2016 The Movie

Ausmerican said:
Where did Obama get this anti-colonialist view?
He lived out of the country, in Indonesia, for less than 5 years.
From ages 6 to 10.
Is Hawaii the "third world country" that developed this view or was it his hardcore indoctrination for four years as a little boy?

Ages 6 to 10 I think you could pluck a little boy from almost any country on Earth and put him in any other country and as long as he had friends to play with he wouldn't spend a second thinking about which country it was, much less how their government worked or which way their philosophies leaned.
Click to expand...

Except in Obama's case, we know from his own writings that he was thinking about what country it was, even planning to be president.
 
mhaze said:
How can that be, if D'Souza does this with quotes from the Bamster's own books?

;)
Click to expand...
Well, IF he did, but I did not see very much of that. Mostly was D'Sousa's interpretations about what he read, and then some extensive extrapolation upon those interpretations.

Regardless, the first half or so of the movie seemed to lay some groundwork that I did not see as very objectionable. Yes, Obama's view of his father is shown to be flawed, but it would probably fall under the category of hagiography. Is that a huge flaw of a son trying to honor his father? A son who wants to see his father as a greater influence than he really was? I found myself being somewhat sympathetic that Obama turned out as well as he did DESPITE his father being more of a myth than a real father.

So D'Sousa's intent on Obama's childhood might have backfired a little if the intent was to show that Obama's childhood was not the traditional American Dream, but something foreign and unfamiliar to most Americans and we should recoil from it.

Regarding the half brother, I have some trouble fitting that into some framework of "propaganda". It is what it is, valid criticism or not as one might see it. The guy attests to his own views on the matter and D'Souza doesn't do much more than report them.
Click to expand...
I might agree, the half brother digression seems more of a simple character attack. My paraphrase - Obama must not care for family values because he has a half brother in Africa he should be supporting better. Hey, maybe it is because his brother is more pro-colonialist than Obama. It MUST be that because otherwise Obama is not very pro family.
Seems sort of like the 'how often do you beat your wife?' kind of analysis.

Regarding the Hawaiians, it's pretty laughable to try to frame either the current day natives, their strong culture or their history in terms of some vague generalized understanding of Arizona Indians. Let's put it this way: Don't ever get into court in Hawaii on a traffic accident or altercation with a native Hawaiian.

:)
Click to expand...
I will stand my ground. The status of 'Native Hawaiian' is complex because there is a real sense that they are 'colonists' themselves, whereas Native Americans don't have the same heritage.
Native American Programs Act

In 1974, the Native American Programs Act was amended to include native Hawaiians. This paved the way for native Hawaiians to become eligible for some, but not all, federal assistance programs originally intended for Continental Native Americans. Today, Title 45 CFR Part 1336.62 defines a Native Hawaiian as "an individual any of whose ancestors were natives of the area which consists of the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778."

There is some controversy as to whether or not native Hawaiians should be considered in the same light as Native Americans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Hawaiians
Click to expand...

So, I don't see my view as laughable, but acknowledges a fairly long history of discussion. The next excerpt more directly supports my original concern with the movie:
...A wide range of opinion exists among Native Hawaiian activists and organizations as to the structure of government and level of sovereignty to pursue. Thus the Native Hawaiian voice appears splintered to the general public but this is not unusual and is often part of re-empowerment processes that Native peoples go through. Contentious though it may be, the growing discussion and debate on the nature of Native Hawaiian sovereignty is a healthy process.

Expectedly, some Native Hawaiian organizations call for a complete secession from the United States, while others envision a more moderate process that would set up something akin to the “Trust Relationship” available to American Indians and Alaska Natives on the mainland. There have been serious incidents, some that threatened violence, but by and large the Native Hawaiian movement has projected a firm, reasonable pattern of reclaim that is achieving a measure of success...

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo.../native-hawaiian-recognition-is-overdue-84826
Click to expand...
The movie though, does not reflect a view that issues of Native Hawaiian rights are an ongoing discussion involving a fairly wide spectrum of ideas and actions. Native Hawaiians become anti-colonial secessionists, because that fits the story better.

