2016 The Movie

mhaze said:
[*]"want to piss off a conservative, tell him a lie; want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth"
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

This line is especially ironic coming from the party of creationism and theocracy.
 
Redtail said:
The racism comes from your comments & your attitude. But then your fear is great so i guess you can't help it.
Click to expand...
Repeating from the post prior...

These intellectually bankrupt, lazy, derisive personal attacks have been the stock in trade of liberal pundits for decades.

And here, there are no pundits.

Maybe punditzoa? Small, microscopic organisms with a faint dream of one day...
 
mhaze said:
Repeating from the post prior...

These intellectually bankrupt, lazy, derisive personal attacks have been the stock in trade of liberal pundits for decades.

And here, there are no pundits.

Maybe punditzoa? Small, microscopic organisms with a faint dream of one day...
Click to expand...

Projecting what you think you know is what got your racism called out in the first place.
 
Tony said:
Anyone ever seen the debate between Hitchens and D'Souza? It is painful, D'Souza engages in the some of the shoddiest reasoning. He came off looking like a real maroon. If his performance there is any indicator, this documentary is sure to be a putrid mound of feces.
Click to expand...

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...

;)
 
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...

This doesn't even make sense.
 
Tony said:
This doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Allow me to translate: because of mhaze's crush on D'Souza, he can't believe that anyone would not think that D'Souza totally won that debate, therefore your opinion to the contrary must be a total lie because you're just mad Hitchens lost, in the same way that people who say they don't believe in God are lying and are just falsely claiming to be atheists because they're mad at God.

Hope that makes things clearer.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Allow me to translate: because of mhaze's crush on D'Souza, he can't believe that anyone would not think that D'Souza totally won that debate, therefore your opinion to the contrary must be a total lie because you're just mad Hitchens lost, in the same way that people who say they don't believe in God are lying and are just falsely claiming to be atheists because they're mad at God.

Hope that makes things clearer.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just reporting from reviews on the debate....all available for anyone to check out, and any one of which is far more interesting and readable than your drivel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

Oh....by the way....

You're no Hitchens.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
mhaze said:
I'd say it's good, but not great. 6 on scale of 10.

Not a match for Hunger Games, for example.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I have HG on DVD so I can watch whenever I want. :D

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.

Sucky release week for movies.

Can't swing a cat without hitting a Marxist in college though, is that the worst charge they level?
 
mhaze said:
As usual, though, the slack jawed minion of the intellectual drawfs of the left has written a little article which invites comments, and the comments are rich.
  • These intellectually bankrupt, lazy, derisive personal attacks have been the stock in trade of liberal pundits for decades. Think of Bill Maher, or Michael Moore, or Al Franken. Their entire repetoire consists of petty insults and deliberately inaccurate exaggerations of their opponents positions. Now that conservatives have lowered themselves to using the assault journalism techniques of the left, the prophets of the proletariat are increasingly sounding like four year olds retaliating in a contest of childish insults. No, YOU are a doody-head. Nuh-uh, you are! Life will be so much more pleasant when the conservatives are back in power, and the left-wing cretins return to their status as the irrelevant lunatic fringe.
Click to expand...

What is it like to go through life without a sense of irony?
 
Kopji said:
Yeah, well I have HG on DVD so I can watch whenever I want. :D

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.

Sucky release week for movies.

Can't swing a cat without hitting a Marxist in college though, is that the worst charge they level?
Click to expand...
No, it's fair. Not really bent to one side, a lot about Obama's growing up and his culture.(s). As far as "worst charges", they just read stuff from Obama's book, so those are his own worst charges.

It's just, what do you want to go to movie theaters for? I don't that often, and probably watch 10x as much off netflix/amazon as theaters.
 
mhaze said:
No, it's fair. Not really bent to one side, a lot about Obama's growing up and his culture.(s). As far as "worst charges", they just read stuff from Obama's book, so those are his own worst charges.

It's just, what do you want to go to movie theaters for? I don't that often, and probably watch 10x as much off netflix/amazon as theaters.
Click to expand...

Movies? Oh, just something we do. During the winter there is not much else to do around here, but this time of year I suppose I have no excuse. My daughter in college has an avowed Marxist teacher in one class. She's getting extra credit to go see 'Rage Against the Machine' next month, so we're both going to see that. She was going to see the anti-Obama movie with me just on principle, but she begged off at the last minute because she was tired. :rolleyes:

Needless to say that the crowd for the 2016 movie was generally older. There were a couple of cheers and wooden canes waving during a trailer mentioning Atlas Shrugged 2.

If you hang out on the internet at all or even moderately pay attention to the jref politics forum, there is nothing new in the movie at all. As propaganda, the movie presents facts much like any good propaganda film does, but has some serious deductive reasoning problems.

He introduces a spurious idea that Hawaii is a hotbed of secessionist thinking and that maybe it is not really part of the United States. A bone to anyone who would still like to think Obama is not a real American, but some sort of neo anti colonist. Classic propaganda.

