DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Obama 2016 the movie
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/10/2012 10:40:22 PM · #1
I have been saying this for the last four years. Ever since he came on live tv and stated that he could not wait to start his "rule". Presidents do not rule....Anyway just looking at what he has enacted while in office....all of our liberties are at jeopardy. People come on. I have been predicting for years that he was trying to destroy the U.S. He is 2 faced at best. I hope that everyone here watches this movie.... My nearest showing will be a 6 hour drive and I prob won't make it.

Here is the link to the trailer

I already know that I am gonna get fried for this thread.....but people need to see the light.

Also I have left a quote from the interview with the creator of this film....and this person is the same person that did The Shawshank Redemption and a few books and other movies

CP: Can you give us a hint as to what the movie tells us about 2016 under Obama?
D'Souza: One of the themes in the movie is the anti-colonial goal of downsizing America in the name of global justice. So, the core idea here is that America has become a rogue nation in the world and also that America enjoys a standard of living that is unconscionably high compared to the rest of the world. So, anti-colonialism is a program of global reparations, not racial reparations. It's reparations for global injustice. Obama's goal is to shrink America. He wants to reduce America's footprint in the world because he thinks we are stepping on the world. He wants to redistribute money away from the rich and toward the poor. But we are not talking about the rich and the poor in America solely. We are talking about a redistribution of income away from the rich countries – America included – toward the poor countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, and so on. This is where I think we misunderstand Obama when he talks about the 99 percent. We think he means the 99 percent only in America. He doesn't. He actually means worldwide. It's important to realize that the middle class or even poor Americans are rich by global standards.

Read more at //www.christianpost.com/news/obamas-america-2016-movie-if-obama-wins-a-second-term-where-will-we-be-79160/#Wzy6AOSSA3crX0aZ.99


08/11/2012 11:53:35 AM · #2
Link

Fixed your link for you.

I will read it, but considering the source it might be a tad biased.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-08-11 11:55:30.
 08/11/2012 12:08:22 PM · #3
Just did a quick read of the article and wondered if the following could be misinterpreted as suggesting that a bit of bias could possibly exist:

The Christian Post conducted an exclusive interview with D'Souza, who was a policy analyst in the Ronald Reagan White House.

Just asking,

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-08-11 12:09:10.
 08/11/2012 02:22:22 PM · #4
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just did a quick read of the article and wondered if the following could be misinterpreted as suggesting that a bit of bias could possibly exist.

Don't waste your time. The movie was based entirely on a laughable book by crackpot author and professional scam artist Dinesh D'Souza that even conservatives have widely panned. The Economist referred to this book as "incomprehensible" while The Weekly Standard criticized it for “misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation.” The whole purpose of the movie is to raise the suspicions of those either too stupid or willfully ignorant to really consider or fact-check its premises (the central tenet being that Obama is secretly carrying out the anti-colonial will of his dead father... a man he met once when he was 10 years old). The book goes on to claim that Obama "launched" TARP and the federal bailouts (both started under Bush), that Obama supported release of the Lockerbie bomber (the administration formally opposed the release), that he's trying to undermine America by raising taxes on the rich (with efforts end ineffective Bush tax cuts that were pledged to expire two years ago had already added $1.6 trillion to the deficit by 2011, and would otherwise still leave top tax rates lower than under Reagan), etc. It's fiction for fools.
 08/15/2012 11:49:18 AM · #5
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just did a quick read of the article and wondered if the following could be misinterpreted as suggesting that a bit of bias could possibly exist.

Don't waste your time. The movie was based entirely on a laughable book by crackpot author and professional scam artist Dinesh D'Souza that even conservatives have widely panned. The Economist referred to this book as "incomprehensible" while The Weekly Standard criticized it for “misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation.” The whole purpose of the movie is to raise the suspicions of those either too stupid or willfully ignorant to really consider or fact-check its premises (the central tenet being that Obama is secretly carrying out the anti-colonial will of his dead father... a man he met once when he was 10 years old). The book goes on to claim that Obama "launched" TARP and the federal bailouts (both started under Bush), that Obama supported release of the Lockerbie bomber (the administration formally opposed the release), that he's trying to undermine America by raising taxes on the rich (with efforts end ineffective Bush tax cuts that were pledged to expire two years ago had already added $1.6 trillion to the deficit by 2011, and would otherwise still leave top tax rates lower than under Reagan), etc. It's fiction for fools.


Much like Michael Moore's "documentaries".
 08/15/2012 09:39:39 PM · #6
[quote=scalvert[/quote]

Have you seen the movie? If not, you are not qualified to comment on whether or not someone else should see it and you should shut the f up.
 08/15/2012 10:20:41 PM · #7
Originally posted by David Ey:
you should shut the f up.


