The Movie: 2016

[kiwiman127]

I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries.
So the right will love the movie and not question anything in the movie.

Why do asshats make foolish posts about things they haven't a clue about? You obviously have not read the thread.

I could give a shit about this thread or the movie. I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise. The same can be said of 2016 or isn't D’Souza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?
Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left. 2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is? No.
And this thread that I didn't read word for word? I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.

 

[kwc57]

I heard the movie is about as unbiased as most of Micheal Moore's documentaries.
So the right will love the movie and not question anything in the movie.

Why do asshats make foolish posts about things they haven't a clue about? You obviously have not read the thread.

I could give a shit about this thread or the movie. I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise. The same can be said of 2016 or isn't D’Souza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?
Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left. 2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is? No.
And this thread that I didn't read word for word? I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.

Your lack of judgement and discernment is duly noted. Have a nice day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I could give a shit about this thread or the movie.

No, but you're a dedicated leftist, so you'll bash from your position of abject ignorance. Because your views are not based on fact in the first place.

I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise. The same can be said of 2016 or isn't D’Souza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?

That's like comparing the Gettysburg Address with a Goebbles film.

Seriously, you can't be this daft.

Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left. 2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is? No.

Again, you argue from ignorance. D'Sauza was extremely fair and intellectually honest in his treatment of Obama. No cheap shots and no bullshit.

Moore engages in flat out demagoguery.

It would be like saying that Wolf Blitzer and a rabid Storm Front post are the same thing since both deal with political perspectives.

And this thread that I didn't read word for word? I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.

You are extremely ignorant.

 

[kiwiman127]

Why do asshats make foolish posts about things they haven't a clue about? You obviously have not read the thread.

I could give a shit about this thread or the movie. I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise. The same can be said of 2016 or isn't D’Souza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?
Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left. 2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is? No.
And this thread that I didn't read word for word? I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.

Your lack of judgement and discernment is duly noted. Have a nice day.

Your inability to understand an objective independent point of view is duly noted. I hope you also have a nice day.

 

[kiwiman127]

I could give a shit about this thread or the movie.

No, but you're a dedicated leftist, so you'll bash from your position of abject ignorance. Because your views are not based on fact in the first place.

I'm a dedicated leftist? Damn, I sure fooled all those conservatives that gave me about half of my reps.

I've seen a Micheal Moore movie, it was an ideological point of view and conservatives would agree with that premise. The same can be said of 2016 or isn't D’Souza am avowed conservative like Daniel Pipes ,one of the "stars" of the movie?

That's like comparing the Gettysburg Address with a Goebbles film.

Only in the mind of narrow-mined ideologue. Why not compare Moore's alleged documentaries and this so called documentary. It's a fuckin opinionated movie, just like Moore's movies.

Seriously, you can't be this daft.

Who's the daft one? You actually believe this film is unbiased?

Michael Moore's movies are made to stir up the left. 2016 was made to stir up the right.
So, do I have any reason in the world to be indoctrinated by any ideologue, no matter what their stripe is? No.

Again, you argue from ignorance. D'Sauza was extremely fair and intellectually honest in his treatment of Obama. No cheap shots and no bullshit.

D'Sauza is an ideologue, prove me wrong.


It would be like saying that Wolf Blitzer and a rabid Storm Front post are the same thing since both deal with political perspectives.

And this thread that I didn't read word for word? I read threads like this one when when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11, except it was lefties who were easily manipulated by the movie, just like the right is with 2016.
If I want to see biased points of view reported as a fact, I can turn on the TV and watch either MSNBC or Fox News.

You are extremely ignorant.

Anyone who actually thinks this film isn't ideologically driven rerally has a problem with reality. The Washington Times at least admits to it.
"Dinesh D'Souza’s sleeper political documentary “2016: Obama’s America” was the No. 1, largest-grossing conservative documentary ever in its first week of wide release last week".

Read more: BERG: D'Souza's '2016': Watch out, Hollywood - Washington Times BERG: D'Souza's '2016': Watch out, Hollywood - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

================================
And then there's the bust of Winston Churchill, one of D'Souza's symbolic points to back his opinion. Too bad it's a crock of BS.
From the British Embassy: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W Bush administration from the UK’s Government Art Collection, for the duration of the Presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington DC. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March."
British Embassy Confirms Krauthammer Right, White House Wrong: Churchill Bust Returned in 2009 | Mediaite

Opps!

 

[mamooth]

What a fool you are, even for a partisan hack.

Evasion by insults. Not impressive.

You're lying, moron. D'Sauza uses the full quote in the movie, which is FAR more telling than the shorter version.

But the full quote says Obama rejects his fathers vision as a silly thing. You and D'Souza have some 'splainin to do as to why you reversed the meaning.

Here's a thought. Instead working so hard to evade any actual discussion, you could try to support your bizarre claims. You can list D'Souza's points that you think are valid, with the evidence to back them up. If you've got such strong points, that should be no problem for you. But if you can't support your wild claims, you'll try to evade again. So let's see what you're made of.

(And by the way, you do understand the rules of the Clean Debate Zone, yes?)