The Movie: 2016

[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.

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.

Have you seen the film? Other HAVE seen the film and say differently. I should trust those that have not seen the film because…

Ignorance is better?
You’re in a better position to judge if you have no idea what is actually in the film?
Just because it is you?

Really, why should anyone take your word over those that have taken the time to view the film in the first place.

 

[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 implicitly anti-Obama. But that doesn't mean that it is not truthful.

 

[strollingbones]

i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none

 

[Foxfyre]

i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none

It is not a docudrama in any sense. It is more like a college level history class.

 

[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 implicitly anti-Obama. But that doesn't mean that it is not truthful.

I really didn't see it as implicitly anti-Obama and think there are some people, even some right here on USMB, who don't have a problem with his history as it is portrayed. For instance the interviewer really tried to get Obama's brother to say something negative about Obama or to express some resentment re his relationship with Obama, and he would not. And they very clearly showed that he would not. The brother clearly shared Obama's world view and was supportive of it. The movie also very clearly dispelled the notion of Obama's brother living in abject poverty as is often portrayed by rightwing pundits.

But for a lot of us, the movie did bring out a sense of the motivations for why Obama is the way he is and why he does the things we does. And the conclusion is an end goal that those who watch the movie may or may not agree with.

I do agree that great pains were made to be truthful in what was portrayed and to not leave out mitigating 'evidence'.

 

[Ravi]

Here's an excellent review of the movie.

Roeper: Fear and loathing in

 

[strollingbones]

The success comes despite mostly scathing reviews from that left-leaning, lamestream liberal media and fact-checked articles that cast serious doubts about some of the film’s claims. (Before we proceed: Yes, I have criticized Michael Moore for the grandstanding, time-shifting, sometimes fact-challenged theatrics in his films.) As the Associated Press has pointed out, D’Souza talks about Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the British as if it were an act of disrespect to our ally, even though the bust was on loan to the Bush administration and was scheduled to be returned. The film also faults Obama for the escalation of the national debt (certainly true) but fails to mention the Bush administration’s role in that escalation; claims Obama is sympathetic to jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but never mentions the killing of Osama bin Laden, and paints slanted, incomplete pictures of Obama’s views on the Falklands and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

from ravi's link.....anything that combines truth with fiction is a docudrama

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bust was not scheduled to be returned. The British had instead specifically told obama to keep it.

Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."
Two weeks earlier, in January 2009, The Times had revealed the bust had been removed from the Oval Office and placed in storage, in a piece headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over the Special Relationship" (no longer online, but available on news databases such as Lexis/Nexis). Significantly, The Times noted that the British government, led at the time by Gordon Brown, was keen for the bust to go back to the Oval Office:
Churchill bust debacle:

The movie, like the book, considers the reason for the return to be obama's personal dislike of Winston Churchill who was a soldier in an imperial army occupying Africa for an imperialist country that also occupied other countries. His dislike would be based on the atrocious treatment his father and grandfather had of being imprisoned by the British. His father and grandfather weren't imprisoned by the British. Grandpa was a cook for the British army for many years. The imprisonment and cruel treatment was one of those dreams from his father, delivered by his mother.

 

[Twofox]

(WARNING - SPOILER ALERT)

I took the wife to see this movie on labor day. The theater wasn't packed, but was at least 50% filled. Interesting thing happened at the end, but I'll get to that later.

D'souza starts out saying that he's conservative, but also that he grew up in India, and how Europe is viewed from there. Mostly because of the British occupation, with a little racism against whites tossed in from his grandfather He himself apparently doesn't buy into that. He also talked about how at college, the libs would be so in love with India, having never been there, and he would say "What's so great about the caste system?"

I found it to be interesting in that he takes a quote from "Dreams from my father" and then talks about where that came from, and tracks it down. Nothing too hard about that, he keeps it in context, and presents his findings. Pretty stratight forward, and not presented as drama.

The big thing is the anit-colonializm. Where Britain, and the other Euro countries had colonies, the US never did to speak of. He points out that the US could be seen as being another type of colonial power, and that Obama Sr. saw the US as an enemy. He then goes on to point out how Obama Jr is following in his father's footsteps, all of this borne out by the Obama's book "Dreams from my father" He then goes on to say that socialist, communist, etc don't fit for Obama, but Anti-colonialist actully fits his actions. It makes sense, and would also explain why the RNC portrays this election as a choice for america to live under the constitution, or change it completely.

In the interview with his brother, I caught that he said something about how in Kenya, there is still lots of poverty, when in other countries, like S. Korea, there is wealth, when Kenya used to be ahead of S.Korea. Kenya, also has alot of anti-colonialists. D'souza then points out that the countries where the US helped out, are thriving.

He then paints a picture of what the US would look like in 2016 if Obama is reelected. Nothing too suprising here, but did you ever wonder why the economy is stagnant, and Obama never really did push for fixing it? Go see the movie, but go with an open mind. Don't make up your mind beforehand, and go check the facts afterwards. (don't use factcheck, or any other compromised site, go look it up for yourself. You'll be suprised at what you find).

Once it was over, there was some scattered applause, but then 2 gals at the back of the theater shouted "We love you Obama". Someone responded by saying "Then you vote for him". Their reponse was "No need to get offensive you crazy old lady"... Looks like they were just trying to stir something up, but folks just laughed at them and left. I saw the 2 hurrying away from the theater looking over their shoulders. Not the smartest thing to do, or was that their plan? Dunno, but something stunk about it.

 

[Katzndogz]

We love you obama. It's all about the feelings. Women can reject anything, any treatment, any abuse, because of "love". It's how pimps control their whores.

 

[Uncensored2008]

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday. After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected. It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon. The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed. The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie? Any comments on what you think about it? The themes and conclusions built into it?

I went and saw it on Saturday and was very impressed.

I liked the way that Dinesh dismissed the common conspiracy theories right off the bat. He leads with the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and the two local papers carried the birth, making it clear that D'Souza is a scholar and not interested in conspiracy nonsense. He also dismisses the claim of Obama being a Muslim pretty quickly, and focuses on the facts.

The portrayal of Obama's childhood was sad, in most ways. While Obama was a child of privilege, he didn't enjoy a particularly happy childhood. The idolizing of a father demonstrates an emptiness. D'Souza did something remarkable, creating sympathy and a certain respect for Barack Obama Jr.

Certainly he uncovers a rabidly anti-American figure who is driven by the anti-Colonial zeal of a mythical father, who is entirely in line with the Black Liberation Theology of Wright and the desire to dismantle the constitutional government as Ayers and Dorn advocate. The Obama D'Souza exposes is not a caricature, but an actual person, and one not in favor of what is best for this nation or the citizens in it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?

don't they have jobs?

Of course they don't have jobs.

Obama is President.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News

I'm guessing that Beth Fouhy failed to even watch the film.

First off, she doesn't come up with a single item that is not fact, she rather complains of D'Souza's conclusions.

She stated " But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims." and yet this is explained in intricate detail in the film, leaving one to conclude that Ms. Fouhy is either abysmally stupid - she is a leftist after all, or simply didn't see the film she was critiquing - a more likely scenario.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does anyone in the movie interview anyone who actually knows Obama and what he thinks or Obama himself who is the best person to tell what he thinks? The factchecker above did watch the movie as well but it seems many of you already have your mind made up about Obama and are not open to other viewpoints.

If you want to know what is in the movie, go see it.

Like most of the left, you operate from a position of complete ignorance, with the absolute faith that your ignorance prepares you to pass ultimate judgement.

 

[kwc57]

i didnt care for m moore's docudramas....i dont think i will bother with this one....its either a documentary or its not.....docudramas are nothing but a combo of reality and fiction....passing itself off as something with creditability when there is none

There is a world of difference between Moore's "documentaries" and this one. Moore goes into his films with a preconceived notion and cherry picks and manipulates data and interviews to build the case for his "conclusions". Not so in 2016. I saw it this weekend. It lays out factual and easily verifiable evidence without judgement or commentary. It isn't until the end of the film that D'Souza gives you HIS conclusions based on the evidence he collected. You as the viewer are free to come to your own conclusions. It was fair, even, balanced and unbiased in the presentation of the material. It is worth seeing if you have any question about who Barack Obama is and what molded him int othe person he is today. It is what the media should have done 4 years ago and didn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News

I'm guessing that Beth Fouhy failed to even watch the film.

First off, she doesn't come up with a single item that is not fact, she rather complains of D'Souza's conclusions.

