Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
2016 the movie: part deux

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 22, 12 at 21:48

So how many people have seen this movie? We haven't yet; but are in the process of reading "Roots of Obama's Rage"; had to finish "My Life" first. So many books; so little time.

Mark's post "Fallacy of Redistribution" reminded me how provocative and elegant the writings of Thomas Sowell are. Here is part of Sowell's take on "2016".

A Powerful Movie
Thomas Sowell

"Aug 22, 2012 Sign-Up Years, and sometimes decades, pass between my visits to movie theaters. But I drove 30 miles to see the movie "2016," based on Dinesh D'Souza's best-selling book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage." Where I live is so politically correct that such a movie would not even be mentioned, much less shown.

Every seat in the theater was filled, even though there had been an earlier showing that day, and more showings were scheduled for the rest of the afternoon and evening. I had to sit on a staircase in the balcony, but it was worth it.

The audience was riveted. You could barely hear a sound from them, or detect a movement, and certainly not smell popcorn. Yet the movie had no bombast, no violence, no sex and no spectacular visual effects.

The documentary itself was fascinating, as Dinesh D'Souza presented the story of Barack Obama's life and view of the world, in a very conversational sort of way, illustrating it with visits to people and places around the world that played a role in the way Obama's ideas and beliefs evolved.

It was refreshing to see how addressing adults as adults could be effective, in an age when so many parts of the media address the public as if they were children who need a constant whirlwind of sounds and movements to keep them interested.

Dinesh D'Souza's own perspective, as someone born in India who came to America and became an American, provided a special insight into the way people from the Third World often perceive or misperceive the United States and the Western world.

That Third World perspective is Obama's perspective, D'Souza demonstrates in this documentary, as in his book -- and it is a perspective that is very foreign to that of most Americans, which may be why some believe that Obama was born elsewhere.

D'Souza is convinced that the president was born in Hawaii, as he claims, but argues that not only Obama's time living in Indonesia and his emotionally charged visits to his father's home in Africa, have had a deep and impassioned effect on his thinking.

The story of Barack Obama, however, is not just the story of how one man came to be the way he is. It is a much larger story about how millions of Americans came to vote for, and some to idolize, a man whose fundamental beliefs and values are so different from their own.

For every person who sees Obama as somehow foreign there are many others who see him as a mainstream American political figure -- and an inspiring one.

This D'Souza attributes to Barack Obama's great talents in rhetoric, and his ability to project an image that resonates with most Americans, however much that image may differ from, or even flatly contradict, the reality of Obama's own ideological view of the world."


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

It is a much larger story about how millions of Americans came to vote for, and some to idolize, a man whose fundamental beliefs and values are so different from their own.

How silly to think that they are different from those of the people that voted for him. I don't think that. He is a man that wants America to be great - for everybody. The big guy, the little guy, the woman, the people of color, gay people ... I believe that too.

Is that what you believe, elvis? That Obama has fundamentally different beliefs from the people that voted for him? That Obama is just "pretending" to be like us using his "great talents in rhetoric"?

Perhaps you believe like citywoman that in his second term he will sweep us into socialism at last? Despite the fact that Congress stands between him and most any law?

Oh, what a scary place the mind of the Obama hater is.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Actually part IV.

Why don't you just read the other, previous threads about this subject and you will get your answers.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.


2016 The Movie
Posted by: labrea 7NYC on Sat, May 19, 12 at 17:07
1 follow-up, posted on Sat, May 19, 12 at 19:46

Obama and 2016
Posted by: greatgollymolly on Fri, Mar 9, 12 at 16:23
27 follow-ups, last one posted on Sun, Mar 11, 12 at 12:06

2016 - The movie
Posted by: houseful on Sun, Aug 26, 12 at 11:16
151 follow-ups, last one posted on Sat, Sep 15, 12 at 5:26


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

...reminded me how provocative and elegant the writings of Thomas Sowell are...

Yeah, about as elegant and provocative as Ayn Rand.

-Ron-


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"Why don't you just read the other, previous threads about this subject and you will get your answers."

Wasn't involved in those threads. Why not take your own advice?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

If we followed Einstein's advice, Hot Topics would be over. Quite a few posters here must be ready for the loony bin if we take Einstein's quote seriously. He was probably making a joke at his own expense when he said that.

That's neither here nor there.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Wasn't involved in those threads.

Really? So it was the other Elvis that wrote all those inane posts on this thread?

This isn't you? It's from the thread I linked to. The one Titled 2016 The Movie.

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Wed, Sep 12, 12 at 21:28
So the bottom line is you're afraid to watch "2016". That's okay. I can just envision the lot of you with your fingers in your ears saying "lalalalala".

