The Movie: 2016

[Montrovant]

Everyone is politically aligned. You saying you're not politically aligned is like me saying I'm not politically aligned b/c I'm not registered with a party. We all bring our politics into the discussion.

I meant in the party sense. Sorry if the context didn't make that clear.

But we're still all politically aligned. I find that people that say otherwise, are often trying to assume some sort of moral high ground based upon the false idea that he/she is more objective. I'm frankly more weary of people who make such claims than even so-called partisans. It may not be what you were trying to do; but the majority of the time, these so-called centrists are playing that game while indeed pursuing an agenda; as we all have our positions.

Sure, we all have positions. But the idea that those positions must necessarily fall within one or another political party (even just mostly) is ridiculously limiting IMO. Most especially when our system is, basically, split into only two parties.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I meant in the party sense. Sorry if the context didn't make that clear.

But we're still all politically aligned. I find that people that say otherwise, are often trying to assume some sort of moral high ground based upon the false idea that he/she is more objective. I'm frankly more weary of people who make such claims than even so-called partisans. It may not be what you were trying to do; but the majority of the time, these so-called centrists are playing that game while indeed pursuing an agenda; as we all have our positions.

Sure, we all have positions. But the idea that those positions must necessarily fall within one or another political party (even just mostly) is ridiculously limiting IMO. Most especially when our system is, basically, split into only two parties.

Who ever argued that anyone was limiting themselves? Or typecasting their minds? The point is that it does no real good to point out that you are not for a particular party. It does nothing to make your point or stake your credibility.

 

[Politico]

It will not even come close to being the highest anything.

 

[midcan5]

...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.

Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. One only has to consider the environment in which his father developed to get an understanding how that affect would be manifested in the developing Barrack.

It was a more or less clinical look at the family history from its initial geneses to the matriculation of Obama, and it's no surprise that he found a mentor and or fellow traveler who reminded him of his idealized missing father to whose "dreams" he dedicated his own biography, almost as a mission statement. His mentors are Frank Marshal Davis, William Ayers, and less directly, Saul Alinsky as a philosophical inspiration.

[...]

The “2016” reference relates to the recognition that President Obama, given a full two terms will most certainly fundamentally change America by their completion. It’s up to the voter (and the viewer informed by the film) if the change, which is going to be a leveling one for America, is the change they want to see brought about, because his father, as a formative/influential model for Barrack, strongly opposed all colonial powers, so you can imagine how this will figure into Barrack’s policies in a country that is anathema to his utopian vision, whatever that was....

AH, So you didn't discuss it? Your son will hopefully form his own opinion, but your comments surprise me, fathers are obviously important factors in our lives but in the real world, peers and the times and the individual experiences are equally important. Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.

So far America has not changed under Obama so the idea that this magical change is coming is just plain ridiculous. It is paranoid nonsense. If change comes, as the fight against the New Deal, Great Society, and the American values of caring for all die, it will come from the destruction of the social support systems that help primarily education, the elderly, and children. If that is good change you can have it, let's be honest about where change is coming from and it's not Obama.

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

 

[American Horse]

...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.

Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. One only has to consider the environment in which his father developed to get an understanding how that affect would be manifested in the developing Barrack.

It was a more or less clinical look at the family history from its initial geneses to the matriculation of Obama, and it's no surprise that he found a mentor and or fellow traveler who reminded him of his idealized missing father to whose "dreams" he dedicated his own biography, almost as a mission statement. His mentors are Frank Marshal Davis, William Ayers, and less directly, Saul Alinsky as a philosophical inspiration.

[...]

The “2016” reference relates to the recognition that President Obama, given a full two terms will most certainly fundamentally change America by their completion. It’s up to the voter (and the viewer informed by the film) if the change, which is going to be a leveling one for America, is the change they want to see brought about, because his father, as a formative/influential model for Barrack, strongly opposed all colonial powers, so you can imagine how this will figure into Barrack’s policies in a country that is anathema to his utopian vision, whatever that was....

AH, So you didn't discuss it? Your son will hopefully form his own opinion, but your comments surprise me, fathers are obviously important factors in our lives but in the real world, peers and the times and the individual experiences are equally important. Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.

So far America has not changed under Obama so the idea that this magical change is coming is just plain ridiculous. It is paranoid nonsense. If change comes, as the fight against the New Deal, Great Society, and the American values of caring for all die, it will come from the destruction of the social support systems that help primarily education, the elderly, and children. If that is good change you can have it, let's be honest about where change is coming from and it's not Obama.

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

We didn't discuss it because he is a Paulite, and I hold back hoping that my silence will be more persausive than any arguments I might pose.

In their book Four Turnings (of history) Howe & Strauss argue that it's generations that create history, that sons are more influenced by their grandfathers than they are by their fathers. My own theory for that is because of the direct exposure to the father by the son that line of influence is undermined, meanwhile, because of the innate distance, the g-father becomes a more passive-influential figure. That's part of why I made the statement I did in my post (" -Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. -" ), and also the statement above my responding to you when I said " - I hold back hoping that my silence will be more persausive than any arguments I might pose - "

Anyway MC, being the reader you are you might be interested in the book "The Fourth Turning", and you might find the interview of Howe and Strauss on C-SPAN interesting. When I saw the interview I went out and bought the book.

Here's a link to the C-SPAN interview [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXcDiGpVtbc]Neil Howe and William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

But we're still all politically aligned. I find that people that say otherwise, are often trying to assume some sort of moral high ground based upon the false idea that he/she is more objective. I'm frankly more weary of people who make such claims than even so-called partisans. It may not be what you were trying to do; but the majority of the time, these so-called centrists are playing that game while indeed pursuing an agenda; as we all have our positions.

Sure, we all have positions. But the idea that those positions must necessarily fall within one or another political party (even just mostly) is ridiculously limiting IMO. Most especially when our system is, basically, split into only two parties.

Who ever argued that anyone was limiting themselves? Or typecasting their minds? The point is that it does no real good to point out that you are not for a particular party. It does nothing to make your point or stake your credibility.

That depends on what your point is. I brought it up as another way to show I was not defending or supporting the Democratic party.

 

[007]

Well so far, into the third page, there are no true opinions of the movie, other than a few leftists rants with nothing behind them other than hyperbole. American Horse did a good job of describing the movie, and Foxy has reaffirmed it as such, a very no nonsense look at obama's past followed by the author's conjecture of an obama future if reelected.

Well let's have an opinion. I want to know if it's worth seeing the movie or not?

At least opine as to whether or not you see the movie as pro or anti obama and why?

 

[American Horse]

Well so far, into the third page, there are no true opinions of the movie, other than a few leftists rants with nothing behind them other than hyperbole. American Horse did a good job of describing the movie, and Foxy has reaffirmed it as such, a very no nonsense look at obama's past followed by the author's conjecture of an obama future if reelected.

Well let's have an opinion. I want to know if it's worth seeing the movie or not?

At least opine as to whether or not you see the movie as pro or anti obama and why?

It's worth seeing, mainly because it presents some serious issues with Obama that are rarely considered. To that end, the movie clearly states early on that Obama was born in Hawaii, tacitly assuring us that any birther claim is a waste of time. It's worth seeing.

As to whether it's pro or anti obama, it simply tells the truth, reiterating some known facts and introducing some unknown new information, amounting to telling us who he is and what shaped him. That in itself is not negative. It also tell us to expect more of the same, and why we should expect that, and that is not an anti obama screed. It asks if you will be happy with the new America we can expect based on rational judgment, and that part could be taken as anti obama, because it's not what most of us expected in the beginning nor probably want much more of. It's in no way acerbic or hypercritical, nor is it highly theoretical. It IS an alternate view from what the media has presented us.

Speaking to that failure, right from the start we see convincingly in a commentary between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, an admission between them that should never have become necessary, and would not have ... with a Republican president elect; that they really don't know much of anything of substance about Barrack Obama... his worldview, his heroes and inspirational figures, what he knows about China and India ....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw]Brokaw and Rose Admit They Don't Know Much About Obama. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[007]

If it starts right out claiming obama was born in Hawaii, then I don't want to see it. I've not seen one single shred of 'verifiable' evidence that can prove that claim, so anyone making that claim as though fact, is in my opinion, off their rocker. That ruins the movie right there for me.

In any case, thank you A-H for your summations.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Using Obama's words from his own book and twisting them around to what they think you mean? And no I'm not mad or looking for a propaganda piece. I would like something truthful and factual though.

You haven't seen the movie have you. I can assure you that D'Souza did not in any way twist or misrepresent Obama's words or point of view.

How do you know that? Did he talk to Obama himself? I'd hate someone to tell me my point of view without talking to me.

And no, I have not seen the movie but I will go see it. I'm real hesitant to waste time on a hit job or a propaganda movie-for either side!!

Yeah, and MSNBC is in your living Room.

 

[Foxfyre]

I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie. The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that. So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.

I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.

The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places. For a historian, however, it is fascinating.

 

[copsnrobbers]

I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie. The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that. So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.

I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.

The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places. For a historian, however, it is fascinating.

Foxy, Do you trust Obama? Is he good for America? Has the information you gathered from the movie changed your view of him?

I will see the movie.. I'm curious. But, I also know what this guy is about and I have a good idea who he answers to.

 

[Foxfyre]

I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie. The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that. So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.

I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.

The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places. For a historian, however, it is fascinating.

Foxy, Do you trust Obama? Is he good for America? Has the information you gathered from the movie changed your view of him?

I will see the movie.. I'm curious. But, I also know what this guy is about and I have a good idea who he answers to.

I trust him to be true to himself. I do not trust him to be good for America or Americans. But that is what the movie is pretty much about, and if you see it, I would be interested in your opinion of he conclusion that D'Souza seems to be offering at the end.

 

[copsnrobbers]

I concur with AH that the movie is worth seeing, but if you want to go see it to affirm or confirm the more controversial issues surrounding Obama, you will be disappointed as there is nothing of those things included in the movie. The opening volley says Obama was born in Hawaii according to announcements in two newspapers and nothing more was conjectured or speculated about anything regarding that. So the birthers are free to continue to explore their theories and those who accept the Hawaii birth are happy too.

I think it was included purely to set aside that issue as something that would not be an issue in the movie.

The movie was so scholarly that probably anybody other than a dedicated history buff such as myself might even find it a bit pedantic and even boring in places. For a historian, however, it is fascinating.

Foxy, Do you trust Obama? Is he good for America? Has the information you gathered from the movie changed your view of him?

I will see the movie.. I'm curious. But, I also know what this guy is about and I have a good idea who he answers to.

I trust him to be true to himself. I do not trust him to be good for America or Americans. But that is what the movie is pretty much about, and if you see it, I would be interested in your opinion of he conclusion that D'Souza seems to be offering at the end.

I'll let you know after I've seen it. Maybe this weekend..

 

[Trajan]

...It was what I expected from the trailers; a look at the presidents formative experiences and influences from his father and his mother, who kept or raised his father in an exalted , honored position in their small and erratically changing family; this even though B. O. Senior fathered other children by other mothers, and was still married to another woman when he married and fathered Obama.

Fathers influence sons, whether directly or indirectly as an ideal, probably more so when the son does not see the flaws, as when the father is missing, or interact in conflicting ways with the father in the father son relationship. One only has to consider the environment in which his father developed to get an understanding how that affect would be manifested in the developing Barrack.

It was a more or less clinical look at the family history from its initial geneses to the matriculation of Obama, and it's no surprise that he found a mentor and or fellow traveler who reminded him of his idealized missing father to whose "dreams" he dedicated his own biography, almost as a mission statement. His mentors are Frank Marshal Davis, William Ayers, and less directly, Saul Alinsky as a philosophical inspiration.

