# The Movie:  2016



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon.  The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed.  The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie?  Any comments on what you think about it?  The themes and conclusions built into it?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

After further research, I may have to amend the opening post to say that so far, "2016" is the second highest grossing film of its type.

Some early reviews:



> Slate's David Weigel reviewed it as "mostly solid," highlighting how D'Souza does not drown in conservative conspiracy theories. "The movie is really too good to get pedantic about," he wrote. "There are no conspiracy theories about Obamas birth, religion, Social Security number, passport, or college transcript. Instead, there is a deep dive into Barack Obamas known Communist associates, his late fathers avowed socialism, and his mothers radicalism."
> 
> Variety's Joe Leydon critiqued the opposite, writing that "for the bulk of its running time, the pic comes off as a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling." Leydon did admit, however, that it is "attention-grabbing."
> Anti-Obama Film, '2016: Obama's America,' Expanding Release After Notable Success (VIDEO)


----------



## Polk (Aug 28, 2012)

I love how he defends the movie by saying it focuses on some conspiracy theories to the exclusion of others.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> I love how he defends the movie by saying it focuses on some conspiracy theories to the exclusion of others.



No, he really didn't even mention all the conspiracy theories in the movie.  What he did report in the movie is all verifiable and well documented except for his conclusion which is of course left up to the audience to decide if it is credible or not.


----------



## NonCorporeal (Aug 28, 2012)

I hope to see it this Friday at the theatre by my house, but I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow to see the showtimes at said theater.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

Well report back after you see it NC.  Would be interested in your impression of it.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 28, 2012)

I have watched several trailers for this...and have no idea what it is about.
The trailers are vary vague.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

I haven't seen any of the trailers, but it really is necessary to see the movie to understand what it is about or to make sense of the conclusion D'Souza presents at the end.

The movie itself is Obama's life that we all know, the facts surrounding that which are available to know for those who want to know, and the forces that are included in D'Souza's conclusion based on the facts presented in the documentary.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 28, 2012)

Foxfyre; I'm going tomorrow afternoon and I'm asking my son (a Ron Paul supporter) to join me, but what did you mean that, "It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting?"


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

American Horse said:


> Foxfyre; I'm going tomorrow afternoon and I'm asking my son (a Ron Paul supporter) to join me, but what did you mean that, "It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting?"



He mentioned that he thought it would show America in decay, Wrigly Field grown up in weeds, and stuff like that.  

It doesn't.  But I will be interested in you and your son's opinion about the conclusion D'Souza offered in the closing minutes of the documentary.  Please report back.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 28, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.
> 
> The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon.  The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed.  The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.
> 
> So has anybody else seen the movie?  Any comments on what you think about it?  The themes and conclusions built into it?



Sad that one has to go see a documentary to learn what the press should have covered 4 years ago, isn't it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2012)

why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?

don't they have jobs?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?
> 
> don't they have jobs?



I would guess the large majority of the folks in the theater where we were are retired people.  And there was a lot of applause at the end of the movie.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.
> ...



Yes, and the documentary commented on that.  We didn't know four years ago.  Now we do.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 28, 2012)

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> 
> FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News



So who is 'they' doing the fact check?  I was at the movie.

Here is from your fact check article



>  D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.



In the movie D'Souza clearly included the Bush AND Obama administrations in that meteroic rise of the national debt.  If the fact checker isnt any more honest than to note that, then I think the rest of his unsubstantiated critique is suspect.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 28, 2012)

Yes__ 2016 largely avoided conjecture and I think it was designed to appeal to a large base. For those of us that think Obama is just total swine and is as corrupt as the day is long__ I'd be fine with seeing a more righteously speculative version. But as it is__ the movie did a great job of slamming Obama soley based on his record.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 28, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> 
> FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News



I stopped reading at the third paragraph:



> The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.



Any article that is titled FACT CHECK should stay away from its own wildly subjective (and imo subversive) opinions.


----------



## Polk (Aug 28, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.
> ...



The press only covers actual stories, not kooky conspiracy theories.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Yes__ 2016 largely avoided conjecture and I think it was designed to appeal to a large base. For those of us that think Obama is just total swine and is as corrupt as the day is long__ I'd be fine with seeing a more righteously speculative version. But as it is__ the movie did a great job of slamming Obama soley based on his record.



That's what impressed me by it.  Almost no opinion, speculation, and certainly no conspiracy theories of any kind were included in the entire documentary. . . .at least until the conclusion.  The conclusion is really the only thing that could be challenged and that would depend entirely on whether the collection of facts D'Souza compiled brings one to the same conclusion.


----------



## The Infidel (Aug 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Where is the conspiracy???

The movie was in Obamas own words


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And yet......they didn't cover actual stories.  Go figure.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 29, 2012)

obama's understanding of his father's political beliefs don't come from his father.   He never saw his father until he was 12.  He got his father's political beliefs as filtered through his mother who was a radical leftist.  obama never learned that his father was an alcoholic with several wives.  He was told that his father was a brave freedom fighter, had been jailed for being a political activist as was his grandfather.   None of that was true, but mom made sure her son believed it.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 29, 2012)

Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.


----------



## Polk (Aug 29, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



The movie is based on D'Souza's book "The Roots of Obama's Rage", which is full of complete rubbish. D'Souza claimed Obama stopped using his nickname as a way to assert to his African heritage, when the President has been asked about his in an interview before and gave a perfectly reasonable explanation: he started using his actual name because his nickname made him sound like a kid. D'Souza claimed that Obama's opposition to nuclear weapons comes from "anti-colonialism", even though it's a view shared by a large number of figures on both sides of the aisle (even by that noted-anti-colonialist Ronald Reagan). D'Souza also had tons of other pieces of "evidence" of Obama's "anti-colonialism" which were pure fabrications.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.



The movie wasn't based on people's opinions.  The movie was based on observations about what we already know of the people in Obama's life, the main influences on his life, the driving forces that shaped who he is, the people with whom he has surrounded himself during his life.  There was one clip of an interview with Obama's brother in Kenya--and wow do they look alike; absoluely no question that they are borthers--but the interview was really trying to bait the brother into criticizing Obama for not 'helping' the brother.  No dice.  The brother did not see that as Obama's duty or responsibility or obligation to do.  It was also instructive that the brother did not appear to be the destitute, impoverished person as sometime rightwing pundits have portrayed him.

All is to say that D'Souza was as objective, non inflammatory, non accusatory, and as honest as anybody could be in a documentary of this type.

So I will be interested to see whether D'Souza's conclusion at the end is shared by others who actually see the movie.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> ...



Why is that different from Bush 43 just avenging his FATHER'S beliefs and honor? I thought that was what the left was telling us motivated GW in Iraq. 