There are plenty of other examples on that thread alone. Your posts are forgettable but usually only to those that read them.

Why not take your own advice?

Because I don't have to. I read the other threads and remember (and admit) to participating in one of them. I didn't start thread 4 on a topic that has already been exhausted and discussed ad nauseum on other threads. I didn't ignore the other discussions and post questions that have already been answered pretending that I was trying to glean new information.

Everyone was very clear on how they felt. We already know who wants to see it and who doesn't. We already know which posters know that the information that the movie is based on is biased and false, and we already know those posters who "buy it".

He was probably making a joke at his own expense when he said that.

Yes, that ole crack-up Einstein. He was so well known for his self-deprecating humor and comedic style. *sarcasm*


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

You are freaking kidding me ? A review from Thomas Sowell.He writes a biased teabagger column for our paper and never once have I ever agreed with a word he wrote. Weren't 151 posts enough on this subject? As I think I said back ..yawn...then, you are preaching to the choir. The only people who will go see the movie are Obama haters and teabaggers. I am a lot more comfortable having this "exotic" man be my president than the unfeeling gazillionaire who couldn't identify with the problems the average American has if he tried.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Posted by epiphyticlvr 10 (My Page) on Sat, Sep 22, 12 at 22:09

"Actually part IV.
Why don't you just read the other, previous threads about this subject and you will get your answers."

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on Sat, Sep 22, 12 at 22:56

"Wasn't involved in those threads. Why not take your own advice?" Since I am calling this part 2, I obviously acknowledge part 1, which I participated in.

Which makes this thread Part 2 for me.
_______________

""He was probably making a joke at his own expense when he said that."

Yes, that ole crack-up Einstein. He was so well known for his self-deprecating humor and comedic style. *sarcasm*"

Unlike you, sadly.


The biography I read on Einstein indicated otherwise, so I looked it up for you; this is from worldsstrongestlibrarian.com:

Einstein Was Hilarious And Humble: Three Great Quotes

by Josh Hanagarne on August 12, 2009

"Einstein was a hilarious guy with a witty streak rivaled only by his theorems and other assorted acts of brilliance.

He was also humble. We talked recently about Kurt Vonnegut, his sense of humor, and some of his most memorable quotes. I think he would have been great pals with Einstein, the man who said

1. You ask me if I keep a notebook to record my great ideas. I've only ever had one.

2. Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.

3. If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."

I'm pretty sure there's evidence that a strong sense of humor often accompanies genius.



 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Poor elvis posts in other topics have been ignored and wanted some attention so she digs up a beat to death topic so people will reply. Sad, very sad.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

I notice the comments are trashing Elvis and trashing the author of the film.

NOTHING NADA ZIP on the content of the film.

Slings and arrows are all you've got.

It sure isn't a record of unemployment less than 8%, cutting the deficit in half, people off of food stamps and a peaceful Middle East.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

When obama took office the Dow had tanked to 6500 and unemployment was over 10 percent with 2 wars waged without funding of an exit strategy.

Um yeah sorry I missed the movie...catching a rerun of the Twilight Zone.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"NOTHING NADA ZIP on the content of the film."

Could it be because this is redux #4 on the same topic and redundancy is boring and obviously a waste of time with the OP.

There is nothing more to say on the subject of the OP either; never mind the fact that nothing would/will be believed.

Yup, all of the above are the reasons.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 23, 12 at 10:18

I like movie mysteries, but after 4 years of watching the real time movie unfold I see no mystery. Let's re-elect Obama and see how it really ends by 2016.

Romney/Ryan 2012
A True Mittstery!


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Elvis, all one has to do is think about his famous photo where he is sticking out his tongue to know he wasn't always staid. There was a documentary made about him that delved into his life and personality. He was multi-faceted like everyone else.

Instead of looking up the Insanity quote (which we were discussing) and giving us the real context not what you make up in your head you gave us 3 other examples from what looks like a child's website. There is information on the insanity quote and the context in which it was said. Since you showed your prowess in google you can hone your skills and look it up yourself. In fact, if you are really reading a book about Einstein I would think it would be in there. It was addressed in the documentary about him and since it was one of his most famous quotes it should be in your book.

As for the rest of your post I can't wade through it all to see where your words are in between your cut and paste. It is a jumble.

Poor elvis posts in other topics have been ignored and wanted some attention so she digs up a beat to death topic so people will reply. Sad, very sad.

BINGO

NOTHING NADA ZIP on the content of the film.

And you, I don't see your review of the film or your opinion. It seems that you did exactly what you are reprimanding others for. Another of your many do as I say not as I do posts.

This is not very complicated to understand. It was all explained on 3 other threads. If Elvis isn't capable of reading through the posts and understanding that is her problem. Apparently she isn't since on the last thread after people responded and gave reasons why they do not want to see the film she ignored it all and went on to accuse anyone who doesn't want to see the film of being were "afraid" to see it and more nonsense. And then you and she wonder why people don't want to respond to her posts or find them annoying and worthless.

If she wasn't able to glean the answers to her question the first time perhaps she should go back and read them again instead of expecting us to humor her and continue to repeat the same things over and over again. Which brings me back to the Insanity quote.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux


Well well well.

An anti-Obama movie claiming - without evidence - that President Barack Obama's real father is an obscure African-American communist has been mailed to 1.5 million voters across the country, its creator told BuzzFeed Friday.

The film's director and producer, Joel Gilbert, said that the film was sent out to more one million voters in Ohio; 200,000 after a mid-summer conference, and a million after that. He said that 50,000 copies had been sent to voters in Nevada and 100,000 to voters in New Hampshire.

"We're sending out bulk mailings to many states," Gilbert said. "Probably Illinois, New York, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, we'll hit every state if we can to stimulate and force the national media to cover the story."

Gilbert declined to say how much his company, Highway 61 Entertainment, is spending to distribute the film for free, but said that the film was making a profit through online orders. He also wouldn't say how the company is funded and how they come up with the money to distribute so many free disks.

"We're a private media company, a journalistic company that's privately held and we don't disclose the nature or makeup of our finances," he said.

Yeah right. We all know who D'Souza's financer is.

Told you we will see their lies re-posted from now 'till November.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Hope they send me one.
Would love to be able to enjoy watching it in jammies,
recliner, popcorn and in my own home.

Hate to go to the theater.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

For the fourth time, no plans to watch a fictional piece of film trash.

Can we talk about something else for a change?


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

CW, I'm sure if you don't receive the email, one of your pals, here on HT, will be glad to forward a copy of it to you.

Jodik, got to agree, "fictional piece of film trash" is not on my agenda to watch.

There are far better things to do in life, watch in life and enjoy than to see that kind of trash full of lies, and hatred for our President and attempt to claim it as factual when in is nothing more than lies and opinions based on absurdities and more lies.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Saturday Night Live did a couple of skits recently about Ann Romney and also about Undecided Voters. The Ann Romney skit was OK. The undecided voters skit was done in the form of a paid advertisement by the "Low-Information Voters of America." It was hysterical. People being interviewed and asking absolutely inane off-the-wall questions. So I'm watching the little excerpt on Yahoo and afterward was reading the comments section. Here's a sampling of some selected gems:

-Undecideds? You mean the people who can't figure out the non-differences between the Bankster owned candidates? How about the third party candidates?

-I stopped watching SNL about 20 years ago when I became old enough to relize how slanted it is. I guess that's why so many Lib's still watch...they wouldn't get it if it bit them in the AS_E.

-SNL is working for the Obama campaign. Any references in his direction are tactical questions and not personal attacks. Being in the Lean Forward/Bend Over Network family has it's requirements.

-while it may be the thing to do with hollywood/mainstream media to always give the liberal democrats a free pass and never bash them or challenge them with difficult interviews it is also very wrong because unfortunately most americans are not too bright and they get educated and vote based off of what they see on TV. If they really knew what Obama is about and how he is ruining this country they may wake up. How they do not see the 26 unemployed, high gas prices, inflation, rising debt, poor housing market, rising health care costs and I can go on and on..is beyond me. The writing is on the wall people. WAKE UP. Maybe Mitt is not perfect but he is by far the better choice between the arrogant buffoon divider obama and his racist wife. Look up Michele Obamas college thesis and tell me she is not a racist. Get rid of your white guilt liberals and get off the kool aid.

-You white libs are the real racists, you want to supress the black man and make then dependent on goverment. How is that benefiting those folks. I hear the things you say when they are not around. You liberals are the party of hate and intolerance and racists.

-Muslims here and abroad all support Obama ! If Obozo gets another term it could be really scary for us that can see who he really is and what he really stands for. We will have to suffer along with the #$%$ that voted for him.
Ann Romney was just telling the truth like any normal woman would - what's wrong with that?

-Do you want her to be like Michelle Obama who'[ll say anything right or wrong to have her husband re-elected --- c'mon people-- be realistic. Those who makes negative comments about Ann don't know what they're talking about------BIG PERIOD - PERIOD - PERIOD.

-Liberals will follow whatever the elite 1% tells them too.Luckily 60% of Americans don't buy into the elite 1% "information".

I spent more time reading the responses than the actual article. Entertaining, maybe a little mesmerizing, certainly disconcerting.


-Ron-


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

I spent more time reading the responses than the actual article. Entertaining, maybe a little mesmerizing, certainly disconcerting.