To your traffic accident example, I'm not sure what to do with it. If a Native Hawaiian killed someone in the accident would they still go free? Or if it was a fender bender would the judge just look the other way? What are the limits? Again, the problem with the movie is what I see in the example - the reality of things is often a wide spectrum of truths - not so black and white. If we select the truths that only support our preconceived conclusion, we could use truth to tell a less than truthful story. This is why I class the movie as a kind of propaganda.

Maybe we could say the movie is Biblical. :D

Whatever, for anyone interested, it is well produced. I'd say wait for the DVD and bring your skeptical toolkit along.
 
Last edited:
Kopji said:
.....
So, I don't see my view as laughable, but acknowledges a fairly long history of discussion. The next excerpt more directly supports my original concern with the movie:

The movie though, does not reflect a view that issues of Native Hawaiian rights are an ongoing discussion involving a fairly wide spectrum of ideas and actions. Native Hawaiians become anti-colonial secessionists, because that fits the story better.

To your traffic accident example, I'm not sure what to do with it. If a Native Hawaiian killed someone in the accident would they still go free? Or if it was a fender bender would the judge just look the other way? What are the limits? Again, the problem with the movie is what I see in the example - the reality of things is often a wide spectrum of truths - not so black and white. If we select the truths that only support our preconceived conclusion, we could use truth to tell a less than truthful story. This is why I class the movie as a kind of propaganda. ....
Click to expand...
Frankly I'd have to go back and excerpt the several sentences in the movie about Native Hawaiians to accurately comment farther. But let's note although you start by saying you'll "stand your ground", you then walk back and acknowledge the existence of the purported attitudes in Hawaii.
 
mhaze said:
Really? I don't recall the general opinion of those debates that way. Is that just your opinion, and if so, based on what? Let's put it this way: Either D'Souza's would be as you describe, or your comments would be...

;)
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying that because a loud large group of people think D'Souza won, that he won?

Wow. Really?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Wait, are you saying that because a loud large group of people think D'Souza won, that he won?

Wow. Really?
Click to expand...
I've hear both D'Souza and Hitchens in various locations, closeup, multiple times.

Any suggestion that either is (was) not a powerful intellect or a skilled debater is ridiculous.

As far as whether a "large group of people thought <XYZ> won", you can easily check Google on that.
 
Kopji said:
I couldn't really tell if 2016 is intended to be a serious documentary, or more like that awful 'what the bleep do you know'. The reviews indicte that it tries to be fair.
Click to expand...
How would one make a serious documentary about some future time?
 
SezMe said:
How would one make a serious documentary about some future time?
Click to expand...
That's pretty simple. Obama ran on "hope and change" <<< Succccccckkkkerrrrrs!!!>>>

That process occurs over time, and 2016 is a future time that would show the results of such or not.
 
SezMe said:
Yes and yes. So not a documentary.
Click to expand...
Every bit a documentary, and a quite good one...

While pundits and critics are divided over whether "2016: Obama's America" is a sobering documentary examining "the most mysterious U.S. president in modern history" or an 87-minute attack ad, there's no debating that the film is a box office phenomenon.
Taking a page from his own book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned. With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in Houston to 1747 screens this weekend.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...tional-budget-article-1.1150536#ixzz25TQ0HHlO​

Gosh, it would seem like your negativity added to the controversy didn't have the intended effect of causing people to not go see the movie, but by inflaming the controversy over the moving, provided the exposure that would otherwise have been totally lacking due to the lack of an advertising budget.

So a big thanks to you.
 
mhaze said:
Gosh, it would seem like your negativity added to the controversy didn't have the intended effect of causing people to not go see the movie, but by inflaming the controversy over the moving, provided the exposure that would otherwise have been totally lacking due to the lack of an advertising budget.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm Roger Ebert in real life. :rolleyes:
 
mhaze said:
With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in Houston to 1747 screens this weekend.
Click to expand...
I don't know where this "virtually no promotional budget" claim originates, but I heard 2016 advertised several times an hour on the talk radio station I listen to. It may be that time is cheap, but they were plugging the hell out of this movie.