Now I might have to go see this silly documentary.. Mainly because I hear that D'Souza hit it off with BHO's step-brother in Kenya who has been snubbed by his famous American kin because of his political leanings...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 29, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.



They interviewed his half brother. They attempted to interview his grandmother. They largely used Obama's own words from his own book.

Are you mad that Robert Gibbs wasn't allowed to turn the video into a propaganda piece?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



If you haven't seen a movie then you can't have an educated opinion.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.
> 
> The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon.  The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed.  The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.
> 
> So has anybody else seen the movie?  Any comments on what you think about it?  The themes and conclusions built into it?



I read Dineshes book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, interesting and illuminating. well worth a look. 

I plan on purchasing the movie when its available.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



really ? I read the book too, so what are the fabrications ( see: supposition) that seem to bother you?


----------



## Polk (Aug 29, 2012)

I just listed several of them.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



no one ever escapes their upbringing and the collective input from influential people in their lives, Bush was no different , he may very well have seen getting Saddam as an 'honor' thing, who knows.  

example- whats interesting is obamas musings on say frank marshall davis, to say that davis has absolutely now effect on obamas mindset or thinking is, well, pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> I just listed several of them.



what? this?

The movie is based on D'Souza's book "The Roots of Obama's Rage", which is full of complete rubbish. D'Souza claimed Obama stopped using his nickname as a way to assert to his African heritage, when the President has been asked about his in an interview before and gave a perfectly reasonable explanation: he started using his actual name because his nickname made him sound like a kid. D'Souza claimed that Obama's opposition to nuclear weapons comes from "anti-colonialism", even though it's a view shared by a large number of figures on both sides of the aisle (even by that noted-anti-colonialist Ronald Reagan). D'Souza also had tons of other pieces of "evidence" of Obama's "anti-colonialism" which were pure fabrications.


thats not exactly tons......what else? thats small potatoes.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 29, 2012)

It isn't like Barack Obama is someone unknown, he has been our president for nearly four years, you really cannot see through D'Souza's deceptive nonsense? 

"The movie is based on D'Souza's notably dishonest book 'The Roots of Obama's Rage.' This book would be humorous if considered a spoof of one of the world's most placid leaders. But D'Souza makes truth the victim in his selective effort to demonize the president.

There are false economic claims, such as that Obama initiated the bailout and stimulus plans. Actually, George Bush initiated the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3, 2008. Obama followed this bill with his own attempt to stem the economic crisis and correct the earlier flaws in amount and administration.

There are misleading policy claims, such as D'Souza attacking Obama for supporting the reduction of nuclear weapons and idealizing a nuclear free world. As former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz has repeatedly stated, President Obama shares President Ronald Reagan's desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons, though both realize the need for a nuclear deterrent.

And there are incredible omissions and mis-interpretations, such as the conclusion that Obama was elected sheerly because of white liberal guilt ... *without even mentioning the economic catastrophe that the previous Republican administration had created."* Michael Berkowitz: '2016: Obama's America': Save Your Money, Use Your Vouchers


*"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." * Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

*I cleaned up your nonsense this time, next time the whole post will be deleted.  Keep your insults to yourself in the Clean Zone. Newby*


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> I have come to the conclusion republicans are purposely dumb. There is no other explanation. It isn't like Barack Obama is someone unknown, fools, he has been our president for nearly four years, are you really so stupid you cannot see through D'Souza's deceptive nonsense? I have to ask does your dumbness make you happy?
> 
> "The movie is based on D'Souza's notably dishonest book 'The Roots of Obama's Rage.' This book would be humorous if considered a spoof of one of the world's most placid leaders. But D'Souza makes truth the victim in his selective effort to demonize the president.
> 
> ...



did you read the book or see the movie?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> I just listed several of them.



No you didn't.  You cited some opinions of the book.  I haven't read the book so I don't know what is in it.  I do know your opinions are in no way what the movie expressed.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 29, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.
> ...



Using Obama's words from his own book and twisting them around to what they think you mean? And no I'm not mad or looking for a propaganda piece. I would like something truthful and factual though.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



You haven't seen the movie have you.  I can assure you that D'Souza did not in any way twist or misrepresent Obama's words or point of view.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 30, 2012)

Books, the Movie... Hell, we've seen and heard enough about this guy to know who he is what he stands for and is determined to accomplish. Thank our lucky stars he'll be voted out, no, booted out in November.

What remains a secret also brings more question to bear.

I've often wondered how many Democrats truly like the guy... Personally I think they are disgusted too.
They stand by him for the sake of hand outs. Hand outs that won't last if the Liberal movement wins out.
The guy is a communist and he hates America. So is most of the Democratic Party. Pelosi and Reid come to mind in an instant.


----------



## CandySlice (Aug 30, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



Okay, here's something from Obama's OWN BOOK that made me sick. He was asked if a certain thing hurt him and how he coped with that. His answer was 'The trick is NOT MINDING that it hurts. And he rippped that off, fully sprung from Lawrence Of Arabia. The guys a phoney and a charleton, to say the very least. He does NOT belong in the White House rather in a wagon going from town to town pitching 'magic elixers'.

I am terrified of what will happen if this guy is allowed to run amok over our country for the next 4 years, unobstructed with nothing to lose and anybody with any sense feels the same way.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 30, 2012)

CandySlice said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



It is scary. We'd see what an evil man, drunk with power looks like.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

copsnrobbers said:


> Books, the Movie... Hell, we've seen and heard enough about this guy to know who he is what he stands for and is determined to accomplish. Thank our lucky stars he'll be voted out, no, booted out in November.
> 
> What remains a secret also brings more question to bear.
> 
> ...



I don't know whether all hate America or whether Democrats stay loyal to their party for the handouts or whether they have just been brainwashed to hate Republicans and conservative concepts.

I loved Susana Martinez's line last night though.  As a Democrat, she had been to a luncheon where the terms "Democrat/Republican/conservative/liberal" were left out of the discussion and the conversation was focused on issues and values.  Do people really want a hand out or do they want a hand up?  What is the best policy about that?  Is goverment more efficient and effective to get some things done or does the private sector provide the best solutions for this or that?   And she said that as she and her husband left that gathering, she turned to Chuck and said, "I'll be damned.  We're Republicans!"

In the movie, D'Souza left all concepts of political parties, conservative/liberal etc. out of the thesis and focused on the history, the conversations, and the people.   I have not read the book and until this week had not seen the movie.  But the content of the movie affirmed the convictions I had acquired over the last four years of careful listening and observing our President.  He is a liberation theology Marxist, through and through, and he has a very different view of America than most Americans do.

But the conclusion of his motives at the end of the movie was the most riveting concept I brought away and one I had not previously considered.  I'm wondering if everyone else who has seen the movie saw what I saw?