Disconcerting is putting it mildly, Ron.

I'm not a fan of SNL. never have been, but hubby and adult kids love it, always have.

Those comments, well, what can one say? "disconcerting" is just polite.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

maddie is talking about some other film; haven't heard about it till reading her post just now. Whatever she is posting about, it's not the "2016" movie.

We just got back from the matinee; so now I've seen the movie. It was very educational, and for anyone who plans to vote, a must-see. I knew a lot of the content previously, having read "Dreams From My Father", which is what the movie is based upon.

As for the "could happen" type projections for an additional 4 years with this president--go see the movie--it took 88 minutes to watch.

Or don't. Anyone who is so arrogant, so used to speaking, worshipping, and making other choices freely, that you can't imagine otherwise...


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Or don't. Anyone who is so arrogant, so used to speaking, worshipping, and making other choices freely, that you can't imagine otherwise...

So in other words, if you don't see it ... here's what elvis thinks of you.

As for the "could happen" type projections for an additional 4 years with this president--go see the movie-

Again, that's ONE man's view of what he thinks could happen. If every person makes their OWN movie of what he/she thinks, should I go see those too?


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

I knew a lot of the content previously, having read "Dreams From My Father", which is what the movie is based upon

Elvis, are you willfully ignorant or just dense? Are you really as fact challenged as you come off on HT? This too was spoon fed to you on the other thread.

The movie is based on D'Souza's own book not Obama's.

From Wiki:
2016: Obama's America is a 2012 documentary by conservative author and commentator Dinesh D'Souza. The film was produced by Gerald R. Molen. D'Souza and John Sullivan co-directed and co-wrote the film, which is based on D'Souza's book The Roots of Obama's Rage (2010).

From the movies own website:
The film based on a New York Times Bestseller about President Barack Obama, by Dinesh D'Souza.

from the other thread:

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Mon, Aug 27, 12 at 15:23

"I'm not trying to bash Obama in a crude way," Dinesh D'Souza says in a TV news clip featured in the conservative writer and commentator's new documentary "2016: Obama's America." It's a comment recycled from one of D'Souza's many media appearances in defense of his well-known, earlier attacks on the president, both in a controversial 2010 Forbes magazine cover story and two subsequent books, on which this film is based.

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on Wed, Sep 12, 12 at 13:28

Since the movie "2016" is based on D'Souza's book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, perhaps the untruths being promoted by author are best answered by a fellow conservative, Andrew Ferguson, in his Roots of Lunacy which in the conservative Weekly Standard. There are too many misrepresentations to excerpt here: from supposedly saying 'British Petroleum' instead of BP, to the case of Professor Unger, and more. Here's the conclusion of his take down of D'Souza:...

There are additional posts on that thread with the accurate information.

You watched the entire movie, participated in a thread where several people detailed what the movie was based on and you even started another thread about it yet you still don't have a clue what this movie was based on.
Pathetic.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Luckily, I've never been one to give a rat's red ass what the neighbors think, which means the opinions Elvis and others harbor towards me do not affect me, at all.

I can make up my own mind, thank you very much, regarding what media I view. I specifically choose not to view anything that is created from such a biased angle regarding politics and the like. No, I will not view the movie. I don't care if it's free.

Should a dvd copy show up in my mailbox, I'll be more than happy to use it as a coaster... or maybe I'll use it for target practice; they fly pretty good when thrown, and look pretty cool when shattering into pieces post gunshot.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

It IS pathetic to having watched the stupid movie and think it was based on Obama's book. It was written by a right wing zealot based on HIS book. Well, little ol' arrogant me won't see the movie. There is NO movie or book on earth that could make me vote for Mitt Romney. NONE. I'll keep my eight dollars, thank you . Jodi..I like the idea of you blasting the dvd if it appeared at your house with your gun.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"The movie is based on D'Souza's own book not Obama's."

True, but that is simplistic. Sounds like you didn't read "The Roots of Obama's Rage" very carefully. Here's a quote from Chapter 1: "Finally there is Obama's dream, and if you want to know what that is, all you have to do is look at the title of Obama's book: "Dreams from My Father". So there it is, according to Obama himself, his dream comes from his father. And who was his father and what were the ideals and values that moved him? I withhold the answers to these questions until the next chapter, but let's just say that Obama's dream, as derived from Barack Obama, Sr., is very different from the one espoused by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln. It is just as distant from the dream of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King. In fact, to discover Obama's dream we have to leave the American mainland and join Obama on his lifelong quest to discover his father and, through that experience, himself."


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Obama is 50 years old. I think we can judge him based on his own actions at this point ... we have enough data. No need to ascribe intentions to him based on his father.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

elvis, you are still not understanding the difference between fact and opinion--or in this case, the better terms would be fact vs interpretation.

