For the political pundits.........

#1
Anyone seen the new movie "2016", or care to comment?

(sorry if I am playing a little "lonesome BOB", but I do enjoy the mostly friendly banter of political views you all share)

I will check back in after watching it this week, Scott
 

Pat

Member
GT40s Supporter
#3
I saw it and it was a bit disturbing. There were a couple of surprises for me; first, the theater was packed. There has been no local advertising whatsoever. And second, it didn't contain the hysterical Obama bashing or talking points/sloganeering I was expecting. It was deliberate and direct. Much of the narrative comes from Mr. Obama's own reading of his book.
It's well done, quite powerful and provides insights regardless of your political leanings.
 
#4
Veek,
That was something (the lack of advertising) I found interesting as well too....... I am a movie nut, and see most of the new stuff that comes out. I heard nothing about this film until a friend called and spoke about it. I am looking forward to it.
 

Jeff Young

Member
GT40s Supporter
#6
A movie by a nutjob, for nutjobs.

Its basic premise is that Obama is some "anti-American" anti-colonial socialist. I know some of you here believe that, so you'll lap that shit up.

Of course, I don't know many "anti-American" socialists who thought it was a good idea to save GM, Wall Street, etc. or many anti-colonialists who would have taken out Bin Laden.

Plus there are some basic factual errors in it -- we have not reduced our aid to Israel and no, we do not support Britain returning the Falklands to Argentina.

A move for small minds.
 

Jim Craik

Member
Lifetime Supporter
#7
Jeff,

You got that right. This just shows that the same folks who believe Fox Entertainment will believe anything.

The amount of un-truth, exagerations and outright conjecture in this movie is unbelieveable. Yes as you can see from these posts, easily fooled people will believe anything.

Predident Obama met his father once at age 10.

A quick look at FACTCHECK.COM will show how one sided and misleading this movie is...................

- 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 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 Iran 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.

*******************

When Obama first ran for election, folks said among other things that Obama would take away our guns, outlaw Limaugh style hate entertainment, outlaw black cars, make the US a Muslim country.................on and on.

Has this happened?

Now they are saying if Obama is re-elected, those and more horrable things will happen.

Now tell us, if President Obama ran for president just to force this odd agenda on America, why has it not happened? Why, once he became President did he not do all the things Concervatives feared. WHY?

Why would he wait until he gets re-elected? Why take that chance? Why not take away guns and force everyone to be a Muslim now, when he as the chance?

You Concervatives are very gulable! You believed the scare hype the first time and you believe it now.

You guys will believe anything no matter how absurd, if it fits what your handelers tell you!

THINK FOR YOURSELF, GOD DAMN IT, THINK!
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Member
Lifetime Supporter
#9
Mr Fechter,

Are any of the points made by FACTCHECK.COM that I posted untrue?

I'm assuming that when you say a Craikish post you mean a truthful post.

Is anything I said in my post untrue?

I know that truth is a concept you find hard to understand, perhaps you should ask your friends.
 
Last edited:
#10
craik, let's settle this. If the Democrats win the Presidential election, I will deactivate my account at GT40s.com and never post here again.

If the Republicans win the Presidential election, you will deactivate your account at GT40s.com and never post here again.
 

Jim Craik

Member
Lifetime Supporter
#11
I will ask again................

Are any of the points made by FACTCHECK.COM that I posted untrue?

Is anything I said in my post untrue?
 
#12
craik, let's settle this. If the Democrats win the Presidential election, I will deactivate my account at GT40s.com and never post here again.

If the Republicans win the Presidential election, you will deactivate your account at GT40s.com and never post here again.
Nothing I say will ever be believed by you, and I believe you are being highly misled.

Cut to the chase, craik, do you accept my challenge, or are you not willing to put it all on the line.
 

Jim Craik

Member
Lifetime Supporter
#13
Mr Fechter, you "believe" I am being misled?

What causes you to believe that. Why don't you check and see, you know, check the "facts".

Is anything I posted on this thread untrue?

As for putting it in the line, Liberals have already won the election, you have already lost. I really do not care who wins.

Of course you will "put it all on the line" you have nothing to lose, you care very little about GT40, you are only here to stir up shit. You'll easely find another group to irratate with your lies.
 
#14
Mr Fechter, you "believe" I am being misled?

What causes you to believe that. Why don't you check and see, you know, check the "facts".

Is anything I posted on this thread untrue?

As for putting it in the line, Liberals have already won the election, you have already lost. I really do not care who wins.

Of course you will "put it all on the line" you have nothing to lose, you care very little about GT40, you are only here to stir up shit. You'll easely find another group to irratate with your lies.
Long winded coward.
 
#15
Mr Fechter, you "believe" I am being misled?

What causes you to believe that. Why don't you check and see, you know, check the "facts".

Is anything I posted on this thread untrue?

As for putting it in the line, Liberals have already won the election, you have already lost. I really do not care who wins.