----------



## Misty (Aug 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> obama's understanding of his father's political beliefs don't come from his father.   He never saw his father until he was 12.  He got his father's political beliefs as filtered through his mother who was a radical leftist.  obama never learned that his father was an alcoholic with several wives.  He was told that his father was a brave freedom fighter, had been jailed for being a political activist as was his grandfather.   None of that was true, but mom made sure her son believed it.



And the legendary fake image of his father died driving home drunk at 1:45 in the morning. After a night of drinking at the local bar hut which was a nightly practice for him. 

Obama's real father was nothing more than a polygamist drunk who never took care of any of his many children.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2012)

I did look at the movie trailer:

2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Trailer

Starts out with ominous muslimy music, scenes of various dark people rioting, and then, at 1:05, the most shocking thing of all -- a black family quarrels over a game of Monopoly.

Then, the music changes, and the world-without-Obama is shown, a peaceful happy world. Of white people.

Given the trailer used such brazen race-baiting, I assume that's what the movie is like. The clip of the black family quarrelling over a Monopoly game was the clincher. It was such stupid over-the-top race-baiting, it made me laugh. Yes, if Obama is elected again, those violent black people are leaving their Monopoly games and coming to get YOU!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

mamooth said:


> I did look at the movie trailer:
> 
> 2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Trailer
> 
> ...



I don't know what trailer you saw, but the movie was nothing like that.  And there was no race baiting in it.  D'Souza is an Indian from India after all and holds a green card.  He is not an American citizen.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> > Books, the Movie... Hell, we've seen and heard enough about this guy to know who he is what he stands for and is determined to accomplish. Thank our lucky stars he'll be voted out, no, booted out in November.
> ...



Really Foxy?  Those are the choices for Democrat motivations?  I suppose you think the Republicans all believe strongly in their ideology and don't hate Dems or liberals?


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


 
How do you know that? Did he talk to Obama himself? I'd hate someone to tell me my point of view without talking to me.

And no, I have not seen the movie but I will go see it. I'm real hesitant to waste time on a hit job or a propaganda movie-for either side!!


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 30, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > copsnrobbers said:
> ...


 
I found the line you highlighted extremely offensive. Those of you assuming Democrats hate this country or want it to suffer, or want handouts without having to work, or hate the other side really don't have a clue what you are talking about!!

I can tell you right now, I know a lot of Democrats and I am one myself and I have never taken a handout or had any hatred for this country or anyone else. BUT, if someone is in need of Government assistance, I am o.k. with them receiving it.

Please educate yourself on what we stand before before you just ASSUME something.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



We have a lengthening store of speeches, interviews, promos, youtube clips put out by Obama himself, and video clips of actual statements Obama made.   Unless you are unwilling to use the record of those you dislike who have left such an obvious trail, you have to allow historians to use Obama's record as well.

However, as a quasi-media professinal and dedicated amateur historian, I am very good at spotting distortions creating by 'proof texting', a tactic most of the mainstream media uses shamelessly.  I did not see any of that in D'Souza's movie.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Sorry.  Didn't mean to be offiensive and I was just responding to the comments of another poster.  But it has been my experience that if you take it issue by issue, most people are more closely aligned with Republican/conservative ideals than they are with those promoted by the Democrats/progressives/liberals/leftists.  Which is what I tried to illustrate with my quote from Susana Martinez's speech.

I also have found that Democrats spend much more time railing against  and being offended at Republicans and conservatives and their point of view or beliefs than they spend promoting or defining what they believe themselves.  Which to me is telling.  All the leftwing commentary I'm seeing this morning is nitpicking facts from last night's speeches without any attempt to discuss the concepts being presented.

D'Souza in his movie was totally focused not on political parties or the pros and cons of any ideology.  He was focused on putting the history out there and did a credible job of that.  No nitpicking of facts.  No moral judgments.  No putdowns of one person's point of view over another.   It was well done for what it was.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > copsnrobbers said:
> ...



Again I didn't intend to offend.  I was responding to Cops' post and was actually not agreeing with his opinion.  I have participated in focus groups that deal strictly with issues, and it is often fascinating how many who call themselves Democrats do embrace Republican ideals IF you don't identify them as Republican ideals.  Again, Susana made that point in her speech last night.

And I have talked to Democrats who are convinced the Republicans would take away the safety nets and freebies and that keeps them voting Democrat.  

It's just the fact, Jack.

And I wonder how many Obama supporters and D'Souza critics would be supportive of a person attached to the facts in the movie if they didn't know the person was Obama?


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 30, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> BUT, if someone is in need of Government assistance, I am o.k. with them receiving it.



So are conservatives considering that they give more to charity on average.  The tricky thing is in the definition of the word "need."


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, if someone is in need of Government assistance, I am o.k. with them receiving it.
> ...



And depending on how close to the Founders' view of government you get, conservatives are all for doing good for the poor or those in need, but they see it as too corrupting an influence for both those in government and the recipients of government charity to see the federal government as the proper or smart way to do good for the poor or those in need.

The movie built a very good case for Obama's view of government and how it can be used to achieve a particular end.  It was the end itself in the conclusion that the only really subjective component of the movie.  And I will be interested to see what those who see the movie think about it.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I don't think I would describe myself as offended.  I'm certainly not trying to defend or agree with Dems.  I am politically unaligned.  I just see the kind of attack the other side, get offended rather than discuss the issues mentality you describe from both Dems and Repubs, and I don't know if I have noticed it being worse from either side.  It may just be a matter of differing experiences and the kinds of people we are exposed to.  I see those types of things as a matter of human nature rather than a function of political ideology and I don't think it's significantly more likely from a particular side.

If anything about it offended me, it would be because I like you and, while you obviously have your biases, I think of you as trying to keep those biases from influencing your arguments too strongly, and the portion I highlighted was disappointing to read.  Taken in the context of a reply rather than a general statement, I am certainly less offended.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 30, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Everyone is politically aligned. You saying you're not politically aligned is like me saying I'm not politically aligned b/c I'm not registered with a party. We all bring our politics into the discussion.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Good.     Context is everything, and sometimes I do focus on one particular issue and come across as perhaps more partisan or dognatic or sound bite than what I intend.  So within the larger context, I would like to think your opinion of me is justified.  In the contet you highlighted, I can see how I would be misunderstood and how that could make my comment offensive.    No harm.  No foul.   (But after I discussion, if I had that post to do again, I would word is differently and less abrasively.  )


----------



## American Horse (Aug 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre; I'm going tomorrow afternoon and I'm asking my son (a Ron Paul supporter) to join me, but what did you mean that, "It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting?"
> ...



I went today with my son, and we didn't discuss it afterwards.  There were a total of 21 people in the theater, with the movie running between 2:30 - 4:00 matinee hours.

It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama. 

Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. One only has to consider the environment in which his father developed to get an understanding how that affect would be manifested in the developing Barrack. 

It was a more or less clinical look at the family history from its initial geneses to the matriculation of Obama, and it's no surprise that he found a mentor and or fellow traveler who reminded him of his idealized missing father to whose "dreams" he dedicated his own biography, almost as a mission statement.  His mentors are Frank Marshal Davis, William Ayers, and less directly, Saul Alinsky as a philosophical inspiration. 

His brother, George, is completely different in his philosophical leanings in that he sees the flaws in the existing political situation in the 3rd world as opposed to the developing world like (SingaIpore, South Korea, and even mentions South Africa) which he sees as being superior, and believes it could be improved if it were more in the model of America/U.S.  and South Africa as better off because it was more tardily released from colonialism.

He does not fault his brother for not providing for him, seeing himself as being responsible for himself, as an adult.  He was interesting to watch, exhibiting a certain "cynicism" in his demeanor, which may have only been his expectation of the types of questions he expected about his brother from his past experience.

The &#8220;2016&#8221; reference relates to the recognition that President Obama, given a full two terms will most certainly fundamentally change America by their completion.  It&#8217;s up to the voter (and the viewer informed by the film) if the change, which is going to be a leveling one for America, is the change they want to see brought about, because his father, as a formative/influential model for Barrack, strongly opposed all colonial powers, so you can imagine how this will figure into Barrack&#8217;s policies in a country that is anathema to his utopian vision, whatever that was.

If I get the chance to do so I will recommend it to others, even my liberal friends and I wish it could be aired on TV prior to the election.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 30, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I meant in the party sense.  Sorry if the context didn't make that clear.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 30, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



But we're still all politically aligned. I find that people that say otherwise, are often trying to assume some sort of moral high ground based upon the false idea that he/she is more objective. I'm frankly more weary of people who make such claims than even so-called partisans. It may not be what you were trying to do; but the majority of the time, these so-called centrists are playing that game while indeed pursuing an agenda; as we all have our positions.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Sure, we all have positions.  But the idea that those positions must necessarily fall within one or another political party (even just mostly) is ridiculously limiting IMO.  Most especially when our system is, basically, split into only two parties.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 31, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Who ever argued that anyone was limiting themselves? Or typecasting their minds? The point is that it does no real good to point out that you are not for a particular party. It does nothing to make your point or stake your credibility.


----------



## Politico (Aug 31, 2012)

It will not even come close to being the highest anything.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 31, 2012)

American Horse said:


> ...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.
> 
> Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. One only has to consider the environment in which his father developed to get an understanding how that affect would be manifested in the developing Barrack.
> 
> ...



AH,  So you didn't discuss it? Your son will hopefully form his own opinion, but your comments surprise me, fathers are obviously important factors in our lives but in the real world, peers and the times and the individual experiences are equally important. Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.

So far America has not changed under Obama so the idea that this magical change is coming is just plain ridiculous. It is paranoid nonsense. If change comes, as the fight against the New Deal, Great Society, and the American values of caring for all die, it will come from the destruction of the social support systems that help primarily education, the elderly, and children. If that is good change you can have it, let's be honest about where change is coming from and it's not Obama.

*"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline."*  Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'


----------



## American Horse (Aug 31, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > ...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.
> ...



We didn't discuss it because he is a Paulite, and I hold back hoping that my silence will be more persausive than any arguments I might pose.

In their book Four Turnings (of history) Howe & Strauss argue that it's generations that create history, that sons are more influenced by their grandfathers than they are by their fathers.  My own theory for that is because of the direct exposure to the father by the son that line of influence is undermined, meanwhile, because of the innate distance, the g-father becomes a more passive-influential figure.  That's part of why I made the statement I did in my post (" -Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. -" ), and also the statement above my responding to you when I said  " - I hold back hoping that my silence will be more persausive than any arguments I might pose - "

Anyway MC, being the reader you are you might be interested in the book "The Fourth Turning", and you might find the interview of Howe and Strauss on C-SPAN interesting. When I saw the interview I went out and bought the book.

Here's a link to the C-SPAN interview [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXcDiGpVtbc]Neil Howe and William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



That depends on what your point is.  I brought it up as another way to show I was not defending or supporting the Democratic party.


----------



## 007 (Aug 31, 2012)

Well so far, into the third page, there are no true opinions of the movie, other than a few leftists rants with nothing behind them other than hyperbole. American Horse did a good job of describing the movie, and Foxy has reaffirmed it as such, a very no nonsense look at obama's past followed by the author's conjecture of an obama future if reelected.

Well let's have an opinion. I want to know if it's worth seeing the movie or not? 

At least opine as to whether or not you see the movie as pro or anti obama and why?


----------



## American Horse (Aug 31, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> Well so far, into the third page, there are no true opinions of the movie, other than a few leftists rants with nothing behind them other than hyperbole. American Horse did a good job of describing the movie, and Foxy has reaffirmed it as such, a very no nonsense look at obama's past followed by the author's conjecture of an obama future if reelected.
> 
> Well let's have an opinion. I want to know if it's worth seeing the movie or not?
> 
> At least opine as to whether or not you see the movie as pro or anti obama and why?



It's worth seeing, mainly because it presents some serious issues with Obama that are rarely considered.  To that end, the movie clearly states early on that Obama was born in Hawaii, tacitly assuring us that any birther claim is a waste of time. It's worth seeing. 

As to whether it's pro or anti obama, it simply tells the truth, reiterating some known facts and introducing some unknown new information, amounting to telling us who he is and what shaped him.  That in itself is not negative.  It also tell us to expect more of the same, and why we should expect that, and that is not an anti obama screed. It asks if you will be happy with the new America we can expect based on rational judgment, and that part could be taken as anti obama, because it's not what most of us expected in the beginning nor probably want much more of.  It's in no way acerbic or hypercritical, nor is it highly theoretical.  It IS an alternate view from what the media has presented us.  

Speaking to that failure, right from the start we see convincingly in a commentary between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, an admission between them that should never have become necessary, and would not have ... with a Republican president elect; that they really don't know much of anything of substance about Barrack Obama... his worldview, his heroes and inspirational figures, what he knows about China and India ....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw]Brokaw and Rose Admit They Don't Know Much About Obama. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 007 (Aug 31, 2012)

If it starts right out claiming obama was born in Hawaii, then I don't want to see it. I've not seen one single shred of 'verifiable' evidence that can prove that claim, so anyone making that claim as though fact, is in my opinion, off their rocker. That ruins the movie right there for me.

In any case, thank you A-H for your summations.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 31, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



Yeah, and MSNBC is in your living Room.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2012)

I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie.   The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that.  So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.