D'Souza's interpretation of what Obama's title means is his own opinion--mixed with his own imagination and politics. It is not the same as Obama's presentation of what he means by that title. And I assure you, if you bothered to read Obama's book carefully, Obama is communicating a very different meaning than D'Souze manages to extrapolate from Obama's book.

If we were to give a prize to the best summary --which includes "accuracy"-- of Obama's thesis in his book, D'Souza would end up in last place--because his summary is NOT accurate, but rather simply D'Souza's projection of his own political philosophy and paradigm onto Obama's book. Therefore, as an exercise in (correct) Summary, D'Souza would get an "F." He failed to convey the clearly stated meaning Obama was communicating in his book.

Does that explain why D'souza's version is no good? Unless you like to reside a lot in political fantasyland, that is.

Kate


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"Does that explain why D'souza's version is no good? Unless you like to reside a lot in political fantasyland, that is.

Kate"

Nope. Anyway, the projections don't happen till the very end. Most the book and movie are historical. These
would be called "facts".

The snark about fantasyland is very nice. Is that your opinion, O learned one, or fact?


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

True, but that is simplistic. Sounds like you didn't read "The Roots of Obama's Rage" very carefully.

Not only didn't I read it well, I don't waste my time reading carp so I haven't read it at all.

What you just posted was one man's OPINION on what he THINKS is behind Obama and HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of the book. It is called propaganda. Just because it is packaged in a shiny box with a bow doesn't make it true.


Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political or religious agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.


Some people are foolish enough to believe this tripe as we have seen throughout history. Thankfully others are smart enough not to.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

D'Souza is projecting his own fantasies about the boogyman he created and is afraid of --projecting them onto Obama's book. D'Souze does that all the way through his book, not just at the end. Everything in his book is an interpretation of the facts cited--his paranoid interpretation. And he isn't playing honestly with the "facts"--he is manipulating them to make them agree with his own thesis/interpretation. In other words, he is using the opposite of the scientific method!

(Helpful Hint: --use a dictionary. You are using "projection" in a very different sense than I am--which is one reason why you are having trouble understanding what I am saying. As a psychological term, it does NOT mean forecasting the future as you seem to think it does.)

Kate


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Anyway, the projections don't happen till the very end. Most the book and movie are historical. These would be called "facts".

Another circular conversation that was covered in the other thread including the debunking of the fallacies in the movie and the differences between fact and opinion. Read the other thread and educate yourself.

Don't continue to waste our time asking questions and making false statements that have already been debunked or responded to, making us repeat the same things over and over again on thread after thread.


Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on Mon, Aug 27, 12 at 15:35

. . . a slick infomercial. As these things go, the movie seems destined to irritate the president's supporters while mobilizing his detractors, even as it is doomed to win precious few converts. It's a textbook example of preaching to the choir.
. . . .

D'Souza's one-sided argument ultimately stoops to fear-mongering of the worst kind, stating in no uncertain terms that, if the president is reelected, the world four years from now will be darkened by the clouds of economic collapse, World War III (thanks to the wholesale renunciation of our nuclear superiority) and a terrifyingly ascendant new "United States of Islam" in the Middle East. These assertions are accompanied by footage of actual dark clouds and horror-movie music.

There--everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about the movie/documentary/propaganda piece called "2016"--in two short paragraphs.

Now you don't need to waste time actually watching it.

Kate

__________

Posted by epiphyticlvr 10 (My Page) on Tue, Sep 11, 12 at 21:22

I'm still waiting for the specific lies told in the film.
No one has specified one that I can see, although the accusation has been made.

Here ya go again.

The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.
It's true that Obama's father lived most of his life in Kenya, an African nation once colonized by the British, and that Obama's reverence for his absent father frames his best-selling memoir. D'Souza even sees clues in the book's title: "Notice it says `Dreams From My Father,' not `of' my father," D'Souza says.

But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D'Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president's ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.

...

D'Souza says Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, shared his father's left-leaning views. After living in Indonesia for several years, D'Souza said, Dunham sent the younger Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii so he would not be influenced by her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who worked for American oil companies and fought communists as a member of the Indonesian army.

"Ann separates Barry from Lolo's growing pro-Western influence," D'Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.

In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence that Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts ��" again with no evidence ��" that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended.

"Oppression studies, if you will. Obama got plenty of that when he was here in Punahou," D'Souza says, standing on the campus in Honolulu.

In Kenya, D'Souza interviews Philip Ochieng, a lifelong friend of the president's father, who claims the elder Obama was "totally anti-colonial." ...D'Souza seems to suggest that if a onetime friend of Obama's late father holds those opinions, so, too, must the president himself.

D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:

_ D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.

_ D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.

_D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.

_D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

_ D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.

Here is another that points out more inconsistancies.
There are plenty of others who have seen the movie and state unequivocally that it is lacking evidence.

The Dinesh D'Souza movie 2016: Obama'fs America, is part autobiographical, part psychological, and part imperial. A fact check of 2016 is practical.

Like many conservatives, D'Souza has magnified some of President Obama's pre-presidential companions and a few quotes from Barack Obama Sr. calling for progressive taxation and the force of state power to guarantee economic equality and extrapolated them to explain why Obama is Obama. D'Souza's thesis began as a Forbes article, merged into his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage, and forthcoming Obama's America, and finally an hour-and-a-half documentary 2016: Obama's America.

The movie is an assertion, President Obama is somehow anti-American or un-American, but it is supported by circumstantial evidence and ends up riddled with inconsistencies and logical errors.

The majority of conservative outrage at Obama has centered on the Democratic president's supposed Marxism: bromides on wealth redistribution and socialized medicine.

But 2016 is really a foreign policy movie thinly disguised as a movie about a domestic-minded president. In fact, the specific domestic policies are barely remarked upon.

...

D'Souza uses the intervention in Libya to stop genocide as evidence of Obama's peculiarity, but he neglects to mention that it involved teaming with former colonial powers Great Britain and France. Although the point of Libya in the film is to show Obama's inconsistency by staying out of Syria where a bigger genocide may be taking place, this is a major problem for D'fSouza's thesis. Why would an anticolonialist align with two of history's big colonial powers in an act of unprovoked aggression against a third world quasi-socialist country?

Near the end, in the hypothetical 2016 that follows a second Obama term, a barbed wire appears on a map sequestering the borders of north African countries, extending to the Middle East, and south Asia with a green flag covering it. The flag may or may not have been intended to represent alleged Iranian hegemony, but it deliberately conjures images of Western propaganda films depicting the Nazi or Soviet flags covering the European continent.

Here D'Souza is either playing dumb or is confused about his countries. Should Obama have intervened in Syria and removed the Assad regime that is aligned with Iran? One of the primary reason given for a prospective Syrian intervention is because it would weaken Iran, not strengthen it, because the fighters, particularly those affiliated with al Qaeda, are Sunnis and therefore enemies of Iran.

But perhaps the icing on the cake is D'Souza's decision to include Daniel Pipes as his "Middle East expert" to make the anticolonial case. Pipes, a neoconservative currently affiliated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, whose only policy prescription is "Bomb Iran", also infamously stated that he would vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he could, presumably because that would assure that relations between the United States and Iran remain frigid, thus keeping intervention on the table. If D'Souza had genuinely wanted an expert without ideological baggage he could have hardly done worse than Daniel Pipes.

One need not be a "birther" to be curious and even fascinated by Obama�fs exotic youth, upbringing, and education, if in fact Obama was reared differently from every previous American president. But D'Souza's case that Obama is an inauthentic American and an anti-American president would be better supported if he had relied on more than stock conservative fears, because despite the different background, as president, Barack Obama has not imported anything fundamentally alien to either the Democratic Party or the American body politic.

...

The Obama presidency, for good and bad, is a result of the administrations that preceded it.

______________

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on Wed, Sep 12, 12 at 13:28

Since the movie "2016" is based on D'Souza's book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, perhaps the untruths being promoted by author are best answered by a fellow conservative, Andrew Ferguson, in his Roots of Lunacy which in the conservative Weekly Standard. There are too many misrepresentations to excerpt here: from supposedly saying 'British Petroleum' instead of BP, to the case of Professor Unger, and more. Here's the conclusion of his take down of D'Souza:

Will this confusion -- the uncertainty over whether Obama is an anticolonialist or a socialist, evil or merely deranged -- unsettle the audience that D'Souza writes for? Probably not. A week after its release, The Roots of Obama's Rage appeared at number four on the New York Times bestseller list. Buyers of partisan books know what they like, and D'Souza is happy to give it to them. Yet the most innocent among them, those readers not yet trained in the Pavlovian relationship between these authors and their eager customers, might want to consider how unnecessary D'Souza's theory and its "explanatory power" are.
There is, indeed, a name for the beliefs that motivate President Obama, but it's not anticolonialism; it's not even socialism. It's liberalism!

Nearly everything that Obama has done as president, including the policies that D'Souza cites as proof of his inherited anticolonial ideology, would have been as eagerly pursued by President John Edwards or President John Kerry. And the points where they might differ -- in the escalation of troops in Afghanistan, for example, or energetic education reform, or the push for nuclear power -- mark Obama as more moderate than either of them. Come to that, many of the policies that D'Souza identifies as anticolonial were advanced by George W. Bush, who doesn't (I'm guessing) have an anti-colonialist bone in his body. Bush began the auto bailout, approved TARP, vastly increased federal spending, expanded entitlements, pushed through a large and probably unnecessary fiscal stimulus of his own, and often chided Americans for their "addiction" to foreign oil.

Trained as a young man by Jesuits, D'Souza must be familiar with the principle of Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is always the best; if it fits the case at hand, there's no need to go looking for more complicated theories. Yet there's a cramp in the mind of the committed party hack, a terrible need to believe that one's adversaries are more ominous or sinister than observable reality suggests. Thus Bill Clinton wasn't merely an opportunist; he had to be a committed leftist and a criminal to boot. George W. Bush wasn't merely a well-meaning, incompetent conservative; he had to be a Falangist. What Obama truly represents -- unchecked liberalism, genus Americanus -- is worrisome enough without dragging in the sad, gin-soaked carcass of his father...


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Kate - I just have to give you credit for continuing to try. But, it's a lost cause. The story is always the same -- if the facts don't support the agenda, ignore or change them. The ability to ignore the facts is just astounding.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Fearing the movie so much you won't watch it doesn't make it fiction.

People are commenting on what other's said about the movie yet no one has printed any "facts" to disprove aspects of the movie.

Now Biden on the other hand did take a shot at it when he defended Obama on points that were not even in the movie, I thought that was comical. Good indicator that facts brought out in the movie were facts the president didn't want anyone even trying to defend because they couldn't.

Thing Obama and his supporters need to realize you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

People are commenting on what other's said about the movie yet no one has printed any "facts" to disprove aspects of the movie.

What? Did you read the responses to this thread? Or the ones on the previous several threads on the same subject?

Either you didn't, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"(Helpful Hint: --use a dictionary. You are using "projection" in a very different sense than I am--which is one reason why you are having trouble understanding what I am saying. As a psychological term, it does NOT mean forecasting the future as you seem to think it does.)

Kate"

Yeah, well, Miss Psychobabble, since I used "projection" first in this conversation, we're using the definition I choose. I'll save you a step:

"the act, process or result of projecting"

"projecting" is "1.Estimate or forecast"

_________________

Got to go put some Romney & Ryan bumper stickers on my car now for the Monday a.m. drive to work.

See ya; wouldn't want to be ya.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

elvis, when you first came here you were mad at Scott Walker and open to re-electing a Democrat for President. You had not decided.

Now you are firmly R&R. Do you really think that Romney and Ryan are so different from Scott Walker that you'd like to see them run the country? I see them as peas in a pod. What Walker did to Wisconsin and it's public employees is exactly what R&R would like to do to the country on a federal level.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Interesting question?


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

So, since I came here, all I've read is that liberals are the only ones that call people names. Liberals are the only ones that are mean and nasty in their posts.

Following that logic, elvis must a liberal! Who knew!

On the other hand, statements like this:
See ya; wouldn't want to be ya.
convince me that someone's (don't remember who...david?...ron?...someone...) conclusion that elvis is a 13 year old girl was correct.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

I was the one who said she was a 13 year old girl, and she proves it every time she posts. Nanananaa.

Well, I wouldn't want to be HER! She is apparently the self appointed secretary who rehashes every post, and then finishes with her caustic little irrelevant comment.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"Yeah, well, Miss Psychobabble, since I used "projection" first in this conversation, we're using the definition I choose."
And that, in a nutshell, is why conservatives cannot communicate.
Elvis, English is a language. All languages have rules. The rules are to facilitate communication.
You may not pick and choose the meanings of words if you wish to communicate your thoughts and ideas.
Making mistakes is human. Refusing to admit that you made a mistake and refusing to correct it is merely a sign of the present state of conservatism.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

D'Souza's back...

Star Commentator Is Out as Christian College President After Scandal
By ARIEL KAMINER
Published: October 18, 2012

While attending a conference last month, the president of the King's College was spotted in the company of a woman other than his wife. At a typical institution of higher learning, a sighting like that might not have turned into a major controversy.

But the King's College is not a typical institution of higher learning. It is a tiny Christian college based in a downtown Manhattan office building, whose mission statement articulates a "commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview."

Its president was Dinesh D'Souza, better known as the outspoken conservative commentator behind the caustic documentary "2016: Obama's America." And the ensuing scandal has cost him his job.

The King's College announced Mr. D'Souza's resignation on Thursday, two days after World Magazine, a Christian-oriented publication, reported that he had checked into a Comfort Suites in South Carolina in September with a woman he introduced as his fiance, despite the fact that he was already married. The magazine reported that he filed for divorce the same day its reporter called to ask about the situation.