I also noticed that it spent only a few days in the "can't afford blockbusters" theater in my area. How many screens is it on now?

ETA: Looks like it's still peaking; 1747 theaters estimated this weekend. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=2016obamasamerica.htm. Definitely doing better than "Expelled", though that probably isn't saying much.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Gosh, it would seem like your negativity added to the controversy didn't have the intended effect of causing people to not go see the movie, but by inflaming the controversy over the moving, provided the exposure that would otherwise have been totally lacking due to the lack of an advertising budget.

So a big thanks to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, it only has $98,999,771 to go until it matches Fahrenheit 9/11's box office take. Well, if you count domestic only, that is. Otherwise, it has $202,251,882 to go.

On the upside, it only has to make another $57,252,223 to beat March of the Penguins' domestic take, and just another $52,828,910 to beat Justin Bieber: Never Say Never!
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Really good interview with Dinesh given by Bill Maher
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-maher-takes-apart-dinesh-d-souza-over

He really took him to task.
Click to expand...

Took him to task? I guess if you call ...

Maher argued that the health care law is full of conservative ideas, and was a “blowjob” to the health insurance companies.

...."taking him to task"....

Or if you consider....

When D’Souza tried to defend his allegations, Maher asked him “how far up [his] ass” he had to go to think up that claim.

...."taking him to task"....

Tell 'ya what, how has D'Souza's film stacked up in gross receipts and profits versus Maher's Religuous?
 
mhaze said:
Tell 'ya what, how has D'Souza's film stacked up in gross receipts and profits versus Maher's Religuous?
Click to expand...

So, D'Souza is 35% more convincing and correct than Maher, and Michael Moore is 591% more convincing and correct than D'Souza.
 
mhaze said:
Took him to task? I guess if you call ...

Maher argued that the health care law is full of conservative ideas, and was a “blowjob” to the health insurance companies.

...."taking him to task"....
Click to expand...

I was referring to calling D'Souza out on his "Unprecedented Policies" argument. Nothing Obama did was unprecedented. And it is true that the ACA is originally a largely republican bill.

I laughed out loud when D'Souza retreated to the debt increase talking point, which is the current darling of the RNC. It exposed his rather empty rhetoric. Rather than admit why he was wrong to call Obama Unprecedented, he tries to change topics.


mhaze said:
Tell 'ya what, how has D'Souza's film stacked up in gross receipts and profits versus Maher's Religuous?
Click to expand...
Do you really want to play the "popularity equals truth" game?
 
ANTPogo said:
So, D'Souza is 35% more convincing and correct than Maher, and Michael Moore is 591% more convincing and correct than D'Souza.
Click to expand...

I'd say Moore is that much more entertaining.

Kind of like Elton John once said when he was running a music video show. He picked up a DVD of Michael Jackson and said "Here's a favorite. As far as music videos go <<rolls eyes for emphasis>> he can DO NO WRONG...
 
mhaze said:
I'd say Moore is that much more entertaining.

Kind of like Elton John once said when he was running a music video show. He picked up a DVD of Michael Jackson and said "Here's a favorite. As far as music videos go <<rolls eyes for emphasis>> he can DO NO WRONG...
Click to expand...

Either relative box office take is a direct reflection of the relative merits of their arguments, or it's merely the result of how entertaining the movies are with no relation to the actual strength and accuracy of their arguments.

Pick one.
 
ANTPogo said:
Either relative box office take is a direct reflection of the relative merits of their arguments, or it's merely the result of how entertaining the movies are with no relation to the actual strength and accuracy of their arguments.

Pick one.
Click to expand...
REALLY?

Now that is a fascinating theory you have.

I'm going to have to go back and look at the relative merits of arguments made in movies.

http://www.youtube.com/expendables

Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom