Split Thread Joel Gilbert's "Dreams from My Real Father" (Split from "Presidential Poll")

[oddball]

Joel Gilbert's "Dreams from My Real Father" (Split from "Presidential Poll")

I am not an "Obama hater" but I sure won't ever vote for him, as he's got two major flaws - he lies, and he's way to much of a left-winger. I wish more people knew how deep the lying goes and how far to the left he'd really like to take the USA. I didn't know the full extent until I saw Joel Gilbert's new biopic, Dreams from My Real Father.

Split from this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[remirol]

Joel Gilbert's "Dreams from My Real Father" (Split from "Presidential Poll")

BTW I am not an "Obama hater" but I sure won't ever vote for him, as he's got two major flaws - he lies, and he's way to much of a left-winger. I wish more people knew how deep the lying goes and how far to the left he'd really like to take the USA. I didn't know the full extent until I saw Joel Gilbert's new biopic, Dreams from My Real Father.

1) All politicians lie
2) That Obama is considered "left-wing" at all is sort of hilarious when compared outside the American-Puritan bubble
3) You're welcome to provide actual examples of both your claims that "you wish more people knew" at any time.

ETA: However, you probably want to consider whether such a thread belongs in Conspiracy Theories. Quick read of the summary of your linked video indicates that Gilbert is off in ******* Loon "derp, Obama är Socialist" territory:

The film begins by presenting the case that Barack Obama's real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist who likely shaped Obama's world view during his formative years.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A definition of "viable alternative" is required. I would think that the most vital criteria to making a candidate "viable" in a national election is being on the ballot in enough states to get the requisite 270 electoral votes. The only one aside from the D and the R who will be on the ballot in every state is Gary Johnson.

Running as a Republican in an overwhelmingly blue state, and as a newcomer to politics, Johnson won election as governor of New Mexico and was re-elected. In my book, that makes him more electable than Romney (who was not re-elected). Too bad he had to spend so much time, energy and campaign cash fending off Romney's challenges to getting on the ballot in so many states.

I guess Romney was afraid that Johnson would be discovered as a viable alternative, because with a campaign that's over $11m in debt, he sure didn't have money to waste chasing after Johnson.

BTW I am not an "Obama hater" but I sure won't ever vote for him, as he's got two major flaws - he lies, and he's way to much of a left-winger. I wish more people knew how deep the lying goes and how far to the left he'd really like to take the USA. I didn't know the full extent until I saw Joel Gilbert's new biopic, Dreams from My Real Father.

No, not an Obama hater at all. You just cite the work of that reprobate Joel Gilbert and plug his 100% speculative sack of fecal matter. This is the same wizard who was "just asking questions" on Alex Jones' show a couple of months ago, saying that he wouldn't put it past the Obama administration to have orchestrated the Aurora movie theater shootings to foist gun control off on the public.

He's also said this year (and I'm not sure if it's in his remarkable book) that "Change" is a well known code word among comsymp types and that those in the know understand that he's actually saying "Communist Revolution", and that he was held back in his first term but that it will "all become clear" if he gets a second term because he will turn the country totally Socialist by the end of 2015.

Oh, and to deal with the sane portion of your post.... Romney's worried about an 11 million dollar debt? You're kidding, right? Did you see his tax returns? How long would he have to work (wait) until he has another 11 mil in pocket change?

 

[oddball]

No, not an Obama hater at all. You just cite the work of that reprobate Joel Gilbert and plug his 100% speculative sack of fecal matter. This is the same wizard who was "just asking questions" on Alex Jones' show

I take it you have not seen the film in question, nor the evidence it presents in support of its thesis, and rather are simply condemning it out of hand as an "Alex Jones hater".

 

[Manopolus]

I take it you have not seen the film in question, nor the evidence it presents in support of its thesis, and rather are simply condemning it out of hand as an "Alex Jones hater".

Why would any of us want to waste our time on what I'm pretty sure is nothing more than a lame attempt at character assassination? If you've got an example of something that he's actually tried to do as president other than trying to claim that treating foreign dignitaries with respect suggests something that it doesn't (I've heard that way too often already), I'm all ears. If you've got a topic with what you think is viable evidence, by all means, start a thread about it. I might actually read it, depending how you word the title.

There are definitely things I'm kind of pissed Obama hasn't done, myself... like his failure to repeal The Patriot Act in its entirety, for instance. I'm not at all adverse to reading criticism about him.

 

[remirol]

3) You're welcome to provide actual examples of both your claims that "you wish more people knew" at any time.

I take it you have not seen the film in question, nor the evidence it presents in support of its thesis, and rather are simply condemning it out of hand as an "Alex Jones hater".

Tell ya what, why don't you sum up for us what some of this "evidence" it presents is. I don't think I'll be giving Gilbert any of my money to watch that film anytime soon (got to consider the source, doncha know), but I'm certainly willing to read a quick summary just in case it actually _contains_ "evidence", and not "hyperbolic speculation Gilbert pulled out of his ass", as I rather suspect.