I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.

The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places.  For a historian, however, it is fascinating.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie.   The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that.  So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.
> 
> I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.
> 
> The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places.  For a historian, however, it is fascinating.



Foxy, Do you trust Obama? Is he good for America? Has the information you gathered from the movie changed your view of him? 

I will see the movie.. I'm curious. But, I also know what this guy is about and I have a good idea who he answers to.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2012)

copsnrobbers said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie.   The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that.  So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.
> ...



I trust him to be true to himself.  I do not trust him to be good for America or Americans.  But that is what the movie is pretty much about, and if you see it, I would be interested in your opinion of he conclusion that D'Souza seems to be offering at the end.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'll let you know after I've seen it. Maybe this weekend..


----------



## Trajan (Sep 3, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > ...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.
> ...






> Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.



 thank you for establishing that grandfathers can be role models too, so who did Stanley Dunham, Obamas grandfather visit very frequently and who did he bring along? 

I like the way you breeze right over his early years and jump to his  education and being a lawyer, however- at 10 years old and for several years there after, Obama himself chronicles Davis influence by mentioning him 25  times in his own book........Stanley Dunham and Davis were very close and if I recall Frank Marshall Davis is one of the very few  obama writes of without fabricating a personalty and name,  Obama also describes Frank Davis as a father figure . 

your defense is there fore contradictory and poor becasue you  suffer from lets say, a paucity of information.


----------



## American Horse (Sep 3, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> * If it starts right out claiming obama was born in Hawaii, then I don't want to see it. I've not seen one single shred of 'verifiable' evidence that can prove that claim, so anyone making that claim as though fact, is in my opinion, off their rocker. *That ruins the movie right there for me.
> 
> In any case, thank you A-H for your summations.



Since you asked and I answered, you must have misread my answer, and since I don't want that misreading left hanging out there, I quote my previous post in which I said:



American Horse said:


> It's worth seeing, mainly because it presents some serious issues with Obama that are rarely considered.  *To that end, the movie clearly states early on that Obama WAS born in Hawaii,* tacitly assuring us that any birther claim is a waste of time [...]


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2012)

I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.


----------



## Polk (Sep 3, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.



No need to assume it's an anti-Obama propaganda piece. It's the film version of D'Souza's written propaganda piece. No assumption necessary.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 3, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.



It is not really anti-Obama and makes no judgment of Obama per se.  It is a pretty detailed documentary of his life and the influences in it.  It does pull together a lot of facts ignored by the mainstream media.  And it does offer a conclusion at the end based on the fairly well detailed facts included in the documentary.   It is whether or not they agree with that conclusion that I would like to hear from people about.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.
> ...



The implication is anti-Obama; but it does try to honestly grasp who Obama is. If Democrats don't like how Obama is portrayed in the movie then they shouldn't vote for him; b/c the movie is pretty spot on.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Polk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.
> ...



Have you seen the film?  Other HAVE seen the film and say differently.  I should trust those that have not seen the film because

Ignorance is better?
Youre in a better position to judge if you have no idea what is actually in the film?
Just because it is you?

Really, why should anyone take your word over those that have taken the time to view the film in the first place.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.



It is implicitly anti-Obama. But that doesn't mean that it is not truthful.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 4, 2012)

i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2012)

strollingbones said:


> i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none



It is not a docudrama in any sense.  It is more like a college level history class.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I might actually see the moves based on this thread.  The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece.  IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.
> ...



I really didn't see it as implicitly anti-Obama and think there are some people, even some right here on USMB, who don't have a problem with his history as it is portrayed.  For instance the interviewer really tried to get Obama's brother to say something negative about Obama or to express some resentment re his relationship with Obama, and he would not.  And they very clearly showed that he would not.  The brother clearly shared Obama's world view and was supportive of it.  The movie also very clearly dispelled the notion of Obama's brother living in abject poverty as is often portrayed by rightwing pundits.

But for a lot of us, the movie did bring out a sense of the motivations for why Obama is the way he is and why he does the things we does.  And the conclusion is an end goal that those who watch the movie may or may not agree with.

I do agree that great pains were made to be truthful in what was portrayed and to not leave out mitigating 'evidence'.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 4, 2012)

Here's an excellent review of the movie.

Roeper: Fear and loathing in


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 4, 2012)

The success comes despite mostly scathing reviews from that left-leaning, lamestream liberal media and fact-checked articles that cast serious doubts about some of the film&#8217;s claims. (Before we proceed: Yes, I have criticized Michael Moore for the grandstanding, time-shifting, sometimes fact-challenged theatrics in his films.) As the Associated Press has pointed out, D&#8217;Souza talks about Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the British as if it were an act of disrespect to our ally, even though the bust was on loan to the Bush administration and was scheduled to be returned. The film also faults Obama for the escalation of the national debt (certainly true) but fails to mention the Bush administration&#8217;s role in that escalation; claims Obama is sympathetic to jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but never mentions the killing of Osama bin Laden, and paints slanted, incomplete pictures of Obama&#8217;s views on the Falklands and Iran&#8217;s nuclear ambitions.

from ravi's link.....anything that combines truth with fiction is a docudrama


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

The Bust was not scheduled to be returned.   The British had instead specifically told obama to keep it.

Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."
Two weeks earlier, in January 2009, The Times had revealed the bust had been removed from the Oval Office and placed in storage, in a piece headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over the Special Relationship" (no longer online, but available on news databases such as Lexis/Nexis). Significantly, The Times noted that the British government, led at the time by Gordon Brown, was keen for the bust to go back to the Oval Office:
Churchill bust debacle:

The movie, like the book, considers the reason for the return to be obama's personal dislike of Winston Churchill who was a soldier in an imperial army occupying Africa for an imperialist country that also occupied other countries.  His dislike would be based on the atrocious treatment his father and grandfather had of being imprisoned by the British.   His father and grandfather weren't imprisoned by the British.   Grandpa was a cook for the British army for many years.   The imprisonment and cruel treatment was one of those dreams from his father, delivered by his mother.


----------



## Twofox (Sep 4, 2012)

(WARNING - SPOILER ALERT)  

  I took the wife to see this movie on labor day.  The theater wasn't packed, but was at least 50% filled.  Interesting thing happened at the end, but I'll get to that later.

  D'souza starts out saying that he's conservative, but also that he grew up in India, and how Europe is viewed from there.  Mostly because of the British occupation, with a little racism against whites tossed in from his grandfather He himself apparently doesn't buy into that.  He also talked about how at college, the libs would be so in love with India, having never been there, and he would say "What's so great about the caste system?"