A fine attitude in political discourse. When we paint the opposition as traitors and inherently evil, we are voicing our distrust in democracy. The ability of an Indian born conservative to create a fictional story based on his fear of an American president because his father was born in Nigeria. Dinesh D'Souza's factual basis is dubious (see his conversation with Spitzer here where he gets tripped up on his basic facts) and then makes wild assertions based on his imaginings with little factual basis. There is a reason he was asked to leave the Hoover Institution, which is conservative, but at least is in touch with a fact based reality.

I remember when the left attacked President Bush a few years ago and the argument on the right was that such attacks were traitorous, and that all Americans should have some respect for the office of the presidency even if they disagreed with the current office holder. Where is that respect for the office, of our basic form of government?

The trailer for the film certainly is beautifully shot, it has the same grandure and gravitas that Leni Riefenstahl injected in her odes to the Nazi party. i doubt I will spend my entertainment dollars on it, you may now tell me to shut the f up.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 22:25:42.
 08/15/2012 10:35:55 PM · #8
Look I started this tread....I think people should see the movie...OK the movie has not even premiered and people are already saying (and I am not getting this from DPC).....they are already saying that it is racist...extremely biased....etc. Look I was saying this since before he was elected...

I told people when he was running for president...He is a very socialist person (Likes to spread the wealth)...That he was anti business (same thing take the money from the job creators and give it to the people sitting at the house)

I really have grown angry at politics in general....Mainly congress has allowed him to get away with this. I say Impeach.
08/15/2012 10:36:28 PM · #9
Originally posted by David Ey:
Have you seen the movie? If not, you are not qualified to comment on whether or not someone else should see it

Big mistake, David. The movie was entirely based upon one thoroughly debunked book, so seeing the movie is not necessary to criticize the material. Having even a tenuous grasp of reality, however, is. The linked point-by-point takedown of the source material completely discredits the movie's premises. These aren't mere opinions or interpretations that D'Souza is asserting, but outright bald-faced lies aimed at ignorant people who simply accept it as confirmation of their irrational and unfounded suspicions.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 22:48:51.
 08/15/2012 10:55:00 PM · #10
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I say Impeach.


I bemoan the loss of civics as a required high school course. Educate yourself about the form of government we have here in the United States, because the schools don't force you to do it any more. You can't impeach a president because you do not care for his policies. You can protest, you can advocate against his re-election, and take all legal steps you wish, but you can not charge a man with a crime because you don't think like him. Compared to a man who believes in a top marginal tax rate of 1%, of course Obama is socialist, but so were Christ and your kindergarden teacher.

I expect this film will be a standard political attack, just well funded. In another country the makers would have been shot by now for attacking a sitting president. If we can only move to one party rule perhaps we can release the brown shirts and get some real action going. Of course doing so will destroy our country.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 23:21:07.
 08/15/2012 11:15:40 PM · #11
LOL. My post is gone. F bombs ok. Calling it like it is, no ok. Gotta love censorship.
08/16/2012 04:07:34 AM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:
grasp of reality

ROFL! Really Shannon - Media Matters?? That would be like me saying "Well Rush Limbaugh says everything in the movie is verified as true and factual!" It is widely known that Media Matters has a purely left wing agenda and an obsession with Fox News.

And yet, I read it...

While some are valid points and appear to clearly refute some of D'Souza's assertions (i.e. "Obama initiated TARP" - not sure how anyone who was awake in 2008 would buy that), many of the "point-by-point takedowns" as you put it, are simply conjecture or differences of opinion - i.e. point #3. Point #4 basically says "if Obama is anti-colonialist, so was Reagan!" - what difference does it make if Reagan was or not? This is about Obama. Same issue with point #8 "Bush did it, too" - I am curious how would these left wing talking points work on someone who didn't agree with Reagan or Bush on many things? (i.e. TARP)

These are all criticisms of D'Souza's opinions or conclusions that should be left to the reader/viewer to determine if they are valid or not. So at best, that is a Liberal book review of a Conservative's anti-Obama book and by no stretch is it a "point-by-point takedown" that "discredits" the movie's premise.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, nor am I endorsing it, but let people see the movie if they want to and read your left wing criticism if they want to and decide for themselves. I've seen most of Michael Moore's movies, as well as read and watched the counterpoints to them. Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased source - if everyone understood that and took responsibility for the information they consume and consumed it KNOWING the bias AND willingly and OPEN-MINDEDLY read/watched/listened to opposing viewpoints, people would not be so easily manipulated in either direction.