Of course you will "put it all on the line" you have nothing to lose, you care very little about GT40, you are only here to stir up shit. You'll easely find another group to irratate with your lies.
p.s. I have been here three years longer than you have.
 

Pat

Member
GT40s Supporter
#16
I will ask again................

Are any of the points made by FACTCHECK.COM that I posted untrue?

Is anything I said in my post untrue?
Jeff and Jim, I would only suggest you actually see the movie or indicate you have done so . Then you can respond in a firsthand way. Everything else is hearsay based on third party opinions.

As for a response, these are compiled from an article by Joel B. Pollak:

D'Souza's thesis is that President Barack Obama is deeply influenced by the anti-colonial views of his father, Barack H. Obama, Sr. I happen to think that D'Souza's argument is, at best, a partial explanation of Obama's views. The term "anti-colonial" is a good first pass at Obama's foreign policy, which often neglects traditional American allies in favor of rapprochement with hostile regimes. However, Obama's focus is domestic policy, and his preference for a weakened America on the world stage grows from his desire to see the U.S. adopt the redistributionist policies of other nations. He is focused inward, not outward. And, as the AP's Beth Fouhy points out that D'Souza's evidence is "a logical stretch at best," given that Obama II had little contact with his father. The film actually suggests that Mr. Obama's idealized dreams based characterizations of his absent father by his mother and grandfather drive a notion in Mr. Obama of an idealized freedom fighter father and Homeric figure to which he is motivated to reconcile and seek some sort of acceptance in light of his father's desertion. Fair enough, they have one opinion, Mr.D'Souza has another and someone actually seeing the film is free to come to their own.

So far, so good for Ms. Fouhy and the AP--but when the "fact check" takes on specific claims in D'Souza's film, it leaves facts behind and offers nothing but opposing opinions, revealing the true bias behind the AP's and FACTCHECK analysis.

Here are FACTCHECK's "corrections" to factual claims in 2016: Obama's America:
FACTCHECK: 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.
So? The Obama debts dwarf the "explosion" under George W. Bush, and it was not necessary that the financial crisis be followed by the kind of deficit spending the Obama administration undertook. Obama himself came to office promising a mere $50 billion in stimulus spending; he ended up spending nearly $900 billion. He promised to cute the deficit in half in his first term. FACTCHECK's "correction" here is actually just an argument against D'Souza's opinion, not the facts he invokes to support it.

FACTCHECK: 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.
These two facts are not contradictory. In fact, one of the weirdest examples of jihadist sympathy was Osama bin Laden's burial at sea in a sham Islamic ceremony. The drone strikes, too, are so prevalent in Obama's policy towards terror partly because he refuses to detain jihadists at Guantanamo Bay, in a self-defeating gesture towards radical sympathies in the Islamic world. Obama has always used his focus on bin Laden as a balance to, and cover for, his willful retreat in the face of the jihadist threat in Iraq and now Afghanistan. His tepid intervention in Libya and the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are further evidence of this.

FACTCHECK: 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.
There is no other way to interpret the Obama administration's shameful abandonment of our British allies than to conclude that President Obama believes there is merit in the Argentinian claim on the Falklands--a claim last pursued by a fascist, human-rights-abusing dictatorship through unprovoked aggression and war.

FACTCHECK: 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.
Not only has the Obama administration dragged its feet on applying new sanctions to Iran, but it has actively flouted current U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iranian nuclear enrichment in order to find some kind of face-saving grand bargain with the Iranian theocracy. It also missed a golden opportunity to topple the regime by supporting pro-democracy protests in 2009--which could have removed the nuclear threat peacefully.

FACTCHECK: 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.
This is an amusing error by FACTCHECK, and without returning to the White House's embarrassing tangle with Charles Krauthammer on this issue earlier this summer, it suffices to point out that the British offered to extend the loan and the Obama administration declined to accept. Here FACTCHECK's own facts need to be checked.

FACTCHECK and the AP might have had a point if they had simply objected to D'Souza's overall thesis, which is very much a matter of opinion and speculation. But they simply could not resist the temptation to substitute their opinions for his facts--and have thus undone their own "fact check," as well as any pretense at objectivity.

In a strage way, I felt more of an understanding of Mr. Obama and even some sympathy. I grew up in a one parent home and can relate to the desire to reconcile the loss of a parent and the idealization of their persona. Too bad Mr. Obama didn't respond more to values of his stepfather, Mr. Soetoro. If he did, he may have been nominated last night instead of Mr. Romney. To understand what I mean, you need to see the movie ;)
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

Member
GT40s Supporter
#17
I saw the movie, two weekends ago in Charlotte. I think it is load of propaganda bunk clothed in softer tones and ridiculous "recreations" by actors.

The whole proposition that Obama's anti-colonial past is driving him to "weaken" America is almost too ridiculous to even discuss. EVERY policy he has pushed have been things that at one time Republicans supported. Stimulus. Bailouts (Bush). Insurance Mandate (a Republican idea).