  I found it to be interesting in that he takes a quote from "Dreams from my father" and then talks about where that came from, and tracks it down.  Nothing too hard about that, he keeps it in context, and presents his findings.  Pretty stratight forward, and not presented as drama.

  The big thing is the anit-colonializm.  Where Britain, and the other Euro countries had colonies, the US never did to speak of.  He points out that the US could be seen as being another type of colonial power, and that Obama Sr. saw the US as an enemy.  He then goes on to point out how Obama Jr is following in his father's footsteps, all of this borne out by the Obama's book "Dreams from my father"  He then goes on to say that socialist, communist, etc don't fit for Obama, but Anti-colonialist actully fits his actions.  It makes sense, and would also explain why the RNC portrays this election as a choice for america to live under the constitution, or change it completely.

  In the interview with his brother, I caught that he said something about how in Kenya, there is still lots of poverty, when in other countries, like S. Korea, there is wealth, when Kenya used to be ahead of S.Korea.  Kenya, also has alot of anti-colonialists.  D'souza then points out that the countries where the US helped out, are thriving.

  He then paints a picture of what the US would look like in 2016 if Obama is reelected.  Nothing too suprising here, but did you ever wonder why the economy is stagnant, and Obama never really did push for fixing it?  Go see the movie, but go with an open mind.  Don't make up your mind beforehand, and go check the facts afterwards. (don't use factcheck, or any other compromised site, go look it up for yourself.  You'll be suprised at what you find).

Once it was over, there was some scattered applause, but then 2 gals at the back of the theater shouted "We love you Obama".  Someone responded by saying "Then you vote for him".  Their reponse was "No need to get offensive you crazy old lady"...    Looks like they were just trying to stir something up, but folks just laughed at them and left.  I saw the 2 hurrying away from the theater looking over their shoulders.  Not the smartest thing to do, or was that their plan?  Dunno, but something stunk about it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

We love you obama.  It's all about the feelings.   Women can reject anything, any treatment, any abuse, because of "love".   It's how pimps control their whores.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday.  After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected.  It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.
> 
> The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon.  The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed.  The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.
> 
> So has anybody else seen the movie?  Any comments on what you think about it?  The themes and conclusions built into it?



I went and saw it on Saturday and was very impressed.

I liked the way that Dinesh dismissed the common conspiracy theories right off the bat. He leads with the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and the two local papers carried the birth, making it clear that D'Souza is a scholar and not interested in conspiracy nonsense. He also dismisses the claim of Obama being a Muslim pretty quickly, and focuses on the facts.

The portrayal of Obama's childhood was sad, in most ways. While Obama was a child of privilege, he didn't enjoy a particularly happy childhood. The idolizing of a father demonstrates an emptiness. D'Souza did something remarkable, creating sympathy and a certain respect for Barack Obama Jr. 

Certainly he uncovers a rabidly anti-American figure who is driven by the anti-Colonial zeal of a mythical father, who is entirely in line with the Black Liberation Theology of Wright and the desire to dismantle the constitutional government as Ayers and Dorn advocate. The Obama D'Souza exposes is not a caricature, but an actual person, and one not in favor of what is best for this nation or the citizens in it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?
> 
> don't they have jobs?



Of course they don't have jobs.

Obama is President.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> 
> FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News



I'm guessing that Beth Fouhy failed to even watch the film.

First off, she doesn't come up with a single item that is not fact, she rather complains of D'Souza's conclusions. 

She stated " But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims." and yet this is explained in intricate detail in the film, leaving one to conclude that Ms. Fouhy is either abysmally stupid - she is a leftist after all, or simply didn't see the film she was critiquing - a more likely scenario.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.



If you want to know what is in the movie, go see it.

Like most of the left, you operate from a position of complete ignorance, with the absolute faith that your ignorance prepares you to pass ultimate judgement.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 4, 2012)

strollingbones said:


> i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none



There is a world of difference between Moore's "documentaries" and this one.  Moore goes into his films with a preconceived notion and cherry picks and manipulates data and interviews to build the case for his "conclusions".  Not so in 2016. I saw it this weekend.  It lays out factual and easily verifiable evidence without judgement or commentary.  It isn't until the end of the film that D'Souza gives you HIS conclusions based on the evidence he collected.  You as the viewer are free to come to your own conclusions.  It was fair, even, balanced and unbiased in the presentation of the material.  It is worth seeing if you have any question about who Barack Obama is and what molded him int othe person he is today.  It is what the media should have done 4 years ago and didn't.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> ...



Yes, I have found the fact checkers re this movie are very much lacking in facts.  And I very much appreciated your synopsis of the movie--excellent job.  I didn't pick up so much that D'souza was dismissing the conspiracy theories--he presented the 'facts' as they are generally presented but without comment and then made it clear that was all that would be said about that.  Then he moved o to the meat of the movie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> It isn't like Barack Obama is someone unknown,



Yeah, actually it is. The press refused to reveal any background at all on Obama. Any element, such as Obama's association with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn was quickly white washed. Obama's involvement in Marxist movements was not reported, nor his involvement in Liberation Theology, until Rev. Wright was briefly exposed, at which time the press ran cover for, rather than explored the connection to Obama.



> he has been our president for nearly four years, you really cannot see through D'Souza's deceptive nonsense?



Deceptive in what way? By listing facts that the press have buried?



> "The movie is based on D'Souza's notably dishonest book 'The Roots of Obama's Rage.' This book would be humorous if considered a spoof of one of the world's most placid leaders. But D'Souza makes truth the victim in his selective effort to demonize the president.



So, you haven't read the book, and have no clue what it's about.



> There are false economic claims, such as that Obama initiated the bailout and stimulus plans. Actually, George Bush initiated the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3, 2008.



D'Souza makes that clear. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.



> Obama followed this bill with his own attempt to stem the economic crisis and correct the earlier flaws in amount and administration.



TARP was a disaster, Porkulus a tragedy.



> There are misleading policy claims, such as D'Souza attacking Obama for supporting the reduction of nuclear weapons and idealizing a nuclear free world.



You're claiming that Obama did NOT do this?

No, you're reading talking points and clumsily reposting them...



> As former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz has repeatedly stated, President Obama shares President Ronald Reagan's desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons, though both realize the need for a nuclear deterrent.



It does not appear that Obama does. Obama sets a target of 300 warheads, to create parity to Iran. 



> And there are incredible omissions and mis-interpretations, such as the conclusion that Obama was elected sheerly because of white liberal guilt ... *without even mentioning the economic catastrophe that the previous Republican administration had created."* Michael Berkowitz: '2016: Obama's America': Save Your Money, Use Your Vouchers



At least that talking point has a foundation. But the desire to elect a black man was explained by D'Souza as a reaction to the economic crises and a rejection of everything in the past.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I don't know what trailer you saw, but the movie was nothing like that.  And there was no race baiting in it.  D'Souza is an Indian from India after all and holds a green card.  He is not an American citizen.