Here is the original story from the Christian Evangelical World Magazine

King's crisis

After a meteoric rise in the evangelical world, The King's College president Dinesh D�Souza now faces his board's likely questions about his relationship to a woman not his wife

About 2,000 people gathered on Sept. 28 at First Baptist North in Spartanburg, S.C., to hear high-profile Christians speak on defending the faith and applying a Christian worldview to their lives. Among the speakers: Eric Metaxas, Josh McDowell, and keynote speaker for the evening-best-selling author, filmmaker, and Christian college president Dinesh D'Souza.

D'Souza's speech earned him a standing ovation and a long line at the book-signing table immediately afterward. Although D'Souza has been married for 20 years to his wife, Dixie, in South Carolina he was with a young woman, Denise Odie Joseph II, and introduced her to at least three people as his fiance.

Finally, near 11 p.m., event organizer Tony Beam escorted D'Souza and Joseph to the nearby Comfort Suites. Beam noted that they checked in together and were apparently sharing a room for the night in the sold-out hotel. The next morning, around 6 a.m., Beam arrived back at the hotel and called up to D'Souza's room. "We'll be down in 10 minutes," D'Souza told Beam. D'Souza and Joseph came down together, and Beam took them to the airport.

The next day another conference organizer, Alex McFarland, distressed by D'Souza's behavior, confronted him in a telephone conversation. D'Souza admitted he shared a room with his fiance but said "nothing happened." When I called D'Souza, he confirmed that he was indeed engaged to Joseph, but did not explain how he could be engaged to one woman while still married to another. When asked when he had filed for divorce from his wife, Dixie, D'Souza answered, "Recently."

According to San Diego County (Calif.) Superior Court records, D'Souza filed for divorce only on Oct. 4, the day I spoke with him. Under California law, that starts the clock on a six-month waiting period for divorce. D'Souza on Oct. 4 told me his marriage was "over," said he "is sure Denise is the one for me," and said he had "done nothing wrong."

And finally, D'Souza's response to the allegations.

Here is a link that might be useful: NY Times


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

This is peripheral to the topic, but I read that D'Souza, who is married, although I think in the process of getting a divorce, was/is having an affair with a much younger woman, whom he introduced as his fiancee, even though he is married to someone else. Because of this rather strange and tasteless behavior, or perhaps the fact that he was having an affair at all, he's lost his one million dollar a year position at a conservative college. I don't think I'd trust much a man says who is weird enough to introduce his young arm candy as his fiancee while married to someone else.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

Sort of like voting for Obama and expecting the next 4 years to be different.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Another crash and burn wingnut bites the dust!!


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Oct 19, 12 at 18:23

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

Monablair, re-electing Obama = just one "over"

Repeating repub rule better fits the insanity definition ;)


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

So it sounds like some of you haven't had the opportunity to read the book or watch the movie.

I know, I know--"waste of your time". Right. You're soooo busy right now, here on HT, typing and reading.

It doesn't matter if you shoot the messenger (D'Souza) or not; it won't affect anyone inclined to read his work anyway.

Just finished "Roots of Obama's Rage"--such a good read! More comprehensive than the movie, of course, and full of so many things that make me think of the "lefties" here on HT. I can't help but feel sorry for you--so determined not to learn anything you don't want to know--or even wonder about.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Speaking as someone who once worked at the same institution as D'Souza, I am not surprised. His regressive attitude towards gender relations was probably best summarized via his habit of referring to the Women's Faculty Caucus as "those Feminazis". *sigh*


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Oct 19, 12 at 18:58

A fan of Limbaughdomy?


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

"...but I read that D'Souza, who is married, although I think in the process of getting a divorce, was/is having an affair with a much younger woman, whom he introduced as his fiancee, even though he is married to someone else. Because of this rather strange and tasteless behavior, or perhaps the fact that he was having an affair at all, he's lost his one million dollar a year position at a conservative college. I don't think I'd trust much a man says who is weird enough to introduce his young arm candy as his fiancee while married to someone else."
___________________________________________________________

I don't think I'd make a judgment call as you have, without knowing all the facts. Rumor, assumption, speculation and character assasination all rolled into one neat little ball.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

So it sounds like some of you haven't had the opportunity to read the book or watch the movie.

I know, I know--"waste of your time". Right. You're soooo busy right now, here on HT, typing and reading.

It doesn't matter if you shoot the messenger (D'Souza) or not; it won't affect anyone inclined to read his work anyway.

Just finished "Roots of Obama's Rage"--such a good read! More comprehensive than the movie, of course, and full of so many things that make me think of the "lefties" here on HT. I can't help but feel sorry for you--so determined not to learn anything you don't want to know--or even wonder about.


 o
RE: 2016 the movie: part deux

Karma sure has a wicked sense of humor. :)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here