 

[oddball]

Tell ya what, why don't you sum up for us what some of this "evidence" it presents is. I don't think I'll be giving Gilbert any of my money to watch that film anytime soon (got to consider the source, doncha know), but I'm certainly willing to read a quick summary just in case it actually _contains_ "evidence", and not "hyperbolic speculation Gilbert pulled out of his ass", as I rather suspect.

Best to watch the film because it goes into such great detail, based on historical facts, documents, photographs and interviews. If you don't want to pay, find a torrent. They're out there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Best to watch the film because it goes into such great detail, based on historical facts, documents, photographs and interviews. If you don't want to pay, find a torrent. They're out there.

Can you post a transcript instead?

 

[oddball]

Why would any of us want to waste our time on what I'm pretty sure is nothing more than a lame attempt at character assassination? If you've got an example of something that he's actually tried to do as president other than trying to claim that treating foreign dignitaries with respect suggests something that it doesn't (I've heard that way too often already), I'm all ears. If you've got a topic with what you think is viable evidence, by all means, start a thread about it.

There's an abundance of viable evidence in the film. I recommend watching it before you convince yourself that it would be a waste of your time.

 

[Manopolus]

There's an abundance of viable evidence in the film. I recommend watching it before you convince yourself that it would be a waste of your time.

Yeah, that's like suggesting I read the entire New Testiment before I decide not to be a Christian (I have, but it was pointless). Don't you see something wrong with that notion? I have no reason to believe that anything in the film is valid and every reason not to. It's not that I am adverse to listening to lying scumbags, it's more a matter of not wasting my time... and further wasting my time by looking up the (most likely highly questionable) sources myself.

Political documentaries on both sides of the fence tend to be filled with unadulterated crap. The film industry thrives on misinformation, and documentaries are no exception. That's what makes film more entertaining than what we see in the real world.

 

[Upchurch]

Best to watch the film because it goes into such great detail, based on historical facts, documents, photographs and interviews.

Expelled had historical facts, documents, photographs, and interviews as well. Documentaries, with little or no citation and forced context, are poor sources of information. They make much better persuasion tools than conveyors of fact.

 

[remirol]

Best to watch the film because it goes into such great detail, based on historical facts, documents, photographs and interviews. If you don't want to pay, find a torrent. They're out there.

You've never watched it yourself, have you.

 

[oddball]

Yeah, that's like suggesting I read the entire New Testiment before I decide not to be a Christian (I have, but it was pointless). Don't you see something wrong with that notion? I have no reason to believe that anything in the film is valid and every reason not to. It's not that I am adverse to listening to lying scumbags, it's more a matter of not wasting my time... and further wasting my time by looking up the (most likely highly questionable) sources myself.

Political documentaries on both sides of the fence tend to be filled with unadulterated crap. The film industry thrives on misinformation, and documentaries are no exception. That's what makes film more entertaining than what we see in the real world.

There are exceptions to every cliché. This film is one of the exceptions. Granted, you have no reason to believe me, except for the fact that I haven't got an agenda behind this recommendation. I couldn't care less which of the two lying scumbags running for POTUS gets more votes.

 

[oddball]

You've never watched it yourself, have you.

What a totally arrogant statement. I'm almost halfway through a second viewing.

 

[remirol]

except for the fact that I haven't got an agenda behind this recommendation.

Tell ya what, why don't you sum up for us what some of this "evidence" it presents is. I don't think I'll be giving Gilbert any of my money to watch that film anytime soon (got to consider the source, doncha know), but I'm certainly willing to read a quick summary just in case it actually _contains_ "evidence", and not "hyperbolic speculation Gilbert pulled out of his ass", as I rather suspect.

I'll repeat the above. Again, if you've really watched the film and think so highly of it, then you should have no difficulty whatsoever giving a quick summary of the "evidence" that it contains to support its CT-thesis.

 

[oddball]

you should have no difficulty whatsoever giving a quick summary of the "evidence" that it contains

I am unconvinced that my time would be well-spent writing anything for your benefit.

 

[AdMan]

I am unconvinced that my time would be well-spent writing anything for your benefit.

And if at any time you do decide to summarize the "evidence," please take it to the CT subforum where it belongs.

 

[grunion]

How about just one statement, oddball. What is the most damning, iron-clad piece of evidence that the film offers? Just one.

 

[remirol]

I am unconvinced that my time would be well-spent writing anything for your benefit.

How do you expect to convince anyone of your views if you don't step up to the plate, man? I mean, if this is the way you respond to challenge, I certainly am completely unconvinced that there's anything of merit to be found in the film itself.

You yourself said:

I wish more people knew how deep the lying goes and how far to the left he'd really like to take the USA.

Well, here's your chance! Tell us! If not for me, then think of all the lurkers reading this who you might convince. Backing down here just gives the impression that you either didn't watch it or couldn't recall anything of what you watched other than the conclusions, which you're perfectly willing to repeat despite being unable to support them yourself.

 

[oddball]

think of all the lurkers reading this

Interested lurkers can check the director's website.