[...]

The “2016” reference relates to the recognition that President Obama, given a full two terms will most certainly fundamentally change America by their completion. It’s up to the voter (and the viewer informed by the film) if the change, which is going to be a leveling one for America, is the change they want to see brought about, because his father, as a formative/influential model for Barrack, strongly opposed all colonial powers, so you can imagine how this will figure into Barrack’s policies in a country that is anathema to his utopian vision, whatever that was....

AH, So you didn't discuss it? Your son will hopefully form his own opinion, but your comments surprise me, fathers are obviously important factors in our lives but in the real world, peers and the times and the individual experiences are equally important. Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.

So far America has not changed under Obama so the idea that this magical change is coming is just plain ridiculous. It is paranoid nonsense. If change comes, as the fight against the New Deal, Great Society, and the American values of caring for all die, it will come from the destruction of the social support systems that help primarily education, the elderly, and children. If that is good change you can have it, let's be honest about where change is coming from and it's not Obama.

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

Obama was raised by his grandparents, and as a grandparent you too can have a great impact on children. His education and work as lawyer are key and not mentioned by partisan hacks who write only biased assumptions for the choir.

thank you for establishing that grandfathers can be role models too, so who did Stanley Dunham, Obamas grandfather visit very frequently and who did he bring along?

I like the way you breeze right over his early years and jump to his education and being a lawyer, however- at 10 years old and for several years there after, Obama himself chronicles Davis influence by mentioning him 25 times in his own book........Stanley Dunham and Davis were very close and if I recall Frank Marshall Davis is one of the very few obama writes of without fabricating a personalty and name, Obama also describes Frank Davis as a “father figure” .

your defense is there fore contradictory and poor becasue you suffer from lets say, a paucity of information.

 

[American Horse]

If it starts right out claiming obama was born in Hawaii, then I don't want to see it. I've not seen one single shred of 'verifiable' evidence that can prove that claim, so anyone making that claim as though fact, is in my opinion, off their rocker. That ruins the movie right there for me.

In any case, thank you A-H for your summations.

Since you asked and I answered, you must have misread my answer, and since I don't want that misreading left hanging out there, I quote my previous post in which I said:

It's worth seeing, mainly because it presents some serious issues with Obama that are rarely considered. To that end, the movie clearly states early on that Obama WAS born in Hawaii, tacitly assuring us that any birther claim is a waste of time [...]

 

[FA_Q2]

I might actually see the moves based on this thread. The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece. IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.

 

[Polk]

I might actually see the moves based on this thread. The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece. IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.

No need to assume it's an anti-Obama propaganda piece. It's the film version of D'Souza's written propaganda piece. No assumption necessary.

 

[Foxfyre]

I might actually see the moves based on this thread. The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece. IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.

It is not really anti-Obama and makes no judgment of Obama per se. It is a pretty detailed documentary of his life and the influences in it. It does pull together a lot of facts ignored by the mainstream media. And it does offer a conclusion at the end based on the fairly well detailed facts included in the documentary. It is whether or not they agree with that conclusion that I would like to hear from people about.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I might actually see the moves based on this thread. The only negatives seem to be coming from the libs here that have not seen the flick and assume it to be an anti-Obama propaganda piece. IF the movie is actually NOT anti-Obama, I might just see it.

It is not really anti-Obama and makes no judgment of Obama per se. It is a pretty detailed documentary of his life and the influences in it. It does pull together a lot of facts ignored by the mainstream media. And it does offer a conclusion at the end based on the fairly well detailed facts included in the documentary. It is whether or not they agree with that conclusion that I would like to hear from people about.

The implication is anti-Obama; but it does try to honestly grasp who Obama is. If Democrats don't like how Obama is portrayed in the movie then they shouldn't vote for him; b/c the movie is pretty spot on.