I'm fine with legitimate debate about his policies. How much if any should taxes go up to help cut the deficit? Where do we cut spending? How do we reform SS and Medicare? Is the PPACA the long term answer to our health care cost crisis (in my view probably not)?

THOSE are legitimate questions.

Pondering whether Obama's anti-colonial upbringing (bollocks) has led him to be inherently un-American and engage in a crusade to win the Presidency to weaken America?

That's a theory for complete dupes.

PS Those responses to the FACTCHECK errors in the documentary are laughable. No, Obama is not "weirdly sympathetic" to jihadists, no the US is not cutting support to Israel, the fact that he wants to avoid military action in Iran doesn't mean he support their nuclear program and THE OFFICIAL US POSITION IS THAT THE BRITISH OWN THE FALKLANDS.

For chrissakes!
 

Pat

Member
GT40s Supporter
#18
I saw the movie, two weekends ago in Charlotte. I think it is load of propaganda bunk clothed in softer tones and ridiculous "recreations" by actors.


That's a theory for complete dupes.

PS Those responses to the FACTCHECK errors in the documentary are laughable. No, Obama is not "weirdly sympathetic" to jihadists, no the US is not cutting support to Israel, the fact that he wants to avoid military action in Iran doesn't mean he support their nuclear program and THE OFFICIAL US POSITION IS THAT THE BRITISH OWN THE FALKLANDS.
Jeff, regardless of Mr. D'Souza's interpretation, you might find the attached link interesting.

The Obama administration knifes Britain in the back again over the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs
 

Jeff Young

Member
GT40s Supporter
#19
I did, because it got me reading. I was wrong on official US policy on the Falklands, it is actually (a) we recognize UK administration of the islands but (b) are neutral on the competing claims to sovereignity and (c) have encouraged both the Brits and the Argentines to negotiate a peaceful solution to the issue.

And get this! It's been the SAME US POLICY SINCE THE 1940s. Which means, according to D'Souza, that Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama are ALL anti-colonials who hate America!

Right? Since they all did the very same thing the President is doing, they are ALL America haters!

Who know! Thanks Mr. D'Souza for enlightening us.

Veek, you'll have to take the Reagan picture down from the wall. He hated America.
 

Pat

Member
GT40s Supporter
#20
I did, because it got me reading.
And get this! It's been the SAME US POLICY SINCE THE 1940s. .
Jeff, it may be useful for you to reread the article. The thrust of it is "As far is London is concerned, the sovereignty of the Falklands was decisively settled in the 1982 war when British forces retook the Islands after Argentina’s brutal military junta invaded them."

The fact that the Obama administration reopened the negotiation on what was deemed by an ally as a closed issue is the basis for the Telegraph's contention that "The Obama administration knifes Britain in the back again over the Falklands". Mr. Obama's administration does not recognize British sovereignty over the Falklands’ 3,000 inhabitants who are 90 per cent British (according to the 2006 census), and 0.1 percent Argentine, who have no desire to live under the control of the Argentine dictatorship which has certainly of late proven to be quite adversarial to UK interests. Somehow I don't think Mr. Regan would have done that to Ms. Thatcher.
But this is nothing new for this administration. They are consistent with key certain key allies. Under Mr. Obama, the US intervened in Egypt's internal politics to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and overthrow Hosni Mubarak. The transformation of Israel's border with Egypt from a peaceful border to a hostile one is the direct consequence of the US-supported overthrow of Mubarak and the US-supported rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. Their military repercussions are enormous and entirely negative. As I write this, Egyptian tanks have entered the Sinai in direct violation of the 1979 Peace accords. Israeli officials said they have relayed their objections to the Egyptians directly and through American mediators. The Maariv daily reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded the tanks be withdrawn, though officials could not confirm the report. Netanyahu's office declined comment.

So how do we support our ally? U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland backed Egypt's counterterrorism efforts in the Sinai, but said any deployments of military assets should be coordinated with Israel.

Then there is Syria. For more than six months, Mr. Obama effectively sided with Bashar Assad against his own people who rose up against him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer. Now, as Assad butchers his people by the thousands. Almost unbelievably, Clinton initially said that Assad would have to agree to any US assistance to the people who seek his overthrow. Now that things have gotten really ugly, no worries- the administration has promised "secret support" to the rebels- whatever that might mean. Any direct intervention is unlikely given the stern warnings from Mr. Putin, the Chinese and Mr.Ahmadinejad. The interesting consequence is that al-Qaida is likely among the groups President Obama's secret directive now supports.

Just think about this for a minute. The president of the United States, according to an intelligence leak initially reported by Reuters, has secretly authorized support of an undisclosed nature for armed fighters in a region, including members of the group now synonymous with terrorism against American and Western interests in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

What could possibly go wrong???
 
Top