If you are worried the movie will have a negative impact on Obama's reelection, I am sure it will not. IMO, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him regardless of some Indian-born, former "Reagan policy analyst"'s wild assertions.
 08/16/2012 06:26:00 AM · #13
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased source


i get my politics news/editorials/polling data from realclearpolitics.com they present data from both sides of the spectrum and try to remain neutral in that presentation. granted, everything they link to is from another (biased) media outlet, but they have a pretty high standard and try to avoid yellow journalism wherever possible.
08/16/2012 07:05:26 AM · #14
NPR is pretty good.
Studies show they have the most informed viewers/listeners in the US. Most studies show watching Fox News makes you less informed than watching no news at all. That's a scary revelation if you ask me.

08/16/2012 10:30:19 AM · #15
Art, the refutations were between what D'Souza claimed and the actual quotes or facts he's referring to. History didn't change because Media Matters said so. In this case, facts have a "liberal bias" because they happen to be true. Perhaps neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard is more to your liking? Point #3 is not a difference of opinion or conjecture, it's a difference between what Obama actually said and what D'Souza completely made up. Points #4 and #8 observe that holding those particular positions do NOT indicate "anti-colonialism" (an altogether stupid assertion of un-American thought in the first place since Washington, Jefferson, Madison and crew were as anti-colonial as it gets).

I do not suffer the delusion that rabid ideological buffoons are suddenly going to man up and face reality when confronted with facts, nor did I say anywhere that people shouldn't see the movie if they want to. Hey, Star Trek and Harry Potter are fiction, too, and quite entertaining. Watch it, have fun, and buy popcorn. However, if you think this has any credible basis in reality, you might want to stay away from red M&Ms, too. Deadly!

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
IMO, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him regardless of some Indian-born, former "Reagan policy analyst"'s wild assertions.

I'm not exactly tickled with Obama either because he's essentially been compromising to conservative policies. Every single conservative "remedy" – tax cuts on the wealthy, reduced spending, strong defense, more drilling, low corporate taxes, no new revenue, etc. – has already been in effect... and Republicans count on public stupidity when they turn around and point to the resulting economy and unemployment as failures. Oh, and in case people have a problem with Krugman as a source, here's a conservative writer in a conservative publication saying the same thing.

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 14:58:07.
 08/16/2012 02:17:28 PM · #16
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I say Impeach.


Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I bemoan the loss of civics as a required high school course. Educate yourself about the form of government we have here in the United States, because the schools don't force you to do it any more. You can't impeach a president because you do not care for his policies. You can protest, you can advocate against his re-election, and take all legal steps you wish, but you can not charge a man with a crime because you don't think like him. Compared to a man who believes in a top marginal tax rate of 1%, of course Obama is socialist, but so were Christ and your kindergarden teacher.


+1
 08/16/2012 02:23:55 PM · #17
Originally posted by scalvert:
scalvert's wall of text

From an outsiders perspective, Obama looks like one of the most effectual Republicans there has ever been. Yet, they decry him.
 08/16/2012 05:44:20 PM · #18
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
scalvert's wall of text

From an outsiders perspective, Obama looks like one of the most effectual Republicans there has ever been. Yet, they decry him.

And yet his supporters defend him. Go figure.

Bottom line: Do your own research and hold them ALL accountable.
 08/16/2012 06:08:26 PM · #19
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And yet his supporters defend him. Go figure.

Hardly surprising when the alternative is a candidate promising to double down on those policies. When you think you're going in the wrong direction it's not a good idea to engage the warp drive.
 08/16/2012 06:19:50 PM · #20
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And yet his supporters defend him. Go figure.

Hardly surprising when the alternative is a candidate promising to double down on those policies. When you think you're going in the wrong direction it's not a good idea to engage the warp drive.

Alrighty then. Here is your free campaign poster....



:P
 08/16/2012 06:25:01 PM · #21
Originally posted by scalvert:

Hardly surprising when the alternative is a candidate promising to double down on those policies. When you think you're going in the wrong direction it's not a good idea to engage the warp drive.


it is if the wrong direction into a black hole.
 08/16/2012 06:25:39 PM · #22
Originally posted by mike_311:


it is if the wrong direction into a black hole.


ETA, not making a political point just that its ok to engage warp drives in reverse, on occasion.

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 18:26:11.
 08/16/2012 06:28:03 PM · #23
08/16/2012 06:30:59 PM · #24
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


yes, that's the solution of choice for many in the US. it makes the A** raping much easier to bear.
 08/16/2012 06:33:34 PM · #25
Originally posted by mike_311:
yes, that's the solution of choice for many in the US. it makes the A** raping much easier to bear.

or just lulls us into ignoring that "the engines can't take it much longer"
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:33:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:33:03 PM EDT.