She stated " But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims." and yet this is explained in intricate detail in the film, leaving one to conclude that Ms. Fouhy is either abysmally stupid - she is a leftist after all, or simply didn't see the film she was critiquing - a more likely scenario.

Yes, I have found the fact checkers re this movie are very much lacking in facts. And I very much appreciated your synopsis of the movie--excellent job. I didn't pick up so much that D'souza was dismissing the conspiracy theories--he presented the 'facts' as they are generally presented but without comment and then made it clear that was all that would be said about that. Then he moved o to the meat of the movie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It isn't like Barack Obama is someone unknown,

Yeah, actually it is. The press refused to reveal any background at all on Obama. Any element, such as Obama's association with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn was quickly white washed. Obama's involvement in Marxist movements was not reported, nor his involvement in Liberation Theology, until Rev. Wright was briefly exposed, at which time the press ran cover for, rather than explored the connection to Obama.

he has been our president for nearly four years, you really cannot see through D'Souza's deceptive nonsense?

Deceptive in what way? By listing facts that the press have buried?

"The movie is based on D'Souza's notably dishonest book 'The Roots of Obama's Rage.' This book would be humorous if considered a spoof of one of the world's most placid leaders. But D'Souza makes truth the victim in his selective effort to demonize the president.

So, you haven't read the book, and have no clue what it's about.

There are false economic claims, such as that Obama initiated the bailout and stimulus plans. Actually, George Bush initiated the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3, 2008.

D'Souza makes that clear. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Obama followed this bill with his own attempt to stem the economic crisis and correct the earlier flaws in amount and administration.

TARP was a disaster, Porkulus a tragedy.

There are misleading policy claims, such as D'Souza attacking Obama for supporting the reduction of nuclear weapons and idealizing a nuclear free world.

You're claiming that Obama did NOT do this?

No, you're reading talking points and clumsily reposting them...

As former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz has repeatedly stated, President Obama shares President Ronald Reagan's desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons, though both realize the need for a nuclear deterrent.

It does not appear that Obama does. Obama sets a target of 300 warheads, to create parity to Iran.

And there are incredible omissions and mis-interpretations, such as the conclusion that Obama was elected sheerly because of white liberal guilt ... without even mentioning the economic catastrophe that the previous Republican administration had created." Michael Berkowitz: '2016: Obama's America': Save Your Money, Use Your Vouchers

At least that talking point has a foundation. But the desire to elect a black man was explained by D'Souza as a reaction to the economic crises and a rejection of everything in the past.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know what trailer you saw, but the movie was nothing like that. And there was no race baiting in it. D'Souza is an Indian from India after all and holds a green card. He is not an American citizen.

Neither was the trailer, but the demagogues aren't much concerned with facts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really Foxy? Those are the choices for Democrat motivations? I suppose you think the Republicans all believe strongly in their ideology and don't hate Dems or liberals?

"If greed is the motivator of the right, it is clear that hatred is the motivator of the left." - George Carlin

 

[Foxfyre]

The success comes despite mostly scathing reviews from that left-leaning, lamestream liberal media and fact-checked articles that cast serious doubts about some of the film’s claims. (Before we proceed: Yes, I have criticized Michael Moore for the grandstanding, time-shifting, sometimes fact-challenged theatrics in his films.) As the Associated Press has pointed out, D’Souza talks about Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the British as if it were an act of disrespect to our ally, even though the bust was on loan to the Bush administration and was scheduled to be returned. The film also faults Obama for the escalation of the national debt (certainly true) but fails to mention the Bush administration’s role in that escalation; claims Obama is sympathetic to jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but never mentions the killing of Osama bin Laden, and paints slanted, incomplete pictures of Obama’s views on the Falklands and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

from ravi's link.....anything that combines truth with fiction is a docudrama

Ravi's 'fact checkers' are no better than other fact checkers it seems. Here's a fact check of the fact checkers re that bust for instance:

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London
Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain - Telegraph

Also, the movie clearly and unequivocably included the Bush administration in the escalation of the national debt; something the anti-movie 'fact checkers' are not acknowledging.

They would have to be more specific in how Obama was 'sympathetic to Jihadists'. It did mention Obama's intervention in Lybia but how mystifying that the far worse genocide in Syria is ignored, but drew no conclusions about that one way or the other.

I still think the only way to get an honest assessment of what this movie is all about is to go see the movie unfiltered by pro-Obama and/or anti-d'Souza propaganda about it.l