• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2016 The Movie

So, his titling the movie "2016: Obama's America" was to reassure us, then?
Yes, you are admitting that nowhere did he say you needed to "worry about 2016".

Any other lies you'd like to come clean on while we're at it?

Look, all I did is said I've seen the movie, and asked if anyone had questions. If you can only be trivial, don't expect serious answers or even a conversation.

Let's start with this, smartypants.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2016_obamas_america/

79% liked the movie.
 
Last edited:
So, what does he say about Obama's America in 2016, then?
Not much. The primary thesis is that most people don't really understand who Obama is or why he acts as he is. Considerable play is given to indonesian culture and neo colonial perspectives. Turns out D'souza comes from a very similar background.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you are admitting that nowhere did he say you needed to "worry about 2016".

Any other lies you'd like to come clean on while we're at it?

Look, all I did is said I've seen the movie, and asked if anyone had questions. If you can only be trivial, don't expect serious answers or even a conversation.

Let's start with this, smartypants.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2016_obamas_america/

79% liked the movie.


So that whole thing about Obama committing to become president to bring down America is nothing to worry about?
 
Not much. The primary thesis is that most people don't really understand who Obama is or why he acts as he is. Considerable play is given to indonesian culture and neo colonial perspectives. Turns out D'souza comes from a very similar background.

So, Dinesh D'Souza made a whole movie about how Barack Obama is just like him, and that Obama's America in 2016 will not be different enough from today's America to be worth mentioning, despite the title of the movie?

Seems rather pointless to me. Why do you think D'Souza would make such a film? And why title it "2016: Obama's America"?
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping it gets bad enough for these guys to all move to Guyana and start their ideal civilization.

I'll pay for the one-way airfare for 4 of them myself.

That's a nice letter, almost brought tears to my eyes, how about you?
 
This is a really funny article on D'souza's theories that tries to flip them around on him:

The last name "D'Souza" is a common family name in West Africa, where it indicates that the family is descended from the slave-trading coastal mixed-race elite. In India, however, it indicates that the family likely belongs to the Roman Catholic Brahmins, Hindu Brahmins who were converted by missionaries beginning in the 17th century. Interestingly, the Christian community in Goa retained a Hindu-style caste system, with Catholic Brahmins continuing to discriminate against Catholic dalit or "untouchables", whom they refer to as mahara or chamaar. Elite Catholic Brahmin households in Goa sent their children to Jesuit schools (like the one Mr D'Souza attended) and often spoke Portuguese at home, referring to the main local native language, Konkani, as the lingua des criados ("language of servants").

Goa remained a Portuguese colony until it was annexed by India in 1961, which happens to be the year of Mr D'Souza's birth. Many Goan Christians did not welcome the annexation, fearing they would be subsumed in the Hindu-Muslim mega-state. A later source of anxiety was India's affirmative action (or "reservation") policies, which set aside university slots and civil-service jobs for people from recognised historically stigmatised groups, known as "scheduled castes and tribes". Beginning in the early 1980s, when Mr D'Souza was off studying at Dartmouth, these affirmative-action policies engendered widespread resistance among India's elite classes, who were terrified of losing their privileged status in a colossal country where hundreds of millions of indigents might overwhelm the available spots at top schools (and reduce their kids' chances of, say, going to Dartmouth). Goa itself has set itself up as a redoubt against the reservation policies: it has the fewest scheduled castes and tribes of any Indian state. This is largely because elite Christians have refused to acknowledge discrimination against the Christian dalit, or to allow them to be recognised as a scheduled caste. Pope John Paul II rebuked Indian bishops for these practices on his visit to Goa in 2003.

In 2000, Mr D'Souza wrote a book called "The Virtue of Prosperity" that included an unusual defence of nepotism and elitism in education. As Tim Noah wrote at the time, in this passage, Mr D'Souza explicitly argues against equality of educational opportunity:

Linky.

Interesting to note that one of the first things we know about Dinesh is his stand against affirmative action in an American university...
 
So, Dinesh D'Souza made a whole movie about how Barack Obama is just like him, and that Obama's America in 2016 will not be different enough from today's America to be worth mentioning, despite the title of the movie?

Seems rather pointless to me. Why do you think D'Souza would make such a film? And why title it "2016: Obama's America"?
Something you don't know anything about and contrive to make seem pointless by making things up might indeed....seem....pointless.

The poster for the movie is fairly accurate: Obama: You don't know him, etc. It has a great deal of background material on Obama, presently in my opinion fairly neutrally.

So that whole thing about Obama committing to become president to bring down America is nothing to worry about?
Where do you get this stuff? Are you trying to make a comment about the content of the movie in question, or just trying to ask cool and interesting questions?
 
Last edited:
So that whole thing about Obama committing to become president to bring down America is nothing to worry about?

So, Dinesh D'Souza made a whole movie about how Barack Obama is just like him, and that Obama's America in 2016 will not be different enough from today's America to be worth mentioning, despite the title of the movie?

