Spyder, but it'll be nice to have the modern creature comforts of the newer cars for my wife)

    Now I know why so many people watch auto racing.

    Prices for Fiat 124 Spider Abarths are going to get interesting with the creation of Stellantis (merger of FCA and PSA Group (Peugeot, et. al.).  Expected that Fiat will disappear from US again.  Considering recent sales, it almost has.  Might want to just bite the bullet and get a Miata.

    Ongoing question is whether or not Chrysler brand will disappear.  Chrysler products were a staple of movies and TV shows in the 50's and 60's and maybe later.  Product placement.

  16. 21 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    That kind of hints in a belief that doing your own thinking shouldn't be a consideration when forming an impression about any movie.   That YOU or anyone else wishes to react and consider anything about a certain movie is fine.  But, it doesn't mean I have to also.  And it also doesn't mean that I'm unaware of the truth about the past when I refuse to condemn a movie that's NOT an historic tutorial that displays an inaccurate representation of any certain historical period.   It then maybe might mean I should also condemn many science fiction and horror movies because they don't show the truth.   :wacko:


    I'm confused by your post.  I think we are in agreement, but not sure.

    To me, the issue is that many want TCM to continue to show classic movies as they were presented to the public originally.  They do not want a panel to discuss the movie in the context of 2021 and the various cancel culture, woke and other movements to "reframe" history.  They (we) do not need someone to analyze and reframe a movie from their particular perspectives.

    TCM should just have a disclaimer at the beginning of these movies.  Some topics may be culturally outdated and may be offensive to some people.  Ideas and concepts presented may be inaccurate.  Of course this could probably apply to any movie before 2000.

    16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

    True, Lincoln's goal at the beginning of the war was to preserve the union. It then evolved into a

    war to both preserve the union and to abolish slavery.

    The abolition of slavery was a goal of the abolitionists, but they were a minority in the Republican Party.  It was not a goal of the majority of Northerners or even soldiers.  The goal was to preserve the Union.

    As noted before, the abolition of slavery was another tool Lincoln used, similar to the blockade of Southern ports and so forth.  The Emancipation Proclamation was a threat only to those states in rebellion at the time.  In fact, the areas of seceded states that were in Union control could continue to have slaves under the Proclamation.

    Since it was an "executive order," it is likely that if the seceded states had agreed to end the war and return to the Union in 1864, Lincoln would have withdrawn it. 

    12 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Nice to see someone that really gets it.      Funny,  but related to cancel-culture it is the folks that are upset at TCM and the host for the comments,   and have said they will no longer watch TCM,  that are practicing cancel-culture (by "canceling" TCM).     TCM isn't doing that since,  as you note,  TCM is showing the films uncut;  i.e. with so called offensive scenes 100% intact. 

    TCM has received complaints from activist asking TCM to not show films these activist believe are offensive.     TCM had 3 choices;   completely ignore the activist,    stop showing the films or doing what they are doing now with this series.      I think TCM made the right choice and it is those that disagree (because they believe TCM should have made one of the other 2 choices),  that are the extremist.


    There is a fourth choice as StarzEncore (Western) does.  They add a notation at beginning of movies, Outdated Cultural Depictions, along with ones for violence, etc.  TCM could have a brief statement reflecting that.  The "panels" and their opinions are the concern.

    6 hours ago, Vidor said:

    13th Amendment was not ratified until Dec. 1865, well after the war was over.  It also accomplished in part by having the legislatures in the 13 Confederate states vote for it.  Those legislatures were controlled by Northern Republicans, although the actual members were "elected" from the Southern states.

    • Like 1
  17. 20 hours ago, TopBilled said:

    I guess I am confused about what this has to do with TCM being an entertainment channel. It seems like we've strayed from the thread topic.

    What Lincoln said and did is not exactly related to what TCM is airing...unless the hosts are commenting directly on whether or not Lincoln was a white supremacist. And all of that seems totally different from laws about same-sex marriage.

    It has not strayed that much.  The original post is complaining about "politics" getting into TCM programming.  Much of that relates to "revisions' or instructions of how we should consider many movies about the South and the Civil War and Westerns on TCM.  That leads very easily into how Lincoln is perceived today vs. how he really was in 1858.

  18. 5 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

    Wouldn't you hate to be on the jury though? I'd be afraid for my life. 

    You do bring up an interesting question.  If Trump goes to trial (doubtful), will his minions show up to protest, rally and invade the courthouse?

    • Sad 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...