Neither was the trailer, but the demagogues aren't much concerned with facts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Really Foxy?  Those are the choices for Democrat motivations?  I suppose you think the Republicans all believe strongly in their ideology and don't hate Dems or liberals?



"If greed is the motivator of the right, it is clear that hatred is the motivator of the left." - George Carlin


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2012)

strollingbones said:


> The success comes despite mostly scathing reviews from that left-leaning, lamestream liberal media and fact-checked articles that cast serious doubts about some of the films claims. (Before we proceed: Yes, I have criticized Michael Moore for the grandstanding, time-shifting, sometimes fact-challenged theatrics in his films.) As the Associated Press has pointed out, DSouza talks about Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the British as if it were an act of disrespect to our ally, even though the bust was on loan to the Bush administration and was scheduled to be returned. The film also faults Obama for the escalation of the national debt (certainly true) but fails to mention the Bush administrations role in that escalation; claims Obama is sympathetic to jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but never mentions the killing of Osama bin Laden, and paints slanted, incomplete pictures of Obamas views on the Falklands and Irans nuclear ambitions.
> 
> from ravi's link.....anything that combines truth with fiction is a docudrama



Ravi's 'fact checkers' are no better than other fact checkers it seems.  Here's a fact check of the fact checkers re that bust for instance:



> A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
> 
> The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
> 
> ...



Also, the movie clearly and unequivocably included the Bush administration in the escalation of the national debt; something the anti-movie 'fact checkers' are not acknowledging.

They would have to be more specific in how Obama was 'sympathetic to Jihadists'.  It did mention Obama's intervention in Lybia but how mystifying that the far worse genocide in Syria is ignored, but drew no conclusions about that one way or the other.

I still think the only way to get an honest assessment of what this movie is all about is to go see the movie unfiltered by pro-Obama and/or anti-d'Souza propaganda about it.l


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Here's an excellent review of the movie.
> 
> Roeper: Fear and loathing in



Actually, it's a pretty clumsy review by a biased reviewer who stumbles to explain away criticism of his own partisan leanings.


----------



## Vituperative (Sep 4, 2012)

It was a great movie, it was terrifying. Its a horror movie.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2012)

One thing fascinating in the discussion in this thread is the complaint that a movie about Obama is not focusing on G.W. Bush.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> One thing fascinating in the discussion in this thread is the complaint that a movie about Obama is not focusing on G.W. Bush.



A movie about Obama that doesn't focus on G.W. Bush is a "racist dog whistle."

Standard Disclaimer: Hey, little Chrissy "thrill up the leg,"  dog whistles can only be heard by dogs, so what does that make those who hear these "racist dog whistles?"


----------



## MikeK (Sep 4, 2012)

Bill Maher interviewed D'Sousa on his Friday night program and he spanked him.  I haven't seen the movie but when (if) I do I will keep in mind that D'Sousa didn't have substantive answers to any of Maher's questions.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Bill Maher interviewed D'Sousa on his Friday night program and he spanked him.  I haven't seen the movie but when (if) I do I will keep in mind that D'Sousa didn't have substantive answers to any of Maher's questions.


Maher didnt have a substantive question nor did he really say a darn thing about the movie either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwOy4F53rSg]Bill Maher rips Dinesh D&#39;Souza a new butt hole over his new movie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Bill Maher interviewed D'Sousa on his Friday night program and he spanked him.  I haven't seen the movie but when (if) I do I will keep in mind that D'Sousa didn't have substantive answers to any of Maher's questions.



There is only one thing Maher has ever spanked, and it wasn't D'Souza. Maher is an intellectual light weight who can't debate outside of a forum he controls.


----------



## usmcstinger (Sep 6, 2012)

The Liberals consistently call anything negative about Obama a lie. However, they rarely provide a viable source as proof. Most of them think that Left Wing Websites and blogs are viable sources.
This is common practice by the left wingnuts on these boards


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 6, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> There is only one thing Maher has ever spanked, and it wasn't D'Souza. Maher is an intellectual light weight who can't debate outside of a forum he controls.



He doesn't do that well in the forum he does control.

I used to love to watch Ann Coulter take him apart.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2012)

Whether people believe D'Souza's nonsense is their problem. No one can stop them. Some people have a deep emotional need to believe crazy things about Obama. They weren't reasoned into that position, so they can't be reasoned out of it.

The more interesting question is how D'Souza manages to get his lunacy published at all. I've skimmed _The Roots of Obamas Rage_, which is what the movie is based on. It's just dumb. Normal people read _Dreams From My Father_ and see it as Obama being very disappointed in his father, being that's what he says. D'Souza flips the story around completely and reinterprets it as Obama wanting to mimic his father. Huh? Obama never says or implies such a thing, but D'Souza somehow sees it there.

D'Souza fans might also want to peruse some of his other works. There was his "slavery wasn't so bad" piece in 1995 (_The End of Racism_), and his "Liberals caused the 9/11 attacks because the muslims hate us for the freedom that the liberals bring!" piece in 2007 (_The Enemy at Home_). That's an especially entertaining one, being he implores the USA to become more like Bin Laden. This is the kind of guy that conservatives call their hero now.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> This is the kind of guy that conservatives call their hero now.



Who has said or done that?


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Whether people believe D'Souza's nonsense is their problem. No one can stop them. Some people have a deep emotional need to believe crazy things about Obama. They weren't reasoned into that position, so they can't be reasoned out of it.
> 
> The more interesting question is how D'Souza manages to get his lunacy published at all. I've skimmed _The Roots of Obamas Rage_, which is what the movie is based on. It's just dumb. Normal people read _Dreams From My Father_ and see it as Obama being very disappointed in his father, being that's what he says. D'Souza flips the story around completely and reinterprets it as Obama wanting to mimic his father. Huh? Obama never says or implies such a thing, but D'Souza somehow sees it there.
> 
> D'Souza fans might also want to peruse some of his other works. There was his "slavery wasn't so bad" piece in 1995 (_The End of Racism_), and his "Liberals caused the 9/11 attacks because the muslims hate us for the freedom that the liberals bring!" piece in 2007 (_The Enemy at Home_). That's an especially entertaining one, being he implores the USA to become more like Bin Laden. This is the kind of guy that conservatives call their hero now.



The only problem with your claim is that D'Souza's information is documented, verifiable FACT.  In fact, much of the movie is Obama's own voice reading his own autobiography.  Footnoted documentation is how he gets published.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> The only problem with your claim is that D'Souza's information is documented, verifiable FACT.



No. D'Souza makes up idiot conclusions based on twisting the facts to suit his agenda.



> In fact, much of the movie is Obama's own voice reading his own autobiography.



And by ripping it all wildly out of context, D'Souza reveals himself as a particularly sleazy liar. 

D'Souza's prize quote is this one:
--
"It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"
---

Sounds pretty damning, eh? Oh wait. D'Souza deliberately leaves out most of the quote.

---
All my life, I had carried a single image of my father, one that I had sometimes rebelled against but had never questioned, one that I had later tried to take as my own. The brilliant scholar, the generous friend, the upstanding leader  my father had been all those things. All those things and more, because except for that one brief visit in Hawaii, he had never been present to foil the image, because I hadnt seen what perhaps most men see at some point in their lives: their fathers body shrinking, their fathers best hopes dashed, their fathers face lined with grief and regret.

Yes, Id seen weakness in other men  Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didnt speak to my own. It was into my fathers image, the black man, son of Africa, that Id packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew  Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq  fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own  my fathers voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your peoples struggle. Wake up, black man!

Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced bywhat? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!
---

So, the passage is specifically about the moment Obama learns to reject his father's vision, yet D'Souza snips the words to make it look like Obama is embracing his father's vision.

The centerpoint of D'Souza's book and movie is a shameless lie. The question now becomes how you react to that news. Do you take the liar to task, or do you embrace the lie yourself and scream hatred at the messenger who dared point out the lie?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 7, 2012)

I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries. 
So the right will love the movie and not question anything in the movie.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries.
> So the right will love the movie and not question anything in the movie.



Why do asshats make foolish posts about things they haven't a clue about?  You obviously have not read the thread.


----------



## R.D. (Sep 7, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Bill Maher interviewed D'Sousa on his Friday night program and he spanked him.  I haven't seen the movie but when (if) I do I will keep in mind that D'Sousa didn't have substantive answers to any of Maher's questions.



He outclassed and outsmarted Maher at every turn.   Maher is an closed minded brainless dishonest ass with a cheerleading section


----------



## 007 (Sep 7, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.
> ...


Yes the she does, and does so immediately as you have pointed out. There is not one 'verifiable fact' that would 'prove' obama was born in Hawaii. There isn't even one 'verifiable fact' that obama sr. is obama's real father. Sheriff Arpiao has compelling and conclusive evidence that every single piece of documentation that obama has 'produced' to prove he was born in Hawaii is not only a forgery, but an amateurish forgery at that, from the certificate of birth, to the selective service registration, to his Connecticut social security number that is in someone else's name that would have been born in 1890, not to mention obama has lived in Connecticut. Now just because the media adores obama and will lie to the end of the earth to protect him, and politicians on both sides won't touch the issue because of what they're afraid will happen, has no bearing at all on the truth, and the facts, and the facts of the matter that obama was born in Kenya far exceed any conjured up stories and forgeries that he was born Hawaii.

I will not see this movie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Whether people believe D'Souza's nonsense is their problem. No one can stop them.



You're a partisan moron with nothing to say.

Dismissed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> No. D'Souza makes up idiot conclusions based on twisting the facts to suit his agenda.



Like what?

Specifically?

I'll wait while you log on to ThinkProgress for the talking points.



> And by ripping it all wildly out of context, D'Souza reveals himself as a particularly sleazy liar.



ROFL

What a fool you are, even for a partisan hack. 



> D'Souza's prize quote is this one:
> --
> "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"
> ---
> ...



You're lying, moron. D'Sauza uses the full quote in the movie, which is FAR more telling than the shorter version.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries.



No you didn't, but you're going to say it anyway, because leftism rather than integrity is what is important to you.



> So the right will love the movie and not question anything in the movie.



Moore is a demagogue, very little of what he uses is factual.

Show me anything that was not fact in D'Sauza's movie?

You can't, all you can do is launch into ad hom and scream "out of context." KOS, TP, MoveOn; all the hate sites that do your thinking for you have been desperately trying to attack D'Sauza - and have failed.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 7, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries.
> ...



I could give a shit about this thread or the movie.  I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise.  The same can be said of 2016 or isn't DSouza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?
Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left.  2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is?  No.
And this thread that I didn't read word for word?  I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Your lack of judgement and discernment is duly noted.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> I could give a shit about this thread or the movie.



No, but you're a dedicated leftist, so you'll bash from your position of abject ignorance. Because your views are not based on fact in the first place.



> I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise.  The same can be said of 2016 or isn't DSouza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?



That's like comparing the Gettysburg Address with a Goebbles film.

Seriously, you can't be this daft.



> Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left.  2016 was made to stir up the right.
> So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is?  No.



Again, you argue from ignorance. D'Sauza was extremely fair and intellectually honest in his treatment of Obama. No cheap shots and no bullshit. 

Moore engages in flat out demagoguery.

It would be like saying that Wolf Blitzer and a rabid Storm Front post are the same thing since both deal with political perspectives. 



> And this thread that I didn't read word for word?  I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
> If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.



You are extremely ignorant.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 7, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Your inability to understand an objective independent point of view is duly noted.  I hope you also have a nice day.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 7, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > I could give a shit about this thread or the movie.
> ...



Anyone who actually thinks this film isn't ideologically driven rerally has a problem with reality. The Washington Times at least admits to it.
"Dinesh D'Souza&#8217;s sleeper political documentary &#8220;2016: Obama&#8217;s America&#8221; was the No. 1, largest-grossing _conservative documentary _ever in its first week of wide release last week".

Read more: BERG: D'Souza's '2016': Watch out, Hollywood - Washington Times BERG: D'Souza's '2016': Watch out, Hollywood - Washington Times 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

================================
And then there's the bust of Winston Churchill, one of D'Souza's symbolic points to back his opinion.  Too bad it's a crock of BS.
From the British Embassy: _"*The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W Bush administration from the UK&#8217;s Government Art Collection, for the duration of the Presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan*; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador&#8217;s Residence in Washington DC. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March."_
British Embassy Confirms Krauthammer Right, White House Wrong: Churchill Bust Returned in 2009 | Mediaite

Opps!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> What a fool you are, even for a partisan hack.



Evasion by insults. Not impressive.



> You're lying, moron. D'Sauza uses the full quote in the movie, which is FAR more telling than the shorter version.



But the full quote says Obama rejects his fathers vision as a silly thing. You and D'Souza have some 'splainin to do as to why you reversed the meaning.

Here's a thought. Instead working so hard to evade any actual discussion, you could try to support your bizarre claims. You can list D'Souza's points that you think are valid, with the evidence to back them up. If you've got such strong points, that should be no problem for you. But if you can't support your wild claims, you'll try to evade again. So let's see what you're made of.

(And by the way, you do understand the rules of the Clean Debate Zone, yes?)


----------