Seems rather pointless to me. Why do you think D'Souza would make such a film? And why title it "2016: Obama's America"?


Seems like mhaze is picking a really indefensible proposition to defend. How could this film be anything other than a "cautionary tale"?

From the film's website:

The film examines the question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?"
Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America’s ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn't know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him--who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world.

Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle.

Sure sounds like he wants us to worry about Obama being re-elected in 2012, and what that might lead to by 2016.
 
D'souza's debate with Hitchens was nothing but an exercise in the most common and shallow attacks against atheism, he even went so far as to accuse atheists of secretly believing in God.

It looks like he hasn't improved, but wow, this idea that Obama vowed at his father's grave to single handedly reign in America's international activity,... wow.
 
Seems like mhaze is picking a really indefensible proposition to defend. ....
There is nothing defensible or indefensible about talking about a movie that one has seen, with others who have not seen it.

The ignorance you own lock stock and barrel.
 
There is nothing defensible or indefensible about talking about a movie that one has seen, with others who have not seen it.

The ignorance you own lock stock and barrel.

I have cited the text from the movie's website. (But I predict you will continue to ignore this and claim authority because you have seen the movie.)

Your position is really that this movie is not saying we should be concerned about how the world would be in 2016 if Obama gets elected to a second term?
 
More like a Marxist vibe.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6416[/qimg]


"NEW FILM SUGGESTS OBAMA‘S ’REAL’ FATHER WAS HIS COMMIE JOURNALIST MENTOR..."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new...real-father-was-his-commie-journalist-mentor-

OK, now I am completely lost.

In another thread, you reference a story from TheBlaze and say that we were clueless for not recognizing parody. Now you are referencing a story from TheBlaze and claiming it is serious.

Is there any way for people to tell which stories from that site are parody and which are serious?


ETA: also, may I ask you to define Marxist? My definition seems very, very different from your definition. I want to see if there is anything that our two definitions have in common.



________________________________
Robrob: Ooooh, I know, I know - pick me! :D

Calm down there, Hermione.​
 
Last edited:
So, mhaze, if you're offering nothing more than the fact that you've seen the film as defense of the proposition that its message is not a dire warning, I will offer quotes of several reviews:

The film really goes off the rails in the last half hour, when it veers from biographical data to speculation on how Barack Obama Sr.’s anti-colonialist sentiments turned his son into a radical who aims to dismantle America’s traditional values. To prove his tendentious point, D’Souza trots out a familiar cast of characters. Frank Marshall Davis, a friend of Obama’s grandfather in Hawaii, was indeed a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, though the film fails to mention that when Davis joined the Party in the 1940s, such membership was perfectly legal. We hear about “Obama’s Chicago pal” Bill Ayers, though D’Souza admits that Obama met Ayers in 1995, 25 years after Ayers’ involvement with the Weather Underground. D’Souza also points out that Obama took a class at Columbia taught by Edward Said, the renowned pro-Palestinian scholar. Do any of these marginal associations prove that Obama aims to introduce socialism to America and undermine the state of Israel?

Other bits of “evidence” are just as obviously cherry-picked. The filmmakers show Obama fumbling when trying to explain his healthcare bill at a rally, but they mute the sound of the hecklers who clearly contributed to the President’s disorientation. D’Souza implies that Obama is sympathetic to radical jihadists while ignoring the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The film concludes by suggesting that if Obama wins a second term, America will be a completely different country by 2016. And it ends with the ominous words, “The future is in your hands.” No one doubts that the country faces major challenges in the next four years, but there is one safe bet: The future is unlikely to be affected by this simplistic documentary.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/2016-obamas-america-film-review-358302

WP reader comments:
Go and take 3-4 people who want Obama out but might not be motivated enough to work and/or spend for Romney. This is because ANYONE who sees the movie will come away on fire to get Obama out of office.
Apparently Obama's "vision" is not the vision of the Founders, and the film leaves us with the question, "Whose vision will we take in 2016--Obama's, or the Founders?" I know what my answer is. What's yours?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/2016-obamas-america,1230760/reader-reviews.html

The interwebs are full of similar reviews and comments. People who despise the film and those who like the film agree that the film makers want us to be worried about the state of the world in 2016 should Obama get a second term.
 
So, mhaze, if you're offering nothing more than the fact that you've seen the film as defense of the proposition that its message is not a dire warning, I will offer quotes of several reviews:.....

Lol, a typical liberal with no facts arguing with second hand pap. Hey, Joe, you wouldn't think that maybe the lurid stuff was just, you know, ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES?
 
Lol, a typical liberal with no facts arguing with second hand pap.
You keep accusing me of having no facts, yet I've provided more than you.


Hey, Joe, you wouldn't think that maybe the lurid stuff was just, you know, ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES?
So your defense now is that the filmmakers are inaccurately hyping their movie?

Bizarre--even for you.
 

Back
Top Bottom