Unfortunately it is pretty dull. I even missed the last minute of the thing, mistakenly thinking it was entering a new lull and it would be a good time to hit the restroom (aka loo). It was going into some kind of theory about how destroying the US economy would be a clever anti colonialism action. My mistake, that was the climax.
 
Kopji said:
.... As propaganda, the movie presents facts much like any good propaganda film does, but has some serious deductive reasoning problems. .....
Click to expand...
Might want to rethink that. I have studied propaganda extensively, and fail to see several of the key features therein. Demonizing, stereotyping, as examples.

My impression was that the guy was trying to point out the Bamster's thinking as neo colonialism rather than primarily socialist or marxist influenced.

As for your comments about Hawaii, they rather baffle me - there certainly is a distinctive set of ideas and sentiments among Hawaiian natives. Which obviously neither Obama or his grandparents were.
 
mhaze said:
Might want to rethink that. I have studied propaganda extensively, and fail to see several of the key features therein. Demonizing, stereotyping, as examples.
Click to expand...
The propaganda seems very clear, the movie after all aspires to be something Michael Moore-esque. The movie is not about evidence that led the author to a conclusion, but a conclusion that sent him on a mission to find evidence to support that conclusion.

I could probably give numerous examples. He clearly attempted to blame Obama for not 'supporting' a half brother in Africa, and then attempted to elicit an admission that Obama was a hypocrite because he did not take care of his family while saying that family was important... and then laid a false foundation that Obama did not help his distant half brother because they had differing views about colonialism. He then built on that assumption later when it suited his conclusion. That is the kind of fallacious reasoning I mean. Only bad propaganda is lying, good propaganda uses selectively truthy things to promote conclusions already reached.
My impression was that the guy was trying to point out the Bamster's thinking as neo colonialism rather than primarily socialist or marxist influenced.
Click to expand...
Well, I think he tried to get the audience to drink deeply from all three wells. Obama was portrayed as an anti colonialist, (which was essentially anti American Socalism), and as if that were not enough - he might have been inspired by violent radical Marxists or Islamists. Finished up with a large world map of the Mideast with barbed wire around a unified Muslim arena all made possible by Obama's hatred of Israel and lack of willingness to do more to Iran about Nuclear weapons.

Quite frankly, the imagery of a potential evil world dictator clucking over a global conquest map seems almost campy.

So anyway, I think that any of those might easily qualify as demonization. I not only stand by my categorization that the movie is propaganda, maybe it is good enough propaganda that people who share its opinions do not perceive it as being that. So, job well done?
As for your comments about Hawaii, they rather baffle me - there certainly is a distinctive set of ideas and sentiments among Hawaiian natives. Which obviously neither Obama or his grandparents were.
Click to expand...

It just seemed like so much nonsense to add in. I have a vaguely better first hand knowledge of how the US treats Native Americans because I live in Arizona, but it is fallacious to extrapolate my entire outlook from that. He only does so because it suited his purposes. I would call it begging the question, fallacious reasoning from someone billed as a scholar from a prestigious school. So, maybe also argument from authority too.
 
mhaze said:
Great reason to not see it. Hunger Games was certainly more interesting.



I didn't leave with that impression at all. More like take someone with an anti colonialist view, how would they change America? Well, they'd cut out the things that had annoyed them from the anti-colonist point of view. It's essentially a 19th century perspective, but D'Souza suggests Obama developed this perspective as many do in third world countries. Dinesh is not portrayed as "a hero" or someone of "moral superiority", on the contrary, he notes he grew up in a similar environment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kopji said:
The propaganda seems very clear, the movie after all aspires to be something Michael Moore-esque. The movie is not about evidence that led the author to a conclusion, but a conclusion that sent him on a mission to find evidence to support that conclusion.

I could probably give numerous examples. He clearly attempted to blame Obama for not 'supporting' a half brother in Africa, and then attempted to elicit an admission that Obama was a hypocrite because he did not take care of his family while saying that family was important... and then laid a false foundation that Obama did not help his distant half brother because they had differing views about colonialism. He then built on that assumption later when it suited his conclusion. That is the kind of fallacious reasoning I mean. Only bad propaganda is lying, good propaganda uses selectively truthy things to promote conclusions already reached.

Well, I think he tried to get the audience to drink deeply from all three wells. Obama was portrayed as an anti colonialist, (which was essentially anti American Socalism), and as if that were not enough - he might have been inspired by violent radical Marxists or Islamists. Finished up with a large world map of the Mideast with barbed wire around a unified Muslim arena all made possible by Obama's hatred of Israel and lack of willingness to do more to Iran about Nuclear weapons.

Quite frankly, the imagery of a potential evil world dictator clucking over a global conquest map seems almost campy.

So anyway, I think that any of those might easily qualify as demonization. .....
Click to expand...
How can that be, if D'Souza does this with quotes from the Bamster's own books?

;)

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.

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.

:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom